I vote for the second. If we had bottomless reserves of pro-whites to be put to work at whatever, maybe I’d vote for both. Or maybe not. Charging into a culture’s Parthenon with a sledge hammer seems a questionable strategy anytime.*
The post below was made to a very popular pro-white podcast today, but was removed, presumably by a moderator. I’ll post it here since important issues of tactics and strategy should be aired somewhere.
The opening quote in the comment is from one of the hosts in the podcast:
“An Alinskyite strategy, a Gramscian strategy…taking the commanding heights of the culture…is the kind of strategy we have to pursue…taking back the public space, taking back the culture…that is absolutely the winning strategy.”
IMO doing that by attacking all the things that anti-whites have succeeded in making holy is the hard way. The “easy” way is to hammer the White Genocide meme and its simple understanding and supporting memes into the public arena until they become normalized. White Genocide is also the thing that matters. Even if pro-whites succeed in knocking over all the false idols erected by anti-whites, that won’t necessarily put White Genocide in the front of white minds and in the front of public discourse.
What do you think? I think that rather than attacking a stronger enemy head-on, why not slip around the enemy’s flank where the thing you’re fighting against — White Genocide — is actually located and is weakly defended.
Why expend yourself attacking positions that anti-whites have been fortifying in white minds for decades, when anti-whites have neglected to fortify the very thing you actually care about?
*Of course we no longer live in a fairly unified culture, but in a culture that’s split down the middle. But one of its two divisions holds the microphone and blocks pro-whites from speaking, with the result that whites are being awakened to the fact of White Genocide much too slowly.