By Lom for Read-Right
Ways and Means
Recently I was listening to a UK-based online chat show discussing possible tactics to further the cause. There was much talk of getting people from behind their computer screens and taking up the cudgels of street activism. The participants in the show were universally of the opinion that a street presence was vital; lurking behind all this was the unspoken assumption that staring at a computer screen is unproductive and ultimately a sterile use of time.
Let’s be clear, direct action can undoubtedly be beneficial to a movement; it energises the base and fosters a spirit of brotherhood among the membership. However, abandoning the computer for the street does have its problems and raises some crucial questions regarding priorities. .
The first and most obvious concern is the confrontational nature of direct action which invites state counter measures. A good example of street activities leading directly to a ban occurred with the hardcore UK group National Action. Much the same happened in Greece with Golden Dawn despite their holding seats in the Greek parliament. However, the most iconic example of state connivance was the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In essence this was a state sponsored ambush with the police – both local and state – working hand-in-glove with Marxist organisations like Antifa to physically smash the rally.
The second problem revolves around the issue of resource allocation. We are hardly awash with funds, we have no sugar daddy keeping us afloat through his Open Society Foundationsi. This is very much a David and Goliath struggle whose nature compels us to fight where our limited resources will do the most good. The forces ranged against us are huge, all those vast corporations and banking groups driving the globalist project ever forward. The architects of this destruction of Western civilization are known to allii. The methodology is also clear, namely the complete atomisation of society leading ultimately to the reduction of Aryan man to irrelevance if not eliminationiii. The progress of the plan is celebrated daily by the media, liberally sprinkled with meaningless buzz words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy.’ Anything that hinders this process – family, culture, gender, faith, race, nationality etc. – is simply bulldozed out of existence.
Certain questions arise naturally from this situation: How do our enemies pull off this stunt, because none of it has public support? Why does Joe Public appear incapable of asking even basic questions? How is it, according to our governments, that groups who espouse loyalty and devotion to a country are that country’s greatest enemy whereas a total alien fresh off the boat with literally no connection of any kind with the country is hailed as a paragon of citizenship? We are faced by a topsy turvy world where the truth of eye and ear is usurped by the smoke and mirrors of deception pumped out daily by the propaganda agencies comically referred to as the media. In a nutshell the stunt is pulled off through ignorance; Joe Public simply does not understand who owns every media company in the West. He does not grasp who organises the vast inflow of aliens into his country that the media portrays as having appeared by magic at the border. The enemy does not spend billions on acquiring the organs of dissemination for nothing – every programme, every article, every film has an alternative purpose beyond the superficial.
Which brings us back to our computer screens. The only arena where any effective resistance to the cancer of globalisation can be mounted is cyberspace. A campaign to decorate the street lamps of a town with, ‘It’s Okay to be White’ stickers might reach a few hundred, perhaps a thousand or so in a city. A hard hitting article on the internet can reach tens or even hundreds of thousands – indeed potentially it could reach millions, which explains the extraordinary lengths taken by our enemy to control cyberspace.
The importance of this struggle should not be underestimated, it’s already had a major impact in the real world as seen in the crucial contribution played by the Alt Right in securing Trump’s victory in 2016. Indeed, it is to cyberspace that the entire identitarian movement in all its myriad shades should give thanks. The birth and development of the internet has been a Godsend allowing us to re-enter the tightly guarded arena of political discourse for the first time since the 1930s. Until our re-emergence, politics in the West had degenerated into the Finkel-Thinkiv sterility of the kosher uni-party system, better known as the kosher sandwich.
All of us involved in the struggle are acutely aware that our fate hangs on our ability to entice those fellow Aryans currently lost to the dream world of the blue pillv, to fight for the future of our people. The good news is that the task lies well within our compass. How do I know this? Because we’ve managed it once already during the 2016 presidential campaign. The fact that Trump subsequently betrayed everything he’d promised should not blind us to the fact that a comfortable majority of our people responded positively to his nationalist programme. The enemy still has power, but as the crisis goes from bad to worse it becomes ever harder to predict the future.
Perhaps those UK street warriors should reappraise the contribution made by our comrades on the keyboards, they’re doing a great job.
ii Those wishing to know more about Jewish attitudes towards Aryans should start with Peter Schafer’s book Jesus in the Talmud – https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691143187/jesus-in-the-talmud