Liberals tend to be Childish, Resentful, and
Authoritarian
by Dr. William Pierce
Every few days I get a telephone call from a newspaper or television reporter wanting an interview. The things they want to talk about change from time to time: a couple of years ago they were interested in some of the videos the sponsor of American Dissident Voices, National Vanguard Books, distributes; last summer it was the Montana Freemen; right now it's domestic unrest and terrorism. They want to know why terrorism is on the rise, what do I think about the Oklahoma City bombing, was there a conspiracy behind that bombing, do I believe there will be more such bombings, do I think people should worry that there may be biological or chemical terror attacks in the future, what do I believe is the motivation of most terrorists, etc.
I never have pretended to be an expert on terrorism,
and I tell the reporters that - but I also tell them, although no single act of
terrorism is predictable, I am sure that, averaged over periods of two or three
years, terrorism will continue to become more common. I tell them I am sure of this
because the underlying causes of terrorism are on the rise.
Those underlying causes are growing hostility on the
part of the government toward citizens, growing governmental intrusion into the
lives of citizens, growing resentment against the government by the citizens, a
growing sense of having been betrayed by the government. On top of all this is
the growth of a more general sort of alienation, as reflected in the decline in
citizen participation in elections, the growth in crime and the use of drugs,
and the rise in the divorce and suicide rates.
I tell the reporters that there is no chance at all
that the government will make the changes necessary to cure these problems. The
government will respond to terrorism with counterterrorism, which will provoke
more terrorism. The government certainly will not take the measures necessary
to decrease citizen alienation, because the greatest single cause of citizen
alienation is government-promoted "diversity".
Can you imagine the Clinton administration - or any
administration, Republican or Democrat --saying, "Well, we made a mistake
in pushing 'diversity.' We shouldn't have forced racial mixing in the schools,
the workplaces, and neighborhoods. We shouldn't have let a flood of non-White
immigrants into the country. We'll straighten things out and restore the
citizens' faith in the government by separating the races, by sending the
non-White immigrants back where they came from, and by taking other steps to
clean up the mess we've made of things. And the first thing we’ll do is put on
trial all of the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, including those responsible
for the massacre at Waco.
„No, the government is locked into its present course
of social and racial destruction. It does not have the will to change its fundamentally
destructive policies. Nothing but a total revolution can bring about the
changes necessary to minimize alienation, restore the faith of White citizens in
the government, and eliminate terrorism. That's why I'm a revolutionary instead
of a conservative or a reformer.
I tell the reporters all of these things, but it is
clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm
saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars as trying to explain
to the average newspaper or television reporter the things that are wrong with American
society today and why so many people are reacting badly to these things. To me,
one of the more interesting aspects of these interviews is the opportunity to
study the mentality of journalists. On the whole, they're not really stupid. In
fact, they're probably a little brighter, on the average, than the population
as a whole. But they really do have an almost identical mentality, as if they
all had been cloned from a single ultra-liberal prototype.
They all understand, of course, that their Jewish
bosses expect a certain slant on the reporting they do. They understand which
side their bread is buttered on. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds
them. But their liberal bias goes beyond just trying to please the Jewish media
bosses who employ them.
I think it's clear that most journalists really don't
understand why American society is coming unraveled. They really don't
understand why alienation is growing, why divorce and suicide rates are up, why
so many people hate and fear the government. They don't understand, and part of
the reason may be a selection process in the journalism profession. It may be
that students who major in journalism in college tend to be authoritarian
types. It may be that they tend to be those who are only comfortable when they
are marching in ideological lockstep with all the rest of their profession. And
it may be that the journalism professors tend to weed out any students who show
a streak of independence or who aren't trendy enough. That may be part of the explanation
for why journalists are so uniformly liberal.
I think, though, that another part of the explanation
may be found in the phenomenon of the1960s. The great bulk of the reporters I
talk with today went through their formative period, their period of social
imprinting, during the 1960s or 1970s. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of
deliberately induced chaos, a period during which American society deliberately
was turned upside down, a period during which all of our traditional values and
standards were ridiculed relentlessly by Jewish critics and arbiters of
fashion. Young people on our college campuses were told that everything which
had come before was old-fashioned and outdated and had to be scrapped to make
way for a new order. The old way was racist and sexist and homophobic and had
to go.
And these young people were the first TV generation,
the first generation to be exposed more to artificial social situations and
social interactions constructed by television scriptwriters than to natural
social situations and interactions in the real world. They were the first
generation to be socialized by Jewish television, before we had had any
opportunity to develop defense mechanisms against this sort of brainwashing.
They also were a generation raised according to Dr. Spock, a generation in
which permissiveness ruled. They were kids raised without corrective punishment
and with a minimum of discipline, kids raised without any reality checks. They’ve
been called the "me" generation because of their narcissistic
tendencies, but there's really more to it than just selfishness and egoism.
You know, when the question of Nature versus nurture
is debated, I'm nearly always to be found on the side of Mother Nature. But in
trying to understand what has made today's journalists what they are, I believe
that we must look very carefully into the way they were nurtured. Our ancestors
spent thousands of generations learning how to raise children so that they had a
reasonable chance to become valuable and effective adults. This process of
learning wasn't done with books. It was a matter of trial and error, of failure
and success, of life or death.
Communities or tribes which had correct ways of
raising their young survived and prospered, on the average. Tribes which had
faulty methods stagnated or perished.
Within the past century some very foolish people let
themselves be sold on the idea that the old ways of raising children to
adulthood no longer have any relevance, because we have made so many changes in
our environment. What worked back in tribal days a thousand years ago is no
longer any good under modern conditions we were told. Discipline and hardness
and self-reliance and courage may have been necessary qualities to instill in
young people back in the days when survival was much more difficult. But in the
days of the welfare state and day-care centers and working mothers and MTV,
permissiveness isn't so bad, we were told. The consequences of that theory are
to be seen all around us today. Journalists as a class show the consequences a
little more strongly, a little more clearly, than the rest of the
"me" generation, because, I believe, those most corrupted by the new
nurturing have been attracted to journalism. The corruption, however, has
permeated much of our society today. Many others besides journalists have been
infected.
I don't want to overemphasize the effects of nurture.
It is clear that many of our personality traits are inborn. Even many of the
worst traits that we see in journalists and other members of the „me"
generation are inborn traits which merely have been strengthened and brought to
the fore by the disastrous nurturing environment of the 1960s and 1970s. In a
healthier nurturing environment healthier traits are brought to the fore and
unhealthy traits are at least partially suppressed.
In trying to understand liberals we also should keep
in mind the fact that most people cannot properly be classified as real
liberals or real conservatives. Most people have no real ideology of any sort:
they simply parrot whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions
change, their ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. But there are,
unfortunately, plenty of real liberals, and I believe that their unwholesome
abundance these days can best be explained as I have just outlined. And if we
understand what has caused the current plague of liberals, I believe that we
can understand better how their minds work - although that still is not an easy
task.
In some ways it is unfortunate that I quit my
university teaching when I did, in the mid-1960s. Liberalism was really
starting to take hold on the campuses then, and if I had remained a physics
professor for another ten years I might have been able to observe some of these
psychological phenomena directly and figured things out much more quickly.
First, at the core of the liberal personality is an
excessive degree of egoism, which in the worst cases amounts to narcissism.
This excessive egoism is an infantile characteristic. Which is to say, it is a
normal characteristic in infants, but in the case of healthy growth it recedes
as the individual develops and matures. A permissive upbringing retards the
normal process of maturing.
A second very important element in the liberal
personality - an element closely related to the egoism - is resentment coupled
with envy. That is why in the past liberalism has sometimes been called an
ideology based on resentment. The liberal finds very distasteful the notion that
some people are brighter than he is, better looking, more industrious, more
righteous or moral, more cultured, more artistic, more capable, or more
successful. And he regards these people who are better than he is - and because
of being better, more powerful - as a threat, as an irksome constraint. This
envy and resentment is in a way a carryover into adult life of the sort of
resentment that a spoiled, self-indulgent child might feel toward a parent who
won't let him do exactly what he wants to do, a parent who won't let him eat
all the cookies in the cookie jar or torment an animal for his amusement or "play
with himself," to use a familiar euphemism. It may express itself in
infancy in the form of a tantrum. In adulthood it is expressed as a strong
attraction to the ideology of egalitarianism: the idea that no one is better
than anyone else.
If you believe that I'm on thin ice in tracing the
adult liberal's egalitarianism back to an infantile resentment of parental
restraint, let me remind you of a significant refrain in the Jews
‘indoctrination of young Gentiles during the 1960s and 1970s. The refrain was
"kill your parents. „In most cases this incitement to parenticide was
symbolic. It meant get rid of every restraint, everything which keeps you from
spending all of your time doing exactly what you feel like doing, whether that
be smoking dope, having sex, or whatever. In one of the more popular books on
the campuses in those days, a book published in 1970 and titled Do It! by
Jerry Rubin, one of the Jewish leaders of the Youth International Party, or the
"Yippies" for short, the incitement is quite literal. Rubin wrote,
"When we start playing with our private parts, our parents say, 'Don't do
that.' The mother commits a crime against her child when she says, 'Don't do
that.'
"The remainder of Rubin's book is a non-stop
effort to build resentment in his infantile collegiate readers with a long
recitation of the "crimes" their parents, their schools, and the rest
of society have committed against them by restraining them in one way or
another and of the need to end this parental oppression. And, of course, Rubin
manages to bring the racial angle and the Communist angle into this ideology of
resentment. Blacks, he tells the kids, are your natural allies against your
parents, because they have been oppressed too. They are Black niggers, and we
are White niggers, Rubin says. Blacks will help you overthrow society, so that
you can have everything you want. And Rubin idolizes Fidel Castro, as someone
who succeeded in killing his parents. And he holds up the Communist guerrilla
Che Guevara as another idol who was fighting to end parental oppression.
Rubin winds up his book with a description on the last
page of how wonderful life will be for everyone after young people have gotten
rid of their parents, burned their schools, and killed all of the police. He
writes, and I quote: "There will be no more jails, courts, or police. The world
will become one big commune with free food and housing, everything shared.
There will be no such crime as 'stealing' because everything will be free.
People will farm in the morning, make music in the afternoon, and have sex
whenever and wherever they want to.
„And there's more, but you get the picture. This is
the image of the ideal life in an ideal world which the Jews were busy selling
to young, White Americans during the 1960s and the 1970s. The ones who bought
this image were the most infantile ones: that is the ones who had been raised
most permissively and were most narcissistic. And the worst of these went into
journalism.
Unfortunately, however, some of this Jewish poison was
absorbed by millions of other young people during that period of deliberate
chaos and confusion, when the old America was being trashed. That's how the
current crop of liberals was created. Most of them are in their 30s and40s now;
a few are in their 50s. Some of them went into business, some into education, some
into the churches, some into government work. One couple, a man and wife, are
in the White House now. Wherever they went, they continue the destruction, in a
thousand ways.
It is in the journalists, though, where the poison has
produced the most profound effects, that the phenomenon of liberalism is
easiest to study and understand, I believe. When I explain to a reporter that
terrorism is the consequence of a loss of a sense of belonging and identity - when
I explain that a person who feels that he is no longer a part of the society
around him, that it is no longer his family and he has no responsibility to it,
may strike out violently at that society - when I explain this, the reporter
may smile politely and take notes, but I can see the total lack of
comprehension in his eyes. He lives in a different world, a different moral
universe, where words like "responsibility" and "belonging"
and "identity" have no meaning - or at least, they have a totally
different meaning to him than they have to me. He lives in a universe shaped by
egoism and resentment, a world in which the individual, the self, is
everything, and anyone who tries to impose any constraints at all on the
individual is an enemy. He cannot comprehend a world in which the individual is
just one part in a complex and interrelated natural order, and that for that
order to be healthy the individual needs to be able to find his proper place,
the place where he can be useful, and that he has a responsibility to be
useful. That's an alien concept to the journalist.
I hope that I haven't bored you with these comments on
the way a journalist's mind works. I believe that it's important to try to
understand these things. If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities
and make a future for our people, we have to overcome all of those who are now
infected by liberalism, and then we have to restructure our society in a way
which will prevent the production of a new crop of liberals - or at least,
minimize the size and destructiveness of that crop. The more we know about them
the more likely we are to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment