Dr. Pierce's National Alliance Policy Opposed to Christian Doctrine

NOTE: The following was written by Dr. Pierce in 1992 and included in the original edition of the National Alliance Membership Handbook (pages 46-51). Unfortunately, this entire important policy guideline -- that some would say is what set the National Alliance apart from other pro-White organizations -- was removed altogether in the second edition that was published by those who took over the National Alliance after the death of its Founder and Guiding Light for 30+ years, Dr. William L. Pierce.

2.d. OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES

2d.vii. Christianity
The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with the temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes our work.

Dr. Pierce on The History Channel

Guns, Race, and Freedom

Dr. Pierce interviewed by Ron Doggett

Does America Deserve To Live?

Dr. William Luther Pierce

Attack! newspaper, issue No. 41, 1975


Elsewhere in this Attack! is an article about the loss of freedom in Britain and Canada. These are freedoms which were once greatly cherished by the ancestors of the present inhabitants of those two countries. Today, however, their passing is hardly noticed.

The average Englishman may be furious with his government for insisting that he admit "sambos" and "wogs" into his social clubs, but he couldn't care less that his government is preparing to jail writers who warn of the growing power of organized Jewry. After all, he himself ordinarily reads nothing but the results of the latest soccer match. And when he is in the mood for something more, the same paperback romances will always be available at the nearest bookstall.

While the Canadian police launch nighttime raids on the homes of citizens suspected of owning "racist" literature, the average Canadian remains unconcerned. He is sure that the victims of these raids are "extremists" — odd people who make a fuss about the most uninteresting things and only cause trouble for decent folk. Certainly, his daily newspaper or TV would tell him if it were anything for him to be alarmed about.

Those Britons and Canadians with more insight than the Andy Capps, the doctors and the lawyers and the other members of the educated elite, can see the danger — that is, those of them who are willing to look. But they, too, remain silent. They feel that they cannot afford to provoke the powers that be. They have their investments to think about. Besides, they have always looked down their noses at the crude, physical tactics of those who oppose their governments' racial policies.