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 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.

The Trouble With Conservatism

Dr. Pierce predicted today’s shift to the right by Jews — and the fatal flaw in conservative groups like the Tea Party movement.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST YEAR a group of sick, guilt-ridden Dutch liberals in the Netherlands formed an anti-racist group, the Person-to-Person Committee, for the purpose of fighting apartheid among the Dutch-descended Afrikaners of South Africa. They distributed packets of postcards to Dutch schoolchildren, each card bearing a printed message attacking apartheid and a photograph of an alleged “atrocity” by South Africa’s police and defense forces against Black “freedom fighters.” Each schoolchild was asked to add his return address and sign his name to the postcard and then mail it to an Afrikaner chosen at random from a South African telephone directory.

The South African response to this poison-pen campaign was to organize the Afrikaans-Dutch Working Group, which prepared its own postcards to be mailed back to the Dutch children. Each card bore a photograph of South Africa’s renowned heart-transplant pioneer, Professor Christiaan Barnard, holding and comforting a Negro baby. The printed message on the card was: “We are not the Black-haters many of you think we are.”

When I read the account of this episode in a recent issue of the South African Digest, a weekly public-relations magazine published by the South African government, I thought to myself, “How typically conservative!”

In fact, the pride with which the postcard ploy was related meshes perfectly with the whole tone of the conservative South African government’s stance toward its critics. Each issue of the South African Digest is filled with articles which say, in effect, what the Barnard postcard said. They cite example after example of new concessions to Blacks; of millions of dollars of White South Africans’ tax money being spent on shiny, new schools and hospitals for Blacks; of a 500 per cent increase in the wages of Black workers in the mining industry between 1970 and 1977; of the step-by-step dismantling of the South African policy of apartheid.

They say to the world: “Look how good we are to our Blacks. We are not racists. We only want what is best for all South Africans, Black and White. We don’t shoot Black terrorists and rioters for being Black but only for being communists and lawbreakers. We have a conservative, law-and-order, anti-communist government.”

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.

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.