Star-Spangled Symphony

From NATIONAL VANGUARD magazine Issue No. 87, June 1982:

Star-Spangled Symphony

Vic Olvir

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing….And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money.

-- I Corinthians 13 (as adapted by George Orwell)

It should have surprised no student of modern America that Jerry Rubin, the radical firebrand of the ‘60’s who once urged college kids to kill their parents, became a Wall Street stockbroker a while back. Nor that Rubin’s buddy Abbie Hoffman shortly thereafter emerged from the “underground” brandishing a number of self-enrichment plans.

Money lust is the potent yeast in the otherwise unleavened dough which is 20th-century American society. It is the underlying, ever-recurring melody in a bizarre symphony of chaos and discord. Rich and poor; Republican, Democrat, and Independent; conservative, liberal, and Marxist; atheist and Christian; Rotarian and sophisticated liberati: the love of lucre is the driving force, the holy power which unites us as a nation. Should this hideous passion of our Republic suddenly abate, the nation would simply disappear like so many handkerchiefs in a third-rate magic act.

All the heralded “revolutions” against money-thought in America have been nothing but pathetic shams. The bohemians of the ‘20’s became real-estate entrepreneurs. The Reds of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s became high-living Hollywood luminaries. The beatniks of the ‘50’s were transformed into prophetic literary lions by the liberal press. The hippies of the ‘60’s opened boutiques and developed into fashion dictators. And, of course, those two comical and entertaining Jewish guys, Rubin and Hoffman, have at last found their predestined niche in society.

And while no one can predict with precise accuracy when the terrorists of the Weather Underground will begin soliciting bids for their potentially best-selling memoirs or the rights to a block-busting motion picture, anyone conversant with the sick, sick, sick psyche of the Home of the Brave can positively predict that such an event will happen sometime, somewhere.

Nor is this illumination of our dollar-dominated lives defused by the “born again” Christian phenomenon, which is simply another puerile display of the eternal child mind-set that has for so long – oh, so long – characterized the vacuous inhabitants of the New World. That whole, preposterous movement has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Western culture has traditionally considered to be “religion.” There is more religious intensity and feeling in ten lines of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or in ten square inches of an El Greco canvas, than there is in the bamboozled brains of ten million of those tiresome brethren with the fish emblems on their car windows. The principle thrust of all this holy posturing has been to make fat the stock portfolios and bank accounts of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and the other overstuffed, suede-shoe messiahs of the born-again bonanza.

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

There is more religious intensity and feeling in ten lines of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or in ten square inches of an El Greco canvas, than there is in the bamboozled brains of ten million of those tiresome brethren with the fish emblems on their car windows.

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

The subject of money and money-making mesmerizes the American. Any new book dealing with some aspect of the topic has little difficulty advancing to the top of the best-seller lists, with only the latest diet-craze tome to offer any serious competition. Schemes to get rich in real estate, mail order, pyramid sales, and food franchises are huckstered on every street corner, through the byways of every city, town, and village, feeding the avaricious dreams of the ever-hopeful, sucking up their worn and creased dollars like a gigantic vacuum cleaner.

Hundreds of financial and economic newsletters flood the market. Many of these predict imminent economic disaster while assuring us that there are profits in doom if we but harken to the sage advice of the resident wizard, who has magnanimously condescended to share his insights with the peasants – for the proper fee, naturally. Thus, after the collapse we can all come burrowing out of our holes with a ton of freeze-dried collard greens and a sackful of Krugerrands and resume our safe, bourgeois, democratic lives, only this time much richer.

A talk-show host recently stumbled onto the topic of money and the mysteries that enshroud it. It quickly became the most popular subject ever discussed on the show, and its enchantment didn’t subside for many weeks.

The voluptuous excitement that creeps over the American when he contemplates making money, and his sacrifice of family, friends, high culture, and common manners on the altar of Mammon have made the land a happy hunting ground for the Jew. Since the Jew has for centuries practiced money-thinking and is a past master of the art of amassing wealth, he is not merely a parasite on the American body politic but also a sort of senior partner to his less experienced but equally covetous fellow citizens: actually a complement to the other denizens of the Dollarocracy.

Today’s Jew who possesses great wealth is not viewed with scorn and contempt, but with admiration and envy: a complete reversal of the attitudes of the European of but a century ago. Because of their fiscal talents they are praised, pampered, fawned over, flattered, and feted. They, along with a motley Gentile gang of international shylocks based in New York, are thus the true royalty of America, the lords and sultans of Success.

To those who would say, “It’s the same everywhere,” let it be noted that money-thought rises in direct ratio to the decline of cultural ties and of racial and tribal instincts within a given land mass. The politics of most Latin American countries is dominated by money-corruption, but it is not as pandemic in the general population as it is here. In those lands and others as well there are still strong tribal bonds and a sense that the nation is a unity. Such feelings militate against money-thought on a grand scale.

Another interesting point to note is that American foreign policy has always reflected the dominance of the Dollarocracy. Wall Street would much rather deal with Marxists than with genuine nationalists who seek a third way between communism and capitalism. The unrelenting hostility of several consecutive administrations to Colonel Khaddafi of Libya is a recent case in point. A parallel situation was that of Juan Peron of Argentina; the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency waged a relentless was against him from the beginning.

Logically, it should be in the interests of the United States to encourage in all parts of the world strong and independent nationalists who are capable of making sweeping reforms. But money has its own logic, and the fraternity of shylocks who call the tune simply cannot tolerate an honest-to-God social nationalist in any country; in his person he would pose a terrible and visible threat to their own world view. And so the nationalists are pushed into the communist camp, and the Masters of Money continue to sow seeds of their own destruction and the collapse of their system in this world.

What, ultimately, defeats money? Neither pamphlets nor polemics, but the same thing that brought it victory, the evolution of Time in History, the diminishing of its fatal fascination in the hearts and minds of those very select men and women who have been chosen by some inscrutable Providence to keep alive the sacred flames of race and culture. As money-thought is excitement and life to the American of the 20th century, it will be disgust and death to those of the 21st. Money-thought has no long future, not for America, not for Europe, not for anyone – save, perhaps, Jews and other damned and hopeless races.

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

A purposeful and rich life is now possible only to those who feel and heed the call of blood, race, and culture.

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

The awful crisis of our age demands the intervention of those who think and act in terms of blood, of tribal and cultural bonds. The young men and women of today who continue to act and feel in terms of money-thought are dead without knowing it. A purposeful and rich life is now possible only to those who feel and heed the call of blood, race, and culture. They, the chosen, will well comprehend the words of the poet O’Boyle: The thirsty of soul soon learn to know/The moistureless froth of the social show;/The pious sham of the pompous feast/Where the heaviest purse is the highest priest.

The “pious sham of the pompous feast” totters toward its well-deserved grave; nothing can save it. A new world is being born in the hearts of our most valuable youth, and in the hearts of those yet unborn.

Self-Sufficiency: It Has Moral As Well As Physical Value

Editorial from National Vanguard Magazine Issue No.116, August-September 1996
Watching the News

I have friends who tell me that they don't like to watch television news broadcasts, because they find them depressing. I, on the other hand, look forward to watching the evening news every day. I usually find the news encouraging.

My friends are conservatives. I am not.

When they watch the news they see their world coming apart. They have been sacrificing and saving for years to send a son or daughter to Harvard, and what they see in the evening news gives them a nagging, subconscious worry about the ultimate value of their endeavor. Or they have been looking forward to retirement, to travel, or to a nicer home--to a time when they will be able to have a more enjoyable life--and the newscasters' images on their television screens have clouded their vision of the future, tarnished it, made it seem less attainable.

When I watch the news I see more evidence of the impending crackup of a system which has become terminally corrupt and which must be swept aside--not modified or reformed, but destroyed root and branch--before anything of lasting value can be built.

My friends depend on the system in one way or another, and so the daily portents of its imminent demise give them worry rather than pleasure. They agree with me about many of the concrete aspects of the system which are bad and which they would like to see changed: too many non-Whites, too much crime, too intrusive a government, too much environmental damage, too much Jewish power. Many even will agree about some of the more abstract problems: flawed values, flawed child-raising practices, spiritually debilitating life-styles. Their agreement is conditional, however: whatever pruning of the system is done to fix the problems must not cut off the particular limb on which they are sitting. Things need fixing, but not badly enough to jeopardize their own situations.

Thus, they felt a certain degree of embarrassment when the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was jailed for stealing public funds and the President of the United States was sued for attempting to extort sexual services from a civil servant, while I was elated: thank you, Paula Jones! The O.J. Simpson verdict gave them indigestion; it got a whoop of delight from me. They moan about affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides, while I regard these racial levelling policies as a boon--not only because such policies alienate from the government the sort of people whose collaboration and support I am seeking in my campaign against the government, but also because they undermine the morale and efficiency of such agencies as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

I would love to see a week-long failure of the electrical power grid throughout the Northeast (or any other major section of the country), whereas my conservative friends, nearly all of whom are urbanites, must regard such a prospect with undiluted horror, for they know that it would put them and their families in a very real danger of being eaten.

I don't respond to the news the way I do because of some perverse delight in watching my conservative friends squirm--although that does provide a certain satisfaction. The news makes me happy more often than not because it is a continuing confirmation that the system is not working the way its advocates want it to work. If the system were working even moderately well, then the only possibilities for getting rid of it would be an unforeseen cataclysm--perhaps a large asteroid striking the earth (preferably about half way between the District of Columbia and New York City) and doing enough damage to create a clean slate, in effect, so far as mass media and governmental structures are concerned--or gradually persuading enough conservatives to saw off the limbs on which they presently are sitting so that they could constitute an anti-system bloc large enough to overturn the power structure by more or less conventional means. The chance of the former happening is not only unknown, but presumably quite small. The chance of the latter is much less.

People, in the mass, generally take the path of least resistance. They do not knowingly act against their own perceived interests, although they may be tricked by the mass media into perceiving their interests incorrectly or manipulated through their sub-rational urges into ignoring their real interests. In other words, if the system were working in a way that satisfied most of the needs of most of the people and gave them confidence that it would continue to do so, we revolutionaries would be reduced to waiting for a cataclysm--or doing something wild and desperate, with very little chance of success.

What I see in the news is not just the potholes in the road to the New World Order, but the fundamental structural flaws which assure me that the road will give way altogether and dump those depending on it into the swamp of chaos. It is built on the lie of equality. It is bedded in the crackpot assumption that one can take the diverse peoples and nations of the world, break down their ages-old institutions and customs, dissolve the bonds which have joined the individuals to their natural communities, obliterate their sense of racial or ethnic identity, and then pour the mass of indistinguishable "human" units so produced into a giant blender, which, with a heavy infusion of the right sort of propaganda, will yield the batter from which a strong and enduring New World Order can be cast.

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

What I see in the news is not just the potholes in the road to the New World Order, but the fundamental structural flaws which assure me that the road will give way altogether and dump those depending on it into the swamp of chaos.

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

Knowing that the present system will fail and being able to see the evidence of that impending failure growing day by day is the source of much of my optimism. The same evidence is the source of most of my conservative friends' pessimism.

There are other differences between me and my conservative friends: differences in temperament--and undoubtedly differences in values as well, despite their agreement with me on many issues. But the most important difference is one of situation: my conservative friends have structured their lives so that they are dependent on the present system in many ways, while I have deliberately made myself as independent of the system as I could.

When I left Washington, D.C., 11 years ago and began living on a mountain in one of the more primitive and remote areas of West Virginia, I tried to restructure my life in a way that left me with as little dependence on the government and the rest of the world as possible. My motivation was not fear of an imminent collapse of the system, but rather a desire to be able to do what I believed to be right without any strings holding me back. I wanted as little conflict as possible between my self-interest and my conscience.

I wanted to live on land on which I could hunt my meat and grow my own fruit and vegetables if I had to. I deliberately chose to heat all the dwellings on my mountain with windfall firewood and otherwise to minimize my dependence on outside utilities. And in fact, during massive power failures due to flooding in the valley below my mountain, one of which lasted four days and resulted in thousands of my low-lying neighbors seeking help from the National Guard and various Federal relief agencies, I was quite comfortable.

It is this difference in situations which, more than anything else, accounts for my optimism and my conservative friends' pessimism. Fortunately, some of my friends--the harder-headed ones--are beginning to draw some conclusions from what they see in the news and are beginning to look for ways to disentangle their own futures from that of the system. This is a development with very promising consequences.

I don't expect a mass exodus from the cities any time soon, with every White conservative headed for Idaho, Montana, or West Virginia. For most of them such a move is not economically feasible. Many have become too soft, mentally as well as physically, to end their dependence on the urban infrastructure. They wouldn't know how to handle a firearm or a chainsaw. They are too accustomed to paying a monthly bill for their water, their waste disposal, and their heat, and being able to telephone for the police or the fire department in an emergency.

The disentanglement I see developing is more a mental break with the system than a physical move away from it. A growing number of people now in their 20s and 30s who two generations ago would have looked forward to regular and dependable Social Security checks as the major part of their retirement income have stopped worrying about the impending bankruptcy of the Social Security system and have simply written off Social Security as their retirement mainstay; instead they are making other arrangements: investments which are more under their own control and less dependent on the solvency of the government.

Conservative parents, no matter how much they may worry about falling standards at Harvard, still haven't figured out an alternative to university training to keep their kids from slipping down into the proletariat. But more parents than ever before are postponing the exposure of their offspring to Political Correctness and the joys of multiculturalism by opting for home schooling--at least during the critical first few years.

Telecommuting, of course, is available to the fortunate few with the right skills. It frees them from the urban environment, but it still leaves them dependent on a monthly paycheck. Some, however, are able to go beyond telecommuting and achieve a greater degree of economic separation from the system by choosing self-employment. The balance between employee and free-lancer is shifting toward the latter with the ongoing erosion of the long-term economic security of employment, as the deindustrialization of America continues. It is more than the computer and economics which is driving the shift to self-employment, though: in many cases the person who chooses to be self-employed has made a conscious decision to minimize his dependence on the system.

Perhaps the most significant trend in this regard is the growing number of conservatives who are buying themselves a piece of mountain land as far away from the nearest urban area as possible and then spending their vacations building a cabin on it: not just a vacation home or a place for hunting, but a genuine getaway, a refuge to which they can retreat when life in the city is no longer feasible.

All of these uneasy conservatives who have made some sort of break with the system constitute only a minority so far. But the majority, lacking the skills or the savings or the initiative or the courage of the minority, are at least making an emotional break: more and more of them no longer become more worried when they see some new crack appearing in the system's structure: instead they become more angry. They can see their more fortunate or more able brethren packing their bags, in a manner of speaking, and the suspicion grows in them that they, the ones with no bags to pack, will be the ones left behind to satisfy the jungle appetites of the "equals" when the lights go off for good.

The promising thing about this process of loss of faith in the system and subsequent voluntary dissociation from it is that it is a nonlinear process: it feeds on itself and eventually reaches an avalanche stage. It is not necessary for me to urge my conservative friends to make the break: just seeing others do it will cause the pressure to build.

And there's nothing the evil creatures running this show from behind the scenes can do to stop the process. No amount of "fine tuning" can repair a system which is founded on false premises and is fundamentally unworkable. They can hardly abandon their egalitarian theory; if they did, their whole coalition of perverts, non-Whites, moral cripples, and other "equals," all of whom owe their free ride to the theory, would turn on them. Nor can they relax their grip by permitting any responsible or honorable man or any man not firmly in their control to attain high office. They really have a tiger by the tail. When potholes appear, all they can do is patch them with ever larger doses of the same lies and crackpot assumptions.

So, if watching the news is often depressing to my conservative friends, imagine what it is like for the liberals! Day by day they see the system on which they depend not only for their physical sustenance but also for their spiritual sustenance coming unraveled. They worry, like the conservatives, but in addition to worry a burning hatred grows in their souls. The conservatives have at least some degree of understanding that the system is failing because of its false basis, but to the liberals egalitarianism is as sound as gravity. Since the system cannot be failing due to its inherent falseness, the problem must lie with its external enemies: heterosexual White males must be conspiring to cause the system not to function properly, the dirty dogs!

The more they think about it the more hateful they become. How dare those White racists criticize the O.J. Simpson verdict! It's obvious that that racist cop, Mark Fuhrman, framed O.J., and the Black jury was smart enough to figure it out.

How dare those working-class Whites complain about affirmative action employment programs or about government programs to relocate Blacks from the inner cities to the White suburbs! They're nothing but haters and bigots, and they should be locked up for opposing our efforts to "equalize" them with African-Americans.

And how dare those militias and Freemen not love our government! Don't those stupid rednecks realize what a wonderful instrument of progress the government is? How could we ever get to the New World Order without the government?

The unanimously venomous attitude of the controlled media toward the Montana Freemen, a harmless bunch of hard-luck farmers with whacky religious ideas and whackier ideas about economics and finance, was revealing. The Freemen never hurt anyone and never intended to hurt anyone, but they refused to accept the authority of the government--the government upon which the liberals depend to implement ideas far whackier than anything dreamed up by the Freemen--and so editorial writers raged at them and urged the FBI to advance on them with machine guns and flamethrowers blazing.

One of the most powerful indicators of the way in which liberals are responding to the news these days has been their reaction to the burnings of Black churches across the South. No sooner had the controlled media declared the church burnings to be a major issue than Mr. Clinton was on television announcing that he "knew" that organized White racism was responsible, and it wouldn't be tolerated.

I wondered at the time whether or not Mr. Clinton had some inside information, because I wasn't sure at all that the burnings were an organized effort by White racists. It may yet turn out that way, but I strongly doubt it: I know lots of White racists, organized and otherwise, and this just isn't their style. A boozed-up Ku Kluxer might have torched a Black church here or there, but the multi-state string of burnings just doesn't have the feel of the work of a White racist organization.

Apparently the secret police figured that too. They learned in school that most cases of arson are associated with insurance fraud, and so they began questioning Black parishioners and asking Black preachers to take lie-detector tests, causing an outburst of liberal indignation in the controlled media. The racist cops are blaming the victims! Quit investigating Blacks and start arresting White racists!

A typical case was an editorial in the Charleston Gazette (June 18), a raving-liberal West Virginia newspaper which is an embarrassment to an otherwise decent state:

Raw racism seems to be the motive.

As we've said before, Americans generally are decent, compassionate people who don't feel racial hate. But the nation still has a vein of bigotry--and a few racists are brutal enough to join hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Freemen.

Extreme bigots presumably are starting the fires, even though investigators haven't yet found evidence of an organized conspiracy. Our guess is that a few white rednecks, half drunk in a Southern roadhouse, see a TV report of a Black church burning and decide to inflict the same punishment on Blacks in their vicinity.

Churches are a natural target for race-haters. . . . Just because they're idiots doesn't mean they aren't disgusting criminals who must be locked in prison. The wave of black church fires has gripped the conscience of America. Leaders and groups at every level are calling for a national crackdown. Decent Americans who feel no hostility should lend their voices to the outcry and exert pressure until all the arsonists are prosecuted.

"Raw racism seems to be the motive." "Extreme bigots presumably are starting the fires." What the editor really means is that he hopes White racists are burning the churches, so that they can be caught and punished. He's praying that a racist conspiracy will be discovered, so that it can be stamped out, hopefully with a high body count. And as for "Americans who feel no hostility," he clearly is not among them.

Or consider this bit of rabid commentary by Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan. It was in the June 13 edition and was titled "Church Bombers and The Turner Diaries":

I think that there is a grotesque conspiracy to "save the white race" afoot in America, and that the church bombings [sic] are part of a plot to provoke blacks to react violently, thus giving all the hate groups in the land an excuse to uncover their caches of weapons and use them against blacks and against whites who sympathize with blacks.

I have turned anew to The Turner Diaries, the revolutionary "bible" of the Montana Freemen, the Aryan Supremacists, and the militiamen and others who threaten to "solve the race problem" by killing Blacks, Jews, and liberals. This little 210-page book written by West Virginia professor William Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald is the most diabolically violent plan for solving America's racial and social problems that I have ever read.

 Rowan follows with a long extract from The Turner Diaries to prove his point and concludes:

The bigots who seek to destroy "the system" clearly believe that even if they burned 10,000 black churches, most of "the white race" would side with them if outraged blacks or their federal protectors took up arms against the arsonists. Federal authorities know this; thus their caution, even timidity, in cracking down on the Freemen, or the rash of new hate groups, or the weird souls who are stockpiling weapons they expect to use against their state and federal governments.

The church bombings reflect a race madness that is far worse than we want to think it is. A lot more people are in grave danger than those who worship in black churches.

Hatred and hostility, stemming from fear, in the Charleston Gazette ; galloping paranoia, stemming from fear, in the Washington Post. And these two examples are pretty typical of the liberal response everywhere to the church burnings.

The facts are not yet all in, but the arson cases which have been solved to date suggest something quite different from Bill Clinton's or Carl Rowan's assumption of a White racist conspiracy or even the Charleston Gazette's assumption of groups of White rednecks wanting to punish Blacks.

Alabama Fire Marshal John Robison has investigated 38 cases of arson or suspected arson of churches in Alabama, 15 of them Black churches, since 1991, and he's found no evidence of racial motives in any of them. In one case, that of the Antioch A.M.E. Church in Fort Deposit, the Black minister was charged with burning her own church. "The pastor was upset with the congregation about money; she felt she didn't get paid enough," said Robison.

On June 18 four Black children, aged 12 and under, were arrested for setting a fire in a Black church in Florence, South Carolina. Of 27 church fires which have been investigated in South Carolina since 1991, 15 of them were in Black churches, and a total of six Whites and six Blacks have been arrested in connection with those 15 cases.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has investigated seven church burnings in Georgia during the past 18 months. Six of the seven churches had White congregations. The one Black church which was burned, in February 1995, was torched by a Black juvenile.

On June 19 two Black men were arrested in Columbus County, North Carolina, and charged with burning a building on the grounds of the Black Mount Tabor Baptist Church. The previous week a 12-year-old White girl was arrested for setting a fire which destroyed an abandoned building on the grounds of a Black church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Pretty inconclusive evidence, it seems to me--although I wouldn't bet that Mr. Clinton's BATF goons can't find some kind of conspiracy, if they try hard enough to please their boss.

The hysterical reaction of liberals to all of this suggests several things. First, liberals want there to be a White conspiracy behind it, because that would tend to confirm their theory about race relations generally: namely, whenever things don't work the way liberal theory says they should work, the reason is White racism. Second, they really believe there is a White conspiracy, because so many of their plans have been going off the rails lately that they're becoming a little paranoid. Third, they're frightened; it's clear that more and more people are turning against the government, or at least losing faith in the government, and the government is the only protection which stands between them and the wrath of the heterosexual White males they have treated so contemptuously for so long. It is their fear, I believe, which explains the increasing level of viciousness and hatred we are seeing in liberal condemnations of the government's enemies.

Yes, watching the news these days is hard on my conservative friends--but it really must be killing the liberals!

W.L.P

Principles of Organization

From ATTACK! Tabloid, November 1974:

Dear Friends and Fellow Fighters for a New Order:

The proper structure of any organization depends on the goals of that organization and the conditions under which it is obliged to strive toward those goals. The long-range goals of the National Alliance are of unprecedented magnitude, and the conditions under which we must work, while not unprecedented in difficulty, are certainly formidable enough.

We want to build a whole new world, and we want to build it on a radically different ideological basis from that of the present world. In order to do so we must contend with the most determined and even fanatical opposition from the carriers of the Judeo-liberal-democratic sickness and from all those with a vested interest in the present System. Unfortunately, our opponents are able to marshal overwhelming forces against us and have almost unlimited resources at their disposal. Their chief strength, of course, is their monopoly control of the mass media. Not to be forgotten, however, are their dreadful power of the purse and their ability to deploy all the police powers of the state against us.

We are at present not only a minority but an unpopular minority. If our fellow Americans had not been hypnotized by the mass media, most of them would find themselves in agreement with the ideals for which we stand. But the Enemy has managed to raise a barrier of fear and misunderstanding between us and the public, a barrier which we must break down.

Although a national awakening is already beginning, until we have been able to completely overcome the insidious effects of the Enemy’s brainwashing of our fellow Americans – and that is a task which must be measured in years – we must count on the continued indifference or hostility of many of those we are trying to reach, and we will remain a minority, albeit a growing one.

These considerations condition the general organizational principles which guide us in the building the Alliance. Those general principles are:

1) FUNCTIONALITY. The Alliance must grow in a functional way. Its form and structure must be determined, first, by its primary task, which is the propaganda of our message of hope for a spiritual rebirth and a new life for our race; and, second, by its secondary task, which is to provide, eventually, the complete organizational framework for a new society and a new government. In other words, we are and will remain, first and foremost, a propaganda-making organization. We understand the term propaganda in its broadest sense, including both propaganda of the word and propaganda of the deed – in short, all feasible means for capturing the hearts and minds of our fellows.

But we are also the see of a new society, a new racial and national community. As time passes and we gain members, that seed will grow into a complete and functional community within the larger

community which it will one day replace, a state within the state which it will one day supersede.

2) MASS ORIENTATION. The Alliance must have a mass basis of support and of participation in its program, and it must keep is propaganda oriented toward a mass audience. It must avoid dependence for its support upon the representatives of any single special interest, and it must not restrict its appeal to any segment of the population defined in terms of occupation, income, age, geography, educational level, or present ideological orientation.

3) PERSONALITY. From the generalized mass which responds to its appeal, the Alliance sifts out those most capable of strengthening its cadres. The structure of the organization must always be such that the man or woman with greater understanding and self-discipline is able to fill a proportionately greater role in its program and make a larger contribution to its efforts than those less well endowed.

4) UNITY. The Alliance must be monolithic in purpose, in doctrine, and in strategy. Although it draws its recruits from left and right, from both radical and conservative elements of the population, and although it utilizes them in many different ways and to many different degrees, it must keep them always directed toward the common purpose.

5) FLEXIBILITY. In tactics the Alliance must remain completely flexible. Any means are permissible in achieving its ends, so long as the means do not contradict the ends.

Though our purpose remains unchanging, we may change tactics from day to day or use different tactics in different places at the same time. Our doctrine is based on the eternal and God ordained laws of Nature, but our tactics are based on the demands and the resources of the moment.

The ways in which these five principles of organization are applied to the structure and growth of the Alliance cannot be fully discussed here, but a few illustrative examples can be given. The principle of functionality lies behind the relative emphasis given to the production and public distribution of ATTACK!, as opposed to other activities which might receive this emphasis instead. An ultra-left group, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, can kidnap someone or blow up a government building, and the news media will glamorize that group and disseminate its message to the public.

That doesn’t work for us, however. If we want the public to recognize and understand us, we must reach them through our own channels of communication. Since our aim is to replace existing institutions with our own, we must develop the basis for a smoothly functioning propaganda machine which can grow and diversify and become stronger until it if effectively competing with the controlled media for the attention of the public.

The principle of mass orientation has not played as large a role in the growth of the Alliance as it will in the future. When the economy is functioning smoothly enough so that the average citizen can maintain his accustomed standard of living, it’s hard to attract his attention to even the most urgent racial, social, or political issues. The world may be crumbling into ruin around him, but so long as he can sit in front of his TV set with his beer, he doesn’t care. Only a racially conscious minority will respond to the appeal of the Alliance under such conditions.

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

   [T]he Alliance provides a maximum opportunity for individual initiative on the part of its members. Those who seize this opportunity are able to play a leading role in the development of the Alliance. Those who do not will never be artificially boosted into leading positions.

************************ 

But when the economy falters, the masses become more receptive to criticism of the System and more willing to consider alternatives. There has already been an increase in emphasis on economic issues in our propaganda in the last few months, and the future will see a further shift in this direction as well as the introduction of new propaganda techniques more suited for reaching a mass audience than our previous efforts.

Our mass orientation affects the choice of our means of propaganda as well as its content. Thus, we have shifted from mailing as the primary means for the dissemination of our propaganda materials, to street distributions. Mailings generally go to a minority which has already given some evidence of a particular ideological orientation, whereas street distributions reach everyone.

The principle of personality stems from a recognition that human history is a record of the thoughts, achievements, and deeds of exceptional individuals. Applied to the structuring of a society or an organization, it tells us that the most progressive structure is the one which has built into it a mechanism of natural selection for bringing those individuals of greatest ability and will into positions of leadership.

Thus, the Alliance provides a maximum opportunity for individual initiative on the part of its members. Those who seize this opportunity are able to play a leading role in the development of the Alliance. Those who do not will never be artificially boosted into leading positions. Authority within the Alliance is always earned, never bestowed as a favor.

The policy of the Alliance, which consists of members widely distributed geographically, is maintained through the leading role played by the National Office. Although individual members and Action Units often produce their own leaflets dealing with local issues and otherwise engage in propaganda on their own initiative, ATTACK! provides the ideological guidelines for everyone.

Speech in Parma, Ohio, 10 November 1996

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

The History & Significance of the Life Rune
by Jim Dewitt

From National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 105, May-June 1985



Printed on the inside cover of each NATIONAL VANGUARD is the statement: The symbol which appears in the NATIONAL VANGUARD logotype is the Life Rune. It comes from an ancient alphabet, or futhark, used in northern Europe for many centuries before the general adoption of the Roman alphabet there. The Life Rune signifies life, creation, birth, rebirth, and renewal. It expresses in a single symbol the raison d'etre of the National Alliance.

Like the cross and various sun signs, the symbol is an ancient one. Over 3,000 years ago the Germanic peoples of northern Europe carved it on rocks, along with other pre-runic figures, perhaps as a sign of a man with arms reaching upward and addressing the gods.

Later -- something between 2,000 and 1,800 years ago -- the Germanic peoples began using a script having 24 characters, with both phonetic and magical-symbolic values, called runes. These were organized in a system known as the "futhark." The name "futhark" derives from the initial sounds of the names of the first six runes, that is: feo - ur - thurs - asa - rit - kaan.  This is similar to the way in which the word "alphabet" comes from the names of the first two Greek letters, alpha and beta.

In addition to the original Germanic futhark, there were two principle later runic systems: the expanded Anglo-Saxon, with up to 33 runes; and the reduced Norse, with 16 runes. Although many runes are common to the various futharks, the names and phonetic values of a given rune are not always the same. Most runic characters were made up of straight vertical and diagonal strokes to facilitate their carving on wood stone, and metal.

Over 5,000 runic inscriptions have been preserved. Although these were scattered by Norse rovers from Greenland to Greece, the vast majority of them are found in Sweden. Many of these are carved on commemorative monuments, or rune stones.

The more efficient Roman alphabet eventually supplanted the futhark for most purposes throughout northern Europe, but runes continued to be used in a few places -- especially in Scandinavia -- as late as the 17th century.

The origin of runes and the futhark is as murky as the water in the depths of today's polluted Rhine. The evidence is sparse, and scholars disagree in their interpretations of it.

Some authorities speculate that the futhark simply derived from German contact with Greek or North Italic writing, about 2,000 years ago. Others suggest that the futhark and the various southern European alphabets come independently from an older, common European script. Many German, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan characters did have similar forms. For example, the figure we call the Life Rune occurred in the early Greek and Etruscan alphabets, as well as in the Germanic futhark.

It even has been proposed that the futhark must have been the brainchild of one man, rather than an evolutionary development, much as the Gothic alphabet was the creation of Bishop Wulfila, and the Cyrillic alphabet was the work of St. Cyril.

Runic writing was primarily used for Germanic religious and magical purposes: for gravestone inscriptions, for dedications, and for spells and charms. These roles overshadowed its function as a utilitarian script. The word "rune" itself comes from a Germanic root meaning a secret or a mystery; it implies arcane knowledge and wisdom. Runecraft was originally a private, esoteric practice, engaged in by those considered to be magicians. (Of course, in a preliterate society anyone who could communicate by writing might be thought of as a magician.)

Each rune had a name related to the sound of the character: names like "hail," "ice," and "birch." A single rune could stand for its name-word itself, as well as for the sound associated with that word. It was thought to have magical powers that could be used to evoke, or protect against, the force contained in that name. Runes were often inscribed on weapons, tools, and rings to give them talismanic powers.

The 15th rune in the original Germanic futhark is the one with which we are especially concerned here. It appears variously with diagonal strokes pointing upward, downward, or in both directions. All these forms represented the same sound, originally "z." Rune masters wrote individual runes up or down, left or right, without distinction. Nor was there any single convention for the direction in which lines of runes were written.

The symbol we call the Life Rune was not known as such in futhark times. In the original Germanic futhark this rune was known variously as the Axe Rune and the Elk Rune. It signified defense.

Later, in the reduced Norse futhark of the Viking Age, a formal dichotomy developed. The arms-upward rune was known as the Man Rune and had an "m" sound. The arms-downward rune had the strong palatalized "r." It was called the Yew Rune or "bow made of yew wood," a symbol of death.

The medieval Christian church used the Axe Rune/Man Rune form as a variation of the cross. They simply bent the arms of the Latin cross upward at about a 45-degree angle to form a stylized crucifix, known as the forked cross. The shape is also suggestive of a tree. Gregory the Great, who was Pope from 590 to 604, wore a forked cross on his vestment. Fork-cross crucifixes are common in Westphalia and parts of Austria and Italy even today.

Conversely, enemies of Christianity -- Saracens, Satanists, and others -- bent the arms of the Latin cross downward to signify the crucifix broken.

Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon Christian churchmen were, in some respects, tolerant of Germanic tradition and dabbled in the use of runes as script. However, in the 17th century Iceland people were burned as witches because runic inscriptions had been found in their possession. An official prohibition of the use of runes was thought necessary in 1639. About that time many runic monuments were destroyed in Britain.

Long after futhark times, runiform designs served as identification and decoration marks. Axe Rune/Man Rune forms were not uncommon as heraldic devices on family coats of arms.

The Romantic movement of the 19th century generated a renewed interest in things heroic, Norse, and runic that is still with us today. The designation of the Norse Man Rune as the rune of life and the Norse Yew Rune as the rune of death is principally a formulation of the late 19th/early 20th century Romantic runology of Guido von List and other German rune mystics.

In Germany, Life and Death Runes were used in newspaper obituaries, death notices, and on gravestones: The Life Rune by the date of the person's birth and the Death Rune by the date of his passing.

The National-Socialists were inspired by the rune lore of their remote Germanic past, and they made use of the Life Rune and Death Rune in many aspects of their cultural life.

Runic emblems were also a prominent feature of National-Socialist military and civil service regalia. Among the runes used were the Tyr Rune (after the Norse god of war for whom Tuesday is named), the Sun Rune, and the Life Rune. The Life Rune was used to identify members of National-Socialist women's associations, welfare workers, and medical personnel in a number of organizations.

The designers of the emblem conceived for the nuclear disarmament movement in the late 1950's -- later known as the "peace" symbol -- were aware of the Death Rune context. They described their design as a highly stylized human being with arms only slightly raised from a downward position in an attitude of hopelessness: a gesture-of-despair motif. They knew it was of ancient origin and signified the death of man.

When asked how the Life Rune is related to the more familiar peace symbol, one can describe the relationship as one of opposites: the one is related to the other as up is related to down, as life is related to death. Like heads and tails on a coin, both are aspects of the same reality.

This, briefly, is the heritage of the Life Rune, used today as the symbol of the National Alliance, as well as of some groups in Europe.

The Life Rune is an ancient, sacred sign of our folk. It has had different aspects and meanings. Now it is up to us to give it yet a new one: to make it the emblem of White resurgence everywhere.

The Life Rune stands for man with arms uplifted. It stands for man reaching upward toward higher man. It whispers to us from the past and beckons us toward the future.

Dr. Pierce Takes Dim View of the Libertarian Movement

Brief Commentary from National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 103, January-February 1985:

The Libertarian movement, nurtured in part by widespread disgust or disillusionment with the two major parties and in part by its adherents' yen to be associated with an imagined political and intellectual elite, has expanded in recent years. Most new recruits seem to be gathered from that somewhat nebulous group known as Yuppies: television-weaned, city-centered folk under 40 whose major pursuits in life are a full enjoyment of the standard items on man's pleasure menu, as well as rapid job advancement in some high-tech or otherwise glamorous industry, interrupted occasionally by est encounters, visits to the racquetball courts, and libertarian meetings.

Libertarianism fits the spiritual vistas of many Yuppies like their Calvin Kleins fit their bods. It combines comfortable elements from their radical youth with the nervous economic conservatism of their maturity, and all of it is dressed in the flattering garb of profound philosophy.

The high priestess of libertarianism is the late Ayn Rand, a one-time Hollywood screenwriter and the author of long novels dramatizing her philosophy, known as "objectivism." The salient thesis of Randian thought is that the individual human mind is the prime mover of all progress, and anything that would fetter or restrict it is part of a "collectivist" drag back to primitivism.

Government exists -- or should -- solely to enforce contracts between free individuals, and perhaps to provide for the common defense, although no one is obligated to pay for the defense or to serve in the armed forces. Libertarians in practice strongly oppose drug control, immigration laws, gun-control laws, social-welfare programs, and taxation. They favor unlimited and uncontrolled capitalism in all its forms.

The type of society favored by libertarians seems to be a sort of loosely-contained anarchy: each intelligent, self-seeking, rational mind goes quietly and peacefully about its business, pursuing its own objectives, not disturbing or interfering with the objectives of other free and rational entities. Government, such as it is, will be called upon only to arbitrate contractual disputes.

While any citizen so inclined can ship himself off to boot camp in order to keep the armed forces going, the ultimate defense against "collectivist" oppressors is . . . an elitist strike. Those possessors of the freest, most rational, and most inventive brains simply will refuse to continue to exercise their competence and ingenuity in the service of "collectivists." After their strike causes the lights of civilization to go out, lo, the objectivist heroes will get into harness once more, having demonstrated to the unappreciative herd the errors of its past ways.

Rand manages to impart a certain appeal to these concepts in the pages of her emotional romances. But the entire movement, from its seminal ideas to its political expression, is a trap for deracinated fools. "Objectivism" is a soul-state for urban Americans dominated by a highly personal and economic Weltanschauung. It is not political thinking at all, merely a thinking about politics. It is, at bottom, a poltroonish mirage for those who will not face the grim facts about a world teeming with hostile non-Whites (who would slaughter with glee all elitists "on strike") and an America rapidly sinking into a multiracial quicksand. The libertarian is oblivious to the fact that present racial trends, if permitted to continue, will at the very least put an end to his treasured concepts of unlimited frontiers, endless space, and wild freedoms, those nostalgic mind-sets that abet the growth of puerile nonsense such as libertarianism.

Rand and most of the early objectivists were Jews; thus the preference for an anarchic bourgeois condition and the primacy of economic thinking. The Jewish communist and the Jewish libertarian may seem to be in violent opposition, but with the emphasis on the material and on what is considered to be the "rational," the two are alike, though one may seek the end of "justice" and other that of "freedom." Both are hostile to movements built on national, racial, or cultural instincts.

To a libertarian the "mind" that creates civilization is spread about indiscriminately among all races and peoples. Racial idealism, cultural dynamism -- these are invalid concepts that in the "free marketplace of ideas" will find new buyers, say the libertarians. And so it is that Ayn Rand once wrote: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." ¹

Those who are attuned to facts, to reality, and whose living, race-based impulses are Western, Faustian, will smile -- horselaugh, perhaps -- at Rand's transparent stupidity and at the pathetic childishness of her followers. Were it not for a tax-supported police force, and for the tax monies that go into the monthly welfare checks, the impoverished urban non-Whites would rise in the night to murder all objectivist Yuppies faster than one could say, "Who is John Galt?"

Let the libertarians continue to weave their fantastic, gossamer webs. Let them add their bit to the chaotic factionalism of America, this bizarre whirlpool with a hollow death at the nadir. The static rationalist concepts of prissy "objectivists" will drown in the steaming vortex; schemes about going "on strike" against mindlessness will bring one day only a sad, head-shaking smile to those who once held them dear.

Libertarians quack loudly and long about "rational thinking," but in reality their program discourages fact-based thinking on the part of intelligent Whites, a few of whom might otherwise be capable of thinking their way through to a realization of their dire straits. Instead, the libertarian movement offers them only a sugared, gingerbread ideology, which will crumble instantly at the first full-blown, feral blast of the dragon's breath.
__________________________________
1 Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (New American Library), p. 172.