Before and after the White American Revolution

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 28 September 2009 15:52.

This is a suggestion from Bo Sears. One subject that sorely needs some attention is the kind of organisational requirements European-American nationalists need in place at each stage of the process of regaining control over their people’s lives and destiny - WAR for short! Bo suggests that there are three such stages:

“1. Now, while we are weak.

2. Later, when we grow much larger in number.

3. And later still, when the actual winning of power and the type of government we might set up come under consideration?”

Now, there is the small matter of fashioning revolution of the mind between nos 1 and 2, and a revolution of the more obvious sort between nos 2 and 3. So organisation has to change accordingly. Analysis of the current dispensation, short and long-term strategy, and the means of dissemination of ideas all enter into the first period. Mass mobilisation, whether it is in a political, migrational or military form applies to the second.

But let’s have some more detailed thoughts.

Tags: White Nationalism

Comments:

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:45 | #

I actually encountered someone here the other day who hadn’t read The Turner Diaries!
That book outlines a plausible strategy for Part !.
In this connection - for those who have read the book - this very recent vid clip may be of interest;
http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_466.shtm

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:14 | #

1. Now, while we are weak.

I’m mostly focused at this level. What i’d say is the first step is just to get people connected and active in something that goes in the right direction even if it is in itself nowhere near enough. This could be a political party of a pressure group. The point is to see it as a vehicle for moving people towards a revolutionary position rather than an end in itself. Any activity can be revolutionary if it leads to the creation of a committed cadre - even delivering leaflets or representing people who have problems with the local authority. You need numbers and you get numbers through very non-revolutionary seeming low level political activity.

Now, there is the small matter of fashioning revolution of the mind between nos 1 and 2

This is the tricky bit if your main focus is non-revolutionary low level political activity. My opinion is, if the political activity is outside the range deemed acceptable by the red media then the enemy will attack relentlessly no matter how reasonable you appear to the average person. In the current climate any anti-immigration activity for example will put your party or pressure group beyond the pale of acceptability and lead to constant and relentless attack.

I think these enemy attacks, if they can be withstood over time, will fashion the neccessary revolution of the mind like an ordeal by fire.

I think that gets us to stage 2 - after that i have no idea.

Posted by Old Raven on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:59 | #

Wandrin—you wrote, “You need numbers and you get numbers through very non-revolutionary seeming low level political activity.”

There is some significant work on “non-revolutionary seeming low level political activity” being done by a fellow who calls himself “Horus”. It’s embedded in a series of podcasts called “Follow the White Rabbit”, which focuses on “simple” talking points and the power they can have to cause a “re-alignment” or some seeds of dissonance in the minds of the target we want to reach.

You can find it here: http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:28 | #

@Old Raven

which focuses on “simple” talking points and the power they can have to cause a “re-alignment” or some seeds of dissonance in the minds of the target we want to reach.

That sounds exactly like the kind of thing i mean - planting seeds. I’ll check the link out ty.

Posted by Joe of the Mountain on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:14 | #

First thing is to settle on a simple, easily understood and communicated strategy. The Red Left used the recently ballyhooed “Cloward-Piven” strategy but an even more successful example might be Kirk’s “After the Ball”. But before all else, a strategy must be adopted broadly or the movement is nothing but the bumbling would-be revolutionaries of “The Life of Brian”.

It seems to me the US White consciousness is ready or nearly ready for leadership. There is broad understanding that Whites have been targetted, but most of the victims haven’t a clue what to do. In fact, paralysis is the expected effect of political correctness, made possible only by our own voluntary acquiescence.

What should this strategy look like? It should be an idea, preferably simple (“Yes we can!” with “we” understood to be “Not Straight, White or Christian” in the most recent context. Note that Cloward, Piven and Kirk were marketing psychology experts. It is crucial to think in terms of marketing and basic group psychology in this task. Ideology is a non-starter; complexity kills. KISS rules when it comes to revolution.

To my mind, an effective motto or slogan should (1) embrace the charges of our antagonists; (2) empower the victim (us) to provide a sense of both pride and righteousness; and finally (3) must be rooted in present reality not the informative but obsolete battles of past ages. In other words, it must implicitly acknowledge that Whites have been effectively defeated and are an embattled force, losing in their own land. Any pretense to success or elevation would be laughed to scorn by “them” and our own people, too. In other words, this must be the motto of a righteous, determined but also eyes-wide-open people who demand, who will their own destiny.

What can we learn from the lessons of successful mottos?

(Please forgive my spelling of unenglish words.)

No king but Jesus!
Si se puedo
Yes we can!
Workers of the world, unite!
Remember (fill in the blank)
Never forgive, never forget
Give me Liberty or give me death
Viva la revolucion
No taxation without representation
For king and country
Death before dishonor
Auslanders raus
Big Brother is watching you
To boldly go where no man has gone before

and no doubt others here can think of numerous others and there are thousands of effective commercial mottos that are at least as effective for their purposes.

what do these have in common? They are short and easily spoken. They express a single, potent idea that speaks to the problems of their day. They motivate a specific action or behavior.

“This is my country” - a line from a patriotic American song that is known to all native-born Americans
“Enough is enough” - worked for Popeye might still work today
“Cry havoc!” - gets the point across but too esoteric for the basic man on the street

The idea is to provoke pain in the hearer. This is the essence of agitation and we must begin agitating in earnest because people are only, at day’s end, motivated by pain.

Once the idea is broached—and as Orwell points out, ideas require a vocabulary for their lives—the organizational problems resolve themselves without much ado.

Posted by The Last Words Of William Joyce on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:46 | #

The idea is to provoke pain in the hearer.

“In death, as in this life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war: and I defy the power of Darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the aggressive Imperialism of the Soviet Union.

May Britain be great once again; and, in the hour of greatest danger to the West, may the standard of the Swastika be raised from the dust, crowned with the historic words: Ihr habt doch gesiegt

I am proud to die for my ideals; and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why.”

Posted by Don on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:53 | #

This is an extremely important topic and it is critical to start the discussions now to acquaint those interested in the variety of choices that need to be made. When we examine the question of governance, we see it arising in three steps:

1) while white activists are weak and small in number;

2) when white activists are stronger and more capable; and

3) when white activists strike out for autonomy, secession, migration, or nationalization.

In many ways these three steps parallel North American history (a) from the Mayflower Compact (1620), the first written constitution (although without independence or sovereignty) in North America, (b) to the Continental Congress (met from 1774 to 1789), the Declaration of Independence (1776), and ratification of the first United States Constitution (1781), and then [c] to ratification of the second United States Constitution (1788) under the forms of which we are ruled today.

I doubt we need to make decisions today about the type of governance we want to have at the end of Step 3, but we surely should be discussing all these things.

Both the Mayflower Compact and the first Constitution of the USA offer us models that could be adapted for our needs in each of the three steps listed above. Both governance documents were developed and debated by people who look, who think, and who act just like us. They are beautiful, relevant plans of governance that fit us and respond to our ways of thinking.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:08 | #

Nice little video here by someone named Tim Hawkins gives the basics of how our government operates:

http://www.islamineurope.net/2009/09/yes-we-can-government.html .