Collaborating with the Secret Police
by Dr. William L. Pierce
A STANDARD police textbook (Inabau and Reed, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions begins: “The interrogation of criminal suspects, witnesses, and prospective informants is the investigative procedure most frequently used by the police. In fact, most of our serious crimes would remain unsolved if it were not for the investigative leads and the proof of guilt that result from criminal interrogations.” The first paragraph of the chapter titled “The Psychology of Confessions” in another stand police textbook (Aubrey and Caputo, Criminal Interrogation contains the sentence: “In every individual there is a powerful need for the acceptance and approval of other human beings.” The chapter then explains in detail how this need can be manipulated by an interrogator to obtain desired information from a person being interviewed.
The relevance of the foregoing to the average member may seem remote, but, unfortunately, it is becoming much less so. It would be nice if it could still be assumed, as it might have been a few years ago, that an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Secret Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or any other Federal police agency is a person with whom every decent citizen ought to cooperate. Today, however, every racially conscious White person is obliged to regard the government of the United States as the most dangerous enemy of his race, and every willing agent of that government as an unredeemable and malevolent race traitor. More and more in coming years the principal task of the Federal government’s various secret police agencies will be the suppression of all opposition to governmental policies intended to destroy White consciousness, White values, and, eventually, White genes.
Whether that opposition is violent and illegal, as in the case of the Aryan Resistance Movement, or merely involves the dissemination of ideas, the government’s police agents will be involved in gathering information about it and then taking whatever measures to halt it current laws will permit them to take. It becomes the duty of every Alliance member to avoid collaborating in any way with them. One way in which some Alliance members have collaborated with them in the past is simply talking with them.
When a government police agent identifies himself to the average citizen and begins asking questions, the almost irresistible urge is to answer the questions. Regardless of the difficulty, this urge must be resisted.
The difficulty comes from the human trait, noted in every textbook on interrogation technique, of needing approval and acceptance. The average person, when approached by a government police agent, is intimidated and awed; he tries to ingratiate himself, to convince the agent that he has nothing to hide and wants to be helpful. This is an essentially feminine reaction, but in today’s degenerate society it is the reaction to be expected from most men, as well as from women.
People who have collaborated with government police agents try to justify their behavior in various ways. One of the most common justifications is: “I didn’t tell them anything really important; I just told them what they already knew anyway.” There are two lethal flaws in this justification. First, even seemingly trivial, nonincriminating information may be important. The secret police are skilled at piercing together such information from many sources to develop their leads. The only way to avoid helping them in their dirty work is to tell them nothing.
Second, it is very often the case that the secret police “know” something, but cannot prove in in court, because all they have is inadmissible hearsay evidence; they need witnesses. If, in questioning someone, they discover that he also knows it, then he may compelled to become a witness and testify in court to what he knows, under the threat of being jailed for contempt of court if he refuses. In court, of course, a witness many invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — but only to protect himself, not someone else. And if the court grants him immunity from prosecution, then he must choose between incriminating someone else by his testimony, committing perjury (and risking a long prison sentence for it), or being jailed for refusing to testify. It is infinitely better not to be called as a witness — which means not letting the secret police know that you know something in the first place.
“But what will I tell them if they ask me whether or not I ever met So-and-so? It will be easy for them to find out from others that I met him. I have to tell them something.”
Wrong! No one has to tell them anything. A person who has not been summoned into court and put under oath is under absolutely no legal obligation to answer any question asked by the secret police, or to help them in any other way — and he is under a very strong moral obligation not to help them. (But he must not deliberately hinder them by lying to them, because that is illegal. Furthermore, the average White person is a very poor liar, and he can often be tripped up in his own lies by a skilled interrogator. If the interrogator catches him in a lie, then the government can threaten him with prosecution for obstructing justice, even if he has committed no other illegal act, unless he becomes an informer.)
It may seem a trivial point, but it is worth repeating: The only proper policy for a racially conscious White person to follow when approached by a government police agent is to say. “I have nothing to say to you.” If the agent responds, “Why not?,” the answer should be the same: “I have nothing to say to you.”
It is very, very difficult for some people to understand such a simple thing, but everyone who expects to participate in the struggle for a White future must understand it. He must convince himself that there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by ingratiating himself with the secret police. A good secret police agent will put handcuffs on his own mother if he has an arrest warrant for her, no matter what she may say in an attempt to dissuade him; and he cannot arrest someone for whom he has no warrant, no matter how much he may hate the person’s guts. By answering a secret policeman’s questions a person can only make things worse for himself, whether he has committed an illegal act or not; there is nothing he can say which will make things better for him. So, once again: If approached by a government police agent, don’t be rude or insulting; don’t lie; and don’t answer any questions. No matter how seemingly inconsequential. just say, “I have nothing to say to you,” and say nothing else, no matter how persistent that agent is.
* * *
Source: National Alliance BULLETIN, March 1985
For further reading:
In the polarity between security seekers at one pole and opportunity seekers at the opposite pole, most of mankind may be observed. My observation has been, and I come from a security seeking, government worker family, that security and law enforcement industry is made up mostly of security seekers, they’re own security, which means a paycheck and a pension. I am an opportunity seeker and even my own family has come down hard on me be cause they see me as an irresponsible boat rocker, reckless, impulsive, etc, etc. When I told my father, who was a Foreign Service Officer, and was paying for my college education, that I was dropping Army ROTC in college in favor of a course on the history of oratory, he wrote back that I… Read more »
snitches + informers are the dregs of their white tribe they once belonged to . bought or pressed . in mafia law they would be killed .
its the reason why no state can infiltrate lebanese + other moslem
clans . they are like a closed family like the jews . but with leftist
jewish brainwash for their perverted agendas they will be even able
to form children to traitors of their parents as the jews have very
good experiences from communist times in the eastblock . they start
it already in american + german/british schools + universities .
the trick of modern police is they like in politics mix criminal offences together with political dissenters what they already in sovietunion
did . i forgot : they already start with little children in Kindergarten
to suck them against their parents .
In case somebody was pressed to inform by blackmailing him he/she/it
should confess everything about the interogation to his/her/its tribe/
movement even the reason of blackmail . in this case the unhappy
informer could be used as doble agent from both sides but his ultimate
obligation should be with his/her/its tribe or movement .
This Irish poem while it has some neutrality we don’t need nevertheless leaps to mind.
This advice is at least 20 years out of date. The rule of law more and more is becoming a joke. If I got put up in front of a jury here in SoCal it would be 10 Mexicans, A White Franklin Graham worshiper, and a Negro.
What a nasty comment, atlantaeasy. Do you think it’s ok to talk to police now, especially the federal types? That was the main thesis of this fine article from the 1980s, and times have not changed for the better. We Whites are generally to blame for kicking back and enjoying life instead of taking responsibility for our governance and even the long term survival of our people and have let things just slide. “But what could we do??” exclaim the Sixpack Joes and Sally Soccermoms, and getting to the root of the issue in an organized, effective, and long term racial basis was and still is the answer. Your answer is just to sit back behind your keyboard and knock what a greater man than you are warned us about… Read more »
You are too kind to atlantaeasy, Jim. The anonymous lying troll thinks NV is his playground to “role play,” as he calls it. First he says he’s a Jew, then says he’s a white man; then that he’s from Atlanta, now he’s from Southern California.
He is not Alliance material and never will be. One more whiny comment from him and he can go play his childish roles elsewhere.
I didn’t say anything about it being OK to rat out people. I just said things are very different now than when Dr. Pierce wrote that advice. My local news has reported that people are being jailed for “refusing to cooperate with police”. Can they do that? Have the rules changed? Many people I know think a person can be jailed simply for refusing to talk to the police. Perhaps you could add more information. “Your answer is just to sit back behind your keyboard and knock what a greater man than you are warned us about while offering nothing yourself. Give us all a break, straighten up your own act or get the hell out of here. This is an adults forum” I have been sending the National Alliance anonymous donations… Read more »
“I didn’t say anything about it being OK to rat out people.” — No one claimed you did. “I just said things are very different now than when Dr. Pierce wrote that advice.” — You claimed his advice was outdated. It most certainly is not. “Many people I know think a person can be jailed simply for refusing to talk to the police.” — The claims about what others think has no statistical relevance. Incidentally, I was jailed for not talking to police under an “interference with official acts” charge back in the mid-2000s by a sheriff’s detective who I asked, “Am I required to answer your questions?” I beat that charge on constitutional grounds. The County Attorney offered to drop the charges before trial if I promised not to… Read more »
atlantaeasy: I have been sending the National Alliance anonymous donations for over 5 years now. Cash, money orders, Bitcoin. A little here and there every few months, usually around $50. — Prove it. Come out of hiding from us and prove what you now claim. All donations to our Alliance, anonymous or otherwise, come to me here at the National Office. If you had sent $50 to NA, let’s say every four months for seven years, that would amount to around $1,000. We always try to send donors a thank-you note. Very few donations are anonymous, so I would have noticed what you now claim anonymously. I say you are lying again, and anonymously, again. Why the cowardice? I’m an elderly disabled veteran on a fixed income. When I give… Read more »
Very important instruction. By the way, just recently I have encountered this video: https://odysee.com/@SurvivingWeimerika:f/I_have_nothing_to_say:d
Beautiful! Thanks for that, Wolf. We’ve featured that video on NV before.
Dr. Pierce’s seven words to his Alliance members (above & extracted below) from 1985 preceded Mr. Metzger’s five words of advice, “I have nothing to say,” by several years. It’s sound advice for activists, no matter who said it first.: