Counter-Currents
1,959 words
Part 1
When I first became “red-pilled” and realized that radical political change was required in order to secure a future for the white race in North America, I was filled with an intense urge to share my newly-discovered knowledge with as many people as I could. I am sure that many of you can relate to this impulse. Quite possibly, a few of you reading this are among those recently converted to our cause, and are now feeling much the same way I did almost five years ago, when I was an enthusiastic but naive teenager who was determined to “do something”, but wasn’t quite sure how.
There are several worthwhile approaches one can take in spreading our ideas to others. Here, I will discuss what I believe is the riskiest kind of outreach: face-to-face conversations. Attempting to spread our ideas in person is especially risky because it comes without the protection of anonymity, and because going about it the wrong way can adversely affect your personal and professional relationships. If you create an anonymous social media account and try to red-pill other users in comments sections, it’s a fairly low-risk situation. The most likely consequence of failure is that none of the people who you are trying to convert change their minds; in other words, nothing changes. There is the possibility that your account might be banned or suspended, but even in that case the only thing you lose is access to an anonymous account. Your personal reputation, job security, and relationships with friends and family will all be completely unaffected. With in-person outreach, the stakes are far higher. Suppose you decide to share what you’ve learned about race and IQ with a liberal sibling who you occasionally debate politics with. If the conversation doesn’t go well, he or she might get angry, call you names, and tell your parents all about your naughty new opinions. I found myself in that exact situation four years ago and it was extremely unpleasant, to say the least.
But it isn’t all doom and gloom. I am happy to report that I have made real progress in educating and changing the minds of people that I know (more on that in Part 2). This is my attempt to outline some best practices for any reader who decides to undertake the vitally important work of “spreading the word” through the medium of face-to-face conversation. The suggestions I offer come from personal experience, and are largely the result of me discovering what not to do through the process of trial and error. This is an article that I wish I had encountered soon after my political awakening.
While I want to help you persuade others to see the light, I cannot promise that you will succeed even if you follow each piece of my advice to the letter. The unfortunate truth is that, as of now, many if not most of members of our race will be unsympathetic to our views. Those of us who teach what we know to others in person, as opposed to online, must be exceptionally careful what we say, how we say it, and to whom. Even so, I firmly believe that we ought to make use of all the tools at our disposal, and despite the risks involved, in-person outreach can be a fruitful and rewarding way to advance the cause. Last year’s poll of Counter-Currents readers found that 14.6% of us were first exposed to pro-white ideas through friends and family (i.e., through conversations with people we already had a personal relationship with). For Gen-Z readers (born in or after 1997) that figure was 25.8%. Winning converts may be a difficult task, but it certainly isn’t an impossible one. What follows is a series of general guideline that I hope will make the job easier.
Don’t Treat Face-to-Face Conversations Like a Public Debate
When arguing about politics in a public forum, whether online or offline, adopting a confrontational tone and using humor and sarcasm to ridicule your opponent can be very effective tactics. Making your opponent and their arguments look silly is a good way to “win.” However, these are not good ways to convince your opponent to embrace your opponent to your viewpoint. In a public debate, changing the mind of the person you are interacting with is rarely, if ever, the main goal. Instead, the objective is to convince the audience- those who are following the interaction but not actively participating- to take your side. Public debate is not merely contest of facts and logic; it is also a performance. Do you think Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were trying to change each other’s minds during last year’s presidential debates? Of course not; they were tearing each other apart in order to win over the millions watching the spectacle on television and social media. But with one-on-one conversations, there is no audience to win over other than the individual to whom you are speaking. A less hostile and combative approach is required.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Imagine that you are explaining your views regarding the Israel Lobby’s nefarious influence on American foreign policy to a friend who has slight pro-Jewish sympathies but little knowledge about the subject. In the course of this conversation, you mercilessly tear apart your friend’s objections not only with facts, but with ridicule. Being relatively unversed in the topic, he soon runs out pf counter arguments. Eventually, he becomes angry, resorts to name-calling, and storms off. Congratulations, you have “won” the argument! What did that accomplish? Absolutely nothing, besides making your friend mad at you. Were there a crowd of observers, they might have chuckled at the way you rhetorically outmaneuvered your friend and congratulated you on your victory. As it is, your one-man audience is humiliated, feels negatively toward you, and is in no mood to reexamine his previous assumptions about the topic at hand.
If your opponent in a public debate is red-faced and tongue tied while the audience applauds your rhetorical prowess, you can be confident that you have won. But “winning” in a face-to-face conversation about our issues looks quite a bit different. It looks like the two of you calmly answering one another’s questions and concluding the dialog on good terms. Even if your conversation partner expresses strong disagreement with one of your statements, you still shouldn’t view them as an opponent like you would if it were a debate before an audience.
See Yourself as an Ambassador for the Cause
There have been a few moments in the past when I have felt the temptation to share my political opinions with anyone and everyone I come across, consequences be damned. This impulse stemmed from a desire to do the most I possibly can for my people. However, upon further consideration, I realized that following such a course is unlikely to advance the cause. If I were to arrive at work tomorrow morning and start loudly preaching about White Nationalism and the necessity of establishing an ethnostate, my coworkers would look at me like I was insane. Not only would no minds be changed, but I would be out of a job by lunchtime. Similarly, if I were on a date with a lovely young lady and began speechifying about the USS Liberty attack, all it would do is ruin my chances of going out with her again. As we don’t want to scare people off, we should not take on the role of the fanatic who is constantly ranting about his ideas at inappropriate times. Someone who is listening to you and thinking to themself “this guy is acting crazy” or “what the heck is wrong with her” is not going take anything you say seriously regardless of the logic behind your statements.
We who understand the scope of the dangers facing our race do indeed have a responsibility to take action, but we also have a responsibility to be thoughtful and reasonable as we do it Standing on a street corner and shouting “It’s the Jews” might feel good for a minute or two, but it won’t achieve anything constructive. At all times, keep in mind that whenever you discuss our issues, you are serving your people, not yourself. The goal isn’t to say whatever “feels good”, but to be a good ambassador for the cause.
Know Who to Target, and Who Not to Target
When political campaigns send canvassers out to talk to potential voters, they tend to be quite deliberate in selecting which areas they target. This is extremely sensible, as there is simply not enough time or money to send someone to speak to every possible voter in person. Utilizing limited campaign resources to try to appeal to people who are not registered to vote, are registered but rarely vote, or are members of the opposing party is unlikely to pay off. We can learn from the way campaigns operate. It’s well-nigh impossible that any of us has enough free time available to talk politics with everyone we know. Thus, we do not want to spend our limited time attempting to redpill people who will not be receptive to our arguments.
Who should you try to redpill? The results of the Counter-Currents poll suggest that individuals on the political right are much more likely to be open to entertaining White Nationalist arguments, so you’ll probably have more success red pilling Republicans than you will with Democrats. This doesn’t mean that all liberals are a lost cause, but if you know someone who is a true-believing anti-white leftist, trying to bring them over to our side is probably not worth the trouble. It is also worth remembering that not everyone cares about politics; some folks are going to be indifferent no matter what you say. It may still be worth a try to appeal to people who are apolitical, but in those cases it’s best not to set your expectations too high.
Additionally, there are several categories of people around who it is best to for us to keep quiet about racial issues. It should be self-evident that all nonwhites are included on this list. So too are your employer and your supervisor at work. If you are in school, don’t try to convert your teachers or professors. A general rule of thumb is to refrain from talking about these topics with someone who is in a position of power over you. The potential rewards simply do not outweigh the risks.
All things being equal, one should prioritize sharing our ideas with people who already pay close attention to politics, especially if they are conservative or libertarian. The middle-aged and the young are usually more promising candidates for conversion than are the elderly, who are likely to be “set in their ways.” It also makes sense for us to seek out individuals who are financially successful or hold positions of influence in the community. In my estimation, the ideal person to convert to White Nationalism would be a younger adult who is politically active, well-spoken and personable, financially stable, law-abiding, and of above average intelligence. Thus, it stands to reason that we should target those who possess the greatest number of those attributes. None of this is to say that individuals who don’t fit this description cannot add value to our movement, or that some white people are inherently less deserving of our efforts. I sincerely wish that we could convince everyone to adopt our positions. But again, like volunteers working for an electoral campaign, each of us has a limited amount of time and energy available to put toward face-to-face outreach. It would be a shame not to use it in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
16 comments
Any advice on how to deal with the complacent? Those that know what you’re saying is true, but refuse to take our side? They’re from the left and the right. They know the truth, especially about blacks, but their response is just a shrug. Yuri Bezmenov’s demoralization I suppose. To me it’s those people that are the most frustrating.
Find better people to be your close friends. And apply the carrot and stick principle to them. If they are useful to you, then meet them, be precious to these people. Let them get back to you. And meet these people among your non-liberal and conservative friends, they won’t be so complacent in this society. Or just meet them yourself. If such a person is in the company of their libtard friends, they will try to ridicule you and will have an audience to do so. That’s a bad option.
Your advice would be great if I were in my late teens or early twenties. I’m closer to 60 than I am 50. Most of my friends I’ve known since grade school. An old saying goes “you can pick your nose but you can’t pick your family”. Maybe I’m just being foolish thinking that I can change the views of others with as much life experience as I have.
I am closer to 80 than to 60. I have chosen to let friends go over the racial issue. Not because they shrugged, that I can deal with, knowing how long it took me to face a reality I had been conditioned and brainwashed all my life to ignore, and what it cost me. But because they liked how things were going, thought it was “right.” They are gone from my life.
None of the few shruggers I have left think as I do, but at my age I can’t afford to lose any more. It’s isolating. And Counter-Currents is a vital lifeline for me.
Probably the best thing to do is show that what goes on in the world affects their future. Perhaps you might encounter the “I’ll be gone by the time SHTF, sucks for everyone else, haw haw!” type. These ones will need to be reminded that they have a family, or at least an extended family. Besides, making the world a better place is a great legacy. If you hear “I don’t have to worry because Jesus will sort everything out,” I wrote about all that not too long ago.
On the other hand, if you have someone who knows the score but refuses to lift a finger, then why waste your breath?
It is very good to discuss with people who read books and can look up information. And then recommend to those people David Duke’s My Awakening or Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto or Jared Taylor’s If We Do Nothing. If that person reads and has a logical mind, they will be the first to be suspicious of your arguments. But if he reads the whole book, it adds gravitas to your arguments. It’s good to debate with perspective white people at school Olympics, (insecure and very intelligent young people), in the library, over a beer at a black metal concert. Thanks for the article, I experienced something similar. I never discuss politics with women on dates- this is a surefire romance killer. I address political issues with women as I get to know them more and they get to know me more. I’ve only picked up one woman in my life on my Counter-currents writings.
“It is very good to discuss with people who read books and can look up information.”
Very solid advice!
If only someone online had said to me, “Read Henry Ford’s The International Jew,” I would’ve awoken to the JQ so much sooner. In the comment section of a political article in 2017, a vet stated that we can’t vote our way out, & that Trump won’t save us. He recommended I read/study history, and esp. ”’the Bolsheviks.”’ And, that I did.
Colin Flaherty’s videos were very red-pilling about B on W crime. And his two books were amazon bestsellers, & now incl qr code links to black crime vids for those who don’t use social media.
One thing to remember is to be very patient when talking in person to liberal family members. They are so used to walking on eggshells around each other. They’ll couch everything they say. For example, they’ll say, “Now, not to suggest that ALL gays are automatically pedophiles, but this particular one….” or they’ll offer lots of empty flattery to blacks before making any criticism of them (even when they’re not speaking within earshot of those being critiqued.) “Ebony, is such a stylish dresser & really knows all the latest dances, has been walking out the door with the rolls of tp from the powder room.”
I’m glad I cut loose ALL diversity glorifying friends. I’ve wasted enough of my life stuck within that mental trap.
We have much to do in order to create the environment and civilization that is the end goal. We have to keep in mind that it won’t be done after we win. Winning is a step by step process of creation taken by individuals and small groups of like minded and organized individuals. Like anything, the first step is to build yourself up. Be powerful, successful, and self-sufficient within a network of self-sufficient aligned people.
Now you have an oxygen mask on. You are in a position to save others. I think the best thing we can do to be persuasive is not even to be persuasive. We can be of service to our folk. They all inhabit a world that is anti-White at its core. Many respond by rallying to the power. They can’t be persuaded and likely not helped. There are many things that need to be done to help ourselves and our people in practical ways.
Build an education service. Build a home concert network. Build a hobby club or a practical skills and improvement network. Extend that to more of our people at a local level. The needs and possibilities are endless. In a world of individualist boot-strappers many who need structure are left out in the cold. Providing structures and networks is being of service to our people. There is nothing more moral and that will do more to inspire good will and loyalty.
Then, if someone asks our views or you have a quiet conversation the people who we have it with will be open and know us by our works. Moreover, many of our people are broken and scared so if we can be a source of more of them building strength, then they may not need any convincing. Over the coming years as the system continues to fail, it is those who are standing and standing together on a federation of rocks and solid ground who will win control of their destiny. Being of service is probably the best means of persuasion.
The recruiting environment out there is better than when I started out in the 80s but I doubt the returns of one-on-one recruitment are worth it. The people who are worth-a-damn are eventually going to find us if we promote our websites in the right way. People please do not engage in one-on-one recruiting— it will ruin your life!
Whenever I think of kooky evangelism I think of Wallace Tope, the 55th victim of the 1992 L.A. “Rodney King” Riots.
You probably remember the White truckdriver Reginald Denny, who was beaned with a cinderblock, had his skull shattered, and was nearly killed by mellanated yoofs, because it was videotaped by an L.A. news helicopter that took scores of bullet hits ─ but I’ll bet that you have never heard of Wally Tope.
“Wallace Tope, a 54-year-old white man, died Nov. 24, 1993. Tope had been in coma since he was assaulted April 30, 1992, in the 5500 block of West Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. A street evangelist, Tope went to a shopping mall at the corner of Western Avenue and Sunset Boulevard, where hundreds of people had gathered to watch looters ransack a Sav-On drugstore. There he began to preach, urging the crowd to stop the looting and place their faith in Jesus. As he was preaching, two men began to beat him. When he tried to flee, he fell to the ground and the men kicked him repeatedly in the head for nearly three minutes, witnesses said. Tope was rescued by a passing ambulance, but he lapsed into a coma shortly after arriving at the hospital. Two men charged with murder in the last major case of the Los Angeles riots each pleaded no contest in the fatal beating of Tope and were sentenced to prison May 9, 1994. Fidel Ortiz, 22, and Leonard Sosa, 24, both former warehouse workers for a Dodger Stadium concessionaire, entered the pleas to reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter on the same day they were to go on trial for the attack. Under a plea agreement, the judge in the case sentenced Ortiz to an 11-year prison term and Sosa to a six-year term.” (LINK)
I did not know Wally Tope but my Dad did.
Wally was born in Los Angeles County and studied Electronics Engineering in college for a couple of years before dropping out and dedicating his life to Born-Again Christianity.
Wally used to be an in-your-face hellfire type of street-preacher, and loved nothing more than proselyting on the BYU campus telling them Mormons (the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints) how they was not really Christians.
Mr. Tope did other high-risk activities like smuggling Bibles into East Germany and telling those godless Commies that they were going straight to Hell.
My Dad was a nuclear engineer living in Idaho in the 1970s and ’80s and happened to be the LDS Seventies President of the Stake.
The “Seventies” strictly do local missionary organizing. I think they just call them generic High Priests now (from 1986), but they were responsible for the missionary activity adjacent to their LDS congregation.
A geographic LDS “Stake” is maybe composed of two or three thousand Church members, which in turn congregate from “Wards” of several hundred members each. About every 90 days a special Sunday service comprising all of the geographic Wards is held at a larger church called a Stake Center, which will be presided over by the actual Stake President and all the Bishops of the gathered Wards.
The Mormons have the slogan “Every Member a Missionary.” Unlike the Jews, the LDS proselytize. They also have larger-than-average family sizes compared to most Christians.
Fun fact: Idaho and Utah are two of three states with Anglo majorities because the LDS missionaries converted so many English who came to “Zion” in covered wagons or the transcontinental railroad in the late 19th century. The other majority-Anglo state is Maine; all other states are majority Germans or Hispanics. (I don’t recall if Hawaii or Alaska are counted here, but I don’t think they are majority-Anglo.)
In any case, the “Seventies” quorum of the Wards and Stake did a lot of local LDS missionary work, and my Dad and Wally Tope were about the same age and would meet regularly in some dingy pizzeria in Idaho and have an old-fashioned Bible Bash from time to time.
A “Bible Bash” is a religious debate that mainly uses the Holy Bible as the source, mostly the New Testament, since all Christians believe it is the Word of God. Mormons use the King James Version, believing it to be the “most-correct translation” of the Bible. (Contrary to popular belief, the slain LDS prophet Joseph Smith wrote extensive commentaries on the King James Version of the Bible but did not “rewrite” it.)
Anyway, my Dad was not really expecting to convert Born-Again “street” Evangelist Wally Tope to the LDS persuasion ─ but he did hope to learn better how to debate religion and to understand how other Christian denominations think.
In my experience, many Evangelists tend to think that they just discovered the secret to sliced bread, and some of them are extremely obnoxious. However, I found most of the Protestants in the actual Bible Belt to be quite decent when I was in the Army in Georgia, and some LDS chaplains were highly-regarded by them there.
What my Dad learned from his interactions in Idaho with the slightly-unglued but highly-intelligent Wally Tope, was that a good debater is patient and never gets mad.
When Mr. Tope never succeeded in getting my Dad “mad,” I guess that Wally just gave up and moved along. Neither party could drink the other under the table with “bottomless 7Up and the Gospel.”
The next time Dad heard of street-preacher Wally Tope was that he was a murder victim of the L.A. Riots.
So Wallace Tope, 54 of Pasedena takes his clunker with the bumper sticker, “God Does Not Grade on the Curve” to Sunset Boulevard and Western Avenue where there was extensive looting on April 30, 1992. While confrontationally passing out his pamphlets to looters at a drug store and telling them that they would go to Hell lest they repent, an outraged Beanero named Fidel Ortiz punched Mr. Tope and chased him to his car.
Another Beanero and friend of Señor Ortiz named Leonard Sosa, who was there looting Baby Wipes and Pampers for his Niños, joined in and they started savagely beating and kicking Wally Tope on the ground.
Bystanders flagged down an ambulance, and when he was being taken away, Mr. Tope was still yelling ─
“Believe in Jesus!” “God Bless You!”
Wally Tope then lapsed into a coma for over a year in a North Hollywood hospital and never regained consciousness.
Wally Tope could not be dissuaded by concerned friends from going out into the breach of the “Rodney King” riots to preach the Word.
“If Jesus is worth anything, He is worth everything,” the street-preacher Tope would say.
How many souls did Wally Tope save?
I can’t answer that question, but when he was on the ground in Hollywood, Mr. Tope probably should have done like a fisherman in Idaho being mauled by a Grizzly Bear ─ just cover your head, shut up, and play dead.
Going out as a “fisher of men” into murky swamps, dingy bistros, police states, and race riots to preach the Gospel is by definition not advisable.
There is a reason why LDS missionaries go out in pairs (always using the buddy system) and don’t do confrontational preaching. Muh principles are fine, but people respond more positively to charity and good-will than judgement and condemnation ─ and it is hard to admire dumb recklessness in any case.
A name-the-Jew WN with a placard saying “Jews Rape Kids” is probably not going to win friends and influence people.
L.A. County Prosecutor Gil Garcetti argued that mayhem & murder banditos Ortiz and Sosa should be held at a slightly-higher bail bond than the duskier Negroes jailed for similar crimes after the riots, which injured thousands. Many of the 63 L.A. Riot fatalities were murders that were never solved. D.A. Garcetti was daft as a post but at least he was not a Social Justice “Soros D.A.” Warrior like George Gascón.
🙂
1,326 words
This vividly illustrates that whites generally will let you get away with very verbally-aggressive, pushy behaviour, while non-whites generally won’t.
Four non-white patterns come to mind:
Pattern A: Beat the preacher up on the spot (and possibly steal his wallet)
Pattern B: Memorize his face and wait with your cousins to beat him up in a deserted alley afterwards
Pattern C: Publish a newspaper article about the preacher the next day, putting words in his mouth that he would not utter in his dreams and demand his moral condemnation by the whole nation
Pattern D: Preacher starts noticing that no one in the community greets him anymore and that the local authorities won’t process matters related to him (while being as outwardly polite as before)
Matching those patterns to the non-white groups likely employing them would be a nice exercise for a reality-based Anthropology course ; )
In general, build some rapport first, especially with people you met recently. Sometimes their concerns are similar to ours, though of course they have different answers. I figure that “Saul on the road to Damascus” conversions are pretty hard to pull off. See if you can plant some seeds of doubt – their ideology is full of contradictions. If practical, stick to one topic at a time rather than a grapeshot of mind-blowing stuff.
You beat me to it Beau. I make those same points in Part Two.
Some useful tips here, Dave.
Here are more, advising us 41 years ago, from arguably our greatest, most forward-looking racial leader of the second half of the 20th century.
Technology and alternative media have advanced since then to where we can reach a much wider audience of our kinsmen with our message, much more quickly, but human nature is the same, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel.
The text is too long to post as a comment, but is worth reading for those seriously interested in recruiting for The Cause.: Personal Recruiting for the White Cause | National Vanguard
The piece concludes with an excerpt from a memorable speech given by Theodore Roosevelt while in France in 1910, referring to the rare “man in the arena” who perseveres, who will “spend himself for the cause” despite difficulties, opposition, or discouragement. He is the man I’m always on the lookout for as leader material.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Dave Chambers: Know Who to Target, and Who Not to Target
When political campaigns send canvassers out to talk to potential voters, they tend to be quite deliberate in selecting which areas they target. This is extremely sensible, as there is simply not enough time or money to send someone to speak to every possible voter in person.
—
Who to target with pro-White material is such an importan topic. Thanks for raising it. My opionon is that recruiting people for our cause from a pool of potential voters isn’t taking “high percentage shots.” I’d call it the shotgun approach. What would you send them? But good luck if it works. Potential voters in political campaigns are likely to still believe Whites can vote our way out of the Judaized mess our country has become. We cannot.
Prompted by Who Not to Target I found the recruiting advice I was looking for from Dr. Pierce to his National Alliance members 32 years ago. It’s six types of defectives to avoid when recruiting for our organization. For brevity, here are the first three. Take them for what they’re worth. I’ll follow with the other three.
Part 1
The importance of keeping defective people out of our ranks cannot be overemphasized. It is not just that we want to be proud of our membership in an elite organization, nor is it just that some types of defective people are nuisances or distractions rather than assets. Defective members are the single greatest threat to the success or even the survival of the National Alliance, more so than the government or organized Jewry. For every organization which is brought to grief by a spy, an infiltrator, or a provocateur, a dozen are wrecked by a member with a severe character flaw.
A few of the more common defective types to be avoided by the recruiter are described below.
The talker: Gossip is an almost universal human pastime, among men as well as women. Most people, even if they don’t talk much themselves, like to hear other people talk about their neighbors and co-workers. The desire to express one’s opinions or to listen to a bit of gossip occasionally is not necessarily a weakness or a sign of poor character. In some people, however, talkativeness goes beyond reasonable bounds: the desire to talk becomes a compelling need.
Compulsive talking is generally regarded as a feminine trait, but the problem occurs in men as well as in women. It is a trait we do not want in our members.
In the first place, compulsive talking tends to serve as a substitute for action: The talker is seldom a doer. In the second place, it more often than not indicates an underlying personality defect: The person who talks too much to his friends is likely to be a weak person who will yield to pressure to betray those same friends if he finds himself in a difficult situation. And in the third place, any organization, like the National Alliance, which is surrounded by people who would like to see it come to grief must exercise some control over information about its members and activities; control is difficult to exercise if compulsive talkers are in our ranks.
The hobbyist: The inexperienced recruiter may assume that a person who reads many racially oriented periodicals, belongs to two or three other organizations, and likes to talk about personalities and activities in these organizations is a good prospect. Usually that isn’t true. The person who has made a hobby of the White resistance “movement” may be persuaded to expand the scope of his hobby by joining the National Alliance, but in most cases he isn’t the sort of member we want.
The hobbyist is a person who joins an organization primarily for recreational purposes and has little or no understanding of service, commitment, or loyalty. He may pay his dues every month, but he can never be entrusted with organizational responsibility, and we usually won’t want him to come in contact with our other members.
Like the talker, he has difficulty with the idea of responsibility. Whether he understands it or not, his most basic motive is to amuse himself, and his decisions often can be traced to this motive. He will choose to do what is exciting or interesting or titillating rather than what is prudent or useful.
The hobbyist usually lacks a sense of discrimination. To him any organization which asserts its commitment to the cause of White survival and progress is part of the “movement” and is worthy of respect, regardless of how infantile its actions or ill-planned its program; and any person who mouths the right slogans is regarded as a “comrade,” regardless of character or other personal qualities.
There are several telltale signs that often permit a hobbyist to be spotted immediately, or that should at least lead the recruiter to be wary:
• Wearing of exotic uniform pieces or insignia is a dead giveaway. Hobbyists are at heart game-players, dabblers in make-believe. Wearing an old Afrika Korps cap or a swastika lapel pin helps a hobbyist to feel that he is playing the game. Non-exotic uniform pieces — camouflage fatigues or combat boots in inappropriate situations — also may indicate hobbyism.
• Coming to a meeting with non-relevant “movement” publications in hand is a standard hobbyist failing. The hobbyist likes to play “show and tell.” He hopes that the material he has brought will make him the center of attention and provide a titillating subject for conversation. It does not occur to him — and it wouldn’t make any difference if it did — that he is distracting other members and defocusing their attention from the task of the National Alliance.
• Fascination with what is happening in the “movement,” instead of in the National Alliance, is a hobbyist characteristic. The “movement,” consisting as it does of scores of organizations, provides a much larger arena for the hobbyist to play his games. It doesn’t matter how inconsequential these other organizations are, since it’s all a game of make-believe anyway. The fellow who is bubbling over with information about the latest pratfalls of some Imperial Wizard or the details of a feud between two newsletter publishers is probably a hobbyist.
The gung-ho loudmouth: Not to be confused with the talker, who is usually of a passive disposition, the gung-ho loudmouth is a would-be activist who shoots from the lip. He likes to let off steam by proposing direct action against the enemies of White civilization, immediately if not sooner. He’ll pick up a newspaper, point to a news item about some outrageous act by Blacks or Jews or the government, and exclaim, “What are we going to do about that? Why are we just talking and publishing books? The time has come for action. Let’s go get those SOBs!”
His idea of “action” is something which will cause a public stir and get the Alliance mentioned on the evening news. He wants excitement. He wants to get in some licks. Often he imagines that he has had a “success” if he has been able to provoke an angry confrontation with some member of the public who has taken exception to a piece of Alliance material or to something the loudmouth has said. Sometimes he imagines that he has leadership potential which has been overlooked by the leaders of the National Alliance, and that the rank and file will gather around him if he talks and acts the way he thinks a leader should talk and act, based on his careful observation of many of Hollywood’s most dramatic and exciting action films.
Of course, there is a time for action of the sort this fellow wants. Some of the activities Local Units engage in may make the evening news. Most of the Alliance’s activities don’t make headlines, however. Most don’t involve street action. Most seem like pretty tame stuff to the gung-ho loudmouth. The recruiter must try to decide whether his prospect is capable of calming down and becoming a disciplined Alliance member when he understands the Alliance’s program better, or whether he is someone who is absolutely set on street activity for its own sake. In the latter case, if there is a Local Unit in the area which regularly engages in street activity, perhaps it can put a gung-ho recruit to good use; but if there isn’t, this fellow probably should be left to make his own headlines without getting the Alliance involved. As a member he would only cause morale problems — and perhaps legal problems — for other members with whom he came in contact.
continued…
Will Williams: February 10, 2025
Dave Chambers: Know Who to Target, and Who Not to Target
—
“Prompted by Who Not to Target I found the recruiting advice I was looking for from Dr. Pierce to his National Alliance members 32 years ago. It’s six types of defectives to avoid when recruiting for our organization. For brevity, here are the first three. Take them for what they’re worth. I’ll follow with the other three.”
…continued
Part 2
The amoral person: There is a regrettable tendency to excuse a wide variety of reprehensible activity on the part of persons claiming to be in sympathy with us, so long as the activity is directed toward people not in sympathy with us. Shoplifting, for example, may be excused on the grounds that the store is part of a chain owned by capitalists who are “part of the System.” A theft may be passed off as a “revolutionary act.” The truth of the matter is that in nearly every case such activity is the result of purely selfish motivation, and the person who steals something he wants from a capitalist chain is likely to steal from his fellow members or from the National Alliance. There will be a time for genuine revolutionary acts, but we don’t want to recruit persons who use ideology as an excuse for selfish or irresponsible behavior which we wouldn’t tolerate in a post-revolutionary society.
The freak: Persons with severe character or personality defects — psychopaths, homosexuals, habitual criminals — tend to gravitate to the fringes of society. They are likely to be shunned by people in the mainstream, and they look for company wherever they will be accepted. Often this also is the case with people whose defects are not so severe as the aforementioned but who simply are not able to cope well outside of an institutional setting. Freaks are the bane of every organization with an ideology or a program which puts it at odds with the mainstream. They should be avoided like the plague.
Most National Alliance members do not realize how many severely defective White people there are in American society. The ones who shuffle along the sidewalk mumbling to themselves, their brains ruined by decades of heavy drinking, are only the tip of the iceberg. People who believe that government agents follow them everywhere and spy on them, or that Jews are trying to control them by beaming electromagnetic radiation at their heads from an apartment across the street, or that they are the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, or that they are receiving guidance from an extraterrestrial mentor are legion. Freaks probably make up something between five and ten per cent of the White population in the United States. At a rally or convention of a typical Politically Incorrect group the percentage will run even higher, and the freaks will be much more noticeable, because they feel themselves among friends and don’t need to pretend to be normal.
Fortunately for the National Alliance there are many liberal-leftist fringe groups which welcome homosexuals and some other categories of freaks, so that our task of filtering them out of the pool of potential recruits is made easier. And there are hundreds of “New Age” groups to draw off the people with some of the more bizarre hallucinations about reincarnation or extraterrestrial guidance. Likewise, our known intolerance toward non-copers tends to keep ne’er-do-wells, alcoholics, drug abusers, and perennial food stamp recipients away from our doorstep. Nevertheless, the recruiter must always be on the alert for recruits with severe character defects or personality disorders. There has been far too much tolerance for freaks among White racial groups in the past. They are, on the average, a larger liability than an asset to any organization which admits them to its ranks.
The constitutional loser: There are people who may not fall easily into any of the categories listed above, but who nevertheless are severely defective. One indication of such a person may be a history of personal failure. Most of us fail occasionally, but we try again, and eventually we succeed. The constitutional (or “born”) loser is a person who, because of defective character, fails at most things.
The most common defect in a loser is an inability to criticize or blame himself — and, therefore, an inability to improve himself. When a loser fails at something, it is never his fault, but always someone else’s. He never asks himself, “What did I do wrong? How can I overcome the weakness which caused this failure, so that I can do better next time?” Instead he looks for someone else or some external condition to blame for his failure.
Unfortunately, constitutional losers may be hard to identify at a first meeting. Some of them are personable, occasionally even charming. Some are moderately intelligent. Often they are willing workers in a team or group setting. One clue to look for, besides a history of failure, is excessive negativism: The person who is always complaining about everything and everybody is likely to be a loser. Another clue is a manipulative or parasitic personality: the person who habitually tries to get other people to do things for him by flattery or “stroking” is likely to be a person who is not accustomed to doing things for himself. Finally, any person who seems able to function well only in an institutional or group setting should be suspect: Whether the setting is the U.S. Army or a group of bosom buddies, all too often the person needs a support group around him and is at a loss when left on his own.
The danger in having a constitutional loser in the National Alliance is not that he is likely to fail at an assigned task, but that he certainly will blame the National Alliance or its leadership rather than himself when he does fail at something — even at a marriage or some other strictly personal endeavor — and henceforth will be hostile. When a loser leaves the National Alliance, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in his mind it will not be the consequence of his own shortcomings but those of the National Alliance; it will be the National Alliance which has failed him, rather than the other way around. And to vindicate himself he will do anything he can to damage the National Alliance; if he can make it fail, then his personal failure is not so painfully apparent, and he can even see himself as a person with enough foresight to get off a sinking ship while there was still time. Hell hath no fury like that of a loser trying to avoid blaming himself for his failure.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.