Some in the “movement” – including some “movement intellectuals” – are championing the concept of “mainstreaming” and cite France’s Front National (FN) as a sterling example of this paradigm. After all, as these “movement” think tankers report, the FN, it seems, is these days saying it doesn’t matter if the French become a minority of the population of France.
Doesn’t matter! What does matter then? Constitutional patriotism? Culture? Citizenism? “French values?” Haven’t we heard all of this before? Isn’t sacrificing principles on the altar of “electability” one of the main reasons that “conservatism” in the USA has become completely useless, why the GOP betrays White interests over and over and over again?
But, the intellectuals tell us, this mainstreaming allows the reborn nationalists to influence policy, and to legitimize discussion of important issues. A Le Pen victory in 2017 would lead to more “free speech” on issues of race and immigration (has the FN campaigned to overturn France’s speech laws?). There’s the usual hopeful “movement” assumptions here, the usual “mind-reading” and assertions that public pronouncements should not be taken at face value, and, instead, we need to value hypotheses, beliefs, assumptions, hopes, and fantasies over ice-cold realistic facts. You see! Just wait! By mainstreaming their message and dumping the old core ideology, the FN will become electable (By golly, they are even attracting French Jews! How wonderful!), and they will be elected, and then the “kid gloves” will come off, and we will at that time deal with the race problem! You just wait!
I do not believe that mass mobilization, ideological fervor, activist support, memetic understanding, and political fundamentals – in essence, a party’s or movement’s entire worldview — can be turned on and off like flipping a switch, or can be turned around like switching a gear. If the FN spends years convincing supporters that it is not about race, that French nationalism is independent of French ethnicity, if they preach the constitutional patriotism argument that France can remain French without ethnic French being the majority, then how realistic is it for them to suddenly turn around one day and say: “Surprise! We were just fooling you! It really is about race, and now . . .” I can’t see it; worse, they poison the well for everyone else, they redirect the righteous anger of the displaced French people to a culturalist dead end of anti-White “citizenism.” Aracial nationalism – the “pop culture far-Right” or “far-Right Light” – can serve as a safety valve for majoritarian discontent, much the same way implicitly White “conservative Republicans” do in the USA. All the potential power is dissipated, frittered away, expended into maladaptive directions. And how do we know what the FN leadership’s true feelings and beliefs are? Do we need to guess? Maybe they really believe that ethnicity is irrelevant to “Frenchness.” WNs love to make assumptions that “X” is “really one of us” (e.g., the current breathless schoolgirl infatuation with Putin), and WNs get burned every time. I apply Occam’s razor and instead assume that public pronouncements match private beliefs, until such time I have definitive evidence otherwise.
Hardline activists – the support that’s a mile deep but an inch wide – become disillusioned and disenfranchised by mainstreaming, to be replaced by fickle and ephemeral “support” that’s a mile wide but an inch deep. This latter support, weaned on a diet of citizenist pap, may vanish overnight if race is ever re-introduced into the French political equation. And if we decide to ignore Occam and assume that the citizenist pose of the FN is really a ruse, the problem then becomes that “popular support” and “electability” may become ends in themselves; in other words, means become ends and the original ends vanish. The “apparent” belief system becomes the “real” belief system, and the endgame is all about attaining and maintaining power, not actually doing anything constructive while in power. The FN may come to believe that the ruse is reality and that the trickery should become the new, real, permanent ideology. Thus, this is similar to the GOP supporters in America, who talk of “electability” without ever asking “what do we want our candidate to be elected for?” You see, being elected is the end in itself, there is no other underlying ultimate objective. That’s the end result of “mainstreaming.” To what end a FN victory if France becomes part of Eurabia anyway? Why should we care? Because it “feels good to win?” “Win” what? And it is strange that people who should know better believe that “French Jews flocking to the FN” is somehow a good thing. Why, yes, it may improve mainstreaming electability, but it is also a danger sign – like the canary in the coal mine – that something has gone drastically wrong with the FN. On the basic premise that “what’s good for the Jews is not good for Whites, and vice versa,” the growing enthusiasm of French Jews for the “new FN” should really alarm folks who want to see the peoples of Europe saved from the rising tide of color.
Of course, mainstreaming has its place within the activist toolkit. As long as the core ideology is maintained, enhancing electability through mainstreaming of the message can work, when it is required. The problem is when mainstreaming completely alters the core ideology, when ethnonationalism becomes replaced by constitutional patriotism, culturalism, and citizenism. Then the means become ends and all is lost.
I may of course be wrong here and the FN mainstreamers may lead European nationalists to victories and then proceed to enact a preservationist and ethnoracial nationalist agenda. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But someone needs to sound a warning alarm about mainstreaming, at least point out the potential dangers. Why isn’t that happening, re: the FN? Is something deeper going on here? Just like the omega males of the “movement” become blushing schoolgirls over “macho man” Eurasianist Putin, I wonder if the beta males of the “movement” are becoming blushing schoolboys over the “attractive” and “charming” Marine Le Pen. A similar pathetic display took place in 2008, when Buchanan, Sailer, and other “America First” Paleocons started gushing over “hot” man-jawed Neocon interventionist “Sister Sarah” Palin. It is unfortunately a part of superficial human nature – Nietzsche’s “human, all too human” – to value the messenger over the message. I can’t help believe that if the current head of the FN was some sort of stuffy, pudgy, frog-eating Frenchman, that there would be a bit less enthusiasm in the “movement” for the mainstreaming going on there.
Against Political Hipsterism
Morrissey: The Last Romantic Poet?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 508 The Kanye Question with Greg Johnson
Wilmot Robertson o konzervatismu
The Populist Moment, Chapter 7:
Money & the Right
Revolution of the Nation
Notes on Sovereignty & International Order
The Populist Moment, Chapter 3:
Governing Without the People