In TPMCafe and IREHR, Devin Burghart posts a hit piece on Jared Taylor and The Occidental Quarterly. He attempts to link both to Wayne Lutton of The Social Contract. By extension, John Tanton of the immigration reform movement is implicated in this White Nationalist conspiracy. We saw a preview of this in Sarah Viet’s article, Anti-Immigration is White Nationalism.
This latest article is relevant to the ongoing Arthur Kemp debate. It is a blow to the “naive mainstreamer” perspective. If we purge the Neo-Nazi fringe, the MSM will continue to smear us with charges of racism, nativism and anti-Semitism. They will continue to write about us like we are moral monsters. They will continue to insinuate that anyone associated with our movement (such as Jared Taylor or John Tanton) is somehow tainted and lacks respectability.
I’m not really taking a side in this but wasn’t Kemp saying that the BNP faced the same sort of smear campaign and prevailed? Also, I think its important to understand the differences between the two nations, Britain was more racially homogeneous and longer than we were which, per Putnam, allowed them more solidarity on the subject of race.
You’re right. If Taylor purged those people, he’d still be marginal.
I guarantee you though, that if Taylor became a big time figure, at that point he may have to.
Aside from some TV news spots, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “neo-nazi” they seem to exist solely as a boogieman for Jews. A half dozen may show up somewhere and protest and Jews organize a ritual shaming against them to remind us how we’re all brothers with the Jews.
Why is anyone even bothering with this question? Hasn’t the Hal Turner case, not to mention half of the “militia movement” from the 1990s, convinced everyone that agent provocateurs will glom onto any movement anyway?
The Jews will never, under any circumstances, be anything but murderously hostile to White people and White interests. It won’t make any difference who we purge, even if we had that option.
Jews are more visible right now than at any point since the 1950s, any WN movement that does not take advantage of these interesting times isn’t worth the name.
Name those Jews while their asses are exposed. Ignore the whining. Just do it.
I don’t think making ourselves more appealing to Jews, liberals and the MSM is the issue, obviously it doesn’t matter with them. It’s making the movement more appealing to the average white person and the college-educated. I think Hunter, Greg, Robert and others are doing a great job with that. We’re moving in the right direction.
Tomorrow, December 8, is the twenty-five year memorial for Robert J. Mathews…from that day forward, White Nationalism was, forever, out in the open; Respect is a personal perspective, and I, for one, need NO respect from cowards and traitors…or Usurpers.
The concepts of Territory, Homeland, and other references on this blog, have sprung, either directly or obliquely, from men of this Time and Calibre.
Lest we Forget!
“I think Hunter, Greg, Robert and others are doing a great job with that. We’re moving in the right direction.” – Mark
I agree, a couple of additions though:
A.) Younger demographic is essential. Thanks to systematic disenfranchisement the youth who will be open to our message are out there. But as yet we have not found but a few of them.
B.) Target institutions, or segments of institutions, for subversion. As NN has said, aiming propaganda at the remaining white segment of the military is one idea which could yield immense results. It is not a “cause in vain” because whites to the bulk of the fighting and dying and there is more dissent among the rank-and-file than our foes would care for us to know of.
“aiming propaganda at the remaining white segment of the military is one idea which could yield immense results.”
Agreed.
Aiming propaganda at the remaining white segment of the dog, garden, gift and boat show crowd is another way which could yield some (if not immense) results, too. The way you do this if you can’t rent a booth at one of these shows is to set up a card table outside. This is public space and they can’t really shut you down out there. When I was a klansman we toasted white bread with KKK cut out of the center of the slice right there on the street and passed them out to people going into the RV show. During the holiday season we gave away little colored snow men with a sign around their necks that said “Affirmative Action Hire.” Some of the more daring members of the klavern went out one night and wrote the word USURY in pennies and epoxied them to the sidewalk in front of a bank so that people literally had to step on money in order to use the ATM machine the following day. When times got better they planned to write their messages out in nickels, but an agent provocateur put a stop to that when he taught them how smuggle Brazilian parrots into the country in Toyota wheel wells. .
HW said recruit at Southern colleges; military should be fertile ground.
Some good old fashioned style economic populism would go a long way right now. It seems likely that 2010 is going to be rough for a lot of people. College grads are having trouble getting jobs and the middle class retirements have been looted.
Someone explain to me why the WN movement isn’t screaming JEW BANKER to the large and receptive audience who is now watching the banker illusion dissolve before their eyes?
The very smart people at zerohedge are getting serious mainstream attention from the business world, these are Wall Street workers/traders that refer to Goldman Sachs as “the squid” talk candidly about Afghanistan opium and US imperialism, and have actually traced out The International Jew Mafia – all without saying it too openly. When the J-Word is mentioned it’s quite the reaction, because everyone knows it but knows they can’t say it.
We should be saying it. The young crowd are receptive to this message right now – Ron Paul said he got the most cheers when he said “end the Fed”, and the older crowd is spitting angry with the Wall Street bankers. This is a historic breakdown of the Jewish financial mafia – right now, this is it. They are so exposed and vulnerable, they’ve been caught in broad daylight. Bernie Madoff is a household name, and Orthodox Rabbis are seen doing perp-walks on TV for *organ trafficking*
Two words – Jew Banker – how easy was that? Now to avoid scaring housewives just say Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and New York bankers at first, people will fill in the blanks as time goes on.
We’re about to get overloaded with Republican and Democratic party campaign rhetoric running up to the elections, and both sides are going to a) pretend to be against Wall Street and “tough” on bankers, and b) not going to say “Jew” in reference to said Wall Street.
Hijack the campaign that is coming. Say Jew over and over again until it’s no longer taboo. JEW BANKER how easy was that.
“. . .people will fill in the blanks. . .”
Blankfein.
I would really like it if Hunter explored this idea floating around that our military officers could or would have anything to do with anything. The modern officer corps is designed to discourage and weed out they very qualities that make for some sort of movement leader. Their absolute silence and compliance as puppets beholden to foreign pressure groups direct them to send their soldiers to die in the desert is an astounding indictment against their honor.
Hell, an Islamic MAJOR picks off dozens of soldiers and the highest-ranking General trips over himself to find the nearest microphone and insist that diversity is more important than the lives of his dead and dying soldiers. We’ll have more luck pinning our hopes on the Spanish Inquisition, and NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Yes, this is what I’ve been trying to do. This is the answer.
White Non-Conservative, have you seen my Jew lists?
Hey Hunter,
Not sure what’s going on but my comments aren’t getting through.
Hunter Wallace asserted,
“It is a blow to the “naive mainstreamer” perspective. If we purge the Neo-Nazi fringe, the MSM will continue to smear us with charges of racism, nativism and anti-Semitism.”
Mr. Wallace, I don’t think you aren’t giving an accurate description of the “mainstreamer” point of view. “Mainstreamers” like myself aren’t saying that the MSM will stop smearing us if we abandon and reject anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and neo-Nazism; no doubt they will continue to do so. But that’s neither here nor there. We aren’t trying to convince the MSN. We aren’t trying to convince liberals and Marxists. We are trying to convince the man on the street. It’s blazingly obvious that everyday white men, especially in the English-speaking world, are far more likely to accept racialism and nationalism if they are clearly divorced from neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, and crude anti-Semitism. That doesn’t mean we believe that liberals won’t continue to smear us – we don’t believe that for a moment.
In the future, Hunter Wallace, please criticize the actual beliefs of mainstreamers, instead of knocking down these obvious strawmen.
@Yosemite – you’re half Asian right?
Isn’t it funny that it’s the “crude anti-semitism” of Whites that is the problem, not the “crude anti-White” attitude and behavior of Jews and their allies.
To be “mainstream” like you, we have to tip-toe around the Jewish issues.
How much does that pay?
“Isn’t it funny that it’s the “crude anti-semitism” of Whites that is the problem, ”
I only said that crude antisemitism is the problem – like the antisemitism of David Duke or Kevin MacDonald – not sophisticated and reasonable criticisms of American Jewry.
“Not the ‘crude anti-White’ attitude and behavior of Jews and their allies.”
To say that irrational and obsessive hatred of Jews is problematic for the movement is not to deny that hatred of whites on the part of individual liberal Jews is also undesirable.
A “reasonable mainstreamer” would reply by saying, yes, the MSM, the Jews, and liberal anti-racists will always continue to smear us, but their attacks are less likely to stick in the eyes of our target audience. The marginal benefit to be gained in distancing White Nationalism from the Neo-Nazi fringe – largely an aesthetic change – is greater than the cost.
The “reasonable vanguardist” will reply by pointing out, yes, your argument has merit, but moderation is a slippery slope. There comes a point when the cost of moderation is greater than the marginal benefit. The cost of abandoning the Jewish Question is too high. A Jew infested White Nationalism will be subverted, diverted, and co-opted like conservatism. It will become just another vehicle for the promotion of Jewish interests.
Jews will continue to push anti-racism and multiculturalism into our culture. They will continue to demonize the pro-White movement. Abandoning our “anti-Semitism” is exchanging something for nothing. It also involves taking on a lot of risk.
Ian Jobling is a “naive mainstreamer.”
The “reasonable vanguardist” has another powerful argument: in order for “mainstreamers” to reach the threshold of respectability and political success, they must abandon explicit whiteness in favor of a non-racial political platform. Jettisoning our core beliefs is surrender, not victory. As conservatism shows, it is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than to hold political power on the condition of being unable to change anything.
Yosemite
I only said that crude antisemitism is the problem – like the antisemitism of David Duke or Kevin MacDonald – not sophisticated and reasonable criticisms of American Jewry.
If you think MacDonald is crude you’re as much an enemy of the white race as any jew.
If you’re non-white as some are suggesting your ideas have no standing in white nationalism. You are not part of the white community, and you would naturally oppose our aims since they end with your expulsion.
This goes for all non-whites. Their perspective is tainted by their self interest in maintaining their connection to more productive, safer, richer white societies. They don’t want to be expelled to the third world where they belong.
“I only said that crude antisemitism is the problem – like the antisemitism of David Duke or Kevin MacDonald – not sophisticated and reasonable criticisms of American Jewry.”
That’s hooey.
I tried at Thanksgiving to talk, using documented facts, to my Fox-News-watching, World-Net-Daily-reading White Protestant relatives over the turkey. These absolutely mainstream people recoiled in *horror* that I said ANYTHING critical of Jews. I could talk all afternoon about Goldman Sachs Banksters. Sure. But the minute the word “Jewish” left my mouth, oooooops. I am now branded a crude antisemite.
Nope. No more “reasonable” and “sophisticated” criticism. Doesn’t work. Give it to ’em with both barrels.
JEW BANKERS.
Right on, Barb! The Anglo penchant for ‘respectability’, and the desire to be polite and ‘nice’ are great cultural high water marks, but fatal flaws when dealing with racially motivated enemies. We are under genetic assault and in a low level race war, and the white tards need to know it.
The “reasonable vanguardist” will reply by pointing out, yes, your argument has merit, but moderation is a slippery slope. There comes a point when the cost of moderation is greater than the marginal benefit. The cost of abandoning the Jewish Question is too high.
Someone who is at the vanguard is someone at the forefront, actually making a difference. Thus I would have to put David Duke and Kevin MacDonald in that category. Your definition of vanguard it seems has more to do with how extreme one’s views are.
Your moderation here is an example of a slippery slope, albeit one that is arguably necessary.
The JQ can be handled in a rational and productive manner, which I think is what separates the fringe from the “reasoned vanguardist” as you put it. Then there are others who think it should be avoided altogether, like Taylor. I’m in favor of the reasoned approach, no one should be above criticism.
20Hunter Wallace
The “reasonable vanguardist” has another powerful argument: in order for “mainstreamers” to reach the threshold of respectability and political success, they must abandon explicit whiteness in favor of a non-racial political platform. Jettisoning our core beliefs is surrender, not victory. As conservatism shows, it is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than to hold political power on the condition of being unable to change anything.
I agree, and in that case they are career politicians who are just opportunists and have no loyalty.
Then there are also people who are “extreme” but not in agreement with Hiterlite philosophy.
I defended Ezra Pound in a couple letters to an old English professor I had who retired to a small town outside the city I live in. He was appalled and mentioned this to some mutual friends there. I got cornered at a poetry readying last week by someone he’d told I was a Nazi now. This person came up to me and asked, “But what about Anne Frank?!” That’s the level of understanding most of my brainwashed babyboomer generation has about these issues. They were led around by the nose in the ’60s by Jewish New Left change agents who became tenured radicals and best selling authors of the sort of liberal humanist pap they have been lapping up ever since. “Anne Frank is a brain eating zombie!” I replied.
“She was dug up and re-animated by the Zionist shitheels running the show.” I don’t have time left in my life to make this message
any easier for these poetasters to swallow. As Ken Kesey told Tom Wolf, “You’re either on the bus or you’re off it.”
“The young crowd are receptive to this message right now – Ron Paul said he got the most cheers when he said “end the Fed”, and the older crowd is spitting angry with the Wall Street bankers. ”
They are just as sick of hearing about his alleged Holocaust as anyone else, heck perhaps more so since they are so far removed from it. The Holohoax could have occured on Mars as far the youngsters are concerned!
They have also been conditioned by Eric Cartman to accept anti-semitism!
“He is talking about the Jews! Cool, sounds just like Cartman” 🙂
“If you think MacDonald is crude you’re as much an enemy of the white race as any jew.” – OldRight
I have to second this opinion. It is pretty arrogant for someone to suggest that MacDonald is crude, it reeks of the “know-betterism” which I find so irritating in pro-white politics. Yosemite, if he would have us believe he knows better than MacDonald, would do well to critique the work rather than make tendentious statements.
I tried at Thanksgiving to talk, using documented facts, to my Fox-News-watching, World-Net-Daily-reading White Protestant relatives over the turkey. These absolutely mainstream people recoiled in *horror* that I said ANYTHING critical of Jews. I could talk all afternoon about Goldman Sachs Banksters. Sure. But the minute the word “Jewish” left my mouth, oooooops. I am now branded a crude antisemite.
If they’re serious Christians I’d go at them through their faith. What kind of self-respecting Christian worships Jews? There isn’t one. Otherwise, I suppose the place to start is to keep repeating how putting any group of people beyond criticism is a recipe for disaster, apart from any specifics. I.e., it’s inevitable that any group beyond criticism will tend to dominate others and get up to no good eventually.
People like that, who are beyond reason, should be mocked.
Where Judeo-obsessives go wrong, imho, is in believing that the JQ is of greater importance than other issues which pertain to the continued existence of whites such as, for example, the attitudes of whites themselves. To understand what I mean, think about all of the white people who acquiesce to the present situation with nary a complaint. Do they do it because they are forced? Well, white men to some extent perhaps. But really if there were such grave opposition to or grand outrage toward the enforced liberalism there ought to be a critical mass of white people willing to violently oppose it. So why aren’t there? In the final estimation “our people” don’t care that they are being dispossessed or bred out or bred down and will not contemplate doing a thing about it. We are a small minority whose grievances are, for the most part, laughed at by the greater white populace. Worrying about Jews when this is the situation seems almost laughable since the general populace, even if they are acting against their interests ultimately, could really care less.
Again, my aim in stating these things is not “defeatism” but realism.
Along those lines (casting aspersions on their Christianity), might want to criticize Christians, whether in general or particular denominations. Then, when they inevitably show less zeal in defending their fellow Christians than they have in defending Jews, politely inform them they’re a very low sort of Christian to put Jews ahead of their own.
Where Judeo-obsessives go wrong, imho, is in believing that the JQ is of greater importance than other issues which pertain to the continued existence of whites such as, for example, the attitudes of whites themselves. To understand what I mean, think about all of the white people who acquiesce to the present situation with nary a complaint. Do they do it because they are forced? Well, white men to some extent perhaps. But really if there were such grave opposition to or grand outrage toward the enforced liberalism there ought to be a critical mass of white people willing to violently oppose it.
“Judeo-obsessives” doesn’t sound like a term used by friendlies. I don’t know many sensible ethnopatriots who claim there’s widespread “grave opposition” or “grand outrage” toward “enforced liberalism.” And I don’t agree that either would translate into widespread willingness to violent opposition. The frog is being slowly boiled and so cannot sense the murderous intent.
So why aren’t there? In the final estimation “our people” don’t care that they are being dispossessed or bred out or bred down and will not contemplate doing a thing about it.
I don’t think they know they’re being dispossessed. Who’s told them?
We are a small minority whose grievances are, for the most part, laughed at by the greater white populace.
The only thing I take home from this is that they’re coerced into their current suicidal behavior.
Worrying about Jews when this is the situation seems almost laughable since the general populace, even if they are acting against their interests ultimately, could really care less.
Again, I think we’ve made separate diagnoses. You think people know and don’t care, I think people don’t have a clue. So obviously our distinct diagnoses call for different treatments. Mine calls for giving them a clue, in which case drawing their attention to the problem makes sense. I don’t know what your treatment would be.
I don’t see how discussing the JQ could possibly be a problem in the wider sense. Putting the issue in front of as many eyeballs as possible means awakening more of our people. They go out and subvert the status quo, convert their families, and raise aware children. Where’s the down side?
I really wonder about some of you guys.
Naming the Jew should be one approach among many. Critiquing Jews should be a matter of course; it shouldn’t be our main concern. Constantly obsessing about the Jews, or who is and who isn’t Jewish, is counter-productive. It’s a turn-off to normal, well-adjusted people. No one likes a nutjob.
Ian Jobling isn’t a “naive mainstreamer.” He’s a sell-out.
Jews are more visible right now than at any point since the 1950s, any WN movement that does not take advantage of these interesting times isn’t worth the name.
I’ve been using the Tiger Woods scandal to talk to friends and colleagues (all white) about the dangers of black sexual behavior and intermarriage. I have been pleasantly suprised to learn of the opposition to these behaviors among whites.
surprised
Svigor,
Don’t have a lot of time for response right now but a few points:
a.) I never said we shouldn’t mention the JQ. What Jews do is very important for people to know. Did you miss my defense of MacDonald just above?
b.) There are no downsides to warning people or “waking them up.” But ultimately we haven’t been that effective in doing so yet. What’s more, even if we do, what then? Our enemies will not just relinquish the power they’ve fought and schemed so long to gain.
c.) My treatment definitely involves alerting people to, at the very least, racial differences and the JQ. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
d.) If anything my intention was to point out that our enemy is a Leviathan and the ability to do anything about it now or in the future seems very slim in my opinion.
The “reasonable vanguardist” will reply by pointing out, yes, your argument has merit, but moderation is a slippery slope…The cost of abandoning the Jewish Question is too high.
No one here as far as I can tell is advocating that the JQ be abandoned. That’s a straw man argument.
This attitude is a great example of the kind of thinking I’m noticing on this site. With some of you guys it’s always a “zero-sum” situation. There’s no middle ground for you. For you guys, either we talk about the JQ all the time–or we never mention the JQ again. But that’s not the choice we face, and it’s certainly not what anyone is suggesting. It’s a false dichotomy.
I don’t know if this is a function of age, maturity level, education, or what. But I think nuance, sophistication, and sober anlysis need to be brought to bear on this issue.
“If they’re serious Christians I’d go at them through their faith. What kind of self-respecting Christian worships Jews? There isn’t one.”
This is an intriguing idea. Would you expand, Svigor? What sorts of arguments / phrases / word choices have you found to be effective? So many of our people who are serious Christians have swallowed the dogma of “God blesses / curses he who blesses / curses the Jews.”
a.) I never said we shouldn’t mention the JQ. What Jews do is very important for people to know. Did you miss my defense of MacDonald just above?
Yeah, I saw that after I posted. I took you for conflating Jew-aware and “Judeo-obsessive.”
But ultimately we haven’t been that effective in doing so yet.
By what metric? Do we even have a means to measure efficacy?
What’s more, even if we do, what then? Our enemies will not just relinquish the power they’ve fought and schemed so long to gain.
If we achieve a critical mass of whites of suitable disposition, then our enemies will already have relinquished power. This is something I see as obvious, but I don’t see it gaining much traction among ethnopatriots.
I suppose an analogy is in order. You want to stand up, cross the room, and pick up that glass of water to take a drink. But you’re crippled, in a wheelchair – your legs don’t work. What’s the solution? When will you know you’ve done what needs to be done to succeed?
When you’ve fixed your legs, that’s when. Once your legs are fixed, you know standing up, walking over to the glass, picking it up, and taking a drink will be the easy part.
I see our situation as similar. So many of us worry about whether we’re going to start out on the left foot, or the right, or if we should stick our pinky out while we drink, or if we should keep it firmly on the glass. Academic. There are an infinite number of paths we can walk to get to our destination. The hard part is making an “us” first. Once we have an “us,” we can solve our problems with a shrug of our shoulders. By FAR, the hard work is going to be creating that “us,” that critical mass of sufficiently dedicated white men.
At that point our enemies will have already lost.
“If they’re serious Christians I’d go at them through their faith. What kind of self-respecting Christian worships Jews? There isn’t one.”
This is an intriguing idea. Would you expand, Svigor? What sorts of arguments / phrases / word choices have you found to be effective?
I don’t know many serious Christians, and fewer whom I’ve approached. So most of what I’ll give you is speculative.
That said, there’s a whole host of tools at your disposal. I have to go AFK but when I come back I’ll throw some ideas out there.
to cross post
“What some people do not understand is that many philosemites are already expressing their hardline ideology. It isn’t that they are conceding to gain more popularity with the mainstream.”
Do you have any evidence that Jared Taylor agrees with AS in private but publicly distances himself? Remember that toleration is not agreement. During the previous era, me, Shays, you and Besoshvili all tolerated each other, but that doesn’t mean we agreed ideologically.
What evidence do you have that Taylor secretly agrees with you? i would say the evidence points to Jared Taylor simply anti-semites for grunt work and planning to drop them if he ever gets bigger.
No one here as far as I can tell is advocating that the JQ be abandoned. That’s a straw man argument.
You are forgetting friedrich braun.
What evidence do you have that Taylor secretly agrees with you?
If I wanted to, I could end this argument.
i would say the evidence points to Jared Taylor simply anti-semites for grunt work and planning to drop them if he ever gets bigger.
I read Guy White’s recent post about the subject and your comments at his site. My response is that neither of you know Jared Taylor. You are not in a position to know anything more than you read, see, or hear on the internet.
This attitude is a great example of the kind of thinking I’m noticing on this site. With some of you guys it’s always a “zero-sum” situation. There’s no middle ground for you.
A “middle ground” position would be leaving White Nationalism and the Jewish Question to educational campaigns while engaging in “practical politics” in the Deep South on an explicitly pro-White platform. As David Duke points out, these issues are irrelevant in state races anyway.
If you can prove me wrong then do it. It won’t “hurt my feelings” and I’d probably rather realize his true position than be unaware of it.
Taylor is an invaluable asset to our cause. He plays a useful role: reaching the “implicit whites” and introducing them to white racial consciousness. I’ve said before that he is like a racialist high school teacher.
Hammering newbies with the full truth about the Jewish Question and the LDC system is counterproductive. It scares people away or gives them ideas they are unprepared to grasp. You have to first care about your race before you will care what the Jews have been doing to it.
Occidental Dissent, The Occidental Observer, and The Occidental Quarterly are the next level. After newbies learn the basics about racial differences and racial consciousness, they are introduced to the Jewish Question and other important matters on these sites. Our role is to take people who already have racialist ideas and push them further along in that direction.
We can’t compromise on the jewish question.
You wouldn’t accept a few grams of plutonium in your body.
There is no middle ground on permitting jews to live in a white ethnostate because jews are as toxic to human life as plutonium.
Now as for whether we should lie about our intentions, that’s another issue. I don’t see much percentage in it. No matter what philosemitic lies we tell to advance politically I don’t think jews are going to be fooled, and it’s the jews that the white lemmings will look to when they require guidance on racial thinking.
Barb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
You have to first care about your race before you will care what the Jews have been doing to it.
Everyone cares about their race. The exception is the man who cares about nothing.
Now, if you’re saying that someone has to become an ethnopatriot before he can grasp the JQ, well, maybe. As I said on another thread, I was a very “cool” sort of proto-ethnopatriot before I really started to look into the JQ. Doing so made me into a full-blown ethnopatriot. This flies directly into the face of what you’re saying, I think.
Showing how hard someone’s working to destroy something you have is showing prima facie evidence of that thing’s value.
I don’t disagree that Hunter in that some people may start out as Taylorites and convert to Anti-Semites.
I don’t see any evidence that Taylor himself supports this broader effort, that he consider himself part of it. He may be useful to you, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with you.
You view Taylor as part of an assembly line to manufacturing an ideology.
I’m not sure he views himself as part of that, even though he’s useful to you.
He’s useful to Guy White too.