PDA

View Full Version : The ideal European racialist movement?



Patrioten
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 11:32 PM
There has been some sporadic discussions regarding this issue in various threads but i haven't seen a thread where this issue is discussed thouroughly.

We have plenty of various pseudo racialist/liberal nationalist/national socialist/national democratic movements and parties in Europe, but are they successful? And more importantly, are they successful enough? And would their policies really make a difference? Do we really have time to sit and wait as parties who only want minor adjustments to the current system get one digit percentage increases per election every four years? What if anything are they doing wrong/well?

Is there any particular movement/organization/movement which plays its cards better than the rest? Or are they all on the wrong track? What would be the ideal shape for a racialist movement in Europe? A strictly non parlamentarian organization, or a mix between parlamentarian and non parlamentarian organization? How should the message to the people be articulated? How "radical" can/should the message be? What should be the message? How should this organization work? Should it create a sort of society within the society to attract people?

How do we find the right men and women to lead these movements? What traits are needed for the people in charge? Should the main focus continue to be working/middle class, can the right people be found in these layers of society or should/must(?) this ideal movement aim higher, to the academics, the upper classes?

There are alot of questions to answer, but i feel that they need to be answered. We don't want, nor do we have the time, to be forced to reinvent the wheel over and over each time an unsuccessful movement dies out. Or watch it stand still in its tracks, and not going forward.

What works, what doesn't? How do we win this battle for European survival?

Aeric
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 04:22 AM
I think that, as things stand at the moment, we must be practical and cut our cloth according to our means. The ballot box does not currently offer true nationalists (or racists) a viable route to power.

Even the form of words and the policies presented to the electorate by any potential nationalist/racist political party are limited and chained by laws and strictures which prevent any kind of honest manifesto being laid before the people. The media is controlled by our enemies - to such an extent that many folk of voting age misguidedly look upon us as dangerous, anachronistic haters instead of staunch protectors of Europeans and their regional cultures.

Right now, the only way we can make any progress is via direct action in the sure and certain knowledge that we are are acting in self-defence and fighting for our very survival.

As I see it, the two biggest mistakes made by nationalist/racist/nazi political groups are:

A) They often waste time by taking part in elections that are rigged against them.

B) They are not focused in co-ordinated ways on driving out non-Volkish peoples from our lands.

What do we have to gain by taking part in elections we can't win?

When we have levelled the playing field by getting rid of the aliens and the race-traitors who support them, then we can have fair and free elections :)

Aeric

Kurtz
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 10:41 PM
As for what I know, BNP stands amongst the best nationalist party in Europe. Explaining advantages of nationalism (including ethnic identity) to the middle-class is THE way to meet success. Any Hitler-fetish group, or anti-intellectual political party who keeps bashing on immigrants, and doesn't do anything else, will never attract as much people as the BNP manages to do.

We are in an era of intellectual decadence and value-void. Keep this in mind. We can't shake the world with ideas that makes people feel shocked or threatened, even if these ideas make sense.

Galaico
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Racism or its "political correct" form of racialism has no future. Why European preservationists and nationalists must be racist?

I'm not racist, I just fight for a European Europe, what would mean Europe to be homogeneously Europid, and freed from non-European racial types, not because I hate them, simply because Europe is not their place.

There's no place for racism in a racially homogeneous Europe.

Orlon
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Well, Im not exactly a racialist myself (at lest no presently existing race), but as I see it, the racialist movements are facing the severe problems in attracting larger numbers of peole and in increasing its influence.

One problem is, rhetoric is too internal, meant for and only reasonable to the the ones already believing. Talking about jews as the main problem of this world instantly makes everyone associate to their childhood brainwash sessions of watching educationary films like "hitler - the rise of evil" and such. To subtly suggest that a race should rule its own media, banking systems and those other key assets is another thing entirely ;)

Another important step would be to concentrate the retorics on racial preservation analog to animal-conservation efforts, leaving the "we dont like this-and-that" or the likely cause of the problems in the background, at least for a start. Keyword one is: positive propaganda. Ethnopluralism does sound better than racism.

Inventing a new name of the ideology and not associating with other groups would also help. Group culture should be consciously evolved away from the older, failed racialist movements. Keyword two is therefore new. The movement should feel new and fresh, not like muddy WW2 trenches when people first hear about it.

The second, perhaps greates issue is that the ranks of members in racialist/nationalist groups seem to a bit too accepting.

Drunkards, druggies, morons and worst of all pure criminal bullies from the white trash-segment of white europeans seem allowed in.
"Insulting minorities" is one thing (essentialy because this of them conveniency-accusations today), but not one who've commited violent crimes, are uneducated or below normal intelligence/ apparent self control should be allowed even to participate at meetings, let alone become an active member.

Shortly written: Everyone in the movement should be teetotallers with no criminal backgrund, associations with earlier groups is bad too, but likely unavoidable. That makes keyword three purity. No one will listen to slurry praises to the superior white race from someone fat, drunk, unemployed and just out of jail.

Thats my five cents.

Thruthheim
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Well, Im not exactly a racialist myself (at lest no presently existing race), but as I see it, the racialist movements are facing the severe problems in attracting larger numbers of peole and in increasing its influence.

One problem is, rhetoric is too internal, meant for and only reasonable to the the ones already believing. Talking about jews as the main problem of this world instantly makes everyone associate to their childhood brainwash sessions of watching educationary films like "hitler - the rise of evil" and such. To subtly suggest that a race should rule its own media, banking systems and those other key assets is another thing entirely ;)

Another important step would be to concentrate the retorics on racial preservation analog to animal-conservation efforts, leaving the "we dont like this-and-that" or the likely cause of the problems in the background, at least for a start. Keyword one is: positive propaganda. Ethnopluralism does sound better than racism.

Inventing a new name of the ideology and not associating with other groups would also help. Group culture should be consciously evolved away from the older, failed racialist movements. Keyword two is therefore new. The movement should feel new and fresh, not like muddy WW2 trenches when people first hear about it.

The second, perhaps greates issue is that the ranks of members in racialist/nationalist groups seem to a bit too accepting.

Drunkards, druggies, morons and worst of all pure criminal bullies from the white trash-segment of white europeans seem allowed in.
"Insulting minorities" is one thing (essentialy because this of them conveniency-accusations today), but not one who've commited violent crimes, are uneducated or below normal intelligence/ apparent self control should be allowed even to participate at meetings, let alone become an active member.

Shortly written: Everyone in the movement should be teetotallers with no criminal backgrund, associations with earlier groups is bad too, but likely unavoidable. That makes keyword three purity. No one will listen to slurry praises to the superior white race from someone fat, drunk, unemployed and just out of jail.

Thats my five cents.

There's a whole Mile between Drinking socially and being an Alcoholic, and Drinking Alcohol is ancient to our culture. I don't think you'd find many members in N.Europe who don't have the odd tipple.

Patrioten
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Racism or its "political correct" form of racialism has no future. Why European preservationists and nationalists must be racist?

I'm not racist, I just fight for a European Europe, what would mean Europe to be homogeneously Europid, and freed from non-European racial types, not because I hate them, simply because Europe is not their place.

There's no place for racism in a racially homogeneous Europe.Racialism is to acknowledge the existence of different races and to want to preserve your own race. It's not equivalent to racism. You are a racialist, and so am i.

SineNomine
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:21 PM
Racialism is to acknowledge the existance of different races and to want to preserve your own race. It's not equivalent to racism. You are a racialist, and so am i.
Moi aussi.

This book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684/sr=8-1/qid=1162250353/ref=sr_1_1/202-6077375-6520642?ie=UTF8&s=books) details an excellent plan in my opinion to serve as a European racialist movement. I am indifferent to criticism to it by those who have not read it.

At any rate, the working class cannot and should not ever rule or lead society. Only a natural, voluntarily acknowledged elite should, by virtue of its excellent moral and intellectual fibre. A nobilitas naturalis, to use a coined phrase.

Patrioten
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:45 PM
but as I see it, the racialist movements are facing severe problems in attracting larger numbers of peole and in increasing its influence.Agreed. But as you brought up further down, it's not just about numbers, it's about quality as well.


One problem is, rhetoric is too internal, meant for and only reasonable to the the ones already believing. Talking about jews as the main problem of this world instantly makes everyone associate to their childhood brainwash sessions of watching educationary films like "hitler - the rise of evil" and such. To subtly suggest that a race should rule its own media, banking systems and those other key assets is another thing entirely ;) Yes, the jews have to be cut out from the rethoric as i see it. Instead of the jews, the focus should be the liberals and socialists and their impact on the media and society at large.



Another important step would be to concentrate the retorics on racial preservation analog to animal-conservation efforts, leaving the "we dont like this-and-that" or the likely cause of the problems in the background, at least for a start. Keyword one is: positive propaganda. Ethnopluralism does sound better than racism.I agree that explaining the race issue to the general public can seem like a hard task, but at the same time it needs to be said. We might need to find a way to break it to them more gently than it is done today however. Because if the people does not get the message, that the immigration of foreign races, the mixing with foreign races is a danger to us both in terms of social stability and erroding communities, as well as on a genetical level, how will we be able to change anything?

Another important step would be to concentrate the retorics on racial preservation analog to animal-conservation efforts
I have to say that i find this to be a lousy argument if we look at it from their point of view, why would they care about their phenotype from an animal preservationistic way? That's just silly talk, when we are all the same inside. Looks don't matter, a good heart does. And all the rest of it.

We have to make them understand our basic ideas, even if it'll be an uphill battle.


Drunkards, druggies, morons and worst of all pure criminal bullies from the white trash-segment of white europeans seem allowed in.
"Insulting minorities" is one thing (essentialy because this of them conveniency-accusations today), but not one who've commited violent crimes, are uneducated or below normal intelligence/ apparent self control should be allowed even to participate at meetings, let alone become an active member.Couldn't agree more. I fail to see why some organizations insist on keeping high ranking members who have been convicted of the most horrible acts (who are not work related so to speak), are they really that irreplaceable?

If we can't go on without a wife beater (to take as an example) then i have some serious doubts about our future. The vermin should be cleansed out, no sane Swede wants to vote for a criminal, we of all people should know that, and we do not (or at least shouldn't) want that kind of scum among us either. The whole argument about making Sweden safer and tougher meassures against crime will seems like hypocracy to the common man, even if you have just one criminal in your ranks. Once a criminal always a criminal should be the motto. Decency and honesty is a must throughout the entire organization.

SineNomine
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:56 PM
I agree that explaining the race issue to the general public can seem like a hard task, but at the same time it needs to be said. We might need to find a way to break it to them more gently than it is done today however. Because if the people does not get the message, that the immigration of foreign races, the mixing with foreign races is a danger to us both in terms of social stability and erroding communities, as well as on a genetical level, how will we be able to change anything?
This faces another issue. Modern anthropologists, unlike Coon, do not focus on subraces, or race at large even. They most likely ignore, or are ignorant of, anything to do with the matter. Observe the case of Arthur Jensen. He is not an anthropologist, but rather an IQ expert. When in one of his journal articles he concluded that education cannot do much to alter IQ, and that genes play a huge part, he got death threats, had the whole of the APA against him (except those silent supporters) and, despite being a serious scientist, was cast out as an evil "heretic". Now imagine trying to explain racial realities to a public confronted with this idiocy -- they will not know whom to believe. Almost all authors who write about race are not sanctioned by government -- they are "free-market" authors in a way, and therefore seemingly lack the credibility the public would be expected to place in them, even if their work is scientifically top-notch. Notice the incendiary attacks Charles Murray and Phillippe Rushton received for their contributions on race.

Then, on the other hand, we have modern day governments which inculcate the masses into further accepting these beliefs as truisms. For instance, observe how people unthinkingly defend democracy vis-a-vis Monarchy. Whenever you expose their idiocy to them, they retreat on something akin to "I know you're wrong..." without proof to bolster their belief. It's indoctrination. Nothing more than an argumentum ad populum in the end.

Therefore, what we need is a complete realignment of the political and intellectual elite.


I have to say that i find this to be a lousy argument if we look at it from their point of view, why would they care about their phenotype from an animal preservationistic way? That's just silly talk, when we are all the same inside. Looks don't matter, a good heart does. And all the rest of it.

How deep. :) Notice the animals we seek to conserve though -- aren't they indeed the prettiest? Don't people relate mostly to the beauty they wish they possessed? It is of secondary importance, but phenotype always plays a role in preservationist concerns.

Patrioten
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 12:03 AM
How deep. :) Notice the animals we seek to conserve though -- aren't they indeed the prettiest? Don't people relate mostly to the beauty they wish they possessed? It is of secondary importance, but phenotype always plays a role in preservationist concerns.Notice that i made that argument from the liberal person's point of view (that first sentence of yours makes me think that you missed it). Of course i think phenotype is important, but my point was that the common person does not, and to make the case "we want to preserve Europeans, because we are nice to look at", just wont do it. We need to go deeper, even if it's tough.

SineNomine
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 12:06 AM
Notice that i made that argument from the liberal person's point of view (that first sentence of yours makes me think that you missed it). Of course i think phenotype is important, but my point was that the common person does not, and to make the case "we want to preserve Europeans, because we are nice to look at", just wont do it. We need to go deeper, even if it's tough.
Yes, I agree. I am just noting out that we do actually factor in beauty when we go about picking animals we'd like to preserve.

When it comes to racial preservation people usually are most shocked when they see their own kind disappearing. However, in the current intellectual climate, I don't think most people are even aware of the destruction of their races is imminent. So this has to be made clear to them. How easy it is now to convince people of racial realities is another story... Which arguments would you then consider central to racial preservation?

PS: If you've not seen this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069), to me it seems like a good effort to at least try and limit the problem.

Jäger
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 12:19 PM
I have to say that I mostly agree with Orlon's post, but wanted to evaluate alittle more on this.

I can only tell how it is in Germany, but the biggest mistake is that all movements try to please the masses, which basically means behaving like the illness we want to fight.

The second biggest mistake is, that these "movements" only pray to the ashes. As if they could repeat everything which was done by some great people 70 years ago, like using it as a cooking recipe or whatever, like comming to power through elections etc.. But in the case of NS, which I am talking about here, it is a "Weltanschauung" that claims we are a race of creators not copy cats!
We don't need the Flags of that time to be NS nor do we need SS uniforms and iron crosses everywhere, we should, no, we must and can create what we need!

People who are creative are needed, and elitism should be the rule not the exception, people who only want to place their baseball bat into some negros face and can't do anything else are of no importance and should be dropped.

Basically, Zarathustra summed it up quite well.


[...]Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak,
but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd's herdsman and hound!

To allure many from the herd--for that purpose have I come. The people and
the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra be called by
the herdsmen.

Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I
say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up
their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker:--he, however, is the
creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who
breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker--he,
however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses--and not herds or believers
either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh--those who grave new values on
new tables. Friedirch Nietzsche.

p.s.: I hate the word racialist, I can't translate it into german, so I am naturally suspicious of it :D Yay for racism. :)

SineNomine
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 05:59 PM
Meh, I prefer Schopenhauer. "There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted ... they are like sheep following the bellwether wherever it leads them. They would rather die than think" were his words on the masses. :D