Strom usually produces good stuff, but he’s hit a new low this week with this love fest for Pierce and Pierce’s Ostara-like scifi/fantasy work "Who We Are.” Now, I don’t want to be too hard on Strom. Usually his material is good (when he’s not obsessing over Pierce or Putin). Strom is an intelligent, sincere man, who has worked for decades for the cause and who has suffered greatly for it. I myself was greatly influenced by Strom’s old ADV broadcasts. So, this can be viewed as constructive criticism. No doubt Strom has much personal admiration for Piece and a great deal of personal loyalty. The “Pierce Cult” is no doubt also useful in getting the “new National Alliance” on its feet. Strom may well agree with Pierce on most matters (but I’ve always sensed that Strom was always a bit more reasonable on a number of things). However, he does need to understand that there are many important areas of legitimate criticism of the Piercian legacy, and the man’s Guntherite racial views is the least of this. The more overarching problem is the lack of progress made, for decades, despite large levels of resources.
Some may argue that the way Pierce did things – living in isolation in the mountains of West Virginia, with a hyper-centralization of National Alliance activity which smothered almost all initiative and accomplishment of the local units – was a “necessary evil” to allow his organization to survive in a hostile environment of persecution and infiltration. There are of course some points in favor of that argument. Nevertheless, it doesn’t explain all. There remains the – in my opinion justified – sense that Pierce recklessly squandered decades of hard work, "movement" good will, and significant resources simply because he personally preferred to live out in the woods, supporting himself through membership dues and book sales, and enjoying serial monogamy with several Eastern European mail order brides. Indeed, despite the limitations any such organization would face in multiracial America, Pierce had two major advantages:
1. Through his effort and those of others (*), Pierce’s National Alliance had – by a large margin – greater resources at its disposal than any other such American racialist group/leader since at least the end of WWII.
2. Pierce had time. He was head of the National Alliance for 28 years, from its founding in 1974 to his death in 2002. That’s an entire generation of stable leadership of a relatively well-funded organization.
What was the result? The equation was 1 + 2 = 0. With the two advantages listed, with nearly three decades to form a deep infrastructure and plan ahead strategically, at Pierce’s death there was little, and that little was quickly dissipated in the years following his death. Twenty eight years! An annual income for the group reported to be ~ $1 million/year. That’s not trivial. All the efforts and resources provided by members and supporters. All for nothing. All so that the organization needs to be painstakingly recreated almost “from scratch.” I’m sure there will be the “in the arena” riposte – better to have done something than stay on the sidelines critiquing. By that logic, one cannot criticize any political leader for, say, opening the borders to mass immigration. After all, are you a president or senator? The “in the arena” argument also fails because some of the critics have in fact tried to do something, and have come up against the stupidities of the “movement” – including the “movement’s” affirmative action policy, which may have in part informed the support given the likes of Pierce in decades of failure (**).
*Pierce, it must be said, did not create the National Alliance out of nothing. The organization was derived from Carto’s National Youth Alliance, and also, for better or worse, inherited some continuity from Rockwell’s efforts. The National Alliance was also built upon the work of people like Strom, and (at least ideologically and spiritually) upon the martyrdom of Robert Mathews. To what end?
**Consider Joe Tomassi. I’m not saying that Tommasi’s NSLF guerilla warfare was the right approach. I am saying that Tommasi was an impressive figure in the “movement,” with dedication, intelligence, imagination, and courage. If he had lived, and if the “movement” had fully accepted him, he could have risen to a leadership positon that would have enabled progress, rather than squandered opportunities and wasted decades. But, affirmative action is a zero sum game, and “Tomato Joe” didn’t meet the quota requirements.