Propaganda – Part II

By Shaun de Moray:

Following from my first article of this series, in which I made the observation that the nationalist cause often fails to attract enough support because it fails to offer the public anything more than bad news, I shall now examine the various propaganda media at our disposal and analyse where we should go from here.

Democratic Parties

As observed by the nationalist blogger John London, our movement has two essential strands: nationalist; and post-nationalist.

Fundamentally, the difference between the two is based upon a perception of symbols: the ‘nationalist’ seeks to return our nation to the circumstances of the past, to a time when our nation was once strong; while the ‘post-nationalist’, accepting that the nation of the past no longer exists, or is irredeemably damaged, seeks to construct a new identity that transcends the past with a view to creating a better, Whiter future.

Both camps tend to regard the democratic party as a useful tool.

For ‘nationalists’, democratic participation is symbolic of Anglo-Saxon fairness and they believe our democratic institutions are merely in need of reform. Their belief is that following reform, we will be able to once again prosper as a free, independent, democratic nation. They do not understand that the democratic process and democratic ideologies such as egalitarianism, have no defence against the corrupting influence of multiculturalism — nationalists are forced into attempting to communicate with the masses using democratic language — while the mainstream parties, better able to convince the voters due to their alliance with the mass media, can misrepresent our message to a point where it becomes polemical in the minds of the brainwashed herd.

Similarly, the post-nationalist relationship with democracy is often just as flawed. Acknowledging that due to the stupidity or lack of perception the masses, a democratic nationalist party cannot win an election, many post-nationalists still hold the belief that we can use elections as a recruitment tool to build a vanguard for a revolution. In my view, this is foolish in the extreme.

By their nature, democratic parties are composed of a wide spectrum of people, most of whom are infected with the ’moderate’ beliefs of democracy: such as the belief that the general will of the population has a higher objective value than the informed and considered opinions of an educated minority; such as the need to reform the system rather than change it completely, and so on.

Rivalry between the ‘moderate democratic’ wing of a party and the ‘hard-core’ who are intent on radical change, democratic parties inevitably break apart along ideological lines, or even worse, water down their message to appease ‘moderate public opinion’, thereby taking the teeth out of the struggle and demoralizing our more dedicated, audacious elements.

Demonstrations

Demonstrations are a far cry from listening to some dull, academic lecture at a political party meeting. They can be fun and offer an opportunity to travel the country and sometimes the world, and this in itself is attractive to some of the more adventurous elements among our people. They have a downside however: Special Branch use them as an opportunity to observe and document each attendee as a potential threat to the state. Also, despicable organisations such as Searchlight do the same thing. Demonstrations are hot.

Their effect on public consciousness can be impaired depending upon the type of people who attend them. I’ll be honest: a skinhead boot-boy might be a nice guy, but the aesthetic isn’t going to appeal to our target audience: the brightest, toughest, and most audacious members of our race. Skinhead culture died out in the 80s, and it belongs there. We need to discard that image completely.

Recently, Nick Grifford of White Independent Nation suggested that in demonstrations we mimic carnival tactics such as those employed by the Notting Hill Carnival, various Gay Pride marches, and Fathers For Justice, and I agree.

Instead of ineffectually shouting nationalist slogans at a brainwashed public, we should dress up in the traditional clothing of our ancestors and use demonstrations as a colourful and dramatic celebration of our rich heritage. The public will want to be included in such events and once involved, the political education can follow at a later date.

With planning, these types of demonstrations and the speeches afterwards could be posted all across social media and this could offer us a broad canvas to work from. If we truly are the people we think we are there is no reason why we can’t make these events so appealing that they manage to have an impact upon the public consciousness and offer us the human material we need to have a proper movement – without, of course, having to pretend we believe in democracy and all that it stands for.

Meetings

As discussed in my first article, we need to offer the prospective nationalist a plan. You can’t present somebody with a barrage of bad news and then expect that person to be motivated enough to find a solution to your hideous message; it’s insane.

Meetings, are needed and I think they’re the main reason why people still cling to the idea of a democratic political party as a vehicle for our racial salvation, because all democratic parties offer the prospective nationalist the chance to meet up with and socialise with others who are also sick of multiculturalism. However, why not have such meetings without having to become immersed in the futile and demoralising process of electioneering in which your party receives a derisory vote and is defeated time and time again by the corrupt establishment puppet parties?

Jez Turner’s London Forum meetings are a massive step in the right direction, but we need more; much, much more. We also need to find a way of getting sympathetic people into these meetings and find a way of tutoring these people with the core strategies of our struggle and then offering them a position where they can utilize whatever abilities they have for our common racial good. If we continue to see the same faces all the time, what’s the point in meetings anyway? A real movement is constantly expanding; a social club stays the same.

My suggestion is that we have in our target areas, a themed demonstration every six months where we advertise our meetings and then see how many people turn up. Once there, our speeches explain our racial peril and then we have a series of speeches that offer solutions to our race’s current problems such as White enclaves, home schooling, and all-White businesses. Our efforts should be targeted at recruiting the best of the attendees into our movement — quality over quantity!

I believe we need these radical changes in our approach if we are to succeed. Already, our capital city is majority non-White and the pathologies of the Third-World are becoming more and more common on the streets of a nation that we can no longer say is ours. We have to offer our people a plan of action – embodying our truly revolutionary creed – and provide them with a path to follow that will lead them to salvation. We can do this, we must do this, but we need to understand that it isn’t going to be easy and many of us are going to have to make sacrifices.

If nothing changes we face extinction. We White people who care about our race, are the only ones who can and will do anything about it. It’s up to us, it’s all or nothing!

By Shaun De Moray © 2015

# # # #