Responses to my January 6th ZGram still keep on trickling in. In it, I raised the question of the balance between concerns for personal security and activist effectiveness. I said that I did not believe this struggle could be fought and won if people remained underground - the struggle was nothing worth hiding and everything worth giving it our all, out in broad daylight where we could be seen and be counted.
It is my strong opinion that one of our weaknesses is that our enemy IS very visible and we "choose" not to be. Who sets that "choice" for us? Are we not far more numerous than "they"? Sheer size of still-underground public support for what we believe, I hold, would be authoritative and convincing.
Here are a few additional reader responses:
- ". . . I offer two points.
1) The military has distilled the wisdom of years into certain Principles for Success, and conflict is their specialty. Senior officers are taught to conduct campaigns according to several main principles, called "Principles of War".
The primary one is "Maintenance of the Aim", but the next most important one is "Maintenance of the Home Base", and in your case I would liken you, Ernst, and the Zundelsite to our home base. Without you, there would be no fight, no outreach, no education of the public.
It is vital to keep you and the Zundelsite operating. You are no good to our fight if you are dead. 250 000 prisoners at Stalingrad contributed nothing to the rest of the German war effort. It is better "to run away and live to fight another day" as the old saying goes. I agree we need highly visible people in this fight, but only if you are sure of staying visible.
2) (We) here in Canada have given a lot of thought to how we should act. We must restrain ourselves and limit ourselves to quietly educating everyone else. Two teachers up here have chosen to make themselves visible, and today neither one is in a position to earn a living, let alone organize a counterattack. If I had made the same decision, I wouldn't be . . . waking up people, educating younger people before the brainwashing takes hold of them, etc.
Were is the proper compromise for you? You are already highly visible, so you should start taking every possible personal precaution, in view of the enemy's well known scale of reprisals (silent treatment, smear, threats, property damage, attacks on relatives, attacks on you, "accidental" elimination, all the way up to plain, daylight elimination) You are somewhere on this scale and rising. Being smart is not being cowardly.
More powerful than brute military force is psychological warfare, and even the military use it . . . You don't have to be paranoid and ruin your life, but it's not too hard to examine your lifestyle, decide what little things will keep the enemy in the dark a bit more, and do these small things. Ask someone who is a bodyguard, or some such expert, for a few little things to incorporate into your lifestyle . . . I'm a nonentity in this fight, but I routinely do these things . . . "
- ". . . Our struggle is to change people minds. As any advertiser knows, people accept a position if it has a simple rationale and a following - a set of people who believe it. One anonymous web site that factually debunks the Holocaust in excruciating detail won't make a difference. Five hundred web pages by real people that say nothing more than "I disbelieve the Holocaust" WILL make a difference.
That's why on commercials they show testimonials of satisfied customers rather than going into the specifics about why a certain product is best. . . . Giving our true identities is dangerous and unnecessary - we don't know what the future holds. . . "
- ". . . To the advice on watching over your shoulder, I would add a little personal info of my own. Not how to protect yourself, rather just how observed you must be. I am only one who is keenly interested in what the revisionists have to say. (In fact, I see your work as absolutely vital to our freedom.) But if I, being one who is only interested, knows that he is observed, how much more are you?
Now before you hit the DEL key, assuming I'm a paranoid nut, let me tell you, I really have good reason to suspect so. It wouldn't be wise for me to do so in an open message, but I could give enough details to give you a little more confidence in my claim.
I think it primarily has to do with where I work and for whom I work. I'll take a risk: I'm what is known as a "Wall Streeter." My capacity is irrelevant, though it's in the technical field. I talk with many people. I am inquisitive, though not foolhardy. This is where I've learned of the tactics I told you about in my last email--the "Christian Crusades."
At lunch, you'll usually find me down in the bookstore, either ordering or trying to order some book that has been banned--and many that aren't. But they all pertain to a specific period of 20th century history.
I have been kicked once by two neo-Young Pioneers in skull caps, walking past me. I have been purposely shoved another time.
That's enough. Take heed. Your work, as I said parenthetically above, is absolutely vital to freedom. . . "
- ". . . Your personal life or whereabouts is nobody's business. If you wanted to use an alibi, so much the better. If people think that is cowardly - better a live coward spreading the truth than a brave dead hero. You certainly don't need to inform people of impending vacations or trips and tip off the enemy. One trick of the enemy is to get people into protest movements where they are easily identified and eliminated later. You should see the articles on "leaderless resistance". It drives the enemy CRAZY. And when they get crazy, they get sloppy and they make mistakes. If anyone tells you what you should or should not do, let them e-mail me and I will tell them where to stick it. Your security and life are your FIRST priorities. . . "
- ". . . If my belated comments are of any worth, I here offer them. First, I must agree with your posturing of Standing Strong AND being counted.
Secondly, I must also agree with your commentator's need to be discreet in [how] one does in fact Stand Strong.
Popping out of the bushes in front of the entire enemy with a Red Bull's Eye pinned to one's shirt is not expedient to one's health, and as one of your commentators said, and I paraphrase, "neither is it good for Aryan Society as a whole". When one of us gets hurt, we are all hurt.
My personal experience is that at first they will try to wear on you. If they find they can, or if you go "into hiding" then the more they want to seek you out and harass you. The primary objective is to get you to respond so they can engage a war of attrition. They like nothing better than to engage and necessarily distract what one should be doing. Which, in my view, is NOT spending our time bickering over inconsequential matters.
Again, I can only speak from personal experience, but I have Stood Strong, and Front and Center since my "initiation" some ten years ago. I have learned well from those many brave men and women who have gone before me. Is it not our duty to learn from our own as well as our elder's mistakes - and to better ourselves? I do, indeed, believe so.
Standing Strong, Front and Center: Yes, I have had to pay dearly for doing that. But I also know that if a bullet is meant for me there is nothing I can do to stop it. Therefore I DO NOT walk around looking over my shoulder or peering into every shadow.
I must sustain clarity of thought and my sense of "freedom" - or I am lost and worthless. The enemy well knows that. Meaning that if they can intimidate and consequently confuse their adversary, they have already gained the upper hand. I don't allow them to do that.
So, what am I saying? After several years of working on me and finding that they cannot "crush my spirit," I am present left pretty much alone. They simply look for more simple targets. After all, our enemy is a COWARD and seeks the easiest route to destruction. STILL - I am VERY discrete on giving out information about myself and to whom I reveal it. . . "
- ". . . On the subject of pseudonyms, and anonymity, I would say just this: I can think of individuals I have known who have had experiences quite similar to yours and who experienced either the worst excesses of Stalinism or the worst excesses of National Socialism, or both.
These people have expressed horror that I do any more than sympathize silently from the sidelines. They are convinced that there is no security on the Net, and that the future harbinges concentration camps for those who do not conform.
My sympathy for my old friends notwithstanding, I think their attitudes are colored by the horrors they endured, as well as the lack of understanding and compassion that they have encountered since the War, no matter what the particular circumstances or course of life was involved. I am not as fearful as they, but I have to work for a living and I have children to raise: in this case prudence comes naturally.
I sometimes wonder whether anonymity really HURTS the truth. If I had remained in academia, and had committed myself to propping up or remaining silent about the falsehoods involved here, then I would agree that I would be doing something misguided: no career is worth the loss of integrity. On the other hand, for the raising of little ones it is frequently necessary to be less than true to yourself, and that is also something my old friends would understand, if they were not forced to live it in extremis.
But in the present case anonymity is not important. The argument is important, the facts are important, the QUALITY OUTREACH is important, but all the rest is not important at all. None of us, after all, aspire to leadership or seek power or adulation: we simply want to spark people into thinking for themselves on this issue. Once that is done, the rest will take care of itself. . . "
In summary, what people seem to be saying is what one of my most loyal reader asked in four words: ""Why play in traffic?"
Good question, and I am still not sure of the answer. It's not a play. It is war that is centuries old.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices."
(Edward R. Murrow)