|
Click to enter
________________
________________
|
Revolution for Dummies _______________________________________________________________ By Ben Vinyard Revolution is eternal. This is a work in progress,
a living document designed to be a flexible strategy, subject to change with
more research and greater understanding. I don’t have the psychic ability to
fill in specific dates and details because it is impossible to predict with
any accuracy the changing social and political landscape. I am not a
soothsayer. I can’t tell you what’s going to happen on February 8th, 2007. If
we can’t recognize what this country looked like two years ago how can we
expect to recognize what it will look like two years from now? This document
should, instead, be thought of as a schematic diagram for the Revolution. We
no longer live in a world where one musket equals one soldier or one broad
axe equals one warrior. In ancient times this type of direct revolt had a
fair chance of success. We live in modern times, with modern technological
advances in weaponry and surveillance. What is needed is a hypermodern
strategy.
I. Power Our movement is a bit like the six blind men
feeling an elephant. The first touches the side and thinks it must be a wall;
the second touches the tusk and thinks it must be a spear; the third touches
the trunk and thinks it must be a snake; the fourth touches the leg and
thinks it must be a tree; the fifth touches the ear and thinks it must be a
fan; and the sixth touches the tail and thinks it must be a rope. So the disputants rail on in ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an elephant Not one of them has seen! I have always been a big believer in the Completion
Backwards Principle. In certain chess positions, for example, particularly
the endgame, sometimes instead of calculating by brute force it is better to
visualize where you want to place your pieces and work your way backwards to
a satisfactory solution. Given that our ultimate goal is the 14 Words, “We
must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children,” and
that a secure White homeland is a prerequisite for that achievement, we can
work our way backwards and begin to find the direction of our desired
results. What is essential for these events to come to pass
is the acquisition of political power. The issue of debate is how to acquire
that power. The first believes we should vote a staunch White Nationalist
ticket; the second believes in a direct explosive attack of political
violence; the third believes all our efforts should be towards building a
pro-White media; and the fourth believes we should pack our bags and migrate
to a new location. So we log onto internet message boards and rail on in
ignorance of what each other mean… During my conversations with fellow racialists,
friends, co-workers and men on the street I discovered people tend to be of
the nearly unanimous opinion that power is distributed from the end of a gun
barrel, a viewpoint even Hitler didn’t share. In Mein Kampf he writes, “For, in the long run, government systems
are not held together by the pressure of force, but rather by the belief in
the quality and the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the
interests of the people.” Since Mao Tse-Tung’s maxim that, “Power grows from
the end of a gun,” is held in such widespread belief let’s assume for a moment
that it’s true. If political power derives solely from force then it would be
a mathematical constant that could be calculated as easily as counting the
number of bullets in your cartridge box. It would be a concrete object, like
Kubrick’s monolith in “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and the possessor of power
would be the one who somehow manages to obtain the obelisk and hold it in his
hands. If this view is correct then our path is clear: we
can only hope to stop the genocide of our people either by A) the voluntary
self-restraint and good will of those in power; B) a change in ownership of
the obelisk, either through the democratic process, regicide or coup d’etat; or C) the blood-soaked
destruction of conventional war, in which I include the more likely strategy
of guerrilla warfare. But consider this: George W. Bush does not point
and have cluster bombs come out of his fingertips. Instead he gives an order
to someone, who gives an order to someone else, who gives an order to someone
else, and on down the line. So it would appear that political power is not
the result of force, but rather the result of obedience. II. Obedience The relevant question then becomes: why do men
obey? One of the major reasons has to be the fear of punishment. No one wants
to go to jail and be cellmates with Snoop Dog or Funk Diddy, and no one wants
to have a permanent red flag on their record and be blacklisted from securing
gainful employment or decent housing. Note that it is not the punishment
itself that is the cause of obedience, but rather the sometimes irrational,
sometimes very rational, fear of punishment. Punishment by the ruling power
is not intended to coerce the citizen to come into compliance with the
command, but instead to instill the fear of punishment, and therefore
submission, in his fellow subjects. Another reason for obedience may be direct economic
or social reward. The fear of punishment is less important for the ruling
group’s army of underlings. A Congressman or a Senator might get drunk and
kill a girl with his car or write a series of bad checks, but all he has to
do is present his Get Out of Jail Free Card and not only can he land on Free
Parking, he can still pass Go and still collect 200 dollars. He gets paid for
his service to the regime. For him tyranny is profitable, not only through
financial gain but also through social status. There’s more prestige in being
a paid Cabinet member than being paid to build cabinets. With the
multiplication of government jobs and government handouts more and more people,
even if they are opposed to the regime, may find it in their own
self-interest to submit, to comply and to cooperate. Other reasons may be force of habit or
indifference. We may feel a moral obligation to obey, because this is the
greatest country on the face of the Earth, gaddummit! We may believe
obedience is the most expedient solution because there’s no better system;
it’s for the common good of society; and besides, we believe it helps protect
us from undesirable, anti-social people. While the laws may not be perfect we
feel a moral sense that things like killing and stealing are wrong and that
most laws are basically good so we conform to accepted norms. Or we may feel
those in power are the legitimate rulers therefore it is our duty to obey. Also,
there is patriotism. We all need to believe in something. With the absence of
faith, ideology or a sense of purpose we seek to fill that void of an empty
existence vicariously, so we identify with the ruling power and experience
their triumphs and their tragedies; we wave our made-in-China American flags
and root for their successes the way we root for our favorite football team.
For many of us we are disillusioned, we are exhausted, we are apathetic and
we would just as soon pass the responsibilities of self-determination up the
hill to a greater authority. Yet men don’t always obey. Everyday someone runs a
red light or robs a bank or cheats on their taxes. Even at the highest levels
obedience is not obligatory. Leaders of White Nationalist organizations may
give a smiling nod of understanding at a study conducted by Richard Neustadt,
who documented presidential limitations in his book Presidential Power: The
Politics of Leadership. Neustadt analyzed the Truman administration and the
Eisenhower administration and found the pattern usually went something like
this: half of a President’s orders can be safely ignored; if he asks about
his orders a second time he is told, “We are looking into it, Mr.
President,”; if he asks a third time, and he only asks a third time on the
most important issues, he is given at least part of his original suggestion.
As late as 1958, Eisenhower, a former military commander, was still “shocked
and surprised that orders did not carry themselves out.” Unlike a bullet
which must necessarily be spent from the chamber of a gun unless the bolt is
jammed, the predictability of obedience in a given situation is less certain.
Obedience is a mathematical variable. III. Sources and Limits of Power The obvious, unstated fact is that neither the
Puppet King, George W. Bush, nor his puppet masters are superior in strength
or wisdom. They are not imbued with superhuman powers. The source of their
power comes from outside their mortal frames. By virtue of our willing
participation the members of our society lend authority to the power holders
and grant them access to vital human resources and the special skills and
knowledge associated with that manpower, as well as military capabilities,
financial resources, control of the economic system, property, natural
resources, administration and bureaucracy, police, prisons, courts and not
least the ability to impose punishment. Since our opponents are dependent
upon these external factors, it is elementary that our objective, in military
terms, is to cut off the supply lines to these sources of power. The rule of the masters may be violent and
arbitrary by fits and starts, but on the whole it is considerably limited by
the barriers of society which arrest the aggressions of tyranny. The
Constitution, while a noble document, is not enough to control a ruler who
does not wish to be controlled. Likewise, elections, constitutional measures
and judicial decrees are meaningless if the ruling group is not willing to
abide by them. Nevertheless, there are boundaries to a ruler’s power. These
broad boundaries of the ruling group’s power potential are determined by the
degree to which established social groups and institutions have the ability
to act independently and wield effective power outside of the formal political
framework. Traditional institutions such as the family, the church, local
government bodies, voluntary organizations and political parties are pillars
of power in the overall structure of society and the distribution of power
amongst them diffuses the power capacity of the rulers. The extreme condition
in which every institution is subordinate to a centralized State does not
exist. Therefore the rulers must keep such social groups reasonably
sympathetic to their policies and procedures so they don’t withhold the
sources of power which those groups control and which the rulers require,
especially in times of crisis. It is important to mention that intentionally
destroying a pillar of power because it is perceived to be collaborating with
the enemy is a grave mistake. To destroy an institution such as Christianity
or the labor unions without replacing them with something that is equal or
greater in power works to the advantage of our enemy. Christianity had no
problem cooperating with National Socialist Germany and until recently had no
problem with segregation in the churches. The relevant point is not that
these institutions are presently working against us – they most certainly are
– the relevant point is that removing those pillars of power capable of
resistance aids our enemy in centralizing their position of power, making our
percentages of victory less likely or perhaps even impossible. Those that are
hell-bent on destroying Christianity are forced to reconcile with the
incongruity that this also serves Jewish interests. The reason for our
enemy’s interest in undermining Christianity, besides the age old Jewish
hatred, is in the same vein as their interest in undermining the family unit
or cultural and nationality groups or their shameless promotion of
“equality,” not out of a moral preference for equality but due to their
desire to weaken those groups capable of limiting their power. We have become
a mass of atomized individuals. Without groups and institutions with whose
members we can consult, from whom we can receive support and with whom we can
combine for action we are unable to act together and cannot unite to make a
significant protest. We are left only with our own personal impotence to
oppose the organized forces of oppression. Under such conditions every man
naturally stands alone and he is trampled under foot with impunity. Modern
man-isolated and an alien in this world-is overcome by a profound feeling of
powerlessness and can only gaze at the approaching catastrophe as if he were
paralyzed. IV. Combat Strength Our conflict is not between two clear-cut groups of
fixed composition and predetermined military strength. It would be a rare
occurrence if either the belligerents or the opponents included the entire
population or group of people whom they purport to represent, however both
sides are dependent upon a variety of support from vast numbers of people
from various factions of the society. The wider population, if sympathetic,
may provide specialized assistance, funds, facilities, supplies, take less
dangerous symbolic actions of support or provide fresh volunteers for more
militant action. Correspondingly, the attitudes and activities of the masses
affect the behavior and morale of the public officials, police and military
that carry out the repression. A change in attitude could possibly lead to a
change in government policy or even to a change in government. In the end, it
will not be the professional revolutionaries who determine the outcome of the
battle-it will be the respective population. Another source of impact from outside the defined
group may come from foreign aid. An influx of Arab petrol dollars, for
instance, would go a long way in oiling the machinery of the movement, but all
foreign financial assistance must come with a Surgeon General’s warning
slapped on the side that we must not allow our core values to be co-opted by
a foreign body’s political agenda. The expression of world opinion through
public statements or pronouncements by international organizations, political
intervention by world leaders, economic boycotts, embargoes, diplomatic
representations or severance of diplomatic relations may be influential on
occasion but are, however, most often ineffective. If we wish to take stock of our total combat
strength we need also, of course, to estimate the degree of participation of
those who wage the actual struggle: the ones who refuse to work in a strike,
the volunteers who disobey laws in a civil disobedience campaign, the people
who refuse to pay taxes, who protest in the streets and who leave boycotted
goods on the shelf. If their active involvement is strong, then the movement
is strong. If their active involvement is weak, then the movement is weak. On
the other side of the field, the opponent group’s relative strength relies on
active participants such as administrators, civil servants, soldiers, police,
members of the penal system and others, who, though they may not be directly
involved in the conflict at any given point in time, are nevertheless agents
of the adversary that carry out their policies and countermeasures. When
information is not passed up the chain of command, when orders are not
relayed clearly to subordinates or when responsibilities are not executed
efficiently on a widespread basis, then our opponent’s relative power
position has been significantly weakened. Unreal appearances of strength are never lasting.
Membership organizations who would try to convince us they have 2000 members
when their actual membership is closer to 200 are not being advantageous to
anyone for any reason. On a similar note, efforts to pad membership numbers
with individuals who are soft on ideological matters may, in fact, weaken the
movement if they are sought at the expense of undermining the prerequisites
of power. Furthermore, that unreal strength won’t be available when called
upon to act. It is the assessment of genuine strength that is the crucial
element in determining the course of the struggle. V. Quality vs. Quantity There should be no disappointment that membership
numbers are low. Our numbers would be even lower in the case of a violent
rebellion. The simple truth of the matter is people, even racially conscious
people, do not tend to sign up for long term campaigns, but instead tend to
turn out for specific demonstrations or events. If fairly large numbers are
to be assumed for a particular plan of action then we must come to the
realization that quality will suffer in the face of quantity. The common man
is incapable of understanding what we stand for and will be unintelligent of
our stated goals and our strategy. He will not be acting out of an
overwhelming belief in our creed but for his own self benefit. This is not to
say that we should allow ourselves to be represented by people wearing
costumes that scream social incompetence. Dressing up in 1930s Nazi uniforms
has about the same amount of impact on the general public as dressing up like
astronauts or Klingons. The image presented by the White Nationalist actor is
more important than the number of persons comprising that image. There is a
complex relationship between quality and quantity. The degree of quality
varies with conditions. As an illustration, when Kroger went on strike their
chances of success were high, there was a form of financial assistance
available to them, there was no chance of severe repression by the police or
the military, strikebreakers are rare or nonexistent nowadays and there was
no provocation to violence. Their objective was quite limited and they did
not pose a serious threat to their opponent while the duration of the strike
was not likely to last long. Under such conditions it is acceptable to “get
away with” a lower overall quality. A higher quality, however, should be preferred
for accepting those committed to the long term struggle. When the chances of
success are small, which they are; when repression may be severe, which it
is; when the enemy provokes violence, which they do; when the objective poses
a serious threat to the opponent’s position of power, which it does; and when
the struggle may be a lengthy one, then high quality in the movement becomes
more than a matter of degree, it becomes imperative. Large numbers are needed
to affect change, but those numbers can only be obtained by maintaining, not
lowering, our standards of the movement. Quality is a contagion. It grows and
it multiplies. When we speak of quality in our members there are
two overriding traits that stand out above all others: lack of fear and the
willingness to persist despite repression. We must cast off our fear of
acting independently and our fear of the economic loss, physical injury,
imprisonment and death which may follow as a result. Cowardice is impotence.
Our cause cannot survive if it is reliant on people who fear death and
therefore have no power of resistance. Cowardice and courage mix together
like fire and water. Fear is the product that is purchased out of an
assumption of relative weakness. When a people who are accustomed to tremble
and befoul themselves finds the courage of their convictions, has confidence
in the right and the strength of the cause and are willing to risk the
dangers of pursuing victory honorably then their accumulated bitterness will
burst forth with an irresistible force. VI. Fear Fear plays an important role in maintaining the
oppressive regime; if there is a great fear amongst the subjects then, like a
whipped dog, even minor sanctions will produce conformity. It is to be
embedded in the minds of our folk that fear does not contribute to the
cessation of cruelties, it contributes to their continuation. There should be
no shock or dismay at repression-it is the result of our enemy’s recognition
that we are a serious threat to their regime. As our campaign continues we
can anticipate our civil liberties will be even further reduced. There will
be a point in time when it is necessary for us to violate Jewish law and
reassert our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. At such a
moment the characteristics of boldness and persistence will become
indispensable for the prolongation of the movement. Bravery should not be
considered a moral virtue, but rather a practical requirement. There is no greater coward in the movement than the
person who refuses to become active under the pretense they are a mere foot
soldier and are just biding their time and keeping a low profile until the
Day of the Rope begins. They are so afraid of losing their job working the
graveyard shift at Wal-Mart, cleaning toilets in high-rise office buildings
or changing cum-covered bed sheets at the Motel 6 that they won’t attend a
demonstration, yet they would have us believe they will be standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with us during the Racial Holy War. As long as the
majority of those supposedly on our side hide behind anonymous user names on
internet message boards those few who stand up for their race are at a high
risk of public exposure and a high vulnerability to punishment. There are two
kinds of people on the internet: those won’t use their real name because they
are concerned about the safety of their job and the welfare of their family
and those who use their real name because they are concerned about the safety
of their job and the welfare of their family. If we can pry the keyboards
from their cold, dead fingers and get a fraction of those 35,000
Stormfronters out of their Comfy Chair and into the streets, to pay more
attention to activism than to their post count, then the situation would take
a sudden turn. There would be less exposure and the chances of being singled
out for punishment would be disproportionately reduced. Consequently more
people would be willing to participate. We must keep in mind that a change
towards fearlessness and self-confidence is not a curtain to be dramatically
drawn; it must come across by inches and degrees. Think baby steps. Low-risk,
confidence-building public activism is a means of shedding the layers of
fear. Understandably, certain camps will become less afraid than others. The
magnitude to which the participants have become fearless will determine the
specific type of action possible. If we push our supporters too far and too
fast they will lose their nerve midway across the bridge and the bridge will
collapse. Promoting the idea of an underground resistance is
the worst thing that ever happened to our movement. For starters, there is no
underground resistance, but the most important single objection to this
concept is not only is it rooted in fear, but it contributes to fear. It
contributes to paranoia and finger-pointing and reinforces the belief that
victory is unattainable. To deal openly and honestly is to operate from a
position of strength. Only small, insignificant entities believe violence is
their only alternative. Secrecy and conspiratorial behavior might seem like a
reasonable approach under present circumstances; however the consequences of
the courage involved in open action strikes especially hard at the heart of a
system characterized by the instillation of terror and submissiveness in its
subjects. Serious attempts to maintain secrecy allows the sensation of fear
to spread-fear that plans will be discovered, fear that leaders will be
captured, fear that the organization will be broken, fear that key members
and masses of followers will be rounded up and imprisoned. The spirit of the
resistance will be dampened and potential supporters deterred. Instead of
demonstrating to our enemies and to our kinsmen that repression is powerless,
fear permeates the movement. Degeneration and demoralization proliferates.
Arguments in favor of secrecy seem to assume that it is not too difficult to
keep government agencies from finding out exactly what it is that is to be
kept secret. While it may be possible to keep certain subjects secret for some
time, it is likely that sooner or later the police will learn not only the
general intentions but even the most microscopic details of the plan as well.
Modern electronic devices will be used in addition to the time-honored
traditional methods of opening the mail, wiretapping, informants, police
spies and undercover agents. Moreover, their use will be seen as justified by
the public at large. Openness as simply an assertion of moral principle has
little relevance. We are not concerned with the moral righteousness of our
manners, but with the psychological, social and political effect of our
behavior. A movement that is overly security conscious will need to reduce
the number of people who plan and execute the key policies, while overall
numbers will be reduced by the alienation of partisan persons and
sympathizers who naturally distrust secret political organizations,
especially in what is perceived to be a liberal democratic form of
government. In the struggle to obtain freedom we must behave like free men,
and free men do not engage in secret, underground movements. VII. Leadership From our leaders we demand a stricter standard.
Their responsibilities include working out a strategy and tactics,
negotiation, promoting discipline, maintaining morale, serving as a spokesman
for those who are less articulate, recruiting participants for the campaign,
preparing volunteers for action and training those volunteers for specific
and immediate tasks, offering solutions and organizing the implementation of
those solutions. These organizational skills include publicizing the facts
and grievances of the case at hand or generating cause-consciousness,
promoting sympathy for the group and its aims, informing the public of our
intentions and our plan of action and mobilizing financial resources and
manpower. When new sympathizers and supporters appear, it will be necessary
to show them how to help the movement in specific ways and to incorporate
them into other active groups. Leaders need to be able to make decisions under
pressure, cultivate support and accumulate resources such as food, energy and
medical supplies for cataclysmic conditions right down to office equipment
such as fax machines and photo copiers for everyday use. A cautionary note is
the accumulation of resources must not be allowed to become a goal unto
itself. An effective network of communication is needed
between the various branches and levels of the organization. If police
measures and government control of communications and transportation systems
makes such communication difficult or impossible, then the planners must
determine in advance the points and issues on which opposition will be
launched and exactly how this will be accomplished. A pyramid of leadership
must be formed with two or three or more ranks. Successive stages of
leadership to replace immediately arrested leaders must be provided in
advance and participants prepared to act without leaders in times of severe
repression. The fact that the movement still continues and still grows despite
the passing of elder statesmen like Dr. Pierce and Pastor Butler and the
arrest of key leaders like Matt Hale and Chester Doles is a testament to the
durability and fortitude of our movement. It goes without saying that leadership and organizations
must not be corrupt. There’s no need to explain the mistrust that’s created
from leaders who are involved in embezzlement or the misappropriation of
funds. Avoidance of leaders or others who have testified on the witness stand
or informed on fellow White Nationalists is mandatory. They are the vile
spleen of the movement. The argument if you do nothing illegal you have
nothing to worry about is insufficient. We are all guilty under Jewish law.
Case in point: VIII. The Final Solution So let’s discuss possible resolutions to the
conflict. After all, the burning question is how we will achieve victory and
the type of victory we hope to achieve will influence our grand strategy. Of
course, I suppose a case of complete conversion in the hearts and souls and minds
of our enemies is conceivable but more than likely it is laughable to suggest
they will be so emotionally moved by the courageous suffering of our
resisters or so intellectually persuaded by the rationality of our arguments
they will voluntarily concede their positions of power. No matter how polite
and humane our efforts we cannot expect our opponents to lay down arms and
submit meekly. Power dies hard. Another type of conclusion would be compromise or
negotiation. While I think this idea would be unpalatable to most White
Nationalists we must not forget that negotiation will be an important
instrument in the many campaigns along the way. It should not come as a
surprise if a satisfactory solution is not arrived at by negotiation.
Negotiations are rarely, if ever, resolved on the objective merits of the
debate. The silent-but mutually understood-fact behind every case of
negotiation is the relative power positions of the negotiators. Each side
fully understands what the other is capable of if no agreement is reached;
therefore we should not make appeals with no force behind them. We will not
be subject to compromise, however. Once the demands are set they are set in
granite and should be kept unchanged, not raised or lowered with fluctuations
in the chances of victory. Changes in demand lower credibility. Often it will
be the case that our opponent refuses to negotiate. He may demand, for
example, that we give up all plans for direct action, or, if the action has
already begun he may declare he will not negotiate until all action is called
off. We will refuse to be intimidated or sidetracked by such tactics. It is
not the negotiations themselves that are the important thing; it is the
effort at negotiations. The effort serves other purposes. We should make, and
be seen to be make, every effort at settlement before launching direct action
while keeping in mind that negotiations are not a substitute for open
struggle just as talking is not a substitute for war. If the ruling group is neither converted nor are
they willing to accommodate our demands victory can still be achieved against
the will of the adversary through coercion. If the defiance is so widespread
and massive that it becomes impossible for either the social, economic or
political machinery to operate, then the tyrants, though they still may hold
their offices and declare their original intentions and have an unfavorable
image of our resistance group and say nasty things about us, will find they
have had the ability to act effectively or impose their objectionable
conditions taken away from them. I would think the type of conclusion that would be
universally agreed upon would be the complete collapse of the enemy regime.
When conditions produce the power structure to disintegrate, when the
bureaucracy refuses to obey its own leadership, when police revolt and troops
mutiny, when the population repudiates the rulers and denies their right to
govern, when they withdraw their support and allegiance, the regime simply
crumbles. IX. Politics To clarify, what we are talking about is not
sedition, it is liberation. We are a political party, legally speaking, and
what we do is not different than what the Democrats do in uncertain terms.
The Democrats are not seeking to “overthrow” the government, though in fact
that is exactly what they are doing when they ask you to vote a Democratic
ticket instead of supporting the current regime. What we are seeking is
liberation and political power. Espousing our goals loudly, firmly and long
enough does not make them come to pass. Neither does simply living White and
acting White. These things are admirable, but they are grossly inadequate in
achieving our liberation. There is no short-term political solution. If Billy
Roper or David Duke were elected President by write-in vote tomorrow it
wouldn’t necessarily help us much. Our enemies are not in the habit of
letting people not under their control get elected into office. I doubt the
vote would be counted correctly to begin with and if Billy Roper were elected
he would either be ineffective because of non-cooperation, get impeached
immediately or most likely not even be allowed to serve. Trying to declare
martial law would backfire before it was even announced. The most that could
hope to be gained would be to create a more inducive atmosphere for us. It is
the system that is controlled by our enemies; it is the system that has
become corrupted; it is the system that must be changed if we are to achieve
victory and liberation. As we move forward and progress we can expect
politicians to seek concessions. A candidate will appear who will be tough on
immigration or share our views on affirmative action. We must be careful not
to sell ourselves short on our goal. While every toe-hold we gain is good for
us we can’t allow our forces to be fooled into thinking we have achieved some
sort of lasting victory, for we have not. If our goals can’t be stated
freely, honestly and openly then that is a strong indicator we are not ready
for a political solution. However, running candidates, particularly local
candidates, can be a good source of propaganda and fundraising. It is a
realistic, achievable goal and every small success we gain there will be
helpful. Worse is not better, worse is worse. X. Violence It is inevitable that some groups or individuals
will want to resort to violence, but violence is incompatible with our
strategy. Not only in the short term, by giving us a black eye in the
courtroom of public opinion and bringing more repressive measures against us
by the regime, but also in the long term when we might wish to seek the aid
and sympathies of the wider population and the international community. For
us the renunciation of violence is not a matter of principle but rather a
matter of policy. Not to say that we should back down when violence is
brought against us or that we don’t have the right to defend our life and our
property, it is just that we are, effectively, a civil rights group. As much
as the term leaves a bad taste in our mouth we are the niggers of the Civil Rights
Movement. We are not disclaiming violence with a wink-wink
and a nudge-nudge, either. What is needed is not hot blood but cool heads.
The strategic reason for our decision is that it is unwise to attack the
enemy at their strongpoint. Our opponent’s usual means of repression have
been designed to deal with violent disobedience and violent revolution. They
prefer we use violent action. So much so they will deliberately seek to
provoke the rebels, either by severe repression designed to break our discipline
or by the use of spies and agent provocateurs. To quote Napoleon, “It is an
approved maxim in war, never do what the enemy wishes you to do, for this
reason alone, that he desires it.” Truthfully, violent revolution is not what
we have been doing. The only real course of action we have been pursuing is
nonviolent political defiance. We are not assassinating government officials
and we don’t have small bands of renegades attacking military installations.
A violent attack against military or police forces would only reinforce-not
disrupt or destroy-their obedience patterns. Not to mention that most people
won’t go in for this sort of thing. To attack our enemies militarily is to
attack their strength and it is a poor general who engages the enemy at their
strongest point. XI. Strategy Whether in war, chess or revolution the key
strategy can be summed up in one simple phrase: “Concentration of strength
against weakness.” Our actions should be concentrated on the weakest points in
our enemy’s case, policy or system. Strategy should be phased in such a way
as to score a series of minor gains (or to secure a single victory) in the
most accessible sector rather than trying for a cluster of major objectives
at the same time. Focus should be placed against the certain political,
social or economic pressure points which are representative of the general
conditions so they may, simultaneously, serve as a springboard for us to
sound off against the bigger issues of our discontent. Let’s be honest with
ourselves, the markers we mentioned earlier-the degree of commitment, the
willingness to act, the ability to persist despite punishment, the degree of
disciple and the degree of fear-indicates the movement is weak. What is
needed, therefore, are campaigns against issues some may consider meaningless
and un-revolutionary, but issues that can hardly be disputed by our enemies
or the Pod People. Low-risk confidence-builders. The more ridiculous the
enemy’s policy the better for us. The more symbolic of the overall disease
the better for us. Only rank beginners can be checkmated in four moves, so we
play to accumulate small advantages. This is not being moderate in our aims,
but it is the maximum utilization of our combined forces against the weakest
link in the chain. Tackling a subject that is too vast for our meager
resources is not very clever. A particular goal should be singled out and
concentrated on with the full brunt of our organization and the full brunt of
our movement rather than blanketing the public with a quilt of grievances,
otherwise the non-thinking community will become confused in the morass of
complaints. Small victories are all we can realistically hope to achieve
right now and are the only way to add weight to our side of the scales until
the balance is tipped in our favor. By simply reading the signposts of
commitment, participation, persistence, discipline and fearlessness our
leaders can evaluate when the indicators are high enough to enable us to
enter the next phase of the campaign and struggle for larger objectives. Our enemies are not omnipotent and we make a
mistake in our propaganda when we display them as such. I can’t think of any
effective war-time propaganda machine that consistently reports enemy
victories and allied failures day in/day out. There’s a fine line between
informing the public about the crimes against our race and appearing
defeatist. Constantly hearing about how many niggers raped a White girl
today, uncontrolled non-White immigration and more hate crime laws passed
against Whites can grow wearisome and, inadvertently, give the impression our
enemies are unbeatable. It can be argued we haven’t had many victories to
report on until now; however, there are weaknesses inherent in the system
that can be exploited. When we search for the soft spots to plot our battle
campaign around we might consider these factors as a possible Achilles’ Heel:
the requirements of the regime’s past policies might limit its ability to
implement conflicting policies; the system may become routine in its
operation and less able to adjust to new situations; personnel and resources
already allocated for other existing tasks will not be readily available for
new tasks; subordinates, fearful of displeasing their jewish masters, may not
report accurate or complete information; the present ideology of
multiculturalism distorts their view of reality and it may cause inattention
to actual conditions and needs; as the ideology erodes the myths and symbols
of the regime may become unstable; deteriorating efficiency and competency of
government agencies due to excessive controls, red tape and affirmative
action may make the system’s policies and operation ineffective;
intellectuals and students may become restless in response to rigid restrictions
and harsh doctrines; racial and cultural differences may become more acute;
the power hierarchy is always unstable to some degree-individuals do not
remain in the same position in the ranking but may rise or fall or be removed
entirely; and also, with so many decisions made by so few people mistakes of
judgment or action are likely to occur. The progressive development of the movement should
be a phased campaign characterized by the staged introduction of new methods
of action. Variation in tactics is important in order to provide variety,
interest and especially newsworthiness to the campaign. Sticking to or
specializing in only one or two methods, for example demonstrations and
fliers, will result in failure. When a particular method is common it becomes
stale and predictable and our enemies will learn how to react most
effectively. Already the jewsmedia reports the same repetitious story after a
flier distribution with a quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center and a
local resident who threw the flier in the garbage. At demonstrations they
keep us less visible to the public eye than a Everything we do-every event, every flier-creates
polarization. The bad news is it creates polarization against our viewpoint.
The good news is that’s exactly what we want. We want people to get off the
fence and choose a side, even if that side is opposed to ours. For the first
time the individual is asked to think about and forced to decide how he feels
about a particular topic. Human nature dictates he will initially adopt what
he perceives to be the majority opinion. There is a time lag in changes in
people’s perception which can only be corrected by constant repetition of
behavior. If our views are correct then one by one, inch by inch, they will
be moved towards our side. The process will seem agonizingly slow at first
after which shifts in opinion will spread rapidly like a fever until a
tipping point is reached and finally our position will come to be understood
as stating the obvious. Since initial polarization does not work in our favor
it is a mistake to do a hit-and-run demonstration against a single subject
matter without a consistent planned phased follow-through. We have done more
harm than good. Not only have we created negative polarization we have also
added the repression that comes on top to the list of grievances. Local activity should be highly stressed but this
should not be confused with an everybody-do-everything-they-can approach.
Though some dividends may result here and there in a willy-nilly fashion from
that method, it lacks focus and wastes valuable energies. As our numbers grow
stronger there will be some degree of that technique, which is why it is
important for local organizers and those groups we have a loose association
with to understand our strategy and each phase of the campaign. Above all the
plan should be flexible and our calculations should foresee and provide for a
next step in case of success, failure or-the most common case-partial
success. XII. Public Education A phased campaign means one that is separated by
different methods of activity. Roughly, the overall struggle can be divided
into three overlapping phases. They are public education, mass
non-cooperation and physical intervention. The methods of activism should be
thought of as our weapon’s system. However, studying a catalogue of methods
is not enough. The cause and effect of each method and how it relates to our
strategy should be recognized. For instance, fliers for such general
objectives as “Love Your Race,” “Wake Up, White Man,” or calls for Aryan
Unity or Brotherhood are ineffective. The issue must be definite and capable
of being clearly understood and within the power of the opponent to yield.
Campaigns must be launched with a specific list of grievances and specific
proposals for a solution. In physics there are two states of being: bodies at
rest and bodies in motion, or the static and the dynamic. The methods of
activism are the static features of our movement. While activities such as
strikes and boycotts are beyond our means at this point in time they will
play a relevant role in our future. We are unmistakably in the educational
phase in which we attempt to persuade the public to accept our point of view
and be moved to action by things such as parades, vigils and protest
meetings. Though not all methods are valid for us they may include public
speeches to students, religious sermons, private letters to a certain person
or body declaring a particular viewpoint or declaration of intention, private
letters to deliberately or otherwise become public knowledge, open letters,
letter writing campaigns, floods of letters addressed to government
officials, petitions, internet petitions, group or mass petitions for
economic or work-related charges or protesting a law. We may seek
declarations from well-established mainstream organizations and institutions,
noted scholars or government officials or signed public statements. We may
make declarations of indictment or intention, like the Declaration of
Independence, for example. The objective of the first phase is to communicate
with a wider audience in order to influence the opposing group so that we may
gain sympathy and support from third parties and gain converts, members and
assistance. Persuasion is the aim. For this purpose we may post leaflets;
spray-paint symbols and slogans; adhere stickers; display signs; post
proclamations; pass out fliers, pamphlets and books; create our own
publications and procure their distribution; circulate news sheets; build
internet sites; where possible submit articles and advertisements in
mainstream newspapers and journals; produce records; and create our own media
of radio and television. Selected representatives may meet with the
officials (or their representatives) who are predominately responsible for
the injustice and seek consideration or adoption of a new policy or measure,
often with prepared documents or petitions. Other means of group
representations could be satirical awards presented to opponents in order to
publicize grievances; mock elections in which votes may be collected in a
special polling place, by house-to-house calls or on the internet; group
lobbying in the sense of personal visits to a parliamentary representative by
his constituents in an effort to influence his voting. This may take the form
of a small group in moderate numbers lobbying on several occasions or mass
lobbying focused on large numbers for a specific date. Or there may be
picketing, which is largely associated with strikes and boycotts, but focal
points can be embassies, consulates, courts, legislatures, government
departments or school boards; and there can be vigils which are more solemn
than picketing. Symbolic public acts should be motivated by or
arouse deep emotions, for instance: the display of flags and symbolic colors,
the wearing of ribbons, badges, armbands and considerable variations on the
theme. Prayer and worship conducted in a certain place or on a certain day
can express moral condemnation or political protest. Other symbolic public
acts can be the delivery of a symbolic object to the official or office
associated with the grievance; the destruction of our own property, for
example the burning of goods from Wal-Mart or products made in third world
countries or a bonfire of National ID cards or draft cards. There can be
symbolic lights, torches, lanterns and candles carried in protest parades;
the public display of pictures of resistance heroes or persons who otherwise
symbolize the objective of the moment; symbolic sounds such as bells and
sirens, booing and hissing or heckling sounds; symbolic reclamations of land
like protesting disputed use or ownership of a territory or planting seeds or
trees. Signs can be erected where there have been none or old street names
can be replaced with new ones, for example replacing street signs that honor
Martin Luther King. And of course, the oldest, simplest and most profound
symbolic gestures are flipping people off or mooning them. Pressure can be placed on individuals, for
instance, following officials, camping outside their house, etc., or taunting
officials with ridicule and insults. Fraternization can be useful. By
becoming personal friends with soldiers or police it is possible to convince
them the regime is unjust or to persuade the soldiers or other agents of
repression to reduce the efficiency with which they carry out orders or,
eventually, to mutiny and refuse to obey. Fraternization through personal
contacts can help to provide information about the regime’s plans. Drama and music can be effective in and of
themselves or in the form of humorous skits and plays. Other uses of music
can be singing during an unwanted speech, singing national or religious hymns
or singing while engaged in a march, civil disobedience or some other act of
opposition. There are many types of processions: marches (whose
duration may vary from an hour or two to several weeks), religious
processions, pilgrimages, motorcades and parades-distinguished from the march
in that the point of termination does not have intrinsic significance. Other
variations of parades are the zig-zag demonstration or snake-like parade, the
French style demonstration or hand-in-hand parade and the centripetal
demonstration, which are parades starting from many points and meeting in the
center. Even the dead have propaganda value by honoring a
hero from the past or remembering those who have recently died. Political
mourning uses the same symbols for the death of an individual as for
expressing political dissent and regret over events and policies by flying
flags at half-mast, the ringing of funeral bells, etc. Besides homage at
burial places we can consider memorial services and funerals for persons
killed by non-Whites or by political opponents in the course of the struggle
as ways of honoring the dead. Mock funerals can also have significance, for instance
a mock funeral procession for the Constitution of the Public assemblies of protest or support, from open
air meetings to small local meetings, are an invaluable means of activism. As
most of the people attending such meetings are already agreed on the need to
protest, speeches are usually of secondary importance. It may also become
necessary for camouflaged meetings of protest-more and more relevant under
current political conditions. These are protest meetings organized under the
pretense of quite innocent purposes, such as sports, amusement, art or
religion, a social affair or a banquet. Symbolic withdrawal and renunciation is used when a
delegation walks out of a conference, assembly, meeting or discussion before
it has been adjourned; when a speech is greeted with silence; when there is a
moment of silence for the dead; or when honors are renounced, for example,
returning war medals, resignation from prestigious societies, and
renunciation of titles of honor, medals and honorary offices. Or by simply
turning one’s back. XIII. Mass Non-cooperation The basic idea is simple: if enough people refuse
to cooperate with the regime for long enough a period of time the empire will
weaken and collapse. Mass non-cooperation involves the deliberate defiance of
existing social, economic and political relationships. The social refusal to
carry on normal relations with persons or groups may take the form of social
boycotts against workers who refuse to participate in a strike; the refusal
of shopkeepers to sell to a selected individual; excommunication from the
church; or interdiction from the church in which there is a punitive
suspension of religious services in a given district. Ostracism may even be
expressed by wives refusing sexual relations with their bellicose husbands.
Non-cooperation with social events may include the cancellation of sporting
events, the boycott of the cinema or corporate refusal to attend certain
social affairs such as receptions, banquets, parties, concerts, etc. Students
may refuse to attend classes or social disobedience can be brought about by
breaking factory regulations, disobeying ecclesiastical orders or violating
standard forms of speech, dress and behavior. The withdrawal from the social
system may be indicated by resigning membership from a particular body,
staying at home during working or shopping hours or, in extreme cases,
sanctuary might be sought in a place where the individuals or groups can’t be
touched without violation of religious, moral, social or legal restrictions. Economic measures are more common. There is the
consumers’ boycott, rent refusal, refusal to rent, a national consumer’s
boycott of Israel or Mexico, an international consumers’ boycott; a workmen’s
boycott, a producers’ boycott, a suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott, a traders’
boycott, a lockout and a merchants’ general strike. Holders of financial
resources can withdraw bank deposits; refuse to pay fees, dues and
assessments; refuse to pay taxes; refuse to pay debts or interest; and can
exert economic pressure by severing the opponent’s sources of money such as
salaries, appropriations, loans, investments and credit. The strike is more specific. Examples are the
demonstration strike when work is stopped for a predetermined short period-a
minute, an hour, a day or a week; the lightning strike; the farmers’ strike;
the prisoners’ strike; the craft strike by workers of a single craft; the
professional strike by salaried or self-employed persons of a single
profession; the establishment strike which involves one craft under one
management; the industry strike; the sympathetic strike in which workers
withdraw their labor to support the demands of fellow workers; the detailed
strike where workers stop work one-by-one; the bumper strike in which only
one firm in the industry strikes at a time; the slowdown strike; the
working-to-rule strike in which workers observe the rules and regulations so
meticulously as to retard production; the limited strike where workers refuse
to work beyond their required working hours; the selective strike where
workers refuse to do certain types of work; the stay-in strike where workers
remain at the workplace until demands are granted; the generalized strike
where several industries are struck simultaneously but the strikers
constitute less than a majority; and the general strike which is a widespread
stoppage of labor in an attempt to bring economic life to a standstill. Legal
proscription, contractual obligations or presidential decree to prohibit
strikes can be bypassed by calling in sick or the formal submission of
resignations. Finally, when the workers strike while management, businessmen,
commercial institutions and small shopkeepers halt their economic activities,
the effect is an economic shutdown resulting in economic paralysis. Citizens have alternatives to obedience to the
political system. They can reject authority; refuse to recognize the regime
as legally or morally legitimate; boycott legislative bodies; boycott
elections; boycott government employment and positions; boycott government
agencies and other bodies; withdraw from government educational institutions
by home schooling; boycott government-supported organizations; refuse to
assist enforcement agencies; refuse to accept appointed officials; refuse to
dissolve existing institutions; be reluctant and slow to comply; refuse to
comply with laws where there is no immediate, direct supervision or
enforcement; disguise their disobedience, for instance immediately re-opening
banned newspapers or banned political parties under new names; an assemblage
can refuse to disperse; they can sit down in the street, road, ground or
floor and refuse to leave voluntarily; refuse to cooperate with conscription
and deportation; or they can protest illegitimate laws with civil
disobedience in a deliberate, open violation of particular laws, decrees,
regulations, ordinances or military or police institutions. Actions by government personnel can consist of
selective refusal of assistance by government aides, blocking of lines of
communication and information, stalling and obstruction, general
administrative non-cooperation, judicial non-cooperation, deliberate
inefficiency and selective non-cooperation by enforcement agencies and, in
the advanced stages, mutiny. Constituent units of the government such as
local, provincial or state governmental bodies can refuse to cooperate and
engage in quasi-legal evasions and delays while international government
actions may be changes in diplomatic representation, delay or cancellation of
diplomatic events, withholding of diplomatic recognition of elections,
severance of diplomatic relations, withdrawal from international
organizations and conferences, refusing membership in international bodies or
expulsion from international organizations. XIV. Physical Intervention The final phase of the struggle, from our
standpoint, may seem like a million light years in the future in a galaxy
far, far away, but if successful victories are likely to occur at a more
rapid pace because the disruptive effects of physical intervention are harder
to tolerate or withstand for a considerable amount of time. A sit-in at a
lunch counter or in a bank lobby disrupts more immediately and completely
than, say, picketing or a consumers’ boycott. It is precisely for this reason
speedier and more severe repression may be a first result, but that doesn’t
necessarily spell defeat. The methods of intervention may take on a
psychological aspect, for instance a court case where the defendants turn the
tables on the prosecutors and use the trial to publicize their beliefs,
programs and indictments of the established order; or the methods of
intervention may be characterized by physical interference created by warm
human bodies, for instance by sit-in; stand-in; mill-in; pray-in; a freedom
ride; raids where volunteers march to designated key destinations and demand
possession; air raids to bring leaflets, food or gifts to the population or
to bring supplies to break a blockade; invasion by a group of volunteers to
deliberately and openly enter a forbidden area; physical placement in the
path of a vehicle such as a bulldozer or tank or between a policeman and the
object of his pursuit; physical obstruction by large numbers of people; or
occupation by people who have been ordered to leave their land. Direct
intrusion may also take the form of overloading facilities like government
departments, businesses or social services by a deliberate increase of
demands for services; conducting legitimate business, such as bank transactions,
as slowly as possible; interrupting a meeting, a church service or other
gathering; guerilla theater as a disruptive means of interfering with
speeches, lectures or the normal proceedings of some group or institution;
expropriating and utilizing land which by statute belongs to someone else,
with the intent of producing a de facto change of ownership; or the
overloading of administrative systems by making an excessive number of
enquiries, suggestions and protests. Economic intervention such as the buying
of strategic commodities on the world market for the purpose of making them
unavailable to the enemy or the deliberate dumping of commodities at below
standard prices are most uncommon and unlikely because of the enormous
expense involved. Certain steps must precede others so that it may be
possible to adopt more radical forms later. When we speak of lemmings we are
talking about a people who are unaccustomed to self-determination or
responsible self-rule. It is common today to place nearly complete reliance
on the formal constitution, legislation and judicial decisions to establish
and preserve political freedom; it is also common to assume only the
intentions, acts and policies of a dictator are responsible for a
dictatorship. To unloose the Pod People with newfound political power without
allowing them to first take the necessary steps in learning
self-determination would be somewhat of a disservice. The customs of an
enslaved people are part of their servitude. In Machiavelli’s The Prince he
compares the situation to an animal raised in captivity that is unable to
fend for itself when released into the wild. It naturally becomes the prey of
the first person seeking to restore it to its former condition. “For it was
neither the name nor the rank of dictator that made Years ago I heard a copy of a speech by Louis Beam
in which he likened our enemies to an octopus with their Jewish tentacles
squeezing the life out of every aspect of Aryan culture. The analogy made
sense to me then. However, I have come to believe our cause isn’t as much
fighting an octopus as it is moving an elephant. We’ve all heard the story of
the boy who snuck backstage at the circus and was amazed to discover the only
thing constraining the elephant was a small piece of rope. The trainer
explained the elephant was raised in chains he couldn’t break and as an adult
still believes psychologically he doesn’t have the ability to set himself
free. For those of us in the audience it’s not too hard to see the obedience
of the elephant is not compulsory and with his might he could easily unfetter
the rope of authority that binds him. Now all we have to do is convince the
elephant.
|
