Cowardice and Individualism

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN VARIOUS Free Speech articles I've spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos, and of course, with Jews -- especially about our problems with Jews, in deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I'd like to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about what's wrong with White people.

Actually, this is such a huge subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which I head, the National Alliance, I've been talking with members about two aspects of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of our thoughts.

If most White people weren't such terrible cowards, we wouldn't have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews, or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago. There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don't feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking. Why is that? What are White people afraid of?

I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine, for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are close to retirement, and you can't afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, "diversity," homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He's always saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if you speak out, and you decide that it's not worth it. So you grit your teeth and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero, but under the circumstances I don't think it would be fair to call you a coward either. You are just a prudent person.

The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.

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.