Sunday, June 2, 2013

NatAlt Strategy: Staying on a clear, direct message.

by Michael Kennedy

Anti racist is a code word for anti-white.

The importance of a clear message
The most effective propaganda is simple propaganda. An activist must compete with a thousand voices in the media for the scant attention of people, and it takes a considerable quantity effort to get anything more than a simple slogan or basic message across to people in a manner where it sticks. As much as self styled intellectuals might sneer at the simplistic sloganeering of mainstream parties, as sad a reflection of the world as this is, this is nevertheless the political reality we have to deal with. One simply cannot afford to have a message which must be explained, which is incomplete or which doesn’t encapsulate the very point one wants to get across.
The multiracial experiment which gained momentum during this culture culture revolution has placed white people in a predicament. White people face the choice of continuing the path of multi-racialism and essentially condoning and practicing genocide against our race, or to be firm and defend our races right to exist. Organisations such as Nationalist Alternative exist with a specific aim, and a core goal, which is to ensure that White people in Australia, and also around the world are able to safeguard their future against assimilation, a force which would essentially end up with the removal of Whites from humanity.
For many Nationalist groups around the world, there is an understanding, and a desire to end what is essentially a program of Genocide against whites through forced multi-racialism and assimilation. Throughout Europe, a continent where the indigenous Europeans are waking up to the fact their own survival is at state, Nationalist parties of varying descriptions are coming up and gaining support of people who at some level wish to preserve their own racial and cultural identity.
There is no rational or acceptable basis for one to argue against a race of people wishing to preserve their race. No one, quite literally no one, can in this day and age argue against a race of people wanting to preserve themselves and still be considered as having an acceptable position.
So why do some Nationalist groups seem to be having such a hard time of it? Why does White Nationalism flounder?
Getting off message.
When I read the web page of a “populist” Nationalist party such as the BNP, or hear of France’s Front nationals position, I find it hard to find the message in amongst the myriad of issues. The BNP for instance, spend much time focusing on the Islamification of Britain, and addressing this as a problem. Not that Islamification of a European nation is not a problem, but when one looks at groups such as the BNP or the English Defence League (EDL), it appears to me that the purpose of the group is to deal with issues caused by immigration. This may not be what they mean. Many of their members may mean to say “We want to preserve the White British race”, but this is not the message they put out. For those who aren’t ‘in the know’, this would be the only message they get.
So one sees the EDL protesting against Islam, and reaches a conclusion that the EDL’s purpose is as protest against Islam. So much so that Jews, normally shy of White Nationalist groups would lend support to the EDL, and the EDL vice versa. Clearly the EDL, if their intention was ever to protect the British people, are failing here. The BNP, despite gaining some popularity in the polls, though nothing spectacular, are also set to fail, though no doubt have achieved a degree of success so far, in so far as they have challenged multi-racialism and raised the profile of important issues facing Britain.
Another example is National Anarchism, a movement which supposedly is about protecting the white race, but says everything but that. It is for protecting the races, the cultures of the world. One can protect races, without protecting the white race.
If these groups were ever about protecting Whites in Britain, it is difficult to determine whether they are that now. They are becoming today’s equivalent of the feminists of the 60′s, yelling one thing while meaning another. Much like the feminists of the 60′s, they will get what they asked for, but not what they wanted.
Many of the feminists of the 60′s, some of whom would have been of the Marxist “smash the West” variety, in an attempt to subvert the family, one of the basic building blocks of Western society, called upon women to leave the home and take on a career. They called on women to become men, financially liberated and independent. Now however, in the 2010′s, feminists of the Marxist “smash the West” variety are lamenting this new found individualism. As expected, the emancipation of women from the home and into the workforce was a boon for Capitalists. From the feminism of the 60′s emerged the new 21st century woman. Independent, career driven, a consumer of goods, an individual who’s identity is shaped on their choice of consumption. The very model of the atomic, cosmopolitan, rootless, hollow, vacuous consumer. An industrial product. For the modern feminist, this poses a dilemma. Women had been ‘liberated’ from being a housewife and mother, and had become a tool of consumer capitalism. The socialist collective and Marxist awakening did not come about. Women weren’t supposed to end up this way.
Where did this go wrong? The answer is quite simple. The goal of the counter culture movement, of which feminism was a tool wasn’t just getting women into the clutches of business, but to change the social order. But this is not what they said. Feminists said women should find careers but many meant they should change the social order and challenge Western paradigms and the dominant culture. The issue isn’t that 60′s revolutionary feminism failed by their standards, but that it worked exactly the way they said to others it should. But what they said they didn’t really mean.
One must be careful with what they wish for.
This is the danger with populist “mainstream” Nationalist groups, and why any white person who is even half serious about the very grave threat that the multi-racialist program is against whites, should proceed with populist groups with caution.
This is not to say that populist groups have been failures, or have been taking the wrong approach. One cannot discard the fact that populist groups in Europe have had success, and that this success is nothing to be sneered at. Bringing masses of people to their causes has advanced ours, and enlarged our audience. Indeed, it is better to have a populist party with a strategy with room for improvement, than nothing at all. White people owe much to these organisations.
Multiculturalism is dead.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel described multiculturalism as a failure. Throughout Europe, the fact that this Liberal idea, like most other Liberal ideas is a failure is becoming more and more acknowledged. Focus is moving away from trying to become more multicultural to simply trying to make it ‘work’, which just focuses the anti-white efforts onto trying to assimilate out White people and culture, something they were going to do anyway.
Multiculturalism is a lame duck. As a philosophy, it cannot survive. It is na├»ve to think that a race of people will blindly destroy themselves without a fight, or that the conditions which made it possible, will continue indefinitely. The fact that the Left must, through the use of force and violence consistently and relentlessly oppose, suppress and destroy any opposition is testament to the fact that the idea, if allowed to stand on its own, would be rejected. In countries like Greece, where its citizens are facing a financial depression, it is hard for people to accept, welcome and embrace further non-whites. It makes no sense to try and import people to become multiracial, when those already there are struggling. Throughout Europe, the artificial financial boom which gave the impression of abundance for all, and for all the third world who wanted to immigrate has ended, and so to is the tolerance for multiculturalism. The “Far Right” are ascending, and it is due to the failure of the Left to realise that a program to destroy whites, funded by the whites they are trying to destroy, wouldn’t last.
For the Liberals and the centrist parties however, this merely changes the face of the problem. Nationalist groups such as the Front national may have about 20% of Frances support, but during the 2012 election campaign they were finding that the centrist Sarkozy was adopting their anti immigration sentiment, primarily in an attempt to diffuse the Front nationals message, and render them politically irrelevant. A similar phenomenon happened when Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party made waves in Australian politics. One Nation, a “civic nationalist” party attracted many supporters who saw One Nation as a voice against racial and cultural destruction. But One Nation concerned itself more with integration, with neo-liberal ideals of what a nation is. It concerned itself with refugees and a ‘fair go’ for Australians. Its message was confused, to the point where White men with Asian wives thought the party represented their interests, and the party itself never drawing a line in the sand. One Nation still posed a threat to the Liberal – Labour duopoly, and to the Liberal and Labor parties shared interests, of which are many.
Dealing with One Nation wasn’t difficult for the major parties though. The “right of centre” Liberals, led by John Howard simply turned up their “Nationalist” rhetoric a notch or two. They took One Nation’s thunder, or tried to, thereby denying One Nation of their political niche. In the 2012 presidential elections in France, Sarkozy was forced to play a similar hand. By ramping up rhetoric about immigration and its issues, he sought to take voters from Front national. It was easy after all, because a Nationalist party which focuses on integration issues, on crime, on the vagaries of Islamic culture, on refugees is setting itself up for irrelevance. In some ways, this can be seen as a success, in that it forces the mainstream parties to adopt our ideas and sentiment, but meeting them in the middle mean meeting them in what is most likely the wrong place. What is worse though, much worse, is that they are setting the White race up for failure.
For if a party’s rhetoric is on integration issues, crime, culture differences, respect of “our” culture and the like, then it is easy, very easy for a centrist party to co-opt and adopt this rhetoric as their own. Complaints about crime can be adopted by a mainstream centrist party and morphed into a policy to increase law enforcement and expand police powers. Complaints about integration can be adopted and changed into policies which push harder for immigrants to adapt, into more money being spent on education and immigrant services. Complaints about cultural differences can be adopted and morphed into policies about greater education.
If a group such as the BNP win support in opposing Islam, then the great danger to the British people, is that they will get exactly what they ask for and have a government which is committed to stopping Islamification. But this could very will end up being education and harsher restrictions on Muslims, or further integration into Britain, solutions which do not necessarily do anything to protect White Britain. Australians who wanted greater border control with regard to refugees, got their very wish with Howard, as he expanded Australia’s immigration levels to unsustainable levels and brought in the 457′s by the plane load from India. Many Australian’s meant to say they were concerned about immigration, but the rhetoric was against refugees, and against illegal immigration, so Howard was tough on refugees, and ensured that immigration which happened was legal, and there was certainly plenty of it. The media of course, was complicit in funnelling Australia’s opposition to mass immigration into a limited refugee issue, and still to this day is doing exactly that.
Nationalist groups which wish to preserve the race of the nation simply cannot afford to adopt, as their primary goal and purpose, rhetoric which can be taken and adapted by a mainstream, neo-liberal party. If one just adopts a mainstream cause, and simply takes a more extreme position, then one could only ever be a poor imitation of the well funded and established political organisations, and this is how they will be seen by most. This will end up being a fatal error, and the ability of white people to protect their racial future rests in Nationalists groups getting it right. A Nationalist group must find a niche which no other group can intrude on. A Nationalist group must adopt rhetoric which no anti-white group can adopt, even in part.
It is possible to adopt a ‘close the borders’ position and water it down. It is possible to adopt a ‘stop the refugees’ position and water it down. It is possible to adopt a “they don’t assimilate” position and water it down. It is possible to adopt these, and still continue with a program which removes the white race. The issue really isn’t even whether the issues are watered down or ‘trimmed’. The issue is that Nationalists are predicating the moral justification for the preservation of our race on these other issues. All these positions are just as coherent in part as they are in whole. They make just as much sense when moved along political lines as they do in their point of origin. They can be changed, chopped and morphed. They are not absolute, and for those who are wondering what is to become of the European race, they are not really the point.
 Sticking to the point.
A simple message is an effective message. Nationalists need not be complex in their message, need not conflate various issues or rest the justification for the protection of our race on whether colonialism was really that bad or whether IQ differences exist between races. For a nationalist group which seeks to preserve their nation, in the traditional sense, they must find a simple, clear, concise message which says exactly what they want to say. One that says exactly what White people need to say.
Lets say the BNP decided to focus on a message, and lets say that message was “We the BNP are an organisation against the destruction of the British race”. There would be no ambiguity at all about what the BNP stood for! Lets say, further to this, that when the BNP spoke, they primarily spoke against the program of genocide against Whites, and stated that their goal is to promote the preservation of White Britons. Yes, they may very well discuss issues with refugees, Eastern European immigration, Islamification and the like, as issues of concern. But what if they stated, from the outset, that this racial preservation was their purpose? What if people supported the BNP for this reason?
What could a centrist party possible hope to do against the BNP in such a situation? How can it be possible to adopt such a sentiment, and water it down to the point ineffectiveness? How could the Tories adopt, even in part such rhetoric? To adopt any of it, is to admit to it, and it is something which anti-whites could never admit to, that there is an existential threat to the white race through Liberal policies. This would give an organisation like the BNP a much needed advantage, a total moral monopoly over an issue which when discussed correctly, with discipline, has such a stark moral imperative that one cannot rationally oppose it.
Here is the difficulty. Keeping your message pure, and keeping to the point, and never losing focus of the argument. For Nationalists, this is critical for success when faced with an opposition that will throw a thousand different arguments, from slavery to colonialism to the holocaust to the economy to refugees to anything else they might think of. None of these arguments warrant their program of destroying White nations, but they are effective in distracting the racialist Nationalist, in throwing the argument off track.
With Islamification, immigration numbers, refugees, there are many shades of grey, many degrees and outcomes, and many positions which can mean the same thing. There are compromises and alternatives. But, if one was to state their position, in black and white, as being one for the preservation of their race, how can one adopt a lighter shade of this grey? If the Front national was to say “We are for preserving the French race”, how could one hope to adopt this sentiment and water it down? Immigration policy then becomes secondary to protecting the white race, and discussion about immigration can then be forced into the context of whether immigration is a mortal threat to the existence of the French race or not.
Liberals ridicule such discussion, more so than discussion about immigration and crime, but only because empty, meaningless ridicule is the only thing they have.
A stark moral position is what Nationalists need. One where there is only ‘for’ or ‘against’ and most importantly, one which unambiguously states the true desire, the true intention of those pushing the message. After all, ending what essentially is a program of genocide can in no reasonable way be construed as evil, as wrong. One can say that it is, but such a position cannot stand up to any scrutiny.
Many will most definitely try to attack those who want to preserve their race, and the Left and “Respectable” Conservatives go ballistic at statements such as “anti-racist a code word for anti-white”, but only because they cannot deal with it. Racial self preservation is a moral imperative, just, honourable and reasonable. It is no less a moral imperative than self preservation. Taking a more mainstream rhetoric may appease those who are anti-white, but appeasing your enemies is rarely effective in defeating them. Anyone who opposes a race of people preserving themselves is assuredly going to face a hard time justifying such a position, even though initially they can rely on censorship and standard Leftist theatrics of indignation, horror, denial and disgust.
If you are an organisation which has as a principal, the preservation of your race, and you are witnessing people who engage in mixed race relationships turn up to support you, then you’re doing something wrong. If you are in such an organisation, and people join up thinking that having integration or assimilation with an Asian nation is the way forward, you are doing something wrong.
The impulse to be more ‘mainstream’ is a deadly one. We cannot possibly hope to win, trying to mimic the rhetoric of the mainstream, but ‘cranked up’ a bit more. It would either render us obsolete or as nothing more than a low rent, poor man’s version of a mainstream party. Even worse, if we were to have a victory, it could lead to a victory we don’t want, one where it is still acceptable to be anti-white, but where borders are controlled tighter and sharia law is not permitted.
The future of White preservationists is in steering the growing masses of people disillusioned with multi-racialism, with traitorous governments and Liberalism and Left Wing ideology eroding their culture and heritage and seeking to eradicate them from the pages of history towards a clear statement. Nationalist groups have had success in reining these disenfranchised, disinherited people and mobilising them, putting bodies on the streets and being noticed by the establishment worldwide. While this stage of our struggle may have been conducted differently, we must ensure that as we enter this new phase, where the failures of multiculturalism are being dealt with, that we shape our political future in a way which is amenable to what we want to achieve.
We must demand, and force, first and foremost the recognition that Liberal multiculturalism is incompatible with the the continued existence of European peoples, and that statements of multiculturalism, and the ideology of pluralism, diversity and the like which goes with it, are statements against white people. When nationalist groups make this statement loud and clear, then all other nationalist issues, immigration, outsourcing, globalism and the like will take on a new context. A necessary move to ensure that our primary goals are achieved.