We have heard this so many times.
For good reason. Other than the topics I started regarding this subject in the past, I, and your earlier criticizers, see very little discussion concerning real life strategies. Should we just assume you do more without any evidence thereof? Of course not. We can only see what is happening before us, and I see a lot of metaphysics babble while the world is turning shit all around us. You like to mention how old ANUS is. How many more "decades" is it going to take before ANUS members begin walking the talk?
Breivik started with three years of internet research and activism, which is why one of the Amerika.org articles ended up in his manifesto.
The point is not online/offline, which is a bullshit dichotomy.
It is a bullshit dichotomy, which is why I agreed, in my initial post, that the online portion and understanding our time is important. I don't know why you bring this up when I never implied or said we should act without a plan.
(You are literally two decades too late; that's how long the "you have to go offline!!!1!" and "ANUS is sucks!!!1!" pidgin has been floating around.)
If you recall, NHA decided to resort to ad hominems. I came here to pose a serious question. No need to point out something I never did. I'm not mad; I'm merely trying to understand. I'm not sure if you are projecting your own emotions with those exclamation marks or not, but it really does not contribute anything to this discussion.
We might also mention that there are types of activism other than the type Breivik picked...
For example, go join your local Republican party and start pushing everything you touch closer toward a higher idea.
If even one Republican organizer made it on the news wearing a Summoning or Graveland t-shirt, or talking about Tolkien and medievalism, or mentioning Guenon and Nietzsche, stuff would start heating up.
Right now, that's an impossibility.
I agree with the underlined portion, but not the rest. Ron Paul (who is not ideal, I know, but he is miles ahead of the rest) tried this, and he was and has been blotted out by the media for disagreeing with the Republican's war-mongering, all-consuming globalist agenda. Presidency is not the only option, I know, and it is actually less practical. However, even if you became a lower-tier politician, you wouldn't get face time. The media determines who gets their word out and who doesn't when joining one of those two parties. Others, before Ron Paul ran for President, infiltrated the Republicans (a couple of anarcho-capitalists, for instance), and they are not the ones allowed face time.
What good is having one guy who rarely gets in his word when ten other guys with long-standing media support can shout over him? The people do not listen to what is right, they listen to what they are told the most. They listen to constants.
How in anyway is killing 100 people moving towards a greater good?
1) Less multiculturalist traitors.
2) Less worthless people.
3) Less people on an overpopulated Earth in general.
You guys can laugh at me and say I'll shoot up my workplace, but the fact is that if more multiculturalist, guilt-ridden traitors were shot to death, our Western nations would be cleaner. Breivik had a right to be mad. He was witnessing his own heritage being torn apart by his countrymen. Who wouldn't be mad about that? Disagreeing with his tactics is fine, but at least back it up with some action of your own. Typing away at your keyboard about how you are morally superior to the herd and opposition to the herd is just silly and unbelievable when you have no apparent plan to actually fix the West yourself.