What Are They Doing to Our World?

Environmental quality, resources threatened by failing economy

by Dr. William L. Pierce

DURING 1981 the real spendable earnings of the average American wage earner fell another 3.3 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington announced on January 22. Of all the economic statistics monitored by the government — consumer price index, average hourly wages, etc. — the real spendable earnings figure is the one which is tied most directly to the average standard of living. It is the amount of real money (i.e., money adjusted for inflation) a wage earner has left to spend after taxes. (ILLUSTRATION: A satellite image of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" that has expanded to twice the size of the continental United States. It is mostly made up plastic, the inevitable consequence of growing populations and unchecked mass production. This waste, what is left over from largely needless items used by an increasingly degenerate and low quality population, is thrown away with no sense of responsibility for the consequences.)

When we consider non-economic factors, however, we must anticipate a much worse decline in the American living standard than indicated by the falling figure for real spendable earnings.

The crime rate is an example of a non-economic factor which has a strong effect on the standard of living — or quality of life — of the average American. Each year the average U.S. citizen’s chances of being murdered, raped, robbed, or burgled increase. That costs everyone money, whether he is a crime victim or not, in higher taxes for police protection and in higher insurance rates. The non-monetary costs, though, are far higher, as fear of crime increasingly hedges in the average American’s life and restricts his activities.

Disease is another example. Until quite recently, the United States could boast one of the lowest disease rates in the world, with the rate for most infectious diseases continuing to fall each year. Many dread afflictions common in other parts of the world had been virtually eradicated here. This was one of the benefits of an enormous investment over the years in sanitation, inoculation drives, and other public health programs.

Learning to Get Along

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks in cheering for anti-White policies in South Africa)

What our member said, in essence, is that the Whites in Zaire have “gone native.” After two weeks of work in the bush, our member would return to Kinshasa hungry for the sight of a White face. But the Whites, in the part of Kinshasa which used to be Leopoldville, outnumbered now more than 100 to one by Blacks, have managed to blend into the landscape so thoroughly that one can only pick them out of the Black crowds by the color of their skin; nothing else distinguishes them. One of them will pass another White on the sidewalk — perhaps the only other White he has encountered all day — without even a glance. To accost one of them is almost an affront; the attitude is, “Why should I stop to talk with you? You are nothing special to me.”

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

What the Alliance Demands of Us

This editorial has been condensed from a talk given to Washington-area members,

supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 3, 1979.

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE MARINES HAVE a recruiting slogan which the Alliance could easily adopt as its own, with only a slight alteration: The Alliance is looking for a few good men — and women. The emphasis is on both “few” and “good,” because there are, unfortunately, relatively few men and women today who have the qualities which the Alliance demands.

Anyone not intimately familiar with the task of the Alliance, with the types of problems we face, and with the human failings evoked by those problems may be excused for assuming that all the Alliance requires of a recruit, besides being White, is that he or she be moderately intelligent, industrious, honest, brave, and so on — the rest of the boy scout virtues.

And, as a matter of fact, that’s about all we can hope for in the great majority of our members across the country. As a strictly practical matter, if a person in Seattle or Atlanta certifies that he is White, agrees with the Alliance, is willing to pay his dues, and says he wants to help, we can hardly fail to accept his membership application. We’re pleased to have him. We depend upon him for getting the Alliance message out to other potential recruits in Seattle or Atlanta and for providing the financial support the Alliance must have in order to exist.

But for our cadres, for those few good men and women who form the organizational backbone of the Alliance, who make up our operational staff, and who do the day-to-day work of the Alliance more is demanded; additional qualities are required.

The Inquiring Mind of Aldous Huxley

The Human Situation: Lectures at Santa Barbara, 1959, by Aldous Huxley, edited by Piero Ferrucci (Flamingo, paperback).

reviewed by Nick Camerota

BLOOD WILL TELL, says the old folk wisdom. Back in 1902, even the socialist H.G. Wells believed it. (In Anticipations, he held that the less advanced races, those “swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people,” who believe the world to be a charity institution, “will have to go.”)

But this idea seems to have been washed away by the rising tide of color and by the present, unreasoning insistence that all men are somehow “equal.” However, a brief look at the Huxley family shows us there is more truth than poetry in the old saying.

Aldous Huxley’s great uncle was Matthew Arnold. Huxley’s grandfather, Thomas H., was a friend and champion of Charles Darwin. Huxley’s father, Leonard, was a noted writer and editor. And Aldous’ brother, Julian, the distinguished biologist, is also far from retarded.

Wells, a student of T.H. Huxley, saw a strong physical resemblance between Aldous and his grandfather. The similarities seem to extend to qualities of intellect and character, since neither of them was afraid to express unpopular ideas.

What Is to Be Done?

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN THE FACE OF treason and criminal irresponsibility on the part of the politicians, of apathy and ignorance on the part of the White masses, and of cowardice and selfishness on the part of most intelligent Whites, what is to be done to save our race, in spite of itself?

The answer is not difficult to state, although a bit of argument is required to present a convincing case that it is the only answer.

The answer, in brief, is that an organization must be built which satisfies the following requirements:

It must be, first of all, not an ad hoc organization, but an organization based on fundamental principles, an organization with a world view, essentially religious in nature, shared by every member of the organization.

It must be, in structure, a hierarchical organization, like an army — or a religious order — with the degree of understanding, of commitment, and of discipline increasing with the level of responsibility in the organization.

It must be, in scope, an all-encompassing organization, an organization which not only generates propaganda and which recruits and trains new members, but which becomes eventually a community unto itself, self-sufficient spiritually and materially, providing all the functions and capabilities needed for carrying out its task — ultimately a separate state within the state.

Dr. Pierce distances the National Alliance from the "Movement"

  The “Movement”

            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.

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

I am not willing to compromise in any significant 

way the goals or ideology of the National Alliance.

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

            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.

1. The Alliance will continue to follow its own course and will act independently of other organizations.
2. The Alliance will not engage in joint activities with other organizations.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

            I did not expect my comments to straighten out any hobbyists remaining in the Alliance, because hobbyism does not come from a lack of understanding but instead from a personality defect. Members are hobbyists because their principle motivation is self-gratification. They care more about getting lots of different newsletters and having more people to gossip about than they do about real accomplishments. They are not sensible people.

            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.


 Find the hobbyist in this group

            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.

W.L.P.