Dr. Pierce Distances the National Alliance from the “Movement”
by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)
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.
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.
- The Alliance will continue to follow its own course and will act independently of other organizations.
- The Alliance will not engage in joint activities with other organizations.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
* * *