Fundamentals for Victory

A Cosmotheist lecture given by Dr. William Pierce on October 24, 1976 at the office of the National Alliance in Arlington, Virginia

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I DON'T THINK I need to convince anyone here that what we are trying to do is very difficult. It is obvious from our own experience of the last few months that it is not easy to build up our numbers even to those needed for a truly viable organization, which I talked about a few weeks ago. It is not easy to bring new people to our meetings in the numbers we would like.

The difficulties we experience tempt some of us, I am sure, to place less emphasis on the fundamental Truth we express in our Affirmation and to turn instead toward gimmicks of one sort or another. If people will not listen to our Truth, some of us may think, then we should talk to them about things they are interested in: income taxes, school busing, pornography, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, there is no doubt that, right now, we could win a greater response from the general public if we stopped talking about our Purpose, our Truth and concentrated all our efforts on one of those topics. We would also be more successful, in a certain sense, if we were careful not to mention the Jews or to talk about race. We could win more people, in other words -- we could be a bigger organization -- if we would behave like conservatives or right wingers.

The reason is that most people have always been more interested in concrete, personal things like money, sex, or their own safety and comfort than anything else. And they have always been shy of anything controversial, anything that might be inconvenient, or even dangerous, for them to get mixed up with. That’s why conservatism has always been more popular that radicalism. And it’s also why the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have always been even more popular. They appeal to the public’s basest instincts. They promise each segment of the population more of what most of them really want: more money, more comfort, more security.

Now, I’m sure no one expects us to try to out-Democrat the Democrats or out-Republican the Republicans. But we must also understand that, regardless of the difficulties it means for us now, we must not try to out-conservative the conservatives and right wingers either.

Because, while it is true that a conservative appeal, based on immediate self-interest, may win us more people in the short run, in the long run no appeal based primarily on self-interest can save us as a race. No ad hoc program, no matter how cleverly disguised, is going to achieve our long-range goals for us. We are not going to sneak a sack over the Jews’ heads under the pretense of an anti-busing or an anti-tax movement.

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part Two

by Dr. William L. Pierce

WHAT TYPE OF person does the Alliance seek as a member?

It has been said often in these pages that there are many different types of persons in the Alliance, ranging in age from 18 to 93, in educational level from high school dropout to PhD, and in economic status from unemployed and destitute to quite wealthy. In view of this diversity it might seem that it would be difficult to define a "type" as the desirable membership prospect. Nevertheless, some things can be said on the subject to good effect. And they need to be said, because otherwise individual members will form their own ideas -- diverse ideas -- as to who should be in the Alliance and who should not, and as to the type of person to whom the Alliance should direct its appeal and the type of image the Alliance should project for that purpose.

It is natural for people to judge others by themselves and to seek others of their own kind. But this tendency limits the amount of diversity which can safely be tolerated in any organization. On the one hand, if diversity is too narrowly limited, then one may have an organization whose members feel a strong bond of comradeship, but whose numbers will always be too small for effectiveness; on the other hand, too much diversity -- an effort to bring too many different types of people together for the sake of large numbers -- may result in an organization without internal cohesion.

In the case of the Alliance, the argument has been made that a large degree of diversity can safely be tolerated, because cohesion is provided by the shared purpose of racial survival and racial progress. As long as each member keeps this purpose foremost in his mind and believes that other members are doing the same, then differences in attitudes on other matters, in lifestyles, and in socioeconomic status will not be important. That is the ideal; unfortunately, it does not always match reality.

In reality, the strains caused by different perceptions of what an Alliance member should be are continually manifesting themselves. A few examples will illustrate this problem.

Many -- perhaps most -- members are fervent admirers of Adolf Hitler and his movement in Germany during the 1920-1945 period, and their admiration carries over into a more general Germanophilia. A few members, however, do not share this admiration, and they believe that any public display of it (as in articles in National Vanguard dealing with the Second World War) is harmful to the Alliance's recruiting effort. This difference of opinion already has resulted in a heated debate among members of the Southeast Florida Unit.

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part One

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE WEST is being destroyed as much by sick, criminal, or irresponsible Whites who take their orders from Jews, attempt to curry the favor of Jews, or are under the influence of Jewish ideas as it is by the Jews themselves. Without the active collaboration of millions of White men and women, the Jews would be impotent. This self-evident fact raises several questions relating to recruiting for the Alliance — and, ultimately, to ethical behavior for members.

For example, how does one judge the fitness for membership of a former collaborator? What degree or type of collaboration puts a person forever beyond the pale? What mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration?

Before answers to these specific questions are attempted, the scope of the problem should be set forth clearly. First, in a strict sense nearly every White person is a collaborator to some degree. There are very few people in the West who have put moral principles first in their lives and have refused absolutely every form of collaboration.

Nearly everyone is at least a passive collaborator — that is, he fails to take those actions which reasonably could be expected to thwart the Jews in one way or another: He fails to find out which merchants and other businessmen in his community are Jews, so that he can avoid buying their goods and services, thereby withholding money from the Jewish community which would increase its political strength; he fails to speak out forcefully against false teachings in the schools in his community, thus allowing the Jews to spread their poison unchallenged; in general, he fails to keep always in mind that a race war to the death is in progress, and that he is a soldier in that war.

Clearly, if every passive collaborator were judged unfit for Alliance membership, the pool of potential recruits would be extremely small. Yet, passive collaboration is not a minor sin. If all passive collaboration were halted, the West immediately would become an untenable theater of operations for the Jews, despite all the efforts of their active collaborators.

The problem of passive collaboration is a difficult one. It is not easy to avoid some types of collaborations when one lives in enemy-controlled territory. Paying taxes to the U.S. government certainly is a form of collaboration, for example, as is serving in the U.S. armed forces, even as a draftee. And, it should be noted, there may be circumstances which make some forms of passive collaboration justifiable. The National Office, for example, does not usually take into consideration whether or not a company from which it purchases office supplies or books is owned by a Jew. Is this justifiable collaboration? Would the same behavior be justifiable on the part of a White person not actively opposing the Jews? What’s the difference? The whole question of how one should behave in enemy-controlled territory is an interesting ethical problem, which should be explored at a latter opportunity.

Thoughts On Radicalism

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

ABOUT A YEAR ago the Alliance had as a supporting member one of the wealthiest women in America. One day, however, the National Office received a letter from her which said, in effect, “I’m beginning to believe from some of the things in your paper that the National Alliance is not a patriotic organization at all, but is radical and wants to destroy America. Please cancel my membership immediately.”

The woman was probably a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and couldn’t have been salvaged in any event. In many cases, however, people who have been accustomed to thinking in conservative terms can be illuminated. This little essay is intended to throw some light on the difference between the conservative and radical outlooks and to make it clear why the Alliance is, indeed, a radical organization. It is assumed from the beginning, of course, that every Alliance member understands that the word “radical” says nothing whatever about the “rightness” or “leftness” of a person’s views, but only about the degree to which those views are rooted in fundamental principles.

Consider first a few concrete illustrations: When the stock market takes a nosedive, most conservatives will groan, and most Alliance members will chortle. When food prices take an especially sharp jump, the same reactions occur -- even though conservatives and Alliance members eat the same food, and both have to tighten their belts. And when a politician is caught taking bribes or cavorting with homosexuals or prostitutes, the conservative will grit his teeth and vow to vote against the rascal at the next election, while the true radical will smile and say, “Bless you, Senator.”

And if the conservative sees the radical’s reaction to these things, he will certainly not understand. He will say: “No patriot could be happy that we have a bad economy and a corrupt government. Therefore, radicals are not patriotic.”

The truth of the matter is that the Alliance radical no more wants an unstable economy and high prices than does the conservative, and the radical is actually far less tolerant of political corruption than is the conservative. But . . . the radical’s understanding is also far deeper than the conservative’s, and his values are probably different as well.

Initial Successes and Recruiting Cadres

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THINGS ARE beginning to move faster now, as our larger National Office staff gears up for several new projects. The importance of this increased pace lies not just in the new projects themselves, but in its portents for the future growth of the Alliance.

In years past we often had to run as fast as we could just to stay in the same place. That was because people joined expecting dramatic results immediately, quickly became impatient with the slow pace of progress, and quit. We were lucky if we recruited enough new members each month to replace the ones who dropped out.

Then we changed our strategy. We stopped trying to maintain the interest of a relatively large number of lukewarm members and subscribers and concentrated instead on reaching a smaller number of persons with more character and winning a strong commitment from them. As these new cadres joined us, one by one, our capabilities began to grow. So far those capabilities have continued to be used to increase the quality of our printed propaganda, in order to reach more of the exceptional few.

And, although NV is far superior to any other racially oriented, radical periodical now being published, we still have a way to go. We must continue developing our capability for producing articles dealing with history, politics, race science, philosophy, and other topics, which are substantive, original, and innovative -- the results of careful research, intelligent planning, and skillful writing.

We have already proved that this is essential for winning the top-quality cadres we urgently need. The arm-waving and shouting which the lukewarm like to see and hear just don’t convince the men and women of character and intelligence we want. Only quality attracts quality. And only the very highest quality attainable will tempt the people who have what it takes to win the struggle for the future of our race in which we are engaged.

Dr. Pierce on the Meaning and Importance of Loyalty

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

The Meaning of Loyalty

AN OFTEN MADE comment by students of human behavior is that soldiers in combat do not fight for their general or their country or their god or any other impersonal entity; they fight for each other, for those with whom they are in immediate, daily contact. This comment certainly is correct for most, though not all, soldiers. Their mental horizon, normally very limited, becomes even smaller in the face of death. All abstract principles fall away, and only the most primitive instincts remain. When fear of imminent death looms large, all impersonal loyalties lose their meaning, and the individual is controlled only by his bond to his immediate fellows in the same situation. He may risk his life to protect one of his fellows, but not to comply with an order from headquarters. He would rather take a bullet in the gut than be seen as a coward or a shirker by those immediately around him, but he doesn’t really care what headquarters thinks.

All successful armies are organized with this facet of human nature in mind. The structure of the army must be such that headquarters can count on the individual soldier doing what headquarters wants him to do rather than what he is inclined to do by his instincts. That is accomplished by training and by having a well designed chain of command. The army’s noncoms are a cut above the rank and file; they have somewhat more distant horizons. They are close enough to the men in their squad or platoon to bond with them and demand loyalty from them, but they also are able to identify their interests with those of the lieutenant and the captain. And the officers must be a cut above the noncoms, with even more distant horizons. And so it goes, all the way up to headquarters.

This behavior undoubtedly is something we have inherited from our ancestors who belonged to hunting bands a million years ago. Success and survival depended on a strong bonding among the dozen or so members of the band. Because this behavior is natural, we cannot deplore it -- but, like any army, we must understand it and take it into account in planning for any objective bigger than bringing down the next wooly mammoth we encounter.

We don’t have some of the advantages that an army has. Our members are much more widely dispersed, and our organization is much less developed than any army’s, with a much more tenuous chain of command: relatively few of our members out in foxholes have any noncom to whom they can bond. Furthermore, we cannot throw people in the brig or put them up against a wall when they don’t behave the way I want them to.

What Makes a Hater?

What makes some people hate those who speak honestly about race?

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

A HUGE VOLUME of e-mail flows into the National Office from people all over the world who are responding to our message, primarily our weekly radio broadcasts. Evelyn Hill weeds out the illiterate, incoherent, and irrelevant mail and gives me a selection of 20 or so letters to read each day. Between a fourth and a third of these are hate letters, and I always read them carefully. For one thing they are a barometer of how worried about us the enemies of our people are: from the volume and vehemence of the hate mail following each broadcast I can estimate how badly I have rattled our enemies’ cages. Of course, rattling their cages is not my aim, but it is interesting to note what upsets the inmates and what doesn’t. Even more interesting are the clues the hate letters provide to the psychology of the haters -- and I am interested here only in the psychology of the White haters: the psychology of our internal enemies, not the psychology of the Jews or Blacks or other external enemies.

What I really would like is for a very bright member to write a doctoral thesis in psychology on this subject and develop detailed psychological profiles of the haters. Until such a member comes forward, I must make my own amateur analyses. One thing I already am inclined to believe is that there is no single profile which fits all the haters, although I believe that the majority of them do fit a certain pattern. I already have mentioned in earlier issues of the BULLETIN that the two characteristics which show up most often in hate letters are Christianity and authoritarianism. Most of the Christian haters seem to be under the impression that the Alliance is a Christian organization which is not acting in accord with their idea of Christianity, and so they try to explain to us what it is we’re doing which is un-Christian and then tell us that we’ll roast in hell if we don’t change our ways.

Actually, there’s quite a bit of variety among the Christian hate letters. One which arrived this month might be put into the sub-category of Jew-worship: “I am convinced that Jews are indeed superior to Christians and we should honor them for their great contributions to civilization. After all, don’t we Christians pray to the greatest Jew that ever lived? Get real, guys. Without Jews we’d all be a bunch of trailer trash (well, you already are trailer trash).”

On the other hand, the underlying message of the authoritarian haters seems to be, “You’re out of step with everyone else, damn you! Why can’t you be like everyone else and stop rocking the boat?” Possibly a more sophisticated observer than I would conclude that the Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently -- which would suggest that a fundamental trait of most White haters is authoritarianism; some authoritarian haters are Christians, and some are not.

Winning

Without a deep understanding of one key concept, all pro-White efforts will inevitably fail. But there is a way to win.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

PEOPLE OFTEN ASK me, “Are we making any progress? Are we winning? Can you see victory ahead?”

I answer thus: “Yes, we are making progress, but not enough. The Enemy, despite a few setbacks he has suffered recently, is gaining ground faster than we are. Therefore, we cannot claim to be winning at this time. Nevertheless, I can see victory ahead -- far, far ahead, and the road to that victory is rocky indeed. It runs through a vale of sorrows the likes of which we have never yet experienced.”

Let me explain my answer, because a full understanding of it is essential to all of you who have made, or may soon make, the decision to travel that road.

The Alliance has gained new members in the past year, and we have increased our capability for generating and distributing the printed word, although our rate of growth has not been what we would like. The real progress we have made, however, is of a different sort. It is progress toward a correct assessment of our situation and of its necessary remedy, progress toward the new outlook and the new attitude and the new attitude we must have before we can begin winning, progress toward truth.

There was a time, 10 years or more in the past, when virtually all racially conscious, decent White Americans were “conservatives” or “right wingers,” and all “radicals” and “revolutionaries” were either Jews or degenerate Whites. Gradually, however, the realization has dawned on more and more White Americans that the situation in which our race has gotten itself admits to no “conservative” remedy.

A correct assessment of the implications of the biological time bomb which the Enemy has built in America is beginning to be made. Former “right wingers” are beginning to understand that the growing non-White army of occupation in America, now 40 million strong, cannot be made to go away by writing any number of letters to their Congressmen or by passing any Constitutional amendment or by undertaking any other sort of reform. It is a biological problem, and it requires a biological solution. There is no other way.

On Christianity: The Censored Section of the National Alliance Membership Handbook

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

The following was written by Dr. Pierce in 1992 and included in the original edition of the National Alliance Membership Handbook (pages 46-51). Unfortunately, this entire important policy guideline -- one of the crucial elements that sets the National Alliance apart from other racial organizations -- was removed altogether in the second edition that was published by Walker and Gliebe. It has been restored under the chairmanship of Will W. Williams.

2.d. OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES

2d.vii. Christianity
The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups — Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. — deal with the temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes our work.

Structural Guidelines

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

ONE OF THE greatest difficulties some Alliance members have is reconciling present Alliance activities with long-term Alliance goals. They expect the Alliance to be doing the sorts of things right-wing organizations traditionally do, such as carrying protests signs in the streets, issuing ultimatums to the government, putting up candidates for public office, and so on. Because the Alliance is expending only a minimal amount of energy on such activities at this time, there is a tendency to dismiss the Alliance as “just a publishing organization.”

Another difficulty is understanding why the Alliance addresses itself to a rather more perceptive and intelligent audience than right-wing groups generally do, instead of addressing itself to “the masses.”

These difficulties are caused by a failure to appreciate the nature of the task the Alliance faces and an ignorance of the Alliance’s strategy for accomplishing that task.

The long-range goal of the Alliance is bringing about a fundamental transformation of human life on this planet. A showdown with the System will not be the culmination of our struggle, but only an acute phase. And the purely political aspect of our struggle is only a temporary aspect, and far from the most significant in the long run.

The aims of the Alliance, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, go so far beyond those of traditionalists, conservative, right-wing, or other racially oriented organizations that thinking of the Alliance in familiar right-wing terms can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. The first step, then, in understanding the synopsis which follows is clearing one's mind of all right-wing notions and remembering that the Alliance is unique.

The strategy of the Alliance consists of three elements. The first element is to build a functioning structure of cadres: men and women of exceptional character and intelligence who share the Alliance’s world view, are unconditionally committed to the Alliance’s goals, and form integral, fully participating units in the Alliance structure. The second element is to use the Alliance structure to exert an educational influence on the general populace (“the masses”). The third element is to use the Alliance structure in a radical manner at such time as its capabilities and the situation of the system combine to give the Alliance sufficient historical leverage to effect a radical and permanent change leading to the Alliance’s superseding the System.

From ATTACK! to National Vanguard

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE STEP UPWARD from ATTACK! to National Vanguard is a good place to pause for a moment and survey our recent footsteps. The view should help us in understanding how to negotiate the steps which lie ahead. In looking back we should note, in particular, the various types of appeal which have been issued by the Alliance and the various types of people who have responded.

In late 1970 and early 1971, the first period of independent existence for the National Youth Alliance, we had a following which was substantially conservative. The Vietnam war was much on people’s minds, and even more so was the leftist-Jewish reaction in this country to that war. Swarthy, hook-nosed Reds were leading mobs of empty-headed Gentile students in chants of "Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!," while the controlled media openly sympathized with them. U.S. senators and representatives were not ashamed to address public rallies calling for the defeat of America’s armed forces in Southeast Asia. "Black power" advocates were staging armed takeovers of university administration buildings, while liberal educators wrung their hands in impotent indecision. The drug culture was destroying the lives of tens of thousands of young, White Americans every year.

In this general climate, it was sufficient for the NYA to state its opposition to drugs, Black power, the SDS, and Washington’s no-win foreign policy. Our activists consisted of publishing and distributing ATTACK!, organizing Washington street demonstrations of two dozen or so members carrying patriotic banners and addressing campus groups. There was a general sympathy among the patriotic segment of the population for our position, and conservative support was good, with a steady stream of $100 contributions coming in to keep the organization going. (One fly in the ointment at that time was the vicious, well-financed effort of a conservative mailing-list tycoon to destroy the NYA. Shadowy Washington wheeler-dealer Willis Carto, envious of the success of the NYA and regarding it as a competitor, launched a mass-mail smear campaign against us which cost us a great deal of support.)

The NYA membership, as well as our much larger body of well-wishers and supporters, in that early period showed a definite reactionary streak: libertarian anarcho-capitalists, who more properly belong in Young Americans for Freedom, stood in our ranks alongside dedicated White racial-nationalists. ATTACK!, however, although its four-point program was rather superficial and reactionary, never really catered to traditional conservative sentiment. Even at that time we probed with our editorials a great deal deeper into underlying issues than conservatives were accustomed to looking. These editorials gradually flushed out the libertarians, who left angrily denouncing us for “racist collectivism,” the run-of-the-mill conservatives stayed: They just stopped reading our editorials.

Leftist Fears of the National Alliance

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE LEFT HAS been doing a lot of moaning recently about “the rise of fascism” in America. Painting Ronald Reagan as an authoritarian bigot who aims to undo the civil rights “gains” of the last 30 years by putting Blacks back “in their place." The more wild-eyed elements on the left had gone so far as to claim that the Ku Klux Klan and other militant pro-White groups are secretly linked to the Reagan administration and have the government’s blessing when they “terrorize” minorities. That sort of hokum is good for coaxing contributions out of rich, left-wing Jews and their twittering bird-brains of White liberaldom.

The leaders and theoreticians of the radical left know better, of course, and among themselves they are more realistic. They know that White nationalists are hated and harassed by the Federal bureaucracy whether the man in the White House is a Carter or a Reagan. But they are genuinely concerned about one fairly new development: the ongoing radicalization of White groups, both in America and in Europe. In their publications they are warning one another that White action based on a coherent, fundamental, unifying ideology presents a far greater danger to them than the parochial and essentially conservative White reaction of the past.

In this the leftists are entirely correct. And it is interesting to note that the National Alliance has been singled out by at least one radical-leftists publication as the most dangerous of all White nationalist organizations, despite the fact that the Alliance has avoided headline-grabbing public activity and is still a rather small organization numerically. It is ideas, not right-wing publicity stunts which the enemies of a White future fear — and rightly so. And because the Alliance has been foremost in the formulation and propagation of ideas, the more intelligent leftists see it as the top threat to their own schemes.

The Cobbler and the Professor

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: On April 30, 1978, Dr. Pierce spoke to a group of Washington-area Alliance members on the type of people we want to recruit for the Alliance. His talk was prompted by an incident which had occurred two days earlier, at an international meeting of anti-communists in Washington. Although virtually all those attending the meeting were Jew-wise, they were mostly middle-class types who are afraid to express their view openly for fear of jeopardizing their incomes. They will talk a very brave line against the Jews behind closed doors and drawn blinds — i.e., when they are sure that their talk will not provoke the Jews into some form of retaliation — but they will run like rabbits at the first threat of being “exposed.”

Into the meeting walked a 74-year-old gentleman, a retired cobbler, with a wooden leg. He had lost his leg during World War II, fighting communists as a member of the underground in his native Lithuania. When a Jewish commissar had ordered him arrested and executed, he had escaped to the West — but not before his left leg was shattered by 13 machine-gun bullets.

This old gentleman, who has often distributed Alliance publications in the past, began distributing leaflets explaining the Jewish origins of communism to the other persons at the meeting. Hardly had he begun, however, when the director of the meeting, a former university professor who now makes a very good living arranging middle-class anti-communist meetings, sicced the police on him and had him thrown out of the hotel where the meeting was being held.

What follows has been excerpted from Dr. Pierce’s talk:

THE BASIC QUESTION raised by Friday’s incident in Washington involving the ex-cobbler and the ex-professor is this: Which of the two is the sort of person we are looking for? More generally, which of the two represents the type of man or woman who can be organized into a force capable of whipping the Jews and their allies and then carrying our truth on to victory?

What the Alliance Demands of Us

This editorial has been condensed from a talk given to Washington-area members,

supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 3, 1979.

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE MARINES HAVE a recruiting slogan which the Alliance could easily adopt as its own, with only a slight alteration: The Alliance is looking for a few good men — and women. The emphasis is on both “few” and “good,” because there are, unfortunately, relatively few men and women today who have the qualities which the Alliance demands.

Anyone not intimately familiar with the task of the Alliance, with the types of problems we face, and with the human failings evoked by those problems may be excused for assuming that all the Alliance requires of a recruit, besides being White, is that he or she be moderately intelligent, industrious, honest, brave, and so on — the rest of the boy scout virtues.

And, as a matter of fact, that’s about all we can hope for in the great majority of our members across the country. As a strictly practical matter, if a person in Seattle or Atlanta certifies that he is White, agrees with the Alliance, is willing to pay his dues, and says he wants to help, we can hardly fail to accept his membership application. We’re pleased to have him. We depend upon him for getting the Alliance message out to other potential recruits in Seattle or Atlanta and for providing the financial support the Alliance must have in order to exist.

But for our cadres, for those few good men and women who form the organizational backbone of the Alliance, who make up our operational staff, and who do the day-to-day work of the Alliance more is demanded; additional qualities are required.

What Is to Be Done?

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN THE FACE OF treason and criminal irresponsibility on the part of the politicians, of apathy and ignorance on the part of the White masses, and of cowardice and selfishness on the part of most intelligent Whites, what is to be done to save our race, in spite of itself?

The answer is not difficult to state, although a bit of argument is required to present a convincing case that it is the only answer.

The answer, in brief, is that an organization must be built which satisfies the following requirements:

It must be, first of all, not an ad hoc organization, but an organization based on fundamental principles, an organization with a world view, essentially religious in nature, shared by every member of the organization.

It must be, in structure, a hierarchical organization, like an army — or a religious order — with the degree of understanding, of commitment, and of discipline increasing with the level of responsibility in the organization.

It must be, in scope, an all-encompassing organization, an organization which not only generates propaganda and which recruits and trains new members, but which becomes eventually a community unto itself, self-sufficient spiritually and materially, providing all the functions and capabilities needed for carrying out its task — ultimately a separate state within the state.

Dr. Pierce distances the National Alliance from the "Movement"

  The “Movement”

            Despite the commentary in the Membership Handbook and periodically in the BULLETIN, there are members who still have a fixation on something called the “movement” rather than on the Alliance. These “movement”-oriented members see the Alliance not as unique and irreplaceable, but merely as one organization among many, all working toward the same goal. “How much stronger our movement will be” they think; “when all these organizations are united. Now we are weak because we are divided, but if we all work together we will be stronger and more successful.” These members also tend to regard anyone who sticks his arm out and shouts “White power,” as a “comrade” much like a fellow Alliance member.

            There can be no doubt that we are weak now compared to our enemies, but we will not become stronger by “uniting” with weak or defective organizations – and that includes virtually every “movement” group. The Alliance is not only far and away the strongest and most effective of all the organizations claiming to share our goals: it is the only organization in North America that has any prospect at all for effectively opposing the Jews and their allies in the future. I say this not to disparage any other organization or individual, but as a simple statement of fact.

            The Alliance became what it is today by following its own course from its inception. It never saw an opportunity to become stronger by uniting with another organization, and it sees none now. If in the future a suitable organization with which the Alliance might unite comes into existence, then we can explore the possibilities for collaboration. That is not a likely prospect however, for the following reason: if someone decides to form a new organization, instead of becoming a member of the Alliance, it is either because he actually has a significantly different goal or ideology from the Alliance or is determined to use significantly different tactics, or because it is of personal reasons.

            By far the most common personal reason is egotism: he wants to have his own organization: he would rather be a phone-booth Führer, with a letter head, a post office box, and three devoted but mentally challenged followers, than just another member of an effective organization. In that case he will have to give his organizational efforts to try and see what he can accomplish by himself.

            I am not willing to compromise in any significant way the goals or ideology of the National Alliance. The examples that come to mind of other organizations or individuals that had similar goals but significantly different tactics are those that were too impatient to follow a course of legality and were determined instead to move ahead faster than the Alliance by using illegal tactics. So far such a course has not been successful, and it is my carefully considered judgment that such tactics are not likely to be successful prior to a major weakening or disruption of the government.

************************

I am not willing to compromise in any significant 

way the goals or ideology of the National Alliance.

************************

            A member who disagrees with this rather dim view of the “movement” should choose a “movement” organization and join it, or he should start his own organization, but he should resign his membership of the Alliance.

            For the guidance of members, the following is the policy of the National Office governing interactions with “movement” organizations.

1. The Alliance will continue to follow its own course and will act independently of other organizations.
2. The Alliance will not engage in joint activities with other organizations.
3. Individuals who are members of other organizations and who are prospects for recruitment into the Alliance may be invited to attend Alliance meetings or participate in Alliance activities strictly as individuals, not as representatives of the other organization to which they belong.
4. The Alliance does not comment publically on other organizations, either positively or negatively. We do not respond to attacks from other organizations or engage in feuds with other organizations. We have on occasion helped other organizations with extraordinary problems, as when we donated to the legal defense fund of Richard Butler during the time he was being attacked by Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center, but ordinarily we do not become involved in the problems or activities of other groups. We wish them well, but they are on their own.
5. In evaluating prospects for recruitment, we do not disqualify a prospect simply because he belongs to or has belonged to another organization, but we usually will regard his membership or former membership in another organization negatively rather than positively and will be especially alert for signs of hobbyist tendencies.
6. In general, the Alliance is not competing with “movement” organizations for members. A person should join the organization for which he is best suited, and if he is at all tempted to join a “movement” group, then he probably lacks the seriousness, maturity, and good judgment expected of an Alliance member.

The text above is Dr. Pierce's commentary from the internal National Alliance BULLETIN for January, 2002. Below Dr. Pierce reemphasizes his Alliance policy message to members in the February, 2002, BULLETIN:

More "Movement" Comments

                        As I expected, my comments about the “movement” in last month’s BULLETIN elicited complaints from a few members of the hobbyist persuasion. It elicited louder complaints from a phone-booth Führer or two who had been hoping to ride on the Alliance’s coattails by means of various “unity” schemes.

            I did not expect my comments to straighten out any hobbyists remaining in the Alliance, because hobbyism does not come from a lack of understanding but instead from a personality defect. Members are hobbyists because their principle motivation is self-gratification. They care more about getting lots of different newsletters and having more people to gossip about than they do about real accomplishments. They are not sensible people.

            For the sake of those members who aren’t hobbyists but who may have been confused by hobbyism on the part of other members, I offer here two further comments on the subject. First, we are not interested in “uniting” with “movement” organizations because none is significant or serious. Most are make-believe organizations, which do not exist except in the imaginations of a few hobbyists. The few that actually have members are heavily loaded with freaks, hobbyists and other defective people who like to wear uniforms and give Roman salutes to TV cameramen while shouting, “Sieg, Heil!”

            Second, it is very important for us to maintain our own image as a serious organization so that we can continue to recruit the serious men and women we must have in order to continue building our capabilities. These men and women are not favorably impressed by the sort of silliness that characterizes virtually every wannabee “movement” organization.

 

            Another item in last month’s BULLETIN that caused some unhappiness was the announcement that henceforth all internet activity that purports to be associated with the Alliance in any way will be coordinated and required to adhere to guidelines. There are several reasons for this new policy, but as with avoiding “movement” entanglements, the most important reason is the maintenance of the sort of image that the Alliance needs in order to accomplish its mission. We must not present to the public an image of illiteracy, incompetence, foolishness, poor judgment, immaturity or disarray.


 Find the hobbyist in this group

            Most members who have commented on the new Web Activity Guidelines (WAG) have agreed that they are needed, but a few think that they go too far and impose too many limitations. Perhaps so. The current WAG are subject to modification and the Web Activity Coordinator will value any constructive criticism from members.

            One misimpression on the part of a few members is that they are no longer permitted to represent themselves as Alliance members except on an approved website. This is not so. Members are free to identify themselves as members in discussion groups, “chat rooms,” bulletin board postings, etc., as long as they make it clear that they are speaking only as individuals and not as spokesmen for the Alliance.

            The views I have expressed in the past about discussion groups and similar internet entities have been largely negative, for two reasons. First, the anonymity and lack of accountability in discussion groups lead to irresponsibility and foolishness. Much of what goes on in discussion groups is beyond silly.

            Second, the internet becomes a make-believe, alternate world for many people. Instead of using their time to disseminate our message and recruit in the real world, they escape into the more agreeable, make-believe, world of discussion groups and “chat-rooms” where they can feel themselves safely among friends. Indeed, the internet is like a habit-forming drug for many of our members. As soon as they come home from work they turn on their computers, and they stay glued to the screen until bedtime. As so often is the case in this soft, emasculated society, chatter takes the place of action.

            A few members whose opinions I respect have tried to persuade me that internet discussion groups do have some potential redeeming value after all – provided that the members using them do so in a disciplined, purposeful way, keeping their minds focused on the objective instead of succumbing to the drug. Perhaps in the near future the National Office will offer some useful guidance to such members.

W.L.P.

Criteria for a White Future

An Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

WHEN A SENSITIVE, intelligent, racially conscious White American observes the hellish business of racial and cultural destruction going on all around him, he ordinarily reacts in one of two ways: he becomes involved in one brand or another of conservative or right-wing foolishness; or he tries to shed his sensitivity and retreat into a detached — one might even say solipsist — “observer” status, in which the world around him becomes unreal, like a drama being played out on a giant, panoramic TV screen. (ILLUSTRATION: The Teutonic Order, an example of an organization that encompassed all four criteria to form a functioning "organizational nexus": hierarchical, radical, all-encompassing, and racial-elitist. They are pictured here fighting the Mongols in 1241.)

Those who choose the latter route will, in most cases, stay with it until an unusually violent and personal bump against reality shatters the carefully cultivated illusion that what’s going on in the world doesn’t involve them and isn’t their responsibility. Unfortunately, of these persons the ones with the greatest potential value are those clever and resourceful enough to avoid such bumps — whether a rape or a quota-related promotion denial or an offspring who becomes a race-mixer — until general economic and social conditions have deteriorated much further than they have at this time.

The Task of the National Alliance

An Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

IN THREE EARLIER ISSUES (National Vanguard, nos. 64, 65, 66) we examined some of the social factors relevant to a racially oriented revolution in America and stated several general criteria for any organizational basis of such a revolution. In this issue we will look more specifically at the factors which govern the priorities of the National Alliance and determine the nature of its task. We will attempt to understand, on the basis of present conditions in America, what can be done now and what cannot be done, so that we can see better how to concentrate our energies on those organizational objectives we can realistically hope to achieve. (ILLUSTRATION: "A lion might be fair or just... but the possibility does not even exist for a sheep." -- WLP)

One fact of overriding importance should be kept in mind throughout what follows: the situation faced today by the National Alliance is historically unique. Very few of the “classical” conditions for revolution exist in America today, and therefore, the classical expositions of revolutionary theory are largely irrelevant to an understanding of our task.

On Goals

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IT IS WORTHWHILE, every so often, to review in our minds just where it is that we are headed and how we plan to get there. It may help to keep us from wandering off course — from forgetting, in the day-to-day bustle of events, what it’s all about.

Then, too, circumstances change, and if our work is to remain meaningful and to continue carrying us forward we must constantly re-evaluate our strategy and our tactics in the light of new conditions. Otherwise, it is all too easy to slip into the lazy habit of saying and doing the same things we have learned to say and do in the past, while failing to continually keep in mind how these things relate to both our short-term and our long-term goals.