Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree that national electoral politics is a realistic option. First of all, the way national politics at the Congressional level works is people work their way through the various political 'activist' networks of the two major parties. Even Obama (whose rise was extraordinarily fast) went through this process. If 'our guys' cannot get elected as dogcatchers, they're not going to succeed at running for the House of Representatives.
The strategy of the jews is to occupy or police key nodes to national power, and they've done a fair job of doing the same at the state level. However, there simply are not enough jews or jew-whores to police every political position available in local politics. At least not yet. And especially if the candidate is simply running on a generic 'good government' platform rather than something overtly WN.
Every single publicly-known 'pro-white advocate' who has ever run for office and succeeded in being elected has been (a) hamstrung by anti-White agents and not re-elected or (b) removed from office via recall. It does not pay to be a known White advocate, at least not yet. Pro-White folks should pursue public office at the lowest levels and get an understanding of the 'lay of the land' politically before attempting anything too overtly WN. While in office, WNs should seek to prevent the worst anti-White policies and argue for 'fairness' in ways that help Whites.
The reality is there isn't a thimble-full of knowledge about actual electoral politics in all of WN as currently constituted. So, at best, we're building from scratch. At worst, most WNs seem to have a very distorted view of politics simply by virtue of no one in positions of leadership having any real world experience.
Our guys (and gals) do not have to go out of their way to court controversy around their views. All they need to do is to wait for their opponent to raise the issue of race and then calmly support 'fairness' for Whites. 'Fairness' is how darkies and homosexuals and women gained all the power they have and it is the best *public* path to doing something for Whites.
So, I say people who actually want to get involved in real-life electoral politics to start very close to home. Volunteer and start to get an understanding of the system. Electoral politics is a job, it's not some skill-free consumption project. There are skills to be acquired and resources to be marshaled.
We need people whose qualifications for office need to be more than a willingness to throw the Roman salute.
"We need people whose qualifications for office need to be more than a willingness to throw the Roman salute."
I agree with that. Note I have written on this subject a number of times and there are advantages to a campaign even if there is no realistic chance of winning - propaganda, organization, pushing mainstream candidates further in our direction, destabilzing the System via political chaos and triggering anti-Whites to be more overt in their anti-whiteness. Fairness to Whites is fine and in areas where there is a high chance of winning may be useful for now. But at some point it would be useful to, every once in a while, try an overt explicit WN candidate and stir the pot and test the waters. The key though is not to throw away too much $$$ on that, but still, better to invest $$$ there than supporting Greggy and Sammy.
Whether a public campaign is a metapolitical success really depends on how that campaign is conducted. I’ve not seen a single public event conducted by ‘the racial right’ that wasn’t an embarrassment and that set our cause back by embedding the legitimate concerns of White people within a context of crass spectacle and empty posturing.
As for ‘triggering’ anti-Whites, nothing is simpler. The issue is whether after triggering them there is something to be gained in excess of the punishment the anti-Whites are able to deliver.
If a candidate ‘triggers’ the anti-Whites and then goes down in flames, that just reinforces their power. It does not undermine it.
What we need is people who have been trained to do the job doing the job and networking with others. Trying to do this kind of think in public is very, very hard but ‘smoke-filled back-rooms’ work very well. But to get those going, you first need people who are already ensconced in the system.
I have some ideas on how to run a campaign, but am saving that for the future. I have hopes that a friend of mine who once expressed interest at some point in the future does so. I would help.
The campaign I have in mind would not be the typical Nutzi retardation. But we can take a step forward from implicit MAGA to explicit defense of White interests.
If the candidate is reasonable and rational and doesn't back down, the triggering can be shown to be impotent. We need someone who won't go down in flames.
Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree that national electoral politics is a realistic option. First of all, the way national politics at the Congressional level works is people work their way through the various political 'activist' networks of the two major parties. Even Obama (whose rise was extraordinarily fast) went through this process. If 'our guys' cannot get elected as dogcatchers, they're not going to succeed at running for the House of Representatives.
The strategy of the jews is to occupy or police key nodes to national power, and they've done a fair job of doing the same at the state level. However, there simply are not enough jews or jew-whores to police every political position available in local politics. At least not yet. And especially if the candidate is simply running on a generic 'good government' platform rather than something overtly WN.
Every single publicly-known 'pro-white advocate' who has ever run for office and succeeded in being elected has been (a) hamstrung by anti-White agents and not re-elected or (b) removed from office via recall. It does not pay to be a known White advocate, at least not yet. Pro-White folks should pursue public office at the lowest levels and get an understanding of the 'lay of the land' politically before attempting anything too overtly WN. While in office, WNs should seek to prevent the worst anti-White policies and argue for 'fairness' in ways that help Whites.
The reality is there isn't a thimble-full of knowledge about actual electoral politics in all of WN as currently constituted. So, at best, we're building from scratch. At worst, most WNs seem to have a very distorted view of politics simply by virtue of no one in positions of leadership having any real world experience.
Our guys (and gals) do not have to go out of their way to court controversy around their views. All they need to do is to wait for their opponent to raise the issue of race and then calmly support 'fairness' for Whites. 'Fairness' is how darkies and homosexuals and women gained all the power they have and it is the best *public* path to doing something for Whites.
So, I say people who actually want to get involved in real-life electoral politics to start very close to home. Volunteer and start to get an understanding of the system. Electoral politics is a job, it's not some skill-free consumption project. There are skills to be acquired and resources to be marshaled.
We need people whose qualifications for office need to be more than a willingness to throw the Roman salute.
"We need people whose qualifications for office need to be more than a willingness to throw the Roman salute."
I agree with that. Note I have written on this subject a number of times and there are advantages to a campaign even if there is no realistic chance of winning - propaganda, organization, pushing mainstream candidates further in our direction, destabilzing the System via political chaos and triggering anti-Whites to be more overt in their anti-whiteness. Fairness to Whites is fine and in areas where there is a high chance of winning may be useful for now. But at some point it would be useful to, every once in a while, try an overt explicit WN candidate and stir the pot and test the waters. The key though is not to throw away too much $$$ on that, but still, better to invest $$$ there than supporting Greggy and Sammy.
Whether a public campaign is a metapolitical success really depends on how that campaign is conducted. I’ve not seen a single public event conducted by ‘the racial right’ that wasn’t an embarrassment and that set our cause back by embedding the legitimate concerns of White people within a context of crass spectacle and empty posturing.
As for ‘triggering’ anti-Whites, nothing is simpler. The issue is whether after triggering them there is something to be gained in excess of the punishment the anti-Whites are able to deliver.
If a candidate ‘triggers’ the anti-Whites and then goes down in flames, that just reinforces their power. It does not undermine it.
What we need is people who have been trained to do the job doing the job and networking with others. Trying to do this kind of think in public is very, very hard but ‘smoke-filled back-rooms’ work very well. But to get those going, you first need people who are already ensconced in the system.
I have some ideas on how to run a campaign, but am saving that for the future. I have hopes that a friend of mine who once expressed interest at some point in the future does so. I would help.
The campaign I have in mind would not be the typical Nutzi retardation. But we can take a step forward from implicit MAGA to explicit defense of White interests.
If the candidate is reasonable and rational and doesn't back down, the triggering can be shown to be impotent. We need someone who won't go down in flames.