Counter-Currents
3,002 words
Mein Kampf in Arabic
I find it astonishing that many of today’s younger White Nationalists have read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
The best place in Mein Kampf to begin appreciating Hitler the political organizer is volume 2, chapter 11, “Propaganda and Organization,” which contains a number of deep political insights formulated in lapidary aphorisms. The chapter falls into two parts, the first dealing with the relationship of propaganda to political organizing, the second dealing with the reorganization of the NSDAP under Hitler’s leadership. I will discuss the first part here and the second in a separate article.
Politics and Metapolitics
In “Propaganda and Organization,” Hitler deals with the relationship of metapolitics to politics, for propaganda refers to communicating the intellectual preconditions of political action, and organization refers to creating the institutional framework of political action — two essentially metapolitical activities.
Hitler begins by emphasizing the priority of metapolitics over politics: “Propaganda had to run far in advance of organization and provide it with human material to be worked upon” (Mannheim trans., p. 578). Hitler explains that, “I devoted myself to propaganda in the first period of my activity in the movement” in order to “gradually fill a small nucleus of men with the new doctrine, and so prepare the material which could later furnish the first elements of an organization” (p. 581). One cannot create a political organization out of men who are not of one mind about who they are, what they are doing, and why.
Hitler declares himself “an enemy of too rapid and too pedantic organizing” (p. 578). Organizations necessarily congeal into hierarchies, and the people at the top naturally resist challenges from below. It is crucial to avoid premature organizing, and rigid (pedantisch) structures, lest inferior people be placed in positions of responsibility and prevent superior people from rising to replace them. Thus, “It is more expedient for a time to disseminate an idea by propaganda from a central point and then carefully examine the gradually gathering material for leading minds” (pp. 579-80).
Hitler also cautions against using superficial criteria for judging the individuals drawn in by propaganda efforts: “Sometimes it will turn out that men inconspicuous in themselves must nevertheless be regarded as born leaders” (p. 580).
Hitler’s aim in the early years of the National Socialist movement was to create a vanguard, an elite that would lead the National Socialist German Workers Party and eventually all of Germany. To create that elite, he needed to attract like-minded people and convert others to his way of thinking by articulating and disseminating his worldview, i.e., through propaganda. Once these outreach efforts bore fruit, the party had to recruit people with leadership potential, then train them to ever higher levels of awareness and competence.
Theorists, Organizers, and Leaders
Hitler rejects categorically the notion that “a wealth of theoretical knowledge” is “proof for the qualities and abilities of a leader.” Indeed, “The opposite is often the case” and “great theoreticians are only in the rarest cases great organizers.” The virtue of a theorist is to produce systems of “abstractly correct laws,” but the organizer marshals human material to put these laws into practice. Thus the organizer “must primarily be a psychologist.” Organizers are also pragmatists, who must take human beings as they are in the present, with all their flaws and weaknesses, and turn them into “a formation which will be a living organism, imbued with strong and stable power,” which will serve as the vehicle and instrument for realizing the ideal (p. 580).
If theorists rarely overlap with organizers, then they almost never overlap with a small category of organizers, namely leaders: “For leading means: being able to move masses,” which is something that can be achieved by agitators and demagogues gifted with psychological tact, even in the absence of correct theoretical knowledge.[1]
Regarding the relationship of fundamental ideas to politics, Hitler dismisses as “quite useless” to argue about “which is of greater importance, to set up ideals and aims for mankind, or to realize them. Here, as so often in life: one would be utterly meaningless without the other” (p. 580). Ideals that are not realized in action are empty. Action that is not directed by ideals is blind.
The theorist sets the aims of a movement. The organizer creates a machine to pursue and realize those aims. The leader guides the machine to its goal. Hitler asserts that “the combination of theoretician, organizer, and leader in one person is the rarest thing that can be found on this earth; this combination makes the great man” (pp. 580-81).
Supporters and Members
When a movement’s propaganda begins to attract people, they must be divided into supporters and members. The distinction is simple: “A supporter of a movement is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims; a member is one who fights for them.” Being a supporter “requires only a passive recognition of an idea” while membership “demands active advocacy and defense.” Being a supporter requires only “understanding” of a doctrine, while membership requires both understanding and “the courage personally to advocate and disseminate what has been understood.” All members are supporters, but not all supporters are members. Only members are part of the movement organization. Since the courage to fight for ideas is rarer than the ability to passively support them, “to ten supporters there will be only one or two members” (p. 581).
Propaganda is directed to the public at large, and to subgroups within the public, but it is still directed to men en masse, not at individuals, whereas organizers have to be concerned with carefully evaluating the character and abilities of the individuals who are potential members.
Propaganda directed to the general public makes them “ripe for the victory of [an] idea,” while “organization achieves victory” by mobilizing those supporters who will fight for the idea’s realization.
Hitler also points out that the victory of an idea comes more quickly the broader its dissemination and acceptance in society, and the more “exclusive, rigid, and firm the organization which carries out the fight in practice.” Thus, “the number of supporters cannot be too large, but . . . the number of members can more readily be too large than too small.” Moreover, if “propaganda has imbued a whole people with an idea, the organization can draw the consequences with a handful of men” (p. 582).
In other words, there is an inverse relationship between the breadth of propaganda’s success and the necessary size of an organization. The more successful the propaganda, the smaller the organization needs to be. The more supporters there are in the general public, the fewer members are necessary. The less successful the propaganda, the larger the organization needs to be. The fewer the supporters, the more members are needed.
Hitler emphasizes that ultimately, the aim of both propaganda and organization is political power. Thus although the first task of propaganda is to attract people, and the first task of organization is to create a vehicle for more propaganda, both propaganda and organization ultimately have to challenge and replace the existing system: “The second task of propaganda is the disruption of the existing state of affairs and the permeation of this state of affairs with the new doctrine,” and “the second ask of organization must be the struggle for power, thus to achieve the final success of the doctrine” (p. 583).
Two Extreme Possibilities
The inverse relation between breadth of propaganda and size of organization points to two extreme possibilities.
First, if propaganda becomes so widespread that it penetrates all the institutions of a society, then a single specifically political (as opposed to propaganda) organization fighting for the realization of the idea would no longer be necessary simply because all institutions of society would now fight for the realization of the idea.
This essentially describes present-day Jewish intellectual hegemony in white societies. While there is a formidable array of specifically Jewish organizations working to maintain Jewish hegemony, all other institutions — government, academia, the churches, business, the culture industries, etc. — are so permeated with Jewish propaganda and subversion that they are now de facto organs of Jewish power as well.
And if white racial consciousness becomes equally hegemonic, then White Nationalism can be achieved by means of propaganda alone, for a fighting White Nationalist organization is redundant if all of society’s organizations are fighting for White Nationalism as well.
The other extreme is a society in which propaganda has minimal diffusion and acceptance, in which case the organization becomes, in effect, an invading army seizing control of a hostile population by force.
When faced with overwhelming Jewish intellectual hegemony, such Old Right-style National Socialists as William Pierce and Harold Covington have conceived their struggle essentially along the lines of a conquering army. The North American New Right aims at the opposite extreme, on the principle that present-day Jewish hegemony should be fought on its own terms. Bad ideas must be combated with good ideas, institutional subversion with institutional renewal.
I do not deny that it may be necessary for political organizations to actually struggle for power. (I simply have no talent for or interest in politics.) But I do believe that such organizing is premature before propaganda delivers quality human material, and if propaganda is wildly successful, White Nationalism may not need to create new institutions, simply because it can capture the existing institutions by capturing the minds of those who control them.
Keep Propaganda Truthful
One of the most important lessons to draw from Hitler’s discussion of propaganda and organization is the necessity of keeping one’s propaganda truthful — even when the truth hurts or seems scary and “radical.” One must direct one’s propaganda to the general public and all subgroups within it. One must find ways to appeal to everyone. But this pertains only to the form of one’s propaganda, the different media one employs, the different ways one pitches it to different audiences. In these matters, one should be maximally pragmatic, flexible, and innovative.
But one must not, under any circumstances, alter the content of one’s message merely to appeal to weak and squeamish people. Such tactics may increase the number of nominal supporters and members. But they are not worth the costs they impose. Under normal circumstances, associating with people who do not fundamentally agree with one’s platform necessitates that one spend time wrangling with them rather than pursuing one’s long-term aims. One ends up fighting one’s “friends” rather than one’s enemies. And in emergency situations — when one has to count on an organization acting with one mind and will — the squeamish will sheer off and abandon you when you need them most. So, in terms of what is most important — namely, the achievement of one’s ultimate goals — moderation at the expense of truth gains one nothing.
The North American New Right, for example, has been advised to “soften” its stance on a number of issues — as if we were peddling seat cushions rather than proclaiming crucially important truths. We have been urged to soften our take on the Jewish problem to appeal to the squeamish. We have been urged to soften our stance on biological race to appeal to religious obscurantists, petty nationalists, etc. We are constantly asked to make our movement more friendly to women by censoring certain male writers. (I have given a platform to female writers, but they have lost interest quickly.) Finally, we are constantly prodded to censor honest religious dissent to pander to Christians.
Ironically, the positions I have outlined on these matters are as “soft” as one can reasonably go — meaning that I concede to facts and reasonable arguments, not to dogmas, feelings, and folly. But there is no advantage in compromising our intellectual honesty merely to associate with people who will at best slow us down and, at worst, abandon us in a crisis.
Hitler shows us that we can ignore all this “clever” and “practical” advice and still win. Sometimes the clever thing is not the smart thing to do.
Keep Organizations United
Just as it is more important to keep one’s propaganda truthful than appealing, it is more important for one’s organizations to be radical and united than large, flabby, and inclusive. The purpose of an organization is to fight for the realization of its guiding ideas. To do this, an organization must have strength, which requires both numbers and unity. But strength does not lie merely in numbers, since growth that is too rapid or indiscriminate can weaken unity, “since only a small fraction of mankind is by nature energetic and bold, a movement which endlessly enlarges its organization would inevitably be weakened someday as a result” (p. 584). Thus one must manage growth to maintain unity, so additional numbers strengthen rather than weaken the organization.
Truthful propaganda makes unified organizations possible, as Hitler explains:
As director of the party’s propaganda, I took many pains not only to prepare the soil for the future greatness of the movement, but by an extremely radical conception in this work, I also strove to bring it about that the party should obtain only the best material. For the more radical and inflammatory my propaganda was, the more this frightened weaklings and hesitant characters, and prevented them from penetrating the primary core of our organization. . . . The movement, they said, was so radical that membership in it would expose the individual to the gravest difficulties, nay, dangers and we shouldn’t take it as amiss if the honest, peaceable citizen should stand aside for the present at least, even if at heart he was entirely with the cause. And this was good. (p. 586)
Although Hitler would have preferred a small but radical party to a large and centrist one, he understood that this was not the only alternative. His aim was a very large, very radical, and highly unified party, which he created in the end by sticking to his principles from the beginning.
Hitler understood the importance of getting things off to a good start. He understood that with time, correct principles — or small deviations from such principles — have dramatically different results. He had faith in the truth of even his most unpopular and discomfiting ideas. Thus he aimed to change the public mind rather than merely pander to it. So he was unwilling to dilute truth with ignorance and error in order to win short term gains at the expense of long-term victory.
In the end, Hitler’s problem was not too few followers and members, but too many of them:
The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is a membership which has grown abnormally as a result of too rapid success. For, just as a movement is shunned by all cowardly and egoistic individuals, as long as it has to fight bitterly, these same people rush with equal alacrity to acquire membership when the success of the party has been made probable or already realized by developments. (p. 584)
Thus, as soon as the party began gaining momentum, Hitler blocked new enrollments, then added new people only slowly and after the most exacting process of scrutiny. His aim was to “preserve the core of the movement in unvitiated freshness and health” (p. 585). He also restricted the leadership of the party to this core alone. This measure not only protected the leadership from penetration by opportunists, but also by enemy agents, who would target the party for subversion as soon as it became a threat.
Our Struggle Too
I believe that Hitler’s Mein Kampf is relevant to our struggle too, because White Nationalism in the United States is in a position analogous to the early years of that National Socialist movement. This will be a galling statement to some, given the decades of White Nationalist efforts behind us. Yet those efforts have to be judged a failure, either due to the lack of a coherent worldview, or the inability to propagate one, or the failure to recruit a genuine vanguard — or some combination of these failings.
Ideologically, the movement has been most compromised by conservatism, mainstreaming, the failure to confront the Jewish problem, and a general lack of seriousness about the role of ideas in politics.
In terms of communications, the movement has been most compromised by incompetence and bad taste.
But the greatest failures have been in terms of cadre building. We have simply failed to attract and cultivate quality people. Because of premature populism, we have attracted people who are average or below average in intelligence, taste, moral character, and moral seriousness. Because we lack confidence in our message, we are content to coddle cranks and kooks, even though each one repulses 100 superior people.
Because of superficiality and confused motives, competence and character frequently take a back seat to looks, bonhomie, “clubbability,” bourgeois respectability, pandering to Christians, and even such bizarre fixations as gender parity. Movement groups have been modeled on churches, cults, historical societies, fraternities, scout troops, Masonic lodges, businesses, historical reenactment societies, the Republican party, etc. It is only for lack of women that they have not yet been modeled on ballroom dancing clubs. Some of them have even been modeled on the NSDAP, 1919-1945, in complete defiance of historical context. Every model, really, except a machine for realizing our ideas in the 21st century.
But before we organize, we must have people. And to attract people, we need propaganda. But before we engage in propaganda, we need a message. We need to figure out who we are, what we want, and why. That brings us back to metapolitics and the project of Counter-Currents/North American New Right.
Note
1. At least in this chapter, Hitler does not explain what differentiates leaders from other organizers.
21 comments
An organizer acknowledges trends and facts, plans accordingly, and confers with other organizers(or the group if too small to require multiple organizers) on how and when to utilize human material. A leader can look upon the faces of a thousand men and respond to their wanting visage with statements of truth and intent which resonates with the energy of the mass. That resonance is factor that differentiates the leader from the organizer. The roaring cheers of the crowd causing bystanders to develop an inquisitive interest thus bringing more eyes and ears than a theory could reliably be expected to accomplish.
Greg wrote:
“White Nationalism may not need to create new institutions, simply because it can capture the existing institutions by capturing the minds of those who control them.”
Unfortunately, many of the existing institutions are staffed with jews, hence jews control our existing institutions.
Here’s a “short” list of institutions controlled by jews (when you print it out, it takes 38 pages!) http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t685513-148/#post10131684
You picked up the logical chink in Johnson’s intellectual armor. And we wont be able to do to the Jews and Communists what they did to us. So of the two paths he presents, I think we can cross this one off. We will have to form our own institutions – and ultimately our own Nation. I think Covington is right that we wont be able to take it all back. On the other hand, I think Johnson is right that the time is not yet because the Foundation hasn’t been laid. But Covington is right that we are out of time. Perhaps as the Roman said, We must make haste slowly. We dare not make anymore false starts.
Jews have been removed from power before. Look at their trajectory in the USSR. There, even token efforts to scale back their over-representation were enough to sour them on the system and set an exodus in motion.
If we are out of time, we are out of time, and one more repetition of losing strategies will not fail us.
An interesting thought: that Jewish hyper-vigilance can be used to defeat them. That if we managed to gain a foothold, and they couldn’t silently crush us, it would be so unbearable to them that they would leave. It’ worth considering but America is pretty far gone in terms of morale and morality, plus there’s the diversity factor. As Hitler said, no Nation can recover from the loss of the Blood. And remember, we would need a Stalin or a Putin: a strong man that betrays them after attaining power. How likely are our fellow White Americans to vote in such a Man? Communism preserved moral values through its obvious terror. Our Brave New World system has been far more effective by corrupting from within and by choice.
India has gone National Socialist – at least according to this Loon. A promising development in any case.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/nazism-and-narendra-modi-the-ideological-influence-on-indias-next-prime-minister/
There are plenty examples in the politics of the last few decades of centre-right parties adopting policies from the populist right—whether whole or watered down—in order to destroy those parties. Yet, it did shift certain areas towards our direction. Of course, the supporters of the populist right did not go up in arms over this tactic, they weren’t smart enough to see what was going on. Their leadership was lacking in pressing the issue, also. Perhaps, if such a tactic were employed on a future successful White Nationalist movement it wouldn’t work so well. Namely that we’re more aware of our goals and the present trajectories of the régimes we labour under, so coöption would never be a possibility. People like Greg will be there to say “no, this is not enough, we have not achieved the White Nationalist ideal, we cannot afford to rest, we must continue to agitate”. This would go on until we have permeated the institutions completely, and not just shallowly through half-baked application of our thought by opportunists.
Then the question is, how to sort the wheat from the chaff: the System men that thought they were doing good and the opportunist political chameleons. We’ll have to have a selection process in the works, the opposite of the one in place today that skips over people with convictions.
Very interesting and deep insights. Convinced me to finally pick up and read Mein Kampf.
The thing about Mein Kampf is that it is visionary more than a list of how to do it. The thread that got me into his thinking was ‘this man absolutely loves his people’ and once I got that he made so much sense to me. I am now reading Table Talk and he states in that that it was a good thing he went to jail, so he could consolidate his thinking into a book. Once I could ‘step over the holocaust’ and break through the demonization of him, what he says humanizes him.
He spoke to the soul of the German people and they could honestly respond to that.
I do think that those who have done a very close reading of Mein Kampf would be able to extract the ‘how’ from the ‘what’ he says.
Excellent article.
“Finally, we are constantly prodded to censor honest religious dissent to pander to Christians.”
Speaking as a Christian to do that would be just too silly for words. Christianity today is part of the problem and Christians have to figure out what went wrong and fix it. Adulterating your criticism of us will not help in the least.
Hitler wrote another book, marketed as HITLER’S SECOND BOOK, available on kindle for $10.
Or in hardback as:
Hitler’s Second Book, edited by Gerhard L Weinberg, is published in the United States on October 1 by Enigma Books. To order a copy for £25 plus £2.25 p&p, call Telegraph Books Direct on 0870 155 7222
I’ve read only the first part thus far, but it promises to be as brilliant as Mein Kampf
For more info on how this manuscript survived, google “Hitler’s Second Book”
Excellent article Greg!
I will be submitting an article shortly on Identitarian activity over the last couple years which describes their progression of growth in the way you described at the end of the section on “Supporters and Members.”
One of the challenges of starting a Movement with goals as audacious as ours is the size of the country in which we work. I believe that Identitarians have done so well because the focus is localized around distinct regional cultures. I don’t think there is an Identitarian group where it takes longer than 2 hours to drive from one “border” to another. This problem is more difficult in the US (not only by size) because the educated class you must first draw on is particularly mobile, especially compared with France. In fact, Paris has a much smaller and less active Identitarian group when compared with places that have smaller populations to draw upon, perhaps because it is the only region in France where young educated people are almost entirely born outside the region.
The countries where our ideas have had a place at the table have around 10 million inhabitants. (If someone can show me a White Nationalist policy that originated with the Northern League and became law in Italy I would stand corrected.) I have always assumed this is because Our Enemies saw these as acceptable losses while WNs in large countries would be stopped by any means. Perhaps it is in fact that in these countries it was easier to organize a Nationalist organization over a smaller terrain.
How did the NS movement deal with the challenges of organizing in a large country? Does Mein Kampf have any tips on this? Was he focused on large or small cities in the first phase? Did they focus on one area in a federalized system before breaking out countrywide? Did they have any governing victories before their total political victory or did they come to power without governing experience but just an idealistic vision for a renewed society?
Some thoughts…
Several years ago I happened to be visiting a major west coast university. In one of the food courts they had an exhibit of protest posters of the last half century or so: antiwar, civil rights, 1960s New Left. Some of them were iconic and recognizable even in the 2000s. I was going to complain to the management that there were no rightist posters on the walls, but stopped. Why? Because I knew what they would say: “Can you show us some equivalent conservative or rightist posters?”
Aside from some rather tepid YAF offerings, I doubt if such existed, at least not with the iconic value of the posters in the exhibit.
There has been a major gap in rightist tactics. There seems to be little in the way of equivalent propaganda media is being produced. And there is considerable value in media such as posters. Example:
A number of years ago, an “underground” graphic artist by the name of Robbie Conal produced a series of posters which his minions pasted up on city walls, highway overpasses, utility boxes, whatever. The images were simple and stark, usually black and white caricatures with one or two words making a point. This had two advantages: (1) since the posters were omnipresent and instantly readable, they got the point across (per the rules of good agitprop). (2) They staked out public spaces as belonging to the left, much in the way that gang graffiti marks out territory. (You can google Conal, by the way, to see samples. And then think about how the right can produce similar posters.)
The public remembers the slogans, decades and even centuries after they were coined: Hope and Change! I Feel Your Pain! Free Nelson Mandela! Free at Last! Give Peace a Chance! Out Now! Bread, Peace, Land! 54-40 or Fight! Tippecanoe and Tyler Too! Remember the Maine! Remember the Alamo! Wag the Dog!
Over the years, I have been acquainted with various conservative and rightist activist groups. There’s a shortfall in rightist public propaganda, one manifestation of which is the lack of posters, flyers, etc., with iconic imagery and slogans. A point which more than one activist has made to me is that they need professional support in designing, printing and disseminating such media. The same national organizations which can spend any number of dollars on expensive conferences and prestige offices in the Beltway can not scrape together the funds to come up with useful posters. And there is both an art and science in producing such media. Amateur work often is ineffective or counterproductive.
Consider the situation today in the USA. There are incredible opportunities for rightist/WN propaganda media. People know something is wrong–the arming up of Americans is one symptom. The surveys showing a general lack of confidence in the media and Congress is another. A public propaganda campaign could mobilize this sentiment and turn it into political action.
What if there were a central office for the production of WN/alternative right propaganda media? One which could analyze political trends, develop and design posters, slogans, etc? And then coordinate with activists to disseminate propaganda?
It’s worth thinking about.
And taking action.
Excellent points. I can put you in touch with an excellent designer if you want to take action.
Small orgs help, but nothing of major significance will happen unless there is a large mainstream media organ controlled by the Right.
The National Alliance managed to put up some good billboards – one of which entitled, “Love Your Race” which showed a beautiful woman, and the email. The System defended itself by putting pressure on the owners of the billboards and the property owners where the billboards where. Likewise, posters often need to be approved and the approval will not be given. And the message boards are patrolled by Anti-Fas who will tear them down or deface them. Literature drops and distributions are unfortunately still the most viable option – unless private citizens and companies become far more courageous. Internet posting is possible of course. Could such posters be mass mailed – or would that bring down a heavy hand of some kind?
If the Anti-Fas can tear down or deface pro-white messages, then rightists should be allowed to deface or tear down anti-white messages. Why aren’t we seeing any leftist anti-white propaganda being torn down or defaced?
Whenever you see billboards featuring interracial couples, write MISCEGENATION IS GENOCIDE across it.
Leftists use the term “agitprop,” a contraction for “agitation and propaganda.”
Agitation is political media directed at the general public. It’s slogans, flyers, posters, songs, videos, street theater, rallies, marches, etc., etc. Agitation is kept simple.
Propaganda is the indepth concepts directed at the movement’s cadre, the metapolitics if you like.
A problem I have seen too often is that an activist movement will mix up these two categories. It might bombard the general public with complex political concepts and then wonders why no one shows up for meetings. To use a stereotypical example, consider the Objectivist who expects someone vaguely interested in the free market to instantly agree with all 100 pages of John Galt’s speech–and if the newcomer deviates even slightly, jumps on them for being “anti-human.”
The flip side is the hardcore activist who attends a central committee meeting only to find everyone shouting slogans at each other and playing the game of “more ideological than thou.” That activist walks out the door shaking his head and looks for a bar in which to drown his sorrows.
The alternative right/WN in the USA seem to have the propaganda down well. One reason I read websites such as this is because of the indepth analysis of the current crisis for the Western world. I recently turned on a friend to the Counter Currents website, an activist going back quite some years. As I noted in a prior post, he has commented: “This is fantastic! Why isn’t this in the mainstream media?”
The question becomes how to get into that mainstream. This is not necessarily all white people. It just may be a small minority who understands there is something amiss in America, and who is looking for an alternative to mainstream movements.
Example: you may have seen billboards with Nelsons Mandela’s photo and the slogan “Never forget that one person can make a difference” [or words to that effect]. Now, I have seen people disturbed when they see these billboards. They know that behind the mainstream media hype, Mandela may not have been quite the messiah of democracy he’s been billed as. They may consider the black-on-white crime in America, or the third world conditions in their nearby “inner city,” and wonder how much worse it is in a black majority country. But they have little idea of what is happening to their fellow whites in South Africa.
Supposing pro-white activists were to put up posters with the same slogan but a photo of the aftermath of an ANC terrorist bombing (i.e., agitation). And a URL which would direct them to a central index of websites on Mandela’s role in ANC terrorism, the various atrocities committed under black majority rule, and how the SA model is being applied against white people in America today. Most critically, it would provide information on what the reader can do–like joining a front organization fighting for the rights of white people. The front would select candidates for more intense political education and eventual leadership (i.e., propaganda).
Such an agitprop campaign would not have to appeal to all or even most white people. Good advertising is based on margins of success as low as 5%. If one could win over 5% of white people in a major American city, or even a single college campus, there would be a cadre with which activists could work. And then they could take it from there.
These are just ideas. There are any number of other agitprop campaigns which could be conducted. But some kind of action is going to have to be taken on the agitprop front, eventually.
Excellent suggestions.
In his time, Hitler had to explain how Jewish influence was a problem, and why the continuous slow influx of non-Germans had to be stopped. At the time, those things would not have been obvious to most people. It was hard work to propagate the truth. Hitler was also concerned with things like preserving morality, healthy lifestyles, artistic ideals, invading the USSR, and so on.
It is simpler today. The race-replacement crisis has become obvious. I keep hearing that people have lost their natural survival instinct, but I think the brainwashing is really a mile wide and an inch deep, as the blogger Svigor (here, for example) likes to say.
Most White people would be on our side if we had a WN television network. Deep down, they are already on our side, even if they don’t know it yet. It is not as if we had to teach them a complicated political theory. Today, the need for preparatory metapolitical work is not as great as in Hitler’s time. The anti-white regime is made possible because Jews and their leftist allies receive the support of normal honest White people. We must help those normal White people to realize that they are working for an anti-White system, and they need to get the message that the anti-White policy is made possible by Jewish power, and by Jewish hostility to White people. The leftists themselves are ill-informed. They don’t even know that they are working for the Jews. They have been tricked. For example, most of them would disagree that the Jewish monopoly on the media is a good thing. I think the easiest step towards capturing the minds of those in control of today’s institutions may be to tell them about the Jews.
So far, it is surprising that not more people are trying to organize against their own genocide by replacement, but the reason isn’t that people are comfortable with the idea of being genocided. The real problem is the censorship and intimidation. People cannot talk openly, and it is impossible to develop a pro-white public opinion without the freedom to talk publicly. It is all the more necessary to make ourselves heard, so that White people will feel less isolated. Today, unlike in Hitler’s time, it is less a matter of persuading people than of bringing back freedom of speech, liberating people’s minds and releasing energies, in the hope that the WN movement will start snowballing. We must work as a catalyst. When the WN ball starts rolling, the views advocated on Counter-Currents will be competing with other groups who will also defend White interests. A number of political parties will be created. It won’t be like the rise of Hitler’s national-socialist party, where everything largely relied on one man. The Jews, together with the phony conservatives, will try to fund and co-opt their own phony WN parties, so as to achieve some kind of compromise and derail the efforts of the WNs.
“decades of White Nationalist efforts behind us. Yet those efforts have to be judged a failure”
We’ll keep failing until at some point we start snowballing. Until then, one-off propaganda operations that take place in the streets are soon forgotten, but the information about the Jews keeps spreading. So, in the end, spreading information about the Jews is less discouraging, and is going to be more effective, than many other forms of WN activism.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment