By Hunter Wallace | 6 Comments | 
Print
Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers
A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed.
Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, “vanguardist” wing of the movement and the newer, “mainstreamer” wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.
Origins and Beliefs
The lineage of the “vanguardists” can be traced back to a number of twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith’s Christian Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, William Pierce’s National Alliance, Glenn Miller’s White Patriot Party, Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen’s World Church of the Creator, and Cliff Herrington’s National Socialist Movement. Let’s be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.
The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the aftermath of their long anticipated “collapse” of the federal government.
In a certain sense, the “mainstreamers” have always existed. America was explicitly founded as a “white man’s country.” Racialists dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners, these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed to the margins after America’s WASP ruling class was overthrown by monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.
The split between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” can be traced back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the incipient “mainstreamers,” created the White Citizens’ Council. They litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty commissions, hoisted the banner of states’ rights, invoked interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated public schools, created private academies, and voted for George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered “massive resistance” to integration.
In the final days of Jim Crow, the “mainstreamers” kept the “vanguardists” at arm’s length. They generally wanted nothing to do with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in America’s role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually fought in Europe. These people were FDR’s voters and the base of the Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal, decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.
Unlike the “vanguardists,” the “mainstreamers” are defined by their belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an electoral path to victory. The “mainstreamers” reject violence, strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical strategy.
Since the late 1980s, the “mainstreamer” wing has enjoyed a resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind, Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes, moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in Louisiana. The White Citizens’ Council evolved into the Council of Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer, launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the “mainstreamer” point of view.
In the 1990s and 2000s, largely due to the spread of the internet and the death of “vanguardist” leaders, the “mainstreamers” wrestled back control of the pro-White movement from the “vanguardists,” who had dominated the scene in the 1970s and 1980s. The typical White Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively in cyberspace.
The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I
Ever since the resurgence of the “mainstreamers,” a destructive myth has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the “vanguardists” are responsible for the marginalization of racialists. If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White Nationalist movement.
This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The “mainstreamers” once dominated the entire American nation, but they progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.
The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the 1830s. In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” the remaining anti-miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were repealed in the wake of the Civil War.
The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in the late nineteenth century.
The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.
In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War. White liberals like Claude “Red” Pepper and Franklin Graham were thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in the socially conservative Black Belt counties.
In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.
In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v. Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put, the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto, the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors.
The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II
At this critical junture, the “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophe from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the “vanguardists.” The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial arguments against “big government.” Instead of fighting the racial battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They would engage in “practical politics,” strategically retreat, and extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the Democratic Party.
The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964 presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries. In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale in 1986.
In the 1990’s, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous “Red State” vs. “Blue State” divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans, focused on “practical politics,” and became steadily deracialized over the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.
Vanguardists Triumphant
The “vanguardists” who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980’s didn’t win through superior arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default. The “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics. The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.
In the late 1980s, the “mainstreamers” began to stir again, but found themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States. They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The fringe group image stuck and lots of “mainstreamers” began to draw the erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament … which brings us to where we are today.
Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers
There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers’” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant, and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.
In the “vanguardists’” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.
Synthesis
In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.
There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.
The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.
The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.
After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.
The Fringe
In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.
Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.
Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.
The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.
Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.
Final Thoughts
I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.
From Occidental Dissent, December 2, 2009
Superb article.
Though I do not blame many of the youth today for their infatuation with Nazism, I do find it to be counterproductive, imperfect, and much too unrealistic, forgoing, of course, the fact that the Nazis were wrong in their approach, in many ways, going so far as to advertise naked Aryan women to the entire world, which in my opinion, is no less degenerate than modern day Jewish pornography; Arno Breker was a prime example, producing uncivil and unmodest works of female nudity that were unbecoming of the Nazis and moreso indicative of his lack of true loyalty to the Reich.
White nationalism, should I choose to even use the term, should not even be called such, nor should we as whites collectively aim for a situation akin that that circa 1939. Whiteness should be inherent in all whites, just as it was, say, in 1850, anywhere in the world, where anti-Semitism was a given and the value of Whiteness was so glaringly obvious in terms of the great art and architecture of New York, and Chicago, and Paris and London, especially with the first-hand, unapologetic and un-PC accounts of less advanced non-White cultures appearing in children’s books and encyclopedia and travel logs, whereas now these foreigners are idealized for their culture, since ‘Whiteness’, now, means little else than having physical attributes that make one want to go out and use them for the ends of partying or getting laid by non-whites desperate for elf-like white lovers. Men did not need anti-miscegenation laws 150 years ago, and women, perhaps, did not either. But why?
One must find a balance between the radicals of the far, far right, who I have certain sympathy for, since I do believe that the threat of miscegenation is removed with the outright removal of non-whites from a territory, and the mainstream, which more often than not is sympathetic to Jews as being ‘white,’ or sympathetic to men marrying Orientals, which seems to be exceptionally common these days, particularly among ‘conservative’ types. People should not have to be convinced that whiteness is a divine gift that should not be squandered. Even under Nazi, rule, I think, many were unable to truly understand the entire esoteric, philosophical and profound reasons behind the movement, and no amount of naked sculptures of Aryan men and spread-eagle women was going to do it. Nor will it, today.
Humans are all too human, even the modern day descendants of the Aryans. When presented with the opportunity for happiness, be it spurious or not, such as a submissive Oriental wife that will please a man sexually and not give him any feminist lip, your average American white male will likely take it, rather than pursue a racial ideal that will have no immediate effect on him, since a blue eyed, blonde haired super-artist/composer/poet/architect/scientist will have little opportunity to truly shine in this globalist mashup. Moreover, women, craving status, will gladly settle down with a non-white should it earn them societal approval. Thus, the mainsteam is volatile, particularly among the average man, largely undereducated, of low IQ, or of spiritual poverty, and largely useless and immobile.
The only answer, then, is, reaching out to the absolute brightest and smartest whites, the most soulful and European-minded. They are out there, but we must get to them before they succumb to the all-too familiar temptation of marrying Orientals. We must devote all our resources to them, pay them for having children, develop an education program where they learn morality and loyalty to the West as primary in their lives, and hopefully, breed for the smartest, upper 100′s IQs, as we have seen in some of the most brilliant European minds, men of IQs of 150 and up are most capable of resisting not only the Zeitgeist, but the temptations of the flesh, and will be able to rationalize it through whatever means, even through god and spiritualism. God has never been a stranger to the most brilliant minds in history.
And, if all else fails, genetic engineering is a possibility; but we must gain a foothold in it before the Jews do.
The problem here is the underlying conceptualization. “Mainstream” and “vanguard” are Zeskind’s obfuscating terms. The real question is reform or revolution. As the history of European nationalism and socialism demonstrates, a revolutionary movement — and I assume that the struggle for a white ethnostate is a revolutionary one — is not defined by its “means,” but by its goals.
Quote: “The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.”
There is a reason for that — a tiny ethnic minority left the east and the Edison / white dominated film and social organization where they could not get a foothold and headed out to California to re-group and start a film industry to counter ours. This happened partly as a result of the success of Birth of a Nation. They were totally committed and wildly successful. You can see a great and scholarly documentary on this which appeared on A&E and is now available on DVD. It is called An Empire of Their Own. There is also a book called: An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. What is moral, what is accepted opinion and discourse, what is “cool” is largely defined by Hollywood these days. Then there are the television studios, MTV, publishing houses, newspapers, political influences, AIPAC, etc. The Birth of a Nation was powerful and culture-defining and that is one of the big reasons Jews sought control of film. They did not seek to take over the auto or peanut butter industries, and were not farmers in any numbers, for example. In every nation, time and again we see the same patterns of behavior. While we might make a movie to get truth across, they make movies purposely to manipulate mass emotions for their own interests. In a Democracy, that can make them king. It has, actually. Machiavelli said that you can know who really rules in any country merely by finding out who it is that you cannot criticize. Folks, it ain’t us!
I am forever astounded that people in the movement say that we should ignore or marginalize the “Jewish Question”. That is a non-starter. What the Jews have been doing IS the ENTIRE problem — nothing illustrates that more than the first and the last great white American movie The Birth of a Nation. People do not realize how much of “their” opinions are not theirs at all. They do not realize how much the Jews have placed their hand inside them around their hearts and minds like puppets. They are not victims.
Opinions are basically what people want, what they consider to be good or bad. In the words of my Jewish psychology professor in my senior year, you cannot make people do what they do not want to do with psychology, but you can easily change what people WANT. The only thing that can serve as a bulwark against this manipulation we have been going through for hundreds of years from the Jewish camp is objective morality based on universal principles. That is our arms race — emotional and informational manipulation vs objective truth and justice. Recognizing what is going on with Jews is not “extremism” any more than recognizing that the flu is caused by a virus! They key to solving any problem — whether alcoholism, the flu, engine mechanics, or anything else is understanding the problem. You cannot understand what you do not even acknowledge.
I truly believe that we have NO chance whatsoever of winning our interests back without the emotional and political capital that would pour forth from people waking up to the frankly and obviously deadly cultural manipulations from the Jewish quarter. I see those today willing to look through the psychological, sociological, and evolutionary telescope at the Jews as modern Galileo’s (although Kevin Macdonald is more like Copernicus!). We cannot win without truth — core truth upon which all else rests. Our task is to show that we can do this eruditely and peacefully, just like Kevin Macdonald, Walt and Mearshiemer, Jimmy Carter, and David Duke are now doing with their writings and analyses.
I was inspired a great deal by William Pierce, an academic who sacrificed everything — family and career– to speak the truth about these things. Although I disagreed with his more militant philosophies–I feel he did not need them. Look what we were doing before the Jews stopped us, look what we were striving for in our leaders and best people that the Jews sought to eliminate. Look for our burgeoning movements that they Jews stopped — such as the eugenics movement. THERE you will find our true strengths! Truth requires logical, objective, thoughtful minds! Jews require emotional, labile, clouded minds! They KNOW what our strengths are! That’s how they can attack them everywhere. All we need to do is to wake people up and then gain support for their own survival. When they realize that WE are the moral, good, right, and even divine people OBJECTIVELY instead of the world “bad guys” we have been made out to be, then the emotional inertia will swing wildly into our camp.
We need to be ready for that so that it does not get out of hand. That is what I have bee trying to do the last 10 years, come up with a workable path and solution which does not destroy or turn into a war or backfire. We MUST be saved, that is a given. We cannot afford war or bloodshed. Chaos is not our friend! But to cure a disease you need to understand it. We need more writings and analysis of OUR thought processes and those of other races, we need to know brain genetics and what every gene does and its frequencies in populations.
Bruce Lahn @ the University of Chicago discovered 2 important genes arising since we left Africa that were wildly important to OUR ways — they spread explosively in our populations. We need to know how and why in detail and we need more studies like that. Instead, he was forced to stop the research with an enormous backlash. This has to be stopped. I formed a Facebook group to support Bruce Lahn, and others — Just search Bruce Lahn on Facebook.
The ENTIRE problem of heading straight to our demise with massive 3rd world immigration, racial mixing, and having no way out and not having the science and literature in place to save us (as was beginning to happen around the time of “Birth of a Nation”) is almost entirely because of Jewish influence. Even farther back in time in Europe we see communism and it’s egalitarianism and anti-evolution and anti-religion. We see wars caused byJews and Jewish chicanery splitting our people apart with money and influence. Walt and Mearshiemer show they are up to their old tricks today in our country.
Without their influence, and direct meddling specifically to reduce our hegemony, we would be fine today. That hypothesis is iron-clad because nearly every shred of facts and evidence you can gather, and every sociological and psychological principle massively supports it — including historical events and even direct quotes from Jews themselves and in their holy books! Some people are guilty and we will have to deal with that in a civil manner. We are too willing to commute our judgments. These are not children we are dealing with, not victims. They are worthy and quite deadly opponents. Every time I encountered ridiculousness on culture and anthropology in college, I wondered where it was coming from. Now it is quite clear. A concerted Jewish effort.
If you cannot acknowledge this, or recognize these patterns, it is because of politics and fear pure and simple. If you feel uneasy criticizing Jews, you should realize that there is a scaffold of emotional conditioning inside you stopping you and making you fear that has purposefully been INSTALLED into your psychology over many years as a person immersed in their culture in schools, theaters, books, and television. These deceptions and inversions of morality have caused fear and perverted our ideas of right and wrong. THIS is the true battleground for our people — deep inside every one of us. That is where I differ with the great William Pierce’s militancy but am 100% in line with his philosophy. Don’t let Jews turn our great qualities and principled nature against us to destroy this very quality forever off the Earth! Left to ourselves, these vulnerabilities are strengths. People say it is partly our fault what is happening, but i say no because these parts we play in our own demise are perversions of our great strengths of charity, generosity, forbearance, objectivity, openness to new truths, learning ability, trust, and grace — just like motherhood instincts can be directed at dolls or cats to the point they are damaging if they exclude actual children. That is appropriately call it “awakening” when we realize what has been done to us. It is no easy task. It is the war for your soul, in essence. One way clearly leads to destruction and the increase of everything we call “sin” in religion! “Sin” is just another word for ignoring the long-term survival of your people for the here-and-now selfishness of mortal foibles. Our race and genetics are immortal. We need to fight this battle with our best armor and weapons of truth.
Truth is WHOLE. Fear causes the breakup of truth, politics does, ego does, greed does. That is DEADLY. We need to paint a whole picture of the problems we face, no matter how large scary, or negative they seem to us. THAT is our true power as a people, and that can save us because as in a court of law nothing can stand up to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is worth giving you life for. There can be no peace, freedom, justice, or future without TRUTH. If the Jews cause us to realize our weaknesses, and to value the truth more, and if we survive, then we will be all the better for having shaped our defenses against their attack. What does not kill you only makes you stronger. We must never turn away from the primary tasks of all life. We must face the problem.
“The real question is reform or revolution. As the history of European nationalism and socialism demonstrates, a revolutionary movement”
Should we fix the Titanic or should we storm the Wheel House and change our course of direction?
Clearly we have to abandon ship.
I have said it before and will say it again because it’s worth repeating. What we are witnessing is a repeat performance of the French Revolution. During that Revolution and tiny group of White men known as the Romantics from Kant to Goethe, to Wordsworth to Caspar David Friedrich (whose painting is a perfect pictorial compliment to Wordsworth’s poetry, in spite of the fact that they were unknown to each other, which points to the phenomenon of cultural convergence) straight up to Nietzsche, saw that what was really happening was the collapse of 2,000 years of Western metaphysics.
This has led, among intellectuals of the Right and Left, to what I refer to as
The Elephant on the Bridge, or, The Pupply on the Table Syndrome.
The Elephant won’t cross the bridge because he knows the fragile construct won’t support his weight. You put a Puppy on a table and it won’t jump. Neither one can explain the laws of cause and effect. They can’t even read or write.
But they know enough not to jump.
But this time it won’t be just a tiny group of European and American thinkers and artists who will feel the ground give way beneath them. It will be millions and millions of people. Most of whom are condemned to respond symptomatically since thanks to both the Left and Right, are unequipped to respond intellectually.
The Right and Left are two sides of the same thing. That’s why they are called the Right and the Left (even the story of where the two names came from has both sides in the same room!).
For over two hundred years we’ve been going back and forth between Right and Left or reform and revolution, the results of which, or rather, the consequences of which, we’re living with today.
My goodness Gentlemen, do we really need more of the same!
Why not commit ourselves to breaking free from the chains that bind us to a two-fold metaphyscial system that has led us to the brink of extinction?
Whites fail to see that they have created a psychic bond between themselves and their beliefs just as Muslims and Jews have. That pyschic bond is with the Enlightenment, which is the well people are still drawing from to come up with solutions to our current dilmena, failing to see that it’s the cause. And the explanation for that failure is found in that very psychic bond between a people and their beliefs.
That’s not a solution, it’s an addiction. The worst addition in the world.
The addiction to words in the form of beliefs ascerted to be ulimtate truths.
Why not transcend this? We’ll still be White when it’s over! And we certainly have nothing to lose.
Or, rather, everything.
There are many things that I could comment on in this excellent article by Hunter Wallace.
I think Wallace is correct that nationalists should avoid making an issue of the fringe elements associated with our cause. They may be regarded as an embarrassment and a nuisance, but they are hardly an obstacle, and the best way to deal with them is to leave them by the wayside. If the fringe elements are the dead weight that Arthur Kemp says they are, there should be no major problem in doing this, and there is no need to use the rhetoric of Abe Foxman and Morris Dees to denounce them, or the authoritarianism that Kemp advocates. (By the way, it is more accurate to refer to the Ku Klux Klans than the Ku Klux Klan. The mainstream media depicts it as a single group out of ignorance or to make it appear bigger than it actually is. In reality, there are several Klans, none of which are significant. I think I can presume that relatively few readers of this website would be able to name a specific Klan organisation in existence today.)
There are several good articles in Spearhead by John Tyndall which address issues related to the tensions between “vanguardist” and “mainstreamer” elements, notably “Lessons from Present and Past” (July 2002, pp. 6-8), “More on the Enemy Within” (December 2003, pp. 6-9), and “Enemy Fingers in the Pie” (January 2005, pp. 8-11). In “Enemy Fingers in the Pie,” Tyndall wrote (pp. 9-10):
“Radical organisations tend by their nature to be fractious. They attract individuals with strong opinions, sometimes amounting to obsessions. This fractiousness is most common on the left, where ideological arguments that would appear to us ridiculously nit-picking in their proportions can become the subject of passionate and raging quarrels. On our side of politics conflicts of this kind are less common, though far from unknown. . . .
“However, a much more obvious and easily available pretext for division within nationalism has always been the disagreement between what, for simplification, we might call the ‘hard-liners’ and the ‘modernisers’ within the movement. I have always regarded this conflict as grossly exaggerated in substance and wholly unnecessary when measured beside the strategic imperatives confronting us.
“In all politics there is the ever-present debate as to ways and means: whether to present objectives in strident, uncompromising tones or to employ the ‘soft sell,’ the soothing, moderately worded approach that will encounter the fewest objectors. To a great extent, division over these matters are rooted in the differing personal characters of those who argue them. There are those of the born warrior outlook, who will tend naturally toward the fighting approach that brooks no compromise; and there are the natural conciliators, who will forever be seeking gentler methods because their temperaments can conceive no other way.
“I have long believed that the course of practical politics demands a fusion of the two instincts: that of the fighter and that of the diplomat, wisdom lying in recognising the moments and situations in which one or the other is called for, and deciding accordingly. A movement with an excess of warrior qualities over the qualities of the conciliator will rush blindly into political action that is often ill-conceived and self-destructive, while one in which these attributes exist in reverse measure will atrophy and wither on the vine because of a shortage of courage, motivation and will.
“When all is said and done, I believe it has to be the code and approach of the fighter that must prevail over that of the conciliator; but the fighter must be one with the discernment to accept the need for conciliatory methods when the situation calls for them. Here we who like to think of ourselves as fighters must be aware of instincts within us which sometimes need curbing, and to curb them when required. . . .
“On the other hand, human nature being what it is, it is only rarely that life’s born conciliators can overcome their innermost instincts and face a real fight when fighting is the only option.
“And as with individuals, it is the same with ideologies, which tend to conform to individual bent. An ideology of firmness and strength should be able to incorporate the gentler virtues and practice them when needs demand. But an ideology rooted in weakness can never summon firmness and strength that simply are not there.”
Whether we are “warriors” or “conciliators” (to use Tyndall’s terminology), whether we are “lions” or “foxes” (to use Machiavelli’s terminology), we need to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, and we need to recognise that both have their place. As Tyndall advised in “Lessons from Present and Past” (p. 6):
“We need to avoid over-simplification. We need to avoid the construction of theories based on false premises. And we need to avoid allowing our personal natures, whether they lean towards the ‘soft’ approach or the ‘hard’ approach, to rule our judgement of what is the right approach.”
Of course, tensions will always exist between “warriors” and “conciliators.” These tensions should not be allowed to become useless and harmful divisions among nationalists who should be united. In “More on the Enemy Within,” Tyndall wrote (p. 8):
“The truth about this recurring dichotomy between ‘extremists’ and ‘moderates’ in the same party is that it it is seldom that either side is completely right or completely wrong. Of course, in the so-called ‘extremist’ camp there are always a few whose behaviour and utterances are so politically suicidal that they need to be cast out and sent on their way. Conversely, among the so-called ‘moderates’ there are some whose political convictions are so weak that they will eventually take fright and leave of their own accord . . . However, leaving aside these very marginal categories, a mature party embraces people of varying degrees of militancy in both conviction and expression, using the approaches of each as circumstances require.”
Tyndall also noted a third type, one that should not be tolerated among nationalists, namely opportunists. In “Enemy Finger in the Pie,” Tyndall wrote (p. 10):
“This type has instincts neither towards the ‘hard-line’ nor ‘soft-line’ approach’ but is in the struggle for essentially egotistical reasons–and sometimes also mercenary ones. To this type, arguments about ‘hard-line’ or ‘soft-line’ politics have only one utility and one criterion: do they advance or retard his own personal ambitions? He can be at one moment the hard-line fundamentalist and the very next moment the soft-line ‘moderniser’ according to tactical requirements–the tactical requirements always being not those of the party but purely his own.”
Tyndall was not simply alluding to Nick Griffin and his flunkeys when he wrote the above, for he remarked that “I have seen the type surface constantly.” Arrivistes and parvenus are more common than one would like to think.
I think that there is a place for a vanguard and a mainstream, provided that both combat dysfunctional elements and behaviour amongst themselves. A vanguard consisting of effective militants and a mainstream consisting of effective workers could be a powerful force for progress. Here I may be using a somewhat different definition of vanguard and mainstream to that used by Wallace. Wallace lists among the features of vanguardism “a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few.” Many of these features are not intrinsic to a vanguard position. Wallace seems to say as much when, after criticising several of these things, he states that a “private, invitation only ‘vanguardist’ organization could work.” Wallace also indicates that a vanguard could push the Overton Window of the mainstream closer to its own position, so that, to paraphrase an old saying, today’s radicalism would become tomorrow’s conservatism.
John Tyndall is one of my favorite nationalist writers. He was a gentle and rational advocate for radical truths. It regret that I never got to meet him in person. I wish he were still here in the fight.