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.

Creating a New Society

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A WONDERFUL THING about the philosophy which governs our movement is that it is very simple -- it is completely summed up in our Affirmation -- and yet it is all-inclusive. It tells us everything we need to know. Everything is derived from it.

It tells, for example, what kind of society we want to build in place of the present one. That is, it gives us the basic principles which must govern the building of a new society. Since our principles are fundamentally different from those governing any society now on this earth, then our society will also be fundamentally different from those which exist today.

Today, societies are categorized in various ways. A common way is according to which members of the society have the power. Thus, we have monarchical society, ruled by a single person, who usually inherits his power. And we have plutocracy, or a society ruled by the wealthiest members. And we have technocracy, or a society ruled by the technicians who keep the wheels of industry and commerce going. And gerontocracy, a society ruled by its elders. And democracy -- or monocracy -- society ruled, supposedly, by everyone. And, finally, anarchical society, in which, supposedly, no one has power, no one rules.

Another common way of categorizing today’s societies is according to the type of economic system which prevails. Thus, we have communistic societies and capitalistic societies, as just two examples.

But note one thing about all these different types of society. None are defined with respect to any purpose. They are defined according to which members control them, defined according to the mechanics of their operation, but none have any purpose -- other than the common purpose of all societies, of course -- namely, the static, day-to-day purpose of providing a framework within which its members function, presumably with more efficiency and greater security than they could function without a society.

Of course, the societies with which we are familiar may set goals for themselves: building an irrigation project, for example, or conquering a neighbor, or eliminating smallpox, or increasing the average wage. But these goals do not determine, in any fundamental way, the structure of the society. They do not provide a purpose which determines the essential nature of the society. A monarchical society or a democratic society which sets out to build a system of dams and canals or to take some land away from the members of another society remains monarchical or democratic, as the case may be.

Cosmotheist Ethics

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE PERSONAL CONDUCT of those who strive to follow the One Path is based on three foundations: Knowledge, Discipline, and Service.

First comes knowledge -- an understanding of the nature of man, of his relationship to the Whole, and of his purpose. Then must come action based on that understanding; we must put our knowledge to work. We must let it direct us in our daily lives, so that we live in accord with our ordained purpose, so that we serve the ends intended for us by the Creator.

Knowledge is our guide, and service is our object, but discipline gives us the indispensable means. Discipline allows us to actualize the potential strength which our knowledge gives us. Without discipline, our knowledge will remain sterile, our actions weak and ineffectual.

The gaining of knowledge, the attainment of understanding, is a lifelong process, but we have already taken the first steps toward it in the last six months. Let us now consider briefly the proper discipline for translating that knowledge into action in our daily lives.

In the most general sense, the disciplined man or woman is a person whose conscious intellect exercises the fullest possible control over his body and its subconscious needs and desires as well as over the controllable circumstances of his life. In contrast, the completely undisciplined person is a slave to his subconscious nature and to events around him. In view of what we have already learned, then, it is clear that a disciplined person, as the bearer of a higher degree of consciousness than an undisciplined one, is further along the One Path.

But we need more than generalities. We need to fill in all the details of the structure, of the means, which lies between our guiding knowledge and the object of that knowledge. We need a detailed discipline which will allow us to translate our knowledge into service.

Following the Upward Path

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST MONTH we received the first part of the answer we have been seeking. It did not seem to tell us much, but in reality it contained the essence of everything else we will learn. Let us think about it for a moment before we go on.

What we are seeking to discover is man's purpose, both individually and collectively. Throughout a billion years of evolution the answer to our question has slowly taken shape and has been written by God on our souls, just as a different answer to an analogous question has been formed in the deepest part of the being of every living creature -- and the non-living as well. (That is, the answers are different in detail, but they are all the same in a more general sense.)

In the words of one of our sisters in spirit [Savitri Devi -- Ed.], the sum of all these answers is the total expression of "that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and the ocean depth and of the spheres in the dark fields of space."

To each creature and to each race of creatures the answer assigns a role and determines its relationship to the Whole. We can have only imperfect knowledge to the answers which apply to other creatures, to other races, for, although our science can tell us much, we cannot see into their souls.

What is the role of the Negro? It is evident that for the last few hundred thousand years, at least, the Negro’s message has, unlike ours, told him to stop and rest. Does it also tell him that, like so many other creatures in the past, his role is finished? Perhaps we will know later.

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.

The Twin Errors of Liberalism and Egoism

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST MONTH we began looking at the question, "What is the purpose of man's existence?" We saw that there is, in the men and women of our race, an inborn, intuitive urge to order our lives in accord with some purpose beyond the satisfaction of our daily whims. This urge is stronger in some men than in others.

We also saw the importance which this urge, or its degree of fulfillment or non-fulfillment, has in determining the type of world in which we live. Human society tends to be orderly and truly progressive when men with a more highly developed sense of inner direction prevail, and society becomes chaotic, regressive, and decadent when men with a weaker sense of direction prevail, or when all tend to lose or ignore their inner directions.

But even in the best of times, when men with a strong sense of purpose have the upper hand, few -- if any -- have a true understanding of what that purpose should really be. They feel an inner direction, but they mistake where it is pointing. And so the great majority of even the best of men go in the wrong direction, following false purposes.

Men strive for the True Purpose, but their striving is in the form of an almost-blind groping for something seen only dimly and indistinctly, like a half-remembered dream. Their imperfect understanding leads them far more often into error than into truth.

The greatest cause of error -- the greatest hindrance to a proper response to our sense of inner direction -- has been a wrong outlook, a wrong general attitude toward life and the world, a wrong philosophical framework within which we interpret our inner promptings. Just as using a badly flawed lens to read a message distorts it and, more often than not, causes us to misread it, so forcing an interpretation of our sense of inner direction into the wrong philosophical framework distorts it and leads us into error.

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.

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.

Dr. Pierce Discusses Shabbos Goy Chris Christie

[Chris Christie is] "a fellow who will always go along in order to get along."

- Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)

Commentary from the October 1983 issue of National Alliance Bulletin:

Chris Christie angered over National Alliance presence on campus 

The reaction of University of Delaware officials and the "in crowd" on the student newspaper staff and in the student government, as indicated in the student newspaper, to an Alliance leaflet distribution was disappointing but not surprising. The student government president, Chris Christie, quoted in the student newspaper article reproduced here, is pictured elsewhere in the newspaper flashing a toothy TV smile suitable for a political candidate. He has the distinct appearance of a young man cut out to become president of the local Jaycees wherever he take up residency after graduation: a fellow who will always go along in order to get along.

                                                Flashing toothy TV smile suitable for a political candidate

What is more interesting is the reaction of the university officials, who acted as if the making available to the students and faculty at the University of Delaware of the names of the men who own and/or mange America’s news and entertainment media were a crime--or, at least, a very reprehensible act of "racial and religious discrimination." This is almost exactly the reaction which member James McDonald received from local officials in San Jose, CA, when he distributed information on the racial characteristics of rapists there (see "The Law" in NV No. 97.) And it is the reaction which members can expect to encounter more frequently in the future, as the fear of heresy become stronger and stronger among demoralized, frightened, insecure White Americans. Increasingly they will seek the approval of Jews, Blacks, and other organized minorities by turning on anyone who speaks out against the revealed religion of multiracial equality and brotherhood. This fear-conditioned behavior, immune to reason, will not change so long as the unorganized White masses perceive organized minorities as stronger than organized, racially conscious Whites.

The best way for Alliance members to combat this behavior is through boldness: by handing leaflets directly to students instead of surreptitiously placing them under windshield wipers at night, by deliberately engaging then in discussion on the issues, by challenging apologists for the Jews to public debate, by speaking out in social-studies classes whenever the opportunity arises, by becoming as insistent and obnoxious as necessary to gain equal space in the student newspaper, by knowing exactly what their rights and the laws are. The other side cannot, of course, debate the issues on the facts, since the facts are against them. Therefore, the Chris Christie types, when faced with a bold, capable Alliance member, must either back down and look foolish and weak, or they must resort to Jewish methods: lawyerly debating tricks and deception, emotional appeals, organized badgering and heckling, even physical intimidation--especially if there is a large non-White contingent on the campus.

Republican Party presidential hopeful Chris Christie with friends

There are few Alliance members who are usually able to acquit themselves well in such situations; they have quick wits, steady nerves, and strong lungs. Others can develop their abilities in this direction, to a certain extent, through training and practice. But there are many members who will not perform well in such situations. They can use their energies more effectively in one-on-one personal recruiting, in assisting someone else who is experienced and capable at public reaching--or in individual impersonal recruiting activities which involve a minimum of public contact, such as placing leaflets under windshield wipers.

It should be understood, however, that these last-mentioned activities cannot be expected to have a significant effect on public opinion, which is formed almost entirely by sub-rational processes; facts alone, outside a personal-social context, mean very little to the average citizen. Even a leaflet as simple and straightforward as Who Rules America? can hardly be assimilated by someone who is afraid that the information therein may be dangerous or ever controversial. A saturation of a university campus with leaflets will not by itself--without a good deal of accompanying, effective public activity--cause the average White student to change his attitudes. The "verbal and physical abuse" of Jews at the University of Delaware mentioned in the student newspaper article was based entirely on an unreasoning, instinctive dislike of Jews by White students there, not on any understanding of the Jews’ destructive role in White society.

There is some value, of course, in simply disseminating facts and ideas, whether the public is capable of making intelligent use of them or not: they are seeds, which will lodge themselves in even the most infertile minds and remain there until the opportunity to sprout and grow comes, perhaps many years later.

W.L.P.

Dr. Pierce analyses usefulness of Internet to National Alliance

Commentary by Dr. Pierce to his members in August 1998 internal National Alliance BULLETIN:

Staying In Touch

In the past four years the Internet has grown from practically nothing to our single most powerful medium for reaching the public with our message.

At our two sites -- http://www.natvan.com and http://www.natall.com -- we offer a very large quantity and variety of materials in text, audio, and image files: nearly 100 megabytes of information capable of providing literally hundreds of hours of reading and listening to interested members of the public, free of charge. We are adding to this material almost on a daily basis.

Parts of our material are available in German, French, and Swedish as well as English. On an average day about 6,000 visitors avail themselves of information from our sites. It is estimated that this year more than 80 million people around the world will have access to the Internet, and this audience is growing at a rate of about 30 percent per year. Furthermore, the Internet audience is a cut above the general population -- i.e., the television audience -- in socioeconomic and intelligence levels. Joe and Jill Sixpack are far less likely to be serious Internet users than are professionals, executives, academics, and university students.

Unfortunately, however, as the number of people using the Internet has grown, the average quality of the users inevitably has declined, and certain pathologies have developed in association with Internet usage. One sees evidence of this most often in Usenet, an Internet adjunct consisting of so-called "discussion groups," where anyone can join -- or eavesdrop on -- discussions on virtually any subject. Theoretically, discussion groups might seem like a wonderful idea; an opportunity for everyone to have his say on an equal basis, without Jewish censorship. People can say what they really think about the government, about race, about the Jews, or about anything else. And many people do.

The reason people are willing to say what they think on Usenet is that they can do so anonymously. Miserable cowards, who would never dare challenge the Politically Correct party line in real life, do so in discussion groups without fear, because no one knows who they are or where they live. This feature has a terrific attraction for a type of person, who is unable to cope with the real world but can feel himself a hero in cyberspace. It also has an attraction for many with an excessively verbal personality, who are hypnotized by any flow of words, especially their own. It has long been my observation that people who talk the most do the least, and Usenet has picked up a following of ineffective people: losers and non-copers who like to talk.

For a while the Alliance had a Cybercell, whose members would participate in discussion groups in an organized way, dominating the discussions. The theory behind this activity was that most people have no strong convictions and have weak, feminine natures. They will adopt as their own whatever party line seems to have the strongest support: whichever side in a debate is able to shout down its opponents will be able to sway the crowd toward its position. The theory seemed to work well enough, and the Cybercell made its presence felt in many discussion groups, one at a time -- although it is by no means certain that our success in shouting down our opponents had any lasting effects on other discussion-group participants.

Eventually I decided that it did not behoove the Alliance to continue to participate in discussion groups, and the Cybercell was disbanded. The reason for this decision was the total lack of self-discipline in the discussion groups. Of course, members were free to continue participating in discussion groups on an individual basis if they wished.

In the real world people understand that their words have consequences and that they must therefore choose them with a certain amount of care. What other people think of them will depend to a large degree on what they say, and almost no one wants to be thought a fool. Furthermore, in the real world careless talk can result in one getting punched in the nose or worse. It is for this reason that our race developed, through the evolutionary process, the value we place on politeness and decorum; down through the ages our politer ancestors got into fewer unnecessary fights and were more likely to live long enough to father children than were their peers who shot off their mouths too recklessly. In cyberspace, however, none of these considerations apply for most of the people involved in discussion groups. Their behavior is very close to infantile, and their talk is foolish indeed. Discussions very often degenerate into name-calling and tantrums. Even some Alliance members succumbed to this general atmosphere of indiscipline and began swapping insults with their opponents. The general level of debate sank so low that I decided discussion-group activity was too undignified for us to continue participating; better to let someone else become the undisputed mud-wrestling champion of the topless-bar circuit.

Since the disbanding of our Cybercell I have continued to sample the activity of discussion groups occasionally, and I have detected another pathology, in addition to the indiscipline and lack of dignity. There is a loss of contact with the real world in these groups. It is as if the words being spewed by all concerned have some claim on reality of their own. Perhaps one should not be surprised by such a development on the part of people who have grown up believing that the world shown to them on their television sets is more "real" than the real world.

One change which should go a long way toward restoring a little self-discipline and contact with reality to Usenet discussion groups would be a tag attached to every posting, with the poster's real name and address something like caller-ID for telephones. Such a development would send about 98 per cent of current discussion group participants scurrying back in to their closets and substantially raise the level of the discussions, much in the way Caller ID cut the number of telephoned death threats to the National Office to virtually zero. Since such a development is quite unlikely, however, discussion groups will remain for the foreseeable future much like playground sandboxes filled with spoiled, hyperactive four-year-olds, many of them suffering from motormouth disease.

Since most of the people the Alliance is interested in are mature and receptive enough to respond negatively to this childish, and undisciplined, and unrealistic environment and are therefore not likely to spend any time in discussion groups, it is really questionable whether or not an Alliance member can serve any useful purpose at all by participating in these groups.

W.L.P.

http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=488