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.