I see some mistakes being made.

1. People are preferring euphemisms to clear, strong statements. For example, Spencer says that he won't use the term "White Nationalism" because it's icky (e.g., it is associated with "skinheads''). He and his associates use "Ethno-nationalism."

But notice the bad consequences that flow from this.

Intellectually, it's a rolling disaster. Just as there are Bible spergs, so there are Euro spergs who confuse a history lecture with the struggle. Far from promoting White racial unity against a unified enemy, the term "ethno-nationalism" promotes pointless discussions about how Saxons or whatever ethny outraged their neighbors in the XVI Century.

It also necessarily insinuates that any ethny around the globe--any sub-sub-tribe of non-Whites--equally has the inalienable right to occupy whatever patch of earth they are occupying. It thus promotes the lie of a "family of humanity"--with Whites reduced to pleading a case for being included in the rights and privileges of this "family," which, after all, is only a fiction that we (or the Christian cucks among us) invented anyway.

More fundamentally, the "soil" part of "blood and soil" is overcooked. It too conveniently reduces to "magic dirt." The whole earth belongs to Whites. We thrived and created on every continent. Our diminution to a comparatively tight corner of Eurasia was in the very long run always tactical, regardless of whether it was the birthplace of our race or not (and there is some doubt about even this). In any case, the point of having a birthplace is to expand from it; the alternative is called "failure to launch" or "failure to thrive."

Replacing the term "White" with the term "European" has a history, a backstory in the sorry screenplay of cuckery. Jared Taylorites always preferred identifying, not as Whites, but as "European-Americans." But "European-American" was never other than a riff on the term "African-American." Euro-LARPing enshrines reactionary silliness.

It also confuses the struggle so badly that we can forget who we are. "I know what a Swede is," I have heard people say, "but I don't know what a White person is." Well, our enemies know what a White person is.

Practically, the bad consequences are the same as those of any other soft-soaping of ideas. Soft terms--euphemisms--are for soft heads, and soft-headedness leads to soft actions like intra-White conflict (e.g., Poles and Russians fighting each other while both are genocided by Semites), reaction, and stasis. Instead of looking forward and uniting against the common enemy in the present day, we look backward and disintegrate--like Nietzsche's crab, the historian who "looks backward and also comes to believe backward." Time to move beyond the village and its ancient gossip and grudges. The world is ours to win (again).

2. As part of this overall trend of cowardice and weakness, we are seeing an uptick in muh-Jesusing. We are hearing louder than ever "the Church is the soul of Europe" (note: rarely if ever "the soul of Whites," since most Christians are muds). The same tired insistence on monotheistic Semitic mysticism. "Only a dead jew will save us! It will work this time, guys, trust me!"

If you poison a healthy person very incrementally and after he becomes fatally ill you insist that he double-down on the poison, because you maintain that only the poison will cure him--are you just an idiot, or something worse? ("Christianity Is Anti-White" thread.)

Despite the usefulness of E. Michael Jones in red-pilling people, we need to be honest with ourselves--certainly more honest than any Christian ever is--and acknowledge that Catholics are just as much our foe as conservatives are. It is they who push "the family of humanity" lie; it's they who are the main, original, most committed carriers of Sicut Judaeis non and Kumbaya in general.

3. I also keep hearing people say, "But we should speak in euphemisms and use familiar, comforting, established tropes and institutions, because A. our views are legally proscribed in many places and so we must avoid stating them explicitly and B. we don't want to frighten normies. Therefore, we ought to sneak and hide. We ought to conceal rather than reveal. We ought to depend on implicitness to change the world."

This is not the way to change things politically. Only the explicit convinces. Only the explicit leads; the implicit merely brings up the rear.

If your view is true--if you are saying "2+2=4" to a world that insists that "2+2=5"--the way to break the falsehood is not to say, "Well, maybe I'm crazy, but I think addition is perhaps an interesting subject to look into sometimes."

No, you say: "2+2=4" and permit the autistic screeching to rage until it burns itself out. A million people will silently come to your side.

Of course, you should do it in an intelligent way, but the larger point is that refusing to name facts clearly and bluntly is refusing to lead. Vagueness is fatal to a military operation. Hell, it's fatal even to cooking. Why would it be less fatal to our struggle?

If you live in an area where free speech isn't respected, then it's prudent to moderate your public statements. But A. you shouldn't moderate your private statements. You shouldn't lie to your group or lie in your own mind. And B. in America, where free speech is legally recognized, you have the possibility of establishing a situation where you can name things explicitly. For example, look at VNN. I am willing to bet my life that the term "European American" has never passed the lips of Linder. And look at his (insufficiently acknowledged) influence on everyone in the White struggle now.

I know we dislike Glenda Beck's Overton Window stuff, but if there is such a "window" and it can be moved, then a smart person's standing way out on the far edge and fearlessly shouting hard truths is what moves it.