If we are to move beyond Internet gabfests we must abandon revisionism, the J.Q., Nordicist phantasmagoria, Pagan folkways, and all that stands in in our way to come out of obscurity. All that matters is out ethnic genetic interests, our survival as a distinct people. Hence, our ontological foe is liberalism. In order to stand a chance against our decay and imminent disappearance from history, we must focus on exiting the liberal ideological paradigm and its handmaiden the multicultural religion.

We will never have mass appeal while talking about Jews and other shibboleths that instinctively disgust and repel that vast majority of our people. The moment you raise the J.Q. or revisionism you have painted yourself in the minds of your interlocutors as a crazed Nazi out to exterminate the Jews; and your audience will undoubtedly have none of it, besides the token delusional, marginal sociopaths.

The watchwords must be moderation and normalcy. That's why I bring up Geert Wilders these days. He impresses me like nobody else on the scene. He doesn't get lost in a labyrinth of irrelevant and counterproductive side issues. I would prefer if he added some discussion of race/ethnicity to his repertoire, but I understand why he's not doing it. Let's not forget that the Nazi experience has effectively precluded any sane and rational discussion of race for at least three generations. In politics, if you need more than 5 minutes to define an issue for an audience, you lost their attention. That's why the J.Q. is a political loser and even more so revisionism. Most White gentiles only have a vague idea about the Jewish role in Western societies; and a nationalist speaking negatively about them will produce in a Pavlovian way images of wicked Nazis taking poor innocent Jews to concentration camps to be gassed. Revisionist arguments are much too much technical and intricate to make sense to most. I've forced myself in the past to study them and it was like watching paint dry; imagine what it's like for the average slob. In any case, we've been programmed since our infancy to believe in the 6 000 000 figure. The vast majority cannot and won't let go of it no matter what. I've had revisionists tell me in private correspondence that they became physically ill after studying revisionist literature, it was just so hard to accept that what they've always believed and held as sacred was false. I guess one could compare the feeling to religious disillusionment of the Victorians on the road to atheism. But all that is beside the point. Neither revisionism nor the J.Q. is necessary for our survival. On the contrary, I view them as hindrances. To those who stubbornly want to stick to the losing formula, I say what has radicalism on the J.Q. produced in post-World War II West? It's anathema to the people you're trying to reach. Every time some nutbar pops up and begins ranting about Jews it has set us back in all sorts of ways and created further barriers in its wake like anti-free speech laws. Actually, whenever I hear someone spouting off about Jews nowadays I view him as a probable agent provocateur working for Jewish organizations. If I'm proven wrong, we're invariably in the presence of a misfit ike Bill White on his way to a prison cell. What has Alex Linder's radicalism, for example, produced in at least 10 years of activity? To ask the question is to answer it.