In My Heart There is Only You

Tactical debates abound as to how we may penetrate the gauzy opium dream of our slack-jawed fellows, before they shambolically drag us into the sea while muttering “not racist.”

The direct advocacy method has been so effectively vilified by our societal sirens that its on-balance effects have probably been negative to this point. Though I wouldn’t necessarily extrapolate those results into perpetuity while we remain relatively prosperous and safe. A man doesn’t give a fleeting thought to air until the moment his head falls below the water’s surface. And suddenly–a new top priority. For Britain as an example, BNP may have been the party shouting “swim!” to a man still lazing on the beach.

In contrast, parties like UKIP are plainly attempting the logically circuitous route–that is if they are anything more than opportunistic charlatans to begin with. They are offering sunscreen and wrist floaties. Little aid in a tsunami, though perhaps it will begin to orient minds toward what is approaching.

An offshoot of this indirect approach is one I have discussed in the past and will briefly return to disparage now. And that is the notion of presuming that direct advocacy will–now and always–short the circuitry of the western psyche. And that what we must do is rather frame our positions in ways that overtly appeal to the interests of others. Something such as: Africans, Indians, and Amerinds should remain in their lands because they are most needed by their countrymen there. We must focus on what’s best for them–and incidentally good for us.

I think this is clever tactics and poor strategy.

Poor because it establishes a difficult to surmount mental premise that the interests of other people are determinant. Incidentally Republicans have deployed this same gambit for years: conservative action item sheathed in a “minority” interests capsule. We’ve all heard examples aplenty: “Affirmative action should be ended, because it’s not good for blacks to be stigmatized.” It sounds wily. It’s been disastrous.

And it’s been disastrous for two reasons: 1) Other people will always outbid us in an open auction for their best interests, 2) A sizable cohort of our own people will always forget or never have understood that the rhetoric was only camouflage. And in history’s example, they will start believing that the actual function of conservatism is to worship MLK, advance non-white interests, and die for “freedom” in the middle east.

A likely reprise would occur upon premising our opposition to being colonized on what’s in the best interests of the colonists.

We will see if UKIP can gain power and then gracefully pivot into a position of state/nation alignment. Though at some point, our people must be offered the platform upon which we expect them to stand.


7 thoughts on “In My Heart There is Only You

  1. I have often been an advocate of something akin to the “clever tactics and poor strategy” approach. And you and I have had some pretty big thread arguments about that.

    My advocacy of that approach is a bit more nuanced than set out above.I think we should make all the possible arguments that we can. We should make our arguments from the viewpoint of all of society rather than just say our own race, and above all we should make arguments that illustrate your opponent’s hypocrisy – “The left says it stands for working class people and yet supports immigration which causes unemployment etc to those people”. I am not a leftist, but I am very pro-working class, and I think linking ourselves with the working class against the disgusting globalist elite is a winning strategy.For one thing the working class has the numbers, it also has the ‘authenticity’ and ‘victim status’ that the yup lefties instinctively revere from their ancestral memories of left-wing politics.

    If you make these ‘nuanced arguments’ then it is harder for the elite to attack you as a racist (which causes normal people to shy away from you as ‘controversial’). We have had basically one high profile anti-immigration party, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, which was ripped apart by the protestors, the media, and the 2 mainstream parties. At least one of their problems was that they came off as ‘stupid’. Now most of that was just snobbish, elite posturing, but there was an element of truth in it. The issue is that no middle class people with a stake in polite society are willing to publically support these type of issues. For one thing they have too much to lose. For another these type of well-spoken intellectuals have a great horror of public ridicule and shaming. Getting screamed at in the street by uni students is their idea of hell. You can call it cowardice and it certainly is. But labelling it doesn’t help us.

    My point is that if we can get to the point that anti-immigration views can be spoken of in polite circles then we can have an open debate. When we get to that stage then some maverick middle class spokesmen will join up. And then if we have an open debate then the game is up for these fuckers. At least in Australia where we have the numbers.

    Of course the ideal situation is where we talk very tough truths. Not only are cultures different, but races are different. Globalism is a lie. Our elite are scum who have betrayed us. That can be successful – I look at Gen Identitaire in Europe and I think they are making those arguments. For the Anglosphere UKIP is the highest point we’ve got to. I don’t know much about UKIP – they look like a bunch of sellouts. But to me it seems like the discourse is changing in England. Once the discourse changes and forbidden views are permissible then opinions can shift radically.

    Never underestimate the power of radicalism to shift people’s opinions quickly. Look at the blogosphere and how it shifts to ever more radical positions. Here is a quote from commie John Reed –

    Looking back, Russia before the November insurrection seems of another age, almost incredibly conservative. So quickly did we adapt ourselves to the newer, swifter life; just as Russian politics swung bodily to the Left—until the Cadets were outlawed as “enemies of the people,” Kerensky became a “counter-revolutionist,” the “middle” Socialist leaders, Tseretelli, Dan, Lieber, Gotz and Avksentiev, were too reactionary for their following, and men like Victor Tchernov, and even Maxim Gorky, belonged to the Right Wing….

    So my view is that UKIP opens the discourse and at that time a truth telling party forms. As UKIP fails in its promises – the new party either takes all their votes or pushes them ‘rightward’ with the threat of taking their votes.

    Having said all that my opinions are not fixed. You may be right. Certainly I wouldn’t advocate making arguments like “Africans, Indians, and Amerinds should remain in their lands because they are most needed by their countrymen there.” – which is just transparent bullshit. And of course different approaches should be made in different situations. Hard for me to judge America. I think your approach is probably right there as you seem to be much further gone than we are. Your elite quite literally want you dead, whereas we are not quite there. Plus your people are more radicalised due to black violence. No point pussy footing around.

    BTW love the shifting pictures on the masthead – simply brilliant.

    • I wish that for once I’d witness some “conservative” politician say straight out: “This is our country and I’m standing up for my people”. Even if he didn’t propose doing anything to reverse the immigration that’s already taken place, at least it would be a start. But I reckon it must be twenty years since I witnessed such thing from a mainstream politician – at least it’s that long since I heard any of them say such a thing without apologising and grovelling for it afterwards.

  2. You can mention Whiteness so long as it as a victim status, such as the Ethnocide of Whites in former Rhodesia. Liberals run with victims. Run photos alongside stories of the ethnic changes in Detroit, Birmingham. Your history section will run the stories of White slaves in America and in Muslim lands. Identify who owned the slave auctions and Demand grovelling apologies.

    Expose the reality of Communism and hunt down ex-Communists and expose them. Demand schools teach The Gulag Archepelo etc

    A Charity for Racial Equality sounds like a good name. Sue every politician that votes for AA as a racist. Have a monthly magazine for your media and call it “Ivory”. Make protests outside any shop that places Ivory below the magazine Ebony. Demand equality status on the shelf space.

    Crazy but fun…

  3. Here’s a standard example.

    We can’t allow millions of alien children to simply walk across our border Saints style, because…it could be bad for the children. The premise of course being: our priority must be their welfare.

    Idiotic. Because this then leaves the left with easy recourse.

    “Don’t worry, the Federal Reserve will print another $trillon to humanely transport all of Central America’s vulnerable children into luxurious facilities that your children will be obligated to fund. So your fears may be assuaged. We will offer the utmost care…by the millions.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s