Discipline in messaging; non-violence as a protective shield

I have a rule in all my writings and correspondence that is set absolutely in stone, and this rule has served me brilliantly. I recommend this single rule above all, to any White advocate.

That rule is a strict adherence to the principle of non-violence, and I included being opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Being in favor of the death penalty is a slippery slope to advocating lynching and fantasizing about hangings and the like. That sort of thing discredits people, and can get them in trouble with law enforcement.

If I ever find myself working with people on a face to face basis in the white advocacy movement, particularly if I ever find myself working with people of a merely average IQ, this is a rule I will require of anyone associating with me. Even joking about violence will be strictly verboten.

Sometimes I do e-mail correspondence with hostiles. I tell them up front that I strictly adhere to non-violence, but then I tell them that I am absolutely fanatic and obsessed. Basically the non-violence clause allows me to express my pure, thermonuclear fanaticism without getting into trouble. This is very powerful. When you have a non-violence clause, you can say a lot more than you normally would. I don’t make it about the other person, I make it about me. I tell them hair-raising stories of how multiracialism has affected my life negatively and made me an absolutely obsessed fanatic, but of course we are going to win non-violently, and here’s why, et cetera. It’s very liberating. I will republish a letter I wrote to someone recently in that vein.

There’s three very good reasons for strict adherence to non-violence in messaging:

1. Advocating or fantasizing about violence is a distraction from what really needs to be done, which is mind-weaponization. We need to get away from the feature film model of solving problems after a gunfight, a car chase, another gunfight, a setback, the bad guy gets shot (but no blood or guts on the wall behind him) and the credits roll. That’s not reality. Reality is that this is a long, long slog. Reality is that we are only going to win if we develop two things — a Culture of Learning, and a Market Dominant Minority.

2. Advocating violence or threatening people discredits the person doing advocating or threatening, and it makes him look ridiculous. The people advocating violence on the internet are highlighting their own impotence. When someone threatens an adversary with violence, they look ridiculous because of course the adversary has the full force of the police state behind him.

3. Law enforcement nails people by trapping them in conspiracies to commit violent acts, or getting them for threatening violence (Bill White). The non-violence in messaging rule will protect you from this, and for that matter protect your right to own firearms. If you write on the internet or say something that incites or threatens violence, law enforcement can use that as an excuse to confiscate firearms.

If any commenters think that this rule makes one a “wussy” or a pacifist, re-read the post and think about it. I am not at all concerned about my masculinity being questioned.

I’ve been a part of the White advocacy movement for 10 years now. This is a damned good rule, and I stand behind it, and I can’t recommend it enough. This rule will protect you, and ensure you are still working for the survival of our people years from now, instead of getting trapped by law enforcement dogs who get a big meaty bone from the ADL for bagging a White advocate.


  1. Another good way to keep yourself on the side of the angles is to emphasize that racialism doesn’t harm the vital life interests of other races; on the contrary, it helps to secure them. Other races often only imagine they are served by multiracialism because they can’t see beyond the material benefits they derive from ripping off the white man, but it also means they are forced to stew in the degenerate cultural cesspool of leftardism that keeps the mass multiracialism machine running; racialism liberates them from this degrading life condition. The takeaway point: no one really loses from racialism, just as no one really wins from multiracialism. All this, of course, has the virtue of being true, so you don’t even have to lie to keep yourself out of hot water. (Many of you, needless to say, would be lying, because your racialism is fueled by hatred or contempt for other races.)

  2. @Tanstaafl


    I discuss the legitimate conflict of interest of European-Americans with other races and with minority faiths such as modern neo-babelist Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

    Legitimate conflict of interest, and the right to our identity.

    When you advocate violence against a representative of a high tech police state, you look ridiculous and weak. And if you get put in a prison as a result, you really are “living at the whim” of the enemy.

    I lead with the shield of non-violence because Mind-Weaponization is a very dangerous idea, and as this strategy is developed in the coming years, TPTB will be looking for reasons to imprison the Mind-Weapons.

    I believe there’s a possibility they will try to outlaw learning/doing science. So far they have succeeded in keeping us dumbed down and uninterested in science. When we start studying math/physics/chemistry/biology for fun, instead of just doing it for the purpose of selling our labor to educational institutions or pharmacy companies, that might to set off alarm bells among paranoid government types that see “terrierists” under every bed. But of course I intend to use science only for peaceful, non-violent purposes that benefit mankind. My particular interest is testing the efficacy of alternative medicines and (legal) medicinal herbs, and bringing back an interest in math and science among American White kids, because we are falling behind the Chinese.

    That’s why I say right now that I subscribe to principled non-violence, and anybody associated with me should not advocate violence. I don’t want to give the enemy ANY EXCUSE to gulag me or curb my intellectual freedom of inquiry. Because what I am advocating and doing will be very effective (in a non-violent and perfectly legal way, of course).

  3. What the hell is the point in talking about something you ain’t gonna do? And who among is going to actually get into a shootout with ZOG forces anyway?

    The real problem with violent trash talk is it is empty.

  4. Exactly, RileyDeWiley.

    There’s a tradition of violent talk in America. it’s very common among conservative types, actually, contrary to what Tanstaafl says. the thing is, feds generally don’t go after kosher conservatives.

    When we start getting more regular folk into the White advocacy movement, we have to set the rules up front, real clear, and anyone who doesn’t like the rules can go away. We can’t expect everyone to be smart enough to discipline their speech; we have to lay it out real clear, up front, so there’s no confusion.

    I have been the first point of contact for the WN movement for at least a dozen people. had them over to my house, told them the rules, told them some of the history of the movement. I am pretty sure I have hosted a fed or two. I laid down the rules; they never came back. My non-violence clause was a big “Feds need not apply” sign.

    You can’t have a gray area. You need a bright line of what you don’t say. My real name is known; I’m not an anonymous acronym commenting on a message board. I’m playing for keeps. I’ve seen a lot of people come and go.

    The non-violence clause/messaging discipline is the single best piece of advice I can offer to any political dissident. It will protect you, and protect your credibility.

  5. I agree that uplifting our people economically and intellectually is of the utmost importance. When you talk of “Mind Weaponization”, “Culture of Learning”, and “Market Dominant Minority”, I assume you are advocating the development of a new white elite which, unlike much of the current white elite, has a sense of solidarity with and noblese obligee towards rather than barely concealed hatred and contempt for the white middle and working class.

    I also agree that white advoctes of agressive violence, not to mention apologists for the massive unjust violence perpetrated by Adolf Hitler, are an obstacle to such a strategy. They unwittingly do enourmous harm to the very people whose interests they are eager to promote. They confirm the darkest fears of our worst enemies, thus confirming our enemies righteous self image and enduing them with the furious energy of zealots. Worse, by taking positions which are morally repugnant to the vast majority of whites they help make the entire concept of white nationalism repellant to most of our own people.

    However, there is a middle ground between unjust aggression and unconditional pacifism: assertiveness. In argument and deed, I support the principle of assertiveness. On the one hand I will not attack others, but on the other hand I will not passively allow others to attack me – and thus become an accomplice in my own victimization. My assertiveness not only benefits me, it also benefits my would-be attacker: it spares him the moral degradation which is the result of successful aggression. In addition, assertiveness often benefits by-standers. Consider, for example, the “flight that fought back” on 9/11. If the passengers hadn’t assertively defended themselves, the hijackers might have been able to crash the plane into a building and increase the death toll. If the passengers on the other 3 planes had also fought back, thousands of lives could have been saved. My guess is, some of the passengers on those planes ignored their natural, healthy instinct to assertively defend themselves against being taken hostage because of the bad advice which was typically disseminated in the pre-9/11 era: don’t fight hostage takers, don’t be a hero, wait for the authorities to negotiate your release or rescue you. Fortunately, that particular bit of bad advice is no longer disseminated with regard to terrorists. Consequently, alert assertive passengers foiled the shoe bomber and the crotch bomber.

    As with personal conduct, so with public policy: an assertive policy is superior to either unjust agression or pacifism. To protect the lives of the people of this country, and to defend our country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and rights on the high seas, it is sometimes necessary to fight Just Wars against foreigners, such as Anthony Wayne’s 1793-1794 Ohio campaign, the 1801-1805 war with Tripoli, the 1815 war with Algiers, the 2001 drive against al qaida in Afghanistan, or the recent defense of the American merchant marine against Somali pirates. (I have voted, and will continue to vote, for candidiates who avoid unjust or unneccessary wars, but who support just wars when the necessity arises. Patrick Buchanan, for instance)

    In extreme murder cases, when the number of deaths is very large or when the murders are carried out with sadistic cruelty, the death penalty is justified on the same principle of assertiveness for the following reason: Sadisticly cruel serial killers and mass murderers are extremely rare monsters who are sure to kill again, if they ever get the chance. The only way to be 100% certain that doesn’t happen is to apply the death penalty. A liberal president or governor could pardon the serial killer to prove some bizarre point, a liberal judge could overturn the conviction based on some technicality, the killer could escape, or a mass societal breakdown could liberate the entire prison population. Approving the death penalty in extreme cases such as Osama bin Laden or John Wayne Gasey, to be carried out by the legitimate authorities after a fair trial, simply is not “a slippery slope to advocating lynching”. (I have voted, and will continue to vote for candidates who support the death penalty)

    Not only do I think unconditional non-violence is bad personal conduct and bad public policy, I also think it would be a mistake to dishonestly claim to support unconditional non-violence for purely tactical reasons. You admit they you do not hope to undermine the morale of your dedicated ADL league enemies with this strategy, nor do you hope to increase your own already sky-high morale. This strategy is aimed mostly at the uncommitted. You hope to prevent uncommitted Jews from becoming vehement supporters of the ADL by allaying their fears with pacifist talk. Also, you hope to use the same pacifist talk to recruit more whites to the WN cause by removing the primary obstacle, moral repugnance to unjustified violence past present and future. As a side benefit, you hope to redirect the energy of the “hostiles” away from useless violent fantasies and towards constructive work.

    All of the benefits that can be attained from pacifism, and additional benefits besides, could be better attained by rejecting agrressiveness and adhering to assertiveness, because assertiveness is rooted in intellectual and emotional honesty. It is simultaneously in accord with both our instincts and our reason, and for that reason people are more likely to believe the sincerity of professions of assertiveness than pacifism.

    Intelligent uncommitted people familiar with the history of left wing movements will realize that opposition to the death penalty isn’t necessarily a sign of high regard for human life. For example, it could just be a sign that loyalty to the current definition of “progressive principles” is more important to the death penalty opponent than the life of any given human being. For this reason death penalty opponents are deaf to pleas to avenge murdered innocents, pleas which stir the blood of those who passionately love fellow human beings and don’t give a damn about “progressive principles”. For example: before the French Revolution Robespierre, loyal to “progressive principles”, resigned his job as district attorney rather than prosecute in a murder case which would have resulted in a death penalty. When the abstract principles of the cutting edge left changed, Robespierre oversaw the execution of thousands of innocents. The uncommitted may see you as a “WN Robespierre”, opposed to the death penalty for abstract reasons but likely to become murderous in times of upheaval.

  6. I don’t believe in pacifism. I believe in self defense, and being prepared.

    I’m not advocating letting people walk on us. No way. Assertiveness is great.

    Did you catch where I wrote that this is an overall protective strategy, so less intelligent people won’t get entrapped by the cops?

  7. “flight that fought back” on 9/11

    Whites will never get anywhere unless we give up these rather silly notions fed to us by the government. Simply telling the truth about recent history would go a long way. You do realize that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged, right?

  8. Whites Unite: very good points. I think the bottom line is that in most circumstances, we want to avoid violence. However, to borrow from a cheezy 60’s song, “for every thing there is a season”. There is a time for violence, which is usually related to self defense. If you want to lead marches or demonstrations, then be prepared for attacks by thugs. If you are going to give stump speeches, then be prepared to have eggs, rotten tomatoes and everything else thrown at you, as well as attempted beatings as you try to enter and exit venues. All of these things are common fare for activists, and you will need to be prepared to use violence to defend yourself. White activists will probably need their own protectors who are willing to wield clubs and pitchforks to defend themselves.

    However, Kievsky makes a good point that the best policy is to avoid violence when possible. Obviously random acts such as beating up an innocent or engaging in petty crime are to be condemned. Note though that this is very rare. It isnt a very big problem for the Minutemen, American Renaissance or other mainstream groups that support White interests, which are overwhelmingly law-abiding and temperate. The Hispanic, Black and Jewish activist groups are responsible for the vast number of attacks perpetrated in demonstrations (they will kick your ass without apology in a protest). If anything, White protestors are generally too timid and invertebrate.

    Regarding the death penalty, I dont have a problem with those who are against it in principle. For me, it has served man well for at least 100,000 years, and it was a no-brainer for just about everyone until 50 years ago. Has mankind has become so much better than the generations that came before, more morally evolved? I would argue the opposite, that great grandpa had it right. At any rate, the death penalty is probably a non-White Nationalist issue, its one of those things can be hashed out in different forums.

  9. Kievsky,

    I see your point about protecting white advocates from accusations of “domestic terrorism” with a “keep it simple: no violence or talk of violence” policy. A wise strategy, I agree.

    Advocating against the death penalty takes it too far, in my opinion.

  10. Yes, I deleted comments because you ignore what I actually write, take one part of one thread, and drone on for paragraphs about how I’m supposedly “going along with the Jewish framework.”

    Big yawn. Scrooby and Chaos and and Tanstaafl, you don’t have the reading comprehension skills to comment on my posts, so don’t bother.

  11. 1) Kievsky can only delete comments to his posts, and yes, he has a right to “impose [his] censorship criteria” to the comments made regarding said posts.

    2) None of us are going to agree with each other 100% all of the time. Please try to avoid attacks on friendlies, particularly those of a personal/ad hominem nature, and stay focused on the topics at hand. Constructive criticism is welcome here, but trolling and pissing matches are not.

    3) If you are not what the Germans call a “folk companion,” please be advised that you are a guest here. To the extent that your posts are in line with the mission of this site — the establishment and preservation of a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America — you will be allowed to post unhindered; however, any attack on our mission will result in your swift removal.

  12. “If you are not what the Germans call a “folk companion,” please be advised that you are a guest here. To the extent that your posts are in line with the mission of this site — the establishment and preservation of a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America — you will be allowed to post unhindered; however, any attack on our mission will result in your swift removal.”

    Geez, Campbell, what a ridiculous chunk pretentious Orwellian drivel. I recall I once challenged you to debate me, you accepted initially, and then, upon seeing me best Johnson, were no longer so keen. That is what is in play here, not a doubt in my mind, just butthurt prissiness. Have fun in the sand box while the rest of us set our sights on taking the beaches.

  13. CC,

    Why do you take issue with what you quoted? Are you not a “folk companion,” by which I mean one of 100% European, non-Jewish blood? Are you opposed to the creation of a Jew-free White ethnostate? There is nothing Orwellian, ambiguous, or strange about it. You should readily agree with what I said if you are, indeed, a folk companion.

    If you think the term folk companion is ill advised given the “nazi connotation,” that is a reasonable argument, and I am willing to hear it, but you make no such argument in your attack.

    Also, you recall incorrectly. You never challenged me to any debate, I never refused such an invitation (as you imply above, but do not come right out and say, because you know it’s not true and I’ll call you on it), and if you have ever bested [Greg] Johnson in anything, I’ve never seen it.

  14. “You should readily agree with what I said if you are, indeed, a folk companion.”

    The perception is, and I think there is merit to it, that what is being attempted here is to make loyalty to the race synonymous with your way of doing things. Is that what you are attempting? If so, I cannot agree to it.

    “Also, you recall incorrectly.”

    Think back, I’m sure it’ll come to you.

  15. CC wrote:

    “The perception is, and I think there is merit to it, that what is being attempted here is to make loyalty to the race synonymous with your way of doing things. Is that what you are attempting? If so, I cannot agree to it.”

    No, that is not what I am attempting. When I say “folk companion,” I am speaking in the same way that the Germans used the term. Here is an excerpt that gives it some context:

    “Mankind displays strictly separated racial groups. Very roughly expressed, we distinguish between: White, Black and Yellow. Each of these groups in turn contains a number of subraces with certain common features. In this case one speaks of related races. Opposed to these stand the foreign races. Folks which in regard to their racial composition show the same elements as the German folk are of “related race” (“artverwandt”). To these belong the majority of European folks. Since the racial core of our racially related folks is often very diverse, one must look quantitatively at the racial elements for the foundation of a distinction. In the Germanic folks Nordic blood predominates in their racial composition. Their relationship to the German folk is hence referred to as being of the “same breed” (“stammesgleich”). Other
    folks which also show a small amount of Nordic blood, but which in their substance are not Nordic, are referred to as being of “foreign breed” (“stammesfremd”).”

    Source: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/ss-race-theory.pdf

    If you are a White man who is loyal to his folk, you are a folk companion of mine, regardless of whatever other divisions stand between us.

  16. CC,

    You never challenged me to a debate, and I certainly never shrank from such an invitation. I ask you to prove this (direct me to the URL) or stop making this assertion.

    I do recall your attacks on Johnson, which I found unfortunate.

  17. Robert – I dig your Folk Companion all the way to the core. I have NO idea why ANY-ONE would ever insult you, on this point.

    Kievsky is brilliant, as ever. I have much to pnder ,for the rest of the day. I think I will “save” this essay. I think this will be a peice I will refer back to, quite often.

  18. I reviewed the thread you just pasted, and this is what happened:

    You claimed that you were able to “drive a mack truck” through my post on Linder, implying that it was rife with logical inconsistencies. When I urged you to do so, you replied:

    “If I can find the requisite mental energy I will, however, at the moment, I’m just not psyched up.”

    From there, you began arguing with Johnson, and you directed no further comment toward me, aside from two brief instances in which you asked me if I “really wanted [to argue with you],” to which I replied that although I had no desire to debate at length over minutiae, you were welcome to dissect my post if that’s what you were inclined to do. You chose not to offer criticism of the piece after all, and that was the end of the exchange. I did not refuse to engage you in debate and it would be unseemly of you to imply that I did.

  19. Robert Campbell writes:

    Please try to avoid attacks on friendlies, particularly those of a personal/ad hominem nature, and stay focused on the topics at hand. Constructive criticism is welcome here, but trolling and pissing matches are not.

    None of the comments of mine that were deleted fit this description.

    If you are not what the Germans call a “folk companion,” please be advised that you are a guest here. To the extent that your posts are in line with the mission of this site — the establishment and preservation of a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America — you will be allowed to post unhindered; however, any attack on our mission will result in your swift removal.

    I see no problem here either.

    Kievsky’s explanation above, and my response that he has since deleted, indicate that one way or the other it’s a different problem than you describe Robert.

  20. “to which I replied that although I had no desire to debate at length over minutiae,”

    In other words, you were not willing to engage in a in-depth debate of the merits of the accusations you made against Linder, yet were willing to make those accusations. If my interlocutor is not willing to defend his position to the mat, to the bone, then I will not waste my time debating him. I rest my case.

    Btw, I am not presently interested in debating that particular matter, I only brought it up as example of a mindset I perceived as prevalent here which I found disagreeable and counter-productive. But, you have given me your personal assurance that disagreements within our blood-kin group are tolerable to you so long as one is a member of said and wishes what is best for said. So then, as far as I and you are concerned, the matter is settled, at least to my mind.

  21. Tanstaafl,

    Kievsky has the ability to moderate comments made to the posts he’s authored. While I have not seen the deleted posts to which you refer, you are the first person to suggest that he has been heavy-handed or unfair in some way. Kievsky has been around a long time and I’ve always known him to exercise good discretion.

    If anyone feels they are being treated unfairly, please contact an admin and we’ll do our best to resolve the issue. Hunter is presently MIA, establishing a residence for himself in Va., but he should be back by next week. OD readers may reach out to me if they are having problems in the meantime.

  22. CC,

    By saying that I didn’t wish to debate minutiae, I was making it abundantly clear that I was open to substantive debate. As E. Michael Jones would say, let us be irenic rather than eristic!

    I agree with you that it’s now a moot point, so let us move on.

  23. The infighting us such a huge waste of time for someone like me.

    CC and Scrooby and Tanstaafl apparently have a lot of time to waste on it. I don’t, so stay out of my posts, all three of you. I regret all the time I lose deleting your unproductive posts, much less time wasted replying to you.

    I don’t care what you three think, about anything.

  24. Robert Campbell
    While I have not seen the deleted posts to which you refer, you are the first person to suggest that he has been heavy-handed or unfair in some way. Kievsky has been around a long time and I’ve always known him to exercise good discretion.

    If anyone feels they are being treated unfairly, please contact an admin and we’ll do our best to resolve the issue.

    I made a comment in this post:


    that Kievsky deleted. This is the comment.

    Weiner is a crazy Zionist jew. His return to the airwaves is a victory for jewry not conservatism. Don’t kid yourself. The left’s tactics against white speech work. It’s the reason most whites oppose any effective measures to prevent race replacement. They haven’t heard our arguments. That’s why they think jew puppets like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck are conservative. Everything they know has been filtered by the jew media.

    I don’t see any reason why that comment should have been deleted.

  25. In deleting the posts of others you waste more of their time than your own. I think you like hitting the delete button and don’t consider it a waste of your time at all.

    That you consider defending your opinions a waste of time says alot about the value of your opinions.

  26. Kievsky
    I don’t care about persuaiding you. You are not my audience.

    You don’t allow comments for the sake of the commenter, you allow them for the sake of the audience.

    Deleting comments from your own blog won’t help in the long run if you’re successful. People on other blogs will link to you and your ideas will be argued over without your moderation.

    My tentative hypothesis is that you deleted my comment about Weiner because you were already irritated with me for disagreeing with your suggestion that WNs learn to speak Mandarin, and I was on your list of people who should be discouraged from posting to your threads because we’re not “on mission.”

    What say you?

  27. You’re doing a smashing job of not persuading me Kievsky.

    For my part I’m not happy that you’ve taken such a dislike to me. But go ahead, take a number, and get in line. Someday, in the gulag, we’ll probably both laugh about this.

  28. People who see the value of what I advocate, are my audience, and those who do not, are not.

    I don’t care about debating or persuading any of you. You either get it or you don’t.

    For me, writing is secondary to action. Writing serves action, because I use writing to propagate ideas for action. Those of you who want me to debate you, are not doers. You are talkers, and you bore me.

  29. Relevant thoughts from Faye, excerpted from the same essay that Kievsky mentions in his 02/07 post on mind weaponization:

    First off, it is important to unify, on a European scale, all the identitarian forces of resistance around a doctrine and a basic revolutionary program.

    Ignoring the secondary ideological or emotional quarrels which are often merely the expressions of petty nationalisms and family or sectarian disputes, we should follow Lenin’s counsel to “settle our quarrels after the revolution.” For pity’s sake, it is necessary to cease the oh-so-delicious internal disputes (the rumors, excommunications, and paranoias) and to reserve our blows for the real enemy. We concentrate on the essential, on what brings us together, because we are confronted with an absolute emergency (the Erntsfall, theorized by Carl Schmitt). Look at the Moslems: they cease fighting one another as soon as it is a question of carrying out the Jihad against the infidel…

    Our movement — which is one of radical (and not “extremist”) thought — has a true monopoly on revolutionary dissidence, since we are the only ones who seek a total inversion of the dominant values and civilizational forms (Nietzsche’s Umwertung [transvaluation]).

    The three pillars of an ideology and project of European unity are (1) awakening an ethnic consciousness that makes defending our common biological heritage, our race, the top priority; (2) the regeneration of ancestral values, the forgetting of which is the main cause of today’s tragedies; and (3) the creative assertion of an all-inclusive and revolutionary European political doctrine.

    …We must form a European network of resistance, solidarity, and action around a common ideological program. This should not exclude, but include politics. It is too late now to win power by the ballot box and parliamentary democracy. It is necessary to make the following bet. It is risky like any bet, but it is our only chance in this twilight age: in the next ten to fifteen years there is likely to be a major crisis (“chaos”) which will take the form of an ethnic conflict of great magnitude, probably based on economic impoverishment; this could change the mentality of the masses, who are today force-fed like geese by our neo-totalitarian mass media.

    It is a matter, then, of anticipating the “post-chaos,” of preparing for the coming storm by constituting a European network — horizontal, web-like, informal, polymorphic — of revolutionary minorities, a network of solidarity, a European international of resistance and propaganda. “The Network” should not take any name or institutional form. It is what I call the strategy of the cobra. It must stretch, in a clandestine but unshakeable manner, from Portugal to Russia, connecting cadres or elected officials of political parties, associations and circles of all natures, individuals, publishers, businessmen, financiers, net surfers, media people, etc. With three objectives: general agitprop, formation and recruitment, and the acquisition of media. In a word, it must prepare us for the inevitable confrontation. It is a matter of being ready and powerful for that day when the hurricane comes, the hurricane which is our only chance, our only lever to move the world. We also have to stop thinking that “the system is invincible.” It is strong only because of our current weakness and disorganization. Finally, it is necessary to forsake this psychopathic cult of defeat, of the “last stand.” The only people who win are those tragic optimists who think of themselves as the “first stand.”

    When such a network exists, it will be time to pass to the next, properly political, stage, which is impossible to plan for today. Let us begin, then, by building our network with patience, determination, and professionalism. And let us cull from our ranks the incompetents, mediocrities, hotheads, and kooks. For such a network, united around a clear and common doctrine, must above all constitute a rigorous elite. From Resistance to Reconquest, from Reconquest to Revolution.

    Source: http://www.toqonline.com/2009/10/call-to-young-europeans/

  30. For what it is worth, I’m a big fan of Kievsky. I’m also a big fan of Scrooby, Tanstaafl, and the Captain. Guys, if your approach conflicts with that of Kievsky, the solution is simple: don’t post on his threads. He’s got a particular focus and that should be respected. Plenty of other threads to post on, and sites for that matter.

    I don’t particularly care for the insults you guys have taken, and hopefully everybody is confident enough in their value not to be discouraged. But it never hurts to get a little encouragement: you guys are all excellent posters. If not here, keep posting elsewhere. There is real value in what you do, and I can attest to this personally: I’ve learned a lot from each of you. Things are starting to get exciting on the world stage, we need everyone doing what they can.

  31. Robert, that’s an excellent article by Faye. Excellent, and prophetic. The crisis, or as Kunstler calls it, The Long Emergency, has indeed begun. The tragedy is that we are not stronger NOW, so as to better capitalize on the situation.

    The good news is that the Long Emergency is, well, likely to be long. It is also likely to get worse. It will do a good deal of our work for us. A good deal of our work, but not nearly all of it.

    Our network must strengthen at all levels. And we must offer a compelling vision, a competing narrative, to displace the anti-white narrative that currently dominates the culture.

  32. The three pillars of an ideology and project of European unity are (1) awakening an ethnic consciousness that makes defending our common biological heritage, our race, the top priority

    But we have disagreements with the very first criterion, because there are different ethnicities, and we have lots of people with non-European admixture and different definitions of white. Rather it’s easier to find commonality on what we oppose than what we support.

Comments are closed.