Money, Votes, Violence

People have three currencies with which to further their political goals. We can spend money to spread our message or support our volunteers, we can make our enemies lose money via boycotts and strikes, we can use our vote on election days to infinitesimally shift things in our favor (even if from worse to less worse), or we can resort to violence (terrorism, revolution, riots).

Even supposing our arguments were persuasive, without money they'll never be heard or presented in a professional and convincing fashion. We need enough money to be spreading the message across all mediums, in exciting, memorable, and entertaining ways. Movies, tv shows, music, festivals, art shows, fashion lines, magazines, billboards, you get the idea. A complete saturation of the culture with our message not just explicitly, but implicitly (ie likable characters people relate to following our values without ever saying them, so that people start to think they must be right, if so many good people always choose them.) One of the things I loved about Covington's novels is his heroes were always good people in all other fields of their lives, (for instance the high school couple that aimed for marriage from the start and only kissed an average of once a year while dating) (for instance, the 'general order number 10' that forbid all drugs and drinking to anyone in the cause) and in addition, most of them were so self-assured about the rightness of their cause, that they never even made an argument for racism, sexism, or whatever. They just were racist sexist anti-semites. It was self-evident they should be. There was no point even thinking about the matter, it was so obviously right. I know his novels were written for people who were already racists, but a toned down version of this can still be used effectively elsewhere.

A girl who turns down offers from black, bad-boy, thug looking types and dates the main character instead. Some guy who doesn't look the other way during a black crime and jumps in to help. A guy who convinces his friend to quit hanging out with that 'seedy crowd' or those 'drug dealers,' or those 'idiots way below your level.' A girl who rescues a white male from a bunch of no good black and hispanic gangster friends to a life of purpose and values. There are infinite stories to be told. ::smiles:: Humans are story-junkies. We love stories so much. Story telling, and our absolute love in listening to them, is part of what makes humans so special. If you tell a good story, people will listen. They will also be swayed, however little, by any implicit messages you include in said story. The most effective anti-racist propaganda is always embedded in entertaining stories. For instance, some intelligent, good looking, loving black boy dating a white girl and destined to become a nobel prize winning doctor, being jeered and harassed by a bunch of ugly, stupid, dirty white trash racists who try to get in the way of their pure and wholesome love. Everyone will immediately realize who the villains, and who the heroes are, in this story. It's self-evident, just by how the story is set up. The same can be done on our side.

A girl in an all-black school just trying to study in a completely disruptive, violent environment. Unwanted black men constantly groping and grabbing her, teasing her and calling her bitch and whore. A gang rape of said innocent girl when she's heading back from a date with some wholesome, kind, and respectful, smart white guy destined to win a nobel prize and become a doctor who's killed in front of her, and a father who seeks them all out and plugs them in the street where they stand in a running gunfight. See? A fun story already. What would the lesson be here? That girls should stick with white guys, who respect women and treat them right, and that whites can't just look away when barbarians are on the loose, they have to stand and fight. That above everything else, white men have to protect our beautiful white women from the beast. Just as no one had to argue that 'there is only one race, the human race' in the first story, there is no need to argue that, 'intelligence is 80% hereditary and varies between the races' in the second.

In a white ethno-state, we would always have enough money to saturate the culture with our message, because we could just use taxpayer dollars to do so. Don't think state propaganda doesn't work. It has worked in every country that uses it. People are stupid and easily suggestible. Just as children pick up the religion of their parents, children learn what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, good and evil, from their community. Saturating the airwaves creates the false consensus that eventually leads to a true consensus. If everyone they see is a racist sexist anti-semite, they'll assume that's basically the model and if they want to fit in and make friends and get a career, they'll need to be racist sexist anti-semites too, then that's what they'll become. It is impossible to believe that all the Hindus in India became Hindus after carefully reflecting on the religion and deciding that it was objectively true, whereas the other 6 billion people on Earth aren't Hindus because they all reflected carefully on the matter and decided it was objectively false, and it is simply pure coincidence that the billion people who felt it was true all live in India, and the six billion who don't all live elsewhere.

Without a white ethno-state, without any public tax dollars, how can we have enough market share to first break the anti-racist consensus our jewish media masters have created, and then actually shoulder it aside with our message spreading like an inkblot across the entire lake of entertainment? Money! Money. Money to publish books, money to back singers. Money to pay actors and make movies like Braveheart. Millions, billions of dollars to insert into every last corner of people's lives a competing message for their eyes and time. Channel after channel subtly designed to entertain and brainwash on cable tv. Election campaigns that have billions to spend on tv and radio and newspaper advertisements for a 'return to common sense and decency.' With enough money, the consensus could be broken even without the help of the state. V-dare can't reach a lowly fundraising target of $50,000 to pay its expenses. Meanwhile, George Soros spends millions regularly on various organizations and media campaigns to influence the outside world. What a joke. White Nationalism will never get off the ground until we have powerful people like George Soros spending billions of their own personal wealth to further our message. Yes, billions of dollars. Fox News lost money for the first ten years it operated, now it has a huge following. It required billions of dollars to keep it afloat until it succeeded. The same can be said of Sony's playstation, or basically any company or product. Nothing sells without the deep pockets of billionaires funding it until it has the strength to stand on its own. Sometimes, it never makes money. You simply pocket the losses every year, for the rest of your life, just to get the message out. We need billionaires who wouldn't mind doing that all their lives and then donating the rest to a non-profit organization that does the same for the rest of eternity. I find it rather sad that there isn't a single idealistic billionaire on Earth willing to spend his own money to further white nationalism. But we can be certain that until he is born, or a white nationalist currently alive decides to make a billion dollars for the express purpose of using it to spread pro-white propaganda, we are powerless.

Apparently, there aren't any rich people in the WN movement. A movement without any rich people is obviously doomed. Without money, you can't accomplish anything. Even a few tractors and bulldozers cost millions of dollars, it's impossible to even dig a ditch without millions of dollars. For Vdare to not have $50,000 just lying around in pocket change is embarrassing. What kind of movement is this? Any viable movement will have billions of dollars in funding, period.

Money can do anything in this world. Money can purchase the media, and the media can capture the public. Money could also purchase clandestine nuclear weapons or fund secret bio-weapons labs. With enough money, I'm sure Russia or North Korea or some other unstable country would simply sell us the weapons we need to blackmail America with. That our movement A) doesn't have a single rich person and B) doesn't have enough middle class people to fund a measly $50,000 for Vdare.com, means we are nothing. We are nobody. We aren't a movement. We aren't a viable alternative. We have no power and no people and no chance.

Supposing we were all poor, but we could still go out and vote on election day, we could still change America. But there is no white nationalist vote. The BNP doesn't have anyone in the House of Commons, they're hoping in 2010 to get one member. What good will one member do? Until the BNP on its own becomes the absolute majority party of Parliament, it will never even be included into any government. Everyone else will unite against them and keep them out of office. The BNP has to become this absolute majority within 30 years, before their country becomes majority non-white. Even worse, as time goes by, they have to win a larger and larger fraction of the white vote each time. Unless non-whites are demented, they would never vote for the BNP. So if the country is currently 10% non-white, the BNP would have to win 56% of the white vote. When the country is 20% non-white, the BNP will have to win 63% of the white vote. When the country is 30% non-white, the BNP will have to win 72% of the white vote. When the country is 40% non-white, the BNP will have to win 84% of the white vote. And when the country is 50% non-white, the BNP will have to win 100% of the white vote.

Likewise, in the last election of 2008 in the USA, all third parties put together didn't even amount to 1% of the vote. None of these third parties had anything similar to a white nationalist platform. Again, as the proportion of the US population shifts more and more non-white, we will be facing the same situation as the BNP. In a 65% white country, the white nationalist party would have to already win around 80% of the white vote. We don't have 1%. We don't have .1%. We don't even HAVE a white nationalist party. And that's if we had an election today. Suppose we had a party, suppose we were running for office -- how are you going to topple the current parties with all their incumbent powers and the inertia of the public? How are you going to convince people to vote for racism, sexism, and anti-semitism? How are you going to do this within the time limit of 30 years when our country becomes majority non-white and no WN party can ever come to power again?

It should be obvious to anyone that in terms of votes, all we can possibly do is back the 'least toxic' of two choices. But even that isn't very satisfying. What if backing the less toxic alternative just makes our collapse all the more certain, due to its gradual speed? If we make sure that our genocide is the slowest and least painful genocide possible, have we really accomplished anything? What is the point in voting for a 'less toxic' genocide? Genocide is genocide. Nothing short of secession or mass deportations or mass sterilization/murder of non-whites will save the white race from eventual extinction in the USA and Europe. Any party that doesn't stand for that doesn't deserve our vote. Basically, all parties are interchangeable if they don't adopt one of those options -- ultimately, none of their other positions on anything matter, because they all equally result in our extinction. Non-whites have higher fertility rates than whites, so simply by existing within our borders, they will eventually become the majority, and from there, they will use their vote to ensure they stay the majority forever. It's not like South Africa will ever have a white government again.

If you think the American public will vote for secession, mass deportations, or mass murder of non-whites within the next 30 years, I have some prime real estate to sell you in Florida. If we are lucky, we will vote to stop mass immigration. That's it. And even that is somewhat unbelievable, given that both the democrat and republican parties are in favor of amnesty and mass immigration. If neither party has any intention of stopping illegal or legal immigration, who exactly are we going to vote for to stop immigration? Do you even think the two parties listen to the will of the people? They listen to their campaign funders, the money men, and the money men want more immigration. Once you realize this, you realize that white nationalism needs money way more than it needs votes. Who can we vote for? And without money, how could we set up a political party anyway? It's all so stupid. Voting our way to a white republic? It's a pipe dream. It's impossible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely, 100% impossible that whites would suddenly wake up and vote in a white nationalist party that doesn't even exist yet within 30 years, or that one of the two major parties would somehow transform overnight, ignoring all their special interests and campaign funders, into a white nationalist party, which would then get over 80% of the white vote (which is needed even today) in order to win.

For the same reasons given above, violence won't work either. We don't have the money to fund our violence. Even al qaeda has millions in funding to do its terrorism, and look how ineffective they are. No terrorist attack in the last 8 years. Worthless. Suppose we did have billions of dollars, and bought WMD so we'd have real bang for our buck. So what? We don't have millions of people settled in the same place who want to form their own nation and can agree on what the new laws would be. We have no one to protect. There isn't anyone who shares our dream or wants to live in our new country. Who are we fighting for? Nobody.

What is the use in randomly lashing out and blowing up buildings or killing people? Setting aside the fact that it would only harden people's resolve to crush us, setting aside the fact that it would only turn people away from joining us, it's still absurd. If the violence doesn't result in an independent ethno-state with good laws and a good philosophy, then it's meaningless. It's just meaningless suffering to the victims of our insanity. What good did that 88 year old idiot do by killing one person at the Holocaust museum? We aren't any closer to our own country, and now there's someone dead instead of alive. People suffering instead of happy. The arithmetic should be rather obvious. This whole business of 'leaderless resistance' and 'lone-wolf' terrorism is absurd. Unless we are already a sovereign nation fighting a war of independence like our American forefathers, it's just murder. Just random murder. The day violence would succeed in a revolutionary war is obviously some time after we have billions of dollars in funding and millions of people living in the same place with the same values openly and confidently. It's after we've already achieved a level of autonomy on the level of Kosovo or something, completely dominating our state both politically and culturally. We should have a 'white nationalist' northwest that already on the state and local levels, everything short of the federal government, does everything our own way, with the laws we want and the schools we want and the people we want. Going from that to violence, by calling up the state militias, by buying WMD, or whatever, would be a simple step. And in that case, it could actually work. Probably it wouldn't even be necessary to resort to violence at that point. The mere threat of violence would be enough to scare America into letting us secede, and the loyalty of the people who were seceding to the cause, the unshakable will to use violence if necessary, would be sufficient. Where is this loyalty? This unshakable will? These millions? These billions of dollars? These state governments? We don't have the infrastructure necessary to wage war (or the threat of war.) Anything short of the infrastructure necessary to wage war, and white nationalist violence is just murder. It has no higher cause. It serves no larger purpose. It's just evil.

WN lacks the money, votes, or violence to achieve anything. There is little purpose in pushing it at the present time. Using your money, votes, or violence to push anything short of white nationalism is equally useless. Anything less than white nationalism will result in the extinction of the white race. Therefore, there is little purpose in pushing any political stance whatsoever at present. Nothing will change. Nothing can change.

Conditions may dramatically change given new scientific breakthroughs, economic collapses, world wars, meteor impacts, etc. Basically, only an act of God could change the political calculus we currently live in. If said miracle revives the possibility of a white ethno-state, then naturally we should rally behind it. But until then, who gives a damn.