Against MainstreamingTed Sallis
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.
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
Lipton Matthews Interviews Beau Albrecht about MLK
Forgotten Roots of the Left: Fichte’s Moral & Political Philosophy, Part II
Against Political Hipsterism
Morrissey: The Last Romantic Poet?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 508 The Kanye Question with Greg Johnson
Wilmot Robertson o konzervatismu
Hope you are not offended Romano, but we cannot allow the elder daughter of Jean-Marie do to Identitarianism what the Elder Daughter of the Church did to Catholicism. Ils n’ont rien appris ni rien oublie’.
I’m glad you brought up this subject. The Sweden Democrats have become a mere farce in Swedish politics. In the campaign for the election two weeks ago, one prominent member twittered the slogan “Vote against anti-Semitism – vote SD!”.
During the election celebration several prominent members of the party posed for pictures with this gentleman and an Israeli flag:
The jew, Avner Ben Yisrael, is from the organization “Swedish-Jewish Dialogue”. Here he is, lecturing a representative from SD on politics (in English).
But the grand prize has to go to this anti-racist advertising video, produced by SD for the election. The dark, Asian guy at the beginning starts by saying “Racism is disgusting, it is one of the greatest causes of suffering in the world, and it cannot be tolerated.”
The Sweden Democrats have a policy of “zero tolerance for racism”, which has had the result that they have kicked out numerous members suspected of holding even slightly “racist” views. Jimmie Åkesson, the chairman of SD, has defined “racism” as the view that human races exist – and that is apparently the view that is unacceptable in their party. Here is a picture of Åkesson:
In an article from 2010, Åkesson addressed the LGBT (“HBTQ” in Swedish) community, warning them against the dangers of Islam. SD is their hope for a brighter future.
So there you have it, an anti-racist LGBT party, the most fanatically pro-jewish party in Sweden, protesting against moslem immigration because moslems are perceived as having too old-fashioned views …
Marine Le Pen is attractive for a middle aged woman and, like most French women, maintains a good sense of style. But I doubt anyone likes the NF just because of her looks.
Nationalists in name only (Niños). Simply take the existing Republican Party economic program, add reform or elimination of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Immigration Acts (can/should we trust them to accomplish this?), add a bit more scrutiny of jewish behavior (this part is negotiable), and th..th..th..that’s ALL folks! The motivation behind mainstreaming comes from the “movement’s” multi-millionaire financiers who haven’t the financial or social capital to regain the GOP. Better to redirect the tiny social capital they’ve accumulated as Niños on da ‘Net into another third party effort with the softened message of constitutional libertarian citizenism, and trust them to do the right thing from the top – should they succeed.
I am so very past this thinking. Perhaps I and others like me should, as Kevin Strom might have said years ago, “be shunned.”
The Niño’s idea for helping the white American worker is limited to ending third world immigration, so that unemployed whites are able to move into the part-/full-time, minimum wage, no benefits, underemployed category. They have nothing to say about reforming an economic system designed and operated for the benefit of the disproportionately jewish 1% and those obseqiously truckling gentile clients following the jewish lead. Beyond “We’ll pass new laws” or “We’ll follow the Constitution and the Founder’s intent” Niño’s have no socioeconomic program that would prevent the subversion of white America from resuming, once again, in one or two generations. They financially benefit from keeping things just the way they are. Their “game” is to sell you on the idea that – despite all evidence to the contrary – you benefit, as well.
The core ideology of an ethno-nationalist party should always be ethnic preservation both in a biological and a cultural sense and that means stopping and reversing mass immigration. One has to make that clear right from the beginning. Trying to hide one’s real objectives as a “ruse” to be later revoked when power has been attained will not work as this article explains.
“Mainstreaming” would mean the avoidance of violence, offensive language, expressions of hatred for foreigners and creating an association with the second World War through the use of fascist symbols or engaging in historical and holocaust revisionism, which is quite irrelevant for our present situation. The impression to be created is one of reasonableness, civility and decency. Even so one will be accused of “hate”, “racism”, “anti-Semitism”, “Nazism” and so on, but such epithets will eventually loose their efficacy. The reality is that the majority of the White public doesn’t want to be dispossessed by mass non-White immigration but is simply waiting for a way out to express that wish in a manner that is not considered “immoral” according to their post- WW II indoctrination. If an ethno-nationalist party can succeed in creating the impression of decency, then it can tap on a large reservoir of votes. Appearance is everything in politics. One need not to compromise on principles. Both Front National and UKIP seem not to understand that (provided they are sincere and not as is suggested controlled opposition). I am afraid an ethno-nationalist party with the right ideology and the right strategy does not yet exist.
The bottom line is this: A party that is more concerned with being perceived as servile to jews (a hostile group) than with spreading a consistent nationalist message to our own people (who need it the most), isn’t a nationalist party at all. Nationalists actually supporting these charlatans suffer from the Battered White Nationalist Syndrome, which Trainspotter describes more eloquently than I ever could. What these people need to understand (and we need to bring it to their attention through mockery and scorn) is that status-whoring in this hostile system will never do us any good. And because they are status-whores, and thus not rational, mockery is the only thing that works on them.
Considering that Save the Whales has more supporters and a bigger budget than the NANR I think it is safe to say that we are a fringe group at best and that it is a tad early to go main stream. They get invited to better parties too.
We can and should avoid fascist symbols, an eccentric appearance, and dysfunctional behavior, but post WWII indoctrination will remain relevant in defining “decency” long into the future. Accusations of “hate,” “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” and “Nazism” may be tiresome – they’ve been so for decades, actually – but will retain potency until Whites have become a tiny minority, entirely subservient to jewish interests, and the fear of Whites has completely dissipated from the jewish psyche. That is because the strongest party to a contract is the one controlling the most resources. With control of money, distribution, propaganda, government, and law in the hands of plutocratic jews and their gentile trucklers, the enemy’s access to near unlimited resources will continue far into the future. We can and will continue to be fired, imprisoned, murdered, and our families harassed/assaulted until split apart. The only solution is a change in strategy. The precondition for this change is the admission that we’ve lost this battle and can’t compete in a top-down political contest. Of course this won’t set well with some people – hell, there was a time I would have challenged it – but this is war and we can’t allow hubris to stand in the way of clear thinking. The next step is to think in terms of survival – laying the foundations for autonomous families, communities, and networks in both rural and suburban locales. The third step is turning neighbors into willing accomplices and binding them to us. The fourth step is acquiring local civil legitimacy. And so forth and so on…
I think a better term than “mainstreaming” would be “neo-Gramscianism” or possibly “Fabian Conservatism”. Many dopey conservatives harbor an inarticulate and inchoate Gramscian/Fabian assumption regarding developments like the rise to prominence of FN and similar parties and politicos. They seem to believe that they augur a turning of the tide and a slow but steady advance against their opposition. They don’t want to see this (imagined) breakthrough jeopardized by imprudent overreaching. Like Fabius Cunctator they delay and try to nurse their strength. In the process they convince themselves that any compromises or sacrifices they make will be made good in the future. That they are using others to establish their will. When in fact it is they who are being used.
Great article. There seems to be a Catch 22 here, where a party at this time cannot become a player in any Western nation without first becoming “acceptable”, through the watering down of the racialist platform. But, a party loses its soul by becoming watered down, becoming part of the problem. The GOP is a fine (or rather execrable) example of this. I agree with the author that the NF with its current message should be regarded with a high level of suspicion. I am hopeful about French political developments though; they have the strong potential of being a major step in the right direction, at the very least a victory for Le Pen gives legitimacy to political viewpoints that have been shunned and punished previously within Europe.
Mainstreaming should be defined as pushing racialist ideas into the mainstream, so that the mainstream pays attention to them and ponders them and is not allowed to ignore them. This requires ideas to be presented in more careful and cautious language than is generally the case when discussion occurs between insiders. All political groups do this. Abandoning core principles simply to make oneself more electable, on the other hand, should not be termed mainstreaming. It should be called surrender.
Any political solution resembling what might be called “victory” for racialists must necessarily result from a long-term process. It’s not at all inappropriate to divide this process into stages and to focus resources on achieving success in necessarily earlier stages, and to refuse to permit considerations of necessarily later stages to jeopardize the achievement of success in necessarily earlier stages. Does it make sense for a guy at a bar to talk wedding plans or sexual positions with a girl he’s just introduced himself to? Except in the rarest of instances, the answer is no. Even if that is eventual goal there is no need to ruin the courtship process by introducing such talk prematurely.
There is, as Sallis notes, every risk that an ostensibly ethnoracialist political party engaged in mainstreaming will get drunk on its electoral successes. What Sallis fails to note, however, is that if such a party enjoys significant electoral success it means that the mainstream will have shifted towards ethnoracialism. This should be expected to open up spaces for uncompromising ethnoracialists (like Sallis himself) in which to operate which at present are completely closed off. If and when such a day comes Sallis may see mainstreamers in a different light.
This is a very bad idea. The temptation is understandable, but it’s a classic rookie error. Indeed, a great deal of what SD is doing bears the hallmark of amateurism. Really, the idea that any western country needs an ethnoracialist party to fight anti-semitism or denounce racism is simply laughable.
One should either remain silent about Israel (“it’s not our issue”) or use it to make a point about Zionist (or outright Jewish) influence. Eg We (Swedes, Britons, Germans, etc) are suffering because of Zionist/Jewish influence just like the Palestinians are.
Instead of condemning “racism” in general terms, the point should be made that anti-whitism is a form of racism too, and whites are suffering horribly from it – indeed, that white existence itself is threatened by it. Force the anti-white coalition to defend its policies in light of these facts. Require it to answer: if you don’t like the policies we propose to deal with the problem of anti-whitism – if we’re ‘too extreme,’ say – then what policies do you propose?
I wish I could write well. This idea from “our” intellectuals that White nationalists should eliminate race and adopt mainstream positions toward culture and economics bothers the hell out of me. This will be the last of it for now, on C-C.
Here is Murray Rothbard on parental rights:
“…the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”
Don’t take my word for it. Feel free to verify:
What has this to do with mainstreaming? Plenty. Free market libertarianism is about defending the oligarchy while appearing to be a rebel. This feature is its most attractive quality to young people. Reducing or “atomizing” the collective interests of the majority (gentile) population to the most base, short-term impulses of its individual members facilitates domination of the majority by a smaller collective of highly organized (jewish) plutocrats.
The consistent libertarian opposes social provisioning at all levels. With White labor, for example, the libertarian treats its production (the family), maintenance (subsistence and healthcare), and depreciation (sickness and old age) costs as something beyond the price system. Not so! if we are talking about any other commodity, however. It is assumed that the price of a non-human commodity covers its production, maintenance, and depreciation costs else the item is withdrawn from the market. So what we have is an inanimate bar of pig iron treated with greater dignity than a White laborer! The situation worsened by the fact that labor simply cannot be withdrawn from the market if these requirements are not met, for without social provisioning the laborer suffers and dies. But this is A-okay with Libertarian (jewish) economic behavior toward Others (laboring gentiles), for non-voluntary social provisioning is a violation of the non-coercion principle.
Similarly, to allow a White parent the right to withhold food from his child is entirely consistent with Libertarian (jewish) principles, even if one (another gentile) personally believes the behavior is immoral. Many more examples could be provided, but the thought I want to leave is that Libertarian (jewish) moral and economic principles are entirely “mainstream.” No way in hell can I support the “mainstreaming” of genuine White nationalism by multi-millionaire Niño – Nationalist in name only – milquestoasts and their dupes.
If those mainstreaming parties manage to dramatically slow down immigration then they will provide some additional breathing space for the type of intellectual insertion you suggest. They can also be useful in inserting into the population an idea of culturism and through their weaker efforts and ours, we can advance the idea that certain peoples are more likely to be culturally incompatible than others. That is to say, non-Europeans although primarily those who are beholden to Islam, both sub-continentals and Africans who often from Christian background, tend to gravitate to Islam as a form of ethnic Marxism, usually through jail experience or contact of those with it. Additionally, the culturist element can be used to force people to consider things like trust and social capital and the reasons for widespread segregation (resident, schooling, social, religiously). Be the beachhead into a discussion of the nature of mankind and the errors implicit in multi-racial states. There are of course problems with the likes of UKIP in the UK, the FN in France, the SD and PVV in uber-liberal Sweden and Holland. But I would suggest that their climbing support infers an implicit whiteness in European’s voting behaviour, a slow radicalising of the population in a direction that dare not speak its name.
P.S. Posted this comment at the Radix article quoting snippets too as I am interested in the contrary viewpoints.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment