Midterm Elections: Mainstreamers vs. Vanguardists

Mr. Crusher, set a course for the fringe. Warp 9. Engage!

San Francisco, CA

Whenever I visit “Counter-Currents,” I am reminded that some White Nationalists live in an alternative reality. These last few months have been an instructive lesson in the schism between “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” within the White Nationalist movement.

I have been too busy studying the entrails of the growing White backlash to comment on the matter, but recent vanguardist activity has not escaped my attention. Now that the election is over, it is the appropriate time to share my thoughts.

What happened last week should determine the course we take moving forward.

Mainstreamers vs. Vanguardists

As the old proverb goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” The 2010 midterm elections revealed nothing new about the White Nationalist movement.

For decades, White Nationalists have fallen into two major camps, the “mainstreamers” and the “vanguardists.” We spent a lot of time exploring this anthropological division of nationalist late last year. It has remained intact down to the present day.

In case you have only recently joined us, a “mainstreamer” is a White Nationalist who favors “working within the system,” adapting our rhetoric to connect with our target audience, quietly injecting our ideas into the mainstream, moving the goalposts, and removing the barriers that exist between White Nationalists and White America.

In contrast, a “vanguardist” is a White Nationalist who believes “the system” is hopelessly corrupt, must be destroyed (sometimes through military action), and that we should create small groups of radicals who will rise to power in the aftermath of “the collapse” of civilization. In the meantime, they prefer to focus primarily on sealing themselves off from their contemporaries and pursuing their own eclectic interests.

It all boils down to the question of whether reform is possible or even desirable. Mainstreamers incline toward the belief that progress can be made through working within the system. Vanguardists reject the system on the basis of principle.

The former want to reach out. The latter want to pull away. The former want to build bridges. The latter want to burn them. Simple enough to understand?

This internal tug of war has been the defining dynamic within the White Nationalist movement for generations.

The Vanguardist Critique

The “vanguardist” critique of the mainstreamers should sound familiar. If you have spent any considerable amount of time in the White Nationalist movement, you have undoubtedly heard many iterations of it by now. It goes something like this:

1.) The system is hopelessly broken. There is nothing to be gained by working within the system or supporting system politicians. Instead of engaging in “mainstream politics,” we should spend our limited time and resources on creating  and nurturing a White Nationalist counterculture.

2.) This counterculture should take the form of creating small groups of “wide awake” true believers, or “purists” as they are often described, who will become the vanguard of the White Nationalist revolution.

3.) America is so degenerate that the system will eventually collapse. In the context of this inevitable collapse, White Nationalist vanguardists will seize power; all we have to do is wait. In the meantime, we should focus our efforts on maintaining an ideologically rigorous opposition.

4.) Mainstreamers are “conservatives” who have a weakening effect upon the White Nationalist movement. They are cowardly enablers of the Jews who are only propping up the rotten system.

5.) There are no explicit White Nationalists in Congress. Mainstreamers like the CofCC and Amren have failed to break out. They are diverting resources toward people who do not need them.

6.) The White Nationalist cause can only be advanced by “standing firm” in favor of explicit White Nationalism.

7.) White Americans, represented by the likes of “the people in Peoria,” want the present system, which rules out a political path to a White ethnostate.

8.) Since Whites want the present anti-White system, we need a “metapolitical movement” to change the fundamental values of White Americans. We cannot succeed in politics under the reigning value system. The most fundamental values of White Americans must be eradicated and replaced by the “ideas” of the White Nationalist counterculture.

The Mainstreamer Critique

The “mainstreamers” have their own critique of the vanguardists. It is no secret that From The Provinces inclines toward the mainstreamer camp; Counter-Currents toward the vanguardist camp. Again, if you have spent any considerable amount of time in White Nationalist circles, this “mainstreamer” critique should sound familiar:

1.) The vanguardists have lost touch with reality and immersed themselves in a fantasy world. Many of them started out as sincere White Advocates, but at some undefined point their own alienation grew to such an extent that they became openly hostile and contemptuous toward White America. Their existence has become a burden for those White Nationalists who are trying to connect with a larger audience.

2.) The vanguardists are “rhetorical radicals.” Their radicalism consists entirely in anonymous words posted on the internet, not in their deeds or actions in the real world. The vanguardists may strike a pose as radicals, but the actions they counsel (namely, disengaging from the mainstream) effectively enable our worst enemies like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.

Talk is cheap.

When you disengage from the system, you make it easier for our enemies to pass their crazy agenda. You increase the perception that White Nationalists are not a political threat and reinforce our marginalization on the fringes of society. The culmination of this is the “worse is better” theory in which the political actions of vanguardists become synonymous with the endorsements of the ADL.

The “rhetorical radicalism” of vanguardists can be contrasted with the “radical realism” of mainstreamers. Moderate actions in the real world might not sound rhetorically hard enough to radical ears, but they are effective at crippling the legislative agenda of our enemies, and advancing our own agenda in the mainstream on issues like immigration and affirmative action.

3.) The system is not nearly as broken as the vanguardists claim. In 2010, we had over 130 candidates running for office in the House (and many more at the state level) on a platform of cutting legal immigration. As a result of the 2010 midterm elections, we now have the most restrictionist Congress since 1924; supporters of less immigration now outnumber advocates of more immigration.

Shutting down legal immigration, deporting illegal aliens already here through attrition, and securing the border are tractable goals. If we work within the hated system, it is entirely possible that we could succeed in halting the Third World invasion within the next ten years.

4.) The GOP establishment is not nearly as omnipotent as the vanguardists have claimed. White Nationalists are well aware of Corporate America’s influence over the Republican Party, but even at the height of Bushism the conservative base was successful at defeating the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable that were pushing amnesty for illegal aliens.

In the 1990s, David Duke was nearly successful in defeating the GOP establishment and becoming Governor of Louisiana. James Russell received 37  percent of the vote in the 2010 midterms and he was running in New York’s 18th District with the leaders of his own party campaigning against him. In Alabama, the Holocaust denier Larry Darby carried 33 of 67 counties and 43% of the vote in the 2006 Alabama Democratic primary for Attorney General.

The fact is, within the last five years, the conservative base has succeeded (without our assistance) in transforming the position of the Republican Party on immigration. John McCain is penitent and begging for forgiveness. Mitch McConnell is now adjusting to the reality of Senator Rand Paul.

We have entered the Tea Party, Arizona, implicit White Nationalist era in mainstream politics; a time when the borders of the mainstream Right and pro-White politics will begin to blur.

The post-Bush GOP and post-Buckley conservative movement are no longer immune to challenges from their Right. The barrier that has kept White Nationalist mainstreamers from breaking out into the broader Right is weaker than ever before. White Nationalist rhetoric is already making deep advances into the mainstream conservative movement.

5.) Since the second term of George W. Bush, and especially since the rise of Sarah Palin and the election of Barack Obama, White America is stirring and lashing out in unpredictable ways. The Joe Six Packs of the 1990s are the Tea Party activists of the 2010s.

Major changes which I have been tracking are now in progress: Whites are starting to identify as “outsiders,” the White vote is coelescing, Whites are visibly starting to adopt the language of an aggrieved minority, Whites are openly flirting with an embrace of identity politics, Whites are forcing mainstream politicians to advance their interests with primary challenges.

Just as the White backlash is blowing at Hurricane Katrina levels, vanguardists are advocating the brilliant idea of spurning ordinary people because they are not radical enough for their tastes, coupled with the equally absurd idea of offending them with “meta-political” assaults on their most fundamental values. As White America finally starts to wake up, the vanguardists are not even really paying attention, or when they do tune into reality, it is as an afterthought or an occasion to give offense.

6.) Vanguardists, who are usually experiencing some type of personal identity crisis, are bent on erecting unnecessary barriers between White Nationalists and White America: constantly heaping praise on fascism, radical attacks on republican government, anti-Americanism, attacks on Christianity, importing exotic ideas from Europe, advocating violent revolution, etc.

Their alienation has lately reached comical levels: labeling North America the “Great Death Continent,” investigating the great questions of our time like whether the Confederacy was controlled by the Rothschilds and anti-racist masculinity among “alpha males” in science fiction films, speculating about the Lemurian orgins of Jews and the populating of Europe by refugees from Atlantis.

While Middle America is revolting, Counter-Currents can be found reviewing “Legally Blonde 2” and discussing Coco Chanel’s Nazi love affairs. When “progressive” is becoming a four letter word in White America, Counter-Currents is charting our course forward from a “degenerate” White Nationalist movement to a vitalized “progressive” utopia in which “kooky” bureaucrats have harnessed eugenics and government mandated social engineering to “transform” our descendants into elves from Lord of the Rings.

7.) Vanguardists have no interest in communicating with ordinary people, responding to their concerns, or engaging the electorate. They misrepresent ordinary Americans, whom they no longer sympathize with, in ways that are detrimental to the success of the White Nationalist movement.

To hear vanguardists tell the tale, White Americans love the status quo, are wedded to the existing regime, are perfectly content with hordes of brown skin invaders flooding into the United States, and hold “anti-racism” as their only sacred value.

In reality, Congress has a 12% approval rating, the majority of White Americans consider the federal government “a direct and immediate threat” to their freedom, nullification and state sovereignty are in the air, most White Americans believe the next generation will be worse off, and the charge of “racism” in the midterm elections resulted in a White backlash and a Republican landslide the likes of which hasn’t been since the Great Depression.

8.) Instead of reaching out to White America, building bridges to a potential mass constituency (which is already searching for ways to revolt), vanguardists are desperately trying to blast off into the furtherest reaches of the fringe. They seal themselves off from contamination in small cult like groups and occupy themselves in their own fantasy world.

This usually takes the form of retreating into the distant (the Middle Ages) or recent past (Nazi Germany) or the distant (White colonization of the Milky Way galaxy) or near future (the Northwest Republic). Some vanguardists have creatively combined National Socialism with their interest in esoteric subjects like UFOs, numerology, and speculation about the demise of Atlantis.

9.) Among the many mainstream politicians who are a bane to vanguardists, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul rank highest on the list. They stand accused of diverting scarce White Nationalist resources from vanguardist projects.

Returning to reality, Tancredo, Buchanan, and Paul are trailblazers who have done more than anyone else in America to mainstream controversial positions on issues like immigration, multiculturalism, foreign wars, and monetary policy. There are now hundreds of little Tancredos in Congress and the state legislatures, a Senator Paul and a whole movement of aspiring Ron Pauls, and Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration and free trade is triumphing in the Tea Party.

As a “meta-political” project, these mainstream politicians (and more broadly, the Tea Party) are actually succeeding in redefining the ideas that constitute Americanism. They reach an audience of millions where obscure vanguardists reach an audience of hundreds. Even if our goal was to “spread ideas,” the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan presidential campaigns (followed by their bestselling books) did more to “spread ideas” than writing for obscure websites ever did.

10.) If mainstreamers sound like they are from Mars, the vanguardists sound like they are from Pluto.

Last Tuesday, White America revolted against the Democratic majority in Congress over Obamacare. If entrusted with power, the vanguardists would only build a monument to Adolf Hitler on the National Mall and expand the scope of the national government to the point of allowing “kooky” bureaucrats to arrange marriages so that “a god-like race” of White elves and “Nietszchean supermen” could be created.

That won’t play in Peoria or Portland.

The vanguardist “strategy” is nothing less than converting Americans to “ideas” like that one. In other words, they are taking people out of the mainstream (people who might now vote, donate, organize, protest, influence their peers) and alienating and lobotomizing these “wide awakes” to the point where they can’t even communicate with their own family members.

Few of these “wide awakes” are actually married with children.

11.) Even if civilization were to collapse tomorrow, the vanguardists would never rise to power. They spend so much of their time alienating and offending their contemporaries (basking in the role of the village atheist) that they would never turn to them in the event of a national emergency.

In fact, the return of barbaric conditions would likely spell the end of this species of fantasist (costume or otherwise), as it is the liberal value of tolerance (and the anonymity of the internet) that gives them the platform to spread their views. In the Mad Max world, violent gang rule would replace the soft tyranny we live under today; the market for esoteric, avant-garde European fascism would evaporate overnight.

12.) The vanguardist inclination to violence is a threat that constantly hangs over our heads. The MLK assassination gave the Left the opportunity to deify MLK into a secular saint. In 1994, the Oklahoma City bombing singlehandedly destroyed all the momentum that the critics of the federal government had built after Waco and Ruby Ridge. More recently, James von Brunn’s inept shooting spree provided a convenient talking point in the backdrop of the “townhall mobs” that were sweeping across America.

There is a real chance that some vanguardist lunatic might go postal on a prominent elected official and our remaining freedoms could be curtailed as a result. Mark Penn, one of President Clinton’s former advisors, is already appearing on cable television saying that Barack Obama needs another Oklahoma City to reconnect with White voters in the Heartland.

Toward 2020

Predicting the future is always a precarious enterprise.

Looking ahead into the next decade, I am willing to roll the dice though and gamble on a few predictions.

1.) William F. Buckley’s forcefield that has traditionally separated the “respectable right” from the “fringe right” will eventually breakdown. When Mitch McConnell laid his hands on the shoulders of Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Rand Paul, it heralded the end of the era of the gatekeepers.

2.) As this barrier to respectability crumbles under the challenge posed by social media, the White Nationalist genie will escape from the bottle. Specifically, the “mainsteamer” wing of White Nationalism will dissolve into the broader White Right and “sweeten the tea” on issues like immigration, affirmative action, states rights, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

When pro-Whites discover the political mainstream has become permeable, there will be less anonymous posting on the internet and more real world activity. The internet will be used by White Nationalists in more productive ways like throwing their support behind candidates who are solid on immigration in close races.

3.) The economy will continue to deteriorate. The unease of the White electorate will grow and it will continue to lash out in unpredictable ways. In such conditions, it is guaranteed that Whites will turn against immigration. Historically, Americans have only felt more inclusive when the economy is booming or in wartime conditions.

4.) The breakthrough of pro-Whites into the political mainstream will first occur in the Southwest or Southeast, but it could conceivably happen in relatively White states like Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, or West Virginia.

5.) The breakthrough will start as a tax revolt over America’s fiscal insolvency before evolving into a more interesting rebellion.

6.) California will collapse, probably under Governor Moonbeam, and this will have sweeping consequences Whites who live elsewhere in America.

7.) Barack Obama’s defeat in 2012 at the hands of White voters will inaugurate an era of racial turmoil.

8.) While all this is happening, the vanguardists (after launching from San Francisco) will continue their strange journey in their counterculture spaceship locked into a course of political insanity, although they will travel smaller and smaller distances with each passing year as White Nationalist resources are diverted to more profitable projects.

Maybe they will reach the stars and open up diplomatic relations with aliens. They lost their ability to communicate with us mere humans long ago.

The Million Dollar Question

We have limited resources: time, money, bodies. How should we invest them?

I would argue that this is an easy one: throw everything we got into working within the system to secure the border and shutdown legal immigration. That means donating, voting, volunteering, organizing for candidates who will stop the invasion.

If we can’t stop the invasion, we are going to lose. We can openly work within the mainstream to fight legal immigration and deport the invaders who are already here. That’s what we should be doing.

I’m sure there are those who disagree. I’ve said my piece. Now I want to hear you argue the contrary.

About Hunter Wallace 9514 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. @ATBOTL

    Re your question to Hunter.

    1. There will be no economic boom this time. That saved Clinton. The Oklahoma bombing also helped silence the right. (I expect that certain government agencies will try very hard to entrap or incite WN-related radicals to engage in violence. Though with all the talk about 9/11 and general distrust, I think an attempted false flag by the left might backfire. WN’s should be very careful to stay squeeky-clean legally (including financialy.))

    2. As Hunter mentioned, the Democrats/progressives have lost their brakes. They no longer can hide the anti-white effect of their policies, nor their hatred for middle America. Even more astonishing than Wise’s insane hatred is that leftist commentators did not condemn it. They want us to die, and say so openly. Likewise, never in my lifetime have I seen such awareness of the leftist elite as a hostile ruling class.

    3. The major propaganda engines of the ruling class have suffered a catastrophic loss of legitimacy. Alt-Right, A3P, and Occidental Quarterly are polishing their presentation and their ability to reach those who are losing trust in the establishment and want credible answers. Hopefully Amren will follow suit.

  2. ATBOTL,

    1.) The 1994 election was a realignment election. The Republican gains in that election in the South were an enduring shift, not a temporary setback for Democrats.

    2.) Similarly, the 2010 midterms were an even bigger realignment election in the South.

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/06/democrats_house_gone/index.html

    To everyone’s surprise, Nancy Pelosi wants to return as the Democrats’ leader in the next Congress. But if she’s hoping for a big Democratic year in 2012 that would give her the speaker’s gavel back, she might want to look closer at Tuesday’s results: Based on the breadth and scope of their losses, it is going be almost impossible for Democrats to retake the House in the next 10 years.

    While Democrats’ historic loss of at least 61 seats (results are still pending in a handful of districts) can be traced to a diverse set of factors, the majority of the Democrats defeated were either elected to Republican-friendly seats in the wave elections of 2006 and 2008 or were long-term incumbents who represented heavily GOP districts. The seats in that latter category are likely gone for good, while many in the former are clustered in a handful of states where GOP state-level gains will ensure that they are fortified in next year’s redistricting trials, making them even more difficult for Democrats to take back than they were entering the ’06 and ’08 cycles.

    The losses of Democrats like Rick Boucher (southwest Virginia coal country), Lincoln Davis (increasingly conservative central Tennessee), Chet Edwards (College Station, Texas), Jim Marshall (Macon, Ga.), Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota), Ike Skelton (the Ozarks) and Gene Taylor (Biloxi and Pascagoula, Miss.) are particularly painful for Democrats, given the treacherous political terrain they face in those districts. Democrats were incredibly lucky to hold these seats as long as they did, and they were able to because incumbents like Skelton (elected in 1976), Boucher (1982), Taylor (1989), and Edwards (1990) had adeptly burrowed themselves in. Democrats were always going to lose these seats when these representatives stepped down, but the tidal wave of 2010 washed them all away in one fell swoop.

    Put another way, of the 20 most Republican-leaning House seats held by Democrats on Election Day, 17 of them fell. With Partisan Voting Index scores ranging from R+9 in Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin’s South Dakota at-large district to an unfathomable R+20 for Edwards’ Texas seat and Taylor’s south Mississippi district, it’s a miracle Democrats held these seats for as long as they did. Altogether, Democrats dropped 25 seats this week with PVI ratings of R+6 or more. It’s difficult to envision the party winning many of these seats back in the short- or long-term future. . . .

  3. If the House redistricting mentioned above pans out, “comprehensive insanity” might be dead for a decade. Maybe I should start a special thread dedicated to rubbing it in the faces of Imagine2050?

    This is truly the best scenario for us: the Democrats come roaring back from the Southern Apocalypse with the albatross of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi heading into the 2012 elections with Obama on the ticket and Senate seats to defend in the South and Midwest. They won’t even have effective control of the Senate for the next two years, but they will get all the blame if the economy continues to sour.

    Do you think the likes of McCaskill, Nelson and Nelson, Tester, Webb, Manchin, Conrad, Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar are going to spit in the wind and vote for “comprehensive immigration reform” knowing it is dead in the House and the Senate? I wish they would.

  4. Let’s clear up something on here once and for all and also be truthful about it. The mainstream White Nationalism is the kind you find among the Stormfronters and people who read Occidental Quarterly. The sort of mainstream White Nationalism your discussing is really just a brand of moderate right or in some cases far right social conservatism. It’s also just a bit philosemitic judging by the political candidates that are being discussed here like Sarah Palin. If the Jewish elites control both political parties, and I believe they do, working within the system will at best lead to White America getting one seat at a table among black, brown and yellow people with the Jews presiding over us. A table that we once had exclusive control over. Is that what we really want?

  5. Vanguardists vs Mainstreamers is an interesting issue.

    I see Vanguardists or purists, as not being prepared to do what it takes, to convert large numbers of people and eventually win. So they are not in the game at all.

    Mainstreamers on the other hand, tend to be outnumbered by those they recruit, that share only a few of their ideals. So once they win power, they aren’t able to make the major changes that are necessary.

    However there is a third option, that will be available for a long time. I call it the Putin option. Do some research on how Putin came to power, to see what I mean.

  6. Some White Nationalists believe in the efficacy of “spreading ideas” over the internet. Some of us believe in results.

    Here is Tamar Jacoby, high priestess of the amnesty cult, trying to spin the shit sandwich she was just served last Tuesday:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/jacoby.new.congress.immigration/

    It’s also true that what bipartisan consensus once existed on immigration has ebbed significantly since its high-water mark in 2006. For all Obama’s promises, neither Republicans nor centrist Democrats have shown much stomach to address the issue in the past two years.

    Action has been on enforcement measures only, not the broader reforms that as strange a pair as President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward Kennedy once championed together — a compromise that would have combined enforcement with a large temporary worker program and generous legalization for illegal immigrants already here.

    . . . And the House Judiciary Committee, now controlled by immigration hardliners Lamar Smith of Texas, and Steve King of Iowa, will be a particularly difficult battleground.

    Note: Latino turnout for Democrats in 2010 was down 4 points from 2008. The radical shift was in the White working class vote which went Republican by 29 percent.

    Observation: The most restrictionist Congress since 1924, a majority in the House supporting “less immigration,” “comprehensive insanity” dead for a decade, Steve King and Lamar Smith in power in the House, at least a dozen new Arizonas coming early next year … how’s that for an alternative to a decade of anonymous internet posting?

    Regrets: There could have been an ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Senator Hayworth, and a Governor Tancredo. Looking backward, what were we doing over the past two years?

  7. Rodger,
    “A table that we once had exclusive control over. Is that what we really want?”

    What i want is momentum based on ideas that are both morally and rationally defendable and at the same time fundamentally incompatible with the multicult. Human nature will do the rest.

  8. I have definitely gone from vanguardist to mainstreamer, though I am still friends with the people over at Counter-Currents. I hope we can all stay civil here.

    I would urge readers to volunteer for Citizen Corps/CERT (Community Emergency Response Team), find any possible community volunteer activity that you can, maybe volunteer for either mainstream party, not because you believe in Dems/Repubs, but just to burrow in to the community. As Woody Allen said, “90% of life is just showing up.”

    Only a small percentage of any town are involved in community activities. You’ll see the same faces all the time, most of them middle aged and elderly, and the more you show up, the more respected you’ll be.

  9. In 2010, Arizona dominated the headlines for months. There was a polarizing national showdown between Arizona and the Justice Department over immigration.

    In 2011, pretty much the entire South will “pull an Arizona” on Barack Obama. States like Oklahoma and Utah are also poised to act. Let’s see Barack the Magic Negro take on half the country heading into the 2012 presidential election.

    All it took was one little push by Arizona over a dead rancher to start the national snowball rolling:

    Report: 25 states considering Arizona-style immigration laws

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101028/us_yblog_upshot/report-25-states-are-considering-arizona-style-immigration-laws

    An immigrant-rights group has released a report (PDF) predicting that 25 states may try next year to pass anti-illegal-immigration laws similar to Arizona’s controversial legislation.

    The number of states considering legislation modeled after SB1070, the bill that Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law this spring, is apparently growing: Earlier, pro-enforcement groups said 22 states were considering the bill, the Washington Independent’s Elise Foley notes. . . .

    Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina are most likely to pass a similar law next year, the new report says. Tennessee, Utah, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas made the report’s “maybe” list. In Maryland, Nevada, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Rhode Island, the legislation is seen as less likely to pass.

    That was before the blowout in the Southern state legislatures.

  10. >how’s that for an alternative to a decade of anonymous internet posting?

    Don’t sneer at the Internet. The Internet is what broke down the social conditioning, so that result could occur.

    How many places in the real world, can you go and people will say exactly what they are thinking? The internet is where all the masks come off and that is why the usual suspects, are campaigning against online anonymity.

    As for people on WN forums and their posting of endless statistics, you are right, it is largely a waste of time in terms of recruitment and from what the Stormfront people are saying, they haven’t been so successful in keeping people in the long term either.

    To make the Internet more effective for our cause, people have to be practical and humble enough, to learn what gets results and then invade mainstream websites and demolish and humiliate the opposition, over and over again.

    If we want to change things, we need to get on a consistent message that works. It isn’t rocket science.

  11. W. has a new memoir out about his presidency:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602835.html

    “The failure of immigration reform points out larger concerns about the direction of our politics. The blend of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism that affected the immigration debate also led Congress to block free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I recognize the genuine anxiety that people feel about foreign competition. But our economy, our security, and our culture would all be weakened by an attempt to wall ourselves off from the world. Americans should never fear competition. Our country has always thrived when we’ve engaged the world with confidence in our values and ourselves.”

    He’s right, as he is when he says a bit later: “Free and fair trade benefits the United States by creating new buyers for our products, along with more choices and better prices for our consumers. Trade is also the surest way to help people in the developing world grow their economies and lift themselves out of poverty. According to one study, the benefits of trade are forty times more effective in reducing poverty than foreign aid.”

    I wonder if it mentions how he left office with the Republican Party, Iraq, and the economy in ruins.

  12. “from what the Stormfront people are saying”

    The multicult is very repressive on what people can say which leads them to want to vent where they still can. One side-effect of that on a place like Stormfront is it’s too full of the bile people can’t get out of their system elsewhere.

    They should have a free venting section and a section where things are much more tightly moderated including much tighter control on anything deemed negative, defeatist, demoralizing, depressing, divide and rule or stealth anti-white.

  13. While I appreciate the efforts of “mainstreamers” and would glady support any politician who is even remotely WN, I think mainstreamers are delusional if they think we will ever have victory under the current system. That is not to say that mainstream politics are a waste of time. We must engage the people and mainstream politics are a way to do that. But I don’t know what the mainstreamers really think they can accomplish. Within the next couple of decades, whites will be a virtual minority in this country. Considering the fact that 30%+ of whites are hopelessly braindead, how do you think you can ever win control of the government? It’s mathematically impossible. There’s got to be some alternate plan, because this plan is literally impossible.

    I have to disagree with the idea that the Tea Parties are somehow implicitly WN. In fact, I would say the opposite. The Tea Parties are the enemy of WN. They are taking disaffected whites who would otherwise be sympathetic to WN and turning them into Ayn Rand-reading, market-worshipping, “color blind” zombies. If you don’t believe me, go to any Tea Party site like biggov and post a comment that is remotely WN. You will be called a “nazi”, “liberal”, “troll”, “socialist”, etc. These people have built up their own alternate reality and equate any type of group loyalty to “liberalism.” Good luck breaking through to that crowd.

    Also, where are these politicians advocating a reduction in legal immigration? I’m not seeing them. All I see from the Right is a lot of nonsense about how “we love legal immigrants, we just don’t like illegal immigrants” – as if it makes any practical demographic difference.

    One last thing – Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Based on current demographic projections, it will take roughly 65% of the white vote to beat Obama, and the GOP’s not getting it. They didn’t get it in the midterms and there’s no reason to think they will get it 2 years from now when Obama will be able to blame the economy on GOP obstructionists in the House. 2010 was the electoral highpoint for white America. This is a good thing though. When the Tea Party crowd sees Obama being re-elected in 2012 in spite of all his failures with 95% of the black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote, maybe they will finally realize what is going on. Then the fun really starts.

  14. @Rodger

    Out of curiosity, why do you say that? My perception has always been there is no generally accepted definition of American WN. Accordingly, it’s unclear to me why anyone should regard stormfront WN as the truly definitive form of mainstream WN, while looking upon HWs currently favored form of WN not as a legitimate strain of WN at all but rather as a variant of far right social conservatism. My definition is anyone who favors an ethnostate. I don’t want to split hairs over definitions, but I am a little curious about your take since you annouced with such confidence that only SF WN should be regarded as mainstream. Lots of people claim the label WN, including many who have little in common beyond wanting to see White people survive (Jared Taylor vs Alex Linder).

  15. I think it is time for those OD readers and commenters who remain to do a simple credibility audit. It has four steps:

    1. Go to Counter-Currents.com and read my articles “The 2010 Midterm Elections” and “White Nationalists and the Political ‘Mainstream.'” Read them carefully.

    2. Come here and compare them to what Hunter says about them.

    3. Read my reply to Hunter above, carefully.

    4. Read Hunter’s rejoiner to my reply.

    If you conclude that Hunter is distorting what I am saying and making cheap rhetorical points, then ask yourself: Would you discover the same distortions if you checked the sources of everything else he writes about? If so, then there is NO VALUE to Hunter Wallace’s writings. (And that goes double for John Pelham.) It doesn’t matter if he is intentionally dishonest or he can’t help it because his brain is wired differently. The conclusion is the same: He can’t be relied upon. Yes, sometimes he says things that you like. But a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don’t keep wearing a broken watch on the off chance that it might be right when you glance at it. So why read political commentary from somebody whose mind cannot be relied upon? Isn’t that a prescription for disaster?

    Is advocating the de facto destruction of the WN movement — our self-censorship and self-co-option — in pursuit of fantasies of real world efficacy. He is playing political air guitar here, and he feels like a rock star. Don’t be drawn into his delusions.

  16. Kievsky: All institutions are run by small minorities who show up and pitch in. I was once an active sub-chief in a local service organization with over 400 dues-paying members, that was taken over by one fellow and his four friends. We never knew what hit us.

  17. Very well stated Hunter.

    I noted with great surprise and sadness that this “Vanguard” WN reacted with extreme jealousy and even anger at David Duke’s political victories, strong challenges in the early 1990s. Instead of rejoicing that White political leaders could campaign, challenge to win and actually win in local races, openly presented pro White positions, these Vanguard die-hards accused David Duke of “selling out to the system”, being co-opted by the JEWS, the COnservatives etc.
    Well, now – unfortunately David Duke has dropped out of mainstream White America preferring to live mostly in exile and present a 24/7/365 obsession with THE JEWS, to the point that he can’t even relate to regular White Americans concern with NW Muslim terrorism, NW Muslim immigration. I note again with sadness that David Duke was a guest on Derek Black and Don Black’s radio show and his response to the huge wins by Whites taking over Congress was almost worthless as Congress would still be pro Israel as if that is the only issue our people face here in North America.
    Yeah, this drop out, Vanguard rejection of mainstream White America is not the way to go.
    14 words

  18. When I saw the title of this post, I thought, “Uh oh. I’m in for it” not just me, personally, but forth those like me that are obsessed w/ setting the record straight about Hitler and the Brown Shirt Boys.

    I do this, for the reacird yet again, because I beelive that the myh of the E-vile Knaaazees is the way in which our Talmudic Overlords maintain hegemony ofthe White Mind. Lest any-one sez “It’s ancient history – a challenge ANY-ONE to try to get through a day without hearing about the Knaaazeees. Without fleeing to the deepest wilderness, all alone, of course.

    Other thn that – I was pleasantly surprised, by this latest post, and mostly agree with the contents.

    I don’t think any of us really know how things are going to “break”. The Fates of the White Race largely depends on the willingness of the majority to admit that they are White ,that Whites have distinct interests, and imperatives, and that Whites are NOT responsible for the well-being of members of other Racial groups. I do’t know if this will ever happen.

    Time will tell….meanwhile – I spend my day to day 3D life living, and trying to foment racial awarness, and self-preservation, with those in my aegis.

    I’m a Mainstream Vanguardist…I guess….

    Well done, Hunter, as per your normal activities…

  19. Jack writes of “the huge wins by Whites taking over Congress.” That is the kind of fantasy talk that I am warning against.

    Republicans are taking over the house. Republicans are not White Nationalists. Republicans would vehemently reject the accusation that there is anything pro-white about their policies.

    At best they embrace race-blind individualism. At worst, they subscribe to the pipe dream of political race replacement — converting non-whites to voting Republican — which is their accommodation to their Capitalist masters’ policy of economic race replacement.

    Republicans are not pro-white. They take white votes and subscribe to policies that are dooming whites to extinction. Republicans are not even pro-white out of simple self-preservation. As the white majority shrinks, their long-term viability as a party will disappear. Redisticting will only delay that. But Republicans would reject furiously any suggestion that the party needs to preserve the white majority.

    You might approve of some tendencies in these Republicans, but it is a fantasy to think that they approve of you.

    But what about “implicit whiteness.” I am working on an article on that right now, to combat some of the destructive fantasies that have been grafted on to Kevin MacDonald’s research. The core of it is this.

    (1) Whites might be voting Republican out of implicit ethnocentrism and racial identification. But if you were to “accuse” them of that, 99% would ferociously reject the claim.

    (2) Republicans routinely take the votes of explicit pro-lifers and explicit conservatives — then betray them. The idea that they will be loyal to the interests of merely “implicit” whites — whites who themselves would reject racial loyalty — is a fantasy.

  20. Greg Johnson writes:
    “Jack writes of “the huge wins by Whites taking over Congress.” That is the kind of fantasy talk that I am warning against.
    Republicans are taking over the house. Republicans are not White Nationalists. Republicans would vehemently reject the accusation that there is anything pro-white about their policies.
    At best they embrace race-blind individualism. At worst, they subscribe to the pipe dream of political race replacement — converting non-whites to voting Republican — which is their accommodation to their Capitalist masters’ policy of economic race replacement.”

    Wow Greg – you know this about every single White Republican Congressional candidate elected to office? Do you know this also about every single state representative all the White assistants to White GOP Governors in the Midwest, South?
    Hey Greg – who is this “Capitalist Master” who has enslaved every single White American who has any success in our political system? This “master” (is he one guy – Lord Sauron?) must be powerful, all powerful – does he do this mind control with ray guns from….

    OUTER SPACE!!

    Lighten up and get out of this crazy, conspiracy mongering kook stuff. Whites are competing and doing OK, rather well in areas like boxing, where we used to always lose. Now we are winning things in politics, that’s a good thing.

    Isn’t it better to WIN than alway, always losing ALL THE TIME?!

  21. Jack, I want to REALLY win, not pantomime touchdowns in front of the TV and taking a victory lap in my rec room pumping my fist in the air like I actually did something. You and Hunter are engaged in political air guitar, and your response to my arguments amount to witless attempts at satire. I expected better from you. I thought you were a serious man.

  22. Err, that should have read:

    Jack, I want to REALLY win, not pantomime touchdowns in front of the TV and take a victory lap in my rec room pumping my fist in the air like I actually did something. You and Hunter are engaged in political air guitar, and your responses to my arguments amount to witless attempts at satire. I expected better from you. I thought you were a serious man.

  23. Jack, I want to REALLY win, not pantomime touchdowns in front of the TV and take a victory lap in my rec room pumping my fist in the air like I actually did something.

    Ah yes.

    REALLY wanting to win. How do we do that? Well, let’s see.

    I think we will start off by insulting the patriotism of Americans, maligning their religion, praising Nazism, advocating totalitarian government, rejecting the idea that communication is a two way process … then we will review Legally Blonde 2 and Batman Begins on Counter-Currents.

    You and Hunter are engaged in political air guitar, and your responses to my arguments amount to witless attempts at satire. I expected better from you. I thought you were a serious man.

    In Alabama, we have a restrictionist governor, state legislature, 6 out of 7 congressmen, and 2 U.S. Senators. We’ve moved the goalposts here past arguing over birthright citizenship to immediate deportation.

  24. I wonder how long it took “Hunter Wallace” and “John Pelham” to cook up the line about vanguardists always suffering from identity crises.

    When Hunter says “We’ve moved goalposts,” it is the same “we” as when a spectator says “We won the World Series.” It is a fantasy indulged in to produce a vicarious illusion of real world efficacy.

    In the end, Hunter and I are just two guys with websites. The difference is I’m honest about it.

    Beam me up, there’s no intelligent life here.

  25. Jack writes of “the huge wins by Whites taking over Congress.” That is the kind of fantasy talk that I am warning against.

    The difference between your fantasy of changing the most fundamental values of White Americans and immigration restrictionists seizing power in the House of Representatives is that the latter has actually come to pass.

    Republicans are taking over the house. Republicans are not White Nationalists. Republicans would vehemently reject the accusation that there is anything pro-white about their policies.

    As a “mainstreamer,” I believe in dicing up our agenda and pushing at the margins to achieve what is possible in the present political context. I accept the fact that we are not going to immediately get everything that we want. I would vote for anyone if it means we have a real shot at shutting down legal immigration.

    The alternative is political insanity, empowering our enemies, and making it harder to achieve even modest reforms. I am proud of what we have accomplished. It could have been better.

    We could have knocked off John McCain and Harry Reid this year. There is always a next time.

    At best they embrace race-blind individualism.

    That is the legacy of the last forty years. The real question is what we intend to do about it. I assert that ordinary people (and their representatives) won’t wake up immediately, but will have to move through a series of stages.

    If we want to change the status quo on race in the mainstream, we have to demonstrate that racially conscious Whites are a political force to be reckoned with. And you are not going to do that by abstaining from politics and getting lost in a fantasy world.

    At worst, they subscribe to the pipe dream of political race replacement — converting non-whites to voting Republican — which is their accommodation to their Capitalist masters’ policy of economic race replacement.

    1.) A majority of Republicans in the House and Senate are now against legal immigration.

    2.) The gains have been far more impressive at the state level where we are routing the pro-amnesty forces.

    Republicans are not pro-white. They take white votes and subscribe to policies that are dooming whites to extinction.

    We can force politicians who represent Whites to take a hardline on immigration. We’ve done that. What have you done?

    Republicans are not even pro-white out of simple self-preservation. As the white majority shrinks, their long-term viability as a party will disappear.

    As the White majority shrinks, the White vote will grow increasingly cohesive, Whites will start thinking of themselves as outsiders, and Whites will began to develop a sense of identity.

    It is a certainty that they will bypass the fruit loops in the White Nationalist movement and create their own institutions. They will concentrate in the Republican Party and gradually remake it in their own image.

    Redisticting will only delay that. But Republicans would reject furiously any suggestion that the party needs to preserve the white majority.

    Why should they listen to people like you? How do you represent? Where is your organization? What power do you have? You can’t neglect all the fundamentals of politics and expect to be taken seriously.

    You might approve of some tendencies in these Republicans, but it is a fantasy to think that they approve of you.

    If they advance our interests on immigration and other issues, I don’t care what they think.

    But what about “implicit whiteness.” I am working on an article on that right now, to combat some of the destructive fantasies that have been grafted on to Kevin MacDonald’s research. The core of it is this.

    Greg Johnson has lately been saying that he is like “The Joker” who is going to “give the White Nationalist movement a leader it deserves.” Hilarious stuff. He lost touch with reality a long time ago.

    (1) Whites might be voting Republican out of implicit ethnocentrism and racial identification. But if you were to “accuse” them of that, 99% would ferociously reject the claim.

    This is to be expected.

    People who openly identify as White Nationalists have no air cover. There is ZERO ORGANIZATION to protect them from social and economic pressure to recant their views. A natural consequence of the ludicrous belief that “spreading ideas” on the internet and “increasing our numbers” is sufficient to solve our problems.

    (2) Republicans routinely take the votes of explicit pro-lifers and explicit conservatives — then betray them.

    How are you going to repeal Roe v. Wade without a majority on the Supreme Court? How are you going to stack the court with highly conservative justices when you have a Democratic Senate?

    The idea that they will be loyal to the interests of merely “implicit” whites — whites who themselves would reject racial loyalty — is a fantasy.

    Let’s talk specifically about immigration. How many times has amnesty been defeated over the past ten years? If amnesty has been defeated, who voted against it? Was it White Nationalists?

  26. When Hunter says “We’ve moved goalposts,” it is the same “we” as when a spectator says “We won the World Series.” It is a fantasy indulged in to produce a vicarious illusion of real world efficacy.

    No, I have actually spent the past three months getting involved in Alabama politics. It is a welcome change of pace to having to interact with fantasists like yourself all day on the internet.

    In the end, Hunter and I are just two guys with websites. The difference is I’m honest about it.

    I do many other things besides write now.

  27. Hunter writes that amnesty has been defeated without the votes of White Nationalists. Yes indeed, there are no WNs in the US congress at all. But that means that the mainstream right can take care of itself. They don’t need our money, they don’t need our time.

    Our time and money needs to go to advancing our vision.

    What Hunter is advocating is (1) not necessary, (2) based on fantasy, and (3) destructive, since it amounts to persuading White Nationalists to stop articulating our vision, stop promoting our ideas, stop building our community and organizations, and instead “dissolve” ourselves in the mainstream.

    A spoonful of sugar will sweeten a cup of tea. But it will not sweeten the Pacific ocean. One thousand dollars donated to Ron Paul is a drop in the ocean, but to a bona fide White Nationalist group, it is a life-giving shower in the midst of a drought. Why is Hunter counseling that we put our time and money where it makes the least difference?

    Putting “everything you got” into mainstream politics is suicide being sold as a strategy for victory. Fortunately, there aren’t many people stupid enough to buy it.

  28. Do any of us call GOP reps, or the National HQ, and TELL them they’d bloody well better act on behlaf of their WHITE voter base? The squeaky wheel, and all…

    I know that they want money. I know we mostly don’t have money. I wouldn’t pay them off to perfomr their duties, if I did have enough money to do this.

    But I do call. And tel them they need to serve their WHITE voters.

  29. 1. Go to Counter-Currents.com and read my articles “The 2010 Midterm Elections” and “White Nationalists and the Political ‘Mainstream.’” Read them carefully.

    Please note that Greg Johnson wrote about the midterm elections AFTER the results came in. In the comments, he said that he would write another article about mainstream politics two years from now.

    This raises the queston: what has Counter-Currents been doing over the past three months? Just browse their archives. It consists of reviews of Legally Blonde 2, Batman Begins, and a three part discussion on whether the Confederacy was controlled by the Rothschilds.

    2. Come here and compare them to what Hunter says about them.

    Everything I have said about Counter-Currents is true. If you read that site, it does come across as hopelessly detached from reality.

    Again, the goal of the site is a “metapolitical struggle” against the fundamental values of White Americans. Then Greg Johnson comes over here and accuses me of being impractical for saying it is possible to influence the local Tea Party.

    If you conclude that Hunter is distorting what I am saying and making cheap rhetorical points, then ask yourself: Would you discover the same distortions if you checked the sources of everything else he writes about?

    Follow the link to the racial degeneracy article in which Greg Johnson talks about kook bureaucrats empowered with a “virile” progressive Star Trek vision of the future using eugenics to create “a god-like race” of elves from Lord of the Rings.

    If so, then there is NO VALUE to Hunter Wallace’s writings. (And that goes double for John Pelham.) It doesn’t matter if he is intentionally dishonest or he can’t help it because his brain is wired differently. The conclusion is the same: He can’t be relied upon.

    That’s hilarious. I would welcome a contrast between our approaches.

    1.) Greg Johnson believes that assaulting the religion, patriotism, political ideology, and moral sensibilities of White Americans is the path forward. He couples this with ruling out the very idea of communicating with people on their own terms and writing for an obscure website without the circulation to influence anyone.

    2.) In contrast, I am focused on the practical, realistic steps that each and every White Nationalist can take in their own communities to advance our agenda.

    Yes, sometimes he says things that you like. But a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don’t keep wearing a broken watch on the off chance that it might be right when you glance at it. So why read political commentary from somebody whose mind cannot be relied upon? Isn’t that a prescription for disaster?

    I’m not sure what you can possibly do to concoct a recipe for a bigger political failure. It is like you have sat down and wrote out each and every single way to put as much distance as possible between White Nationalists and White America.

    Then you combine that with the brilliant idea of spurning the few friends we have in Congress for our enemies can face even less resistance moving down the field.

    Is advocating the de facto destruction of the WN movement — our self-censorship and self-co-option — in pursuit of fantasies of real world efficacy.

    What do you call the White Nationalist movement today? Successful?

    It’s not successful at all and the problem is easy to diagnose: going outside the experience of our audience, repudiating the whole idea of legitimacy, refusing to start where people are now, refusing to tailor our message to the experience and interests of our audience.

    He is playing political air guitar here, and he feels like a rock star. Don’t be drawn into his delusions.

    Earth to Greg Johnson.

    We just defeated “comprehensive immigration reform” for possibly ten years. You have done what?

  30. For me it comes down to this: the people I care about and the people I can influence are all heavily integrated into the mainstream. So for now at least, I plan to stay engaged with my community and hang around the furthest edge of the mainstream, and invest my time in either a Tea Party group, or maybe the A3P. Although I wish the purists/ hardcore vanguardists well, their approach isn’t for me right now.

  31. I’m curious why there’s a picture of Capt Picard, a multikult Jewish TV icon, eviscerating traditional White Nationalism as some kind of kook fringe cult. I know a little bit about subliminal prograganda techniques.

  32. Hunter writes that amnesty has been defeated without the votes of White Nationalists.

    There were a lot of close races. If we were properly organized, we could have swung those races and demonstrated that White Nationalists possess political power.

    Instead, we wasted most of the summer arguing over obscure European neo-fascists who no one in America cares about but a few bookworms like Johnson. It was a mistake that won’t happen again.

    Yes indeed, there are no WNs in the US congress at all. But that means that the mainstream right can take care of itself. They don’t need our money, they don’t need our time.

    Translation:

    1.) Greg Johnson wants the money.
    2.) Greg Johnson needs the money because he doesn’t have a real job.
    3.) Greg Johnson doesn’t have a real job because he is adverse to physical labor.

    You can either give Greg Johnson money to review Legally Blonde 2 and Batman Begins or you can work through NumbersUSA to win races and have some actual representation.

    Our time and money needs to go to advancing our vision.

    Our time and money needs to go to advancing our interests in reality. The immediate objective is to kill “comprehensive immigration reform” and go on offense on issues like birthright citizenship, deportation, and legal immigration.

    We don’t need to waste our time and money on this ludicrous fantasy of yours that Counter-Current is going to change the fundamental values of White America. In fact, the fights that you are picking with the White majority over Christianity, Hitler and National Socialism, republicanism, and American nationalism are grossly counterproductive to our efforts and make it more difficult to get the attention of our target audience.

    What Hunter is advocating is (1) not necessary, (2) based on fantasy, and (3) destructive, since it amounts to persuading White Nationalists to stop articulating our vision, stop promoting our ideas, stop building our community and organizations, and instead “dissolve” ourselves in the mainstream.

    1.) We don’t share the same vision. You want to destroy America, Christianity, glorify Nazism, and destroy republican government. That’s not something I want to promote. I think that is actually harmful in the American political context.

    2.) We don’t share the same ideas. A cursory review of Counter-Currents should reveal that you are interested in all sorts of bizarre material that even the racially conscious reject.

    3.) Moving the goalposts on immigration has been accomplished in reality.

    4.) Ending legal immigration is hardly destructive.

    A spoonful of sugar will sweeten a cup of tea. But it will not sweeten the Pacific ocean. One thousand dollars donated to Ron Paul is a drop in the ocean, but to a bona fide White Nationalist group, it is a life-giving shower in the midst of a drought.

    Translation: Cut me a check for I can live in San Francisco (one of the most expensive cities in America, review Legally Blonde 2, and argue against supporting our friends in Congress. Don’t support Ron Paul or Rand Paul who are effective.

    Why is Hunter counseling that we put our time and money where it makes the least difference?

    Why are you so interested in the money?

    Putting “everything you got” into mainstream politics is suicide being sold as a strategy for victory. Fortunately, there aren’t many people stupid enough to buy it.

    I would put everything I got (including the house) in mainstream politics before I signed onto the idea of promoting someone who is actively trying to twist the nose of White America and make our job more difficult.

  33. LEW, as long as the net effect of your involvement is moving discourse, people, and resources in our direction, then Godspeed and good luck. If the net effect is to move things in the opposite direction, that would be destructive to our cause. Hunter is advocating the latter.

  34. I’m still waiting to hear Greg Johnson’s definition of “destructive to our cause.” By “destructive to our cause,” he apparently doesn’t include picking fights with the White majority on every conceivable unnecessary issue.

  35. When the government wants to destroy a movement, they try to co-opt and neutralize it, and they try to silence it.

    Funny, that’s Hunter Wallace’s recipe for victory: shut up, blend in, devote all our time and money to promoting system candidates and issues.

  36. My definition of destructive of our movement is: “Hunter Wallace.”

    Chime in people if you are getting this. I need to know if I am wasting my time here.

  37. Larry says:
    “One last thing – Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Based on current demographic projections, it will take roughly 65% of the white vote to beat Obama, and the GOP’s not getting it. They didn’t get it in the midterms and there’s no reason to think they will get it 2 years from now when Obama will be able to blame the economy on GOP obstructionists in the House. 2010 was the electoral highpoint for white America. This is a good thing though. When the Tea Party crowd sees Obama being re-elected in 2012 in spite of all his failures with 95% of the black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote, maybe they will finally realize what is going on. Then the fun really starts.”

    Where is Obama being re-elected in 2012 a bad thing for Whites? Sorry, but I don’t think the Tea Party would have been possible without him. He hasn’t implemented a single Anti-White bill that a President McCain or President “Billary” wouldn’t have. If McCain had managed to pull off a win, we’d be a war with Iran by now. If Billary had gotten in, we’d be at war with Iran AND we’d have government controlled health care. And let’s have no illusions that either side wouldn’t have signed an executive order for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Because he is a crypto Muslim, Obama has kept us out of Iran. Because he is a Negro, he has talked a lot of smack about amnesty with no intentions of allowing anymore Mexicans into America so that they can keep racially cleansing Negros out of their neighborhoods and taking over all their welfare benefits. The plus side is that he has been unable to refrain from indulging in his hostility to Whites so that he rubs their face in the Affirmative Discrimination against Whites every chance he gets. So they hate him and they watch every move he makes and everything he says like a hawk. Just like he has fortified the resolve of those defending our second amendment rights; he has been the best gun salesman in the history of the USA – even Disingenuous White Liberals were stocking up – he has been the best argument White Nationalism could ever make. An affirmative action candidate who is also a race baiting hustler with real or imagined grievances with White people. We need to keep him right where he is.

    Another thing we need to remember is that as Ron Paul once noted, the times America has known the greatest peace and prosperity has been when no one party controlled both the Executive and Legislative Branch. When Reagan controlled the WH and the Democrats controlled the Congress, America functioned. When Clinton controlled the WH and the Republicans controlled the Congress, America functioned.

    Unfortunately, we have seen the last eight years be all about “bipartisanship.” That dime’s worth of difference has all but disappeared thanks to the RINOs and NeoCons in Congress. What White Nationalists need to do is foment what the ruling elite have done to us; create and encourage warring factions. The bi-annual House elections give us the perfect opportunity to elect WNist candidates. If the house goes overwhelmingly right wing, that should put some brakes on any more leftist nonsense, while we go to work on the Senate.

    The six year Senate terms are more problematic. But not insurmountable. Because we don’t want a super majority of Republicans in the Senate. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, two quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and a close call with Comprehensive Immigration Reform. We want to keep either side of the duopoly from achieving super majority status. We want every vote to be a close one. We want every election to threaten to swing it one way or the other. We want stalemate and gridlock. We want to keep that in place until we have purged every single RINO Neocon from the Republican ranks.

    Economic factors will force the USA to eventually adopt the austerity measures that Europe is. That is going to be another factor that is going to put a screeching halt on amnesty or encouraging more Turd World immigration. Whether they like it or not, the Democrats are going to have to purge their ranks of the global Marxists and find other ways to remain viable.

    That is where the antiwar wing of their party could step in and force our withdrawal from any and all foreign and military adventurism to balance the budget. We will exorcise Wilsonian Doctrine from leftism. There will be no more Democracy at Gunpoint. Also, the draconian libertarian measures the Republicans will try to impose is going to put the hurt on a lot of Americans, underscoring the folly of encouraging more immigration when there are no jobs or benefits for Americans. Believe it or not, the Democrats offer rich, fertile soil for any discreet soul with no paper trail and a lot of foresight to co-opt that party for WNism by implementing national socialism. And they will be necessary, because the banksters will have looted the country of any valuable assets and skipped off to China by then.

    In the meantime, I am loath to totally dismiss the Vanguardists as a force in WNism. To me, they are the “bad cop” that the “good cop” can utilize … if we could get the two to cooperate, like MLK and Malcolm X did. In a deal with me or deal with him kind of way. Nor should the past contributions of Vanguardists be dismissed either. They sure were more foresighted than the rest of us. Everything they predicted has come to pass. They were the first to see the danger and deliver the message and, for their efforts, many of them got slaughtered by Mainstream Conservatives. I don’t blame them for being bitter. Their sacrifices need to be acknowledged and respected. And I hope, in the future, when all Whites wake up, that they can be credited, cited and sourced by historians.

    I don’t really like dividing WNists between Mainstreamers and Vanguardists. I prefer saying, like every other ideology, they are composed of implicit and explicit people. Both sides can cooperate, if they put their minds together. Vanguardists must be allowed to broadcast their ideas without fear of ridicule or derision and Mainstreamers need to listen respectfully and find a way to disseminate it to the White population.

    White Nationalists need to look at what the Marxists have done. We need to study their methods. After all, they spent years studying the psychology, habits and thought processes of White Americans, so they know their onions. I believe they figured out that the White American public will accept any political system that is done implicity and incrementally. WNists must combine the lessons learned from the Vanguardists with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and remember what an American Communist once said about Americans passing every plank of the communist party under the label of progressive liberalism, but would bitterly oppose any thing sprung on them. So, the only way to pass every plank of the WNist agenda is to find a way to implement it as “progressive conservatism.”

  38. When the government wants to destroy a movement, they try to co-opt and neutralize it, and they try to silence it.

    Oh. I am a secret agent now? Paranoia and delusions of grandeur tend to run together.

    Funny, that’s Hunter Wallace’s recipe for victory: shut up, blend in, devote all our time and money to promoting system candidates and issues.

    I’m sure that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are a lot more radical than they let on. They are winners.

  39. Notice that I did not say Hunter is an agent. That is just a straw man of his own invention. Personally, I think he is just a crazy person. There is no shortage of crazy people in this cause who do the enemy’s work for free.

  40. So Hunter believes that the World of White consists of two groups:

    A) Robot-like “mainstreamers” who watch Glenn Beck and get all giddy when Sarah Palin and the other GOP drones hit the stage.

    B) Vitriolic “vanguardists” who hide out in their bunkers, and never come into contact with the outside world unless it’s to spit, scream, and offend everyone within a 1 mile radius.

    Anyone not blindly and solely invested into A is automatically lumped into B. Is this the gist of it?

  41. That is just a straw man of his own invention

    I’m not really endorsing your methods, but this pretty much summed up Hunter’s entire shtick when it comes to opposition.

  42. My definition of destructive of our movement is: “Hunter Wallace.”Chime in people if you are getting this. I need to know if I am wasting my time here.

    It’s funny how you spend so much time trying to hop on the White Nationalist gravy train. Throughout the original article and your comments on both sites, I am left with the impression that you see “working within the system” primarily as a threat to your own financial self interest.

    Please note: if someone in the gallery donates money to some NumbersUSA endorsed candidate in, say, Michigan or Colorado, I have nothing to gain personally.

    Why would donations ever be “a life-giving shower in the midst of a drought”? I can imagine that would be true if you don’t have a real job because you are adverse to working for a living.

  43. Notice that I did not say Hunter is an agent. That is just a straw man of his own invention. Personally, I think he is just a crazy person.

    Profile of a sociopath:

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
    Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

    There is no shortage of crazy people in this cause who do the enemy’s work for free.

    Let’s get something straight here:

    1.) The actual enemy is ferociously opposed to my position on immigration.

    2.) The actual enemy WANTS US not to participate in mainstream politics. They WANT US to marginalize ourselves with extreme rhetoric. They WANT US to make their job easier.

  44. So Hunter believes that the World of White consists of two groups:

    I wouldn’t put it that way.

    It is true though that the major division within the movement is between the Duke/Carto wing of participating in mainstream politics and the Pierce/Rockwell/Covington wing of forming small groups of hardcore “wide awakes.”

Comments are closed.