They will predictably reject my offer on grounds of sex and race.
And I will say to them "What do you have to lose? If I crash and burn, you can always say to yourselves you knew I'd crash and burn, but if I get the publicity, then it will have paid off, wouldn't it?"
My theory is that if the problem of feminism is solved, then so will everything else.
White nationalists just concentrating on feminism alone for now will be enough to get them what they want, eventually.
But I have to be the one doing it.
And I must have some sign that they are aware that I am doing it on their behalves, and want their interest and attention.
Also, I am prepared to go to jail for stating my beliefs.
I just know white nationalists are going to be crap at making the case against feminism. I am therefore offering to do it for them.
"The average man is superior to the average woman, but the superior woman is superior to the superior man."
Confucius said this, apparently. I am claiming to be that superior woman. I am particularly well placed to make all the arguments against feminism on their behalf, without fear or favour, because I do not have a wife to upset nor will I be dismayed if feminists won't have sex with me.
This is something white nationalist men should bear in mind, when they ask themselves why they should allow me, a female and a foreigner, to make their case for them.
I am really the best placed person in the world to make the case for nationalism and give them the most publicity.
They should look upon my offer as a lawyer acting pro bono. I shall not be charging them by the hour or at all.
More and more people are increasingly coming round to the conclusion that the consequence of universal suffrage is that the female preference is always prioritised.
The adverse effects of so doing can be explained.
The only problem is that no one in the political establishment or media will be listening.
However, we must go through the motions of speaking to them as if they would listen, to build up our case.
In short, we must state the case for nationalism and why it is desirable and in the long term national interest.
And then we come to the problem of nationalism. Some people think it is racist and therefore evil.
But there are plenty of non-white people in the West who are also getting disturbed and alarmed about immigration.
Trump managed to get many non-whites to vote for him because he showed no racism. This is something to bear in mind.
In any case you need to agree to shut the door FIRST, before you can decide later who within the house you might want to throw out. We can say illegal immigrants, which is fair enough.
If you are going to say you are going to throw out non-white citizens just because they are non-white, that would be problematic.
Even if your intention is to throw out all non-white citizens ultimately, it would be politic to keep quiet about it for mow to gain their support so they can help you with the business of shutting the door. One step at a time.
The problem with Muslims is more nuanced. While there were laws forbidding the incitement of racial hatred, Muslims were in the only group people were allowed to insult until The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 forbidding Muslims from being targeted because of their religion.
Muslims are therefore resented as
2) people whose beliefs and practices are incompatible with liberalism
3) people whom the West bombs as well as those most likely to commit acts of terrorism
They are most resented because in them is combined all that is hateful and fearful about the enemy alien who are increasing in number and getting stronger, while the host nation is decreasing in number and getting weaker and more fearful. Muslims are no more than the symptom of the disease of feminism. It was feminism that caused immigration, and it is the female voter's preference for social spending and indifference to immigration and foreign policy that allows the deep state to continue pulling the strings of every single US President.
I would say that our problem is a problem of democracy. It worked before, and people were reasonably happy, but it is now breaking down because democracy has allowed the left to take over after political parties have identified winning the female vote as a way of getting elected.
The female voter is always seduced by promising to have more laws that protect women from men, so we lose our liberties.
The female voter will always vote for more public spending in the way people who don't pay taxes will always vote for higher public spending.
The female preference is feminist and this means being a working mother.
The more working mothers you have the more divorced mothers you have.
Working and divorced mothers have fewer children causing a labour shortage creating a demand for immigrant labour.
Once divorced single mothers became normalised, the unmarried single mother also became normalised whose children tend not grow up into good law abiding citizens who are good employees.
If we point the finger of blame at feminism and call it out, it would attract real attention, just as long as we don't mince our words and call it Cultural Marxism or Postmodernism as Jordan Peterson does.
Most people don't know what Cultural Marxism or Postmodernism is so they won't think it affects them.
We have to call a spade a spade, and the problem that afflicts all Western nations and indeed all nations practising democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage should be called by its proper name ie FEMINISM.
We haven't even got to this stage yet.
How hard can it be for men to do that?
If this is presented as a war between men and women, then the probability of men winning it must be greater, mustn't it?
So, instead of saying racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic things and getting into trouble over it, why not just concentrate on feminism alone? Tactically, it would be more effective because it would attract more attention ie feminists who will become alarmed and angry generating more publicity.
It is just a question of tactics and presentation.
We can talk about GENDER JUSTICE and denounce gender equality as a fundamental philosophical error.
It was Aristotle who said "It is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally."
If you present the problem as feminism, then you will have in effect chosen the battlefield on which to fight on the higher moral ground.
If you want to continue complaining about Jews, you are actually allowing them to dictate the terms of debate. Ditto on racial matters and Islam.
Just concentrate on one thing at a time.
Lions don't use a scattergun approach to their hunting. They actually choose an animal that is slower and weaker than the others in the herd and keep going for it.
Sometimes, less is more.