943 words
I would like to respond to Parrott’s essay, answering Greg Johnson’s original piece about “White Nationalist conferences.” Two points to begin with.
First, with respect to the actual debate, I agree with Johnson as regards the situation today; however, if at some point in the (hopefully not distant) future, pro-White activism sufficiently expands, then real-world analog conferences would be a good thing. So, I agree with Parrott regarding all the advantages of such conferences (and Johnson admits these as well), the problem is that as they exist today, such conferences do no good. And some do more “no good” than others.
Second, similar to what Johnson wrote in his piece, none of this should be construed as being an attack against Amren or any sort of personal attack against Taylor. Amren/Taylor have done a lot of good over the years for pro-White activism. I appreciate Amren/Taylor for publishing a fair number of my own essays, particularly those that brought the work of Frank Salter to the attention of a wider audience. That’s all to the good. However, to answer Parrott, some honest and dispassionate criticism of Amren will be required, although this criticism is mostly aimed at Parrott’s misrepresentation of the facts. Emphasis added:
American Renaissance has been, and will hopefully remain, a tremendously useful ecumenical event where the ever-divergent and alienated factions and subcultures within White Advocacy can converge in one physical space for one magical weekend and network. Jared Taylor is an institution in himself, a unifying figure who even the most avid anti-semites and milquetoast mainstreamers respect.
This is absolutely incorrect. As someone with years of experience in pro-White activism, as someone familiar with all the intra-movement “flamewars,” how could Parrott write something so absurd? There are a number of prominent “anti-Semitic” activists who have been extremely harshly critical of Amren/Taylor, up to and including the use of personal invective. Parrott surely disagrees with those viewpoints, but it is the height of dishonesty to pretend they do not exist.
Many other activists are displeased with the perceived pro-Jewish outlook of Amren, although these others either keep silent and just ignore Amren, or express their views using more mild language. On the other hand, some of the “milquetoast mainstreamers” (e.g., Auster, Jobling) have been sharply critical of Amren/Taylor for being insufficiently pro-Jewish.
In my case, I ended my association with Amren after the “Hippocrates” controversy and my perception that Amren was becoming a HBD, rather than White nationalist, enterprise. For all the good that it has done, Amren has been as much a divisive and controversial entity as a “unifying” one.
The idea that Amren conferences are such an “ecumenical” event was reasonably refuted by the events of the 2006 conference and its aftermath. Things were never the same for Amren after Hart’s vulgar tantrum; subsequent events, such as the Jobling split and the “Hippocrates” disaster, just added to the division.
And that’s why AmRen is so valuable. I’m fearful that the year he stops organizing AmRen (hopefully many years from now!), all of our disparate factions will file off into our respective Christian crusader, pagan revivalist, philo-semitic, dorky HBD, and wonky mainstreamer corners, never to converge and unite around White Identity in quite the same way again.
What fantasy land does Parrott live in? All these “disparate factions” are completely divided today, and Amren conferences have had absolutely zero effect on breaking down these divisions. There is certainly no convergence or unity among these factions, inside or outside of such conferences. They attacked each other at the 2006 conference. After that, the hardcore anti-Semites stopped coming and then the extreme philo-Semites broke away. It’s now more or less a “mash-up” of southerners, HBDers, and mainstreamers. There is no longer any sort of general representation of the “movement” there, certainly not among the speakers. And are all the attendees, never mind the speakers, converging and uniting around “White Identity?” Is that what Derbyshire does there? Really?
Greg proposed that we shift to a more localized and specialized model of meeting up. That’s all well and good, but it didn’t take the commenters on the article long to vividly describe from first-hand experience what a boondoggle that proves to be in practice. AmRen’s expensive and stuffy atmospherics and basic filtering for cranks (hopefully, I’ll still be allowed this coming year!) guarantee a safety and sanity which can’t be guaranteed in smaller regional venues.
Yes, tell Michael Regan all about the “safety.” Tell the attendees of the 2006 conference about the “sanity.”
We belong to a broad array of subcultures, social classes, and ideologies, and that often devolves into a circus.
Er . . . didn’t Parrott just tell us how wonderfully unified we are all due to having Amren conferences? How are the conferences helping to bring us together then?
AmRen is, to my knowledge, the only platform where a Zionist Jew, a professor with an Asian wife, a homosexual pagan revivalist, and a guy more comfortable in a Skrewdriver t-shirt than a dinner jacket can all converge on the same room to discuss racial issues without Yackety Sax background music.
And this is good how? This demonstrates an identity crisis. Are Amren conferences “HBD/race realism” meetings? White nationalist get-togethers? Both? Neither? Maybe one reason why things never got accomplished at the meetings is that they used to mix together disparate and non-unified groups, often hostile to each other, with nothing in common. Dedicated anti-Semites with Zionists? Radical national socialist racialists with miscegenating White nerds and their Asian wives? Traditional Christian conservatives with homosexual pagans? “Wine and cheese” elitists with “chips and beer” skinheads? That is all better than more narrowly defined local meetings how?
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/12/answering-parrott-on-conferences.html
8 comments
What was the ”Hippocrates controversy”, may I ask?
The original race/science writer for Amren was Dr. Glayde Whitney, a good man and a honest academic. Dr. Whitney unfortunately passed away before his time, and was eventually replaced by a Judeophilic and Asiaphilic IQ-obsessed HBDer who used the pseudonym “Hippocrates.” This individual would praise Jews and Asians, foam at the mouth over “high-IQ Chinese,” pontificate that “South Asian immigrants are not a problem” while at the same time attacking European-derived ethnies (e.g., Italians). The “Hippocrates” episode was confusing. On the one hand, we were told that criticism of Jews was forbidden at Amren because they wanted to have an inclusive “big tent” approach and that we must sacrifice speaking out for pragmatism. That despite the fact that organized Jewish groups were/are hostile to Amren. On the other hand, articles criticizing Italians as dumb mongrels, or blaming American racial liberalism on old stock American abolitionists (but not on 20th century Jewish activists) were featured in the journal. First, I’m not interested in Jewish/Asian IQ worship. Second, there needs to be consistency. If we want pragmatism and a “big tent” then don’t attack European groups. On the other hand, if you want to have your writers to express their views on any topic, even if some readers find it controversial, then you MUST also address the JQ. To protect Jews from any criticism (and praising Asians) while simultaneously harshly critiquing Europeans was something I did not approve of.
In response to Ted Sallis, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” comes to mind, but doesn’t suffice for an adequate response. So…
The American Renaissance conference is not the ethno-state; no one has put his hopes & dreams into AR in the hope it will lead to one. It does not suffer an identity crisis either. It is in fact what Mr. Sallis, in his dismissive last paragraph, describes, as far as being sui generis: a mixture of disparate groups. I have conversed with representatives of each type he mentions. I did not feel I was wasting my time, or compromising my beliefs, in talking to John Derbyshire, and one or two racially conscious Jews. Something I wonder about after such encounters is whether, & how, we can reach a modus vivendi with these types of people. That doesn’t mean I want to live with them, or allow them any say in the lives of my fellow whites.
And, contrary to what Mr. Sallis believes, things do get accomplished at AR conferences.
In 2012, I met a very promising young skinhead – one of the more interesting characters there – who was more at home in heavy boots & leather jacket, but he had willingly donned coat & tie to network with us. He added to the value of the conference in ways I can’t really describe – a different point of view, a hardier spirit, perhaps. I doubt he thought he was wasting his time – he attended the NPI conference the following year.
An important value of the AR conferences is their function as an introduction to our views, “Race Realism 101” – in an environment most people find agreeable & non-threatening – to a large number of people over the years, whom we could not have reached with websites only, or gifting with a copy of The Culture of Critique. The AR conference can get, no…does get…such people started on the right path, including, eventually an informed understanding of the Jewish Question.
I say this because I’ve seen it happen. Just one example would be a friend of mine – a self-described, “pro-Republican, libertarian businessman” – whom I persuaded to accompany me to the 2013 AR conference. He was bowled over by Jared Taylor, of course, but his education is continuing. He has subscribed to Occidental Quarterly, & we have had intense discussions about its articles. Right now he’s all over the place ideologically, but because of Jared Taylor, & the unique (though sometimes, as Matt says, circus-like) environment of the AR conference, we have a real chance of gaining a recruit.
American Renaissance conferences are still taking place, because they help our movement. — Gerald
Mr. Parrot has tried to enforce a hug-box climate for some years now.
I may be wrong but my impression is that many, if not most, Amren conference attendees are vendors with websites to push and books to sell. Or “names” with a little bit of money and a long history of involvement in the ‘white nationalist’ book club movement. I think the “networking” is little more than glad-handing where various personalities are trying to place their name front and center in a competition for limited funds. There’s more than little ego and narcissism involved. In my opinion Greg Johnson is correct that this is a waste of money. On the other hand, “names” and glad-handers with books to sell ought to have a place to schmooze.
This movement of book sellers is going nowhere until it is funded. Youthful fringe types are usually lacking money. I don’t see why motivated individuals with the required skills – retirees, for example – couldn’t put on a news show like the Corbett Report. I believe most of the equipment can be had at Walmart, Best Buy, or Home Depot. Some research and practice is all that’s needed, I think. There are plenty of people with the talent to, for a small stipend, do screenwriting and set design for a limited budget. I don’t see why some of us couldn’t create movies, for that matter!
It seems to me that the majority of criticism about conferences comes from those whom don’t really attend any. In my experience, many of the people you can’t encourage out of their house to meet even locally in the real world tend to be the most pessimistic about such gatherings.
Attending a national conference can be expensive, yes, but every one has been well worth my time and money. I think Mr. Johnson estimated the average expense for each attendee to be around $1000. I’ve attended many conferences over the years and have never spent more than $500, even with plane tickets, hotel rooms, and meals all thrown in. There’s ways to go about traveling more cost effectively if you prepare in time. After all, whites are supposed to be pretty good at future planning.
While retreating into cyberspace is not the answer, I do like the idea of regional conferences. But I’m afraid that for such meetings to be effectively organized and well attended, we’d need an actual movement composed of large organizations or networks of committed activists first. Such a circumstance could certainly develop in the near future, but perhaps it could only come out enthusiasm created by much larger national gatherings than we have now. If the next AmRen were attended by an audience of 1000 people — all top quality leaders, activists, and supporters — our cause would catch fire.
Although it sounds simple, we’ll have a movement as soon as we know we actually have one.
What a disaster this AmRen sounds like! Reading about the first conference where 5 out of 9 speakers where you-know-who’s. I could understand if issues flare up over religion, anglo-vs-non-anglo, north/south, political outlook etc but philo-semites and Asian brides in a White Identity conference? C’mon, this sounds like a monty-python skit.
My guess… You remove this one particular pernicious influence and I bet you will see genuine ecumenism. In my experience, most of the “divisions” in WN are enflamed with an obvious intent to destroy.
It also explains why the vantards etc get the numbers… at least they maintain some consistency on key questions.
I’ve been accused of attempting to impose a “hug box” mentality on the cause, but I don’t believe that’s accurate. I believe there’s a point of diminishing returns in promoting “unity” between the very different factions of our cause. I believe a single annual gathering where we gather under a rather broad “race realism” banner to compare notes and ideas is within that purview.
As for the JQ, Jared handled that inevitable blow-out with characteristic aplomb. Having rather publicly and transparently refused to choose on the JQ, he’s patiently and fairly managed to hold to a neutral position which is very difficult to maintain. Folks like ourselves only see matters from our perspective, but we fail to consider just how many critics of organized Jewry continue attending year-over-year despite all but a remnant of the Jews who once feted the conference boycotting it in protest.
This is a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. Both narrowly focused local meet-ups and broadly focused national conferences add value for White Identity in different ways.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.