zxzt•

People are going to write this off because of the title, but the author is right.

It doesn't matter who has or doesn't have power. It matters who the people think has power and give power to. If you remember from Game of Thrones, there's the riddle of who you would take orders from if given 3 options - the king, the priest or the military general.

Many groups have their own in group governments, basically. The Amish and Muslims handle things on their own, without government influence. Many groups in New York also have their own police and ambulatory services where who knows what goes on.

As we are also seeing, when people stop following the law or break it en masse, many governments stop trying to enforce it, like with marijuana or illegal immigration. Both have laws against it, but the politicians don't care and friends don't punish friends.

16
[deleted]•

[removed]

3
zxzt•

To me the point of the riddle is to show that different groups emphasize different things so you should have your people follow the same guidelines. It also shows the people with power are the ones with swords in reality not the ones with a crown, a bible or a bag of gold.

The point is that just having the power isn't good enough. People have to believe you have the power and be willing to allow you to wield the power or else you end up with Stannis in the show, who was technically the legitimate king, but no one cared.

3
[deleted]•

People have to believe you have the power and be willing to allow you to wield the power or else you end up with Stannis in the show

But that proves you should have everyone believe in the same thing (aka whatever you put out as power). For instance in America who would you hedge makes it out alive? The rich man is the most likely? still a lot of Christians thought and trump supporters you really going to go with that one? In Iran who makes it out? The prophet obviously no one would ever bet on the other two. In nazi germany who would have won? Hitler obviously no one would ever bet on the other two. So you can see if you take a larger picture view of the riddle understanding what the populi is is the important part.

The point is that just having the power isn't good enough.

Ah except it is, the man with the sword isn't dying in any of the scenario's. The man with the true power is living regardless.

1
zxzt•

So you can see if you take a larger picture view of the riddle understanding what the populi is is the important part.

Different situations result in different outcomes. There's really endless moments in history you can point to. Even if the winner has little support it can work out okay and sometimes it hasn't.

Ah except it is, the man with the sword isn't dying in any of the scenario's.

Everything you do has some kind of consequence. All 3 groups have won or lost power in different situations, even if the initial result was a win or loss.

1
HarpetidaVicarious Student of Pierce•

I agree with all this, but we have to be careful nonetheless. Ruby Ridge and Mount Carmel were places where groups of people wanted to be off the grid and wanted their own autonomy. They each got annihilated by the deep state.

3
SkepticizerEthnocrat•

None of that matters. You either have political power or not.

1
zxzt•

But that doesn't matter either when you have a gun at your head.

2
SkepticizerEthnocrat•

You're proving my point. The people with the most guns have the most political power.

2
zxzt•

Not always or else governments would never get toppled.

3
sparkcoldOPWhite Nationalist•

There were people who thought that WWI was stupid, but supported it anyway because they thought it was accelerationist and would raise consciousness among working class Europeans and spontaneously provoke them into action. They thought that with a sufficient number of angry people, some of them would feel safety in numbers and do something about it consequently inspire others to follow. It's always someone else's role to make the first move. Sometimes this does happen in the form of a lone shooting or similar. So people here an alert about an active shooter. Do you think anyone, even those sympathetic to the motives is going to put down their coffee and think: you know what, I'm going help out this guy whoever the hell he is. Nobody likes to see dead bodies. White nationalists take no pleasure in violence. Sites like voat look gloomy/blackpilled and dip in traffic for a bit. Clearly this "propaganda of the deed" at best falls short of any worthwhile goal in all categories.

The next tactic I see is to persuade a group of us to pick up everything and move to a sleepy town in a flyover state and win the local election. This has never worked for multiple obvious reasons.

What has worked is parallel sovereign governments. Nobody needs to purchase a contiguous tract of undesirable land for this.

  • Declare the your garage the town hall even though there already is an official town hall.

  • Invite only unabashed pro-white, white and socially traditionalist friends to your town hall.

  • Create some kind mutually benefitial, useful infrastructure. u/zxzt mentioned parallel police and ambulances for various ethnic groups in New York. That could start as some kind of neighborhood security or getting a ride to the hospital. Maybe a Tesla powerwall to store excess solar power that utilities don't want to pay to feed back into the grid. In my hometown there were sizable populations of Russians and Koreans. After school they all went to what they called Russian math school or Korean math school because our public schools weren't good enough for them. I think they were just organized by the parents in private homes. I was invited to neither because I'm not Korean or Russian. But that's all good. None of the school administrators or bused in black kids complained to the Russian parents they weren't invited into their own private residential homes.

  • Muslims in the UK have their own parallel marriage and divorce courts. I think that's a great idea. We should steal that idea.

  • Nowadays we want to grow club memberships or subreddit subscriber counts, etc as large as possible until that community turns to shit. Remember when clubs had membership requirements? We all used to understand that only exclusive clubs, and organizations endure.

  • additional members will acquire the taste for pro-white mutually beneficial infrastructure when they feel the mental health benefits and ease of social trust that comes from being with your own kind. A lot of us have never felt that before. If anyone starts yakking about "diversity and inclusion" again they are free to go at it alone again. The Amish have this option and it's a very effective detox. The community detox reliably keeps them thoroughly Amish. Meanwhile, globohomo infrastructure is further neglected.

  • None of this will be recognized officially for the foreseeable future. Doesn't matter. White people are particularly good at building infrastructure that runs well. We also aren't a public nuisance. That's some utility and value. Individuals within organizations will interact with us on a personal level and that means they will ultimately opt to negotiate peacefully. They won't punish their friends who just helped them out with a thing and seemed reasonable. Negotiation implies they are giving us some of our own breathing room to make decisions. That's the path forward.

I anticipate detailed comments explaining how they could just crush us all no matter what. I don't doubt your reasoning, but instead, try thinking about ways in which that could not happen.

5
AMaleHuman3Eco-Fascist•

We’d need a private police force when/if it became a well known thing, as antifa and other assorted groups would harass and assault people who associate with the parallel government. That or have ourguys infiltrate the local police force so that they’ll actually stand up to communists.

3