The following little activist’s goldmine was posted four days ago by Steven Palese on the BNP results thread.  Some will have read and admired it.  But I thought it deserved headline status.

Steven is quietly developing and unselfishly distributing around the net activists’ material of high quality.  If enough of it materialises here we will probably have to cache it some place where interested parties can grab a quick fix before staggering back into battle.

Anyhow here, rescued from anonymity and only ever so slightly altered, is the latest from the Paladin of the thread wars.

GW

It’s really a shame that pro-white posters here and elsewhere continue to view the left as a pack of foolish idealists rather than what they are: A coalition of pro-minority bigots busily calculating better ways to extract more group-specific privileges off the backs of white children.

This pro-minority extortion coalition is primarily composed of five groups: paranoid Jews, racial minorities, militant lesbians (the so-called “feminists”) and militant gays plus an army of daydreaming dupes seduced from the majority. Aside from the dupes, members of these minority groups are perfectly conscious of their pariticipation in the coalition and of its objectives; to advance everybody’s group-specific interests against those of the majority. Their cohesiveness, as groups and as a coalition, owes to extensive propaganda aimed at characterizing whites as their common “oppressor” and as their universal scapegoat for all grievances.

That’s what the left is as opposed to what it says it is. Of course, the right is hardly better. The pro-minority bigots operate at the metapolitical level within both the left and the right. The left is dominated to the point it serves them exclusively while the right to the extent it accepts that asserting group interests while white is illegitimate. I say that’s hardly better because, personally, I prefer being attacked from the front to being stabbed in the back.

Bear in mind that by “left” I’m talking about the “new left”, whose evolution is complete in the US and almost done in the UK. I’m not sure how far it’s progressed in continental Europe, e.g. Finland. The measuring stick is the importance of old fashioned worker’s concerns. If private workers and labor unions count for nothing, as in the US, then that country’s left has completed its gramscian long march to become a pure pro-minority extortion coalition that is focalized exclusively on bashing the “white hetero male oppressor”.

Strategy

In any case, white identity politics need not engage this fraudulent left-right charade since the real battleground is metapolitical. This calls for a perspective that revolves around group interests and specifically the white majority vs. minority coalition axis. After all, this is the framework used by our opponents, the pro-minority bigots. And quite self-consciously so, I assure you.

Whereas politics is driven by political parties and powered by ideology, metapolitics is driven by interest groups and powered by grievances. To observe metapolitics in action just watch the gay groups. These are the latest addition to the pro-minority extortion coalition and their march through the institutions is currently in progress. They’ll end up where the other coalition members already are: militant lesbianism (“feminism”), affirmative racism and pro-semitic bigotry have conquered both left and right and their opposition has been blackballed off the political stage. Eventually, charges of “homophobia” will aquire the same weight as “sexism”, “racism” and “anti-semitism” and the gay agenda will achieve the same 360 degree dominance.

Note there is no “gay ideology” or “gay political party” doing this. It’s the end product created by thousands of semi-coordinated interest groups clamoring away at gay grievances across all ideologies and parties. That’s why it’s important to understand leftism for what it is: a home base for the coalition of pro-minority interest groups. No more, no less. If you continue to view it as an ideology, you will continue to reach for an ideological solution that involves destroying their cover mass of bla bla or building new ideological bla bla to counter it. All the while missing the boat on their real agenda and on what is really needed: a counter-formation of pro-white interest groups.

Point A

From a strategic perspective, point A, where you are, comes from this clear understanding of our enemies as a coalition of pro-minority bigots operating at the metapolitical level within both the left and right. Their modus operandi basically consists of slicing us up with their sharpened grievances while one particular fun joker among them holds us down.

This fun joker is organized Jewry which operates neo-McCarthyite persecution networks that actively police and suppress any sign of whites asserting group interests. These persecutions involve organized blacklists, intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents. See the Walt and Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby for details. Example:

  “[Assistant District Attorney Michael] Regan’s fate was sealed when the Washington Post published his observation, from an interview at the conference, that “you can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species.” Though there was nothing explicitly “anti-Semitic” in Regan’s comment, the Anti-Defamation League, America’s most feared and effective thought police, promptly attacked his reputation and his livelihood. In a letter to Regan’s superior, the ADL’s regional director for New York decreed: “Those kinds of comments are absolutely inappropriate for a public official to make,” and Regan was promptly out of a job.” (http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol6no1/61-EditorsNote.pdf )

Although this organized Jewish tomfoolery may appear optional to the point A analysis, it isn’t and we’re going nowhere until we solve this problem. This doesn’t mean you wave the swastika or go a single nanometer beyond this specific issue, which, as it happens, is the ONLY issue that truly matters vis-a-vis organized Jewry. If we can dislodge their fun boot off our necks long enough to aquire equal rights to assert group interests while white, we’ll raise anchor and cast off. And if we don’t? Well, we’re simply not moving this ship as long as whites live in fear of organized Jewry and their privatized policing of whites.

I’ll add a pet peeve of mine: Mindlessly berating whites for “letting” minorities do this and “letting” them do that, is no substitute for facing and resolving this problem. People have children, bills, mortgages, commitments and a whole host of other reasons why they NEED their jobs. The issue is never their apathy or cowardice. They are simply unwilling to risk their livelihood. Period. The real issue is why do they feel their jobs are at risk in the first place. In short, we’re dead in the water until the persecution networks are faced head on.

Point B

Point B, where you want to be, comes from the clear understanding of the need for counter-formations to oppose the pro-minority bigots and their persecution networks directly. And, as NEC Watch makes clear, this has to be directly as in D-I-R-E-C-T-L-Y. All politicians love to boast about their concern for minority interests, do they not? Aren’t they absolutely explicit about that? Well, who is going to be explicit about white interests? That’s the point B question - how do we assert and legitimise our grievances?

I’d say there are absolutely no shortcuts to countering them with mirror image organizational structures that blatantly assert our group interests the way they assert theirs. We hammer away until we break past the legitimacy barrier and become big enough to beat them at their own game. We do this by doing exactly what they do all the time: We list our grievances, the remedies we seek and we stridently insist on our right to be heard until our grievances and demands are listened to.

Grievances

A usable grievance is something that answers the question, “what are white interests and why do they matter?” Anything that provides a complete answer is strong enough to haul the entire movement by itself if necessary. So far I’ve identified five white grievances that make the cut:

1. Adverse demographic engineering (race replacement)
2. Anti-white discrimination (affirmative racism)
3. Competitive necessity (equal rights for whites)
4. Ethnic genetic interests (Salter)
5. Dysgenics and adverse social effects (Herrnstein & Murray)

The first two are easy for your target demographic (Daily Mail readers) to work with; the third deals with Jews; the last two have their roles but these are limited.

Each of the five grievances listed can serve as the base seed from which position statements emerge organically to provide pro-white articulation across the board: For example, grievance 1 (race replacement):

Q. This is racism
A. No, racism is when white people - and only white people - are denied the right to oppose their demographic replacement. We’re against that.

Q. I have non-white friends
A. Yes, and I bet they’d be just as friendly if the roles were reversed and you were in their countries promoting their colonization and demographic replacement.

Q. We’re all equal
A. Is that supposed to be funny? If we’re all equal how is it that it’s white countries - and only white countries - that require demographic engineering?

Q. Who is white
A. You’re white if it’s considered illegitimate for you to oppose colonization and demographic replacement.

Q. I believe in tolerance
A. Do you tolerate people who oppose their demographic replacement?

Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc?
A. Every single additional non-white in this country speeds up our demographic replacement and takes a piece of our children’s inheritance. Only a mental retard or a self-hater would WANT more people to speed up his children’s dispossession.

Pro-white articulation stemming from grievance 2 (anti-white discrimination) is different. Different seed, different flowers:

Q. This is racism
A. No, racism is when white people are discriminated against by affirmative action and other race laws simply because they’re white. We’re against that.

Q. I have non-white friends
A. When the dinner party and the smiling are over your friends will go back to lobbying to insure even more racial privileges are extracted off the backs of your children.

Q. We’re all equal
A. Well, if we’re all equal then how come we can’t extract racial privileges off the backs of their kids the way they extract them from ours?

Q. Who is white
A. You’re white if you are subject to anti-white discrimination and race laws.

Q. I believe in tolerance
A. I agree. We should not only tolerate but support those brave whites who raise their head from the carpet to oppose anti-white discrimination and race laws.

Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc?
A. Every single additional non-white in this country means an additional affirmative racism recipient extracting racial privileges off the backs of my children and block voting for more. Only a mental retard or a self-hater would WANT more people to enjoy racial privileges off of his own children.

Grievance 3 (competitive necessity). Again, different seed, different flowers:

Q. This is racism.
A. No, racism is when whites are denied equal rights to advance group interests like everyone else. We’re against that.

Q. I have non-white friends
A. Yes, I like it too when friends help deny me equal rights to assert group interests so they can better exclude me from good jobs.

Q. We’re all equal
A. Yeah sure we are. Should we try competing on equal terms by practicing favoritism we’re persecuted for “racism”, when they do it they’re praised for their “ethnic solidarity”. Sounds like a level playing field to me.

Q. Who is white
A. You’re white if you risk neo-McCarthyite persecution for “racism” for daring to exercise ingroup favoritism: a no-whites-allowed, minority-only privilege.

Q. I believe in tolerance
A. Learn to tolerate whites who claim equal rights to assert group interests.

Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc?
A. Every single additional non-white in this country means an additional cheater allowed to engage in group favoritim to outcompete my children who aren’t. Only a mental retard or a self-hater would WANT more people to cheat his own children out of their opportunities.

Grievance 4 and 5 I’ll leave to you because I rarely work with them. I prefer arguments with legs. An argument has legs if it’s simple enough that you can ask your grandma to talk to her geriatric friends about it.

Anyway, you get the point: Grievances are the essential catalysing agent for pro-white metapolitics; they are what you use to define your position and to collect human and financial resources around dedicated interest groups. These groups are the media, professional, labor, political, lobbying, etc formations that emerge from this process. These will then use their grievance based pro-white perspective to interpret individual economic, public order, healthcare, free trade, military, environmental, and all other political bla bla issues. Their natural output of elaborate position statements will organically construct an aggregate pro-white perspective you might then call “ideology”.

This patched up “ideology” will leak hypocrisy all over just like its mirror “liberalism”, but it would still be useful. It might be harnessed by some pro-white political party, for example. The political party may fall for the “maintreaming” scam as they so often do, or it may not. In any case, the overlying metapolitical entities, be they media, lobbies, societies, pseudo-masonic lodges, whatever they are, remain anchored in their white grievance and not easily led astray from their core blood and rights mandate. And they’ll keep going regardless; endlessly chipping away at any anti-white element found within any political party or ideology.

The line

Anyway, once you have the British versions of point A and point B nailed down, i.e. you know exactly where you are and where you want to be, that’s when you get to the fun part.

Strategy involves drawing a line between A and B.