San Francisco, CA
Whenever I visit “Counter-Currents,” I am reminded that some White Nationalists live in an alternative reality. These last few months have been an instructive lesson in the schism between “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” within the White Nationalist movement.
I have been too busy studying the entrails of the growing White backlash to comment on the matter, but recent vanguardist activity has not escaped my attention. Now that the election is over, it is the appropriate time to share my thoughts.
What happened last week should determine the course we take moving forward.
Mainstreamers vs. Vanguardists
As the old proverb goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” The 2010 midterm elections revealed nothing new about the White Nationalist movement.
For decades, White Nationalists have fallen into two major camps, the “mainstreamers” and the “vanguardists.” We spent a lot of time exploring this anthropological division of nationalist late last year. It has remained intact down to the present day.
In case you have only recently joined us, a “mainstreamer” is a White Nationalist who favors “working within the system,” adapting our rhetoric to connect with our target audience, quietly injecting our ideas into the mainstream, moving the goalposts, and removing the barriers that exist between White Nationalists and White America.
In contrast, a “vanguardist” is a White Nationalist who believes “the system” is hopelessly corrupt, must be destroyed (sometimes through military action), and that we should create small groups of radicals who will rise to power in the aftermath of “the collapse” of civilization. In the meantime, they prefer to focus primarily on sealing themselves off from their contemporaries and pursuing their own eclectic interests.
It all boils down to the question of whether reform is possible or even desirable. Mainstreamers incline toward the belief that progress can be made through working within the system. Vanguardists reject the system on the basis of principle.
The former want to reach out. The latter want to pull away. The former want to build bridges. The latter want to burn them. Simple enough to understand?
This internal tug of war has been the defining dynamic within the White Nationalist movement for generations.
The Vanguardist Critique
The “vanguardist” critique of the mainstreamers should sound familiar. If you have spent any considerable amount of time in the White Nationalist movement, you have undoubtedly heard many iterations of it by now. It goes something like this:
1.) The system is hopelessly broken. There is nothing to be gained by working within the system or supporting system politicians. Instead of engaging in “mainstream politics,” we should spend our limited time and resources on creating and nurturing a White Nationalist counterculture.
2.) This counterculture should take the form of creating small groups of “wide awake” true believers, or “purists” as they are often described, who will become the vanguard of the White Nationalist revolution.
3.) America is so degenerate that the system will eventually collapse. In the context of this inevitable collapse, White Nationalist vanguardists will seize power; all we have to do is wait. In the meantime, we should focus our efforts on maintaining an ideologically rigorous opposition.
4.) Mainstreamers are “conservatives” who have a weakening effect upon the White Nationalist movement. They are cowardly enablers of the Jews who are only propping up the rotten system.
5.) There are no explicit White Nationalists in Congress. Mainstreamers like the CofCC and Amren have failed to break out. They are diverting resources toward people who do not need them.
6.) The White Nationalist cause can only be advanced by “standing firm” in favor of explicit White Nationalism.
7.) White Americans, represented by the likes of “the people in Peoria,” want the present system, which rules out a political path to a White ethnostate.
8.) Since Whites want the present anti-White system, we need a “metapolitical movement” to change the fundamental values of White Americans. We cannot succeed in politics under the reigning value system. The most fundamental values of White Americans must be eradicated and replaced by the “ideas” of the White Nationalist counterculture.
The Mainstreamer Critique
The “mainstreamers” have their own critique of the vanguardists. It is no secret that From The Provinces inclines toward the mainstreamer camp; Counter-Currents toward the vanguardist camp. Again, if you have spent any considerable amount of time in White Nationalist circles, this “mainstreamer” critique should sound familiar:
1.) The vanguardists have lost touch with reality and immersed themselves in a fantasy world. Many of them started out as sincere White Advocates, but at some undefined point their own alienation grew to such an extent that they became openly hostile and contemptuous toward White America. Their existence has become a burden for those White Nationalists who are trying to connect with a larger audience.
2.) The vanguardists are “rhetorical radicals.” Their radicalism consists entirely in anonymous words posted on the internet, not in their deeds or actions in the real world. The vanguardists may strike a pose as radicals, but the actions they counsel (namely, disengaging from the mainstream) effectively enable our worst enemies like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.
Talk is cheap.
When you disengage from the system, you make it easier for our enemies to pass their crazy agenda. You increase the perception that White Nationalists are not a political threat and reinforce our marginalization on the fringes of society. The culmination of this is the “worse is better” theory in which the political actions of vanguardists become synonymous with the endorsements of the ADL.
The “rhetorical radicalism” of vanguardists can be contrasted with the “radical realism” of mainstreamers. Moderate actions in the real world might not sound rhetorically hard enough to radical ears, but they are effective at crippling the legislative agenda of our enemies, and advancing our own agenda in the mainstream on issues like immigration and affirmative action.
3.) The system is not nearly as broken as the vanguardists claim. In 2010, we had over 130 candidates running for office in the House (and many more at the state level) on a platform of cutting legal immigration. As a result of the 2010 midterm elections, we now have the most restrictionist Congress since 1924; supporters of less immigration now outnumber advocates of more immigration.
Shutting down legal immigration, deporting illegal aliens already here through attrition, and securing the border are tractable goals. If we work within the hated system, it is entirely possible that we could succeed in halting the Third World invasion within the next ten years.
4.) The GOP establishment is not nearly as omnipotent as the vanguardists have claimed. White Nationalists are well aware of Corporate America’s influence over the Republican Party, but even at the height of Bushism the conservative base was successful at defeating the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable that were pushing amnesty for illegal aliens.
In the 1990s, David Duke was nearly successful in defeating the GOP establishment and becoming Governor of Louisiana. James Russell received 37 percent of the vote in the 2010 midterms and he was running in New York’s 18th District with the leaders of his own party campaigning against him. In Alabama, the Holocaust denier Larry Darby carried 33 of 67 counties and 43% of the vote in the 2006 Alabama Democratic primary for Attorney General.
The fact is, within the last five years, the conservative base has succeeded (without our assistance) in transforming the position of the Republican Party on immigration. John McCain is penitent and begging for forgiveness. Mitch McConnell is now adjusting to the reality of Senator Rand Paul.
We have entered the Tea Party, Arizona, implicit White Nationalist era in mainstream politics; a time when the borders of the mainstream Right and pro-White politics will begin to blur.
The post-Bush GOP and post-Buckley conservative movement are no longer immune to challenges from their Right. The barrier that has kept White Nationalist mainstreamers from breaking out into the broader Right is weaker than ever before. White Nationalist rhetoric is already making deep advances into the mainstream conservative movement.
5.) Since the second term of George W. Bush, and especially since the rise of Sarah Palin and the election of Barack Obama, White America is stirring and lashing out in unpredictable ways. The Joe Six Packs of the 1990s are the Tea Party activists of the 2010s.
Major changes which I have been tracking are now in progress: Whites are starting to identify as “outsiders,” the White vote is coelescing, Whites are visibly starting to adopt the language of an aggrieved minority, Whites are openly flirting with an embrace of identity politics, Whites are forcing mainstream politicians to advance their interests with primary challenges.
Just as the White backlash is blowing at Hurricane Katrina levels, vanguardists are advocating the brilliant idea of spurning ordinary people because they are not radical enough for their tastes, coupled with the equally absurd idea of offending them with “meta-political” assaults on their most fundamental values. As White America finally starts to wake up, the vanguardists are not even really paying attention, or when they do tune into reality, it is as an afterthought or an occasion to give offense.
6.) Vanguardists, who are usually experiencing some type of personal identity crisis, are bent on erecting unnecessary barriers between White Nationalists and White America: constantly heaping praise on fascism, radical attacks on republican government, anti-Americanism, attacks on Christianity, importing exotic ideas from Europe, advocating violent revolution, etc.
Their alienation has lately reached comical levels: labeling North America the “Great Death Continent,” investigating the great questions of our time like whether the Confederacy was controlled by the Rothschilds and anti-racist masculinity among “alpha males” in science fiction films, speculating about the Lemurian orgins of Jews and the populating of Europe by refugees from Atlantis.
While Middle America is revolting, Counter-Currents can be found reviewing “Legally Blonde 2” and discussing Coco Chanel’s Nazi love affairs. When “progressive” is becoming a four letter word in White America, Counter-Currents is charting our course forward from a “degenerate” White Nationalist movement to a vitalized “progressive” utopia in which “kooky” bureaucrats have harnessed eugenics and government mandated social engineering to “transform” our descendants into elves from Lord of the Rings.
7.) Vanguardists have no interest in communicating with ordinary people, responding to their concerns, or engaging the electorate. They misrepresent ordinary Americans, whom they no longer sympathize with, in ways that are detrimental to the success of the White Nationalist movement.
To hear vanguardists tell the tale, White Americans love the status quo, are wedded to the existing regime, are perfectly content with hordes of brown skin invaders flooding into the United States, and hold “anti-racism” as their only sacred value.
In reality, Congress has a 12% approval rating, the majority of White Americans consider the federal government “a direct and immediate threat” to their freedom, nullification and state sovereignty are in the air, most White Americans believe the next generation will be worse off, and the charge of “racism” in the midterm elections resulted in a White backlash and a Republican landslide the likes of which hasn’t been since the Great Depression.
8.) Instead of reaching out to White America, building bridges to a potential mass constituency (which is already searching for ways to revolt), vanguardists are desperately trying to blast off into the furtherest reaches of the fringe. They seal themselves off from contamination in small cult like groups and occupy themselves in their own fantasy world.
This usually takes the form of retreating into the distant (the Middle Ages) or recent past (Nazi Germany) or the distant (White colonization of the Milky Way galaxy) or near future (the Northwest Republic). Some vanguardists have creatively combined National Socialism with their interest in esoteric subjects like UFOs, numerology, and speculation about the demise of Atlantis.
9.) Among the many mainstream politicians who are a bane to vanguardists, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul rank highest on the list. They stand accused of diverting scarce White Nationalist resources from vanguardist projects.
Returning to reality, Tancredo, Buchanan, and Paul are trailblazers who have done more than anyone else in America to mainstream controversial positions on issues like immigration, multiculturalism, foreign wars, and monetary policy. There are now hundreds of little Tancredos in Congress and the state legislatures, a Senator Paul and a whole movement of aspiring Ron Pauls, and Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration and free trade is triumphing in the Tea Party.
As a “meta-political” project, these mainstream politicians (and more broadly, the Tea Party) are actually succeeding in redefining the ideas that constitute Americanism. They reach an audience of millions where obscure vanguardists reach an audience of hundreds. Even if our goal was to “spread ideas,” the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan presidential campaigns (followed by their bestselling books) did more to “spread ideas” than writing for obscure websites ever did.
10.) If mainstreamers sound like they are from Mars, the vanguardists sound like they are from Pluto.
Last Tuesday, White America revolted against the Democratic majority in Congress over Obamacare. If entrusted with power, the vanguardists would only build a monument to Adolf Hitler on the National Mall and expand the scope of the national government to the point of allowing “kooky” bureaucrats to arrange marriages so that “a god-like race” of White elves and “Nietszchean supermen” could be created.
That won’t play in Peoria or Portland.
The vanguardist “strategy” is nothing less than converting Americans to “ideas” like that one. In other words, they are taking people out of the mainstream (people who might now vote, donate, organize, protest, influence their peers) and alienating and lobotomizing these “wide awakes” to the point where they can’t even communicate with their own family members.
Few of these “wide awakes” are actually married with children.
11.) Even if civilization were to collapse tomorrow, the vanguardists would never rise to power. They spend so much of their time alienating and offending their contemporaries (basking in the role of the village atheist) that they would never turn to them in the event of a national emergency.
In fact, the return of barbaric conditions would likely spell the end of this species of fantasist (costume or otherwise), as it is the liberal value of tolerance (and the anonymity of the internet) that gives them the platform to spread their views. In the Mad Max world, violent gang rule would replace the soft tyranny we live under today; the market for esoteric, avant-garde European fascism would evaporate overnight.
12.) The vanguardist inclination to violence is a threat that constantly hangs over our heads. The MLK assassination gave the Left the opportunity to deify MLK into a secular saint. In 1994, the Oklahoma City bombing singlehandedly destroyed all the momentum that the critics of the federal government had built after Waco and Ruby Ridge. More recently, James von Brunn’s inept shooting spree provided a convenient talking point in the backdrop of the “townhall mobs” that were sweeping across America.
There is a real chance that some vanguardist lunatic might go postal on a prominent elected official and our remaining freedoms could be curtailed as a result. Mark Penn, one of President Clinton’s former advisors, is already appearing on cable television saying that Barack Obama needs another Oklahoma City to reconnect with White voters in the Heartland.
Toward 2020
Predicting the future is always a precarious enterprise.
Looking ahead into the next decade, I am willing to roll the dice though and gamble on a few predictions.
1.) William F. Buckley’s forcefield that has traditionally separated the “respectable right” from the “fringe right” will eventually breakdown. When Mitch McConnell laid his hands on the shoulders of Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Rand Paul, it heralded the end of the era of the gatekeepers.
2.) As this barrier to respectability crumbles under the challenge posed by social media, the White Nationalist genie will escape from the bottle. Specifically, the “mainsteamer” wing of White Nationalism will dissolve into the broader White Right and “sweeten the tea” on issues like immigration, affirmative action, states rights, political correctness, and multiculturalism.
When pro-Whites discover the political mainstream has become permeable, there will be less anonymous posting on the internet and more real world activity. The internet will be used by White Nationalists in more productive ways like throwing their support behind candidates who are solid on immigration in close races.
3.) The economy will continue to deteriorate. The unease of the White electorate will grow and it will continue to lash out in unpredictable ways. In such conditions, it is guaranteed that Whites will turn against immigration. Historically, Americans have only felt more inclusive when the economy is booming or in wartime conditions.
4.) The breakthrough of pro-Whites into the political mainstream will first occur in the Southwest or Southeast, but it could conceivably happen in relatively White states like Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, or West Virginia.
5.) The breakthrough will start as a tax revolt over America’s fiscal insolvency before evolving into a more interesting rebellion.
6.) California will collapse, probably under Governor Moonbeam, and this will have sweeping consequences Whites who live elsewhere in America.
7.) Barack Obama’s defeat in 2012 at the hands of White voters will inaugurate an era of racial turmoil.
8.) While all this is happening, the vanguardists (after launching from San Francisco) will continue their strange journey in their counterculture spaceship locked into a course of political insanity, although they will travel smaller and smaller distances with each passing year as White Nationalist resources are diverted to more profitable projects.
Maybe they will reach the stars and open up diplomatic relations with aliens. They lost their ability to communicate with us mere humans long ago.
The Million Dollar Question
We have limited resources: time, money, bodies. How should we invest them?
I would argue that this is an easy one: throw everything we got into working within the system to secure the border and shutdown legal immigration. That means donating, voting, volunteering, organizing for candidates who will stop the invasion.
If we can’t stop the invasion, we are going to lose. We can openly work within the mainstream to fight legal immigration and deport the invaders who are already here. That’s what we should be doing.
I’m sure there are those who disagree. I’ve said my piece. Now I want to hear you argue the contrary.
Agree with you 100% Hunter.
There is only one camp in White Nationalist circles, there always has been. This “mainstream” White Nationalism your referring to is nothing more than pro-Zionist Republican politics, the same old garbage that’s been dished out for years to the public. This time it’s been sprinkled with a little kosher certified White awareness to give it the appearance of being something new.
Alex,
Ah yes.
Zionist stooges – always the same talking points untethered to any practical plan for addressing and solving the problem of said Zionist stooges.
You’re right Hunter. We Vanguardists have little interest in reaching out to “ordinary Americans”. Many of us would agree with Pound that for there to be any real American “Kulchur”, it must be based on some kind of Order and an acknowledgement of Hierarchy within that Order.
The Hierarchy and Order are not political in the electoral or legislative sense, but in a cultural sense. No matter how much “power” the Mainstreamers “win”, there’s no political dimension which can substitute for a much-needed cultural dimension … one based on primordial European values, myths, narratives and more. For us, getting political power in a milieu which is suffused with the pseudoculture of Mammon just isn’t going to do the trick.
This isn’t to say that your efforts, your change of gears is a bad thing. We’re talking different domains of change, which doesn’t have to be an either-or battle like you seem to want it to be … especially by practicing your jab on Counter-Currents. But not all people whose spirit derives from Mothership Europa are the same, and we “Vanguardists” are involved in a dimension of the project which may not be sufficient, but is surely necessary. Without a re-organization of the Myths that inspire our people, holding political power will be useless.
You criticize individual articles at Counter-Currents as superfluous and “beside the point”. Would you criticize the contributions of Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot in the domain of cultural criticism the same way? I’m sure that the beernutz & bongoball set don’t know who those two men even were, much less what they contributed. And that’s not a problem: it only takes a small minority to lead and create cultural “things” which can inspire many who are seeking inspiration. The work of people at Counter Currents and similar sites is just that: an effort to bring out the best of the past and translate it into useful things for the future. Yes, it has zero relevance to “the elections”, but that is not why it is being produced. Our people are not mono-dimensional Hunter, so don’t lower yourself to polarizing where polarization is not required.
On the back cover of Pound’s collection “Impact: Essays on ignorance and the decline of American civilization” there is the following pull-quote …
“For twenty-five years … I have called for a METHOD, that is for a revival and revision of what was once called a dialectic, but which you can call a proper articulation of subjects, if you like that term better. A textbook on anything must start with an articulation of the problem. The writer must tell us what he is trying to find out. He must tell us at least something about the width, depth and kind of ignorance which is plaguing him and for which he seeks a cure.” …
In my opinion, the domain in which we seek an answer to “the width, depth and kind of ignorance which plagues (us) and for which (we) seek a cure” is not the political domain; at least not as the primary “cure”. A “new political system” or “political power” without a cultural dimension and a mythos of our people will be inadequate. The people who are thinking about the “meta-mythic” stuff, and Counter Currents certainly includes some of the best of those, are not an unnecessary “luxury” or waste of time … they are in fact sowing many good seeds towards a harvest of a new American identity. Yes, most people will not appreciate this … but have “most people” EVER appreciated those people and ideas which create high culture? And has ANY civilization ever achieved greatness without an “elect” who create and maintain a higher culture? You know the answer.
So please do all of us Pro-White, Pro-Euro people a favor and stop creating divisive labeling schemes. We just don’t need any more of that stuff.
The rise of Sarah Palin? You mean the media rise of Sarah Palin. You overestimate her popularity and you underestimate her unpopularity among alot of conservatives. Some of the real conservative commentators out there, and I know James Edwards is one of them, are trying to derail her with bad publicity and I wish them luck. If she’s on the ticket for 2012, Obama wins simply for the fact that numerous paleonconservatives, libertarians and White Nationalists, including myself, will either stay home on election day or vote against her like we did in 2008.
In related news, Damon Vickers was recently on Glenn Beck’s show discussing his new book, The Day After The Dollar Crashes. The scenario he described sounded plausible.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-After-Dollar-Crashes-Survival/dp/047091033X
Needless to say, it would be fortuitous for us if the system really did collapse, but we should err on the side of caution and assume that it won’t. I’ve grown dismissive of collapseniks because I have been reading James Howard Kunstler for years.
Kunstler has been talking about the collapse for a decade starting with Y2K.
Hunter,
Your predictions in this post sound suspiciously like a “vanguardist’s” (as you defined it)! Or at least a blending of the two.
Public Notice: I am changing my username from “Wanderer” to “Hail” because there are now two others commenting on blogs I frequent using very similar names.
Hunter, I know you. You love a good flame war, so have at it, although it will probably be for the most part a one-sided exchange. I for one, read and enjoy both websites daily. I enjoy very much reading about Ezra Pound, and I also voted last week with anti-immigration sentiment uppermost in mind while I voted. Apparently, one can be both vanguardist and mainstream WN.
Gregor,
If you followed the links above, you should have noticed that this essay was a response to Greg Johnson’s essay at Counter-Currents, who ridiculed the idea that we have anything to gain by supporting “system politicians.”
I beg to differ: the most restrictionist Congress since 1924 is quite an accomplishment.
Answer me this: Oswald Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, H.L. Mencken, and Friedrich Nietzsche … how many years have these dead men been published? How many years have their ideas been sitting on the bookshelves of college libraries?
They were there five years ago when I was at Auburn. In fact, come to think of it, those same books were there, sitting in the same stacks, when my father was in college in the 1970s, and my grandfather was in college in the 1950s.
I read some of those books myself. I profited from them. That said, I would never confuse my own reading interests with a “metapolitical revolution” that will transform America’s fundamental cultural values, as some of you people seem to have done.
The bookworm revolution is one of the most far fetched scenarios out there.
In all seriousness, there really are some White Nationalists who believe that the solution to our problems lies somewhere in Heidegger’s metaphysics.
This is a debate we should be having.
Do we have anything to gain by making a point of offending ordinary people? By that I mean deliberately assaulting their religion, patriotism, political ideology, and sense of propriety.
Barack Obama was stereotyped as a big government liberal. His supporters in Congress were just thrown out of office. Now, in that sort of context, what sense does it make for White Nationalists to argue in favor of a government so massive, powerful, and unaccountable – one staffed by bureaucratic kooks – that it has the power to arrange marriages to change the phenotype of White Americans to create elf-like creatures from Lord of the Rings?
That’s nuts. I’m sorry. There is no polite way to put it.
So what is the plan Hunter, are we going to get rid of all the nutty stuff in WN? Good luck with that. Wherever people congregate you get crazy stuff, it comes with consciousness.
Hunter;
I didn’t need to follow your links to CC. I read Greg’s piece as soon as it was published.
From a political angle, I agree with some of the scenarios you present, but still don’t see a “collapse” as a solution to a positive culture. Yes, the collapse (economic, political, take you pick) is in sight, but imho it won’t be a sudden thing, at least not everywhere at once.
My point is not to argue for a “bookworm revolution”. That was your label and your thought category … and like the rest of the article as it reference what you called “Vanguardism” there was a lot of passive-aggressive stuff that was pretty obvious. I mean, why do you lump those who want “violence” into “vanguardists”? And why do you even use the term “vanguardist”, a term from Marx-Lenin? You’ve loaded that puppy with a lot of negative crap and then dumped it all on Greg Johnson and friends … none of whom, including Greg, fits your strawman. What’s up with that?
Since I like what’s going on at Counter Currents, and think that there’s a need for meta-political thinking in order to hatch the next stage of White Euro-American consciousness, am I thereby looking for violence and wanting to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler. C’mon, give us a break already!
Maybe we differ in a basic belief. I believe that Spirit drives Matter, and that at some level there has to be an intellectual/spiritual change before the matter will follow. Yeah, “we” can win an election and drive all the mexers out of California, or they will leave, or … you know the flavors of those scenarios. But WHAT THEN?
Do you think the current MINDSET of America will be able to maintain, or even reach that point of “whiteness” in a territory without something quite different from their current diet on TV? I guess I just don’t see the currently imbibed zeitgeist as even being capable of changing itself — it needs leaders in a domain beyond the merely political. Maybe CC isn’t “the answer”, but they’re at least thinking about this dimension of the problem.
I don’t see CC as trying to create a “revolution” in the sense you probably mean: and that is why there doesn’t need to be animosity. Don’t start it. Who do you think you are helping by doing that? Even your reply above is pre-loaded with some pretty heavy “my way or the highway” stuff … which gets us exactly where?
But you’re right. Those musty old books aren’t read by many people. Funny thing is … they have inspired some pretty heavy political stuff over the years. It wasn’t the “ordinary folks” that read them, it was the people who taught the teachers who taught the “people”. Those ideas were the “bones” that supported the flesh of a culture and a civilization. Without the bones, the whole thing collapses.
Now I’m really having a chuckle inside! No, not at you or your ideas, which I’ve always found valuable, except when you bite your own face. No, I’m chuckling about the absurd picture of what it will be like here in California when all the “minorities” have been ousted and only “White People” are left, but left with their same mindset that got them into this fine mess in the first place.
And as I chuckle, I do see a place for more than collapse scenarios. I see a place for what CC is doing, along with many other places where the theoretical “bones” are being worked on so all that white flesh will have a place to hang its hat and not go crazy.
Just as there obviously are both capable and inept mainstreamers, there are both capable and inept vanguardists. Everyone is doing something, whether or not they do it well. I agree with Gregor, we need a higher culture as well as practical activism. Healthy popular and high cultures feed each other, making a people stronger. For example, Pat Buchanan writes books for a literate working class. But he reads books written by professors. In turn, some of Pat’s readers will read the more demanding books he mentions in his own writings. Ideas trickle down, readers trickle up. Isn’t this what we want? Maybe vanguardists didn’t elect anybody, but people who have learned from them did.
Godan’s,
1.) As mainstreamers are well aware, you can’t get rid of “all the nutty stuff” in WN. The vanguardists will simply set up shop elsewhere. When Greg Johnson left TOQ, he migrated to Counter-Currents where he went full time with the esoteric material. The disgruntled Stormfronters always migrate to some other venue like VNN.
2.) A purge is outside the realm of possibility.
3.) I think the “mainstreamer” wing of White Nationalism will eventually dissolve as a distinct group: the border that separates the “mainstreamers” from the edge of the “respectable right” will give way. It’s already giving way now.
Ten years from now, the blurring process will be so advanced that these distinct groups will have merged into a single resistance. There will be a growing mass constituency in Middle America of pseudo-conservatives/pseudo-White Nationalists who are hostile to the political class who rule from the coasts.
By mid-decade, I think most White Nationalists will have been absorbed into a radicalizing mainstream. The only people left behind will be the really kooky sort who naturally gravitate to political extremes for psychological reasons.
The normal people who have been bottled up on the fringe and using the internet as escape valve will jump at the chance to assert themselves when the opportunity presents itself.
I really don’t understand why Hunter is so insistent on dumping a lot of different and inconsistent ideas (he doesn’t approve of) into a big box and then labeling it “Vanguardist”. Especially since that term carries a lot of baggage from Leninist thinking. I really don’t see why he’s pushing this. What’s the point? “Reality” is a bit more subtle than that Hunter! You KNOW that.
On another topic, I really do appreciate you (Hunter) introducing me to Michel Foucault in some of your essays a few years ago. Both you and Michael O’Meara “broke the category” by showing that what’s labeled “post-modernist”, another one of those “boxes” has a lot more in it that we’ve been led to think … that swords often have a double edge and are useful to those the forger didn’t intend them for.
But now I’m goin’ off into meta-stuff, and you don’t like that. One man’s treat is another man’s poison, and all that ….
Thomas Chittum’s views are apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful. If our fate is forecast in his Civil War II, we are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
[http://www.resist.com/CWII.pdf]
Robert Reis: Maybe, rather than re-arranging the deck chairs, we’re positioning ourselves closer to the lifeboats.
Gregor,
Whether intentionally or not, I think you strike close to a fundamental point of disagreement. There are White Nationalists who believe that history is moved by abstract ideas. Thus, a “meta-political revolution” of hardcore idealism can sweep across America and change the moral context of the existing political system. At the top of this pyramid are the intellectuals who manufacture the ideas for mass consumption.
There are others who believe that the abstract ideas emerge from the experience of ordinary people interacting with their environment. They believe that underlying material forces play a much more significant role in cultural change. Thus, people will change their ideas when (and then only slowly) their experiences disconfirm their prevailing understanding of reality. So the key to changing the ideas held by ordinary people is not through persuasion with abstract reason, but by altering their frame of experience in ways that lead to a more racialist point of view.
Gregor,
Leonard Zeskind introduced the terms “mainstreamer” and “vanguardist” in his book on the White Nationalist movement. If memory serves, Johnson had no objection to that characterization at the time.
If pressed to do so, I could give a long and detailed historical explanation of how the ideal of whiteness, which became the nucleus of the White Republic of the Founders, was a practical response of Whites to the environmental conditions they faced in the New World, specifically, the need to repress slave rebellions and defend against Indians on the frontier.
Intellectuals have taken an ideal which grew organically out of the experience of ordinary people and have transformed it into a Platonic abstraction upon which our civilization supposedly rests. Then they devalue our existing civilization on the basis of that ideal.
Philosophically and ideologically I am with Johnson and Counter-currents. Strategically I am with Kievsky’s mind weaponization and tactically I am with you Mr. Wallace. In this sense, I suppose I am like Trotsky before 1917; I support Wallace’s Martov over Johnson’s Lenin because (at least at this time) the former seems to have the more workable route.
I even follow Wallace’s moving the goalpost by practicing Kievsky’s concealment of my true ideas. Publically, I act as a mainstream tea partier type. Bu the truth is I don’t love republicanism or American traditionalism. I go out of my way not to insult the mainstream we hope to influence but I would appreciate it if you did not insult those of us who really do believe in radical Counter-currents type ideas. I mean no disrespect in writing that but I really do feel I am connecting with my own when the recent past and philosophy is studied and analyzed on the vanguardists’ sites.
If I had a wand, I would catagorically alter the entire world in the most radical white vanguardist direction. Since this is not the case, I want as much as we can get of this vision implemented. Sometimes I get the feeling you are just trying to offend vanguardists over their most sacred views. It is one thing to ask us to hide, for tactical reasons, our true beliefs, it is something else to seem to tell us to abandon them.
Every successful movement toward real-world power needs both Keepers of the Flame and Practical Workers. Greg Johnson wants to enhance core White-European values, HW wants to work with hardrights like myself in order to get power; values w/o power are ultimately sterile, but power w/o values will be transient and destructive. I don’t see a big problem here; our problem is a the coming EVENT that will radically raise white racial consciousness. In this connection, the disjunction between the rightist economic and political sites still amazes me; like two separate planets. I don’t know if anybody noticed it or not, but along with the generally useful election results, Ben Israel Bernacke just devalued the dollar another 10 to 20% with his latest funnymoney binge. When people freeze and starve, they radicalize very fast. We do not have a lot of time to prepare.
Hunter;
You think I accept the categories of an alien orc like Zeskind? That’s a hoot. Whether Greg Johnson “had no objection” doesn’t seem relevant. And if it is, that’s between you and him. I’m just concerned about using categories as “guilt by association” smears. Against our enemies, yes. Among ourselves, no. You and Greg have no reason to get in a pissing contest, over anything. You are in different departments of the same company.
As for your earlier reply where you said “…White Nationalists who believe that history is moved by abstract ideas….” and think this will lead to an ideological revolution that will sweep the country ….
That isn’t my point at all. I’m not so naive as to think that. We can only act from where we’re currently at, both physically and in terms of the “spirit of the times”. Most people are NOT intellectuals, and certainly won’t “buy into” an abstract ideology.
My “point” is more like … people need a myth, a vision they can believe in, before they will invest in “change”. Some of that would include removing of “negatives” (unassimilable aliens), but removal of negatives won’t even be achieved until/unless they have a positive vision. Removing negatives will FIRST require a positive vision that people value, a vision which will overcome the dissonance and perhaps even violence needed to get rid of the negatives. I see that someone must be projecting positive cultural myths that people buy into as an alternative to what’s now available.
Of course, this doesn’t happen all at once. Think of it as a pre-figurative thing. Think Gramscian. Think filling the wineskins with new wine, but based on a very old and primordial recipe. If some sort of “new/old” mythos isn’t being projected and accepted, any political change either won’t happen or won’t last long. At bottom, I see Counter Currents WORKING on this. Maybe they aren’t “the one”. Maybe they’ll fail. But someone has to be laying the groundwork/rules for this. If there’s no attractive mythos available for people to take on as a “meaning-of-life” engine, they will not see any reason to change anything. Of course, many people will just play follow-the-leader, as always, so there must be a cadre of people who see themselves as “leaders” in a cultural sense. Priests of a new Church if you will.
People seem to have an inner need for a “second narrative”, something to augment the dreariness of “reality”, something that takes themselves out of themselves and posits a future they like. Something which addresses the hunger for the transcendent. That need is embedded in all humans. Those whose “work” is on fashioning plausible and fulfilling myths for their people are handling an area which must be handled. If they don’t do it, our enemies will and are. We currently live inside an enemy narrative/mythos, and it’s the main reason we’re “going down”. Those who kill the enemy mythos and replace it with a healthy one are necessary. It’s more than “politics”.
To clarify:
Vanguardism IS NOT synonymous with developing an appreciation for racialist authors and intellectuals. Specifically, it is the idea that America is too degenerate and corrupt to be saved and that nothing can be gained by reaching out to ordinary people or working within the existing political system.
There are “revolutionary vanguardists” who advocate the violent overthrow of the system. Harold Covington and The Order would fall somewhere in this category. There are “intellectual vanguardists” who advocate the “metapolitical revolution” of ideas.
Both subgroups of vanguardists are united by their alienation from and hostility toward White America.
So, am I going to be allowed to defend my position on this site?
Do you have something stuck in the filter? There are currently 8,296 comments in there to sort through.
Hunter, this narrative you have constructed is highly simplistic. Who were the mainstreamers in the past? Either they didn’t exist in the sense that you mean or they had almost no effect. Mainstream conservatism got steadily less receptive to pro-white tendencies for several decades until about a year ago.
You’re claim of the barrier between the “mainstreamers” and the “respectable right” dissolving is fanciful and based on reading pro-white meaning into things where it doesn’t really exist(much as leftists lump everyone from George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler together). You seem to place an awful lot of stock in rhetorical bones that are being thrown to white voters by a party desperate to claw it’s way back into power while unaware of or ignoring that this has always been the modus operandi of the loyal opposition.
As recently as the late 90’s, Jared Taylor wrote articles for National Review and a few mainstream(or formerly mainstream) conservative writers were openly associating with white nationalists. That’s all over now. Even then, it didn’t do that much good. Imagine if two major writers for the National Review, including an editor, were to go openly white nationalist in the next few years. How excited would you be about it? But nothing like that has even happened yet. Unless you’re saying that white interests can be entirely defended by People like Glenn Beck and politicians who pander to his listeners?
“Greg Johnson wants to enhance core White-European values, HW wants to work with hardrights like myself in order to get power; values w/o power are ultimately sterile, but power w/o values will be transient and destructive. I don’t see a big problem here …”
Thank you CompassionateFascist. You’re gettin’ to the core of it.
Setting aside Hunter’s unintentionally droll satire of my website and writings, everything he says here confirms my account of the fantastic origins and destructive implications of his brand of mainstreaming.
I thought the recent election turned out about as well as could be expected, given that of the hundreds of candidates out there, only one of them was interested in the interests of white Americans per se, and he threatened to sue his opponents for saying so.
It is good news that immigration restrictionism is on the rise, albeit for non-racialist reasons. But let’s get real: White Nationalists did not start this trend, and the people who are pushing it reject White Nationalism. They didn’t need us to articulate and advance their agenda. They don’t need us to articulate and advance their agenda. We can only help them on the condition that we shut up and cease to articulate and advance our own agenda. That looks like a bad trade to me.
So what do I advocate? Let the Republicans, libertarians, and Tea Partiers take care of their own. We need to articulate and support our own agenda. If we don’t, nobody else will.
What does Hunter advocate? Self-censorship and self-co-option. He writes:
So there you have it: Hunter’s recommendation is to get the WN genie out of the bottle and “dissolve” it in a vat of Weak Tea. (It sounds more like a drowning to me.) This, he says, will “sweeten the tea.” But let’s get real: there are not enough of us to sweeten the Tea Party. We are just a drop in the ocean. If we shut up and dissolve ourselves in the mainstream, we will not change its taste, we will simply cease to exist.
Hunter writes:
Again, the mainstreamers can take care of themselves. Only White Nationalists can articulate and advance our agenda. Hunter, however, advocates that we shut up and take ALL our resources–“everything we got”–and put them at the service of system politicians. This is not strategy, it is suicide.
ATBOTL,
That’s one way of seeing things. Here’s another: the 2010 midterm elections were the culmination of a realignment which began in the mid-twentieth century.
It started with the Dixiecrat rebellion against Harry Truman. That was quickly squashed. Most of the Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold. The GOP establishment was at its highwater mark under Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
In the 1960s, the Deep South states famously revolted against LBJ and voted for Barry Goldwater. Through the 1970s and 1980s, the South divided over its support of Democrats and Republicans.
In the mid-1990s, the South finally tilted into the Republican column in the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. Still, there were enough White conservatives and Southern Democrats to power Bill Clinton through two terms in the White House.
In the George W. Bush years, the Red state vs. Blue state divide emerged and intensified. Al Gore and John Kerry lost their election bids because of the atrophy of the Democratic Party in the South.
By the 2006 midterm elections, the sheer number of White conservatives in the Republican Party had grown radically out of sync with the power of the GOP establishment. The demoralized conservative base limped through the 2006 and 2008 elections.
In the 2010 midterms, the restless conservative base challenged and defeated the GOP establishment. The reason this election was different from previous elections (namely, the establishment so much weaker) is that by 2010 polarization had driven virtually all the White conservatives in the Democratic Party into the Republican Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/white-southern-democrats-_n_779345.html
Southern White Democrats were annihilated in this election.
For the first time since the 1950s, the Jacksonians are reunited under a common political umbrella. With all the conservatives in one party and all the liberals gravitating toward the other, the GOP establishment can no longer contain its base in the way it did under Clinton when the conservative vote was divided.
The growing cohesion of the conservative vote has taken the brakes off the progressives in the Democratic Party and upset the balance of power within the Republican Party. Their overreach is now driving away other White constituencies in other parts of the country.
ATBOTL,
You are ignoring the fact that what is going on now has been building up to this point for many years. Five years ago, Lou Dobbs was on television pounding away at illegal immigration. The conservative base was becoming jaded with the Bush administration over spending. Tancredo was in Congress railing at the establishment over immigration. NumbersUSA was busily organizing resistance to comprehensive immigration reform.
Most importantly, the Ron Paul presidential campaign was laying the foundation for the successful Rand Paul Senate campaign. The Dean campaign in 2004 was exploring the ways that the internet and social media could be used by political insurgents. That was before Twitter and Facebook came along.
The media was losing its legitimacy. Even the conservative media like National Review and Free Republic were losing their grip over the conservative base. Bush’s popularity had collapsed to less than 30% by the time he left office.
How the times have changed.
David Frum, who famously penned that “Unpatriotic Conservatives” article, is now a discredited non-entity who was fired from the AEI. 11 Republican Senators who once voted for the DREAM Act recently voted against it. The restrictionists in the Republican Party are now overwhelmingly dominant.
Hacking away at the margins over the past five years has been very successful at moving the goalposts on immigration and other issues of concern to us.
Greg Johnson at Counter Currents is pretty much the only vanguardist I will listen to. Although I disagree with a good a bit of what he has to say, especially his staunch anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity, he is an excellent and engaging writer, and his articles are always well reasoned.
That said, these three points capture what I personally find most offensive and off putting about vanguardism. It’s not their political ideas that are problematic in my mind, but this stuff:
Intended or not, most vanguardists give the impression they despise White people. And many of them don’t give this impression by accident; they really do hate White people (except for their few co-vanguardists) and are pretty open about it.
For this reason, I don’t see myself ever siding with the vanguardists. I will never side with people who openly despise my non-race conscious family, friends, and colleagues, as well as non-race conscious White people in general. Of course, I have no objection to the vanguardists despising the White race traitors and the White anti-racists in our midst – I despise those loathsome individuals myself and would like to see them escorted to the gallows one day — but most vanguardists extend their hatred and contempt not to just to White anti-racists, but to mainstream White people in general.
Even the most intelligent and well informed vanguardists seem to have forgotten what should be obvious: that non-race conscious Whites are guilty of nothing except being born in a historical context that makes it damn near impossible for them to be anything other than what they are. The vanguardists, however, always seem to ignore this. Instead of trying to persuade our fellow non-conscious Whites to abandon the beliefs and the destructive life styles that are killing our race, they give them nothing but contempt.
Some vanguardists are even explicit about NOT wanting to save most Whites. One of the most admired and respected vanguardists of them all, Dr. William Piece, argued that most White people are worthless and suggested they be dropped down an abandoned coal mine in West Virginia. In this respect, as unbelievably ironic as it is, it is hard to see much difference in principle between William Pierce and Tim Wise.
While Tim Wise favors genociding 100% of the White race, Dr. William Pierce was somewhat less radical in that he only wanted to genocide about 90% of our people.
On this topic of mainstream versus vanguard, comparing William Pierce to David Duke is useful.
Duke achieved very modest success in the mainstream, while Pierce achieved nothing in the mainstream and little out of it. His own tiny organization couldn’t even survive his own death. At least Duke has a minor elected office to his credit, as well as two credible runs for state-wide office that he would have won if the entire weight of the American establishment had not been brought down on him like a hammer. Duke showed that a message tailored to the mainstream can win, period. And he might have won even with the whole establishment against him if hadn’t played the Nazi vanguardist early in his career.
In addition, Duke has written several books, while Pierce never produced a monograph or any coherent summary of his thought. Pierce was a great intellect who produced some very powerful and important essays, essays of tremendous value for our cause, but ultimately that is the extent of his legacy. The books that Dr. William Pierce wrote, on the other hand, have been an albatross around our necks for decades. Pierce actually extolled murder and genocide in his longer fiction writings, but hey – when you’re a vanguardist who doesn’t give a fuck what most people think why not? So what mainstream knows about Pierce aren’t his good arguments but rather his most unpleasant ideas.
The thread and consistent theme running through all of Duke’s books, in contrast, is love for his race as misguided as they are, not contempt. Also, and more importantly, Duke’s books are aimed not just at the small subset of people who already agree with him but at a wider audience — why? — because Duke wants to PERSUADE non-conscious White to become conscious. Duke understands the importance of persuasion in a way most vanguardists do not.
This is the factor that most vanguardists ignore over and over again, the importance of persuading people who don’t already agree with them. And this, I think, is the direct consequence of their radical alienation and rejection of the mainstream in all its forms.
The vanguardist’s main argument that working within the system is futile is probably true, but when they follow it up with sneers and contempt for White America no one is going to listen to them so there will never be anything by a tiny, insignificant and powerless vanguard.
1.) How do you “advance our agenda” by going outside the experience of our audience?
2.) How do you “advance our agenda” by unnecessarily antagonizing our target audience by linking White Nationalism to dozens of unnecessary albatrosses?
3.) What’s the point of articulating our agenda without the means to even draw attention to that agenda?
4.) How do you reach people when you are not even interested in communicating with them or responding to their concerns?
A tactic is doing what you can with what you got. What we got is no legitimacy, lots of anonymous people bottled up in cyberspace, little money, and tons of rhetorical radicals who are pissed off and wasting their time on fruitless activity that changes nothing.
So what can we do with this constituency?
1.) They can vote for “true reformer” candidates on immigration. That can be done safely and anonymously.
2.) They can donate to “true reformer” candidates on immigration. That can be done safely and anonymously.
3.) We can openly organize within the mainstream to move the goal posts on immigration and other issues like affirmative action and multiculturalism. That can be done without incurring any social or economic consequences.
4.) We can create networks of White Nationalists which can be tapped into to throw close races in our favor (demonstrating our political power) where the stakes are high. That can be done safely and anonymously.
5.) We can write and use social media to get our message out.
6.) We can close the gap of alienation that exists between White Nationalists and White America.
7.) We can easily infiltrate the Tea Party and the Republican Party, not to mention countless other organizations like the NRA, and work within these institutions to advance our point of view.
You want to talk about suicide? What do you call the notion that we can transform the most fundamental deeply held values of White Americans with the resources at our disposal? Is that suicide, stupidity, or just sheer madness?
Unlike what Greg Johnson proposes, which is a fantasy, infiltrating the Tea Party and influencing it on a subject like immigration is doable. It is a practical, realistic course of action that we can start working on tomorrow.
There are hundreds of thousands of White Nationalists who read these websites every day. There are millions of White racialists. What’s more, White Nationalists are far more politically engaged than ordinary Americans, and a single, dynamic individual can have a massive impact on a small, local grassroots organization.
Consider what you are proposing: a revolutionary transformation of the most fundamental values held by White Americans. You want to abolish Christianity and republicanism!
On the contrary, by starting where people are today while clinging to our beliefs, we can actually connect with our audience and start leading them in the right direction. Alternatively, we can sit on our ass and shoot spitballs on the sidelines.
The most restrictionist Congress since 1924 … obviously this has “destructive implications.”
Who are you to unilaterally determine the interests of White Americans? Believe it not, ordinary people care about things like jobs, education, debt, and taxes. Your lack of interest in these issues explains much of why White Nationalists are so marginalized.
In politics, the right thing is almost always done for the wrong reasons.
Translation: instead of getting involved in the immigration reform movement and steering it in a more pro-White direction, I propose destroying the most fundamental values of White Americans in a “metapolitical struggle” which consists of writing reviews of Legally Blonde 2 and Batman Begins.
Here’s what I advocate: getting involved in mainstream politics, pushing at the margins, and achieving what is possible. That’s a more sensible course of action than entertaining fantasies like destroying Christianity, establishing a National Socialist dictatorship in the United States, or abolishing republican government.
In Alabama, we now have 6 out of 7 congressmen, a governor, a state legislature, and two U.S. Senators who are restrictionists on immigration. We’re gearing up to go beyond Arizona next year.
Intellectuals who are adverse to physical labor shouldn’t be subsidized by the movement. They should get real jobs where they will have the opportunity to interact with and develop some sympathy for the ordinary people whom they aspire to lead.
Gaining some experience on the more physical side of life could do them a lot of good.
Greg thinks opening his mouth and saying the first radical thing that comes to mind is communication. That is likely to backfire. Instead of doing that, it is more sensible to listen first and work within the experience of your interlocutor to make your points acceptable.
You can’t advance our agenda without the means or legitimacy to distribute it to a mass audience.
There is a scene in Lawrence of Arabia where a Turkish train is attacked. There’s one group that derails the train. Then there’s a second group who attack once the train has been derailed.
I think the analogy applies to WN strategy. There should be two groups, one focused on the best way to derail the multicult train, the other focused on what comes next. Individuals can be in both groups simultaneously if they wish although in terms of activism i think it pays to focus on one or the other.
Hear! Hear! LEW!
Your sentiments are mine exactly. This going to piss a lot of radicals off but in my opinion William Pierce was the worst thing to ever happen to our movement if just for writing that piece of garbage the “The Turner Diaries”. That book did more damge to our movement (especially in terms of image) than anything Tim Wise or Abe Foxman could have dreamed off.
“Yes, the collapse (economic, political, take you pick) is in sight, but imho it won’t be a sudden thing, at least not everywhere at once.”
We’re already in the collapse. I’d date it starting around 1980 but the way it works is like a ball slowly falling down a flight of steps. There’s a sudden drop with each step followed by a lull then another drop. A total collapse is the product of decades of small step collapses and if we can’t turn things round we may still have up to 30-60 years of step collapses to go – or maybe less.
The most important thing about a collapse is the collapse in the public’s faith in their leaders and the foundational ideas of their leaders – ideas like “diversity is good” or “free trade.”
Foundational ideas drive policy. Any policy that is consistent with “diversity is good” is effectively swimming with the tide. Any policy that is inconsistent is swimming against the tide and can only ever win temporary victories.
Underlying reality can change that rule if reality gets reduced to basic survival. However while we (or at least some of “we”) are not at that level of basic survival we need to change the foundational ideas of the commonweal to something like “diversity kills” and “nation first, economy second.”
“For example, Pat Buchanan writes books for a literate working class. But he reads books written by professors.”
Neatly put.
The Generals write the books.
The Captains turn the books into essays and blog posts.
The NCOs turn the essays into one-liners.
The Grunts sharpen their bayonets.
Newsweek laments “isolationism”:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/06/flirting-with-isolation-a-changing-world-view.html
I agree with LEW’s concerns about vanguardist misanthropy. The following passage from my essay “Lawyers and Sex Crimes” over at Counter-Currents.com addresses some of his concerns:
On Israel and Zionism, the Democratic loss of the House is a wash, with no gain or loss for the anti-Zionist side. On immigration, there has been a remarkable improvement:
Joe Biden affirms support for Israel
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44806.html
Obama to push for a “free trade” agreement with South Korea:
South Korea A Start
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08mon2.html?src=twrhp
Massachusetts reelects negro Deval Patrick and Jew Barney Frank and remains a “Blue” stronghold:
Red tide stops at Massachusetts
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44782.html
One way or the other, this an interesting and engaging exchange. Like others have stated or intimated, I find myself with sympathies in both camps. Ideologicially, I am a Vanguardist for sure, yet I am not above applauding small political victories more aligned with Mainstreamers, if for no other reason than the fact that I and my family must still live in the “real world,” and anything that makes that experience less horrible is, for right now and given the political climate of our day, worth cheering on – even if very cautiously.
I’ll admit – and I have here several times – I find Hunter’s enthusiam rather inspiring and refreshing. I also find his newfound political optimism on some points altogether naive, if not bordering on the fantastic. But that may derive as much from my now entrenched cynicism(Vanguardist syndrome?) as anything else. I suppose six months or more from now we can look to see if any of this Mainstream activity produces ripened fruit…or fizzles out like so many spent embers.
Again, either way, it is an interesting situation to follow.
Hunter, why are you so sure that this rightward shift in the electorate is permanent? Who would have thought in 1994 that Clinton would cruise to reelection? There was a build up in racial resentment before 1994 too. The huge LA riot of 1992 was a big part of that, as was rising non-white crime and immigration.
On Israel and Zionism, the Democratic loss of the House is a wash, with no gain or loss for the anti-Zionist side.”
Hear Lindsey Graham’s comments about Iran?
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/11/07/sen-lindsey-graham-bomb-bomb-neuter-iran/
To wield power in any legitimate way, one must prove one’s worthiness for it. Although I profit from reading Greg’s articles, I can’t even imagine the Vangardists running a school board.
If you wish to earn legitimate authority over white Americans, prove that you can serve them. Enter politics at the local level and gain the trust of real people. Involve yourself with your neighbors and nonpolitical communal events. Prove that you can subordinate your ego to the needs of those you serve. When things get bad (and they already are), be the person to whom they turn for leadership.
Everyone hates Lindsey Graham. He will eventually get knocked off in a primary.
These are not mutually exclusive strategies.
They are mutually exclusive in the sense that you can either work within the system or reject it. You can have a positive attitude toward White America or a negative one. You can start where people are at today or where you would like them to be. You can adapt your message to your target audience or “stand firm” on an uncompromising rhetorical line.
Obviously, there are issues where this is not the case. There is no reason why a White Nationalist can’t enjoy good books while participating in the political process. There is no reason why you can’t write an essay one day and work on a campaign on another. There is no reason why you can’t have a “vanguard” of mainstreamers infiltrating a local Tea Party to push a harder line on immigration.