The Message Comes First
The consistent frustration for the nationalist is the noise that always accompanies his message and which aggravates its reception. In the nomenclature of communication studies ‘noise’ doesn’t connote sound per se but instead refers to the many ways in which the message having been delivered by the sender becomes interrupted on its journey to the receiver. Noise can denote language difficulties, as in unfamiliarity with the vernacular, confusion over a word’s meaning, or a misunderstood inflection, just to offer a very few examples. The sender and receiver are not always on equal terms so the sender’s message is not guaranteed to be received in the order that he intended.
Noise has constantly bothered the nationalist message and much of it has been deliberately generated. Long have conservatives interrupted our message and muddled it into something which favours their own transmissions. Likewise, the media, and those with a social interest in undermining the nationalist message work overtime to drown us out. Indeed, they have found it much more efficient to go straight to the source and subvert the sender ensuring that his message is fraught with noise before he even sends it.
However, this is just part of the problem: the greater foil is the receiver who has been conditioned to reject the message. Put simply, it is pointless for a nationalist to burden himself with the mission of preaching a message when the sender has been tuned to a non-receptive frequency. Australian nationalism is not tyrannical but it has long been associated with ‘Nazis’ in people’s minds. Since both neo-Nazism and Australian nationalism are concerned with race it is a tough job getting the receiver to understand that just because apples and oranges are both fruits doesn’t mean they are the same.
We can, of course, bring into account how our enemies have deliberately affected our message by blurring the two ideologies with noise. A good example of this is the young fools some of whom are to be found in the Alt-Right who find great joy in their social media activities of provoking the mainstream with Hitler memes and optics calculated to shock. Their irresponsible activities have had consequences for serious nationalists who find themselves tarred with the same brush. Following the shootings at the Christchurch mosques, police rounded on one Australian nationalist, arresting him not on the basis of the bogus charges they laid, but because their leaders have adjudged him to be the same animal as the shooter, who was radicalised in among the Alt-Right social media boards. They could not comprehend, nor would be willing to be apprised of the crucial differences in worldview.
Yet, the more sober reality putting aside all these ancillary nuisances is the fact that much of our people simply have no nationalist inclinations. These are the apologists for the very system which is erasing all memory of them: in fact, they have been habituated through social institutions to actively assist in their own erasure. Truly, they go beyond arguing the merits of a policy designed to repudiate their very existence, they are its most virulent advocates. Thus, when a nationalist decries the ravages of non-White immigration all the truth of his words is invalidated as ‘racism’. Any discomforting content of his message is easily dismissed on that basis by the receiver who can then go on to be insulated by the reinforced denial that comes of being converse. In short, it is no longer the mess of non-White immigration that is heinous but anyone who would be so wrong as to call it a mess. Likewise, the mess itself is not seen as a mess but rather a correct order troubled only by the existence of the sender and his unwelcome messages.
So troublesome is this ungovernable reality that it has caused nationalist leaders to ponder ‘strategy’ and compromise that message by being so invested in the receiver that they’ve forgotten that what matters most is the message. Subsequently, those such as Nick Griffin formerly of the British National Party (BNP), experimented disastrously with mainstreaming as a consequence of this preoccupation with the sender. The result was that not only did the message become fragmented but the senders themselves were ruined. Following in his example were certain Australian players who wrought untold damage by rejecting the core of the nationalist message in favour of something they deemed to be more pleasing to the sender.
If you’ve been following this so far, the only reasonable conclusion to draw, if one is satisfied and convinced of the correctness of his message, is that the problem does not reside in the message but lies entirely with the unreceptive receiver. Such receivers will drain all the energy and morale of the sender. Not only is the sender dealing with the inevitable external noise interfering with his message but that the pre-existing noise which exists inside this type of receiver.
Having employed this method to explain the problem, we’ll now just say that in light of this it is time for nationalists to stop worrying about the receiver and concern themselves solely with the message. It is not for us to convert those of our people who put up resistance to what we have to say: they must liberate themselves of their own ignorance and come to us. It is not a matter of us coaxing and reassuring these people just because we happen to be the same race for, they will exhaust and grind us down instead. We must be resolute in our goals, and determined in our mission, but also absolute in our conviction! For, at any rate, it is a poor spectacle to behold a revolutionary who is grovelling for acceptance rather than asserting his presence.