Structural Guidelines

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

ONE OF THE greatest difficulties some Alliance members have is reconciling present Alliance activities with long-term Alliance goals. They expect the Alliance to be doing the sorts of things right-wing organizations traditionally do, such as carrying protests signs in the streets, issuing ultimatums to the government, putting up candidates for public office, and so on. Because the Alliance is expending only a minimal amount of energy on such activities at this time, there is a tendency to dismiss the Alliance as “just a publishing organization.”

Another difficulty is understanding why the Alliance addresses itself to a rather more perceptive and intelligent audience than right-wing groups generally do, instead of addressing itself to “the masses.”

These difficulties are caused by a failure to appreciate the nature of the task the Alliance faces and an ignorance of the Alliance’s strategy for accomplishing that task.

The long-range goal of the Alliance is bringing about a fundamental transformation of human life on this planet. A showdown with the System will not be the culmination of our struggle, but only an acute phase. And the purely political aspect of our struggle is only a temporary aspect, and far from the most significant in the long run.

The aims of the Alliance, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, go so far beyond those of traditionalists, conservative, right-wing, or other racially oriented organizations that thinking of the Alliance in familiar right-wing terms can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. The first step, then, in understanding the synopsis which follows is clearing one's mind of all right-wing notions and remembering that the Alliance is unique.

The strategy of the Alliance consists of three elements. The first element is to build a functioning structure of cadres: men and women of exceptional character and intelligence who share the Alliance’s world view, are unconditionally committed to the Alliance’s goals, and form integral, fully participating units in the Alliance structure. The second element is to use the Alliance structure to exert an educational influence on the general populace (“the masses”). The third element is to use the Alliance structure in a radical manner at such time as its capabilities and the situation of the system combine to give the Alliance sufficient historical leverage to effect a radical and permanent change leading to the Alliance’s superseding the System.

Dr. Pierce Discusses Shabbos Goy Chris Christie

[Chris Christie is] "a fellow who will always go along in order to get along."

- Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)

Commentary from the October 1983 issue of National Alliance Bulletin:

Chris Christie angered over National Alliance presence on campus 

The reaction of University of Delaware officials and the "in crowd" on the student newspaper staff and in the student government, as indicated in the student newspaper, to an Alliance leaflet distribution was disappointing but not surprising. The student government president, Chris Christie, quoted in the student newspaper article reproduced here, is pictured elsewhere in the newspaper flashing a toothy TV smile suitable for a political candidate. He has the distinct appearance of a young man cut out to become president of the local Jaycees wherever he take up residency after graduation: a fellow who will always go along in order to get along.

                                                Flashing toothy TV smile suitable for a political candidate

What is more interesting is the reaction of the university officials, who acted as if the making available to the students and faculty at the University of Delaware of the names of the men who own and/or mange America’s news and entertainment media were a crime--or, at least, a very reprehensible act of "racial and religious discrimination." This is almost exactly the reaction which member James McDonald received from local officials in San Jose, CA, when he distributed information on the racial characteristics of rapists there (see "The Law" in NV No. 97.) And it is the reaction which members can expect to encounter more frequently in the future, as the fear of heresy become stronger and stronger among demoralized, frightened, insecure White Americans. Increasingly they will seek the approval of Jews, Blacks, and other organized minorities by turning on anyone who speaks out against the revealed religion of multiracial equality and brotherhood. This fear-conditioned behavior, immune to reason, will not change so long as the unorganized White masses perceive organized minorities as stronger than organized, racially conscious Whites.

The best way for Alliance members to combat this behavior is through boldness: by handing leaflets directly to students instead of surreptitiously placing them under windshield wipers at night, by deliberately engaging then in discussion on the issues, by challenging apologists for the Jews to public debate, by speaking out in social-studies classes whenever the opportunity arises, by becoming as insistent and obnoxious as necessary to gain equal space in the student newspaper, by knowing exactly what their rights and the laws are. The other side cannot, of course, debate the issues on the facts, since the facts are against them. Therefore, the Chris Christie types, when faced with a bold, capable Alliance member, must either back down and look foolish and weak, or they must resort to Jewish methods: lawyerly debating tricks and deception, emotional appeals, organized badgering and heckling, even physical intimidation--especially if there is a large non-White contingent on the campus.

Republican Party presidential hopeful Chris Christie with friends

There are few Alliance members who are usually able to acquit themselves well in such situations; they have quick wits, steady nerves, and strong lungs. Others can develop their abilities in this direction, to a certain extent, through training and practice. But there are many members who will not perform well in such situations. They can use their energies more effectively in one-on-one personal recruiting, in assisting someone else who is experienced and capable at public reaching--or in individual impersonal recruiting activities which involve a minimum of public contact, such as placing leaflets under windshield wipers.

It should be understood, however, that these last-mentioned activities cannot be expected to have a significant effect on public opinion, which is formed almost entirely by sub-rational processes; facts alone, outside a personal-social context, mean very little to the average citizen. Even a leaflet as simple and straightforward as Who Rules America? can hardly be assimilated by someone who is afraid that the information therein may be dangerous or ever controversial. A saturation of a university campus with leaflets will not by itself--without a good deal of accompanying, effective public activity--cause the average White student to change his attitudes. The "verbal and physical abuse" of Jews at the University of Delaware mentioned in the student newspaper article was based entirely on an unreasoning, instinctive dislike of Jews by White students there, not on any understanding of the Jews’ destructive role in White society.

There is some value, of course, in simply disseminating facts and ideas, whether the public is capable of making intelligent use of them or not: they are seeds, which will lodge themselves in even the most infertile minds and remain there until the opportunity to sprout and grow comes, perhaps many years later.

W.L.P.

An Act of Conscience

From National Vanguard magazine No. 104, March-April 1985

A member of the National Alliance who is a law student wrote the following report on a recent act of conscience he committed in Washington D.C. He will remain unnamed here, so that he can finish his law studies unmolested and then participate even more forcefully in the struggle for a racially progressive future.

---

Enough is enough, I told myself, as I read the announcement on my school's bulletin board: “Law Student Anti-Apartheid Demonstration at South African Embassy. Racism Must End. Point of contact: E. Cohen.” Anti-apartheid demonstrations had been occurring continuously at the South African embassy for nearly six months; it was now, it appeared, law students' turn to perform their duty.

These demonstrations had angered me from the beginning, but this particular one was more than I could stomach. The more I reflected on the large role played by the Jews – many of them staunch Zionists – in the demonstrations and on the total prostration, the total lack of racial pride, among my fellow White law students, the less I was able to ignore what was going to happen. I finally decided that I would attend the demonstration – to demonstrate against it.

I spent the day before the demonstration at my house preparing two placards. One of them read: “Stop the Anti-White Double Standard.” The other read: “Why No Protests Against Israel's Human Rights Violations?” I also went to the Library of Congress, where I prepared the text for a leaflet detailing human rights violations in Black African countries and in Israel. I did not presume I could reawaken any White racial pride in the benighted souls of the White demonstrators, but I thought I could at least point out the hypocrisy of their actions.

I showed up at the demonstration with my placards and my leaflets, expecting to see a dozen or so of the students from my law school. I was astonished to encounter a loud and swirling mass of some 200-300 demonstrators marching on both sides of Connecticut Avenue, carrying placards, and shouting slogans. The demonstration, it turned out, had been coordinated among all the law schools in the Washington area – there are six or seven – and among young working lawyers as well.

I surveyed the scene for a moment. I knew I would get lost in the crowd if I went too far into it. An idea occurred to me. The demonstrators on one side of the avenue were marching in a large, elongated circle, which extended out onto a nearby bridge. I took up a position on the bridge about 15 feet from the point where the circle broke to go back in the other direction. I held my placard about Israel in front of me. Every person in that circle was obliged to read it.

Somewhat surprisingly, there was very little reaction. Most of the protesters read my placard in silence. A couple of the Blacks raised their fists and said: “Right on, brother!” There were only two comments from the Whites/Jews that I heard. One said, “Who's paying you?” Another said, “The old divide-and-conquer technique, eh?” After a few minutes a fellow with black, curly hair, who was apparently an Arab, broke away from the circle and came over to me. He said, “Man, I don't think this is the right way to raise the people's consciousness.” We proceeded to argue about whether it was appropriate for me to do what I was doing where I was doing it.

At this point a Black woman with a megaphone decided to extend the marcher's circle further onto the bridge. This had nothing to with me, but it was clear that I was in the way. I decided to stay where I was. No problem: the circle just formed around me. I spent the next ten minutes or so holding my placard in the middle of the circle, as the demonstrators marched around me.

At length I decided, somewhat dejectedly, that I wasn't really accomplishing anything. I thought I would do better to show my placards to the cars passing on Connecticut Avenue, so I extricated myself from the circle and took up a position toward the far end of the bridge, facing the traffic. I held up my other placard, about the anti-White double standard. But this was an even more discouraging experience: in very few of the passing cars did I see a White face. Black, Brown, Oriental – are there no Whites left in Washington?

I decided to go home. As I began walking to my car, still carrying my placard, I saw a small Japanese car and four people, two men and two women, who appeared to be White, gathered around it. When I came closer I realized their car had a flat tire, which the younger man was changing. I saw them reading my placard. At last, I thought, I'm getting a message to some Whites. I smiled toward them as I walked by. But after I had passed them I heard the young man's voice: “I know where I can get you some free psychiatric help.”

I walked on for about ten feet, while what he had said sank in, I stopped. I turned around and walked back to their car, where I took up a position about six inches from the younger man. I looked into his pale blue eyes and chubby face: “What did you say?”

“I said you need psychiatric help.”

“Why did you say that?”

“Because I don't agree with you.”

“You must be infallible, then.”

“Leave me alone.”

I slugged him. He stepped back against the car, and the older man stepped between us. The younger man then took a further step backwards and cried out: “Leave me alone!”

I spat out my revulsion: “You're the sick one!” Then I walked away.

Back in my car I sat for a long while, thinking, wondering, doubting. Had I accomplished anything? In the distance I could hear the chants of the demonstrators: “Down with apartheid!”