An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce
By Kevin Alfred Strom
KAS: There is a continuing
public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects
of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the
confirmation of Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists
and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation
of the “sexism” rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this
alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power,
according to many people in the media.
Another example was the uproar about
a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several
women who showed up were manhandled — in particular, a female flier who later
complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas
party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the
“sexism” in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from
infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting
significance in this debate?
WLP: Oh, it’s certainly a significant
debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would
have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting
at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see
it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There’s a lot of
misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.
Look at the first example you just
mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of
Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill’s
complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women’s welfare.
But what were Anita Hill’s complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her
boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several
times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a
pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had
demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her
complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman.
He had asked her for a date.
Talking to her about a pornographic
film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part — at least
that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White
society, in which gentlemen didn’t talk about pornographic films in the
presence of ladies, at least not in the office — but what the hell, the folks
who were raising such a fuss about Thomas’s behavior are, like both Clarence
and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which
is neither White nor traditional. It’s a so-called “multicultural” society in
which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and
female people, and the female people are no different from the male people:
they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.
KAS: So you believe that
the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn’t
significant?
WLP: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but
still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it
was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so
of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But
another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas
and against the Senate’s approval of him really were indignant that the man had
asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest
in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office.
Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical
feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a
minute. Open a door for one of them and you’ll get a nasty glare; call one of
them “my dear” or refer to her as a “girl” and you’ll be slapped with a civil
rights lawsuit.
The fuss about this Tailhook
Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what
do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had
held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained
a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all
about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined
the orgy. Any woman who didn’t want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her
panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied
some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities,
I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I’ll go
further and say that I really don’t approve of drunkenness under any
circumstances — although I believe it’s only realistic to accept drinking as a
fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who,
knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that
she really isn’t a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to
the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.
KAS: That’s really
irrational isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to ignore human nature like that.
WLP: Irrationality seems to be the rule
rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is
just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common
pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we
pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we
pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color,
the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a
normal, healthy condition, it will be.
Feminism is one of the most
destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an
immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy,
for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called
“affirmative action” — isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in
those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s
breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships
between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not
suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.
KAS: You just referred to
feminism as “a destructive aberration” and spoke of the breakdown of America.
Are the two things connected?
WLP: When homosexuals come out of the
closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which
more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to
crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics.
Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem.
But when a society begins to decay — when the men lose their self-confidence —
then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.
KAS: Before we go further,
exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?
WLP: Feminism is a system of ideas with
several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is
regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than
race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are
regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in
all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration
of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male
role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the
traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men
and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in
the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s
primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against
the male oppressors.
I should add that not every woman
who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition.
Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it’s a sickness, with deep
emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal.
They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as
fashionable these days. It’s Politically Correct.
And while we’re at it, we should
note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which
expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing
contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism
to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never
afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the
promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.
KAS: OK. So that’s what
feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to
America’s decline?
WLP: Feminism is destructive at several
different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the
race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the
struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate,
especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women
out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care
centers.
At a personal or social level
feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men
and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of
equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a
complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally
different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors,
and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den;
women nourish the children and tend the hearth.
Many people today sneer at this
traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no
need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all
very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in
the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do
that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles
should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can
all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.
Now, I have a couple of problems
with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old
traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m
not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all
of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the
neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of
getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as
to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting
instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on
television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going
to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.
In the second place, Mother Nature made
a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million
years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we
don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so
we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of
evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain,
not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were
very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change
reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking
that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of
very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a
lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male
chauvinists.
It’s true, of course, that some
women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife
fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by
becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for
normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a
business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can
protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with
every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s
soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and
their children. If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be
persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive
wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed
for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making
herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a
social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of
foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be
very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make
themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our
society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.
KAS: How do you propose to
do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted
the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone
who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take
away women’s rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.
WLP: Well, of course, I’m not in favor
of taking anything away from women. I’d like to give women the option of being
women again in the traditional way, in Nature’s way, the option of staying home
and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It
wasn’t the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it’s no longer
possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are
employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and
into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society
to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with
their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before
the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan
to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the
average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible
to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women,
most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news
and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different
model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.
Most women, just like most men, want
to be fashionable. They try to do and be what’s expected of them. We just need
to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there’s
no need to take away anybody’s rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts
can easily be tolerated in a healthy society — a few flagpole sitters, a few
glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people — so long as their particular brand
of oddness doesn’t begin undermining the health of the whole society.
KAS: But what about the
people who control the media now — what about the legislators — who are on the
feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?
WLP: We’ll do whatever is necessary. Now
we’re helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are
afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After
understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.
And I should add this: Whatever
flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait
for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to
stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes
about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who’ve jumped
on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, someday,
for their irresponsibility.
KAS: Do you really think
that you can change the behavior of the politicians?
WLP: Perhaps not, but we must at least
give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most
of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and
they know that they can only be hanged once.
No comments:
Post a Comment