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.

Dr. Pierce's motivational strategy for attracting quality over quantity

Commentary by Dr. Pierce from the National Alliance BULLETIN (12/1991-1/1992):

Accepting Responsibility

The year 1991 was the best the Alliance has ever had. The accumulating consequences of Jewish rule made themselves felt more than ever before: the quality of life in multicultural America reached a new low, and many people who had managed to ignore our message before could ignore it no longer. The coming year promises to be even more Jewish, and many more people will find it impossible to continue pretending that things are all right.

I don't know what goes on in the heads of all the people now experiencing the benefits of democracy and equality in places like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York, but for a growing number it must be something like this: "God damn! This is just too much. I know life in America hasn't always been this sick. What's happened? How do I get out of this insane asylum? The future no longer has any meaning. What's the point in having children? What's the point in doing anything until this godawful mess is flushed down the drain and something decent and healthy is begun in its place."

Of course, many people have been thinking like that for years, but they've just been keeping it to themselves. Now more and more of them are reaching the limit of their patience. Desperation is overcoming the pressure to conform. If we do our job of spreading our message around widely enough, such people will absorb it when they're ready for it.

Unfortunately, most of the people who respond to our message by joining the Alliance seem to justify their impatience through the mere act of joining. It's as if they're thinking: "There! Now I've done something. I'm no longer taking what the Jews dish out. Now I'm reading my membership materials, and I'm thinking rebellious thoughts."

For many of our people, to be sure, the response to our message goes beyond thinking rebellious thoughts; it also includes talking. I never did understand these orally fixated people, but I've seen them often enough. For them the value of the Alliance is that it provides an audience. They love to find other people that they can talk to all night long; that they can emote to; that they can express their frustrations to; that they can proclaim their fanaticism, their radicalism, their undying devotion to our cause to.

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

 "God damn! This is just too much. I know life in America hasn't always been this sick. What's happened? How do I get out of this insane asylum?"

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

Some of these folks are trinket collectors. The proof of their seriousness lies in the fact that they can not only talk a good line about what they imagine it was like on the Eastern Front in '44, but they even have a few SS souvenirs they have bought at some flea market or stolen from some other trinket collector. Believe it or not, they will not hesitate to steal these souvenirs, these proofs of their seriousness, from each other.

One thing they will not do, however, is act -- at least not in a way calculated to advance our cause. Personal sacrifice, personal risk-taking, personal action for anything other than a personal end: these are alien concepts to them.

This is only theorizing on my part, but I'm inclined to believe that these thinkers and talkers, these non-doers for whom thinking and talking are satisfying substitutes for action, have had their grip on reality damaged by too much exposure to television. Even when they are playing make-believe revolution they have not ceased being the kind of good American consumers television teaches us to be. And whenever the revolution pushes them a little too hard or makes too big a demand on them -- whenever it begins to seem a little too real -- they will back off in a hurry, eager to return to the familiar safety of the television world they really have never left.

I suspect that when things have reached the point that the reality of what we are doing can no longer be ignored -- when it is no longer so easy to back away from the responsibilities they say they are committed to -- these folks will experience a severe trauma.

I have exaggerated a little in the preceding paragraphs. Most of our thinkers and talkers are not quite so extreme. Most of them are somewhere between what I have described and what they should be. Most would like to be more effective members. The fact remains, however, that about 98% of the Alliance's work is done by three or four percent of our members. How do we persuade the other 96 or 97 percent to accept a little more responsibility?

In the National Office our answer to this question is to force the issue of reality. It is to emphasize professionalism at the expense of just about everything else. It is to spare no effort to package our message as professionally as we can, whether the medium is an adventure novel, a magazine, an audio cassette, or a radio broadcast. It is to never tolerate sloppiness or amateurishness in our work. It is to be certain that the image that we present to the public -- and to our own members -- is always one of competence and seriousness.

I believe that ths accounts for our relatively greater growth during the past two years than that of any other organization with a roughly similar ideology: our seriousness is more apparent than is the case for the others. And where we have had shortcomings in competence, our seriousness has persuaded people that our competence would improve.

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

 [T]he image that we present to the public -- and to our own members -- is always one of competence and seriousness.

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

Being perceived as more and more serious and competent -- as more and more real -- in the future may frighten away our more irrevocably fixated members, but I believe it will motivate more and more of the more mature ones to accept a share of the responsibility for our task, just as it will attract to us more and more of the kind of serious, competent people we must have if our revolution is to grow.

I also believe that the same answer applies outside of the National Office. Those of our members who have been most successful in building the Alliance are those whose utter seriousness regarding our task is most evident.

WLP

Losers, Hobbyists, and the “Movement”
Editorial  by Dr. Pierce from National Alliance BULLETIN, March 2000

An interesting psychological phenomenon on which I have commented on in several issues of the BULLETIN is that displayed by people who send hostile letters to the National Office saying, in effect: “You people claim to be Christians, but you ignore the teachings of the Bible, which says that all races are the same. Don’t you even know that Jesus was a Jew?” They have had the idea planted in their heads that the Alliance is some sort of Christian organization, presumably by Jewish propaganda linking us to Christian Identity and Catholic traditionalist groups, which also are on the Jews’ hit list. Reading our material or listening to one of my broadcasts should persuade them otherwise, but it doesn’t. It probably took quite a bit of effort by the Jews to pound the idea into their heads, and it’ll take dynamite to get it out.

Unfortunately, one can observe a similar phenomenon in many people nominally on our side, even in some Alliance members. I have announced over and over again our policy toward other organizations, and I nevertheless continue to receive letters to the effect: “All of us in the ‘movement’ must stick together. We should unite with all of the other patriotic organizations, and then we’ll be much stronger. Etc.” To me this view indicates either hobbyism or a serious deficiency in the writer’s powers of discrimination. If you don’t remember what hobbyism is, re-read section 3.c.iii.2 of your copy of the Membership Handbook.

The Internet has given many inadequate people the ability to pretend to be more than they are. Any troubled teenager or unemployed alcoholic can get a web site, set himself up as a phone-booth Fuhrer, and begin collecting “followers,” and many do. They are the ones to whom the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center are referring when they announce that “the number of ‘hate groups’ on the Internet is now 457, up 23 per cent since 1999.” Two outstanding examples are a teenaged Jew named Andy Greenbaum, who used the name “Bo Decker” and set up an “organization” he called “Knights of Freedom”; and a professional disseminator of disinformation named Harold Covington (a.k.a. “Winston Smith”). Greenbaum self-destructed last year, when he announced a giant march in Washington and only two of his “followers” showed up for the march. Covington occasionally still makes Internet attacks on the Alliance, but he is far less prolific than he was a year or so ago.

There are dozens of others who are still active, however. One is a TV repairman in California named Tom Metzger, who publishes a tabloid addressed primarily to skinheads and prisoners called “White Aryan Resistance’ (“WAR”). Metzger promotes an ideology that is a blend of racial nationalism and class resentment, commonly called “national bolshevism.” Another, also in California, publishes a newsletter called “The Nationalist Observer.” Both are proponents of an “strategy” known as “leaderless resistance,” according to which, at the appropriate time, hundreds or even thousands of revolutionary cells, consisting of one to five patriots each, will materialize spontaneously and will overthrow the government by sabotaging or bombing government and media facilities and assassinating politicians, leading Jews, collaborators, and other enemies of our people. All of these cells will operate independently, without centralized organization or direction or infrastructure, so that it will be nearly impossible for the government to infiltrate them or spy on them, and the government never will know where or when they will strike next.

Actually, Metzger and other “leaderless resistance” advocates are not so much in favor of “leaderless resistance” as they are against any sort of organized activity. Their thesis is that any organized activity is certain to fail because it will be infiltrated by government informants and provocateurs, and that any racial patriot who joins an organization is a fool who is allowing the government to get his name on the blacklist for unspecified, but presumably severe, reprisals.

All of this theorizing takes place in the make-believe world of revolutionary hobbyism. In the real world, “leaderless resistance” is simply an excuse for losers, cowards, and shirkers to do nothing except talk to each other. Building an effective organization of any sort is difficult work, and those who don’t like work or who have tried to build an organization and failed often are resentful of any effort that shows signs of success. Their reasoning is, “I tried it and wasn’t successful; therefore, it can’t be done.” And the reason that nearly every organizational effort has failed has not been government spies or provocateurs; it has been the low quality of the human material in the organization. Certainly, the Alliance has never had any damage done to it by government agents. Every major difficulty we have had has been the consequence of bad judgment or bad behavior on the part of a member.

It’s always difficult working with people. It must be a real nightmare trying to run an organization that has no quality standards for membership and that maintains a flamboyant and sensationalist public image attractive to hooligans, drunken brawlers, criminals, sociopaths, and other losers.

The latest issue of Resistance Magazine (of which I am the publisher) had an article written by a professional soldier who pointed out the unworkability of “leaderless resistance.” Unfortunately, he mistakenly used the “Order” organized in 1984 by Robert Mathews as an example of why it doesn’t work. In fact, the “Order,” based on the fictional organization of the same name in The Turner Diaries, was a centralized organization with a strong leader. Because of the author’s slip, a few of the phone-booth Fuhrers, who already were resentful of the Alliance’s progress and were stung by the article’s undiplomatic treatment of their favorite excuse for their own failure, saw an opportunity to criticize the Alliance and seized it. They Xeroxed dozens of copies of the offending article and mailed them to everyone on their mailing lists, including the imprisoned surviving members of the “Order.” They wrote a letter to go with the Xeroxed article, and although Robert Mathews is not even named in the article, their letter said, in effect: “Look, look! Pierce is attacking Bob Mathews, our martyred hero! Isn’t that shameful?”

Seeing the article described as an attack on Robert Mathews led some of the readers to look at it that way, and they duly registered their own indignation. The phone-booth Fuhrers then posted everything to the Internet, where it was the most titillating subject for gossip among the hobbyists for several weeks. The term “movement” was frequently used by the hobbyists, as in: “Pierce has shown disrespect for a martyr of the ‘movement.’ He should be expelled from the ‘movement.’” Or: “No, no! We must have unity in the ‘movement.’”

It’s a little hard to say exactly what the term means to the Internet gossips. To most, it seems to be a clubby sort of concept which includes all of “us” and excludes everyone else. Although I have found the term useful in some contexts in the past, it probably should be abandoned because it has been so badly misused by the hobbyists. Really, what self respecting racial nationalist wants to be considered part of a “movement’ which includes all of the phone-booth Fuhrers, the Internet gossips, and an embarrassingly high quota of born losers?

It’s easy enough to understand this club mentality. As our society disintegrates under the onslaught of Jew-instigated multiculturalism, people look for something to hold onto: a sense of belonging, of community. We feel more secure when we have a sense of solidarity with others of like mind. A comforting sense of security is not the primary thing that Alliance members should be seeking, however. We want strength. We want new capabilities. We want to gain an advantage over the enemies of our people. We want anything which brings us closer to victory, whether it is comfortable or not.

The truth of the matter is, there’s not much advantage to be gained inside the “movement.” It is too heavily freighted with chronic losers, incurable hobbyists, phone-booth Fuhrers, and other defectives. Perhaps the “movement” is no worse than the general public in this regard, but we’re looking for the best and strongest people we can find, and we find them much more often outside the “movement” than inside it. It is time for all members who have been focused on the “movement” either to reorient themselves in an outward direction or to find another organization to devote themselves to. As our tempo and our work load increase, being in the Alliance will be less and less fun for those whose primary aim is to amuse themselves with “movement” gossip. And I will have less patience with hobbyists and with those who believe that the Alliance is part of the “movement.” Our aim is not to be the biggest and best organization in the “movement”; it is to leave the “movement” to its clubby introspection while we get on with the job of building a revolutionary infrastructure.

We respect our martyrs, and all of those who have shown courage or made sacrifices for our people, but we’ll build monuments to them after the revolution. Meanwhile, winning is all that we care about, not the fun of playing the game by “movement” rules.

W.L.P