I recently visited siblings with whom I am fairly close. We agree on pretty much everything about the current way of the world and its destructive tendencies. They are not as far down the rabbit hole as me with this truth-seeking mission, but they are well on their way. But what you realise is some friends of these family members can be too far gone. This short article is about my thoughts about blending into the crowd as a nationalist, ‘riding the tiger’ on contemporary society, hiding in plain sight, and not showing your full ‘power level’ in order to navigate the modern world as a nationalistic New Zealander.
I found the general population is split into a few levels of awareness and understanding which I think is important to expand on in this article. You have a level in which people are fully on our side and actively play a role in fighting what I will refer to as globo-homo, or liberal globalisation broadly speaking. You then have a group who are aware of what is going on, agree with most aspects, but are not at that stage of getting personally involved but will speak openly and frankly about these issues if asked. For example, this is the stage my sibling is at, who is quite happy to openly discuss contentious subjects. You then have a level of individual who notices something is not quite right but are too absorbed in their bourgeois middle-class life to wish to go out of their way to combat it. They could see this as problematic and a threat to their lifestyle so they keep quiet about things until asked the right questions. But they are often just a bit of encouragement away from moving to the next level of attentiveness. Then the next level is a group that simply does not care. They do not necessarily support either side and tend to be oblivious to everything going on around them. They could be described as epitomising an individualistic and materialistic worldview. You could potentially get them to agree with you on a whole range of subjects in principle, but they then respond with ‘I don’t care’, it is not my problem, it is not affecting me yet. We usually refer to these people as NPCs or normies to use culture-war slang. These people could potentially be mobilised but because nothing has directly affected them yet they feel they do not need to. Finally, we have our enemy who has achieved peak liberalism. Factual information, logical reasoning, and common sense do not apply to these people. They are actively looking for arguments and to attack every form of our ancestors and also our traditions that they see around them. Anything that resembles something greater than materialistic and technicised existence is demeaned as backward, racist, officious, etc. They could get a giant slap of diversity, inclusion, and culture in the face via street violence in their local area which they have gentrified into their perfect worldview. However, they do not care. The goal is to tear down everything around them because the structure through which they view the world demands a liberal-minded overhaul, whereby the sacred and the ethereal cannot exist. You cannot reason with them so I find it is easy to identify them and disengage from them which I will explain shortly.
We could split our enemy up further into classes of soldiers and generals. The generals come up with the rhetoric that is then spouted by the often-vacuous soldiers. The soldiers do not fully understand what they are saying but because they heard a celebrity say it on the television or social media, they believe every word of it. You generally only deal with soldiers in your day-to-day lives. I believe that these are some basic, but fair, ways to describe the general population we live with who engage with political and philosophical debates on even a meagre level.
Getting back to visiting my sibling. They had a little social gathering in celebration of us visiting them. We were to socialise with their friends whom I had not met before. I had passively heard them talking about them in the past but after meeting them, they were made up of the abovementioned examples. As a nationalist, how do you navigate these social situations without putting a giant target on your back for our enemy? Sometimes I hear our enemy speak and I just want to tell them exactly how I feel, an explosion of verbal swords piercing our enemy’s worldview. But most of us know from experience that is not an effective strategy at this moment in history. Our enemy will take this is as a personal attack and use the victimhood hierarchy to try and swing the conversation from truth to one of pure unreasonable emotion.
They will make the conversation awkward in the group and try and ostracise you from it. They will cry, lie, and cheat when they know their arguments are weak. A direct confrontation with these people in a group setting, such as a party, is often a poor decision. Our enemy will probe us with questions or go fishing with statements to try and draw you out. We will really struggle to get these people on our side, so why bothering wasting time and effort on them? We need to focus our attention on people we can make a difference with, people who are almost on our side but lack those one or two redpilling facts that can make a difference. I find speaking in person can be much more effective than speaking over the internet. We need to implant the seeds of knowledge in their brains so that one day they wake up and realise what they have allowed to manifest around them. But in saying this we cannot drop too much information all in one go as the human brain will become overwhelmed. In a social setting such as this, we risk alerting our enemies if they are present. So these conversations must be conducted in such a way that they will not set off our enemy. Because on the off chance they are listening in on your conversation, they need to be oblivious or not fully understand these pointed statements. I would only drop uncensored truths when you know you do not have any enemies around you. Our enemy can make our life hard in a social circle or the wider community if they feel aggrieved enough to do so. So it is best to identify them quickly before you start moving into your talking points. Be careful around too much alcohol as it can cloud your judgment.
An international example of an enemy safe conversation would be supporting Palestine and their plight for freedom against their Zionist overlords. The traditional ‘right-wing’ view you hear in the media is to be anti-Islamic and pro-Zionist. You see this with certain shills like Tommy Robinson or hosts as well as guests on Fox News. We do not want this and we know who our enemy generals are. For some strange reason, it is now perfectly acceptable to bring them up when mentioning this conflict. Our enemy generals do not know how to process and oppose this yet, calling everyone an antisemite or mentioning the holocaust doesn’t really work anymore. With all their connections and control over the media, they have managed to fall on the wrong side of the conversation with a lot of people. Even with Israel embracing globo-homo on a scale unmatched by a lot of places. We can use this to our advantage in this case because our enemies will not criticise this. But in saying this I do not fully support Palestine either. But we can use this situation to weaken our enemy and bring more people on our side by starting a conversation that leads to some inconvenient truths which we normally cannot start. On more of a local level, it is as simple as mentioning crime statistics of certain areas with examples of stories that do not necessarily mention ethnicity but are hugely suggestive of who it is that is involved. Degeneracy such as a certain male to female weight lifter at the Olympics is a good one because the slippery slope analogy can be used very effectively here. Corrupt foreign businesses buying up local areas that take them away from the public, a great one was a water springs problem a few years ago with the Chinese. Another is the unsustainable immigration that has a huge effect on Our country’s environment, job market, housing market, communities, traditions, and overall culture. I usually start with unaffordable housing which then leads onto the other talking points that lead to more vital ones such as those mentioned above. By carefully wording your statements you can bypass our enemies no-no word filters and deliver an effective argument to people sitting on the fence. The beauty of this is eventually they will seek you and ask more questions later away from the crowd, and that is when you can really get going.
Remember we do not need to get 100% of all people on our side to make the difference needed to win. Just enough nationalists in specific places, performing specific tasks. We need an elite collective of New Zealand nationalists that can make a difference in the long run. So pick your targets well.
Julius Evolva discusses the idea of riding the tiger in his book titled Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul, a text commonly read by nationalistic-minded audiences for its rejection of modern ways of thinking. I, along with others, interpreted the notion of one’s riding of the tiger to describe the necessity of overcoming obstacles that the modern world throws at you by existing semi-harmoniously within its bounds. If you enrage the tiger too much before the tiger is weak enough so that you can fight it, it will kill you. Although Evola himself would likely criticise many aspects of modern nationalistic movements, as he did with the ones during his era, it is worth borrowing his understanding of ideas when contemplating our situation. When relating the notion of riding the tiger back to blending into the crowd in contemporary gatherings, we do not want to die on the hill that is telling a common liberal exactly what we think simply because of the potential backlash. It will not accomplish anything major just yet because the majority of them in our day-to-day lives are small-time soldiers. We are not ready as a collective to undertake such disputes while the tiger maintains its strength. When we are ready and the tiger is weak then it is time to take these battles – and we are getting close. This is just one of the key points of many I gathered from this book. But I think it is very relevant with the theme of the article of blending in with the crowd.
In sum, there are a plethora of ways to exist as a nationalist in the modern world, albeit some roads are harder than others. With a specific focus on well-thought-out points of discussion and practicing self-control when participating in such discourse, a nationalistic-minded person can make advances without rattling the Tiger’s cage too rigorously. Being chewed apart by the Tiger, after all, will often fail to contribute to building a better future for us and ours. What is important is that we remain sincere, for it is, precisely, life or death.