Unfortunately, this is the case for BNP, they lack "reputational shields" on a couple of
areas, lacking a secondary platform and ”un-tainted” leadership.
For example, a party that has a legacy as an agrarian party will be able to use its
reputation shield to fend off criticisms from other elite actors accusing the party of racism
and extremism. By contrast, old fascist parties or brand new parties do not have such
reputational shields at their disposal when facing such criticism. Second, a voter can
more easily justify voting for a party proposing radically restrictive immigration policies to
his or her peers and community as not being an act in support of racism or extremism if
the party in question is known for promoting "other policies", too. Third, voters can more
easily justify their choice to themselves as not being motivated by racism when the party
in question has a ”reputational shield”.
BNP and a few of these parties really needs a solid "secondary platform. F example as a
"tax cut" party, or "law and order" party. It will take them a few years if they avoid
making future mistakes (if they implement this agenda). The potential is there.
All anti-Islamisation parties of Western Europe should study the "Norwegian model". The
Progress Party, currently the most successful anti-immigration party in Europe,
(www.frp.no) currently enjoying 27% on the polls (q1 09) and received 22% last
election. It has a "reputational shields" as it started out as a "tax cut" party but took on
anti-Immigration in the early 90’s. They have a good strategy where "modern rhetoric"
and several "female" spokespersons is a part of the picture.
Britain, France, and Sweden are stuck in this quagmire in particular. Tainted "right wing"
leaders (background from racial conservative movements) who are indirectly dissalowing
the Jihadi resistance movement from reaching its full potential. However, as noted in
another chapter, it is unlikely if remaining too moderate in the foreseeable future will
allow any party to gain any influence whatsoever though. Perhaps remaining small and
much more “hardcore” is the way to go afterall? Germany, on the other hand, is a special
case though. The country still suffers from severe psychological trauma and is simply
unable to mount any form of political defence.
2.77 Cultural conservative/nationalist rhetorical strategies
To focus on a specific issue first. Using progressive and tactical rhetoric. Using
appropriate rhetoric is essential in communicating a message successfully.
The word "race", “white”, “ethnic” or "nationalist" for that matter should never be used in
modern debates with adversaries or individuals who may have been subject to severe
indoctrination. These words are so stained by history and post-war media coverage that
you are basically just undermining yourself and the message you seek to communicate
by actively using them. It’s wise to limit the use of all words that has stigma attached as
well as or the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist mainstream media will attempt to label you
as a bigot. If you use the word "race" you are basically contributing to committing
character assassination of yourself or will contribute to self-defeat of the organisational
goals you are representing. You need to understand the following; the modern European
man/women has been indoctrinated or conditioned in a way that he is likely to run for
the hill or active subliminous mental defensive blocks if you use rhetoric containing these
words in your attempt to reach out to him or her. Ill try to explain this more throuroughly
as this applies to me as well. In a world where the absolute arch sin is to be a Nazi,
words who are associated with Nazis must be avoided at all costs, regardless of the
justification for associating them with given ideology. I have researched this quite
throuroughly as I have discussed immigration, European identity and culture with
hundreds perhaps thousands of individuals over the years. My intention for discussing is
often to reaffirm my beliefs by getting the individuals to agree with me (which is normal
when you discuss politics with someone). In other words, I am initially assessing the
individuals knowledge level before deciding which rhetorical strategi I am to use. If he is
a humanist (naive), I will use a specific approach, a different one if he is a true cultural
Marxist and yet another if he is a capitalist globalists. I have programmed in perhaps a
hundred different rhetorical approaches wheter the individual is a national Bolshevik or a
laizzes faire capitalist.
included most of the facts and arguments I actively use in this compendium so everyone
has the opportunity to become a master debater if he or she so chooses. The clue to win
over new sympathisers or supporters it done efficiently by telling them how the world
works but by asking the right questions or rather excellent arguments disguised as
I use demographical data a lot, f example: Lebanese example (once a Christian country,
now Muslim) and add:
What is your reasoning for believing that Western Europe will not end up as Lebanon from a
And if, let’s say, Western Europe is likely to end up as Lebanon, shouldn’t Europeans be
allowed to prevent this from happening?
Or a couple of other examples:
You say that preserving Tibetan culture is a just cause, that the Chinese strategy of
dempgraphical warfare using Han Chinese settlers is immoral. Why do you then oppose
European patriots trying to preserve European culture?
You claim that you are an anti fascist. But why do you ridicule Europeans demonstrating
outside Wahhabi Mosques when Wahhabism is clearly a fascist ideology. Doesn’t this make
you a hypocrite?
Using fact based arguments disguised as questions are killers and works extremely well.
I have coached several hundred individuals around the world in rhetorical strategies and
have thus contributed to win over hundreds perhaps thousands of new supporters and
I have aprox. 2500 Facebook contacts at the moment. Whenever I put up a new story
(usually involving the current suicide of Europe) I get many comments. My general rule is
to delete all posts containing naughty words (listed above). The reason is that these
words act as deterrents and paralyzes the debate. Patriotic “more politically correct”
individuals who would normally comment will be afraid to comment after a any definition
of “blurp posts” containing f example one or more words: “white” “race” “genocide” “civil
In their mind they are terrified to somehow be associated with given individual as they
fear being labelled as a racist. The thought paralyzes them and activates their self
preservation mechanics which again tells them NOT to post. It’s sad but we cant really do
anything but to adapt to the reality that so many patriots are indoctrinated to a point
where they are completely brainwashed.
Whenever I ignore sensor of these words in debates, I end up with 5 or less
commentators. On the other hand, if I sensor any comments containing these words I
usually get more than 15 individual commentators (TRIPLE the amount).
The lesson we can learn from this and other examples are: the end goal is the only
relevant thing. Containing your rhetoric within certain politically correct parameters is the
only logical approach to go. Not doing is will often be counter productive or self
The example of self containment should be used in other rhetorical circumstances as
well. We have the truth. Now HOW do we communicate the truth most efficiently? There
are counter productive ways and optimal ways to communicate the truth based on which
individual or target group you are communicating to.
If your target group is clearly a victim of systematic institutionalised indoctrination like
most humanists are, telling the truth directly, “in simple words”, will just contribute to
activate their mental defensive mechanisms which will scare them away. Instead, you
must articulate yourself through very vague illustrations which almost indirectly will allow
the individual to ask himself essential questions (also known as mental conditioning or
anti-indoctrination rhetorical strategies). For examples, see essays published at sites with
more moderate cultural conservative lines.
Evaluating one example:
Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology used to deconstruct European cultures,
traditions, identities and national states.
This statement would be just too brutal and direct for many indoctrinated people and
would possibly scare them away. There is always room for considering what is the most
optimal thing to say and what is counter productive. I’ve seen several 10 page essays
which boils down to the above conclusion, brilliantly written. In many cases, that 10 page
essay could win a supporter while the small statement could scare them away. It all
depends on the individual and of course what your goal is. For a large pan-European
organisation with huge ambitions it would be smart to think long term and tread softly,
while individuals who are debating 1 on 1 or with a smaller audience will usually use
more “powerful and direct rhetoric” usually designed to ridicule or undermine rhetorical
Preserving your reputation shields to achieve maximum penetration/ influence
towards all target groups
Let’s say you are a spokesman who wants to target various conservative groups (with
different ideological backgrounds – percentage indicates current potential for
Hardcore white supremacists or certain hardcore NS (>5%)
White nationalists – 14 words etc. (>10)
Cultural conservatives (15-30%)
Moderate cultural conservatives (critical to multicult) (30-35)
Pro-multiculturalist conservatives (40-60%)
Different types of rhetorical strategies must be applied to all the above groups. Usually a
serious political party will use quite moderate cultural conservative rhetoric knowing that
he will by default win all the more dedicated sympathiser base.
If you use rhetorical strategies designed for group 5 you will appeal to all the other
groups etc. However, if you use rhetoric designed for group 3 you will be considered too
extreme by target group 4. and 5.
Preserving your reputational shields involves using the correct rhetoric. Which groups
would you want to reach out to in the future. Think 10 -20 – 30 years ahead. Because
past choices will be used against you by the cultural Marxist establishment should you
ever choose to become “more ambitious”.
Sadly, this is not the case with the left wing as Barroso is a clear example of. It is a well
known fact that he used to be a member of the Portuguese Communist party, yet NO
media company has ever tried to character assassinate him as they would have done
with any and all cultural conservative.
Opportunistic political parties or larger organisations may decide to “sell out” their most
essential principals in order to increase potential support. There are examples of political
parties in Europe who used to be 2. but who reformed into 5. with the hopes of becoming
“political relevant”. This can end as a political disaster as that organisation or political
party is ending up in a situation where they are sensuring themselves to a degree that
they in fact become irrelevant. This may also upon up the posibilty for new players right
of them with more credible principles. Some conservative parties have ended up
supporting multiculturalism which just underlines that they have defeated themselves
and should no longer be allowed to call themselves conservatives.
As for target groups to reach out to; forget about cultural Marxists or more hardcore
Marxists. No matter how good your arguments and documentation is, they have decided
they do not want to hear the truth. Instead, focus on humanists and naive or ignorant
people in general – the great bulk of people. THAT is where the potential for support is.
Use deceptive means when required, the worst and most incompetent debater is ALWAYS
the most sincere debater. They are swallowed and chewed to bits in seconds and are
generally vulnerable to character assassination. This is why 95% of all politicians are liars
or manipulators of truth, they wouldn’t be successful politicians if they weren’t exactly
Modern politicians tend to use the words: non-Muslim, conservatives, cultural
conservatives, Christian European, "the indigenous peoples of Europe, or native
European, or if I absolutely have to - ethnic European when describing "Europeans".
Some of these words are relatively ”inclusive” and can appeal/reach out to all specters of
the right wing including the Christian Movements in addition to free market liberals.
Furthermore, it can be smart to limit the use of words like: ethnic groups, but rather
focus on Islam, non-Islamic, Muslims, non-Muslims. Also, use the term: anti-Islamisation
instead of anti-immigrant. As for trying to describe a threat, focus on Global Islamic
Ummah and dhimmitude (yes, some educating into the meaning of some words will have
to be included). People in general are unfamiliar with many of the ”new words” so certain
explanatory comments would be required.
The use of a clearly defined "rhetorical strategy" is the essence of success for all
Conservative politicians, master debaters and leaders. Unfortunately folks older than 40
tend to blurp up "dirty outdated rhetoric" now and then, while people younger than 40
are usually more disciplined in regards to rhetorical containment.
Also, I’ve said this before several times. It’s a strategic mistake to use "nationalist" or
"national" in a political party name - the case with BNP and National Front. There is too
much stigma attached to the word and many people will subliminously see parallels with
Furthermore, it can be a strategically smart to use female spokespersons in debates
involving immigration and Islamisation (topics that for many people traditionally has
evolved around ”angry, single, white men”
We didn't create these rules, but it’s in our interest to follow them if we want to more
successfully distribute our messages.
Consider Islam as a decease you can take advantage of. The Islamisation of Europe and
the ongoing demographic warfare being waged against Europe by the Global Islamic
Ummah is basically THAT SOMETHING that will bring the cultural conservatives together
and eventually to power (within 40-70 years). So in the mean time, it’s essential that the
older generation cultural conservative start adapting to this "new reality" and start
updating their rhetorical strategies or shut the hell up.
On a different note, Racial Conservatism is dead and should not IN ANY WAY be linked
rhetorically to Cultural Conservatism (Racial Conservatism died in WW2).
Our battle on the other hand involves Cultural Conservatism, our duty and right to resist
Cultural genocide and Islamic demographic warfare. Cultural Conservatism has NOTHING
to do with Racial Conservatism. Learn from past mistakes and exercise rhetorical
But what about the relevance of the terms “ethnicity” and “race”?
Ethnicity has always played a significant factor in every single conflict, and I believe it will
in the future as well whether we like it or not. Just look at Iraq. It’s a text book example
of ethnic war - Kurds vs. Sunni Arabs vs Persian Shias. Turkey: Turks vs Kurds etc. It’s
not a secret that ethnicity is closely linked to culture in a majority of countries worldwide.
In fact, Islam is one of the most racist political ideologies in the world. Usually when a
society has been 90%+ Islamised the Arabisation process begins with often financial
support from Saudi and other Arab countries. This is the case in Mauritania and several
African countries. Systematic "Arabisation" efforts are being ignored by western media
and academia which on the other hand are blindly obsessed with implementing
In Europe today, where a majority of individuals have been a victim of institutionalised
multiculturalist indoctrination for several decades it’s essential that we exercise rhetorical
containment. Not with the intention of appeasing the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists
but rather with the intention of protecting ourselves from the mine field which is cultural
conservatism. The cultural Marxists/multiculturalists WANT us to use "flagged" rhetoric as
it will make it very easy for them to label us as bigots.
I don’t think individuals who use ”flagged rhetoric” understands the concepts of
"reputational shields". In fact, I very much doubt they have studied modern right wing
rhetorical strategies which is extremely important to individuals as well as for political
parties. It is not the message itself but rather the credibility of the actor who delivers it
that makes the crucial difference. An individual using "flagged" rhetoric such as "race",
race war", white people, black people, Jews (in the same sentence as race f example),
ethnic (in the same sentence as Jews) - are triggering every imaginable mine put up for
him which in turn will completely obliterate his ”reputational shield” (if he ever had one).
Therefore he is not only undermining his own efforts, but he risks pushing other
”moderate conservatives” away. They might distance themselves as it might affect their
individual "reputational shields" by being affiliated with flagged individuals.
So even though ethnicity and race still is relevant, it is not in our best interest to talk
about it. If we do, we are only increasing the risk of destroying our own credibility which
is lethal for individuals aspiring to reach a large audience (politicians etc). This will
undermine and limit the impact and distribution of their future messages (which is the
case with BNP and National Front to a certain degree).
As Muhammad once said: War is Deceit (al-Taqiyya). Many Muslims are masters of
deceit, and it’s time we start adapting to these realities as well.
Cultural Communism is one of the most deceitful ideologies out there (next to Islam). It’s
a deceitful, racist, fascist, hate ideology bent on the eradication of Christianity and
Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology
championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is
an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe,
have not just a right, but a duty to resist it.
The key is preserving our reputational shields using strategic rhetoric.
National, Nationalist, nationalism?
As for the specific word, "nationalist" or nationalism, it’s debatable. Personally, I feel that
the word is stained by history, or smeared to oblivion by Marxists, and thus I feel it may
be counter productive to use it at least for a political party going for the 35% mark,
although I know that many people will disagree.
I might be mistaken regarding the above “growth strategy”. An overinflated right wing
political party, who has sold out most of their principles, might be able to delay a Muslim
majority for a few decades at best but may end up as completely irrelevant when the
window of oppurtuntiy arises for a potential political coup in the future as they have
kicked out all their leaders who had a spine. Under given circumstances, a smaller right
wing political party with a minimum of “intact principles” against multiculturalism may
prove to be a lot more relevant when it comes to saving the country. The coup makers
would not trust a bloated right wing party which by many would be considered a part of
2.78 US and European nationalist rhetorical differences
The ongoing US cultural war is fundamentally different from the European and the
rhetoric clearly reflects the differences.
You cannot and should not mix the European struggle with the US struggle and therefore
should not use similar arguments when discussing the two struggles.
European patriotism vs. US patriotism
American conservatives in general (anti-Marxists) should learn the following;
Marxism has two primary components; socialistic economic policies and internationalism
(multiculturalism/cultural Marxism). You are not a nationalist, not even a conservative by
its very definition, if you support multiculturalist doctrines. The reason is that
multiculturalism is anti-nationalistic by design. Multiculturalism is designed to deconstruct
European traditions, culture, identity and even the nation state in order to create the one
world Marxist utopia. Many Americans fail to comprehend this fact.
The important difference between the US and Europe is that our issues are quite
different. We have been flooded with 25-30 million conservative and relatively poorly
educated Muslims the last 5 decades, by our traitor leaders, while the US are in a quite
different situation. In relation to the cultural challenges of Europe, Christian immigration
cannot be compared to Islamic.
The different challenges are manifested by the use of different rhetorical strategies.
Europeans have a different basis for justifying our rights and we have slightly different
concerns. When an American nationalist discuss with a European he will immediately
bring up race as this factor correlates with the US issues (Mexican immigration, African
Americans etc). Using this form of rhetoric will cause a majority of Europeans to “run for
the hills”. The reason is because a great majority of Americans and Europeans have gone
through decades of multiculturalist indoctrination. Everyone should know this by now and
should be more considerate when choosing their rhetorical approach, because the most
essential thing at this point is to continue to build a broad and strong consolidation of
conservatives. For Europe, this rhetorical approach will for the most part involve cultural
defence relating to Islam(isation) as it is the only issue at the moment that has the
potential and potency to unite enough conservatives.
As the primary goal is a broad and realistic consolidation, the discussion of deeper
aspects of conservatism is counterproductive. At least for Europeans.
Tactical approach - European vs. white, victimhood vs. supremacy
The average “conservative” in the US is NOT a nationalist (anti-internationalist) but a
libertarian (republican – pro capitalism and pro multiculturalism). A majority of US
conservatives have no understanding of the concepts of political nationalism. After all,
they have no experience with these doctrines and often mistakenly confuse them with
fascism. Those Americans who are in fact nationalists are almost always ethnocentric and
are often associated with rhetoric related to “14 words movements”. This represents the
first major divide as Europeans do not identify themselves as “white” but European.
“White nationalism” does not exist in Europe. The reason is because Americans have
been indoctrinated to suppress their European heritage (they don’t generally identify
themselves using the term European-American) and many have therefore instead
adopted the term “white”. The 14 words principle: “we must secure the existence of our
people and a future for white children” reflect the typical US “white nationalist” mentality
and should never be used by a European individual. The term is indicative of a so called
“race struggle” and therefore NOT necessarily a struggle for indigenous rights. Europeans
on the other hand do not fully understand the potency of using rhetoric related to
Rhetoric related to “indigenous rights” is an untapped goldmine which has currently been
deluded and sidetracked due to “rhetorical contamination” from the US. If you use “white
nationalist” rhetoric you are instantly placed in the same category as Hitler. This is not
the case with rhetoric related to indigenous rights as this rhetoric is usually related to the
Aboriginal or Native American struggles. Some of the reason why many nationalists
reject the “indigenous” argument is because it is generally used by a group who has been
defeated. Both the Australian aborigines and the Native American forces fought hard for
their rights but both were utterly annihilated due to the fact that they lived in the Stone
Age when the Europeans first arrived. Some nationalists thus associate these arguments
with rhetoric of victimhood and defeat. The maschochistic nature of some nationalists (so
called white nationalists in particular) turns them off from using this form of rhetoric and
they instead contribute to defeat themselves by using rhetoric associated with
supremacy. While I do not condone the “victimhood hype” in any way or form the fact
remains that playing the victim card is the most potent strategy of our times. Refusing to
use a logical and pragmatical approach in this regard (due to some primitive need to feed
individual egos) is counterproductive and highly destructive.
Are we a “Sitting Bull” or a Hitler of our time?
The difference between other indigenous rights movements and the European indigenous
rights movements is that we have not in any way been defeated militarily. The European
armed indigenous rights movements/resistance movements are just starting to emerge
and this will continue in the coming decades. The armed fight for our survival lies ahead
The outcome of the Aboriginal and Native American struggle established a crystal clear
precedence which dictates that the indigenous peoples of a specific territory have
undisputed exclusive rights in their own lands. If this is the case for Aborigines in
Australia and Native Americans in the US, shouldn’t that be the case for Europeans in
Europe as well? The fact that the cultural Marxists, anti-nationalist humanists and
globalists outright refuse us the same basic human rights prove without a doubt that
THEY are in fact the racists, that they are the fascists and Nazis of our time.
Using this type of rhetoric will significantly damage the Marxists moral justification for
our persecution, the armed forces of the European Resistance Movements. They will have
a much harder time finding the legal and moral justification for branding us as terrorists
as we are in fact fighting for our indigenous rights (compared to the Islamic terrorists
who are fighting for world domination – a global Caliphate based on Sharia law). We are
no more terrorists than the indigenous Brits who fought against the imperialistic Roman
invaders, or the Americans who fought against English rule. We are no more terrorists
than Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse or Chief Gall who fought for their people against the
imperialist General Armstrong Custer. Our struggle will be a lot easier if European
nationalist (indigenous rights activists) use smart and defusing arguments instead of
using supremacist arguments which can be efficiently squashed through psychological
warfare propaganda or by anti-Nazi policies. Yes, we are fighting the imperialistic Marxist
doctrines. The only difference is now, WE are the Sitting Bulls, Crazy Horses and Chief
Galls and the imperialistic Custer’s of our time is called Barroso, Blair, Brown, Merkel and
And who in today’s political climate want to be associated as the persecutor and butcher
of Sitting Bull and who is fighting for his peoples indigenous rights? The indigenous
argument is an incredibly potent weapon which more or less is completely untapped.
Europeans should never use “14 words” rhetoric as it is coined for European Americans.
It is a self defeating argument, if ever used in Europe, as it automatically places you in
the same category as Hitler.
The estimated potential forces of all armed European Resistance Movements is
approximately 13 million (compared to the defeated Aboriginal force of 5000-10 000 and
the Native American force of 100 000+). The only difference is that a majority of the
patriots involved are not willing to fight and die for the cause just yet as long as we live
in economical prosperity.
The most pragmatical way to move forward is to play the victim card in combination with
cruel methods of armed resistance. We must literally focus all our efforts at creating an
optimal environment for recruitment. This can only be done if we manage to cripple all
Western European economies through financially crippling sabotage operations and
cynical shock attacks which will devastate the stock markets and severely undermine the
Euro, causing a favourable climate for recruitment. This approach is formulated in this
2.79 Educating the European patriots who lacks ideological confidence
It is extremely important that the cultural conservatives/patriots/nationalists in Europe
who are ideologically confident take responsibility and educate/encourage the non-
So what is a non-confident nationalist and how do I approach him?
Every ideologically confident nationalist should take note of the following.
DO NOT make this war about race or ethnicity. You have to keep in mind that most
people in Western Europe have been systematically indoctrinated for the last 4-5
decades. So opening liners such as the following is guaranteed to push people away:
“hail brother, fight by our side in the ongoing race war, we are going to destroy the ZOG
and kill all the Jews, sieg heil brother!
I consider myself to be quite ideologically confident but had anyone said this to me, I
would probably run for the hills and ignore any future encounter with that individual.
Somehow, internal filters against these words are all hardcoded into the base thought
patterns of a majority of Europeans through decades of multiculturalist indoctrination.
Statements like that manages to trigger absolutely every red flag and alarm in the
average European telling him to get the hell out of there. It is essential to understand
this and that many people would rather commit suicide or live under slavery/harsh
dhimmitude than to become a Nazi or fight for the Nazi cause. Because today’s Nazism
isn’t the sum of the individual doctrines of National Socialism! It has rather become a
massively bloated phenomenon - a reincarnation of pure evil itself. Demonising Nazism
has through 6 decades of indoctrination (the most unparalleled indoctrination campaign
witnessed in the history of man) which has developed into an unconscious established
truth. As such, and due to the actual negative and evil aspects of this ideology, it is
pointless to try to resurrect it in any way or form. Regardless of this obvious fact, many
old school nationalists are still using this crap to try to recruit people.
In order to connect with the ordinary man you must understand that he is a modern man
who has travelled a several decade long journey through multiculturalist institutions. He
is completely brainwashed so tread carefully and take the required precautions. You have
to understand his pain and concerns in his everyday life. The fear of Islamisation is the
most pressing concern for most Europeans and Islam is NOT a race. So avoid talking
about race. It is a cultural war, not a race war! If you do believe it is a race war, then
keep it to yourself as it is un-doubtfully counterproductive to flag those views.
A cultural conservative is a closet nationalist, who is just using different rhetoric to avoid
the stigma. It is often a strategic choice. The concept of nationalism appeals to less than
15-20% while the concept of cultural conservatism has the potential to appeal to as
much as 35% although there is basically little difference. After all, three decades of
multiculturalist indoctrination has taught me to adapt to the currently hostile
environment we are living in.
Approximately 70% of Western European males would sacrifice their lives to prevent
Europe from being conquered by Islam while less than 10% would sacrifice their life for
their race. As such, it isn’t exactly rocket science to foresee which ideology (with given
rhetorical strategies) will win over the “modern patriot”.
Waking up enough of our fellow Europeans will take several decades. Do not expect him
to accept and embrace the light immediately; especially when we are fully aware of that
he has been thought to avoid the light.
2.80 3 point guide to convert your right wing blog/site to a
newspaper/magazine with national distribution
I’ve spoken to numerous successful and less successful right wing blog/news-
site/Facebook “reporters” over the years and the general opinion seems to be that the
creation and distribution of a paper-magazine/newspaper is so incredibly difficult and
problematic. I can honestly not understand why people feel this way. This is why I will
present a 3 step guide to how you and anyone can take the step from internet
distribution to paper distribution with national coverage. This is not as hard as people
might think it is. Also, many people will argue: “paper distribution is dead, internet is the
future!” While this certainly seems to be the direction we are headed you cannot and
should not underestimate/ignore paper distribution yet. Creating a “paper” presence will
be essential to reach a greater number of European patriots.
Illustration case example: Document.no
Document.no is a Norwegian right wing blog/site equivalent in content to
BrusselsJournal.com, GatesOfVienna.blogspot.com, JihadWatch.org or
Current distribution in Norway: 9000 unique weekly hits and growing
Content: The site is relatively “academically heavy” compared to the tabloids but the
content is excellently written. Approximately 60% are news articles/essays translated
from other sites while 40% are essays/stories written by the editors, primarily critique of
multiculturalism and the multiculturalist elites of Norway/Western Europe.
Staff: Run voluntarily (unpaid) by 1-2 people.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested