Jan. 25, 05 -- To Gary, One Leader per 20 Sheep, Sheep are slaves, Revolutions are Conservative, Government vs. Terrorists, Teamwork Trumps Anarchy, NS = good image

by Eric Thomson

25 JAN 05. Hail Gary! Thanks for your interesting & informative letter of 23 JAN.

Yes, I agree that good people are very hard to find. As was proved in the Korean War, no more than one out of every 20 people has leadership potential. The 19 out of 20 are sheeple, some of whom can become good followers, if they can be made to recognize their own best interests, & if they can find good leaders, as opposed to clever exploiters. Potential & actual leaders have initiative, so they don’t need to be told what to do. The leaders tell the sheeple what to do in their own best interests. Sheeples’ activities tend to go downhill, when they are left to themselves, for it takes initiative for one to put effort into work & leisure. The majority are passive & they prefer to sit & watch, usually TV, while eating junk food, drinking booze and/or smoking pot. They basically live to stuff their orifices with things that make them feel good, even if they become sick as a result. Sadly, many do not see themselves as much more than consumption-excretion units, who are entirely involved in material pursuits and/or kosher-commercial fantasy & entertainments.

As you say, it takes quite some doing to get such sheeple to rise up from their couches! Neither the ‘haves’ nor the ‘have-­nots’ want to be bothered by new information & ideas which may cause them to change their minds & their behavior. In addition to personal reasons, their relatives & associates may also object to any changes which are perceived as threatening their comfortable status quo, even if that status quo is poverty. Poverty is relative, & even very poor people may think. that they have something to lose, by changing their ways. Usually, it takes a desperate situation for people to realize that they have nothing to lose, & lots to gain, by changing their views & their behavior. This may be what some have called “objective conditions for a revolution”.

If we look at history, the jew, “Karl Marx”, declared in his Communist Manifesto: “Workers arise! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” The workers did not see their jobs as “chains”, but as their means of living. When there is freedom to starve, few people indeed will exchange subsistence slavery for “freedom”. The jews were able to take over Russia & its empire only because the empire’s people were starving. Every time Russia embarked on large, long wars, young men were taken away from food production. When that happened, food production suffered, & the Russian people along with it. The longer the war, the greater the hunger.That’s when the jews promised the starving, freezing Russian people: “Bread, Land & Peace!” Enough non-jews followed their jew bolshevik leaders to take over the largest cities & cause a civil war.

It has been observed that “revolutions are conservative”: People do not revolt against a regime in order to win things they never had, but to win back things they have lost. The Reds were only promising the Russians what they had before World War I, but that was the basis for their new, jew order in Russia. In China, Mao’s Communists promised land to the peasants, in exchange for their support. We know what that led to! The American rebels against King George III fought to regain their former colonial rights & prosperity. They did not fight to become “republicans” under a Freemasonic regime, nor did they wish to fight England in order to be ruled by The Bank of England, as it turned out after our alleged ‘independence’. What gets people to fight is usually quite different from the fight’s outcome, as we see in both wars & revolutions.

Another observation is that “politics (people-power) is defensive”. This is an explanation as to why rich people tend to be very interested in, as well as active in politics.This is because they have most to lose when change comes that is not to their liking. The less-rich will support the status quo & its regime, passively or actively, as long as they see it to their advantage. Popular inertia is the best support for any regime, for it takes lots of energy to overcome inertia. I have noticed this fact when I have occasion to operate steam locomotives. When starting up from a full stop, especially with a train, one must use more steam than is needed to keep the train rolling. In politics, the energy to overcome the inertia of the status quo may come in the form of economic, demographic or military crisis and/or hardship. This new situation must be sufficiently immediate & general in a population so as to produce “objective conditions for revolution”, and just as important: most people must see it as political, & therefore subject to political solutions.

Let us consider such possibilities: Imagine a local blackout due to normal malfunctions. Relatively few people are affected. They know people are working to solve the problem, so the best thing they can do is sit & wait. The rest of the population are not affected by it, so it is not their concern, unless they have relatives affected by the local blackout. But suppose the entire country is blacked out, all at once, for two or more days, by normal malfunctions. Everyone is affected. Some may riot & loot, but most believe that people are working to solve the problem. The latter, general blackout, is not perceived as a condition for revolution, for no human agency has claimed responsibility for it, & so far, no one has been blamed for it.

Now, let us consider what people would think if they learned that the first local blackout was the result of sabotage, committed by a 'terrorist' organization. Then, what would they think if they learned that the second, general blackout of the entire country was the work of the same group? And what would happen if the general blackout resulted in general hardship, as well as deaths? People would hate the “terrorists”, & if their government was ineffective at restoring the electricity on a reliable basis, people might even decide to organize themselves to guard electrical facilities and/or go after the “terrorists”. What would happen if people discovered & generally understood that their government was sponsoring the terrorists? Here is an example of objective conditions + politics = a revolutionary situation.

On a more likely viewpoint, such conditions could spark crime & ethnic turf battles, for Whites allegedly have lots to eat & little or nothing with which to defend it. The cry of the revolution would likely be, “Get Whitey!” This would not result in anarchy, but in gang warfare against White anarchists who refuse to organize. Gangs are teams & teams usually win against individual all-stars. That’s how the Romans won so many battles. The Germans defeated them by choosing their terrain, & enticing the Roman legions into the killing zone, where they could not form up in order to rely on their teamwork & discipline. In one-on-one combat, the Romans lost, but the Germans had to use teamwork & discipline in order to have their one-on-one battle of the Teutoburger Wald, under Hermann. If the Germans had been real anarchists, they could never have tricked the Romans into their trap.

Leaders have the ability to see farther than sheeple, in regard to oncoming events. A person with leadership potential would see the danger, in fact, the emergency created by someone throwing lighted matches at an open gas tank in a full parking garage. The sheeple might wait until a fire & possible explosion occurred. Some might wonder if the firebug would be able to ignite the gasoline. Others might wonder if he would run out of matches. We would hope that some sheeple had been warned that lighted matches & gasoline are dangerous to life & property, so they might react in their own defence, in time to stop the firebug/arsonist/terrorist .But, maybe not. I am not exaggerating, for I have seen sheeple die because they would not act, even when they had been told of the outcome of their inaction. I learned that in Rhodesia, & I see the same situation in North America. The fact that success is not guaranteed does not mean that we should not attempt to succeed, with all our strength, & all our commitment.

You have noted that most Americans are not White, but mixed, chiefly mestizos (Eurasians). Some are paler than others & even ostensible Whites have non-White relatives, including wives, girlfriends & associates. The ZOG officially counts mestizos as “White”. Check out the federal Wanted posters in the post offices. Your observations of mongrels suddenly rejecting pro-White ideas, because of what they are is as revealing as the fellow who lectured you on all the jew-fostered abuses, until you pointed out the kosher connection, with which he clammed up! You seem to have the right approach, so you can only keep trying to make worthwhile contacts & turn on some light bulbs in people’s minds.

As you say, our “image” is not improved in people’s minds if they deem us to be recruiters for some skinhead gang, with required regalia & tattoos, as well as violent & obnoxious behavior. White Power Politics must be presented with substance, rather than symbols or labels. We are like motorcycle salesmen who see no need nor desirability to identify our product with biker gangs, nor to say that one must join such a gang when one buys the bike. Rather, it is our duty to show non-gang members how a motorcycle benefits them! I was a National Socialist. in my values & behavior, long before I discovered that I was a National Socialist. If someone had come to me with the NS label, I might have rejected the concept, but maybe not, for I always enjoyed watching “Triumph of the Will”. I have spoken to audiences of skinheads, most of whom I’ve found pretty decent. I would try to explain to them that NS symbols & parades were only external signs of internal substance. The National Socialists did not fight to make the world safe for wearing Swastikas, but to make it safe for White children. To achieve that, they had to make the world safe for White parents, so they could raise their children. In regard to skinheads’ “rebellion against society”, I cautioned them by saying that no one escapes his society by remaining in it. One is always on top, in the middle or on the bottom. I said that rebels must be warriors, & that no warrior is a slave and/or crippled by drugs, booze, etc. The warrior seeks to change his society, by avoiding harmful substances & harmful behavior, so he or she can be strong. Warriors need weapons, & our greatest, most powerful weapon is knowledge, & the skills which are based thereon.

That is my approach: well-intended, motivated, and, hopefully, uplifting. I see things in their terms, for their benefit, not mine. Keep up the great work!

All the best, DOWZ! & ORION!


2005 Public Domain -- provided credit is given to Eric Thomson and www.martinlindstedt.org.



Over to DOWZ.net
Back to The DOWZ-Net Mirror Index
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Had Written -- But Didn't -- Resistance Columnists
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line or www.martinlindstedt.org