Antiochus Epiphanes
January 6th, 2004, 02:46 PM
I have entitled this thread "the golden mean of political action: participation yes, voting no." I suggest that for the WN, this is the best way to maximize his individual impact on the racial struggle.
Participating as either an openly pro White candidate is good for three basic reasons. The first is that it efficiently uses resources to spread the WN message to a wide audience, and a different audience than typically is exposed to it via the Internet, because of election coverage in radio print and tv media, which is so expensive the Jews have WN effectively locked out. In other words, it allows for penetration of a different market segment. Secondly, it allows for personal recruitment in a socially accepted manner, at a time when many average folks are interested in politics. Thirdly, it helps WNs develop leadership, communication, and teamwork skills, which will all be essential if we ever have the opportunity to take the reins. A subsidiary of this last item, is that it keeps people involved by giving them something concrete and attainable to work for.
Because running involves so much technical information, electioneering skills are becoming more complex. Accordingly, people with interest may legitimately volunteer in "straight" campains, if you dont mind the term, covertly hiding their WN agenda so that information may be gleaned about people and processes. Later that information may be put to very constructive use as an openly pro-White candidate or otherwise.
So there you have the utility of political participation. I would note for the purpose of this forum, that nobody needs to "wait" for a "White party" to run. Jim Giles and Martin Lindstedt have proven this and their example should be imitated. A final observation about this, is that the sort of participation I am advocating brings us benefits without regard to winning any particular election. IN short, it doesnt matter, because we do not really hope to be elected into power, but rather to increase our profile and credibitility with the masses of asses for whom "politics" is solely limited to who runs in the elections.
But voting presents an entirely different issue. Simply put, voting in the system-rigged elections lends credibility to a system we would prefer to overturn. For every White that votes, black votes are legitimated. But if Whites made an exodus from the system as a whole-- systemic illegitimacy would be definitively proven thus helping pave the way for a new order, established by whatever means necessary.
It's instructive that authoritarian regimes and one party systems and occupation regimes always stage "votes" even if there are only one candidate offered. The vote has the effect of both legitimating the regime to outsiders and insiders, and of "coopting" participants. "Buy-in" is the idiotic term they use in business school for this sort of phenomenon.
The US system offers party A or B, which either choice is essentially the same. But the slight of hand of offering two choices befuddles practically everyone, other than the elites who are in control and the hardcore revolutionaries of every stripe who desire it. The only way to vote NO in such a regime, whether it is a fake one party election or a US style A or B election, is NOT TO VOTE. Parenthetically I would point out that this effect is most clearly defined if the non-voter is in fact registered as a voter upon the roles. OTherwise, there is a possibility your absence will not be missed.
The only time I suggest WN should vote is if there is an openly pro WHite candidate running. Right now such events are rare indeed.
A reasonable debate might be had about the utility of voting for a fringe party candidate. Votes in our system for third parties are indeed taken as evidence of discontent, regardless if it's Greens or the quasi-racist Consitutionalist party or the liberterians. However, the value seems negligible.
I would like to credit Tom Metzger and his sidekick of old Alex Curtis for introducing me to the contours of this issue via their conversation on the topic on their respective internet web pages.
I invite debate on this topic.
Participating as either an openly pro White candidate is good for three basic reasons. The first is that it efficiently uses resources to spread the WN message to a wide audience, and a different audience than typically is exposed to it via the Internet, because of election coverage in radio print and tv media, which is so expensive the Jews have WN effectively locked out. In other words, it allows for penetration of a different market segment. Secondly, it allows for personal recruitment in a socially accepted manner, at a time when many average folks are interested in politics. Thirdly, it helps WNs develop leadership, communication, and teamwork skills, which will all be essential if we ever have the opportunity to take the reins. A subsidiary of this last item, is that it keeps people involved by giving them something concrete and attainable to work for.
Because running involves so much technical information, electioneering skills are becoming more complex. Accordingly, people with interest may legitimately volunteer in "straight" campains, if you dont mind the term, covertly hiding their WN agenda so that information may be gleaned about people and processes. Later that information may be put to very constructive use as an openly pro-White candidate or otherwise.
So there you have the utility of political participation. I would note for the purpose of this forum, that nobody needs to "wait" for a "White party" to run. Jim Giles and Martin Lindstedt have proven this and their example should be imitated. A final observation about this, is that the sort of participation I am advocating brings us benefits without regard to winning any particular election. IN short, it doesnt matter, because we do not really hope to be elected into power, but rather to increase our profile and credibitility with the masses of asses for whom "politics" is solely limited to who runs in the elections.
But voting presents an entirely different issue. Simply put, voting in the system-rigged elections lends credibility to a system we would prefer to overturn. For every White that votes, black votes are legitimated. But if Whites made an exodus from the system as a whole-- systemic illegitimacy would be definitively proven thus helping pave the way for a new order, established by whatever means necessary.
It's instructive that authoritarian regimes and one party systems and occupation regimes always stage "votes" even if there are only one candidate offered. The vote has the effect of both legitimating the regime to outsiders and insiders, and of "coopting" participants. "Buy-in" is the idiotic term they use in business school for this sort of phenomenon.
The US system offers party A or B, which either choice is essentially the same. But the slight of hand of offering two choices befuddles practically everyone, other than the elites who are in control and the hardcore revolutionaries of every stripe who desire it. The only way to vote NO in such a regime, whether it is a fake one party election or a US style A or B election, is NOT TO VOTE. Parenthetically I would point out that this effect is most clearly defined if the non-voter is in fact registered as a voter upon the roles. OTherwise, there is a possibility your absence will not be missed.
The only time I suggest WN should vote is if there is an openly pro WHite candidate running. Right now such events are rare indeed.
A reasonable debate might be had about the utility of voting for a fringe party candidate. Votes in our system for third parties are indeed taken as evidence of discontent, regardless if it's Greens or the quasi-racist Consitutionalist party or the liberterians. However, the value seems negligible.
I would like to credit Tom Metzger and his sidekick of old Alex Curtis for introducing me to the contours of this issue via their conversation on the topic on their respective internet web pages.
I invite debate on this topic.