> probably greater than a decade long ethnic conflict here The conflict will happen regardless, the only question is whether it will be ethnic in nature or not. > here or going somewhere else where there isnt a control system of judaism already established. Control system results from a non-uniform society that allows other demographics in. Can be done through any group, just some groups are better at it. Civic nationalism might be a short term solution, but I doubt it, considering its current iteration is almost entirely co-opted from what I can see. "old school" national socialism has some pull with younger generations, but thats a 20 year uphill climb when the west needs major solutions now, not decades from now. Nationalism with an ethnic *component, or a pro-euro (or "white adjacent" as the internationalist's propagandists call it) might work. it's a dangerous bugbear that lives in the heads of inner and outer party members, and so we'd have to approach it cautiously, because part of winning is keeping the enemy confused, in disarray, and dis-united. There are a number of ways of achieving that, chief among them competing opposition fronts whos conflicts are false, not unlike the way the internationalists use "competing" parties. By doing this, they can and will try to co-opt all sides, and if properly united behind the scenes, we can relay their plans, counter-act, and respond organizationally to remain flexible and maintain group unity toward the larger political goal of the movement. Ideally the approach is total in its idealogical vision and scope, that is, it represents a broad spectrum of beliefs in those competing fronts, allowing no genuine inner disagreement, but only outwardly appearing to in-fight. As the state therefore engages us, the more it will seem, like an amoeba reaching out, and playing grab ass with our organization. They'll waste time analyzing group conflicts. They'll waste resources attempting to infiltrate fronts we can just shut down and disband at a whim. They'll lose valuable political capital trying to break up one front, only for new ones to form and absorb prior members. They'll lose weeks, months, and years to fruitless infiltration and attempts at starting inter-group conflicts. And they'll be uncertain about motives, directions, planning, or overarching goal of the movement, or what other competing organizations even belong to it. The communists did it. The freemasons used to do it. And so can we, even on a much shorter timeline than them. All it takes is a group of people who 1. understand how this setup works (which is why I just explained it) 2. people bound by some serious bond or system of consequences 3. a single goal for all the groups to work toward. I think we should make that goal, the ousting of existing political power, and the replacement of it with our own. That is the only goal thats worth pursuing, and the only one that will preserve our people in the long term.