The Task of the National Alliance, part 1
American Dissident Voices broadcast of 14 November, 2020
Listen to the broadcast
by Kevin Alfred Strom
THE TIME has come to stop focusing on what Trump, Biden, and all the crooked Republicans and crooked Democrats are doing as they try to grab the wheel of the sinking ship in Washington. Instead of what they’re doing, let’s talk about what we are trying to do. When I say “we,” I mean the men and women of the National Alliance.
By “we” I do not mean every racially conscious White person. I do not mean every dissident-right Twitter user. I mean those who are serious about doing what needs to be done to save our people, and who have joined or supported the National Alliance.
Today’s program, based on Dr. William Pierce’s seminal work, “The Task of the National Alliance,” will show you clearly how the National Alliance is different from any other racialist group, and why the National Alliance is different from any other racialist group, and why those differences are essential. There is no more important work than this one, for those new to our message and our cause to understand. It has never before been presented in audio form.
And so, I give you the words of Dr. William Pierce in “The Task of the National Alliance, part 1.”
* * *
WHAT ARE the factors which govern the priorities of the National Alliance and determine the nature of its task?
We will attempt to understand, on the basis of present conditions in America, what can be done now and what cannot be done, so that we can see better how to concentrate our energies on those organizational objectives we can realistically hope to achieve.
One fact of overriding importance should be kept in mind throughout what follows: the situation faced today by the National Alliance is historically unique. Very few of the “classical” conditions for revolution exist in America today, and therefore, the classical expositions of revolutionary theory are largely irrelevant to an understanding of our task.
There is, for example, no revolutionary class in the White population of America, nor a revolutionary consensus. And, as explained earlier, the system of public opinion control which functions in America today — the central nexus — makes it extraordinarily difficult for anyone without his fingers on the controls of that nexus to generate revolutionary sentiment. That is a situation entirely new under the sun.
America is hurtling down the steep slope of racial mongrelization; national, cultural, and racial death lie in wait at the bottom of the slope. But the prospect is not one which rouses revolutionary fervor in large numbers of people; the level of abstraction is too high for the average person, who does not yet feel personally threatened.
That will change somewhat as the press and clamor of the growing non-White hordes in America become more vexing and the economy worsens.
Nevertheless, the relative comfort and sense of security — justified or not — of the average White American at this time cuts the ground beneath any strategy based on winning mass support for revolutionary action.
What applies to the White masses also applies to the business, professional, and intellectual elements of the middle class. Most of the latter are better informed than the masses about the destructive processes at work in America, and there is a substantial amount of concern for the future among them; nevertheless, their state of mind and their viewpoint are such that there is very little prospect of winning the support of a majority of them for a radical program at this time. The same conservatism and egocentrism which afflict the masses afflict them, although the maladies may be manifested in somewhat different forms in the two cases.
The masses always have been and always will be essentially conservative in outlook rather than radical, whether they are supporting or opposing the government over them at any particular time.
During the Vietnam War for example, there was a great deal of talk, especially on university campuses, about opposition to the government’s policies “radicalizing” the students and others opposed to continued U.S. participation in that war. The talk was sheer nonsense, as was proved when the whole so-called “movement” collapsed in 1973. Its existence had depended on the immediate irritant provided by the war, rather than on any demand for fundamental social changes.
This editor participated in several of the largest anti-war demonstrations in Washington during the 1968–1972 period, mingling with other demonstrators and listening to their conversations (and getting severely tear-gassed once for his efforts). Not only did the great majority of the demonstrators have no real understanding of the issues involved, but they had no more radical an outlook than the average American.
Even among more violent demonstrators, who “trashed” government buildings and assaulted policemen, no evidence of real radicalism was seen, except on the part of their Jewish leaders. There may have been more alienation, more irresponsibility, but very little commitment to fundamental ideas of any sort.
The one thing the anti-Vietnam leaders had going for them was an effective organizational basis for their demonstrations and their propaganda. This organizational basis was staffed with capable and highly motivated cadres, and it allowed the Reds to accomplish a remarkable feat of subversion, even without a revolutionary consensus or radicalized masses. At the height of their power they could put more than a quarter-million protesters on the streets of Washington, and they could make it look convincingly revolutionary.
There are other valuable lessons to be learned from the Jewish effort to use the Vietnam War as a revolutionary instrument, but for the moment we are concerned with just two: first, the aforementioned non-radical outlook of the average White, even when a temporary situation exists which makes him amenable to recruitment for a revolutionary purpose; and, second, the absolute necessity of a thoroughly radicalized cadre organization being already at hand if any useful action at all is to be gotten from the masses when such a situation does arise.
During the Vietnam era the Left drew its cadres almost exclusively from the Jewish population, which constitutes a perpetually radicalized reservoir of manpower and leadership for almost any anti-White cause. An analogous reservoir of pro-White radicals does not exist at this time, either among the masses or among the more illuminated strata of the White population: those White elements whose intelligence, sense of responsibility, and relative independence of the media lift them well above the level of the masses.
The conservatism of the masses is mindless resistance to change and to new ideas. The conservatism of the other elements is more the inability to encompass ideas which lie outside a rather rigidly egocentric mental frame, an inability to rise above a conceptual basis which is constructed on outmoded values, an inability to visualize a wholly new kind of world or to grasp the ethical concepts which must govern that new world and which transcend their own. And it is ultimately based on a lack of moral courage.
Let us look at this latter conservatism; let us trace its roots and see how it relates to the task of the National Alliance. Over and over again one hears this argument: “The National Alliance has a fundamental lack of goodwill towards Blacks, Jews, and the members of the present political establishment. Without such goodwill the Alliance cannot hope to achieve any kind of fair settlement of America’s present problems and internal conflicts. Therefore, most White Americans, who are fair-minded and are people of goodwill, will not go along with the Alliance.”
This argument comes not only from TV-brained nitwits, but also from a great many intelligent, thoughtful Whites. And it is, with a couple of important qualifications to be mentioned shortly, a correct argument.
It is true that the Alliance has no goodwill at all toward the enemies of our race. The Alliance is not concerned with Black survival or Jewish survival or Mexican survival, but only with White survival. The Alliance has not an ounce of charity for the gallows birds who make up the System currently governing America and who have so shamelessly betrayed our race.
It is also true that the average American is fair-minded — in a sense. He thinks in an individual-centered frame, while we think in a race-centered frame. He carefully distinguishes between “good” Blacks and “bad” Blacks, between “loyal” Jews and Zionists. We lump them all together, and that clearly is not “fair,” by his standards.
Implicit in the argument for fairness and goodwill are two major assumptions; one concerns the nature of the race problem and the other its solution.
It is assumed that the race problem is one of street crime, deteriorating schools, declining military morale and efficiency, rising welfare burden, etc. There would be, from the viewpoint of the person making the argument, no race problem if all Blacks obeyed the law, supported their families by honest labor, adopted a White lifestyle, and voted Republican — as some actually do.
And the only solution of which a person with such a viewpoint can conceive is a negotiated one, a compromise designed to end the present strife and unpleasantness, a sitting down with Black and Jewish leaders and saying to them in effect, “If you will keep your people in line, if you will reason with them and be reasonable with us, then we will bend over yet a little further backward for you. We’ll work something out which will protect your interests as well as ours.”
Of course, such an approach to the race problem is not only based on the wrong values, it is an approach which must ultimately fail, as it is failing now, because the problem is a biological one, and it requires a biological solution — a fact which has been treated at length by National Vanguard.
But the relevant point here is that the average American’s mental frame simply cannot expand to encompass that fact and its implications. And, at this point in history, the same is true of most un-average Americans as well. Therefore, most Americans (including most intelligent and thoughtful Americans) will not support the National Alliance — at this time.
The divergence of viewpoints between the Alliance and the average American goes so far that many Americans are suspicious of our motives. They think, “The Alliance must secretly be a communist organization, whose purpose is to make the country’s problems worse instead of curing them.” They reason (correctly) that any non-White who reads National Vanguard will become more hostile toward Whites as a result, making a peaceful settlement all the more difficult. Therefore, they conclude (incorrectly) that we don’t want a solution to the race problem.
It is difficult to convince a person who believes the foregoing that he is in error, because our value system and his are entirely different.
Nevertheless, despite the barrier to communication caused by this difference in viewpoints, the future is not so bleak as it may seem. The qualification made a couple of paragraphs earlier — “at this time” — is an important one. That is because the famous American “fair-mindedness” is a rather more tenuous thing than those who presently glory in it are willing to admit. The time may never come when honest Americans — even intelligent ones — will be able to expand their mental frameworks enough to fully encompass our view of the world, but the time will certainly come when their view of what is “fair” will change drastically.
The fact is that White Americans like to think of themselves as fair-minded, as just, as humane, but the truth is that the great majority of them simply do not have the moral courage which is a necessary concomitant to those traits.
Consider, for example, America’s entry into the Second World War. The masses, of course, were oblivious to what was going on, as always. But a great many Americans were not. Tens of thousands of journalists, of public officials, of teachers and professors, of leaders of German-American groups, of influential writers knew the truth of the matter at first hand.
They knew the true nature of the National Socialist awakening in Germany, and they approved of it. They knew that something of the sort was necessary for a resurgence of the White race. And they knew that the Jews were behind all of Roosevelt’s deceitful moves to get America involved in the war to destroy Germany — in particular, his maneuvering to bring about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and enter the war via the back door, after his infamous orders to the U.S. Navy to fire on sight at all German vessels on the high seas failed to provoke the Germans into a declaration of war.
And in 1939 and 1940 many of those who knew what was going on spoke out. Even after the war started in Europe in September 1939 National Geographic, for example, carried unbiased reporting on Germany, despite the torrent of venomous Jewish abuse this policy caused to be directed at the magazine. While the Jew-owned Washington Post and New York Times shrieked about the German annexation of Danzig in terms of a “brutal crushing of Danzigers’ independence under the hobnailed jackboots of Nazi stormtroopers,” the National Geographic quietly pointed out in its issue of November 1939 that 93 percent of the Danzigers were Germans, and that the city-state had joyfully welcomed its reunification with Germany after the artificial separation imposed 20 years earlier by the Versailles Treaty.
Well-known speakers, including aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh, addressed huge public meetings denouncing Roosevelt and the Jews and the other war schemers. History, political science, and law professors at Yale and Harvard openly scoffed at the official government lies of German aggression and of Hitler’s supposed plans for invading the United States via South America.
There were even a few politicians in the Congress who were still willing to speak the truth as late as 1941.
But as the Jewish economic and political pressure mounted, as more and more politicians were bought for the Jewish side, as the pro-war newspapers became shriller and more insistent, the fair-minded people who knew what was going on began to become more timid about speaking out. After the successful engineering of the Pearl Harbor attack, virtually all of them fell silent. Hardly any of them were brave enough to say what they all knew: that it was the United States, not Germany, which was the aggressor.
Only a tiny handful, a few dozen out of the former tens of thousands, continued to stand up for the truth, for justice, for humanity, for what was right. The rest fell into line with Roosevelt and the Jews.
When the U.S. government announced that the Germans were boiling down babies to make soap, the thousands who knew it was a lie kept their mouths shut. When the United States began its policy of saturation bombing of German population centers in response to the hate-crazed Jews’ demands that as many German civilians as possible be killed, all those White Americans who knew it was genocide remained silent.
They not only remained silent, but most of them hastened to appease those they should have opposed. They joined the armed forces; they did volunteer work; they became even more “patriotic” than the warmongers, so no one could suspect them of being pro-Nazi.
There were liberals, true pacifists opposed to all wars on principle, who were more courageous in their opposition to the Jews than these “fair-minded” conservatives. When fair-mindedness became inconvenient, they abandoned it. When it became dangerous to stand up for justice, they accepted injustice. When the moral pressure to conform became sufficiently great, they switched sides and supported policies they had previously opposed.
It wasn’t just that they weren’t willing to put their lives on the line for what they thought was right; they weren’t even willing to put income or social status on the line.
And it has always been the same. In World War I the eminent British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote a jingoistic pamphlet for mass distribution in which he claimed that the Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies and cutting off their hands for souvenirs. He knew it was a lie, and he knew it would encourage British counter-atrocities against the Germans, but he didn’t have the moral courage to refuse to “do his bit” for the British war effort.
* * *
You’ve been listening to the words of the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Pierce, in part 1 of his foundational work, “The Task of the National Alliance.” Be with us again next time for part 2, right here on American Dissident Voices.
* * *
You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. We welcome your inquiries and your financial support in spreading our message of hope to our people. We also welcome your applications for membership in our community of the conscious. Once again, that address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Thank you for your help.
Listen to the broadcast