[The following is a draft, and does not yet satisfy me; it is disjointed. For want of time, I am throwing it out there anyway in the hope that somebody can make good use of it. This is important: 21 years after the Jew media orgasm called the „Oklahoma City Bombings“, the ADL/SPLC canaille are still persecuting decent folk over a book! (Many American White activists defensively argue that The Turner Diaries had only a tangential relation to OKC; I will instead point out that it is a book. Jeepers creepers.) The overall campaign of lie-propaganda is a matter on which I have felt compelled to comment from another perspective. Then I sat down to write an essay holding forth Dr. Pierce as an exemplar of moral courage for daring to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of thought—for daring to write, publish, and stand behind such books as few to-day will even dare to admit having read. The result took on a life of its own, turning itself inside-out into a book review—and if a book can so upset Yahweh’s Holy Pets, this book review sure will displease them Jews mightily. —HS]
Most book reviews focus on particulars of the plot, and offer literary critique. They are designed to help busy readers decide which books are worthwhile to read—and to some degree, help cheaters feign intelligence about books they have not actually read. Herewith I will ignore the particulars, and offer limited (if any) literary critique as to two novels I urge all readers to simply read for themselves: The Turner Diaries and Hunter, both published by Dr. William Luther Pierce under the nom-de-plume of Andrew Macdonald.
Both are written in the style of popular novel, and make easy reading for a quiet Saturday afternoon. I suggest that if you have not read them, you go read them now; the remainder of this review will be otherwise incomprehensible to you. For herewith, I aim to provide a conceptual review of the deeper implications of what, without exaggeration, may be properly described as two of the most maligned fictional works in the history of mankind, and without a doubt must rank in the top ten.
The White-hating media have spun The Turner Diaries and Hunter as some sort of blueprints for action. They do have that aspect on a conceptual level, and thus communicate the abstract mentality needed to achieve victory not only in a race war, but in any extraordinarily vehement contest. In an age when cowardice is proudly boasted of, violence is deemed an unqualified evil, compromise is accounted a virtue, and the masses have been inculcated with an overwhelming fear of being labelled as „fanatical“ or „extremist“, these two novels are valuable for their mentality alone. And on a strategic level, both novels may have some limited instructive value in the manner of a hypothetical military novel which conjectures how Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo. No such book will make of one a general.
Further than that, only a genetically degenerate imbecile would use a fictional novel as the real-world, paint-by-numbers operational blueprint for the waging of mass violence which the biased media particularly pretends The Turner Diaries to be. Dr. Pierce’s real action plans and marching orders were contained in his nonfiction political writings and speeches, and will be found there by those who are serious about taking action. His novels were, according to him, explicitly designed to convey his message to a wider audience who is unlikely to read his more abstruse nonfiction works.
Looking beyond the author’s expressed motive, I infer that these books were designed to inculcate an uncompromising mentality as aforesaid; and upon evidence of the fact that Dr. Pierce was a political philosopher, I will presume that whether consciously or by mental habit, he imbued even his popular writings with an undercurrent of his abstract philosophy’s unavoidable implications. To understand such deeper implications of his novels as have been obscured by their false image as roadmaps for race war, I myself start with a timeless principle which unfortunately, few other than the Jews seem to fully understand: Race mixing causes race war.
No decent person desires a race war—just as no decent person desires racial mixing. And it is a curious coincidence too rarely reflected on that same the international degenerates who preach the doctrine of racial mixing, are also the convenient ultimate beneficiaries of any resulting race war. The spiral of genetic, cultural, and physical violence represented by the race-mixing to race-war progression is exclusively Jewish in its origins and objectives.
With that understanding, I see in both these novels something deeper and more serious: A warning about the inevitable ultimate consequences of racial mixing. The experience of history shows that interracial harmony results when racially homogeneous societies are secure in their own families, homes, communities, and national territorial borders; and this latter principle of racial security encapsulates in other words the entire foundation of Dr. Pierce’s philosophy. Whereas it is an unavoidable and empirically demonstrable fact of Nature that forced racial „integration“ rouses instincts which cause violence and, if the mixing be not stopped, outright warfare.
Having devoted his nonfictional philosophic writings to expounding on the only principles which could lead to peace between all races of the Earth, Dr. Pierce showed in his novels a vision of a future in which those principles continued to have been violated. He depicted this fearsome future taking two different courses, with each of his novels set in a different fictionalized version of contemporary America.
The only flaw in his thinking was that, as proud White man, he optimistically depicted Whites starting the race war and, in The Turner Diaries, Whites winning it. (Hunter only depicts the beginning of the war.) Given the current state of White society, I propose that his practical political purpose would have been much better served by a dystopian warning novel in which Blacks start the race war, and Whites cower and bleat like fluffy white sheep while they are raped and slaughtered. I might presume to undertake the effort myself, were it not for the fact that nearly four decades after The Turner Diaries were written, the opening shots of the suggested dystopia are currently being written in real-world headlines. A fictionalization would be superfluous.
Thus I see in these two so widely hated books an important social message which all people would benefit from understanding. But make no mistake. To presume I am taking a „soft“ reading of these novels would be absurd for any who has actually read them: They are both violent books, and violent to an extreme. Their unapologetic, sometimes even unrestrained violence only serves to make their warning as real and urgent as it should be.
All of which leaves a question many will ask, but few will rightly answer: Whether the novels represent a future vision desired or despised by their author—in a word, whether they are by intent utopian or dystopian. Well, they are neither. Both books both depict a world in which Whites fight back with great success and, in the Turner Diaries, achieve final victory; yet they also both represent not only the destruction of pre-existing White society and civilization, but the realization of points in time when existing White society and civilization are found to be rotted beyond saving and already destroyed from within. Against that context, the protagonist of each novel carries a different moral message.
Earl Turner represents the message that no cost is too great to save the White race when the world has already passed the point of no return. He is an extreme embodiment of the aphorism that „desperate times call for desperate measures.“ Still more importantly, Turner is a symbol of the principle (also expressed in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, vol. 2 ch. 2) that if a certain kind of people survives on Earth, then even if all else be lost, the world could be rebuilt and regenerated; whereas if, to the inverse, that kind of people were to be lost, then the world itself would be irretrievably lost, struck dead forever.
As an aside, although Dr. Pierce himself expressed some dissatisfaction with The Turner Diaries due to a roughness which resulted from its having been written in installments, it it nevertheless remarkable for the care put into those psychological touches which help distance the reader from the familiarity of his own never-questioned basic assumptions. E.g., near the beginning of Chapter 2 is a notation interpolated to Turner’s September 18, 1991 entry by the hand of an unseen editor: „Note to the reader: The ‚dollar‘ was the basic monetary unit in the United States in the Old Era. In 1991, two dollars would buy a half-kilo loaf of bread or about a quarter of a kilo of sugar.“ Amidst problems caused by a society in which people behave as if dollars, democracy, and „Enlightenment“ egalitarianism are fixed and eternal facts of Nature, such small touches help free the reader from the mental chains which hold him back from reflecting on Dr. Pierce’s message.
Oscar Yeager represents not the message that flux is preferable to stasis (to use the parlance of Hunter; in more common terms, chaos versus order), but rather the principle that a violent flux which admits the fighting chance of a new hope is preferable to an ordered, static tyranny which slowly and systematically destroys all men and all things. In other words, Yeager embodies the principle that it is better to be dead than a slave.
Likewise aside: Hunter is indeed far more polished than its predecessor, consistently with its author’s motive for writing it. And the progression from Yeager’s first vehement refusal to even consider the Jewish problem, to his deep practical understanding of it, are smoothly rolled out with exactly the educative effect Dr. Pierce intended.
I would find incredible the proposition that Dr. Pierce desired the worlds of Turner or Yeager. His political writings reflect a desire for a world of beauty and order, not flux and desperation. Indeed, the whole of his activist career was devoted to fighting tooth and nail against the coming of such a world. And as part of that struggle, he provided a fictionalized warning about the worlds of Turner and Yeager—underscored by the implicit (and some might say, rhetorical) question of whether in reality, we are living in such a world already.
[Editorial note: Directed at an American audience. Europeans, please salt to taste. —HS]