Bracketing other considerations for the moment, this shows a critical confusion between the goals of a party seeking electoral prowess and cultural - or meta-political - change.
There was never a "Female Nationalist Party" - a few Jews simply "named the man" relentlesly until elected parties had to toe their line. There was never an electoral "Women's Party" although that role is now played by the Democrats. So here we have an example of a cultural or sociological change which then translates (or trickles down) into political activity. More accurately, it constrains the political range of motion of other agents in the same polity. Hence the tag "meta-politics", which would include religion and other factors.
Similarly, there was never a "Jewish National Party" which sought political power through elected office (buying our Congress, Senate, and news outlets is another matter). Rather, by "naming the White" in every way possible - for a century - they eventually effected a cultural change which then formed 'the permissible limits of dissent' which no Gentile can be seen publicly to trespass.
Finally, you're wrong about any significant number of people, in power or out, knowing anything about the Jewish Question. Nobody - and I mean nobody - understands that our war against Iraq was a war for Israel, as has now been admitted on several occasions by Administration officials and policy analysts, notably Phil Zeliknow, who is now head of the 9/11 commission. This simply isn't reported and it is likewise untrue that the man in the street has any idea that "neocon" equals Jew, although Jews are themselves, to a man, terrified that this equation will take place in the public mind. They should put their mind at rest on the issue. The dots are not going to get any closer than they are now, and the American public has not connected them.
My main point is this: you consistently conflate standard democratic elective requirements for political viability and cultural agitation. Could feminists or gays field political candidates while they were effecting their respective first wave of cultural change? Absolutely not. Homosexual activism, which I believe dates back to the fifties in the United States, not only couldn't field a openly gay candidate, they themselves could not be openly gay and function in society, outside of certain circles in New York City and San Francisco.
Their situation, and ours, are almost perfectly analagous. I'm sure other Whites on this board have had to "come out of the closet" and that this was just as dramatic and resulted in as many broken families and friendships as the other sort of 'coming out'.
Nowadays, the only scandal attached to gay politicians are if they're cheating on their wife with a Mossad operative. And I have to say, that can hardly be construed as prejudice on the part of the media or the electorate.
I think something that is beginning to sink in for me, here, for the first time, is just how different the needs and goals of political activity and meta-political activity really are. What is now vaguely reffered to as "White Nationalism" (because Whites can't have ethnic interests without elaborate theoretical justification, unlike everyone else on earth, who are born to theirs) is going to bifurcate: nascent political activity, probably building around the immigration issue and the upcoming collapse of the Republican party, has certain needs, including disassociation from the Jewish Question.
The Jewish Question, which is the real game, will have to be addressed on different grounds. Any political party will have to avoid even the appearance of connection to genuine White ethnic interests, biding its time until the culture changes.
But the culture will not change as a result of political parties.It can only change as a result of widespread and longterm cultural activism, probably along the lines, as I have said many times, of gay activism, feminism, and PETA. These three groups have succeeded where white nationalism has - up to now - failed: making 'unacceptable' ideas or people into either everday folk, or, the ones who wear the pants and call the shots, in home, at work, and in politics.
Not one of these groups effected their revolution by electoral action. That they can now effectively field candidates (I think PETA has not reached this stage, but they're getting there), i.e. engage in electoral politics was an effect of meta-political activity, not a cause of it.
AmRen has a foot in both camps. The BNP is purely political. If Britons think their nation will be salvaged by political activity and not constant, agonizing, ceaseless agitation at a cultural level, they are fools. White Americans would be even more foolish to make this same error, as they will be a minority in their own country very soon, now. If "there will always be an England" , then they really will have to fight them in the villages. Political parties will no more avail them of salvation under the Jewish ideoverse they are trapped in, any more than an electoral party would have been an effective resistance against Nazi invasion. There may indeed come a day, and soon, when Britons will have to "fight them on the shores". To clarify, though: this is a war of ideas and moral authority, though the fighting on the shores may one day become a literal reality, a la Camp of the Saints.
I think dual action on the part of AmRen and the BNP have cleared the waters: we are now at the point where the trunk of our stipling has begun to branch. Some of us are born to tend one branch, and some the other.
A negotiated parting of the ways seems in order. The BNP's position paper on the JQ is insanely wrong-headed, and yet still sadly necessary, as Britain is already a totalitarian state. Hence the full-throated demonization, ridicule, and ill-informed argumentation in the position paper you reprinted. Under totalitarianism, it's not just enough to fall in line with Offical Doctrine: one must exceed others in enthusiasm for it, or come under suspicion.
You say, Fade, that people in power are well aware of Jewish influence. I can assume, then, that Nick Griffin's screed amounting to 'Jews are just like White liberals', etc, was a conscious lie? And that he is aware that the speech laws under which he is being persecuted were theorized, promoted, financed, agitated for, by Jews and no one else? (they have their origin in "Group Libel Law" a product, solely, of the Board of British Jews) I ask because I could not get an accurate read on that man's intentions or degree of knowledge. This, presumably, is because he is a good politician.
As for cultural activism, I hadn't considered it's needs as a separate issue 'til now. I will say that I will have start from scratch, as I, too, conflated political and meta-political considerations in WN until recently. I will say that my goals are broader than those typical of political parties, and are more like those of ideology, religion, or scientific theory: effecting a sea change in consciousness of millions of people. I of course support the BNP and any party that might achieve similar goals in the states, but ultimately their goal of limiting immigration and ending anti-discrimination law are at odds with what I need: unlimited mexigration, chaotic economic collapse, and getting the Adversary to drop the globalist net prematurely - which sounds harder than it will be. Having studied the Jews at the highest level of resolution for five years know, I think I have discovered their sole flaw: messianism.
The only two incidences which actually threatened the continuity of Jewish Race-Culture were early Christianity; which they successfully neutralized, and Sabbati Zev. Zev came closer to destroying Jewry forever, and far more completely than even the Holocaustian's imaginary "ovens". By raising Messianic expectation all across Europe, and then 'taking the turban' just as Jewish hopes were maximized, he sent shock waves through Jewry which reverbate to this very day. Jews announced to their European neighbors that the Messianic Age was nigh, and foolishly explained to them that soon, all the gentiles would be slaves of the Jews!
The one instance in all of world history when Jews were honest! Making hash of Leo Albus' "The Torah Contortionist" lengthy - and false - assurances of the benevolence of the Talmud and the culture that results from it.
Anyway, the European neighbors remembered the promises of the Jews, and when Zev brain-farted at the critical moment, they were at once cosmically mocked, villified, filled with hatred of God for letting them down - again! - and were generally disheartened to the point of destruction.
A lot of Jews were quite sure, centuries later, that Communism was the messianic age, when Jews would make slaves of all the world, but this time they were more circumspect in their speech. However, another messianic pretender, Trotsky, again crapped out at the critical moment, and the Tribe was outwitted and their prize stolen from them - by a Georgian!
And they say Jews are smart. I think they're more like the instinctive predators from the Alien movies - they're clever to the point of devildom, but it's so instinctive that it seems wrong to compare it to human reaonsing. There is an unknown mechanism at work here, sometimes called "hive mind" by both advocates and detractors alike.
I think Whites can develop something very like this hive mind, and have on certain historical occasions: David Duke offers the example of the odd convergence - almost perfect - between the spread of Christianity and the geographical expanse of Aryans. He points out - wisely I think - that something more than geopolitics - or even geo-metapolitics - is at work here.
I concur, completely, though I have no understanding of this mechanism.
I do know, however, that every Jew on earth knows that Whites can achieve that sort of Race-Consciousness and that their ultimate aim is to prevent this occurance. Nazism, a slave revolt that almost toppled the whole messianic age - including its economic paradigms - clearly traded on this mechanism.
As I said, these are things that are not understood or even allowed in proper discussions of history. But, since there are many real things which do not make it into the history books, just as there are many real phenomena which are not found in science books, I suppose it is our job to investigate. We use what works, whether it is officially acknowledged to exist or not.
It is possible that what we are seeing as a death crisis in the West is only half-seen, or better, half-understood. It could be a crisis of both death and rebirth.
Enough thinking out loud for today.
As you were,
WM
[url]http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=143730&postcount=19[/url]
