Notes on Interracial Ethics

Notes on Interracial Ethics is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of December 1978-January 1979.

This is a source text. Spelling and smaller errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part.

Notes on Interracial Ethics by Dr. William Pierce

An acquaintance who heads a right-wing organization told me once: "It is our duty to counteract the racemixers by doing everything we can to make Blacks and Whites hate each other. That's why I never pass up an opportunity to personally insult a Black. He'll not only hate me for the insult, but he'll hate all Whites."

I've thought a lot about what my acquaintance said, as I have tried to develop guidelines on interracial ethics appropriate to Alliance members. Certainly, there is some merit in his approach to the problem of racial mixing; if a substantial portion of the White population--say, 20 per cent from all social strata and geographical areas--conscientiously followed his program, the task of the racemixers would become so dangerous that few would venture in that direction.

It is the program followed--with all too much success, unfortunately--by the democratic-Jewish-communist allies in the European underground campaign of World War II. Underground members would kidnap isolated German soldiers, torture them to death, hideously mutilate their bodies, and then leave the corpses in village streets or town squares where the Germans would be certain to find them. The Germans took reprisal measures against the local civilian population, and intense mutual hatred was generated all around. As the underground leaders had intended, cooperation between the Germans and local civilians--many of whom were sympathetic to the Germans--became difficult.

For us, however, there are other considerations. One is that it is a reactionary program. It is a reaction to the efforts of those promoting race mixing, encouraging interracial sex and marriage, and conditioning Whites to accept the inevitability of a mongrel society. It is a program which occupies the time and enthusiasm of those engaged in it, keeping them from a more progressive program--a program which moves beyond mere reaction and onward to an aggressive program dealing with fundamentals.

No great, historical conflict is ever won by the side with a purely reactionary mentality; instead, victory always goes eventually to those who take the initiative. We are not in a position, as were the communist underground groups in World War II, where there is no other program available to us. Nor can we, unlike them, count on any allies to help us. We must ourselves have a program which is essentially progressive, and any reactionary activities must always be considered only as auxiliary measures.

Another consideration is the way in which such a program will be viewed by the public from which the Alliance must draw recruits. Most observers, including those opposed to race mixing, will view it as a negative program, even thought it has positive ends.

Finally, we must consider the feasibility of any prospective program in terms of its applicability to the Alliance membership, not to the right wing or to any other organization.

In this last regard, I have myself experimented with my acquaintance's methods. I have pulled my car into a parking space a Black driver was jockeying for, and then laughed in his face as he shook his fist at me in impotent rage and shouted racial insults at me. I have pushed the "Close Door" button in an elevator on a number of occasions when a Black was sprinting for the elevator, giving him (or her) a big smile through the closing doors as he yelled for me to hold the elevator for him. Little things like this have a big effect on people, and I have no doubt that they contributed on an individual basis to interracial hostility. The chances are good that a Black on whom I closed the elevator doors will take the next available opportunity to vent his anger on a White person, which in turn may lead to other desirable incidents.

I have noticed, however, that I always fell a bit uncomfortable doing such things, particularly when there are other White people around. I am sure that I have occasionally embarrassed a friend in this way, just as I have been embarrassed when accompanying someone else who has acted even more aggressively, shouting an insult or a challenge to fight. Is this merely a vestige of middle-class upbringing, which makes so many Whites squirm uncomfortably at the prospect of becoming involved in a "scene"?

No, I am sure it goes deeper than that. The average person of northern European ancestry, unlike the Jew (and, perhaps, the members of some other races as well), is born with certain behavioral tendencies which predispose him against public displays. Deliberate rudeness too, regardless of provocation, goes against the White grain. One can, to a certain extent, overcome these predispositions through a conscious effort over an extended period. I am not convinced, however, that it is either feasible or desirable to ask Alliance members to make such an effort at this time.

Whatever we do, at any time, must be based on fundamental principles, and we can begin learning now to think of all our interracial relationships in the framework of an interracial ethic.

The first and most important principle in that framework is this: Any contact between a White person and a member of any other race is, both actually and symbolically, a contact between the two races as a whole, and not just a contact between individuals.

Thus, a White person who has sexual relations with a non-White defiles not only himself but also the White race, and he must, therefore, be held answerable to the White racial community as a whole for his crime; thus, a White person who deliberately provokes hostility on the part of a non-White (by closing an elevator door in his face, for example) is, in a sense, committing an act of war between the White race and the race of the non-White; and, thus, a White person who establishes any friendly relationship with a non-White is, in a sense, establishing a private treaty between the two races.

It follows from this principle that we are at all times, and ought to think of ourselves as such, ambassadors of the White race, representatives of the interests of our race, whenever we have dealings with a member of another race. Whether we behave as ambassadors of peace or hostility must be determined by racial interests rather than by personal interests. (Ambassadors, of course, do not always wear their hearts on their sleeves; the language of diplomacy is often indirect, even deceptive.)

Thinking of interracial contacts in racial rather than individual terms is, of course, exactly contrary to both liberal and conservative doctrine. Liberal doctrine tells us that all human beings are fundamentally the same and that racial distinctions are arbitrary and artificial. Therefore, there are, in reality, only contacts between individuals. Conservative doctrine tells us that, regardless of a man’s race, we must judge him as an individual. Thus the conservative distinguishes, for example, between good Blacks (i.e., employed, middle-class, law-abiding Blacks) and bad Blacks (i.e. welfare, criminal, and militant Blacks).

Alliance recruits are not likely to be affected by liberal doctrine, but many of them still have confused attitudes resulting from exposure to conservative doctrine. As was explained in an earlier issue of the BULLETIN (here), the conservative is unalterably symptomatic in his approach to every problem. The race problem, as he sees it, is a problem of crime, economics, political and social disturbances, etc. A Black who obeys the law, supports his family by honest labor, adopts a White life-style, and votes Republican is not part of the problem. If all Blacks behave that way, there would, in the conservative's eyes, be no race problem.

The average conservative is not actually eager to promote racemixing, but he does want to end racial conflict and hostility, which he sees as a major aspect of the race problem. Thus, the conservative is totally incapable of understanding why we prefer racial hostility to racial accord. If the conservative see us deliberately provoking hostility in order to hinder racemixing, all he can think is that we must be "communists" or some other bunch up to no good.

This sort of nearsightedness is not restricted to little old ladies in tennis shoes who look for communists under their beds; it afflicts virtually everyone who has not yet made the transition from conservative thinking to radical thinking--which is most people. They see and deplore only the symptoms--Black street crime against Whites, declining military morale, the deterioration of the educational system, the increasing welfare burden--and they fail to comprehend the basic cause of these symptoms, which is White negligence in allowing a White society to become gradually transformed into a multi-racial society. They are equally incapable of extrapolating present racial trends to their horrendous conclusion and of realizing the need for a thoroughgoing program which tackles the race problem at its roots.

This conservative thought pattern is, unfortunately, widespread and deeply ingrained in most of the people who are potential subscribers to NV and recruits for the Alliance, and we must, therefore, take it into our consideration at this time. We cannot afford to simply sneer at it and engage in activity which provokes reflexive hostility and misunderstanding from this very large segment of the White population.

Another factor which must be considered stems from the excessive and distorted individualism of our times. Individualism has deep roots in America, and from these roots comes the conservative's insistence on judging non-Whites individually rather than collectively, as mentioned above. A morbid growth has sprung from these roots, however, during the past few decades of obsessive preoccupation with personal rights. It is not for nothing that the generation born since World War II is sometimes called the "me generation."

This national regression to an infantile form of egoism is perhaps best understood in the light of another name commonly applied to those born since the war: "The Spock generation." Leftist pediatrician Benjamin Spock’s widely propagated theories of child-raising, stressing extreme permissiveness and lack of discipline, have done incalculable psychic damage to tens of millions of Americans.

This damage manifests itself in the field of race relations in several ways. The most serious, in the present context, is the inability of many persons--including many who are more or less in accord with the Alliance--to use any frame of reference other than an egocentric one. For example, it is not uncommon to hear a conservative, when asked to participate in a demonstration of White solidarity, excuse himself with the comment: "I don't hate Blacks," or, "I find many Whites just as objectionable as Blacks."

It never occurs to him that such excuses for inaction, even if true, are totally irrelevant. It is not his personal felling toward individual Blacks and individual Whites which must be the determining consideration, but instead the fact that he is a member of the White racial community, and the future of his community is in jeopardy from the growing non-White community. Every other consideration must be subordinated to this latter one.

What nation could long survive whose citizens claimed for themselves the right to decide individually, on the basis of their personal feelings toward their own neighbors and toward the soldiers of an invading army, whether or not they would join a common effort with their neighbors to repel the invaders? It is not required of a man that he personally hate each and every invading soldier or that he personally love each and every one of his neighbors. But it is required that he put all personal considerations aside, join his neighbors in the trenches, and begin shooting invading soldiers, in order that the national community might survive and maintain its integrity.

The foregoing conclusion may seem self-evident and hardly in need of much supporting argument. In these days of national madness and racial folly, however, many people remain oblivious to the obvious.

Let us briefly consider now the way in which our basic principle of interracial relationships might reasonably guide Alliance members in their daily lives. For some it may be that the practice of my right-wing acquaintance suits both their inclination and their circumstances. Let them, then, follow their inclination and generate as much interracial hostility as they can. In view of our small numbers at this time it probably won’t have any noticeable overall effect on race relations in America, but it certainly can’t hurt--provided reasonable discretion is used; that is, provided that they keep in mind the inability of the average White person to understand their motivation and that they avoid generating a negative image of the Alliance in the eyes of the White public.

Another way in which they should use discretion is to avoid generating hostility specifically directed at the Alliance. Some thoughtless activists paste anti-Black stickers on their mail--even on mail addressed to the Alliance. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by making the Black postal workers who handle all our mail angry at us.

But for many Alliance members, either their inclination or their circumstances--or both--may dictate a less direct (more "diplomatic") course of action. For them the important thing is to avoid unethical behavior, any action contrary to the interests of the race. In nearly all cases it is possible to follow an ethical course without creating a "scene" or making a negative impression on any potential recruit. In practice this usually means reserved and non-committal behavior whenever any interracial contact is necessary.

For example, it is virtually never necessary to shake hands with a non-White or to address one as "sir" or "ma'am," even if such behavior is considered customary in any particular situation. It is not necessary to return similes or greetings or to engage in idle conversation with a non-White. It is not necessary to be "pals" with any non-White worker in the office or the plant.

The ethical Alliance member can, first, eliminate all unnecessary contacts with non-Whites and, second, make any necessary contacts as perfunctory as possible. It may require a little self-discipline to avoid shaking the hand of a Black when other Whites are doing so, but in most cases it can be avoided without generating a negative impression in the mind of any White observer who has potential as a future recruit for us. Remember, it is often necessary for the person who wishes to behave ethically in other matters of far less importance to have the self-discipline to avoid "going along with the crowd."

Sophisticates may question the value of any ethics other than the ethics of expediency--namely, following the path of least resistance in any particular situation. After all, the purpose of any ethics is merely to govern the conduct of the members of a society in such a way that the society functions in a predetermined manner or works most effectively toward the accomplishment of a predetermined goal. Since the Alliance does not yet constitute a society completely separate from the larger society in which its members must continue to function, why should they trouble themselves to follow rules which cannot realistically be expected to facilitate any social goals?

The answer has three parts. First, we are the beginning of a new society, and it is both proper and necessary that our new society have an ethical basis form the start, even before it has all the other attributes it will eventually develop.

Second, ethical behavior does more than grease society's gears; it also has a profound psychic effect on the individuals exhibiting that behavior. It enhances morale, reinforces ideology, and strengthens determination. The individual who always acts consciously within an ethical framework, even though occasional inconvenience may be involved, is psychically healthier than the individual who follows the crowd and engages in behavior of which he does not approve, incurring a sense of shame.

Third, even though our numbers are not yet large enough so that our actions can change the drift of the larger society toward increased mongrelization, they do have an effect on individuals in the larger society--including those we wish to recruit. We must always strive to make our actions symbolize our teachings. If we behave no differently than the race-mixers around us, our ideals will seem hollow to those we wish to persuade.

In summary, then, we should always keep these points in our minds:

1) In all interracial contacts we are representing our race's interests, not just our personal interests.

2) Although it is in our race's interests for a barrier of interracial hostility to be maintained against racemixing, there is not much of substance we can do to heighten such a barrier at this time, because of our small numbers. In any event, we do not intend to allow our energy to be consumed by purely reactionary activity.

3) If, in individual cases, both our inclinations and our circumstances permit us to engage in actions designed to generate interracial hostility, we should remember that very few Whites, even among potential recruits, will understand our motivation, and we must, therefore, use discretion.

4) If either our inclination or our circumstances forbid direct action, it is our duty to minimize our interracial contacts and to avoid "fraternizing with the enemy" or any other activity which is contrary to our goal of a White future. In each situation which arises we must let our conscience, and not social or economic expediency, be our guide.

Source: "Notes on Interracial Ethics" by Dr. William Pierce from National Alliance Bulletin December 1978-January 1979.

See also

• ACTION and National Alliance Bulletin commentaries