This post is a first-time occurrence, in that I will be answering some questions posed by a reader of the site in Germany- Kadphises. I like the idea of this, and I would encourage any other reader of the site to submit questions as well. I think it serves as a great catalyst to discussion and debate. Questions could be on any topic, even beyond the world of European civil conflict.
Here is Kadphises original comment:
Thanks a lot for putting up this great website! As a German who cares about the future of his country and the whole of Europe, I am happy to see that there are also young white Americans who care about the struggle of their ancestral homelands and are even willing to fight for the future of our continent!
I read your ideas with great interest, and would like to know your opinion on the following topics:
1. How important is it that the majority of the population backs our goals for the time after a European civil war or at least sees us as the lesser evil compared to Islamists and the traitors at the time when the war breaks out?
This is a surprisingly complex question. On the most basic level once anarchy and violence break out human beings will (I believe) do as they have always done and fragment into tribal units. As Jack Donovan writes, “men forming themselves into gangs is the most natural thing in the world”. Therefore to answer the latter part of your question, I think that the average “normie”, or, “moderately brainwashed White ethnic German”, will side with nationalist/Preservationist elements purely out of common sense and tribal affiliation, even if that seems to go against their politics.
If we look at scenarios in which anarchy has suddenly cropped up within Western democracies over the last few decades (for instance during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans), “multiculturalism” and “multiracialism” have immediately gone out the window, as men form themselves into gangs delineated by ethnicity and other “instinctive” forms of identity.
Therefore what I would argue is that all White ethnic Germans intrinsically know (deep, deep, deep down at least) that we are the lesser evil. Once anarchy breaks out they will immediately join with us. They have no alternative, as the Muslims certainly have sympathy for them. They would slaughter and enslave them just as they would any of us.
2. How to avoid that young white idealistic men sacrifice their lives in a war against Islamism, but in the end the traitor elites will be successful in their destruction of Europe and the extermination of the last remainders of a healthy white gene pool? I see this as a huge danger, especially when young guys become angry and radicalized without being completely red-pilled (not understanding the role the traitorous elites have played in flooding Europe with Muslim immigrants while bombing and destabilizing their home countries)
I think this question of yours belies great wisdom, for surely we have seen this already within the West over the last two decades. Many thousands of American and British men died fighting Muslims in the Middle-East and Afghanistan, while simultaneously their native lands were flooded with invaders from these same places.
This happened because many young men at that time still invested their loyalties in their native nations. That is increasingly not the case, especially vis a vis the armed forces. As the military in countries like the US and Germany increasingly becomes a social justice experiment/arena for the nutjob-elites to “garden”, and they fill it with women and homosexuals and transgenders, it will (obviously) lose the attractiveness it holds for men, since it will cease to offer them that which military service historically has: brotherhood, danger, sacrality, glory, and healthy outlets for masculinity and aggression (whether they could articulate this themselves or not). As this becomes the case, young men will instead invest their loyalties into different, non-state, 4th Generation identity groups. We can actually see this- not among Whites but among Blacks- in the recent police shootings in the US, in which African-American former US soldiers quit the armed forces after growing disillusioned with them, and then placed their loyalties within Black Nationalist paradigms.
3. How to balance the tasks of building up a family (we definitely need patriotic and intelligent white guys to build families and have children) and preparing for a civil war simultaneously? (concerning genetically healthy, heterosexual white men)
This is another great question. I agree these are both important needs and goals, and ones which can (to some extent) compete with each other.
I think each man just needs to find his own way, and keep both prerogatives firmly in mind. I certainly would not encourage any man to forego procreation for the sake of preparing for civil war, and I would also not encourage the opposite. I believe every man should attempt to lead an “ideal life”. For me personally, I believe this includes both having children AND participating in the upcoming civil war, and that is the (admittedly difficult) balance I will try to walk.
4. What do you think about bacon attacks (and maybe Muhammad posters and graffiti) on Salafist mosques and madrassas as well as Saudi and Turkish institutions (embassies, consulates, schools etc.)? Aren’t they a good way to draw attention to our cause and to show Muslim extremists that they are not welcome, while maintaining ethical integrity (the damage done is nearly exclusively symbolic/imaginary)? Every sane European citizen will see them as harmless pranks (more like a real-life Alt-Right style trolling), while the Islamists will demand harsh punishments for these ‘crimes’ and if their demands are not met are likely to overreact with violent protests.
This is an interesting question. I would define my thoughts in the following way.
-I absolutely DO agree that ethical integrity is important, and all 4GW “actions” should be thought out through this angle (which I often refer to as “congruency” vs “incongruency” with our people’s historical honor codes). I applaud you for keeping this in mind rather than jumping straight to a “kill them all” type mentality.
-I DO believe that violence perpetrated against immigrants often runs the risk of turning the native European perpetrators into a “Goliath” in the court of 4Gw perception, which is anathema to 4GW success.
-I also DO like the idea of executing our own actions in such a way that they instigate our opponents to act in ways that are deleterious to their own 4GW success.
-HOWEVER, I also think that it is very important our side’s actions match (in tone, significance, etc) the severity of the situation. In that regard I think that things such as hurling bacon at Mosques/Muslims, etc is actually bad idea, because it risks (in the court of 4GW perception) coming off as equating the seriousness of mass-Muslim immigration with the juvenile or silly. Because mass-Muslim immigration is (as you well know living in Germany) leading to untold thousands of deaths of our people each year, the mass-rape of our women and children, horrific acts of violence, and the likely eventual enslavement of our people, I think any retaliation must be of a tenor equal to such significance. As a result, I sympathize with violence against invading Muslims, and against the traitorous governments importing them. I do not encourage it, as that would be illegal, but I will declare that for European-Preservationists to triumph, their actions must mirror the life and death seriousness of the situation that confronts them.
5. Equivalently, shouldn’t we keep attacks on traitors symbolic as far as possible? It will be humiliating and newsworthy if a traitor is covered with urine and feces by a European preservationist, but there will be little reason to celebrate the traitor as a martyr/saint/hero afterwards, as has happened with Jo Cox, for example.
These is also a difficult one, and for many of the same reasons. Again I stress my agreement on the fundamental goal of acting ethically, and in being mindful of how actions and events will impact the broader struggle for the preservation of Europe.
As a result the murder of Jo Cox (as a stand-in for violence against traitors generally) must be looked at by itself, as well as in relation to its impact on the broader civil war.
Regarding the former, some might criticize me for being too dark or severe, but I do feel very strongly that Jo Cox did deserve to die. She abetted the mass-rape of thousands of 11-16 year old native British girls by adult Muslim gangs. These girls were enslaved, doused in petrol, urinated on, tortured, raped by 7+ men at a time, told their siblings would be raped if they didn’t comply, told their parents would be tortured and killed, and subjected to horrors more unspeakable than we can imagine. Jo Cox was absolutely complicit in this in multiple ways (as were countless other Labour Party members, policeman, social workers, etc who either were so brainwashed by Cultural-Marxism they didn’t care, or were so afraid of being labelled ‘racist’ by people like Jo Cox they were afraid to act out).
At the same time, while I think she deserved to die, I do not think Thomas Mair made the right decision by killing her, because killing women is not congruent with Northern European honor codes. As a result I think it would have been more appropriate had Thomas Mair selected a male Labour Party member of equal complicity in her place. I am choosing my words very carefully here, but they all lean towards the same sentiment as the previous answer, which is that Preservationst actions must be of a seriousness mirroring that of the existential threat Western Europeans face.
I would also delineate between my sympathies for such violence against traitors now, vs the same violence in a post-war situation. This is because I am actually opposed to the death penalty as punishment. As Gandalf says to Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, “Many who die deserve life, and many who live deserve death, but can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too hasty to deal out death in judgement, for even the wise cannot see all ends”.
Someday, after the war, we will gain possession of European territories and have to decide what to do with those traitors who abetted the destruction of Western Europe. At that time I will oppose killing them in judgement. However, today, as thousands of women and children are raped every day, and millions more enemy invaders enter our lands each year, I sympathize with all measures aimed at fighting back against those perpetrating the suicide/genocide, and consider such actions to be self-defense, rather than punishment (although I grant that some will not see the distinction).
Regarding the latter side of the equation, and the impact such events have on the broader narrative and broader war, we also must act deliberately. I believe that as long as targets of violence against traitors are selected in a manner congruent with Northern European honor codes, any “martyr-ization” of those targets will be more than counter-balanced, in the court of 4GW perception, by the tactical benefits of said action. So, while the media may use the death of such figures as a means to demonize the “far-right” (Preservationist) cause, any negatives resulting from this pale in significance to the benefit, which is that it shows regular “normies” that there are other native Europeans out there who feel these issues are worth dying for. This will cause those normies to question their own assumptions. As a result, just as Islamic terror attacks cause other Muslims to stop and think, “Is our religion worth dying and killing for?”, Preservationist attacks on traitors will cause ordinary Europeans to stop and ask themselves “Is preserving Europe and avoiding Islamization worth dying and killing for?”, which I believe most will (eventually) answer in the affirmative.
Much thanks again to Kadphises for the excellent questions! I have the feeling you (Kadphises) and I would agree on 99% of things were we to really hash them out, and I consider you a brother and fellow warrior in arms, as I do all who read this site and long to free our people. I am still far from Europe’s shores and as a result will be the first to acknowledge my lack of expertise/first hand on the ground involvement with these issues. Like all of us though I am striving to set myself up to be on the front lines when the battle comes, and the more of us who are successful with such goals, the greater Europe’s chances of survival are. In closing…
A Sword Day, A Red Day, Ere The Sun Rises.
Editors Note: Question to readers- what do you think? What would be your answers to the above questions? Please chime in!