There has been a lot of discussion on this website about “going mainstream.” Lately, Jack Ryan has been trying to articulate this idea. This has generated tremendous confusion in the comments. The sniping and negativity that has been on constant display has deterred even me from posting from here.
I had planned to write about the “One Nation” rally this morning. That can wait until tomorrow. It is clear now from reading the comments that a more detailed explanation is warranted. We haven’t been succeeding in communicating our message.
I’m the one who has changed.
In recent months, I have become more critical of White Nationalism. I have grown more realistic and pragmatic. This is a natural progression of the activist direction I had long been heading in.
Look at it this way: when you move to Virginia and invest considerable time and resources in advancing White Nationalism, you become much more committed and serious than you were before. Your perspective changes.
Critique of White Nationalism
The problems that are holding the White Nationalist movement back are easy to identify:
1.) White Nationalists are powerless. They are powerless mainly because they are hopelessly disorganized. This disorganization stems primarily from the social ostracism and employment discrimination, not to mention the government persecution, that has driven the movement underground.
2.) Lacking power and a real world outlet for their energies, White Nationalists retreat to the internet, where cyberspace becomes less of a tool for communication than an escape outlet for blowing off steam.
3.) This escapism takes on various forms. Intellectuals retreat into the comfort zone of their libraries. Some White Nationalists retreat into the past. Some visit these websites to entertain themselves and pass the time.
4.) The internet magnifies the natural tendency of intellectuals and radicals to become disconnected from reality. This leads to the creation of elaborate fantasy ideologies and erratic behavior which is objectively harmful to promoting White Nationalism to a mainstream audience.
5.) The White Nationalist media is a microcosm of the larger trend of market segmentation going on across the internet. When radicals only talk to other radicals in cyberspace ghettoes, their alienation from America is magnified, and they create a new social identity around markers designed to separate and wall themselves off from ordinary people.
6.) Like all fringe political movements, White Nationalism attracts a disproportionate number of kooks, sociopaths, and radical individualists. The movement lacks institutions with the necessary legitimacy to marginalize these destructive personality types.
7.) Taken together, all the factors listed above combine to create the most damaging and serious problem of all facing the White Nationalist movement, which is the tragic loss of political realism and an unwillingness to start where people are today and communicate with a more moderate audience in terms of their own experience.
This isn’t the critique of a hostile outsider. It comes from a friendly veteran who wants the White Nationalist movement to succeed, who has spent many hours thinking through these issues, and who is actively searching for ways to overcome these obstacles.
Looking at the White Nationalist movement, I only see two real paths to power: organization or subversion.
The Virginia experience convinced me that White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. The only people who will organize under a White Nationalist banner are the hardcore dedicated minority, whose numbers aren’t sufficient to threaten the status quo, and the fantasists who use the street as a stage to act out their own individual psychodramas.
That leaves subversion.
As saboteurs, White Nationalists can organize and influence the mainstream. With a real world outlet for their energies, White Nationalists will start communicating with ordinary people and restore their sense of political realism. Successful accomplishments in the mainstream will build confidence, shift the political spectrum in our direction, and curtail high turnover through disillusionment.
What’s more, a subversive agenda will only appeal to certain types of White Nationalists. The kooks, sociopaths, and fantasists don’t have the patience or ability to interact with their contemporaries. The bookworms are unable to take their heads out of the clouds. The time-wasters won’t find themselves entertained by interacting with ordinary people.
Reality imposes these conditions on us anyway.
The only way we can establish the legitimacy necessary to lead the White masses is to work within the mainstream. Only in the mainstream are Whites found in sufficient numbers to create a White ethnostate. If we have any hope to persuade our peers to become White Nationalists, we have to communicate with them in terms of their own experience, which is the cultural and political mainstream, not the radical fringe.
American communists have provided us with a workable model. Over the last fifty years, American communists have accomplished much of their radical agenda through diluting their message and subverting mainstream liberalism and conservatism. Communists once faced all the obstacles that White Nationalists face today, in particular, the social ostracism and employment discrimination that has driven the movement underground.
We would be wise to study their methods.
Mainstreaming Occidental Dissent
It was never my intention to “mainstream” this website. My own views had changed. It never occurred to me to demand that everyone here adopt my own point of view. And besides, Occidental Dissent is already known as a White Nationalist website, so any attempt to “mainstream” the discourse here would be doomed to failure anyway.
I have gone mainstream. If you want to go mainstream, that is your choice, but I won’t force anyone here to follow my advice, or accept my critique of the White Nationalist movement. You will only be exposed to my point of view.
Isn’t that fair?
Barriers to Communication
In light of all the above, I have been banging away at the theme for weeks now that White Nationalists are creating “unnecessary barriers” between themselves and their target audience. These barriers stem mostly from their own radical alienation from White America. This is why I have repeatedly said that White Nationalists are often their own worst enemy.
What are these barriers?
1.) American Patriotism – This is probably the biggest one. In their alienation from the United States, many White Nationalists (myself included) have entertained the notion of destroying America and replacing it with some new political entity.
This is a mistake.
It creates an “unnecessary barrier” between White Nationalists and a broader constituency of American nationalists. Underneath the rhetoric, we share the same fundamental goal: we want to preserve and restore at least a slice of the Old America; we don’t want America to be “transformed” in the way that progressives desire, least of all into a Third World Babylon.
Now, I look back at my old posts attacking the American flag and just shake my head. Is it really the Stars and Stripes fault, a piece of cloth, that America is in terminal racial decline? Is it the fault of the men who died in the Revolution or the War of 1812 that I have come to admire?
I’m on the side of the people who are trying to hold back the tide. I identify with the White majority. If that were not the case, I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time here.
2.) Christianity – What sense does it make to attack Christianity when the vast majority of White Americans are Christians? As a tactic, it is a stupid mistake. As a strategy, it is ridiculous. Are White Nationalists going to create a White ethnostate out of the 1% of atheists who are racialists? That’s highly unlikely.
More to the point, Christianity isn’t responsible for the present racial catastrophe, at least not directly. The very word “racism” didn’t exist until the early twentieth century. This idea that Christianity has always been anti-racist is absurd. What did Augustine, Luther, or Aquinas have to say about racism?
A plausible argument can be made that radical egalitarianism “hatched” out of Christianity. You can argue, persuasively, that heretics like the Quakers, Unitarians, and Secular Humanists have twisted Christianity to advance their own ends. That said, Christianity wasn’t a driving force in the demise of the Jim Crow South. The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t condemn “racism” until the 1990s.
The churches have been hijacked by anti-racists. That might be more remarkable if every other institution in American society, namely, Congress and secular universities, had not been similarly hijacked by our racial and cultural enemies, and then at a much earlier date.
These facile attacks on Christianity need to stop. It is a clear case of misdirected rage. Instead, the Christians who are racialists should be encouraged to take back their churches.
3.) Conservatism – Every White Nationalist “rhetorical radical” earns his stripes with attacks on conservatives. This is another mistake on our part. Over 50% of White Americans are conservatives. Who is supposed to be converted to our point of view? The vast majority of Whites who are opposed to illegal immigration are “conservatives.”
What sense does it make to set up an “us vs. them” dynamic between ourselves and our target audience?
A plausible argument can be made that “conservatives” haven’t conserved much. You can argue, persuasively, that “conservatism” is controlled by an alien elite (i.e., the neocons) that has derailed the movement into a false opposition.
We’re not trying to persuade Jonah Goldberg or David Brooks of anything though. Our target audience are the millions of ordinary White conservatives in Red America whose only real flaw is ignorance.
Is it really their fault that they don’t know the score on race and Jews? Every conceivable barrier possible has been erected between them and this knowledge. Most White Nationalists weren’t born with this knowledge either.
Have some patience with and sympathy for people who are not as radical as you are.
4.) Subrace/Ethnicity – The ethnic and subracial infighting that plagues White Nationalist websites is a major turn off. What sense does it make to polarize Whites at this critical juncture in history?
Personally, I happen to think these issues are important, but my attitude is that now just isn’t the appropriate time to discuss them. With millions of Asians, Mestizos, and Africans flooding into America, I am not all that concerned about the 1/4th Italians. We can discuss that within the context of a victorious White ethnostate.
The subracial issue is a distraction from the immediate goal of stopping non-White immigration. Let me emphasize that I do not by any means want to transform Britain or France into Whitemanistan. I am concerned exclusively with my own country right now.
I am not at all hostile to reasonable Nordicism. By that I mean a positive attitude toward people of Northern European ancestry. I mean celebrating Northern European culture and accomplishments.
I think the Nordicists would be best served by pursuing and impregnating Nordic women and creating more Nordic babies, not by arguing with anonymous people on the internet. That’s the difference between effective and ineffective Nordicism.
These subracial antagonists might as well be speaking Klingon. Ordinary White people won’t grasp the subracial issue until they grasp and address the race issue.
5.) The Jews – This is a polarizing issue within the White Nationalist community. There are people who don’t want to talk about the Jews at all. There are others who want to talk about nothing else.
The Jewish Question is the hardest aspect of White Nationalism for ordinary people to grasp. The vast majority of White Americans do not live among Jews. They have little experience in interacting with them. This calls for a delicate approach, not a full frontal assault.
I think the reasonable course of action is to raise the matter only when appropriate. It was appropriate to raise the Jewish Question in the Rick Sanchez thread. The Jewish Question should never be the centerpiece of our message, but it should still be an important part of it.
6.) Nazism – In their alienation from America, White Nationalists often fall down the rat hole of Neo-Nazism, where they lose their ability to communicate with and influence their contemporaries. Even among radical vanguardists, the costume fantasists are recognized as a problem.
I’m not referring to them. I have in mind the radical intellectuals who openly advocate National Socialism in an American context. This is something that Adolf Hitler himself refused to do on practical grounds. That was before a World War and half a century of propaganda and brainwashing in the public schools and media.
If Adolf Hitler were alive today, even he would point out the insanity of trying to communicate with ordinary Americans with such a message. He would be the first to insist on the necessity of adapting our rhetoric to our target audience.
7.) The Enlightenment – Attacks on the Enlightenment round out the major “barriers to communication” that I have identified. There are plenty of White Nationalists who will openly say things like ” I hate freedom” and advocate jettisoning the republican tradition.
I shouldn’t have to point out how this is a tactical and strategic mistake. What sense does it make to throw up an ideological barrier in addition to all the other ones that now exist? This is why I insist that many White Nationalists are flat out unwilling to communicate with their audience.
The Enlightenment has been hijacked like Christianity. It only takes a moment of reflection to realize this: the Founding Fathers never imagined that the mulatto bastard son of a Kenyan communist would ever sit in the White House. They emphatically rejected “social equality” and went to considerable length to contrast it with “civil equality” and “political equality.”
Thomas Jefferson believed that blacks could enjoy equality in West Africa. They couldn’t enjoy it in America because he didn’t consider them the social equals of White Americans. The Founders racialized American citizenship in the First Congress.
We’re not against republicanism. It is universalism that White Nationalists should reject. Within a White ethnostate, Enlightenment ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance wouldn’t be problematic. What is White Nationalism but the application of fraternity?
We are trying to liberate Whites. We are not treated equally in this society. Our views are not tolerated. Of course we resent the status quo.
That shouldn’t imply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I’ve been trying to eliminate these “barriers to communication” in my own rhetoric. I would recommend that other pro-Whites do the same. Insofar as I plan to continue writing here, the discourse of this website will come to reflect that, which explains the recent “mainstream” tone, but that is reallly all there is to the idea of “going mainstream.”
I do not expect everyone to follow my example. I hope you now have a better understanding of where I am coming from. Now that we understand each other, I would like to think we can get back to working toward realizing our mutual goal, the creation of a White ethnostate in North America.