by Eric Thomson
I enjoyed our sparring session in regard to people and ideas, and I agree that we should put all negativity aside in our endeavors to create a White Nationalist organization. We must take care, however, that we do not thereby create a monstrosity which is so diverse in ideology and membership that we cannot agree on any policy, program or plan of action. If, for example, one member advocates "leaderless resistance", while another wants to structure an organization based on the "Führerprinzip" or leadership principle, we would go nowhere until such differences were resolved. As you know, I am not in a position to bankroll much of anything, so I am not denying my financial resources to "the movement" out of personal spite. While I may not be able to supply Our Race with the political organization it may require, I at least try to supply ideas and information to anyone who can make use of them, and whenever I do encounter someone who seems capable of starting a viable movement on behalf of Our Race, I am also willing to empty the garbage.
To the extent that people in "the movement" do not like nor wish to use my observations and ideas on racial matters, I cannot contribute. To the extent that I lack the time for more research and more writing, my possible contributions of value to "the movement" are further reduced. I say again, that you will find no attacks on persons in my published writing, save for the hatchet-job on Mason which was requested by Dietz in Issue #1 of White Power Report.
In order for us to be most effective, we must be able to work with like-minded people who agree on (1) who is White and who is non-White and (2) how to use our scarce resources toward the fulfillment of The 14 Words. Once again, we can do very little until we find such people with whom we can work on projects of mutual agreement. Our medium of communication must be the most effective possible. I do not wish to seem 'negative', but I do think that words on paper is a fast-fading means of communication, although I was trained as a reporter in 'the old school' of newspapers using hot type, and I even learned to set type from a California job case as a junior high school student. I did freelance reporting for The Signal, a local newspaper in Newhall, CA, when I was a junior in high school. My editor was a hard-bitten character who told me "to get all the names" at any function or meeting, for people will buy a paper to see their names in it. He also wanted me to editorialize in favor of people about whom my report was written. I was scandalized, for I'd been taught that reporters should never express opinions in news articles. Nevertheless, my editor demanded that I always describe the bride as "beautiful" and her dress as "stunning", &c. Then he would 'slime' his hand-rolled cigarette, strike a big kitchen match on the rump of his ink-spattered bluejeans and attempt to relight the soggy, disgusting protrusion between his bearded lips. I calculated that it took him at least 5 kitchen matches to smoke one of his slimy, soggy butts.
The newspaper was more or less a weekly publication and it was done on a flatbed printing press which was run by electricity, although it was probably operated previously by a steam engine, and prior to that, by slaves. He taught me to be curious, even nosey, about people and events, ever in search of a "good story" (one that would sell newspapers). I was wiser than I knew when I kept my nosiness to more moderate levels, since there were, even then and there, people who'd kill to keep their affairs out of the news. No, I was not 'dying' to have such material published. Later, I learned that there were some 'good' stories which no editor dared touch, let alone print, so 'survivalist' reporters who knew of such matters shunned writing about them for 'health reasons'. Although I was brought up on movies about heroic reporters and crime-fighting newspapers, I could distinguish between fiction and reality.
You may remember the film, "The 3 Days of the Condor", starring Robert Redford. Redford who works for a spook outfit has learned something which could be very damaging to petroleum interests, as I recall, similar to one of my research findings in Peru. He tells his almost-assassin, the Swedish actor whose name escapes me, that he will go to The New York Times with his story. Sydow, if I have the name correctly, tells him not to get his hopes up that they will publish his findings. I'd go a bit further and ask him what he would expect the readers to do about it, if they ever did read the article. As you know, there are definite limits to the power of words, no matter how important we deem them to be. Unorganized, individual readers may well agree that the article is important, but some have told me, "What can I do about it?"
Most people are not political soldiers whose affairs are in such order that they can move rapidly from one front to another or even engage the enemy where they reside. As Robert Frenz says, the White Revolution must begin within every individual. It must then determine his priorities and his behavior. Most Whites would rather go fishing, to use a cliché, for their first obstacle to pro-White action is themselves, then their family members. People whose first priority is to 'go fishing' or otherwise enjoy themselves with the many facets of consumerism are neither mentally nor physically prepared for pro-racial action. OUR first priority must be that of reaching like-minded, effective people via the most efficient medium of communication. This communications medium is now the Internet. As Joan says, she uses it most for E-mail and keeps pretty much out of idle, insulting, uninformative 'chatrooms'. Well, E-mail is good for communicating with people whose names and addresses one already knows, but websites are good for contacting new people. The sooner we do this, the better. That is why I hope you, Joan and anybody else can put your computer to use in this manner. It is the electronic equivalent of raising a banner and finding out who if anyone, will salute it. That is what I have done via the spoken and written word, and with Robert Frenz' help, that is what I still do, via his netsite. Of course, Robert puts his articles on it, as well, so there may be confusion as to my opinions versus Robert's. He uses many of my phrases in his opinion pieces when he attacks the people of his choice on the Internet. I do not waste time or print on personal squabbles in my articles which are intended to inform and to motivate fellow Whites. When we devote our precious medium of communications to such squabbles, we alienate potential supporters and we build up the reputation of those with whom we quarrel, as Dietz accomplished in regard to Mason, over my keen objections. Readers wrote in, wondering at all the effort we were going to in building up Jim Mason with so much print.
My editorial policy remains what I wrote about our objectives in that first issue of White Power Report, which was designed to promote White Nationalist Unity by reporting movement activities and publishing articles submitted by anyone which had a bearing on such goals. The fact that we went without such support and reaped verbal attacks, rather than articles, did not negate the value of our attempt to build bridges upon the basis of mutual interest. At the risk of misquoting you again, I think that "movement" people saw us as competitors, rather than collaborators, for we did not subordinate ourselves to their particular egos and organizations.
Since I do not have my own publication, I permit anyone to use my articles, as they see fit, in their publications and/or their websites. Obviously, I have no control over their articles or opinions.
Over the decades, I have ghost-written hundreds of articles, newsletters and research items on behalf of the Racial Nationalist Cause, including black propaganda pieces, to such an extent that I am even surprised at the volume of my material.
I do not think anyone is justified in calling me an egotist. No egotist would devote so much time writing anonymous articles and articles for others, as well as correspondence, to which others signed their names.
One Englishman who visited Samisdat (Zündelhaus) when I was in Toronto, winked and said to me, "I know who writes the English newsletters, after having spoken with you." I grinned, but said nothing. As far as everyone knew, those newsletters were written by Ernst Zündel. If I had been so egotistical as to have signed my name, I'd have been kicked out of Canada in short order. If this be egotism, let us make the most of it.
As I told Don who was grousing about Covington, others who claim to be proponents of "the movement" are not obstacles in our paths, nor are they really our competitors who are drawing off 'our support'. WE are the masters of our policies and ideas, and if these items do not 'sell' with prospective supporters, then it is not the fault of others who are not quite on our wavelength. That is why I advise all who have activist intentions to 'do their thing' and see if they can build an organization under their own leadership.
In regard to Tom Metzger, what I told you about the ZOG-seizure of videotapes I got from a Metzger supporter in Toronto who had me send him all the tapes. That fellow was in contact with Metzger and had visited him on several occasions. Since Tom does not communicate with me, that is my only source for what I told you about the videotape seizure. I don't know whether Tom received all the tapes I mailed, and I don't know if he found any of them of use if he did receive them. All I know is what I was told, which may be wrong, but it was in no way intended as a criticism of Tom in regard to his video programs, which are the most effective medium of communication because of his Race and Reason TV programs. This, rather than his print publications, is most effective, and I hope he knows it.
I am not Robert Frenz, nor Harold Covington, so their opinion of Tom is not mine at all. My sole observation about Tom is that he spoke of 'WAR', but maintained a bourgeois lifestyle with income and property which the ZOG could seize. After his many decades in CA and his many contacts, he could not achieve the guerrilla economy of the jew, Roy Cohn, who 'owned' nothing, but had everything, albeit in others' names.
In wartime, we need to conceal our supply dumps and communications from the enemy, as much as possible. One fellow commented to me that we appear to write stuff about the enemy which we do not heed ourselves. If we do not appear to believe our own words, then how can we expect others to believe us?
I said to Joan that my attempt to build a network via the Internet was less successful than my previous attempts to build such a network via the printed media at Liberty Bell and at Samisdat. The printed word obtained Zündel's present supporters who amply fund his operations, but the Internet does not, although he reaches many more than he ever did before the Internet existed. I now reach many more people than Liberty Bell ever did, but their response to my articles is virtually nil, even though I do not expect to receive money from subscriptions.
When I encounter a writer with whom I agree, I try to contact him or her, by letter, phone or E-mail. As far as I know, I have had only 3 contacts via the Internet: 2 were requests for my nonexistent booklist and one 'interested' writer used a phoney return address, so my letter bounced. This observation was not intended to discourage anyone's efforts to reach others via computer. I am prepared to accept the possibility that no one is interested in what I have to say and/or that no one agrees with my articles, at least no one on the Internet so far. Any medium is only as effective as those who use it, which includes the receivers of a message, as well as the senders. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam." I can offer the knowledge gleaned from my research and my experience to any follower or leader who cares to make use of it. With my present means, I cannot do more than that, no matter how much I may agree with anyone, or how much I may disagree with them. The fact that some success or failure occurred "in the past" does not negate its educational value in the present, as you mentioned in regard to MEIN KAMPF. This is what we have to offer younger activists, if they care to ask us. The future always resembles the past in many aspects, but it takes a good observer to determine what lesson, if any, we shall seek to use as our model for assessing present and future events.
The USA has been likened to ancient Rome or ancient Babylon, in regard to the causes and conditions of its eventual collapse; the symptoms which Oswald Spengler describes in "The Decline of the West" are present and obvious. Can the political activist make use of such intellectual models in the formulation of a program? Hitler did. We should learn from past experience, but we should also avoid the pitfall of the generals who prepared to fight the previous war.
Our use of Holohoax revisionism as a means of building a worldwide movement was consciously decided upon by Ernst Zündel and me, at the kitchen table in the Samisdat building. The TV film, "Holocaust", was about to be broadcast and we agreed that this was going to be a big push on the part of the Zionists, so we used THEIR media to publicize our position, in typical jiu jitsu fashion, as Skorzeny would have understood. We could not have done it otherwise. The fact that Zündel threw the ball away in the middle of the game is no reason to think that our choice of issue and tactics were invalid. As I said, we obtained sufficient physical support in Toronto to defeat the JDL thugs, who got nasty bruises on their machismo by being knocked on their kosher kiesters, not by 'Nazi brutes', but by ostensible supporters of a publishing house, a bunch of scribblers and bookworms! Funny thing how toting all those books can build so much muscle.
Every day we fought our way into the courthouse, under the lenses of the massed videocameras of the newsmedia, was a propaganda victory and it was well worth the black eyes and torn clothing a few of us, including myself, received from the jews.
What failed in our propaganda, before our choice of the Holohoax issue, was our direct appeal to Whites as Whites. This propaganda achieved 2 main things: (1) it got all the "Great White Chiefs" to backbite us and (2) it attracted swarms of nignogs, golliwogs and other non-Whites who were 'wannabes'. The Holohoax-resistance issue attracted more Whites, and more effective ones, than did our pro-White propaganda per se. Maybe times have changed that, and maybe not.
Please do not mistake my observations for 'negativism', for I enjoy a good fight as such as any Viking. My intentions are always to inform, not to discourage, activists. The 'negativism' in my message is that all incipient activists take care to have their eyes open and their hands on the steering wheel before they jam their feet on the gas pedal. As the jew social activist Sol Alinsky noted, poverty does not ennoble the poor. By the same token, one's victimization at the hands of the ZOG does not confer leadership upon the victim, but it should provide all White activists with useful lessons. We should not emulate lemmings, even when they claim to be on "our side".
21 September 1998