/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

I intentionally did not voice my opinions on which issues deserve focus.
However, I believe that now that affirmative action anti-White discrimination has been lifted, the next target should be immigration. Mexicans are the most severe threat to Americans after the jews because they are used by corporations to enhance their profit and thus are "integrated" into the American economy. Even blacks are not as integrated this way as Mexicans and their birthrate is lower than Mexicans as well.
Of the attainable goals, demanding increasingly strict regulations on immigration is both popular with the masses as well as beneficial for our people.

Alternatively, we could go the accelerationist route and focus on justifying the existence of pro-White organizations. As the country browns out, these will become increasingly popular among normal White people seeking relief from the constant racial harassment.

While I agree with the concept, the ignorant masses will ultimately believe whatever the mainstream media tells them to, or whatever crap the hivemind on Reddit has updooted. That doesn’t leave us with much space to lobby within, but it would help to shift the overton window. Ultimately we can present whatever ideas we want, but unless the counterargument is indefensible or self-destructive for the other side I have doubts on it being successful. Discussing it publicly at least gets the request in people’s minds, and even if shot down it can be brought back up at a later date once the culture shifts and we try again. If the incumbent party ignores a righteous demand from the public, it could have consequences at the next election and splinter the traitorous party’s voter base. 

I think this thread has overlap with the redpill thread, as educating people on relevant topics makes them more receptive to implementing effective and meaningful action, instead of some dysfunctional lip service.

I’ll toss out some ideas of varying significance regardless;

>Military is deployed to the border with shoot to kill orders against illegals. This includes the navy and relevant air assets.
>Rainbow flaggotry is kept out of school. Fire teachers who try to keep proliferating it.
>Foreign individuals and businesses aren't allowed to own residential housing unless it's to house native workers or work visa immigrants.
>Extremely strict points based immigration policy, ideally from culturally similar (ie European descent) countries only. Must be able to speak the national language. Blacklist individuals that hold credentials from diploma mill schools, universities, colleges, etc, as well as hostile foreign religions.
>Open a Department of Remigration to assist those who don't want to live in the country in leaving. Muslims go to the Middle East, blacks to Africa, etc. I wish we could “remigrate” the marxists to a gulag.
>Removal of first past the post democracy systems in an attempt to undermine major parties that hate the populace, like the Democrats of the USA or the British Labor party. Replace with preferential voting. Media still has massive control over who get elected, but it’s a start.
>Removal of anything that is anti free speech, especially hate speech and blasphemy laws. Just a pushback on censorship and digital monitoring in general. Social media platforms that are for general public use shouldn't be allowed to censor so heavily.
>Something about allowing new media to compete with legacy media on legacy media’s turf. Imagine if you could watch actual history on public broadcast television instead of selective lies. Get our message in front of the ignorant masses.
>End foreign aid to countries that don't immediately effect your nation's well being. Maybe leave in  a provision for animal conservation to keep leftists happy.
>End aid to foreigners in the country illegally, that money should be spent on citizens. Possibly spend it on legal minorities instead of foreign ones to get more support from our opponents. Dem niggers were real mad their gibs were getting given away to illegals.
>Reject any "climate change" measures that aren't about developing technology, most countries are too small and irrelevant to make a measurable difference compared to China, USA or India's output.
>USA should remove that dumb fuel emissions law forcing auto makers to build oversized and expensive trucks.
>Something about reducing the number of whores in society. Woman doesn't get the man's stuff in a no-fault divorce?
>Right to defense and protection of one's self, home, business and belongings.

>yes goy, deradicalize yourself and come to the table to play the game that we nakedly rigged against you
This thread is subversive garbage.

>>8124
>the ignorant masses will ultimately believe whatever the mainstream media tells them to
You're correct. I do not believe we can convinced all or even most of our race to defend themselves. However, if we are 1% of the greater whole of our race, the other 99% are only lemmings by degree. Another ~10% or so likely can be swayed by reason, and perhaps a further 20% can be swayed if it looks like we're respectable, high status, or viably able to stand up to the regime. And then the 50% pure lemmings will support whatever side appears like it will win.
To put it in military terms, maybe 1% of a population are actively engaged. Another 10% can be convinced to take up arms. Once the rebel forces appear like they won't immediately get crushed, a further 20% may join them, safe in the knowledge that they can hide in the masses, without needing to show individual courage but instead taking courage from the group itself. And then, 50% more will join up once it appears that this side will win. Now we only have to kill 19% of the population.

> Discussing it publicly at least gets the request in people’s minds
Exactly.
Consider, "Diversity is our strength"
It is an idiotic slogan that only a jew would come up with. Yet, by virtue of cancerous repetition, they managed to turn a self contradictory slogan of zero substance into an argument that people actually cite as a self evident truth in debates.
Repetition is how you win over the 50% true lemmings.

All your suggestions seem great to me. Though I believe that focusing on climate change is a red herring. Even if we did win that fight, it isn't necessarily a racial debate (Yes, I know that fighting "climate change" only ever seems to hurt White people, but this take several sentences to explain so I feel that it's better to focus on things that are either racial or fighting degeneracy) Or maybe there is an angle that I have not considered here.
 
>>8125
Okay then. Articulate your alternative.

>>8126
The climate change bit is just a reason to escape from the grift and stop wasting time, money and resources on irrelevant trash. The technology might be useful at some point but for now it's mostly overpriced junk with finite components.

>>8125
There can be multiple ways to achieve the same objective. You can ask nicely, and when they say no, that's casus belli to burn it all to the fucking ground. Do prepare for violence as it is inevitable.

inside_the_redpill.jpeg
[Hide] (56.5KB, 660x440) Reverse

White_Powder.jpeg
[Hide] (73.5KB, 816x344) Reverse

I just realize that when in the future people will look at what our propaganda looked like, like that picture which regardless of its message is as cheaply done as it will be shat by history, they will understand how bad things were. Not saying that all should be Boticelli tier but.
>The fact is that if you hold everything short of total world conquest as a defeat, you will become debilitatingly depressed. 
Looks like it worked for the yids.
>the systum
made criticism of yids illegal in most White countries. But we spread the memes nevertheless.
>Instead, I propose we adopt the highly successful strategy of the left.
I agree. First things first, let's have yids support us because we will need their money to buy them out of academies, politics, medias, companies and banking.
>Focus obsessively on a small range of reasonable demands, often framed in a way to cast opponents as ridiculous extremists.
Example please because there's no reasonable demand that shouldn't be useful, and anything truly useful to us is probably going to be seen as evil or too radical. Watered down demands you say? I don't know how this is supposed to shift the Ovaryton vvindoe our way.
>absurd false dilemma
Or just simply ask for exclusively White countries where we write our own laws to protect ourselves and our racial interests and our White families, with economy culture and police forces subservient to Whites. There is nothing outlandish in this. Don't budge. This will force all our enemies, potential traitors, cowards and idiots to expose themselves.
Nevertheless I do agree that because of a lack of better options for now, we must insist on the most approachable steps, but the solution should be to have a White party and be the loudest anti-immigration group of al because our unashamedly pro-White message would be clear and people would know that if they wanted the purest anti-immigration dope on the market, they would know for a fact that we'd be the only one they could safely and reliably turn to, they could trust us to have the premium non-laced Whitest soma you could ever hope find and taste on that side of the neighborhood. Anything else would be cut with shit and taste like rot in comparison.
>hey what's in the powder mate?
Pure Truth.
>fuck me that's wild! and what's the ratio?
About 14/88.

>>8127
>. You can ask nicely, and when they say no, that's casus belli to burn it all to the fucking ground. Do prepare for violence as it is inevitable.
Wisdom.

>>8129
> it worked for the yids.
On the contrary, they moved slowly. Now that they have total control, they are accelerating their pace. And look what this got them: Us.

>simply ask for exclusively White countries
The trouble is that an exclusively White country will only be achieved through force of arms.
Are we prepared to do this? Nope. 
Therefore, acting like we're in a position to "demand" it is ridiculous. So what is the point of pretending? It's not a serious proposal. 
I am serious and I want you to get serious about this too. We need to figure out how the fuck we go from zero power to the strongest military force on the planet and there are steps from here to there.
One of these steps is organizing politically.
You say that taking the most pure stance and never watering it down for the masses "exposes the cowards among us"
Okay... and what does that gain us? Pride? Virtue signaling how pure we are?

We can sit here, in groups of 10, and pride ourselves on how pure we are. And we will grow old and we will die as alienated individuals with no power and the jews will remain in power forever and our race will die. But at least we never compromised.
Or we can hold our pure beliefs but also demand things that are also widely popular with our own race, and do it in a way that forces the jews to either give in or demonstrates that the regime is anti-White, thus galvanizing just a little bit more of our race against them. 
Then, we either get one piece of what we want (and then we move on to the next item) or we don't and then, with far more people behind us, we intensify the pressure. Someone gets martyred, and then it begins.

TheFutureOfTheAryanRace.png
[Hide] (71.4KB, 526x612) Reverse

>>8120 (OP) 
>And we all know that if any of us actually did anything, we would receive absolutely zero support from these talkers.
Wrong. Brenton Tarrant is my role model.
>if you hold everything short of total world conquest as a defeat,
Nobody wrote that. World Aryan Conquest is a long-term goal. The kikes and their minions have long-term goals, too: extinction of the Master Race, maintenance of fake equality, and enslavement of all men. Picrel is a goal we could achieve with only one generation of Hitler youth. 
>Instead, I propose we adopt the highly successful strategy of the left. Focus obsessively on a small range of reasonable demands, often framed in a way to cast opponents as ridiculous extremists.
The libtards never succeeded. The zionist occupation succeeded, and only because it went out of its way to make White people poor and none of its conspirators ended up kicked to death by children in public. Also, we should lay out our short-term and long-term demands, like men. Sneaky Nazi never won any arguments, even though his heart is in the right place. The fags, the feminists, and the niggers are not forward about their long-term goals because their long-term goals are horrible and unspeakable.

If the government wasn't making us poor on purpose, we'd have bought more preparations in response to rising shitskin numbers and activity. If we are to succeed, it's going to be because we stopped letting the government make us poor. It's a complicated topic, but I guarantee that a more anarchist economy would give White folks room to win and succeed with no risk of starting fights with shitskins. The White Race must collectively be intolerant of the government regulating us. We can regulate ourselves just fine.

>>8135
> Brenton Tarrant is my role model.
What have you done to support him beyond posting online?

>Picrel is a goal we could achieve with only one generation of Hitler youth. 
>a PNG of North America with some swastikas on it
Oh yeah? Hitler's Youth are all dead. No modern organization exists.

You seem to be spiritually in the right place but you're posturing. Your post is filled with slogans which I have seen on 4chan for ages and that's nice, but you aren't writing anything original, nevermind proposing an actual plan of action.
If America is ever going to become a no nigger zone, real people are going to have to make it happen in real life. Wishing for organizations to pop into existence, fully formed and peopled by 180 IQ supermen, is not going to turn America into your 526x612 PNG. In fact, it may only make you impotent.

After years of demanding nothing short of a no nigger zone, you will still not have it. Years will go by and you will end up in one of two places. You'll either become depressed and blackpilled from your complete lack of progress. Or you will become like me and ponder late into the night: How do we do it? How can we get to the no nigger zone with three swastikas? What is the step by step progress that will create that sweet, sweet png, but for real?

spank_a_bitch.jpeg
[Hide] (33.1KB, 474x343) Reverse

The white birthrate issue will never be solved without the following:
>End no-fault divorce and the presumption of maternal custody. Unless the father is a raging alcoholic or some other sort of demonstrable degenerate, he should always get the kids and the house. Women currently file most divorces because they're retarded, never satisfied with anything, and face no consequences. Changing the laws back to pre-feminist, early 1800s standards will help prevent the communist destruction of the family.
>Similarly, discard the idea of "marital rape." Unless we accept that sex is a contractual obligation in marriage, women will continue milking their end of the bargain for all it's worth while providing as little as possible. It's in their nature.
>Finally, women should be largely excluded from the workplace. This would not only raise wages for men, but help us maintain our sanity and sense of self-worth in the face of constant henpecking and female uselessness when it comes to getting anything done. Anyone who has ever worked with a bunch of women knows what I'm talking about. They're even useless in a kitchen.
Until JD Vance or whoever implements these sorts of policies, I'm not getting married, having kids, or working more than the bare minimum I need to survive. This society isn't just a raw deal for men, it's an outright scam. Anyone who still chases after these whores is insane.

wagtfky.jpg
[Hide] (74.4KB, 783x770) Reverse

>>8138
I should add: I have some faith in the potential of closed communities like return to the land getting a handle on women's behavior even if the laws remain how they are. Women are very susceptible to social pressure, so if they stand to be shunned by everyone they know for being whores, they may decide to act right.

However, I don't think every decent white person moving to some intentional community in buttfuck nowhere is going to be viable long-term. We need a presence in the cities to affect national politics, and of course electronic media like internet and television corrupt even rural culture. Therefore, we need to set our sights on changing the whole legal and moral framework of the country. Cuckservatives like Vance may not be based on the race issue, but we should certainly use them whenever their stated goals stand to benefit whites, intentionally or no. His promotion of common sense family values is one such case.

Regardless, I think I understand why the Muslims insist on doing honor killings even after they move to the west. Even 80 IQ niggers know damn well that preserving their culture depends on maintaining an iron grip on women's sexuality.

>>As (you) know, the White Right is very good at talking about the fact that we ought to have a Revolution
In minecraft. The word ought is never used lately that I've noticed.

>>8138
>>women should be largely excluded from the workplace
Everything you wrote is correct. The issue is that I do not believe that this is an achievable goal without political power first, either though force of arms or a gradual takeover of local powers in opposition to the jews. Obviously, the jews like it because it leads to adulatory (and thus destruction of White family unit) and big business supports it because it doubles their consumer base and halves the real value of labor, destroys labor unions, etc. 
But more importantly, is this achievable without an iron grip on at least local government? I am not so sure. As a long term objective, I am already on board. But as an issue that we can use against the regime, I don't see it working.
Consider if in a normal public setting; we demand women be excluded from workplaces. Obviously jews and shitlibs say no. Do they seem unreasonable to the 30-50% of our race that is somewhat lemming-like but not wholly brainless? I think this only gives feminists an easy win.

But ending no-fault divorce, THAT, I feel, has power. Normal people, even the wiggers, hate unfairness and men fear the power of the feminist lobby and judges. Ending divorce rape and no-fault divorce already has large support among, probably ~20-40% of men. Spitballing. If we could harness this organic support and focus it and make conservative politicians feel like they can score safe political points, we could start getting pro-marriage laws passed and be 1 step closer to removing females from the workplace entirely.

I'm also with you on isolated White communities. Theoretically possible (it does happen) but unless it leads to achieving political power, removing ourselves from society is a retreat, not an attack.
We must attack.
We must attack the regime in every possible way. Legally, economically, politically, socially, and (eventually) we must consider the final vector of attack.

>>8140
>ought too
>"we" should go prank the grid
>if only sOmEoNe would fire-prank a [structure]
All the same word to me. It means "I will not do this"

>>8157
I agree that ending no-fault divorce has the most support from within the current establishment. That's why I mentioned Vance in particular. I'm honestly surprised that the elites haven't come out against the phenomenon sooner. When even billionaires can't keep marriages together, you know something is going to change eventually.

As for retreating vs. attacking, consider the following. White people have already lost America, at least temporarily.

I know that's a controversial take, but I also think it's indisputable based on the facts. We are soon to be a minority, if we aren't already.

Recently Uncle Jared's podcast interviewed Aarvoll, the guy in charge of Return to the Land. One of the things that stood out to me was the idea that in order to even organise an attack on or alternative to the system in the first place, whites need a base of operations free from diversity and bureaucratic meddling. That, I think, is the true purpose of these isolated communities.

I really encourage everyone to read Sun Tzu if they haven't already. There's this attitude on the white right as if retreat is always dishonorable, but I strongly disagree. If anything, persisting in a doomed struggle for the sake of your own ego, or some Christian fetishisation of martyrdom, is infinitely worse.

We can still reclaim this country, but we have to start thinking in terms of multiple generations. The Chinks and Jews already do so, and that's part of the reason why they're kicking our asses. White civilisation is just as ancient and illustrious as theirs, if not more so. We have to learn how to "take the L" as the Zoomers say and move on as best we can.

>>8164
> White people have already lost America, at least temporarily.
I'll dispute that. I am an American, but there are many reasons to believe that America is key to solving our problems globally, and many reasons for hope, despite the demographic catastrophe. 

I do agree that a strategic retreat, like a ram pulling back to strike again, is not a dishonorable tactic. Certainly, if we can win by consolidating in a smaller region, ala the Butler Plan, I am all for it. But strategically, we simply must liberate America. If we consolidating in, say, Germany or even France and somehow took over, we would then need to deal with the final boss. The hegemon of NATO, armed with thousands of nukes, the most overpowered military force on the planet. As tiny little Germany, still likely dealing with severe internal opposition to our leadership, how could we do that?

I believe that we must neutralize the strongest beast first. Once ((( American media propaganda ))) and pressure from the irresistible US government is neutralized, most of the leftist influence will evaporate. Europeans can liberate themselves or even be liberated if they need help.

>>8131
>The trouble is that an exclusively White country will only be achieved through force of arms.
>Are we prepared to do this? Nope. 
>Therefore, acting like we're in a position to "demand" it is ridiculous. 
What is ridiculous is not preparing our people to want this. You cannot obtain anything if you don't get them used to see the world our way and this will not happen if we stay in the shadows and meander. No matter what, we will have to come out of the woods and stand for it. We will not gain any ground if we appear afraid of asking for what is natural to us, what is legitimate and necessary. Talking about it openly is the first step. We make our demands clear, we don't retreat, we only go forward.
>So what is the point of pretending? It's not a serious proposal. 
We must rally our people against a simple idea. White power, White lands. Period.
Anything else is a waste of time.
>You say that taking the most pure stance and never watering it down for the masses "exposes the cowards among us"
>Okay... and what does that gain us? Pride? Virtue signaling how pure we are?
It gains us visibility and respect. We shall demonstrate our pride and courage. Our message, loud and clear. A call for honesty. A call for truth and justice. This is what we want and what we need, there is no point arguing otherwise.
>We can sit here, in groups of 10, and pride ourselves on how pure we are. And we will grow old and we will die as alienated individuals with no power and the jews will remain in power forever and our race will die. But at least we never compromised.
Compromise all you want coward. I've read enough of your blackpilling. You will be with us or against us.

>>8137
>let me ponder two more decades

>>8157
>We must attack the regime in every possible way. Legally, economically, politically, socially, and (eventually) we must consider the final vector of attack.
Hence we need at the very least a pro-White party that exposes the kikes, and we should gather a network from there that covers everything from work, life, culture, economy and law. If we can't even manage to pull this off we will never make it anyway.

>>8171
>What is ridiculous is not preparing our people to want this
Brother, that is my entire purpose.
>Talking about it openly is the first step
Did you not read the OP. I have explained why it is more effective to make "reasonable" demands to push things further "right" rather than sit and petulantly demand things we cannot possibly get at the moment. It's depressing and makes us look weaker than we are, which is saying something.
>It gains us visibility and respect.
It makes us look weak. Demanding this is basically demanding the overthrow of ZOG. Which we will only get once we are militarily strong enough to do so through force of arms. So what is the point?
I think there is some misunderstanding. I am not saying: "Abandon our position that a White America is the end goal." I am saying that we will achieve far more success if we rally behind a few reasonable demands that people will actually get behind and push things further right slowly.

This is simply ridiculous. You have absolutely jack shit to enforce your ideas. While the left wisely pushes things slowly but surely in an anti-White direction, you're sitting here, having accomplished absolutely nothing, calling me a coward because I want to push back. 
You may say, I am pushing back. I am demanding 100% of what I want
But you know and I know that that will never happen unless you have the strength to enforce it. You lack that strength. So how do we gain that strength? By rallying more of our people and weaponizing ourselves. And how do we do that? By actually scoring victories and pushing back against ZOG.

No one is going to want to be pro-White if all we are is a bunch of losers who go around whining that we don't have a no-nigger-zone with three swastikas. We need to achieve meaningful political victories, even if they are small.

>>8173
>we need at the very least a pro-White party
Yes. That is my point.
But how do we build this if all we do is set ourselves up to fail every single day?

>we should gather a network from there that covers everything from work, life, culture, economy and law. 
>If we can't even manage to pull this off we will never make it anyway.
This is exactly what I am talking about. "We need," "we should," and what is the goal you have set for ourselves? It is a good long term objective. Or even mid term objective. Let's build a White party. I am with you!
But we lack one and we need a strategy to galvanize our people into building one with us. That requires us actually interacting with politics. And the way to do this is to make demands that people will see as reasonable and achievable.

>>8125
keyboard warrior

598ee1afd251f03545eb010d191d8e4105aa52d59e5cacdde8404ba8d16880fb.jpg
[Hide] (8.4KB, 314x400) Reverse

>>8174
>Did you not read the OP. I have explained why it is more effective to make "reasonable" demands to push things further "right" rather than sit and petulantly demand things we cannot possibly get at the moment. 
You assume that because something cannot be obtained now, we should not voice our requirements already for said goal. I strongly disagree. We must provide a clear vision of what our most noble end goal is. Once people will be used to such blatant violent truth they will possess a tool of comparison against the piss poor requests voiced by the neutralized parties. They will see how all the other parties are clearly wasting people's time and lying. By forcing the debate closer to our views all these other parties will be weighed against our views and ideals.
You also think that by watering down our demands they'll get satisfied. You could argue that more moderate demands would be easier to get fulfilled. But you have no proof of that and worst of all you have no guarantee that we could even escalate. More importantly, watered down positions would not be exclusive to us, which means they could be espoused by the other groups which are Jewish tools, therefore the same yids could maintain control over what needs to be done. They would certainly make sure that even these modest demands would be met with difficulty.
Meanwhile our attempts at enlightening the White population about our dramatic situation could never happen because we would have accepted the fake ceiling that filters out the radicalness of our positions which are entirely based in unadulterated truth. More over, we would again be losing precious time trying to wedge a toe in the door when we actually need to smash it open. We absolutely need to force into the minds of people the fact that radical solutions are necessary now, not tomorrow. Diluted messages will never get us anywhere and will never put enough pressure on conservatives because they will always look for the less tumultuous method. They will want endless talks, calculations and concessions. We need conservatives to be sucked into a vacuum generated by the sheer implosive force of our ideas, otherwise they will stay rooted where they are and won't move. It's not up to us to shift left by adopting softer positions, it's up to them to move in our direction. We must be that strength.
>It makes us look weak. 
That is wholly absurd. You cannot look weak by being stronger than anyone else and shining like a beacon of pious light in a sea of darkness. Being weak is accepting to act like conservatives and that takes us away from a revolution of the mind. What must be done is to shame these people and expose them as the little stupid cowards they have always been for more than a century. But contrary to Europe I have a strong feeling that America will never manage to break free from the usual anti-fascist heroic WW2 myth, it has become too much of a cohesive cultural backbone to the average American citizen.
>Demanding this is basically demanding the overthrow of ZOG. Which we will only get once we are militarily strong enough to do so through force of arms. So what is the point?
Where and when will you get that army if you are not capable, willing and brave enough to call for a White nation fully subservient to our racial needs?
>I am saying that we will achieve far more success if we rally behind a few reasonable demands that people will actually get behind and push things further right slowly.
Giving you for a moment the generous benefit of plausibility, how long do you think this would take? Here's what will happen: our positions will be forgotten and we will find ourselves stuck in the quagmire of half arsed policies in a system that will be very efficient at keeping people happy with the little they are given. Nobody will be willing to risk the very little relative improvements they got, for a simple reason. Radical ideas can only work in critical times, but if you let the Jews drop the pressure we will not reach that point where really desperate people are willing to listen to us.
>This is simply ridiculous. You have absolutely jack shit to enforce your ideas.
It is our duty to find the means to acquire power to enforce them. But we won't find anyone willing to join us if we don't even explain our ideas, if we don't even proudly stand for them and if we have no doctrine nor anything else to use when we try to reach for people. We don't want and should not espouse a milquetoast station. There is no point moving closer to ZOG and play according to a rigged game, an act which will corrupt us, when we know full well that we will never be given a chance to grab power anyway. So instead we must make our intent clear and that's it. It must create friction and tension. Whatever must happen will happen. What the hell are you afraid of? We are right and we have all the evidence in the world to support our position. We have all the statistics, all the curves for the next two decades, all the historical substance to tap into anytime anyone would doubt our words.
>You may say, I am pushing back. I am demanding 100% of what I want
Negotiation 101: always demand more than what you want or can have, not less.
You have already lost otherwise.
>But you know and I know that that will never happen unless you have the strength to enforce it. You lack that strength. So how do we gain that strength? By rallying more of our people and weaponizing ourselves. And how do we do that? By actually scoring victories and pushing back against ZOG.
And how do we score victories against ZOG? By "rallying more of our people and weaponizing ourselves."
A perfectly circular argument you have here. Which incidentally will never happen if you can't even name the Zionist tyrants. Thankfully free speech is still so lenient that you can do all of that without once calling for murder or the destruction of the USA. You can even appeal to International Law and remind everyone that a given people of a particular culture is entitled to be masters of their own destiny and fully enjoy the sovereign power to guarantee their safety. But who the hell talks like that? Who has the courage to say such basic things despite it being totally legal, legitimate, sane, fair and natural? You don't even want to go there. Hence you will not make it.
Most importantly, you will never command respect if you are afraid of the power of your own ideas and if you abide by the very rules you utterly despise, lying to yourself in the vain and stupid hope of having that very system throw you a bone. People will see you for what you have become, it will be transparent. Masses may not be smart but they recognize brazen bravery.
>No one is going to want to be pro-White if all we are is a bunch of losers who go around whining that we don't have a no-nigger-zone with three swastikas.
Then give up already. Nobody said we need to have flying swastikas, but the purpose of obtaining White territories must be correctly articulated and delivered to the masses.
If you're too weak to demand the existence of White lands, go play GOP games with your vaguely whitish nation and her 9~11% patriotic browns and mutts, because you will simply NEVER have the nerve to have them removed while you're surrounded by a large jerking party all too happy to settle on a good enough situation and way too compromised to be able to move further.

WLP.jpg
[Hide] (8.1KB, 200x255) Reverse

>October 28. Last night I had to do the most unpleasant thing that I have been called to do since joining the Organization four years ago. I participated in the execution of a mutineer.
>Harry Powell was Unit 5's leader. Last week, when Washington Field Command gave his unit the assignment of assassinating two of the most obnoxious and outspoken advocates of racial mixing in this area-a priest and a rabbi, coauthors of a widely publicized petition to Congress requesting special tax advantages for racially mixed marned couples - Powell refused the assignment. He sent a message back to WFC saying that he was opposed to the further use of violence and that his unit would not participate in any acts of terrorism.
>He was immediately placed under arrest, and yesterday one representative from each unit under WFC-including Unit S- was summoned to judge him. Unit 10 was not able to send anyone, and so 11 members-eight men and three women- met with an officer from WFC in the basement storeroom of a gift shop owned by one of our "legals." I was Unit l 's representative.
>The officer from WFC stated the case against Powell very briefly. The Unit 5 representative then confirmed the facts: Powell had not only refused to obey the assassination order, but he had instructed the members of his unit not to obey either. Fortunately, they had not allowed themselves to be subverted by him.
>Powell was then given an opportunity to speak in his behalf. He did so for more than two hours, interrupted occasionally by a question from one of us. What he said really shook me, but it made our decision easier for all of us, I am sure.
>Harry Powell was, in essence, a "responsible conservative." The fact that he was not only a member of the Organization but had become a unit leader reflects more on the Organization than it does on him. His basic complaint was that all our acts of terror against the System were only making things worse by "provoking" the System into taking more and more repressive measures.
>Well, of course, we all understood that! Or, at least, I thought we all understood it. Apparently Powell didn't. That is, he didn't understand that one of the major purposes of political terror, always and everywhere, is to force the authorities to take reprisals and to become more repressive, thus alienating a portion of the population and generating sympathy for the terrorists. And the other purpose is to create unrest by destroying the population's sense of security and their belief in the invincibility of the government.
As Powell continued talking, it became clearer and clearer that he was a conservative, not a revolutionary. He talked as if the whole purpose of the Organization were to force the System to institute certain reforms, rather than to destroy the System, root and branch, and build something radically and fundamentally different in its place.
>He was opposed to the System because it taxed his business too heavily. (He had owned a hardware store before we were forced underground.) He was opposed to the System's permissiveness with Blacks, because crime and rioting were bad for business. He was opposed to the System's confiscation of firearms, because he felt he needed a gun for personal security. His were the motivations of a libertarian, the sort of self-centered individual who sees the basic evil in government as a limitation on free enterprise.
>Someone asked him whether he had forgotten what the Organization has repeated over and over, namely, that our struggle is to secure the future of our race, and that the issue of individual freedom is subordinate to that one, overwhelming purpose. His retort was that the Organization's violent tactics are benefiting neither our race nor individual freedom.
>This answer proved again that he didn't really understand what we are trying to do. His initial approval of the use of force against the System was based on the naive assumption that, by God, we'll show those bastards! When the System, instead of backing down, began tightening the screws even faster, he decided that our policy of terrorism is counter-productive.
>He simply could not accept the fact that the path to our goal cannot be a retracing of our course to some earlier stage in our history, but must instead be an overcoming of the present and a forging ahead into the future-with us choosing the direction instead of the System. Until we have torn the rudder out of its grasp and thrown the System overboard, the ship of state will go careening on its hazardous way. There will be no stopping, no going back. Since we are already among rocks and shoals, we are bound to get scraped up pretty badly before we find any clear sailing.
>Maybe he was right that our tactics are wrong; the reaction of the people will eventually answer that question. But his whole attitude, his whole orientation was wrong. As I listened to Powell I was reminded of the late-19th century writer, Brooks Adams, and his division of the human race into two classes: spiritual man and economic man. Powell was the epitome of economic man.
Ideologies, ultimate purposes, the fundamental contradiction between the System's world view and ours-all these things had no meaning for him. He regarded the Organization's philosophy as just so much ideological flypaper designed to catch recruits for us. He saw our struggle against the System as a contest for power and nothing more. If we could not whip them, then we should try to force them to compromise with us.
>I wondered how many others in the Organization thought the way Powell did, and I shuddered. We have been forced to grow too quickly. There has not been sufficient time to develop in all our people the essentially religious attitude toward our purpose and our doctrines which would have prevented the Powell incident by screening him out early.
>As it was, we had no real choice in deciding Powell's fate. There was not only his disobedience to consider, but also the fact that he had revealed himself to be fundamentally unreliable. To have one of us-and a unit leader, at that-talking openly to other members about trying to find a way to compromise with the System, with the war just beginning… There was only one way to deal with such a
situation.
>The eight male members present drew straws, and three of us, including me, ended up on the execution squad. When Powell realized that he was going to be killed, he tried to make a break. We tied his hands and feet, and then we had to gag him when he began shouting. We drove him to a wooded area off the highway about 10 miles south of Washington, shot him, and buried him.
>I got back a little after midnight, but I still haven't been able to get to sleep. I am very, very depressed.

>>8176
>We must provide a clear vision of what our most noble end goal is.
I never argued otherwise. What we need in addition to this are achievable goals. If you need to travel from point A to point B, you must take many steps to get there. That is my position.

>you have no proof of that
On the contrary, the conservative block is now 100% on board with removing Affirmative Action, and they did. We actually won that fight. Now let's move onto the next one. Always attack.
> the radicalness of our positions 
In 100% seriousness, what is radical about our positions? Yes, we do want to overthrow the regime, but why? Because they are committing genocide. Resisting genocide of your own people is probably the most moderate, basic position you can take.
> we would again be losing precious time trying to wedge a toe in the door when we actually need to smash it open.
This is where I make the greatest critique: You lack the power to smash that door down.
We are weak at the moment, with no political power or influence. Ironically, the people who are doing the most to overturn anti-White laws in the real world are conservatives. They have literally scored more White victories in the past years than us. Trump is actually moving to end birthright citizenship. This may actually happen but it wasn't necessarily due to us.
>You're pro Trump!!!!
I am pro-White. If Trump does something pro-White, even in isolation, why the hell shouldn't I praise good behavior? 
It encourages more good behavior whilst making our enemies lash out at his base and accuse them of being racist. This is inoculating them against the fear of the smear.
> it's up to them to move in our direction
Not without any power, it isn't. Why would anyone adopt our positions when we, apparently, cannot win even small fights (because we don't start any fights)

> You cannot look weak by being stronger than anyone else
At present, we are weaker than marxists. I am genuinely worried every day that Trump will turn on us and issue orders to round us up. And because we are so alienated from the great masses of our own people, most of them would cheer this on.
We are in a very precarious position with no clear path to victory.

Also, you keep insisting that I must do either only calls for world genocide of niggers, or basically parrot conservative ideas.
I argue no such thing.
I am arguing that, in addition to our ultimate goal, we must focus on achievable steps to remove non-Whites from power.

>>8179
I believe this has already been quoted ITT. This is not similar to what is being debated at all.

1. The Organization in the Turner Diaries is an organization of tens of thousands at the very least. They are engaged in an armed struggle against the regime.
I keep informing you that we have no such organization and are not engaging in armed resistance.
You do not present a path that leads to armed resistance. You are only proposing that we take the most unachievable goals and fail at achieving them over and over because we have no possible way to do so. There are intermediate steps between holding no power and having a massive insurgent army.

2. The context of this fictional event is that the armed struggle already has begun. That's the final goal, the last step before winning it. The purpose of focusing on achievable goals is to ratchet things inexorably in the direction of armed struggle. Once it has been achieved, there is no longer any need to engage in peaceful politics (insofar as that being the main focus)

3. I'm surprised no one ever quotes the seemingly far more applicable scene where the Organization focuses on the most "extreme" rhetoric to weed out the faint of heart from the Organization. That is immediately a far better argument against my position than this.
Even so, it is not a good argument because the Organization already existed as a legal political group before it went underground. How did it get to be this way?
By doing exactly what I am advocating, albeit, according to the book, unsuccessfully. It only went underground after the Gun Raids. 

And furthermore, Dr. Pierce said in later speeches that the Turner Diaries was not a realistic book and that was not his intention to lay out a blueprint for Revolution. Indeed, he much preferred Hunter as this lays out achievable goals for lone wolves. In Turner Diaries, the Organization is far more organized and top-down structured than would be feasible in a police state like America. The communications thing would be nice, but probably impossible to keep secure. 

And lastly! The entire reason why the Organization was so successful in the first place as outlined in the Turner Diaries was because it made the mistake of repeatedly taking extreme positions that alienated the public. It confiscated basically all guns, it hosted violent black mobs and race riots, it deputized black goons to rape and harass White people, etc. It made the very mistake you wish us to make.

>>8181
> because THE SYSTEM made the mistake of repeatedly taking extreme positions that alienated the public.

As an addendum, there are two groups. 
One has as their goal "total nigger death."
But that's illegal and none of them are prepared to start killing niggers. So they meet and meet and meet and achieve nothing. What is the point of this group?

A second group has as their goal the same final goal, but focuses on the far more achievable goal of pressuring conservatives and conservative politicians to pass a law that actually benefits White people. Perhaps it is a law penalizing corporations from hiring spics or a law that removes CRT from the public school curriculum. This is far more energizing than meeting in a basement and whining that they cannot achieve their unrealistic goals. They will likely succeed and then move onto the next goal, gaining experience and cohesion as a result. And if they fail, now we have yet more ammunition to use against the regime.

>>8179
>We have been forced to grow too quickly. There has not been sufficient time to develop in all our people the essentially religious attitude toward our purpose and our doctrines which would have prevented the Powell incident by screening him out early.
The screening part is very relevant. I believe only the equivalent of our fundamentalists should truly be sent on such missions, and they should all be correctly trained. In other words, while we should grow our militia, we would precisely screen and meticulously pick the most adapted individuals for the underground activities that clearly stand outside of the legal realm, and no overt connection ever shall ever be found between any part of the organization and these active cells.
We shall have tiers, and in this story, the Powell profile should be found standing in one of the intermediate tiers. An individual who would back off the moment he'd understand that violence could or would make things worse for us and should therefore be abandoned is not an individual we would want anywhere close to a platoon, even less a secret operative. This is the kind of people who would eventually support us from the civilian fringes.
Don't grow too quickly. Be methodological and routinely screen each individual. Make sure the doctrine is perfectly understood, even if in broad strikes only.

>>8182
>A second group has as their goal the same final goal, but focuses on the far more achievable goal of pressuring conservatives and conservative politicians to pass a law that actually benefits White people.
Conservatives care about their money and their safety, and I don't know which one comes first wit these rascals.
We can't threaten their bank accounts, but we surely can threaten their safety.

They only begin to concede a few bits here and there on security the moment it hits their own prosperity. They don't fancy negroes touring their suburbs and killing them on the spot. But once the negroes are tamed, they go back to their normal routine. What is the threat doesn't come from the negroes only? The conservatives will certainly say this goes too far and will once more side with the System for protection. This will be their first reaction, the easiest one, to cry mommy and beg for a renewal of their safety and the price of their soul. But we would not back down. At this point it becomes clear that the harassment should become constant and I certainly believe it would be easier to maintain that kind of pressure in much Whiter states because conservatives would be surrounded by righter Whites. Operations to off very obnoxious figures from the opposition would need to be kept for deeper activities within leftist thus System territories. Floats would have to be coordinated for this. This is why we must begin to secure the Whiter areas so they can act as our bases of operation, as safety havens to which we can retreat and even hide if necessary. Which means making these regions hazardous even to police forces as the value of blue skin will sharply drop.

Wodensson had plans to write a novel about Trebor's early life and I wish he had time to write it because his insight would have been valuable, even if disguised as fiction. It is after a work of fiction that changed his own life.

>>8181
Regarding the US and those "gun raids", it would be one huge trigger and it's obvious that ZOG has done everything humanely possible to convince people to forgo their rights to bear arms. Considering the rise of violence everywhere this is not a discourse that will get through many ears. Not even a radical false flag event would suffice.
I doubt it would ever happen and I equally doubt that even pushing ZOG hard would have the government enact such a retard measure. Assuredly it would leave it to states to decide, at most.
>And furthermore, Dr. Pierce said in later speeches that the Turner Diaries was not a realistic book and that was not his intention to lay out a blueprint for Revolution.
He was right and I would add that in another article he also stood against the very dubious and super sketchy mass shooting-like operations because he understood that there is a time for everything and certain paramilitary activities within a specific context can easily backfire.
Despite being a fiction I think his book has value because it's a narrativist take on what essentially is a political, social and perhaps pre-wartime simulation. For that it is useful and has people talking its numerous aspects, from the most realistic to the most outlandish.
What is clear is that properly targeted and meaningful lone wolf activities only begin when the Organization is pushed underground and becomes physically active, with enough men to count on and a solid doctrine to point to when clarifications are needed.
>Indeed, he much preferred Hunter as this lays out achievable goals for lone wolves. In Turner Diaries, the Organization is far more organized and top-down structured than would be feasible in a police state like America. The communications thing would be nice, but probably impossible to keep secure.
Then again, turning to The Brigade and its associated books would prove useful, but we should also consider looking into testimonies of real historical events.
For now we may really need to focus on Codreanu's for example or books that describe what happens during the collapse of an western country because it will teach us what people will do and expect during such times, it will also give us an idea of how difficult it would be to organize and safely shift resources about.
>[The System] confiscated basically all guns, it hosted violent black mobs and race riots, it deputized black goons to rape and harass White people, etc. It made the very mistake you wish us to make.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
I will also notice that the free ride given to negroes during BLM was pretty much one of those very radicalizing moments and it barely scratched the reality of what would happen would the savages be given a complete freedom to lash out at Whites, as described in Rockwell's White Power.

953fb3cdba29276466d891d3d5463734f9cf8cdce533a3805498ed7c065de1f2.jpg
[Hide] (100.7KB, 1749x980) Reverse

431cd9dafc823f737cd7557855bcc3a9f9e8f8259c7a65f6fca7626dcd81d061.jpg
[Hide] (159.5KB, 1749x980) Reverse

496de20be71f88b0cbc1ae1be4c64bcc33fe31249276f3292f5fb20b56fe6dac.jpg
[Hide] (72.1KB, 1470x980) Reverse

8f12ef7944cb293e3a856e95650101129511d9a606a7a10ad968bc2a10662f7c.jpg
[Hide] (31.1KB, 1024x576) Reverse

>>8180
>I never argued otherwise. What we need in addition to this are achievable goals. If you need to travel from point A to point B, you must take many steps to get there. That is my position.
Can't reach a destination if nobody knows where and what it is.
>On the contrary, the conservative block is now 100% on board with removing Affirmative Action, and they did.
Please. Jews simply reduced the intensity by a very few degrees of the most obnoxious portion of the anti-traditional forces and we all knew it would happen because the most militant side of the affirmative action is also the most anti-natural. We are only observing a stepping back from decades of unrelenting AA that has allowed tens of millions of foreigners to multiply. Just like fight against abortion is meaningless to our cause if it's just to fall back on a blind protection all God's cherished life that allows millions of brownoids to spawn on our lands like some damned creep. All you are seeing is a little pressure release by barely returning to the normal of yesterday, which depending on the topic can be just about fifteen years ago or as far as a few decades back. All the freaks who have wormed their way into our institutions won't be eliminated. And even if it were to happen by the US turning almost despotic and puritanical, it still would be according to Jewish law and oversight. You want to play the political democratic game and be careful with your own words when there are even less Whites today than there were fifty years ago. You won't get anywhere until you start talking about White Lands.
This is why you don't understand >>8179 
>>[Powell] simply could not accept the fact that the path to our goal cannot be a retracing of our course to some earlier stage in our history, but must instead be an overcoming of the present and a forging ahead into the future-with us choosing the direction instead of the System.
>In 100% seriousness, what is radical about our positions? 
Bad faith won't get you anywhere. You do know for a fact that anti-Jewish, racist, pro-White ethnoseparatism with a complete racial territorial segregation and the affirmation of the quality of the White race, and certainly its clear superiority over brown ones, is the absolute antithesis of our current multicultural sick and jewed society. it is the Great Satan in that theme park called ZOG World.
>It's Okay To Be White
doesn't cut it when we need to say
>It's Okay To Have A White Nation
because the latter implies an application of the Fourteen Words.
>I am pro-White. If Trump does something pro-White, even in isolation, why the hell shouldn't I praise good behavior?
He hasn't done anything pro-White so that's a non-sequitur. At best he's only done something a bit less pro-brown and only under the condition that we become even more submissive to Israel. He is also moving forth with a further unification of the upper half of the American continent, which means opening even more the borders to non-Whites. He has not stepped in to totally stop non-White immigration. His friend Musk is asking for hordes of *cough*capable and skilled*cough* pajeets to settle in. The commie Trudeau has split Canada open to be invaded by chinks and pajeets too and Trump wants to dissolve the border between the US and Canada.
So you're talking nonsense.
Even if 100% of immigration were to be stopped, legal or not, it would simply not come anywhere close to solving our issue until we'd cut off true White States from that dying disgusting Beast. Remember that the Noahide Laws are already loaded and ready.
>Not without any power, it isn't. Why would anyone adopt our positions when we, apparently, cannot win even small fights (because we don't start any fights)
You don't even know if Whites have no power of their own volition at all, because you haven't even tried to run this scenario in your head. You automatically assume that even a pro-White party would simply not get anywhere so we must bow down to "reasonable" pale requests.
Mind you, conservatives don't have any power at all, Jews decide for them. Jews have felt the need to open the pressure valve because of the very radical opinions that people like us have defended online and offline. We have been the underground pressure that the Jews are forced to acknowledge and it is about time we accelerate things and come to the surface because there is just that much we can do underground and it's not sufficient, at least as long as it stays legal.
As I said we already have all the information we could ever need, the injustice is plain to see, vice is everywhere and our replacement so certain. It's about time we coalesce all of this latent power into some true intelligible and bright force for all to see. We shall carry this white light and bring it to our kinfolk.

WHITE LANDS

>>8185
>We can't threaten their bank accounts
We could... 
>I don't know which one comes first wit these rascals.
Here is the crux of the issue: There are three broad types of White people in this country besides us. The first group, the largest, are the conservative types. This includes libertarians. They range from "leave me alone so I can make muh money." to idealists. There is a lot of natural overlap with us and it has been conservatives whom our speakers have focused on converting.
The second group is the uncaring mass type wigger people. They're interested in TikTok, shiny toys, and not being engaged politically. I view these people as hopeless. What could possibly motivate them to throw all their degenerate shit away to live in constant fear that you will wake up dead?
The last, smallest group are the shitlibs. These pathologically anti-White people are, I believe, unconvertable so long as the mass media is jewish. Once we seize the media, the shitlibs will all become Nazis except for the diehard degenerates. 

Tell me I am wrong here. Show me evidence to the contrary.

>>8189
Doing real gun raids would be idiotic. Not saying you're wrong but I am saying that I hope that they do it. What a blunder.

> I think his book has value because it's a narrativist take on what essentially is a political, social and perhaps pre-wartime simulatio
100% with you, brother. I have read communist literature as well and I must say that the Turner Diaries is the most revolutionary piece of literature in the world at the moment. It discusses revolution on a scale and to a degree that even communists do not in their literature.

> turning to The Brigade and its associated books would prove useful
Again, I agree. 
Dr. Pierce, being born in 1933, learned his Art of War from observing Vietnam. Therefore, his rebels are fighting a rural revolution similar to Maoist China. Covington on the otherhand, learned his Art of War by observing the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I almost worship Dr. Pierce, and I follow his idea of vanguard White party politics. However, I fully admit that Harold had a firmer grasp of what the war will look like.

>I don't understand what you mean by this.
I typo'd, thus nullifying my arguments. >>8182

>it barely scratched the reality of what would happen would the savages be given a complete freedom to lash out at Whites
This is the hidden motive behind my proposal. I am at heart an accelerationist, but I have given it serious thought and concluded that skull masks and menacingly standing near pylons isn't effective. Instead, I would like to exacerbate racial tensions by scoring multiple small victories "for the racists"
This will likely trigger more BLM tire chimpouts

>>8191
>Can't reach a destination if nobody knows where and what it is.
No, but you cannot reach a destination if taking small steps is considered cowardice.

I appreciate your greater point here. Should we seek to resist White genocide if doing so turns down the heat? 
I believe that it is beneficial because
1. It moralizes our side
2. It makes the arrogant enemy go insane. An insane enemy is good.
3. The prime directive is to organize politically until we have the strength to attack the System directly. As I argued, sitting alone and pinning for an unachievable goal will not accomplish this. Organizing around small but stead achievable goals will.
We must organize or we will lose.

>Bad faith won't get you anywhere.
There is no bad faith. White people being pro-White is the norm throughout all White history.

>At best he's only done something a bit less pro-brown 
Praise this while denouncing zionism. 
>moving forth with a further unification of the upper half of the American continent,
I don't buy this grandstanding. Trump isn't serious. 

>Even if 100% of immigration were to be stopped, legal or not, it would simply not come anywhere close to solving our issue 
Would it be an improvement?
Yes.

>>8195
>No, but you cannot reach a destination if taking small steps is considered cowardice.
Why bother with small steps when we need to run, without what we would get caught by the tidal wave?
>I appreciate your greater point here. Should we seek to resist White genocide if doing so turns down the heat? 
Resisting White genocide cannot turn down the heat, only increase it.
>There is no bad faith. White people being pro-White is the norm throughout all White history.
Irrelevant. We are not reenacting the past but living in all new conditions akin to extinction.
>I don't buy this grandstanding. Trump isn't serious.
He may be a clown and his show might be part of a clever smokescreen tactic, but the North American Union is a very real project that comes close to this segmentation of the world.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/GCCMAP_2019.png/1280px-GCCMAP_2019.png
>Would it be an improvement?
>Yes.
What would be your publicly advocated arguments in the political area to have all immigration come to a full stop? What would you say?

>>8193
>We could... 
How?
>Tell me I am wrong here. Show me evidence to the contrary.
I don't feel like you have posted anything contradicting something I may have written to be honest. You just listed the three main political tendencies Whites are found in.

>>8210
>How could we threaten their bank accounts?
2 ways. Rebels could do so directly through cyber attacks and identity theft.
The second way is to attack economic targets. For instance say that there is some sort of cuckservative twat store owner who goes way out of line to help jews or, more critically harmful, assist the police state in harming rebel activities. Well, those stores could be eliminated via mystery packages. Or, better yet, various cyber attacks or even direct attacks against the critical infrastructure of his business empire: Shipments, refrigeration, his payment system for his employees (making him very unpopular), taking control over his utility payment systems, hacking into company funds and draining them, etc.
Care must be taken when attacking public retail establishments or anything that large numbers of White people gain utility from, for reasons which should be obvious. However, modern technology allows rebels to cause pain to the businesses of unsavory characters in a multitude of ways without even leaving a trace. 

Due to human nature, the majority of store goers will never realize why the store goes out of business unless the rebels start parking car bombs outside of the store. Again, this is less than idea due to high civilian casualties (during the day) and the fact that the rebels are saying, "Hey, we're responsible for your lowing standard of living, not the zionist regime"
Purges must be conducted only after there is no chance of the enemy regaining power. And even then, it is best to seize power, be all happy and nice for a few weeks, then have 1 to 2 weeks of intense violence against traitors, and then go back to nice. This is how the Taliban did it and I fully appreciate their sound logic. After 2 weeks of terror, everyone will welcome the nice face of the new government back. And of course, human psychology aids in justifying brief periods of civil violence but not long periods. 

>>8209
>Resisting White genocide cannot turn down the heat
I agree.
I firmly believe that the regime will either deny basic demands (and thus alienate more of the public and show them the correctness of our larger cause) or, if they actually agree and implement several small things, this will lead to psychotic nigger-retard chimpouts, which will do the exact same thing.
Getting what we want isn't necessarily the goal. The goal is education.

>In modern context, being pro-White is radical.
Maybe so. However, I do not believe it is a good idea to call yourself "far right" "radical" or "an extremist"
It kind of surrenders to the enemy.

>What would be your publicly advocated arguments in the political area to have all immigration come to a full stop?
To Republicans:
-Immigrants vote left. You wouldn't want that, would you? Socialism. Joe Biden! Marxism. Communism!
-They're literally gonna kill you once they're the majority. You know this, right?
-Check out these crime data. 
To Democrats (White ones, obviously):
-Immigrants are scabs. (begins citing all the times that businesses use Mexicans to undermine labor unions and impoverish White workers)
-Quoting Samuel Gompers and other labor leaders
-The environmental impact of immigration
-How are you gonna have healthcare if you have an open border?

>>8215
>To Republicans:
>-Immigrants vote left. You wouldn't want that, would you? Socialism. Joe Biden! Marxism. Communism!
>-They're literally gonna kill you once they're the majority. You know this, right?
>-Check out these crime data. 
>To Democrats (White ones, obviously):
>-Immigrants are scabs. (begins citing all the times that businesses use Mexicans to undermine labor unions and impoverish White workers)
>-Quoting Samuel Gompers and other labor leaders
>-The environmental impact of immigration
>-How are you gonna have healthcare if you have an open border?
All of which we can say in an even better fashion and with more emphasis with a pro-White all encompassing rhetoric.
If we can't get people to join us with the truth then there is no point trying to convince them. Crime data can and should be shown to democrats too. The environmental impact of immigration is not exclusive to the left side of the political spectrum. I haven't seen a single right wing lad who didn't have an opinion on health care and who hasn't grown sick of the supposed social darwinism of health care which is just a veil for the intensive mercantilism we are exposed to. Do we want to pay for idiots to chop off their balls? No. Could we pay for the less fortunate to help them a bit through their life by taking from the very rich? Perhaps. A bit of sharing wouldn't hurt but I couldn't count on the billionaires to do it by themselves, regularly.

>>8231
The real issue is that we have to teach Whites to be selfish from a racial group perspective.
>>White First And Always.
That should be our motto.

>>8231
>Why not take a maximalist stance when convincing fence sitters to join us?
Were you born a White nationalist? When & how did you become one? Was it suddenly, all at once? Or was it gradually as you learned new information?

Again, I keep saying that you can take maximalist positions if you want. But let's do so while focusing on specific, achievable objectives such as closing the border. 
As an aside, I view mexicans as a graver threat than niggers because of their higher birthrate and their integration into the money making schemes of White capitalists. Thus, focusing on cutting off the flow of mexicans is the logical ideal. If, again ideal situation, we could remove mexicans, White people already universally hate niggers. Even Democrat Whites hate niggers.

bf85293a836b7da28a7d5ae1081bf5323820671c05cc60ba18ef01bc63c095a1.jpg
[Hide] (19KB, 604x483) Reverse

>>8234
Unless we're born in a hard right family already or live with such people one way or another, we all have to wade through steppes of doubts and misinformation until we reach safe places of enlightenment. For me it happened at a pace that was slower than it should and could have been at first, but after being exposed to content that I would deem extreme and highly illegal, things moved very fast. This content didn't come to me, I had to look for it and a lot of time was definitely wasted.
Today we have amassed such an important amount of collected and synthesized facts that it makes the awakening of anyone much easier and faster, assuming said content is delivered to an audience. The memes are now so powerful, concise and radical that we don't need to waste our time as people around me are far more receptive to politically transgressive pro-White material and that's what matters to me.
Whether we have a political party that adopts a radical stance in its message or we have young people orbiting the MAGA crowd who get exposed to radical memes, one way or another the radical content has to be produced and shared on a constant basis. I'll give you that the only use of adopting a circumvoluted way at delivering said content is for the issue of the legality of our ideas depending on one's country of action. But in many Western countries the freedom of speech has been so curtailed that for them it's useless to waste time with adopting the democratic codes of discourse because it's impossible to get anywhere. On the contrary, it is the truth that has to be delivered in very smart ways.
For example, by using social networks to share simple content without comments. Show Jews being nefarious but don't say anything because you would merely be sharing content that is already legal and public. Remind people of the hypocrisy of the system too, that is not too risky. Show the inherent limits of democracy and who owns it through the banks and the medias. Again, give names in broadly sweeping techniques but don't target them. And finally, don't hesitate to use funny content that is used to mask redpills against non-Whites, fags, femoids and traitors.
For example, I believe many of the 88 Precepts could be quoted verbatim in most countries without issue but they would be exposed you as picking from a reprehensible source. Instead, a slight modification of the content and eventually associated to a more general picture about the recent political news would milk up the pill and let it go down smoothly. Many other quotations could be slightly reworded or recomposed with others to create quick and powerful small paragraphs.
No matter how harsh the law is, it still is very leaky and with cunning you can get through, knowing anyway that the Jews will use other methods to try to silence you. Being alone is certainly a problem so that's why a large party with gusto and its own guard would be required. We don't want our own people to be taken away so easily and we don't want to make the cops' job too simple easier.
Otherwise a given government could simply send a bunch of blue pigs to arrest a politician with minimal resistance, mince him through a bullshit trial and trumpeted charges and have him rot in jail. We can't afford that, but nobody would understand the necessity of some possibility of an armed resistance if we didn't have some radical to say to boot.

>>8239
>I awoke slowly, after being exposed to content that I would deem extreme and highly illegal
You're not European so I am curious how illegal content convinced you. At present, there are very few kinds of content that are "illegal" online, in America. And a large amount of it is the kind of content which no one here would want associated with us, nor would it be related to race. Obviously, you shouldn't reveal anything that negatively affects you or even has a chance of negatively affecting you. 
But even outright denying that the holocaust happened is perfectly legal in America, nevermind pointing out the violent tendencies of niggers. The only caveat is that if you espouse these truths via most social media, you get banned.
But even on X, you can poke holes in the holocaust to a degree and you're only going to get banned if one of Elon's friends notices you.

I critique the jews all the time on X. The only things that have ever gotten me banned were suggesting that the jews assassinated JFK because he was going to label AIPAC a foreign lobbyist organization, believe it or not.
I have noticed that you have to be very careful when critiquing AIPAC on X or you get banned.

>>8240
I say that I deem it highly illegal because I don't know for sure who I am talking to and America tends to be the exception today, I too often assumed that things weren't that grim elsewhere. Also because some of the people who posted said content told me so, as some of them were European so they knew what they were talking about and I had no reason to distrust them regarding their claims tbh. They were older than me and for a few of them if I remember correctly they had been like threatened by their respective governments. Besides the POTUS has said a couple times already how much he'd love to make this kind of material highly illegal here and the ADL has pushed that line too and when you see the kind of vile shit them kikes can get away with we better be cautious because the unthinkable might unexpectedly get very real quicker than we thought possible.

>>8241
Trump trying to round us all up is actually my number one short term concern.

>>8260
Any legal action against us is an ever present threat, even if only a process-as-punishment scheme.

>>8261
No, in the greater scheme of things, anyone but Trump going after us is preferable. If he does, his base will mobilize, joining forces with the shitlibs (who will salivate at the chance to kill off some "Trump Nazis" with the assistance of other "Trump Nazis").
98% chance there will be virtually no resistance.
2% chance that any resistance there is is quickly squashed because it would have no hope of overthrowing the regime with zero popular support.

We would simply be crushed and America would become the UK.

>>8262
>joining forces with the shitlibs 
Maybe but keep in mind that the very first victims of the current scheme were the pro-palestine shitlib protesters at college campuses. It would require extremely careful and selective enforcement which I don't quite think the system is guaranteed to pull off.

On the other hand, I do feel as though conservatives are the absolute worst of political elements in the US, so my disgust for them leads me to agree with your assessment that they would fall in line. They have a mental block preventing themselves from disagreeing with their Orange Savior.

>>8264
To briefly expand on this

If Trump enacts antisemitism bans:
-Shitlib perspective:
<Trump is doing it = bad
<It affects pro-palestine = bad
>I don't like nazis = good
-Cuckservative perspective
>Trump is doing it = good
>It affects pro-palestine = good
>I don't like nazis = good

If Kamala (or any dem) enacts antisemitism bans:
-Shitlib perspective:
>Kamala is doing it = good
<It affects pro-palestine = bad
>I don't like nazis = good
-Cuckservative perspective
<Kamala is doing it = bad
>It affects pro-palestine = good
>I don't like nazis = good

Trump = 33% lib approval and 100% cuck approval
Kamala = 66% lib approval and 66% cuck approval

Perhaps this is a stupid and binary argument, but it illustrates my point.

>>8265
I like the game theory.
Another factor to consider is that when Trump is in office, cuckservatives trick themselves into thinking that they aren't really Nazis. But when he isn't in office, deep down ever cuckservative knows that when they're talking about killing Nazis, they are talking about him and his entire White family.

>>8260
>>8261
>>8262
>>8264
All sides will be literally OK with punching nazis in the face.
America has its sacred cows. WW2 is this glass ceiling it can't get through.
Too many people bought the MAGA when it was MAG. And if you read Wodensson with a clear heart you know it's not possible.
The only difficulty with banning antisemitism is that it would trample the First Amendment in ways that are really massive and shocking to the average American citizen used to freedom of speech. This could have worked ten years ago but now that the kikes have bombed Gaza to fine dust and openly shill building hotels there on the hot corpses of Palestinians, the educated bourgeois left (an oxymoron) will reee like mad at this because they're also identified as antisemites since they oppose Israel. Cue "we're not nazis" and for this the medias will double down on bizarre comparisons between the Hamas and nazis.
All the other people voting left such as migrants and degenerates won't give a shit about Palestine and will comply. The left will fracture further and it already did because some of the migrants switched to Republicans for the shekel gibs, to avoid having to split them too much with their fresher cousins and the new wave of pajeets. They all hate whitey but they understand that there's a finite amount of cake and it cannot be subdivided eternally.
So most of the left won't give a shit about antisemitic laws, and most of the right will be too retarded to see beyond Jesus' approval. Besides conservatives just hate sandniggers anyway and can't stand leftists so they'll hit two birds with one stone by supporting this ban on antisemitism.
Meanwhile Jews will be working round the clock to continue seizing as much land as possible and get the third temple built, perhaps before '28 according to the curse of the 80 years, which means giving the Muslims the middle finger. This will likely enrage them everywhere on this planet and give Trump and right-wing governments elsewhere a free pass to crack down on anything Muslim, although it will be largely ineffective because it will be done in bad faith and very superficial, since the Jews want to continue submerging White nations with all the shit of the world. The likeliness of foreign wars in Muslim areas will again increase to deplete the best goyim during Operation Stormnigger. Expect more snackbars.

TL;DR
Nazis = bad agreed upon by all, USA is too kiked, democracy perpetuates the idiocracy, things get worse.

>>8282
That's true of boomers. But what about adult generations?

>>8282
Divide and conquer is such a good strategy under ((( democracy ))) it's unreal. Unless you have the manpower to destroy the government we don't you are at the mercy of the jew system and all the retards who follow it.
>>8283
Even if the youth are willing to turn it around, the momentum in the wrong direction means that the boomers and gen-x can ruin Whites before we have a chance to salvage the nation.

>>8285
> boomers and gen-x can ruin Whites before we have a chance to salvage the nation.
The nation is our race, not the state. If we are able to save our race, then we will have saved our nation. 
As for our chances of success, anything above 0.00000 sounds like the most beautiful music to me.

>>8285
>gen x
ngl but they seem among the most based, old enough to remember the better times but tech savy enough to know how to make good shit, especially from an experience gathered when things had to be built and were them too of a better quality.
The boomers are on their way out while zoomies are too young for now. It takes time becoming based in an environment that tries its best to be subversive and debilitating.
t. millennial citizen

e2f6aeb9b47857760498f28ae4b881931c55644cbe60b9a79207d088ec3705c6.jpg
[Hide] (45.8KB, 1080x526) Reverse

>>8282
>antisemitism: saying things about Jews that Jews don't like
>making it illegal
The recent events from Trump's cabinet and the complete lack of reaction are telling me he and his cronies might really put it off, it's that insane.

Okay, we have discussed things ranging from the topic to insurgent rebellion.
I will now propose a subject which I believe we should push and why:

Jews, blacks, and hispanics have a congressional racial caucus. White people should have one too

This is not as much an achievable goal in the short term, but something that appeals to the fairness instinct among our race. This unequal treatment of races begs the question: Why are jews grouping up? Because this grants them power and prestige. Okay, so why then are we not grouping up?
The objective is to get White people thinking racially. That should always be the objective. The lack of this is the cause of 90% of our problems.