The Consequences of Comfort

Commentary by Dr. Pierce in May 2000 National Alliance BULLETIN:

Until quite recently, unending struggle has been the condition of mankind. Through struggle we evolved. Struggle selected the strongest and most fit for survival and eliminated the unfit. A high birthrate together with a high death rate guaranteed progress.

Since the Neolithic Revolution the progress has been intermittent, however, with periods of ease, a lowering of the death rate, survival of the less fit, and decay alternating with periods of struggle, winnowing, and advancement.

 It is not just individuals who are more or less fit, fitness is a term which applies to nations as well. When the Romans encountered the Celts and the Germans more than 2,000 years ago, the Celts and the Germans were more fit individuals than the Romans, on the average – bigger, stronger, more daring – but the Romans were more fit collectively, because they were better organized and disciplined. For the Celts the consequences of indiscipline were disastrous; where they were not annihilated, they were pushed to the western fringe of Europe.

The German peoples eventually learned the value of organization and discipline  better than anyone else, and prevailed not only over the Romans but over the rest of the world as well. When they came to North America 500 years ago, they brought the habits of organization and discipline with them from Europe, and these habits served them well in conquering the new continent and building a civilization on it.

As America’s wealth grew, the struggle ceased. Not only were children who never would have survived on the frontier kept alive to breed more weaklings, but even those individuals with good genes lost their good habits and became less fit. The second half of the 20^th century was a catastrophe in this regard. Wealthier than they had ever been before and therefore less obliged to struggle for their existence, White Americans quickly became less fit than ever before. Nor has loss of fitness only afflicted the wealthy, the growth of the welfare state has sheltered members of the working class from the consequences of failure and caused them to become less fit also.

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

The consequences of excessive wealth and ease and the 

feminization of child-raising has been a population of 

soft, morally crippled White Americans.

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

The loss of fitness has not been uniform. In some families tradition and strong leadership helped maintain good habits despite the wealth. More families, however, succumbed to the new fashion of permissive child-raising. Discipline became a bad word. Punishment was unheard of. The whole society became feminized, and the protection of children became a paramount concern; protection not only from physical dangers, but also from competition, from challenge, from disappointment, from need or even want, from the consequences of failure. Schools and other public institutions have collaborated with families in protecting and coddling children.

The consequences of excessive wealth and ease and the feminization of child-raising has been a population of soft, morally crippled White Americans. We have a generation of men who not only never had to kill another man in the struggle for survival, they grew up never having to pick up their dirty socks or actually having to work for a weekly allowance. As children they were never held accountable for anything. Everything they wanted has been given to them. They never have had to solve a problem or get themselves out of a tight spot. Many of them have no idea what hard work is. They have never been hungry, they never had to clean up their own messes, never had to suffer the real-life consequences of failure; mommy and daddy – or the welfare office – always have been there to bail them out. Concepts such as craftsmanship, performance, and responsibility are meaningless to them.

This moral debility has not affected all White Americans, of course. Those who still possess the capacity for self-discipline, for careful planning and hard work over an extended period, for enduring discomfort without complaint, for postponing gratification, and for self-criticism – a capacity expected in everyone a century ago but relatively rare today – have an enormous advantage over those who do not possess this capacity, or possess it to a smaller degree. And a similar statement can be made about organizations.

Understanding these things isn’t really helpful to the adult who has grown up without discipline or struggle, because the lack of capacity for self-discipline is almost impossible to remedy in an adult. In nearly all cases, it either is acquired early in life, or it is not acquired at all. Parents and prospective parents who understand these things, of course, are more likely to make correct decisions about raising children, if they still have the capacity to resist peer pressure and buck the trend toward even greater permissiveness.

The significance for us in all this is that if we are able to recruit selectively the better disciplined members of the White population, we can gain a significant advantage. This advantage may not be immediately apparent to a superficial observer under present conditions, but will become quite apparent when stress is applied. Which is to say, as long as the society remains tuned to the needs of the pampered and undisciplined population, the advantage of self-discipline may not stand out. When the support system breaks down, however, and the inept are left on their own – when the welfare checks stop coming, the electricity goes off, and the pampered suddenly become edible prey – those who have the habit of self-discipline will be far more likely to survive and prosper than those who don’t.

Likewise for organizations.

W.L.P.  

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 on where to draw the line in tolerating and forgiving liars

An Ethical Question

An editorial from the National Alliance Founder and Chairman to his membership in that organization's internal monthly Members BULLLETIN, July, 1995:

Several recent issues of Spotlight, a weekly tabloid for patriotic-conservative readers which is published in Washington, DC, have carried direct and indirect attacks on me, alleging that I am an enemy agent of some sort. Specifically, the Spotlight hinted a couple of months ago that I am an "FBI asset," and in the July 17 issue it expressed the belief that I am a "government ringer — probably an FBI informant."

These attacks are a renewal of a 24-year-old campaign of defamation against me by Spotlight's owner, Willis Carto. The campaign began in 1971, shortly after I founded the National Youth Alliance. At that time I was being helped by a former employee of Carto's, Louis Byers, and Carto thought it prudent to destroy the fledgling organization rather than let is grow into a competitor. He was concerned that Byers would teach me the fund-raising techniques learned while in Carto's employ and would help me enlist some of Carto's financial supporters as supporters for the National Youth Alliance.

The recent outburst of libels in Spotlight is in response to the informal relationship which exists between the Alliance and the Institute for Historical Review/ Noontide Press, with which Carto was affiliated until his ouster a couple of years ago: National Vanguard sells a number of books published by the IHR and Noontide Press, and Noontide Press advertises one book (my Gun Control in Germany, 1938-1945) published by us. Carto has been engaged in an extremely bitter fight with IHR/Noontide Press ever since he was given the boot, and his tactic is to attack anyone he regards as an ally of his enemy.

Now, there are honest disagreements aplenty among persons who are opposed to the present government in Washington and its policies, and all too often these disagreements lead to public fights. The Alliance's ideology and/or policies are different from those of many individuals and organizations with whom we maintain friendly liaison or even collaborate actively. In such cases we try to keep our differences out of the way and focus on the things which can be mutually beneficial, and we have been able to avoid public fights.

The attacks on me by Carto are not the result of any honest disagreement. They are conscious, deliberate, and unprovoked lies. Carto uses lies as a tactic in fighting those he perceives as enemies, as well as in attracting donations from those who support him.

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

"'All's fair in love and war'...Deceiving an enemy in time of war never has been regarded as reprehensible."

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

It has been said, "All's fair in love and war," and indeed most of us feel no obligation to be truthful in dealing with those who are trying to destroy our race. If a lie will gain us an advantage in this war, then we feel obliged to lie. Deceiving an enemy in time of war never has been regarded as reprehensible. At the same time, however, most of us believe that lying in other circumstances — merely to gain a personal advantage, for example — is dishonorable.

Where does one draw the line between justifiable and unjustifiable lying? Carto could say that his lies about me are justified, because he is fighting for the survival of his various enterprises, including Spotlight, and Spotlight is an important asset in the war against America's enemies. He could even justify the lies in Spotlight intended to bring in large donations from its readers in the same way: fooling suckers in order to get donations from them is justified, as long as the donations are used for a good purpose, such as publishing more issues of Spotlight.

This sort of justification is troubling. More troubling are the people who don't even worry about justifications. Carto may be a crook, they say, but he is doing good, and so we should not speak ill of him. And, to give the devil his due, Carto has done some good things. He was the principal mover in launching the IHR 17 years ago, for example, even though he now stands accused by the IHR's directors of embezzling more than $7,000,000 in IHR funds and may end up in prison on that charge. When he was kicked out of the IHR, he used his money to launch a competing revisionist publication, The Barnes Review, which is an admirable little magazine.

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

"Where does one draw the line between justifiable

and unjustifiable lying?"

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

Spotlight, (Now American Free Press) Carto's principal asset, is not one of the good things he has done. Its appeal is primarily to elderly cranks — and to a certain number of younger cranks as well. It caters to the credulous and the naive, to readers who like to be titillated with what is billed as "inside" information about the "Conspiracy." It has carried numerous articles about miraculous cancer cures suppressed by the greedy medical establishment, about miraculous energy sources suppressed by the greedy oil companies, and about miraculous schemes for keeping one's savings away from the greedy Internal Revenue Service. It always has had a low regard for the truth and a sure instinct for the issues that would make elderly, conspiracy-minded conservatives reach for their checkbooks.

Despite its National Enquirer flavor — or perhaps because of that — Spotlight has become the most widely read periodical in the conservative, anti-government camp. That fact does not speak well for the powers of discrimination of the anti-government forces. Fortunately, not many Alliance members are Spotlight readers. Nevertheless, some are, and so the case of Willis Carto serves as a relevant illustration of the ethical question with which we should be concerned: Should lying of the sort in which Carto engages be tolerated or forgiven, because he is approximately on "our side"? More generally, should behavior of the sort which would not be tolerated by honorable men in a civilized society be tolerated under our present circumstances?

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

"Among our ancestors, long before Christianity, thieves and liars were not tolerated, because lying and stealing destroyed the bond of trust between neighbors..."

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

I believe that it should not. I put a short section in our Membership Handbook about the amoral person. I believe that most members agree with me on this question in a general way. Nevertheless, I have seen too many examples of amoral behavior on the part of people who claim to be on "our side" — and not just Carto. There seems to be a feeling that because our society is falling apart all the bonds of right behavior have been loosened, and that we aren't obliged to judge people by the same strict standards which prevailed a century ago. We see so much crookedness on the part of politicians, bureaucrats, and the media today that our moral sense becomes numbed.

Right behavior did not develop among our people simply for its own sake or for religious reasons. It developed because it was conducive to our survival and progress as a people. Among our ancestors, long before Christianity, thieves and liars were not tolerated, because lying and stealing destroyed the bond of trust between neighbors which was necessary for a strong community. Communities which tolerated such behavior perished, and those which did not survived and prospered, on the average. That's how we developed our sense of right behavior in the first place.

If we are to continue building an Alliance strong enough to overcome its enemies, we must not tolerate anyone among us who lies or steals, either in time of peace or in time of war.

W.L.P.