How to Talk to Conservatives (and Why We Must)Spencer J. Quinn
About twenty years ago, I overheard a conversation between two college kids about a subversive new cable television program called South Park. One kid was enthralled by the show’s pointed satire, sophisticated cultural references, and frequent sexual and scatological references. He found the show hilarious and tried to talk his friend into watching it. His friend, however, was less than impressed and posed the following skeptical question: “Children swearing?”
Those two words were the ultimate conversation killer; the one-two punch to the first kid’s efforts to sell his friend on South Park. I realized at that point that the specifics of the show didn’t really matter. The first kid could have expounded for twenty minutes on how the show brilliantly riffed on this or spoofed that, and it wouldn’t have mattered. The show featured children swearing, so to his friend it couldn’t possibly be good. And that was that.
I believe this is exactly the same kind of mental roadblock many ordinary conservatives put up against the Alt Right. They may share our Western values and appreciate our stance against the Left and Islam. They may find they have a lot in common with us and enjoy chewing the fat with us over literature, music, history, or other topics. But as soon as we bring up race realism or the Jewish Question, they put on the brakes, and the dust billows. They may not articulate it, but the same skeptical, conversation-killing question forms in their minds: “White guys being racist?”
In this day and age? Whoever thought of such a thing?
Nothing we can say from that point on will move them. No argument, no matter how ingeniously devised, can sway them. At least not at first. The moment such people can even tenuously triangulate “racist” with “white,” we must realize that they – and not us – have chosen to be pig-headed. They have chosen to make communication difficult. Yet communicate with them we must. I would like to think that the Alt Right doesn’t need conservatives who really are conservative liberals rather than true men of the Right. I’m sure many on the Alt Right today would agree with this and have nothing but scorn and contempt for conservatives. I can’t say that I blame them.
But perhaps we do need conservatives after all. Perhaps, as history continues to vindicate the Alt Right, our arguments will become persuasive over time, and it will behoove us to keep employing them. Perhaps in the future, today’s conservatives will fatten our ranks when we need it most? Even if we could shave off only a small percentage of such people through patience and persistence, wouldn’t that be better than alienating them all now and then getting nothing from them later? And wouldn’t we want to do this sooner rather than later?
As someone who identifies as Alt Right and accepts race realism and the importance of the Jewish Question, I often find myself consumed with the question of how to get through to these people and why they resist us in the first place. After much thought experimentation and a comprehensive cataloging of conservatives I’ve encountered on the Internet or known personally, I’ve come up several possible reasons and three recommendations for how to proceed: “Ignore,” “Red Pill,” and “Appeal.”
Keep in mind, this applies to ordinary white conservatives, and not cuckservative writers who reflexively virtue-signal Left and have a Right-bashing reputation to uphold.
Reason 1: Appreciation for the Enemy
Maybe some conservatives put up walls against the Alt Right because they actually like blacks, Jews, and other non-whites. Armed with over two hundred eight million white Americans and a bell curve, you are bound to find a good share of people who will swear by their Hispanic neighbors and their children’s Arab classmates, and cannot imagine thinking mean things about the nice black man who picks up their yard waste every week. Such people project their personal experiences onto the big stage and neglect to consider how people behave in groups. This, of course, is poisonously naïve.
Firstly, if a white person has a sincere appreciation for blacks or Hispanics as folk (as opposed to merely appreciating the few positive things they do well), then this white person is probably not going to be very conservative to begin with. We all know that when it comes to politics, the mainstream of black and Hispanic culture tends to be self-centered, greedy, corrupt, anti-white, and nigh-socialist. And, of course, in such circles true white conservatives are practically anathema. So if a white conservative rejects the Alt Right because he himself likes black or brown people, he’s probably lying about liking black or brown people, or being conservative, or both.
People like this I would rather not have on the Alt Right, if it’s okay with you all.
Then there’s those conservatives who truly like Jews. Such people have many reasons not to have truck with the Alt Right, many of which are provided by the Jews themselves. Where English historian Thomas Macaulay states that it takes five generations for a people to lose their popular memory of earlier times, with the Jews it’s more like fifty. These people remember every slight, every act of discrimination, every act of segregation, and every act of violence their host populations have inflicted upon them as a diaspora for nearly three thousand years. Meanwhile, they conveniently forget (or purposefully omit) any reasons why their host populations might become exasperated with their presence to begin with. For example, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates how, in thirteenth-century Russia, Jews purchased the right to levy tribute against ordinary Russians from the occupying Mongols. Then, after demanding excessive interest from them, they made their debtors into slaves.
Most conservative philo-Semites will be completely ignorant of stories like this and, at the same time, will have their heads filled with tales of genuine Jewish accomplishment. A person like this will kill a conversation faster than we can finish a sentence. However, I believe all is not lost with such people. In order to break ground (and ice) with them, we need not deny the good in Jews but rather accent the bad. Paint Jews as being no different than any other people for their strengths and weaknesses. Stress that while there certainly are many anti-Semites on the Alt Right, one does not have to hate Jews to be on the Alt Right (I certainly don’t). In fact, one can have a deep appreciation for Jews (or any non-white group) and still wish to live apart from them. The Alt Right is essentially a useful term to describe White Nationalists, advocates, and identitarians who act on a very natural inclination for self-government and freedom of association. Therefore, Jews should not take it personally if we wish to exclude them and other non-whites from our homelands.
If the conservative philo-Semite finds this objectionable because of any inherent racism, simply point to Israel as an excellent model for a white ethnostate. Israelis deport black African Jews as well as keep out non-Jews, don’t they? Israelis enjoy oppressive double standards towards their non-Jewish citizenry, don’t they? State that as White Nationalists, we aspire to the same levels of ethno-chauvinism as practiced by the Israelis every day. We simply wish to show Jews the same respect in white nations as the Jews show white people in Israel.
If a conservative philo-Semite is at all reasonable, he will listen as long you keep the tone civil and don’t make light of the Holocaust (we should never do that – for moral or for tactical reasons, take your pick). Unfortunately, this tack requires much study on our part. Not that there is any excuse not to read up on the Jewish Question, but Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique or Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together (recently partially translated into English), are really good places to start.
I sincerely believe that if we keep banging the drum on Jewish racial hypocrisy, eventually a good number of people who are like this will break.
Recommendation: Red Pill.
Reason 2: Fear of the Enemy
You’ll find this more with women than men, but there are many white conservatives who are perfectly red-pilled perfectly, but know the power of our enemies and would prefer not to cross them. These kinds of people will reliably vote Republican and make noise about safe topics like abortion or gun control. They’re also susceptible to some of the cucking moralism coming from the Glenn Becks and Bill O’Reillys of the world. These are Tea Party types, traditionalist Christians, or patriotic Americans who wish to get on with their daily lives. They wish to protect their children most of all. They know that speaking the truth about race or the JQ could make them lose their jobs and friends. They know it will be worse for their kids. Furthermore, a lot of these people have direct experience with non-whites (blacks and Jews, mostly) and are in some way intimidated by them.
Blacks, of course, can be physically intimidating. In America, at least, they tend to be larger and more athletic than average. Many of them are also loud and have poor impulse control. In our post-racial age, many whites have learned to tread lightly around blacks, even to the point of showing them undue reverence. Jews, on the other hand, are so well organized and ruthless, and so quick to act in their own interests, that many whites simply avoid mentioning them as a group at all. Early in The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald quotes Charles Lindbergh’s wife describing how she wished her husband had never run afoul of the Jews. It’s pretty pathetic – as in, full of pathos. You will scarcely be able to find a more evocative description of Jewish power than that.
Here is a snippet:
Then [he gave] his speech – throwing me into black gloom. He names the “war agitators” – chiefly the British, the Jews, and the Administration. He does it truthfully, moderately, and with no bitterness or rancor – but I hate to have him touch the Jews at all. For I dread the reaction on him. No one else mentions this subject out loud (though many seethe bitterly and intolerantly underneath). C. [Charles], as usual, must bear the brunt of being frank and open. What he is saying in public is not intolerant or inciting or bitter and it is just what he says in private, while the other soft-spoken cautious people who say terrible things in private would never dare be as frank in public as he. They do not want to pay the price. And the price will be terrible.
One would have to gain the complete trust of people like this before attempting to discuss racial topics with them. I would say that one of the jobs of Alt Right activists is to make sincere friends with people like this, even if they’re a standard deviation lower then you in IQ or if they don’t share many of your cultural sensibilities. (And if you are reading this, you probably are an Alt Right activist, whether you realize it or not.) Once a friendship is formed, frankness can ensue, even the dangerous kind.
Since such people are already red-pilled, the key is to lessen their fear of our enemies. Unfortunately, this can take time, and there is only so much that talk can accomplish. Having more and more charismatic and highly visible Alt Right leaders will help (even if they are of the Alt Lite variety). Alt Right individuals who are self-made or financially well-off will also do much to instill confidence. An organized network of Alt Right-friendly attorneys and professionals with proven track records would be a great step in this direction as well.
Still, talking can accomplish something. We can point to the gains the Alt Right has made in the past few years. We can introduce such folks to Alt Right literature and its Internet presence. We can point to our organized and successful resistance to the antifa and other Leftist oppression efforts. We can also bring up how whites are slated to become a minority amongst people who are not exactly known for being kind or fair to their own race, let alone other races. We must impress upon these conservatives that although they have something to lose today, they very likely won’t tomorrow.
This all boils down to re-legitimizing frank talk about race and white racial interests. Once upon a time, whites were not constrained in the way we are today. Once upon a time, we were truly free. We can become free again, but only if we are brave enough.
Sure, people like this are followers. But, as we all know, all great movements need followers.
Reason 3: Guilt About the Past
If you ask such people what they most want to accomplish in life, they will tell you they wish to be a decent human being. And “decent human beings” tend to project a crippling sense of guilt concerning the past. These people can be highly educated or not, sophisticated or not. But they are motivated primarily by the fervent desire not to go to Hell when they die.
Discussing politics with such people is a waste of time, in my opinion. The Alt Right wishes ultimately to remake the modern order and act on long-taboo interests pertaining to race, eugenics, and White Nationalism. All of this will require stepping on toes. Clearly the guilt-ridden, moralist conservatives don’t have the stomach for this, and would rather enter Heaven via scimitar than make the world a better place by killing the people with the scimitars.
Furthermore, such people tend to focus mostly on white wrongdoings of the past while deliberately omitting the equally atrocious wrongdoings of other races. This smacks of tacit anti-white racism. There is no getting past this with words. Attempts at either appeal or red-pilling will only amount to making the Alt Right seem “immoral” to such people. And immorality is the ultimate conversation-killer in these parts.
Reason 4: Conflict of Interest
I identify two kinds of conservatives in this group:
- Those who are related to or are in business with non-whites.
- Those who identify as white, but are in fact of mixed racial ancestry.
In the first case, let’s just say that they get their butter on the other side of their bread. Being conservatives, there are decent odds they don’t have anything against white people per se and will be among the first to stick up for us when we get pushed around. They may even share a good amount of our political beliefs. But they get very antsy about white identity and advocacy because they understand correctly that such things lead inevitably to White Nationalism, and that, quite literally, could ruin them. Such people have made their choices in life and, unless there is a divorce or buyout on the horizon, simply cannot afford to unmake them. We cannot waste our time appealing to or red-pilling people like this, no matter how much we may like them.
As for the second case, I actually have some hope. From what I have seen in my life and on the Internet, there are quite a few people who are drawn to the Alt Right, but find their own race to be a stumbling block. Indeed, what do we tell those “allies of color” who are red-pilled and ready, but are half-white or half-Mexican (or Iranian or Filipino or what have you)? It’s a tough call, no doubt. Any movement which centers on race must be able to deal with the question of half-breeds and quarter-breeds, and at some point, a line must be drawn.
My response is that the Alt Right is still too much in its infancy to be able to articulate a definitive response to such a touchy and multifaceted question. We still don’t know if our future ethnostate will come easy or come hard. We still don’t know what we will be up against when the time comes. So, to lay down the law now would be little more than wish-casting. Still, conversing about it could be productive, especially with our allies of color.
For example, if a white ethnostate were to be achieved within the next ten to fifteen years through existing power structures and with a minimum of violence and turmoil, I would subscribe to the “One-Fourth Not-Black” rule. This stipulates that a person is “white” if they have at least three fully white grandparents, with the fourth grandparent not being fully black. Also, for the sake of keeping families together, I would allow entry for those who are half-white and not half-black who are married to whites and who have children with them. I imagine that in this case, whites would still be a majority, and would have the muscle to deport those who don’t fit the bill and refuse to leave willingly.
On the other hand, if a white ethnostate were to be achieved in the next fifty years, when whites are a distinct minority and wield only a fraction of the political power they have today, I would subscribe to the “One-Half Not-Black” rule, which casts a much wider net than before. In this case, a person is white if at least one parent is fully white and the other isn’t fully black. Further, a non-white spouse can be allowed entry provided they have children with their white spouse and are not fully black themselves. The rationale behind the loosening of racial standards in this instance should be obvious. If we wait fifty years to establish a white ethnostate, then our enemies will have gained much power and will only acquiesce through warfare, quite possibly of the most devastating kind. In such dire circumstances, we will not be able to afford to turn down marginal cases who are indeed willing to fight and die for us in our time of need. We will need all the help we can get if we want to win.
In either event, this is just one guy spitballing. I’m sure there are differing opinions out there, and it doesn’t mean my mind won’t change in the future. But the point we should impress upon such friendly conservatives is that there can be some room for allies of color in a white ethnostate. And if a person is unfortunately not of the right racial makeup, then he should be made to understand the importance of whites drawing that racial line and not crossing it. If we don’t draw that line, eventually there will be no white people at all. And that would be bad for everybody. This truly is the strongest argument for forming a white ethnostate, and if a person is already somewhat sympathetic to the Alt Right, I’m sure they will understand, no matter what they look like.
Talking about historical forces as they unfold and doing one’s best to influence them is a little like surfing on an unbroken tidal wave. This is all much bigger than we are, but it doesn’t mean we can’t see which way the wave of the future will break. We know we have truth on our side. We see the necessity of our views growing daily. It’s only a matter of time before a critical mass of whites wake up and realize that it is in their best interests to adopt the platforms presented by the Alt Right. Just because they are not doing that now does not mean they won’t in the future.
In many ways, it is up to us to see that they do – sooner rather than later.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
The Psychology of the Politically Correct
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 2: The Post-War Consensus
“The moment such people can even tenuously triangulate “racist” with “white,” we must realize that they – and not us – have chosen to be pig-headed.”
In my opinion, I think a/the potent reason why the average Westerner, and maybe anyone living in developed democracies, doesn’t bother with Alt Right ideas or more so, is because there is no alternative anymore.
I’ve had people ask me, well, ok, so what do your views lead to? Even if I like them, or if I don’t, so what?
With the implication of the Nazis, and genocide.
And that’s it.
There is no more genocide allowed in the world; just as national borders have basically become fixed, due to technology; or due to culture, or both.
And that’s it.
Now, of course, genocide does still exist in the less often understood way that doesn’t involve gas chambers & bullets, but moving populations, “hate”/group-interest expression-repression, and non-discrimination laws that act to systematically discriminate when coupled with uncontrolled or intentional mass non-white immigration. “White Genocide” has been government-led & culturally institutionalized.
Nonetheless, most people cannot see an alternative to changing demographic futures that doesn’t involve (violent) non-White genocide. Thus, why bother thinking about the Alt Right if there is no foreseeable solution & alternative; it just makes individuals’ lives less satisfying than to just accept their changing environment & fate; one often pushed by & for minorities.
So that is it. And an answer to how to actually militate White Genocide is a complex topic that cannot be quickly & easily communicated / taught or conceived of; if a solution has be conceived of at all, besides stopping immigration, which is not the entirely of the problem anyway.
So most people just give up, and with so little organization and elite support and voices, most average Whites certainly give up as there is no realistic option for them as a group, and no real avenues for how to contribute meaningfully; and thus life is more bearable when thinking only on the individual and universal human levels; not the intermediate, contentious & exclusive racial group one.
After all, most Whites are forced to go to work & live their lives in forced integrated environments in the New North America (post-Minorities Rights/Civil Rights), (& post-Nazi Westen EU).
And, of course, this is encouraged constantly by Whites and non-whites; race remains taboo for Whites. It is de facto only for Blacks (who are by nature still discriminated against by all, despite most not being red-pulled), and race remains explicit also for new immigrants from non-white / non-western civilizations where race & nation are so normative it is also likely not even explicitly thought of although shapes views & behaviors.
(Commonly understood genocide is allowed against only one person now, and that is against oneself.
An act of aggression against the self.)
(Stupid races are unlikely to kill themselves off. They just follow the Nature.)
Agitprop: contraction for “Agitation and Propaganda.”
Agitation: slogans and other media designed to mobilize the support of the masses.
Propaganda: in depth political doctrine to create a cadre of leaders.
The Bolsheviks mobilized the masses for revolution in 1917 by agitation slogans such as Peace, Bread and Land! How far would they have gotten if they required every last peasant, worker and disaffected soldier or sailor to understand Marxian dialectics? Similarly, your average American has gone to war over slogans like Remember the Alamo/the Maine/Pearl Harbor, not grandiose theories concerning geopolitics.
Winning over conservatives is a matter of good agitation, of slogans addressing issues in which they are interested. But pushing race realism is propaganda. The propaganda doesn’t work because it’s too complex and, quite frankly, comes off as too fantastic to be accepted – remember, most people still live in The Matrix. They have only the vaguest ideas about globalism, hostile elites, race replacement, and such.
Still, there are many people who are fed up with the political correctness, the affirmative action, the shouting down of heretical opinion, the assaults against tradition, the growing violence of the Left, and etc. So where do you direct such people?
Well, in one case I pointed a friend to Counter-Currents and he instantly “got it.” He is now online with the White Nationalist program. But then again, he is something of an “old fighter,” someone with a solid background in Spengler, Nietzsche, Hegel and Rosenberg (that’s Alfred). He already had the intellectual depth to understand the inner mysteries.
On the other hand…not too long ago a friend turned down a teaching job at a major university because he did not go along with their “diversity” requirement. Now, I’d like to get him to any number of Alt Right websites, but they would be too much for him (suffice it to say he is a “normie”). He’d be turned off and permanently lost to the cause.
What is needed are front websites, ones which deal with specific issues: affirmative action, economic policy, free speech, traditional culture. And only those issues.
“Diversity” (i.e., the displacement of White people) is an issue upon which White Nationalists can organize. It’s alienating increasing numbers of White people and creating a ready made audience for nationalists to reach. A website on this issue could expose the obvious contradictions of “diversity,” outline the legal rights to dissent against the indoctrination, and include a discussion board to discuss strategies. The critical thing is that such a website would avoid all the esoterica and extremism and thus not alienate anyone from the get-go.
A successful movement has to back up its followers in the realworld. White Nationalists might also form a front to conduct protests against “diversity” indoctrination, provide counter-propaganda, and launch lawsuits against institutions which dismiss people for not going along with the anti-White program. And from among the larger numbers who tune in to the agitation, then select the few who really “get it” for induction into the nationalist cadre – which is where the propaganda comes in.
Let’s note that this is how the Left creates its own mass movements and gains access to the halls of power.
Kek reached more White people than all the PhD theses in the world. White Nationalists can produce more agitation materials: podcasts, online videos, posters, flyers, memes. Again, they need to deal with single issues in which your average White person is interested and then come to the correct conclusions without making too much of a cognitive leap.
I’ve found Guillaume Faye’s books to be useful in this regard. Faye shows the big picture about nationalism, hostile elites and the North-South conflict without going too far over the top. I’ve given copies of his works to people and gotten positive feedback.
I’d also say that the recent Berkeley Free Speech rallies/street fights conducted by various elements of the Alt Right/Alt Light have considerable agitation value. Getting out in the streets and showing that the Left can be resisted successfully has inspired quite a few people. Give people an opportunity to do something useful and they will get on board with the program.
Finally, Alex Kurtagic’s Masters of the Universe speech has a lot to say about how one’s style has just as much agitprop value as the substance of the argument. It’s worth dusting off and thinking about.
“What is needed are front websites, ones which deal with specific issues: affirmative action, economic policy, free speech, traditional culture. And only those issues.”
This seems like an excellent idea to me. We tend to fixate on the question of race—quite understandably, given its centrality—without recognizing the degree to which explicit treatment of these problems is liable to alienate many who might be brought more slowly our way. The racial insights of the Alt Right are in a certain sense the culmination of the Alt Right, rather than its starting point. I think it would be worth considering with a little more attention to psychology, and to those issues which could prepare individuals for the steeper climb. Your idea gives room to precisely such preparation.
(And, of course, at least one race is so stupid that it does, in fact, kill itself off; for rationales so hued by accommodation and tolerance and peace, as to acquiesce and ultimately perpetuate Inferiors in their own place.)
” Also, for the sake of keeping families together, I would allow entry for those who are half-white and not half-black who are married to whites and who have children with them.”
That’s mighty white of you! I guess that means my one-eighth Guaraní dtr-in-law and one-sixteenth Guaraní grandsons are admissible, assuming they had any desire (or were forced to) leave their currently very desirable situation here in the Southern Cone. Once upon a time I’d planned to have the boys attend a prep school and university in the USA as did my son and I, but no longer, not with what they’re like now. We have next-to-no black population here and the smallish Jewish community is largely urban and while influential in finance, culture and such, is far less influential than in the US; where I live, there are no blacks and perhaps five Jews, no Muslims, no Asians and no tension between mestizos and whites, other than the whites who have moved here from the national capital, a group as a rule despised everywhere in the country (indeed, on the continent) but on their home turf.
Our “off-white” community is a fine place for white folks.
Blacks are not intimidating or more athletic. They are in professional sports more, because they spend all their time practicing on average while we pursue educations or waste time on stupid video games. They also go to the gym more per capita.
Blacks are easy to beat in a fight. Often they are all talk and can’t fight. That’s why they have to attack in packs. Also, they always delete videos when white wins.
There are plenty of strong, big and athletic whites. Just look around.
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