Gullibili-Tea

You Suckers are Back for More!?

You Suckers are Back for More!?

White Advocacy is hard! Our enemies control all the avenues of esteem, making sure to withdraw that esteem when you threaten their hegemony. It’s so definitive that even if you’re a Nobel laureate Ivy League genius – the godfather of genomics, you’re one innocent statement of heretical fact away from losing every iota of public respect it took a lifetime to accumulate.

It’s tempting to try to find some way to fight for our people that doesn’t involve condemnation, humiliation, and employment discrimination. Choosing to be a postmodern heretic is one of the bigger life decisions one can make. It shouldn’t be made lightly and it’s not for everyone. If there’s a single thing that you rely on the establishment for that you can’t stand to lose, then it’s not for you. Whatever you’re thinking, for the love of God, don’t get into this for the money, the fame, or the pats on the back.

But that’s the score. Only explicit White Advocacy and naming the Jew actually threatens their hegemony. If dressing up in silly costumes and building an American Revolutionary cargo cult around the demand for lower taxes threatened their hegemony, our Cosmic overclass would have reacted with more than condescending giggles and potty humor about “teabagging”. We’re not fighting for “Red States”, the “Silent Majority”, “founding principles”, or the “Country Class”. We’re fighting for our people, White people.

Granted, there’s pushback to that, and the White Advocacy movement can be a depressing and dysfunctional fiasco. To engage it, especially at the national level, is to descend into a fever swamp of feds and fuck-ups. But scattered among all those men with salaries and syndromes are some remarkable and gifted activists. After so many years of failure, the ideological equivalent of cabin fever has set in. It’s understandable why so many abandon explicit advocacy in favor of more subtle and safe strategies.

But it’s wrong. Neither implicit Whiteness, Sarah Palin’s vapid screeching, Ron Paul’s paleolibertarian absolutism, nullification, nor “States’ Rights” promise anything that hasn’t been promised over the last several decades of attempts to win at the game while allowing the enemies to make the rules and referee the competition. My recent post, The War on Thugs, chronicles one example of this. Harsh drug laws are merely one of several failed proxy battles in America’s decades-long covert race war.

White Advocacy is Hard!

White Advocacy is Hard!

White Americans have a choice: they can allow the pied pipers of implicit Whiteness to lead them down another blind alley of decline and dispossession or they can get serious about White Advocacy. Our growing team of Hoosier Nation activists are engaging representatives, taking on the mainstream media, protesting in the streets, and reaching out to ordinary Americans who are increasingly receptive to our powerful, positive, and patriotic message. There are also others out there doing good work, and there are plenty of secure ways to support them.

The naysayers, quitters, and sunshine patriots who’ve dabbled in our movement would have you believe that we’ve been defeated. Some of them would have you believe that your best hope is to don a disguise, join the “anti-racist” Uni-Tea Party conservatives, and hope that your investment of time and energy in a movement that loudly and proudly hates you and everything you stand for will somehow pay off in some unknown way at some unknown point in the future.

As for us, the game is on and we’re just getting started. We hope you’ll join us, support us, or at the very least refrain from spreading defeatism and persuading awakened Whites to line up behind and take orders from the same old kosher conservative establishment elites. These are the same disingenuous anti-White hucksters who bamboozled our fathers, their fathers, and their fathers before them. Three generations of imbeciles are enough!

This entry was posted in Activism, Tribalism. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Gullibili-Tea

  1. John says:

    I’m a dissident friend of the Tea Party in the libertarian wing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256540

    Libertarians don’t seem to understand that the only historical examples functioning libertarianism/anarchism societies where homogeneous societies comprised of Europeans or their diaspore: (From http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256918&page=3 …)
    “The thing that makes Somalia Somalia is Somalians.

    Iceland in midieval times before it was colonised by Christianity or the American wild west in the mid to late 1800s are better examples.

    An ideal place for an anarcho-capitalist paradise would have a population of people with a reasonably high intelligence, high levels of independence as well as trust, a high time preference, a good work ethic and an homogeneous religious, ethnic and language makeup.

    I think part of the reason for mass third-world immigration into Western countries is that most of them are made up of people who have all these things. When their industriousness brings them wealth they can be dangerous to elite because they may figure out that they don’t need them.”

    So they’re bringing Somalia to us.”

    Trying to do what I can.

  2. LEW says:

    Matt,

    Regarding the ordinary people who are proving to be receptive to the message, do they tend to be conservatives, liberals, apolitical, old, young, men, women, or a cross section?

    Just wondering if you’re seeing any trends.

  3. Dermot Walsh says:

    Refreshing to read this article, there’s a split about to happen in the British National Party and many people want to take the implicitly White, civic nationalist gutless cop out.

    We work for our posterity not Pakistan’s, it is that simple.

    All the best to White American patriots. I’m watching John Adams at the moment, your revolutionary ancestors were great men.

  4. Matt Parrott says:

    John,
    It sounds like you’re doing some good work with that. Despite my aforementioned slam, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Chuck Baldwin in the national.

    LEW,
    I would say that apolitical conservatives are the easiest audience. As I’ve said before, there’s a generational “donut hole” in our movement with the Baby Boomer generation almost uniformly lost in the Civil Rights mantras, neocon Cold War themes, and the failure to either know or care just how much we’re losing.

    If you prove with your words, themes, and actions that you’re really about defending families and communities, the women show up. Our meetings sport a 50/50 gender ratio, with the women being more active than the men. A growing number of White women want a vehicle for protecting their way of life, and women have a more intuitive and instinctive desire to secure our communities for future generations.

    Dermot,
    Indeed. All the BNP has to do is castrate itself and it will gain mainstream credibility. Castration’s the perfect metaphor for it, as giving up our right to exist as a separate people is a termination of reproductive capacity. It’s emasculation. It’s neutering for domestication. Best wishes to the British patriots, as well. We’re far more similar (especially myself being of overwhelmingly Ango descent) than we are different and will probably share the same fate (for better or worse).

  5. Dermot Walsh says:

    Hi Matt

    Thanks for your kind wishes.

    The BNP has major problems at the moment, being castrated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is one of the least of which. I agree that so many party members think that opening up the membership to non-Whites is a good thing is like self-castration. I believe there was a Roman religious cult that practised self-castration, we should look up the name and use it to refer to civic nationalists lol.

    I envy American Patriots your first amendment rights.

    I’m not sure what the position the British overlords would have if I said I admired your second amendment rights also.

  6. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW)

  7. John says:

    “It sounds like you’re doing some good work with that. Despite my aforementioned slam, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Chuck Baldwin in the national.”

    Thank you.

    I am of the opinion that mass immigration of Third Worlders would be politically unsustainable without a welfare state, a large government sector to preferencially employ the immigrants while denying more competent natives, laws against freedom of association (so whites can’t “white flee” and stay fled), and to a lesser extent, drugs laws, which amount to a government franchise monopoly for gangsters and thugs.

    There’s a joke here: How do you know a perpetrator or accused of a notorious crime is ethnic Swede? If his name or picture is in the paper — you don’t need to read the name or see the picture, just know that they published it. It’s that way all over Europe. They don’t even show the picture of a criminal at large! But the crime differential would be too obvious for the media to cover up successfully with a social Darwinist/libertarian economics.

    Sweden’s folkhemmet functioned well and most here were happy with it when the “folk” were almost to a man an industrious people with a strong work ethic who care about equally about each other and socially stigmatise those who would try to free-ride from it. Giving new fathers and mothers time off work is anti-libertarian but in many ways a policy with good effects.

  8. Matt Parrott says:

    John,
    I don’t necessarily disagree with most of what you’re saying, except the general implication that our problem is at its root an economic one. Our elites are socialist when that’s what damns us (as with your examples) and libertarian when that’s what damns us (as with free trade, open borders, and destructive oligarchs). As such, I believe the problem is more about the agenda of our elites than it is the ideological fig leaves of socialism and egalitarianism that they clumsily and inconsistently use to promote their anti-White agenda.

  9. John says:

    Dermot Walsh: “I envy American Patriots your first amendment rights.”

    Ditto from the Socialist Republic if Swedistan. But it’s interesting whom they do and don’t apply the laws against free speech against. They prosecuted a Lutheran Minister for preaching a sermon out of the Third Book of Moses on the biblical view of homosexuality. But the prosecutor, despite pleas to do so, refused to prosecute Joanna Rytel, a member of a group called “unfucked pussy” for her editorial published in a major newspaper http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article204689.ab where she professed her hatred of white men and said she vomits upon them. He said that the laws are there to protect immigrants and native Swedes didn’t get such protections.

  10. Matt Parrott says:

    Dermot,

    The second one comes in handy when they attempt to threaten our first one. :)

  11. Randy Garver says:

    Despite my aforementioned slam, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Chuck Baldwin in the national.

    Funny, I voted the same way. Was there a watershed moment when your views evolved to the present state?

  12. Matt Parrott says:

    Randy,

    My views haven’t changed substantially since then, and I would vote the same way if the elections were tomorrow. Just a few months ago, I threw in $20 on the Rand Paul campaign. Rather than beginning with ideology and attempting to impose it on reality, I’m trying to start with reality and work it toward my ideology.

    I consider the Paul Dynasty to be the most credible challenge to the regime at the moment. That doesn’t mean I truly follow it or accept their ideological premises – I don’t. But they are dragging the frame and the discourse in the right direction.

    I take practical politics seriously, almost as seriously as my mentor, G.W. Plunkitt.

    http://hoosiernation.us/plunkitt

  13. Wandrin says:

    “I agree that so many party members think that opening up the membership to non-Whites is a good thing is like self-castration.”

    The worst thing is that it can never work. I always thought the go professional and respectable route was the right idea and i still think it’s got value in terms of not deliberately scaring the public but the MSM decide what’s respectable and what isn’t and if you oppose their anti-white agenda in any effective way then they’ll give you the mark of cain and that’s that. There is no way the MSM will ever give a genuinely white survivalist party a fair deal because the MSM is the heart of darkness. It’s the number one enemy stronghold.

    The other thing about being professional is that it takes a lot of money which, with the enemy conducting relentless legal warfare, makes me wonder if in a way it actually makes the party weaker and more vulnerable. In a way it would be better if it could operate with no money at all like some kind of guerilla party so it was harder to attack.

    So i’m not sure what’s best now except whatever happens i think the number one priority for all nationalists is to attack the media and try and destroy their credibility and moral authority.

    Somehow.

    “I’m watching John Adams at the moment, your revolutionary ancestors were great men.”

    That’s a great series. They definitely were a special bunch.

  14. Reginald says:

    A big problem the BNP had last election is that they ran up too many candidates, too many candidates in districts where they didn’t have a chance of making an impact.

    They need fundraising, they couldn’t be an actual political party without it, but what they need to do is start spending it more wisely.

    Also Nick Griffin really messed up his BBC Question Time appearance.

    He needed to calmly draw attention to the sheer absurdity of the Two Minutes’ Hate he was being subjected to, but instead he took it all lying down and I think it made him look weak.

    He needs to take some classes in rhetoric and public speaking.

  15. Matt Parrott says:

    Griffin’s lack of familiarity with aggressive public discourse is not his only problem. The man is not handsome and he has a glass eye. Image is important, and workhorses like Nick Griffin (who has been an immeasurable credit to the cause) need to know the right time to slip back behind the scenes and groom more media-savvy “show horses” for things like Question Time appearances.

    As the movement progresses, there needs to be a separation of labor between the men like myself and Griffin who are the WA equivalent of Karl Rove, James Carville, and David Axelrod and the actual candidates.

  16. Randy Garver says:

    I take practical politics seriously, almost as seriously as my mentor, G.W. Plunkitt.

    Thanks for that link.

    Plunkitt is thoroughly hilarious and refreshing, although morally septic. I love the oxymoronic doublethink of “honest graft”. Is the object lesson here that the most honest politician is nonetheless a crook, and that’s the best we can do?

    I wonder what he’d think of the destitute and enfeebled state of NY in 2010, now at the sad and logical conclusion of all that honest graftin’, salary raisin’, and vote panderin’.

  17. Matt Parrott says:

    Randy,

    Bah. New York would have been better off under the old-school political machines. The political sausage factory still exists, but the common man is no longer allowed in it, naively assuming that the failure to see hustling and graft is synonymous with the lack of hustling and graft. A byzantine network of regulations and processes now belongs entirely to an unaccountable technocratic elite who are ever further and further removed from and even hostile toward the interests of the constituents these “civil servants” ostensibly serve.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/23/confusocracy-smashing-the-rube-goldberg-device/

  18. Randy Garver says:

    Matt,

    I’ll grant you that the old style boss system might have been more administratively efficient than the current environment, and was certainly more charismatic, but to what end?

    In both systems, one important stakeholder appears to be mostly left out of the equation: the taxpayer. Tammany’s algorithmic underpinnings appear to involve maximizing the production of votes and civil jobs per unit of political capital.

    How does this benefit the taxpayer? Apparently, it’s not particularly important. The operational philosophy is jobs in exchange for loyalty. The current civil servant unions behave in a somewhat similar manner. They’re nauseatingly parasitic and self-entitled. Both systems are flawed and lousy.

    As for how government regulation and administration became so convoluted and byzantine, I would suggest that it’s the result of the cumulative accretion of bureaucracy around the nuclei of special interest pandering by political leaders. I would theorize that the bosses themselves sowed the seeds of their current disenfranchisement by this concession here, and that set-aside there, each of which then necessitated more complexity for the technocrats.

  19. Wandrin says:

    “A big problem the BNP had last election is that they ran up too many candidates, too many candidates in districts where they didn’t have a chance of making an impact.”

    Well that may be true as well but they should have done better in places like Stoke and personally i don’t think they did anything wrong there. I think there is a glass ceiling on the vote based on the power of the BBC to say “these people are bad and you are a bad person if you vote for them” and somehow that has to be weakened before there can be a breakthrough – at least in a country without PR elections.

    “They need fundraising, they couldn’t be an actual political party without it”

    Yeah, that was a silly comment on my part. I just had this vision once of the BNP raising ever more money but all of it going on legal fees as the more money they raised the more lawfare was conducted against them.

    “Also Nick Griffin really messed up his BBC Question Time appearance.”

    I don’t blame him for that personally. He didn’t do that well but i don’t think anyone could prepare for that level of hostility except by experience. Also the ambush was so obvious it helped a bit in exposing the “neutral” BBC.

    “As the movement progresses, there needs to be a separation of labor between the men like myself and Griffin who are the WA equivalent of Karl Rove, James Carville, and David Axelrod and the actual candidates.”

    I think it’s definitely true there needs to be a division of labour between the field officers and the staff officers. Personally i think Griffin has been a good field officer but not so good in other areas but that’s by the by.

    What’s a shame is the language barriers with the parties in Europe. It would be good to read more of their tactics so it was easier for best practise to spread.

  20. Dermot Walsh says:

    Hi Wandrin

    I agree with a more open source, cell based network type of org because of the problem you highlight.

    Our opponents the anti-Whites can hit us from their legal arm. Also once you have a centralised structure, it attracts corrupt people who seek power and money. This is the true problem of the BNP.

    The fundraiser they got on board is allegedly not a member and even allegedly says he is not a nationalist. It is alleged that he set up expensive inefficient infrastructure and used it to employ his family, Griffin’s family and other personal lackeys of the current leadership.

    My language needs to be spot on as many of these people are litigious.

    If the BNP folds within the next few months, which many people are predicting, it will give open source nationalism a window.

  21. Wandrin says:

    Dermot,

    “I agree with a more open source, cell based network type of org because of the problem you highlight.”

    Yeah i don’t want to speak to the other stuff because i don’t want to add to the drama. The only thing i’d say is that whatever the truth of it is by not being completely transparent from the start they allowed a cancer to grow – which is tragic seeing how much progress had been made. Regardless of all that though i do wonder if a looser more federal type of org might be harder to attack. Since the election i’ve been wondering if the strategy in the UK might have to be different from countries with PR because it’s a lot harder to break through and that makes it harder to keep morale up. I’m not really sure though. The only thing i’m sure about is that there’s no way of winning without taking down people’s belief in the BBC.

  22. Pingback: Red Dominion | From The Provinces

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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