Full Thread: #1 Holohoax Thread
View Single Post
Old July 27th, 2012 #93
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
What I've been saying. Masses are beyond our reach (except in a very limited way). First you build a cadre of fanatics; then, later, you might have a basis for efforts to reach and influence the multitude.
You can't get fanatics if you don't stick to principles. Ron Paul shows this fact in action. He has the young and angry. Because he says the same thing every fucking time. Unlike the other 99.9%. But when he departs from his principle to suck MLK ass, look what happens to his support. It dives. Which also proves the point. Pandering politicians don't attract fanatics, just what's-in-it-for-mes. That's why saying we should make our cause appealing is psychologically wrong - our cause is not just another democratic option, it is a matter of life or death. A cadre of fanatics, if it included professional military and intelligence capabilities, could sweep through the American right like butter. There is nothing hard on the right these days except the neocon jews. Everything else is mushy. A huge bloc of the population, white men, goes without representation. Who dares move into that backing? Who with professional ability and principled 'fanaticism'?

Go for the valuable minority. But if you want a valuable minority dedicated to radical change, you won't get it with an unduly moderate message. You need a righteously radical message that a critical mind can respect and advocate. You need to be able to demonstrate that truth is on your side.
It matters less what your message is than that you stick to it, publicly, through time. You have to believe your own bullshit and be seen to believe it by the public. Then you are in position to attract genuine support. Particularly if your cause is hated and well-poisoned by the powers that be.

If it's a real clarion call, it should even have some effect on the thinking of some people in positions of influence (e.g. Pat Buchanan and Christopher Hitchens in regard to Holocaust revisionism). Lenin said that revolution begins with a division in the establishment.
Look what Pat Buchanan could have done if he'd made a RACE wars rather than culture wars speech in '92. Look what Ron Paul could do if he added race to his money and Israel positions. Those are hints of what a genuine hard-core racialist could achieve. A division of the establishment would be like some prominent general coming out and starting an openly White party along the lines I've indicated. With absolutely none of the patriotard Constitutionalist bullshit, but purely making a racial appeal to white men.