If you were leading a Nationalist party,how would you prevent infighting?

submitted by Nasser from self.debatealtright

Infighting has been one of the causes of the failure of out cause over the years.For example in the UK the National Front was one of the popular parties in the 70s however leader John Tyndall sabotaged the party by leaving to form the BNP which crippled support for the Front.The same can be said for Rockwell in the US,while making the mistake of campaigning under the swastika, his movement still did garner alot of support only to be dashed when a guy killed him for not being extreme enough.

The mistake of infighting is still plaguing us, for example the Afd in Germany has split,In Ireland Siol na HEireann and the National Party are split and we see all the time nationalist leaders getting into stupid tiffs on the internet over nothing.What can we do to stop this?

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Be explicitly anti-capitalist and exclude racist liberals from positions of influence. The problem always comes from morons who want all the dystopia we already have but it just being white instead.

[–]Republican58America First! 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Why do you hate capitalism?You know the device you are typing on was created by capitalism?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

advances in technology and the industrial revolution aren't at all dependent on kikes owning everything oligarchically and enslaving everyone. in fact most infrastructure, research and development and other leaps of technological capacities come from state funding, capitalism is literally irrelevant.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

"other leaps of technological capacities come from state funding, capitalism is literally irrelevant."

Such as?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Literally everything. The ratio of philanthropy and private research compared to public is ridiculous. Who put down all networking infrastructure? Who put down all the railways and roads? Who developed most medicine? Sanitation and plumbing? The list goes on.

The vast majority of research and infrastructure development isn't even close to breaking even let alone being profitable so private initiatives are extremely rare. Companies just use what states have developed to make profit afterwards. Anyone even passingly familiar with first amendment activism and social media uses this as arguments against social media censorship because they benefit from infrastructure as well as public funding to exist.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What did the Soviet Union innovate in?

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What sort of question is that? The Soviet Union was one of two superpowers - it innovated in every conceivable sphere of life. This is entirely besides the point anyway, public funding has played the same role in the history of every major power - France, Britain, the USA, imperial Russia, you name it. The construction of roads, railroads, research, public administration, the establishment of legal and economic condition suitable for private business, all of this and more depends on the state. Google, Tesla, all these behemoths of "private" industry received extensive federal funding which allowed them to grow into the immense, grotesque mega corporations that we have today.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They destroyed the US in the space race, were huge in sports (they won basically all of the olympics from the 50s-92 where they competed as the EUN), developed a bunch of military stuff especially nuclear technology, they funded a bunch of sciences and chess and rapidly industrialised their entire economy. They did a bunch of stuff.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good question. The more structured you get and the more clear the hierarchy is the easier it becomes to kick out subversives. In fighting is always a threat but it's so prominent in current right wing circles because we don't have public dues paying party structures that have the ability to define who is in and who is out. Andrew Anglin has advocated leaderless movements. They are tough to target. They can quickly push out memes but leaderless movements are always going to fall short on real activism. You can't tap the power of your human capital without a physical leader, a platform, funding, goals, teamwork, etc.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The foundation is on improving outcomes for white people.

This is the only primary rule

[–]Minedwe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Coalesce all the dissident views into an overarching party. Try to avoid specific things/ideas that might alienate certain groups. Overall, we can leave the bickering over whose ideas are best for the New America after we actually have the authority to decide that. It's difficult at times, but forging a solid alliance of diisidents is possible. Strasserists, Mosleyists, NatSocs, etc. can be unified if effort and tact is used to do so.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The mistake of infighting primarily happens because the leader(s) should be men of good character, which often is not the case as there is some hidden agenda.