1,718 words
Yesterday my colleague and I drove to Washington DC to attend a set of lectures called Beyond Conservatism, organized by the National Policy Institute (NPI) and held at the National Press Club. NPI is described as a think tank, and its primary activities include managing the Radix Journal web site, the publication of some books, and the organization of a conference about once per year. Does this constitute a think tank? I’m not sure. I would describe NPI as pro-white or identitarian, but of course you will find mainstream media outlets and leftist organizations describing it in nastier ways.
Upon arriving at the National Press Club I thought there might be protesters outside as was the case at the last NPI conference held in DC in 2013, but there were none to be seen. It is interesting to note that everybody employed by the National Press Club was non-white, from the receptionist, to the security guard, to the bartender and the wait staff. I wondered if this was deliberate. In researching the conference, I found several web sites urging activists to contact the venue and demand that NPI not be allowed to meet there. But the show went on as planned.
Still, the conspiratorial side of me wondered if the assignment non-white staff to the event was an attempt to be provocative. Or perhaps it is simply that the staff at the National Press Club is entirely non-white, which is provocative for other reasons. In either case, a reporter biased against NPI could easily spin the situation in an unfavorable light. They might say, This was a meeting of old white men being served by people of color; how ironic that they are dependent upon the people they despise. Or another spin could be, Look at this old white men being served by people of color; it harkens back to the days of segregation. Or lastly, How terrible that these people of color are forced to be subjected to the hostile rhetoric of old white men; how oppressive! This is why some types of speech should not be protected.
Describing the event as a meeting of “old white men” would be typical of the media, but would also be inaccurate. The vast majority of attendees were under the age of 40 and a substantial portion of them were in their 20s. Furthermore, these men were not basement-dwelling loser-types (well, some were). There were many smart-looking, and smart-sounding professionals from a variety of fields. But they were mostly men. Of about a hundred people, my guess was that only 5 to 10 attendees were women. I state this fact without judgment, merely to note the demographics.
I had the opportunity to meet one of the women there, or at least shake her hand. I noticed her when she first walked into the room because she seemed out of place. She had a lip-piercing, a sultry gait, and was wearing a jacket that said “Marlboro” on the back. Later, I saw her standing with a group of men that included my colleague. I walked over and realized immediately that she was not one of us when I heard her say to the men, “So are you guys going to try to convert me?” I introduced myself. I heard her say her name was Martha, but my colleague swears that it was Margaret. He probably knows better as he stayed and talked to her, whereas I had other things to do.
My goal was to explain my community organizing strategy and gather some contacts who might assist me. I spoke with some of the big name people, but they were preoccupied with so many others who wanted to speak with them and the conversations weren’t very fruitful. I did meet with some success in speaking to other attendees. It would have been nice to have more time to mingle, but the event began and we all directed our attention to the front of the room.
There were three speeches, one by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, one by Peter Brimelow of VDare.com, and one by Richard Spencer, the president of the National Policy Institute. As the title of the event indicates, the theme of all three speeches was Beyond Conservatism. Jared Taylor spoke about how the issue of race and identity should be one that goes beyond the politics of the right or the left. He argued that conservation is a value promoted by both sides, but that there is a double-standard when it comes to the conservation of the white race. We need to emphasize the uniqueness of our culture and traditions in order to make the case that it deserves to survive.
Peter Brimelow’s speech was about the rise of conservatism as a movement that seemed to be succeeding in the 1980s and 90s, and its subsequent decline in recent years. For example, two decades ago a book like The Bell Curve was a major topic of conversation in all intellectual circles, whereas today such a work would be suppressed by all mainstream outlets and relegated to the dark corners of the “far right.” The implication is that conservatism has failed and something new is needed to save our people from genocide.
Richard Spencer spoke about the mishmash of seemingly contradictory issues that now make up what is called the conservative platform. He critiqued these as a negative form of identity in which we define ourselves by the things were are against. Our people must reclaim a positive identity. He made a somewhat controversial statement that facing the future as a minority may be the galvanizing event that brings about this change in white racial consciousness, and in this way, encountering “the other” may be a good thing even though this is what we are trying to prevent. In the discussion that followed Jared Taylor challenged this assertion as being too defeatist, and expressed hope that white racial consciousness could be rekindled without our people being brought to the brink of extinction. This dilemma of when and how whites will finally wake up and claim their identity is at the heart of our movement.
A question and answer session followed Richard Spencer’s speech. People raised their hands and Richard called on them. The second person to be called upon was the woman named Martha or Margaret. She said she had a question for the entire audience and he said that’s fine. Then she walked to the front and stood right next to Richard facing the audience. She said something like, “So it seems like you guys don’t like sex very much.”
“That’s not true,” said Richard, interrupting her. He went on to say that nobody here had spoken about sex and part of the point of his own speech was implying that conservative views about sexuality need to be abandoned by our movement.
She seemed to be flustered and said, “Well, do you like strippers?” Richard appeared to be taken aback by the question. He began to beckon to the security guard in the back of the room. It seemed clear to me that we were about a witness some kind of FEMEN style activism. Martha or Margaret was fingering the the hem of her relatively short dress as if she were about to rip it off at any moment. The audience seemed to pick up on this and several lecherous comments were made. She was saying something about how there weren’t any good strip clubs in DC and all the best ones were in Baltimore. “Then to Baltimore!” Richard cried in jest while still attempting to get the security guard’s attention.
Someone yelled out, “She’s a troll!” She turned to the voice and said, “No, I’m not but . . .” At this point, Richard took control of the situation and said to her, “Okay, I think we are going to move on, but thank you for having your say.” Then he called on the next person with a raised hand. She continued stand in front of the audience for another ten minutes or so, but you could see that she had lost her nerve. She wasn’t going to strip without making her political point, which was obviously off-base anyway, and she was not going to be given the opportunity to speak again. Eventually, she left the front, and lingered in the back of the room for some time, getting chatted up by one of the lechers.
After a while, she made a final attempt to assert herself by interrupting Jared Taylor as he answered someone’s question. “Okay. I’m leaving. You’re all a bunch of racists!” she yelled before walking out the door. “Okay, sweetheart! Have a good night!” responded Jared with genuine sincerity. I was happy that a serious disruption had been avoided, but I felt very sad for her. She had made her point. Nobody was going to convert her.
The question and answer session conducted informally with many people inclined to give speeches rather than ask question. It seemed that the audience was very much beyond conservatism and a revolutionary spirit was in the air. There were calls for right wing socialism and critics of capitalism. There was also the familiar debate about the merits of ethnonationalism versus imperium. It was interesting, but many of the arguments I had heard before.
One woman asked the question of what we can be doing besides giving money to organizations that champion our cause. Richard’s response was that we must live as authentically as we can. Had I been called on, I would have said it’s more complicated than that, but there are strategies we can take and if people wanted to know more they could come talk to me. But I was never called on. Perhaps the next conference should be entitled Beyond Websites and Conferences, because this is a topic that people really want to know more about. I’m joking of course. It’s too dangerous to discuss such topics in a public forum.
Overall, I’d say the NPI mini-conference was a success. I had a truly wonderful time and wished that I could have gone out to the bar with the many of the others, but my colleague had to work early this morning so we drove back to our home city with much to talk about on the way.
Source: http://clausbrinker.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-attending-beyond-conservatism-npi.html
21 comments
Sounds interesting, but you were right: more about beyond websites and conferences. I know I’m not alone in wanting to hear more about that topic.
‘Sounds interesting, but you were right: more about beyond websites and conferences. I know I’m not alone in wanting to hear more about that topic.
“I would be very interested in hearing more of your ‘strategy for community organizing”
I have in the past proposed a few ideas to the AR for ways beyond the conference, webblog and ‘preaching to the choir’.
As an after thought was TRS invited~? It would have made for ‘a more little interest’..
Well that was informative.
I thought JT’s speech was clear and uncomplicated, like a keynote address. PB’s was in some ways the most interesting, because it had the drive of a personal saga, but Peter’s voice and enunciation sometimes fail him, like a faulty microphone cutting out and in, so I kept thinking I was missing the good parts. RS’s argument that whites as a minority will be a good thing for us, was, I think, sound and reasonable. There were negative reactions because it sounds like a dismal future rather a clarion call to arms.
I’d left the room briefly during the Q&A and when I returned the 20ish goth girl with ripped hose was declaiming about strip clubs. “How did they get onto that topic?” I wondered. She was more than a little tanked. When she made her departure a little later I realized she’d probably taken advantage of the under-30 discount, and came either at the behest of an antifa squad, or just in a bout of misguided mischief.
I found this report very interesting.
If Jared Taylor was present as a speaker, then the event, and NPI, must definitely be at least somewhat friendly to white interests. Whether it is in any way effective is anyone’s guess. I suppose in some ways in some circles, albeit very refined and possibly irrelevant ones – which is the usual hallmark of conservative elites.
Margaret (or Martha) is probably right in an important way re the attendees and sex. I would firmly wager that the average procreative rate of those attending is well below or very far below the replacement rate of 2.3 per couple. Many are no doubt single or childless entirely and will probably remain that way all their lives. This too is a hallmark, of far too many white racialists or those leaning that way who make great noises about race survival.
The allusion to Spencer wanting to eliminate conservative views on sexuality means what? My guess is that it probably relates to approval of gay marriage and gay adoption, ok’ing easy divorce, going along with abortion of white babies, etc., i.e. the usual retreats, capitulations, and surrenders that the ‘Right’ is so good at.
I would be very interested in hearing more of your ‘strategy for community organizing’. In the past I used to promote this amongst white racialists but after endlessly encountering laziness and a desire to do nothing more than talk from behind false monikers in semi-secretive venues, I’ve come to wonder if such a thing is not even viable amongst our side.
Thank you for the excellent coverage of the NPI event.
An interesting read.
Re: The attention whore
I wonder if her wasted Antifa friends were sleeping one off and forgot to join her. They prefer to attack in packs while high.
Sounds awful stuffy. Same old people saying the same old things. Margaret was right. If the conference had turned into an orgy it would have been the best thing that could have happened. Margaret could have initiated the virgins or those who hadn’t any in decades. She shouldn’t have left that Conference without a few potential husbands or at least customers.
I’m interested in community organizing in the US. Specifically, I’d like to find, co-found an Orania-type enterprise. It would function with a primitive, mostly-agrarian economy, where a cluster of organic farms would find a local market and augment it with a wider, sympathetic market. It would propel itself by its own growth, with skilled trades being developed first to erect fitting housing–joinery, framing, cabinet-making, marquetry/parquetry, masonry, stonework, plasterwork, pottery, blacksmithing, glassblowing, weaving and so on–then by an unending effort toward vertical integration–milling, tool and die making, brick-making, quarrying, mining, and so forth, and so on.
Having begun to outline my thoughts, it dawns on me that I’m describing the revival of an arts and crafts type movement whose purpose is to command a niche market, immunizing commerce and capturing a premium, and to create a worthy physical culture. Of course, this would be only the initial orientation of commercial activity.
With strong organization, a sense of purpose and urgency, and commitment (commercial loyalty) by sympathetic outsiders, this community could, having reached a critical mass (wrt to population, whatever that number may be), grow and evolve technologically with good rapidity, especially with its own credit. The knowledge and resources are out there. We already know how to get from point A to point B. It’s simply a matter of will.
I’d be interested in networking with serious people who have money, skills, and nothing to lose. My timeframe for getting started is 3-5 years.
If this is not what the author had in mind when he mentioned community organizing, I’m all ears. If there are better ideas, I’d like to hear them. Speak up, please.
This contribution from Brian sparks a fair amount of deju vu.
The discovery of a small scale approach usually follows a prior period of attempting and completely failing to organize white people using traditional political methods. Sometimes the method strictly follows “The Book” (Mein Kampf) and sometimes it is adapted for contemporary Amurikan conditions.
So it goes with the Pioneer Little Europe/Orania/Micro-Communities concept. Over time the concept has evolved from primarily urban political (H. Michael Barrett’s 1970s era thinking partly modeled on Moseley’s London-based BUF) to suburban/rural and family oriented economics. The evolution naturally tracks the changing demographics of lower middle class and working class white settlement patterns in the USA.
Brian’s thinking aligns fairly well with the emerging realities mentioned in the post below. Carpentry, masonry, welding, electrical-electronics, automation-robotics-CNC, C+ programming, environmental systems integration and installation, etc. Food production, education, medical/health/hospice, etc. Decentralization. Guilds. Chokepoints. A modern Hanseatic League for North America, Europe, and Australia.
Gnome sayin’?
. ” Food production, education,, etc. Decentralization. Guilds ”.
Hence my long developed idea, but launched, ideas of Futureguild and Occidental Organic ; , ‘tools of mass mobilisation , mass re-creation’
Recently heard parallel sentiment coming from an esoteric Christian on the need for constructing an ideological, agrarian community. If nothing else it might give you some ideas:
youtube.com/watch?v=h7g5mXtCkNU
Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful report. Made me feel I was there, much better than a dry recitation of what happened. I hope you will attend the American Renaissance conference in April.
I didn’t attend b/c I thought the thing was too short and had too few events to make it worthwhile for me to come from Texas. Reading this confirms my decision. But I’m glad it drew enough people to be classed a success. I hope NPI will put on a full weekend conference in October, which I will attend.
There is nothing wrong with traditional conservatism at all. It has clear aims and objectives. Naturally, as Richard Spencer points out, today’s conservatives are going to point out what they are against. Otherwise how can we define what has gone wrong? I disagree, however, that defines conservatism, as Professor Roger Scruton points out what does define it in his several books on the subject.
Our problem, universally, has been the liberal-left who gained the ascendency after 1945 and have only been opposed by very small groups of classic conservatives, and, so, insufficient to stop them taking over everything.
Our task is to work out how we can turn this around, other than by violent revolution. Abstract ideas and theories are no good. We have to build upon something that was tried and tested even if it is currently emasculated by the broad Left. However this time we need to adopt the same tactics as them in demonisations and exclusions etc., if we are to make sure they never return. It will be a long haul, I fear.
Can anyone report on whether or not the the Jewish question came up at the conference, and if so, how it was addressed by the speakers (all three of whom have shown ostrich-like tendencies when it comes to this issue)? Also, regarding Spencer’s comment about ditching “conservative” attitudes about sex, does anyone if Spencer has read E. Michael Jones on the subject of sexual liberation as political control?
Just because the social ‘left’ have used sex to further their agenda does not mean that we have to oppose it because we identify on the opposite end of the spectrum. To do so is reactionary and negative.
At the end of the day we call ourselves Nationalists but our primary aim is stopping Non-White mass immigration and ensuring those of European descent can live in their own homogenous lands for generations to come. If we were not experiencing the demographic subversion of our countries then would we really care much about individual sexual activity as long as our own and people’s future was secure? We should not form are views of sex based upon temporal phenomenon and should ignore it as it further divides potential support. Just because anti-immigration politics is identified on the ‘right’ does not mean we need to become Conservative Christians.
The destructive element is not what John and Jill do in the barn but the over bearing sexual propaganda which distorts people’s thinking, self worth and vigor. Overbearing sexual propaganda means that people’s minds spend large amounts of time thinking of sexual activity rather than actually doing any. Sexual activity needs to be separated from Sexual propaganda. Sex is not the issue it is the use of destructive propaganda which uses sex as a stimuli.
I believe the state should promote the healthy family unit as the optimum as it is practical and part of the National Security for the nation and people’s future. However, I take a classical libertarian view on what the individual does.
I greatly enjoyed the gathering; the crowd was very young, dynamic, and of high quality.
As I recall, Spencer didn’t mention anything about abandoning conservative attitudes about sex, but I’m sure does not share hypocritical or ignorant conservative sexual hangups and probably takes a more science based point of view. It’s inconsistent for our movement to base our racial views scientifically while ignoring what science tells us about human nature and sexuality. That being said, given the enormity of our task, it’s wrong to assume an issue like gay adoption is something worth promoting or even caring about.
Going ‘beyond conservatism’ isn’t the only goal; transcending liberalism and all the other ‘isms’ that are incomplete and distract us from who we are and who we must become is essential to our survival and progress.
As far as the event itself goes, I liked that the speeches were less formal than the normal American white nationalist conferences. To be sure, we need real-world gatherings, but they do need to be more ‘communally’ themed and less like a set of college lectures. Allowing audience members to speak their minds and really share their thoughts was a welcomed break away from the traditional conference format. I’m looking forward to attending more of these types of events by NPI, and hope to see ambitious gatherings from Counter Currents and perhaps new worthy groups in the future.
It was a pretty excellent conference in my mind, but maybe that’s just because I got to speak at the end. If I met anyone there who is reading this, it was nice to meet you.
Margaret/Martha was funny, what a silly antifa cunt.
Emilio, I wonder why the reviewer didn’t mention your point about the black shirts? The intellectual side is necessary and important, but that alone cannot suffice for a movement.
It was an excellent conference, all speeches were great and there were some great questions, but the after party was the highlight.
I thought Margaret was a stripper or prostitute trying to solicit customers or something, probably because where I was sitting I only heard her when she was addressing everyone about going to Baltimore for strippers and such.
The New Era:
1. There will be no peak oil/energy crisis. We are seeing the convergence of crude oil and natural gas as mutual substitutes. A huge array of “bi-fuel” internal combustion engines (locomotives, semi trucks, buses, et al) are already in production. We are seeing the spread of transcontinental natural gas pipelines and intercontinental transoceanic trade market in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) transport by ships. This is going to produce a single global hydrocarbon price per btu, adjusted by shipping distances. The emerging economic high ground will be the control of transportation and distribution chokepoints, not control of natural gas or oil production fields per se.
2. The spread of robotics technology and other sciences/technologies via the Internet is destroying all product industries based on highly capitalized centralized manufacturing and distribution. The labor cost of almost everything is going to zero since robotic manufacturing (and robotic farming, mining, and construction) will be easily accomplished anywhere adequate energy and raw materials exist. With labor costs at zero and the cost of intellectual capital also close to zero this leaves energy, fuel, raw materials inputs and political overhead as the major external inputs and cost factors. See the global hydrocarbon energy cartel above.
3. Small towns and rural areas smaller than 10,000 population are experiencing population losses. The 2010 US Census shows the US white population consolidating in large towns and small cities of approximately 10,000 people and more. There is no mass movement to nonwhite urban cores in major metro areas, however.
4. Farms surrounding these large towns and small cities are being corporatized by a new feudal aristocracy.
Given the technological trends in #2 these small city states will be independent for manufactured items not dependent on secret processes or rare materials.
The emerging situation is remarkably similar to that prevailing in the Hanseatic League of medieval northern Germany and adjacent Baltic Sea states. For most of its existence The Hansa focused on controlling the regional trade in raw materials. The various member towns and cities of the Hansa were highly independent for manufactured articles due to the universal presence of the crafts guilds in every member city.
Western Judeo-governments will retreat from many functions but retain the ability to maintain dominance over increasingly decentralized regional and local organizations. These governments will remain subservient to the global Financial-Hydrocarbon Cartel.
If you’re interested in community organizing you must reckon with emerging realities. The present movement has consistently failed in that area. The only movement possible is one that allows young white people to improve their individual and family situation now and in the time to come. It has to offer a combination of distributed educational and economic networking functions. These interrelations will necessarily overlap nuclear family, extended family, small “c” clan, and ethnic ties.
In his remarks Jared Taylor noted that whites enjoyed a robust racial consciousness until the 1950s. Taylor’s straightforward suggestion was for whites simply to reclaim that consciousness.
Richard Spencer’s essential reaction was that this earlier consciousness, though widely agreed upon, was ultimately found to be hollow and naive. His message was for whites to look not backwards toward what was lost, but forwards to what will be gained through the trials of an approaching minority. Combining obvious Nietzschean references with a tactical psychology that will make sense to the children of Roissy and the Manosphere, he called for a habit of reframing setbacks and challenges away from attitudes of regret and loss and instead towards advantage, gain, and finally deeper self-knowledge. Encounters with the Other, for example, lead ultimately to the formation of our own true identity. My related suggestion would be that the coming century of minority presents a great opportunity to demonstrate our fitness, ability, and quality.
Spencer’s invitation for us to look at the future as a minority in a new light is necessary, given that we cannot expect a revolution in white thought for at least the next decade. Our consciousness will indeed have to be much more deep than what Taylor hearkened back to, in order for it to be meaningful and lasting.
I don’t know what to make of the amusing distraction during the Q&A. If she was an antifa, she did an awfully bad job at disruption, and the speakers did a splendid job at deflecting her attempts. To pull something positive out of that episode, we should remember the importance of sex appeal in presenting our message. We must come off as suave, powerful, and masterful if we are to truly represent our race at its best and what it can be.
Counter-Currents is a high-quality site, but even the comments here are some of the best I’ve seen on CC. All in all an interesting review of the conference, though I don’t think the wait staff warrants a mention.
It’s shame she didn’t strip tho.
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.