Why Vanguardists Can’t Win

William Pierce combined penetrating insights with the wrong approach

The Vanguard

It is time to call out the vanguard.

In 1971, William Pierce wrote an infamous article in Attack! called Why Conservatives Can’t Win. This destructive mantra has been mindlessly repeated so many times over the past forty years (even years after the swift collapse of the National Alliance) that it has become an article of faith to alienated vanguardists.

I want to know if vanguardists can win. If conservatives are losers, does that mean vanguardists are winners? I don’t think they can win and intend to show you why.

Defining Vanguardism

The vanguardist is a peculiar species of White Nationalist with a range that extends across cyberspace. This political animal has a number of discernible, trademark characteristics. Specifically, a “vanguardist” is someone who believes:

(1) Conservatives are worthless.

(2) Ordinary people are lemmings.

(3) Worse is better.

(4) The system is broken.

(5) A collapse is coming.

(6) They will benefit from this collapse.

(7) A massive Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their plight.

(8) Revolution is the only solution.

Instead of engaging the cultural and political mainstream, a vanguardist is someone who favors withdrawing from the system, sealing themselves off in enclaves, and organizing around a dynamic leader.

Vanguardists with the financial means to do so like to hide out in bunkers in places like Washington, Idaho, or West Virginia. The majority of vanguardists though are tied down by their jobs and just log on to the internet under an anonymous pseudonym to entertain themselves and vent their frustrations.

It’s really an angrier version of sitting down in a La-Z-Boy with a six pack (or if you are Will Williams, a bottle of Jack Daniels) after work to watch Monday Night Football. The lemmings spend their leisure time trying to enjoy themselves. The vanguardists woad up their faces and streak through the internet for a few hours every night.

Some people continue to say that “vanguardists” don’t exist. Well, I strongly disagree. Having interacted with vanguardists for years, I know them quite well, and can describe their way of life in elaborate detail.

Vanguardists are easy to recognize. They are more ubiquitous in cyberspace than whitetail deer in the backwoods of Alabama at midnight. That’s saying something given the shape of my bumper.

So why can’t vanguardists win?

(1) Alienation – The single most important thing to understand about vanguardists is that they are radically alienated. I’m not talking about being merely disappointed, demoralized, or disillusioned with the status quo. Vanguardists travel well beyond that stage into waters where they are ultimately transformed into aliens within their own society.

The vanguardists express their sense of alienation in all sorts of ways. It is the impulse behind everything from their tendency to withdraw from society, their hostility to their own culture, their belief that White people must be punished for their sins, creating their own religion, dressing up in uniforms, creating their own flags, advocating alliances with despotic foreign regimes like Iran and North Korea, hiding out in a bunker, their demonization of their peers, the lavish praise they heap on Europe, etc.

The key to understanding vanguardists is that they are aliens within their own society. They are like Jews living among the Gentiles. The vanguardists are strangers in a strange land … America.

The saddest part of this radical sense of alienation is the estrangement of so many vanguardists from their own families.

(2) Unnecessary Barriers – Vanguardists are a tribe of radically alienated people going through a type of ethnogenesis.

From the outside, it looks at first like they are creating unnecessary barriers between themselves and their target audience. From the inside, they are going through a tumultuous personal identity crisis. They are trying to draw new ethnic markers that separate “us” from “them.”

It is a mistake to write off the vanguardists as political retards. Why do they insist on insulting their audience, dressing up in ridiculous costumes, creating their own religion, heaping praise upon hostile foreign regimes?

Isn’t that counterproductive? How are these things in any way essential to White Nationalism?

The vanguardists are not engaged in a political project in any true sense of the word. They are not trying to convince anyone to become a White Nationalist or to score victories in a political struggle. The vanguardists are radical non-conformists who are expressing their own sense of individuality in an underground sub-culture.

Vanguardists are the beatniks, hippies, goths, or punks of the White Nationalist movement. If it is shocking to the bourgeoisie to get a tattoo or a piercing, how much more shocking is it to get a swastika tattoo or parade around main street as a uniformed Neo-Nazi?

If vanguardist behavior comes across as “offensive,” it is because that is the intended and desired effect.

(3) Turn on, tune in, drop out – When seen in this light, vanguardist behavior starts making a lot more sense. It was their counterculture predecessors on the Far Left that pioneered dropping out of the hopelessly corrupt system:

The Hippie Code:

“Do your own thing, wherever you have to do it and whenever you want. Drop out. Leave society as you have known it. Leave it utterly. Blow the mind of every straight person you can reach. Turn them on, if not to drugs, then to beauty, love, honesty, fun.”

I like to think of vanguardists as “totalitarian hippies.”

They are radical expressive individualists with an authoritarian streak. Their tendency to quarrel among themselves and their refusal to yield to authority (except when they are the dictator) is the major reason their organizations always prove so dysfunctional and short lived.

As with the hippies, “the system” is not as impenetrable as vanguardists imagine it to be. When the hippies grew up and got real jobs, they “mainstreamed” the counterculture.

(4) Communication – Their radical sense of alienation, ethnogenesis and expressive individualism all combine to produce a failure to communicate between vanguardists and White America. They can’t get beyond the communication stage.

This is due less to a vast Jewish conspiracy than it is to succumbing to their own alienation and no longer having much in common with their audience. It certainly doesn’t help matters that they are aggressive and antagonistic toward their audience.

(5) Lemmings – As I explained above, the vanguardists sail deep into the waters of alienation where they undergo ethnogenesis and become a distinct tribe of White people. They have set sail away from White America. During their voyage, they have accumulated markers that distinguish themselves from ordinary people, namely the rejection of their own nationality.

When the vanguardists look back at the world they have left behind, everyone on the shoreline looks indistinguishable. They all look like gullible herdlike lemmings from the perspective of a radical non-conformist.

The vanguardists then conclude that ordinary people are too stupid to be worth bothering with. The system is too powerful. They cannot be persuaded of anything because the media is so influential.

In reality, the real problem is the self-imposed isolation of the vanguardists, not the legitimacy of the mainstream media, which fell into disrepute in Middle America for over two decades now.

(6) Non-Conformists – The vanguardists draw the conclusion that only a tiny minority of White people are persuadable, namely, the non-conformist intellectuals who have an authoritarian personality type that don’t immediately dismiss an extremely radical message.

The vanguardists look at the numbers and accept the premise that they cannot spread their message, successfully, to a wider audience; this in spite of the available evidence. They don’t have the numbers to compete in mainstream democratic politics or even a desire to do so.

(7) Rhetorical Radicals – The last thing a radical non-conformist wants to do is “shut up” and “blend in” or “work within the system.” As a matter of principle, vanguardists refuse to work within the experience of their audience, which is boring and bourgeoisie. This results in a failure to communicate and reinforces their cardinal belief that “the system” is hopelessly broken.

As I explained above, the radicalism of the vanguardist is not in any sense a political project. Rather, it is a type of expressive individualism for radically alienated people.

That’s why it is extremely important to the vanguardist that his radicalism be based in rhetoric and words which communicate his own sense of alienation and individuality to the man on the street.

(8) Z.O.G. – For the vanguardists, there has to be an explanation for their inexplicable failures, which cannot in any sense be pinned on their own misguided behavior: Z.O.G. motherfuckers, man.

Jews control the media. That’s the problem.

If the vanguardists like Alex Linder or Bill White could only get on television, all their problems would be solved. Presto, everyone in America would want to become a radically alienated, angry non-conformist who worships Hitler and practices Creativity like Craig Cobb.

The obvious problem with this theory is that the Jews are more than happy to put the vanguardists on television and write about them in newspapers. They almost never miss a chance to do so.

NEO-NAZIS RALLY IN PHOENIX

BILL WHITE TRIAL SET TO BEGIN

The Jews have given vanguardists free publicity ever since the days of George Lincoln Rockwell in order to portray all White Nationalists as violent, unsympathetic, alienated fanatics who dream about The Day of the Rope and kooks who have nothing in common with ordinary White people.

(9) Fantasism – Given all the above, Jews controlling the media, the lemming like behavior of White people, the omnipresent Z.O.G. which framed Edgar Steele, the patriotards who identify with America, the foolish “mainstreamers” who keep pushing the “system politicians” … vanguardists are pessimistic about our future.

They have given up on engaging ordinary White people and persuading them to become White Nationalists. So what is there left to do?

Create an elaborate fantasy world.

Vanguardists are radically alienated non-conformists. They are bearish on reality. Their whole lifestyle is based on rejecting reality and fitting in with their peers. This is why vanguardists have never created anything resembling a practical plan for getting us to the White ethnostate. Any such plan would have to take into account reality based obstacles that they would much prefer to ignore.

The way vanguardists tend to cope with reality is through an overactive imagination.

The best example of a vanguardist creating an elaborate fantasy world is Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet. It assumes all kinds of wildly unrealistic scenarios. The Pacific Northwest is like Ireland and vanguardists are the IRA liberators of the people.

It has been a cornerstone of vanguardism since the days of George Lincoln Rockwell that the collapse of the system is imminent and that vanguardists will seize power in the aftermath. “Worse is better” is a strategy for realizing this fantasy world.

If every defeat for White Nationalism is a secret victory, then all we have to do is keep on losing, and in the long run we will win, without making any sacrifices or inconveniencing ourselves in any real way.

Conveniently omitted from this optimistic narrative is that vanguardists, as radically alienated non-conformists, calculate their every action to maximize the offense given to their neighbors. In the event of a real national emergency, vanguardists are about the last people in America that would emerge as leaders in their local communities.

(10) Escapism – Fantasizing about the inevitable collapse of the system and the imminent rise of the Northwest Republic is one way of coping with the unpleasantness of reality. Escapism is another.

This is why vanguardists have so many arcane debates about historical subjects like Holocaust revisionism. One way to flee from reality is to escape into the distant past or the near future or to the comfort of a more hospitable country abroad.

You can spend a good amount of time that way avoiding the things you dislike about your own neighborhood.

(11) Violence – As explained above, fantasism and escapism are the bread and butter of vanguardists, who have largely given up on reality based methods in light of their own extreme level of alienation from society.

Most of the fantasist schemes (i.e., the Northwest Republic) involve successful acts of criminal violence. The Order is one example of a group that took this sort of talk seriously.

Unfortunately, violence tends to have exactly the opposite effect.

White people in the Pacific Northwest were glad to be rid of The Order. They responded negatively to Oklahoma City and threw their support behind the federal government. The only people who saw James von Brunn as a martyr were other alienated vanguardists.

(12) Lashing Out – The last resort of the vanguardist is lashing out. This usually takes the form of rhetorical sabotage (i.e., pissing in the punch bowl) on other pro-White websites.

Spreading defeatism is one way of empowering our enemies, sharing the misery of the alienated, sapping the White resistance, and punishing White people who fail to respond well to their own righteous anger.

Final Thoughts

Vanguardists can’t win.

They can’t win because they actually want to lose. If every defeat is a secret victory, vanguardists have been winning for decades, although you would never know it from the state of White America, or the state of every vanguardist organization in existence.

Vanguardists have no solutions to our problems. Their hostility to our target audience makes our job harder, not easier. They say they want a revolution. A vanguard is supposed to be a spearhead of a revolution.

If that is the case, they should finally man up and go make one, instead of constantly trying to disrupt what we are trying to do, which is what works, as we saw yesterday.

About Hunter Wallace 9709 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. “So why can’t vanguardists win?”

    Cuz the lemmings won’t listen as…they are lemmings. I mean, some of these people, millions in fact, literally worship the fucking Jews. What other conclusion can one draw?

    “trying to disrupt what we are trying to do, which is what works”

    Cursing at the Democrats whilst watching C-SPAN in yer PJ’s. You lost me, chief. Although I will admit that your confrontation of “Red” Jeffrey Imm did “work” in the sense of giving me a hearty laugh.

  2. I might consider it, for my own entertainment at least, although I don’t like the sneaking suspicion I have you are attempting to pull my strings, Mastermind.

    The Takimag exploit was efficacious in that it succeeded in kicking Spencer and Gottfried further towards explicit racialism. Which was the upside I had hoped for.

    Have a good weekend.

  3. As a White male whom experienced a recent racial awakening, I must admit: I have vanguardists tendencies.

    (1) Conservatives are worthless – Newt and Bush are a fine examples of why I continue to find truth in this statement.

    (2) Ordinary people are lemmings – I believe this to be true. How can I not with the degenerate culture we live in? I think the ignorance of America is on full display when an anti-intellectual like Palin is even considered for the highest office in the land. I have no problem with Palin, but presidential material she is not.

    (3) Worse is better – If amnesty is granted, on a large or small scale, then, yes, worse is better in the most extreme definition of the word.

    (4) The system is broken – Yes, it is – most certainly for White people. The question is: Is it irretrievably broken? I don’t believe so, yet.

    (5) A collapse is coming – It seems to be on the horizon. Note: the future King of England’s car was assaulted yesterday. That mood seems to be crossing the pond, slowly, but surely.

    (6) They will benefit from this collapse – I don’t believe I’d profit from a collapse. If America does balkanize, I’d have to travel through the wilds of New Africa to save most of my family. An unenviable task by any stretch.

    (7) A massive Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their plight – It’s hard to ignore Jewish influence, but I don’t think the conspiracy is as potent as some make it out to be.

    (8) Revolution is the only solution – Again, if we continue to be colonized by Mexico, with the assistance of our elected government officials, a revolution seems to be the only solution.

    Here’s my deal: If the DREAM Act passed the Senate today, I would’ve went to resist.com or HAC’s site and cranked up a podcast or two or three or four. However, since it was shelved, I consumed a moderate brand of WN.

  4. I agree with Hunter’s argument against the worst of the “Vanguards”, folks who live “revolutionary fantasies” (has anyone read Jost Turner’s essay on this subject?)

    I would add that some racially aware Whites have accomplished positive results by getting out/away from “the system”.

    The whole White flight, suburbanization of the 1950s, early 1960s were practical attempts to get away from non Whites in the cities, get away from bad “system” public schools, bad politics. And except for those urbanites who moan about the sterile, bland suburbs (all White) suburbanization worked OK, well for our people for a few decades.

    Another example of White folks being successful, not cooperating with the anti White, Lib/Min “system” is the

    Home schooling movement

    Home schoolers were on the vanguard of doing it yourself and a lot of this do it yourself movement does trace back to the 1960s counter culture Left.
    The key to the home schoolers success was that they:

    Did it

    As opposed to just TALKING, TALKING, COMPLAINING

    I recognize the White Amish as the most successful counter culture White movement in US history – Amish populations have doubled since 1990.

    The Amish don’t cooperate with “The System” – they don’t watch ZOG TV or spend all their time worshiping Black Negro college football stars.

    So for committed Vanguard types here who just can’t live the Southern “mainstream” life Hunter is now living, consider something like the Amish – the key is to
    DO
    Not TALK, TALK, TALK, WHINE, COMPLAIN, ENGAGE IN ENDLESS REVOLUTIONARY FANTASIES

    Hunter I see you have one video posted of Randy and Vicky Weaver – is this to suggest that their way was a dead end, Vanguard way? If so I disagree, the Weaver family struggled, suffered severe persecution, but has come out on top. Most of the Weaver family survived and are here as a living example of what one committed White family can do.

    I also know lots of individual White activists who just need to do a time of intense Vanguard activism, to speak the truth and fear no one for a time – not forever and then they managed to get good jobs have more mainstream lives. I think Hunter is now falling in to that category, which is fine.

    Youth is supposed to be rebellious, but as one gets older one must make compromises/settlements. Look at AH, after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, AH worked within “The system” – made alliances with Big Business, establishment military leaders, religious groups, Labor organizations, even “gay” Germans and then AH did very well.

    IF AH were alive today he would not be some NAZI fetish hobbiest. He would be doing productive activities and reaching the hearts and minds of real, mainstream White Americans.

  5. The Weaver case was the one incident in which vanguardists managed to get some traction. That was entirely due to connecting with the libertarian sentiment that already existed in the Interior West.

    Randy Weaver came across as just wanting to be left alone. The government swooped in there. They bungled the operation and pissed off his neighbors.

    It is worth noting that the Feds learned something from Ruby Ridge and Waco. They adapted their tactics.

  6. Hunter Wallace says:
    December 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    The Weaver case was the one incident in which vanguardists managed to get some traction. That was entirely due to connecting with the libertarian sentiment that already existed in the Interior West.

    Jack Ryan replies:
    I also think that Randy Weaver and the Weaver family took the time to get to know a lot of their neighbors and the Weavers came off a solid, decent folks, who shared a lot of the values, culture of the other Whites in the area.

    This success falls under the category of:

    “When in Rome, do as the White Romans do”

    Certain areas of American are more tolerant/open to alternative religious, lifestyles than others. The Mountains of Northern California were a good place for Jost Turner’s Odinist/Arya Yoga homestead – places in the Southern Bible belt or Mormon/Latter Day Saints parts of Nevada, Arizona wouldn’t be so tolerant.

  7. Adolf Hitler worked within the system.

    In the 1920s, Germans were not adverse to wearing uniforms. They believed they had been screwed over by the Versailles Treaty. Democracy was an experiment imposed upon Germany and was widely viewed with suspicion. German culture prized order and stability.

    The real National Socialists (who were nothing like modern day American Neo-Nazis) triangulated against the communists. They adapted their message to their audience. They appealed to idealism and financial self interest. In particular, they emphasized an economic message.

    Hitler worked with the hated conservatives to seize power. He cracked down on the radical Strasserites who wanted a second revolution. He sought mainstream legitimacy. The National Socialists responded in innovative ways by exploiting new technology like film to spread their message.

    There is utterly no comparison between a real National Socialist mass rally like Nuremburg and the NSM in Knoxville, Tennessee.

    As much as Hitler disliked the Jews, he downplayed his anti-Semitism in order to seize power. The Jewish Question wasn’t the primary focus of NS propaganda.

    Hitler was a compromiser. He repeatedly promised peace while privately nursing his geopolitical ambitions. He even went so far as to strike an alliance with the Soviet Union.

    Above all else … Adolf Hitler was a German nationalist. He appealed to German culture and German grievances and German ethnicity and wove himself within the narrative of Germany. He appealed to the hopes and dreams of the German people like … as much as it pains me to say it, Barack Obama.

    Adolf Hitler was not an alienated outcast or a cult member or a withdrawn fantasist or an expressive individualist engaged in an adolescent rebellion against “the system.” He was a practical, highly intelligent man who skillfully played the hand that he had been dealt which included a democratic form of government.

    Can you imagine Adolf Hitler dressing up like a Klansman and parading through Munich with the Confederate flag?

    Can you imagine Hitler advocating the destruction of Germany and the creation of a totally new “Aryan” society?

    Hitler rose to power on the promise of restoring the greatness of Germany. Mussolini in Italy promised to restore the Roman Empire.

    Hitler also repeatedly denounced the idiots within the party who wanted to make National Socialism an enemy of Christianity. Even though Hitler himself was privately critical of Christianity behind the scenes.

  8. Hunter Wallace says:
    December 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    “As much as Hitler disliked the Jews, he downplayed his anti-Semitism in order to seize power. The Jewish Question wasn’t the primary focus of NS propaganda.”

    Jack Ryan replies:
    I also noticed this. Check out the great NS propaganda movie “Triumph of the Will”. Unless I am mistaken, there are no – ZERO negative reverences to Jews in this very effective, powerful movie. Most Whites don’t want to be bashed with obsessive Jew hating all the time.
    When David Duke was being very successful in mainstream politics in the early 1990s, he wasn’t featuring open, Jew hating speech – instead he was focusing on issues like crime, welfare abuse, affirmative action and immigration – Duke always looked and sounded intelligent, principled and not crazy – he just didn’t take the bait to discuss Holocaust Revisionism when he was trying to compete, win campaigns with mainstream Whites in Louisiana.

  9. As was suggested elsewhere, the costumes should form an acting company and produce theatre or film, there they can dress up and rant and it would seem “expressive.”

  10. Check out this interview with Steve King.

    King advocates creating a new Joe McCarthy-style “internal security” committee that would hold hearings and go after the SPLC. He also supports racial profiling at airports in addition to opposing amnesty and the black reparations scam!

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120612252/us/politics-and-economics/rsn-exclusive-a-conversation-with-congressman-steve-king-taking-back-congress.html

    RSN: Amen to that. I was looking over the Department of Homeland Security website before the interview and I noticed that DHS has a “Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.” Listed as non-DHS board members were a number of Muslims including a notorious radical Islamist, Mohamed Elibiary, leftwing community organizer types and even the CEO of the radical leftist Southern Policy Law Center. What business do these people have anywhere near DHS? We have to pick apart the bureaucracy and find where they have squirreled away these people who are literally wrecking public policy.

    King: That’s one area where perhaps a resurrected internal security committee could focus its efforts. But it takes citizen input. To prioritize the huge volume of work we get, the press often determines where we focus our efforts. The press now is the new media. If the information comes to us and it’s been prioritized in the press, we can work quickly on it.

  11. HWs comment on Hitler at 2:54 was brilliant. Every WN vanguardist who rejects direct engagement with the mainstream on terms they can relate to should read it carefully.

  12. I’m still waiting to hear the case for the false dichotomy. I haven’t seen anyone lay it out yet. I will keep an open mind.

    How would it go?

    The system is broken, but it really isn’t. We can work within the system, but we can’t. We should adapt our message to our audience, but we shouldn’t. We can win mass appeal, but we can’t. We should work within the experience of our audience, but we should repudiate everything they believe.

  13. I think all should understand that we do have these “vanguard” people who are alienated from American mainstream Whites and folks should try to think of some ways they can live, work and do activism that is positive, or just gives them something to do.

    We need something like the WPA for alianted White Vanguardists, or just alienated Whites in general, SWPL often fall in to this category as they do not ihave paying jobs and they are overwhelmingly hostile to working class White Americans.

    Yes, let’s see if some people here can come up with some good ideas for things to do for these Vanguard Whites. I’ve got some fun activities I would like to recommend.

  14. Hilarious article, even as I recognize much of myself in this. And Hunter is a vanguardist, however hard he tries to swim upstream into the mainstream. But this is good, because its all a learning process.

    The thing about the “elaborate fantasy world” is that is also the realm of imagination, and imagination creates things that have impact in the real world.

    Taking the elaborate fantasy world and putting it into action requires a bridge. That bridge will be weaponized White minds.

    It won’t be action movie violence. It will be (vanguardist) White mindweapons studying math and science and studying the world and becoming the human equivalent of MRSA, of a super-germ.

    Of course this in itself is a fantasy and I recognize that. And I live it. I am putting all my chips on Mindweaponization. Maybe I am no better than an autistic obsessed with a variant of Dungeons and Dragons; perhaps I’m delusional. At any rate, I keep a sense of humor and self-deprecation about it. I’m ready to be wrong if someone or something more effective comes along.

    But so far I don’t see a better theory, since I am at least putting my little pet theory into action. And my theory mirrors the science of super-germs, of evolution of pathogens versus antibiotics.

  15. Jack,

    I want to start a qigong/yoga/organic farming cult for rehabilitating vanguardists. Make them like Dynamo Jack:

  16. HW: “I’m still waiting to hear the case for the false dichotomy.”

    There isn’t a clear dichotomy between vanguardist and mainstreamers. The reality of the situation is more complicated. I do not fall into either of the categories, or rather I fall into both of them, and as Kievsky points out, you yourself fall into both categories. WN’s who fall into both categories undoubtedly far outnumber the other 2 groups. This thing is mainly rhetorical. Your writing style to reach its best effect is polemical, and polemics demand a foil. The vanguardist/mainstreamer dichotomy is a rhetorical devise that gives your polemics a place to unfold.

  17. “Every WN vanguardist who rejects direct engagement with the mainstream on terms they can relate to should read it carefully.”

    Uncle Adolf is not the be all/ end all of past experiences Vanguardists can emulate.

    For example I’m a big fan of military coups (Neo-Nietzsche also happens to share this stance as well) so the Greek Colonels ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%931974 ) rate highly on my list.

    Also Generalissimo Franco and Generalissimo Pinochet had some good ideas. While these guys were not racialist per se, they were hard-core nationalist so that is close enough!

  18. “Ted Denny Aylmer” is a fellow from the Phora. “Ted Denny Aylmer” is a sockpuppet of a long-time poster at the Phora named “Jett”. “Jett” was banned from the Phora after posting child pornography in the Phora shoutbox. Hunter should ban this troll.

  19. I think it’s pretty obvious that Greg Johnson isn’t a WN or any kind of pro-White activist at all. He’s simply a shyster looking to live off the finances of those Vanguardists who naive enough to send him their hard-earned money. His stuff at Counter-Currents is a joke.

  20. I’m old enough to remember the transition period between “beatnik” and “hippie.” It was an interesting and creative time when this subculture hadn’t yet been infiltrated by mouthy Marxist “power trippers” like Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorn and David Horowiz. Poets and banjo pickers were the rock stars of a scene which was small and intersected with the intimate and invisible homosexual subculture in my medium sized Left Coast city. As a artist I have nose for what’s fun and what’s next and I was a vanguardist back then and I’m still one now. I don’t mind being a vanguardist because it’s nice and roomy here in the plebe outtback and WN fringe with only a few people I can count on my fingers who are “down” with the JQ and the other issues we have no solutions to. This was an epiphany. For a decade I despaired that the “movement” wasn’t gaining the traction I thought it deserved until I realized if everyone was onboard I’d hate it. I’m not intemperately tattooed, or a costume nazi nor much of an outdoors man anymore. But I’m fine with no Talmudvision, no car, no credit, no nigger ball and no participatory two party – the lesser of two evils – democracy. Not everyone is cut out for vanguardism. “I Yam what I Yam” not because of any failure to become Everyman, but because I prefer keeping company and council with myself and waiting.

  21. @CC

    I’d say your experience at takimag is evidence that the conservative lemmings will listen to the right message. As a result of your comments, two influential writers and probably many of their readers are now hanging around an explicitly racial site rather than an aracial paleocon site. Having missed your comments at that site, I have no idea what you said or how you said it, but it must have worked. People listened.

  22. Dr. Pierce used literature and fantasy to make people think in terms of extremes, to go places they wouldn’t necessarily go.

    Dr. Pierce’s legacy to me means:

    We need to do LITERALLY ANYTHING to win.

    That doesn’t mean that “literally anything” means the violent things in the novels, but the point of putting those extreme scenes there is to clear out any half-assedness or compromise (with our own extinction).

    So we go from there. We don’t interpret as literally re-enacting “The Turner Diaries.” Dr. Pierce was trying to get us to comprehend the true gravity of the situation, if nothing else. And we did comprehend this, and we are evolving.

  23. Doing anything is better than doing nothing.

    That said – has every-one seen those really hilarious videos of Chrles the Muslim, and Camilla the Hag, going for a little ride? HAHHAHAHA!!!!

  24. Hunter – I basically agree with your presmises, and assessments. According to your terms, I am a Quasi Vanguardist operating withinthe Mainstream. Cause IT IS THE JEWS!!!!!

    FYI – the Mainstream types I deal with every day – and mean actual “racial civilians” are less and less shocked by the stuff I tell them every day – and are itching for a fight. Just a had a big converstion with a very respected, respectable Christian Lady last night – and she’s ready to go all Kristalknacht.

    Hee hee hee.

    So lines are blurred….fyi – those London croads, attacking Charles the Muslim, as well as their Overlordskis – re they Vanguardists, or Mainstreamers….or what?

    That does kinda look collapse-ish, over there….

  25. @ wings+dares+wings;
    ” But I’m fine with no Talmudvision,” Now that is funny, I’m lovin it! Gotta remember to use that one. And, I haven’t watched tv since the late ’80s either, except occasionally at work, when I forced to watch Negroball on the tube in the dayhall because I was assigned to stay there and keep watch on the patients.

  26. After seeing Mr. Williams post on Hunter’s article, I have decided that the witty reparte and possible clashing of verbal swords might get really entertaining here. So (although I am no “vanguardist” by any means) I am going to take my laptop over to my LaZy-Boy along with a 6-pack and enjoy the show!

  27. I love my Vanguardist brothers and sisiters I find them no more different than the Amish, or Hutterites in there apporach and Dr Pierce was a great leader who did all in his power to create a force of non degenerates. I agree with many of there ideas and have since the 1970s heald many of there views and I am still a deep admirer of Commander Rockwell who you refuse to note:
    ROCKWELL WALKED THE PATH ALL THE WAY TO WILLIAM BUCKLEY.. He was made a mockery of long beofre he started to wear a uniform and no onw can walk away from his work White Power and disagree.
    If explicitly white educated leaders of 50 years ago like Rockwell, or Revelio Oliver whoe where out cast how can you think there is room for us in the mainstream?? I believe Derek Black is a good example, Kyle Bristow another whos new novel clearly has a Vanguardist lead charachter.. Vanguardist triumph by living the American dream of doing what they wish..

  28. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the idea of a subculture of like minded folk banding together out of a sense of alienation from mainstream America. After all, this alienation is real and it arises out of real conditions. To deny it and pretend it doesn’t exist seems worse than coming to terms with it somehow.

    Look at evangelical Christians. They offer a model of how to build a living breathing parallel subculture that is separate from the mainstream in significant, deep ways, but is also engaged politically.

    The difference obviously is that we don’t have a “white religion” to band around or to evangelize, nor do I think we should since the ones already out there are off putting, to say the least. What we do have is our identities as white Americans of European origin. A hell of a lot more can be done to “mythologize” and promote this identity in a way that offers an alternative to the mainstream. This is a whole topic on its own.

    But I think the point is worth considering: subcultures aren’t inherently wrong – the question is what a subculture does once its members have found each other. As an outsider, Hunter seems right, the vanguardist subculture hasn’t done much except produce an impressive array of entertaining websites and fight amongst themselves.

    I’m not opposed to a “pro-white subculture” per se (or whatever you want to call it), but I am opposed to such a group if its members can’t be bothered to get up off their asses and go sign up for NumbersUSA and make some effing phone calls to fight the DREAM act. Count me out if you can’t even handle that much engagement with the mainstream.

  29. Jerry says:
    December 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    “I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the idea of a subculture of like minded folk banding together out of a sense of alienation from mainstream America. …
    Look at evangelical Christians. They offer a model of how to build a living breathing parallel subculture that is separate from the mainstream in significant, deep ways, but is also engaged politically.”

    Jack Ryan replies:
    I agree. But the sub-culture should offer some type of “community” to it’s members, offer them something like unique music that is shared, opportunities for “relationships” – excitement, secrets – something besides just dropping out of mainstream society and belng alone, alienated.

    Look at the 60s counter culture. It’s appeal wasn’t really the Leftist politics, it was being in a fun, hip youth culture where there weren’t bossy middle aged people saying “no you can’t do this or that, you can’t do what you want”.

    Here’s a song by the 1960s folk/rock group the Mamma’s and the Pappas:

    Go where you want to go:

  30. Denise

    The people attacking Prince Charles’ car in England were students protesting having to pay higher fees.

    They object that fees may be tripled to £9K pa.

    Also, anarchists (basically anti-fa) and assorted leftist scum were out in solidarity with the students smashing things up.

    They were charged by police on horseback in Parliament Square. Sometimes you gotta love Britain

    WPWW

  31. Hunter Wallace wrote:

    “I’m still waiting to hear the case for the false dichotomy. I haven’t seen anyone lay it out yet. I will keep an open mind.

    How would it go?”

    It might be laid out as follows:

    Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

    There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.

    In the “vanguardists” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.

    Synthesis

    In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.

    There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.

    The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.

    The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.

    After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.

    The Fringe

    In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

    Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.

    Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.

    The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.

    Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.

    Final Thoughts

    I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.

    Source: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/02/vanguardists-vs-mainstreamers/

  32. On Oct 14th of last year, Hunter Wallace had the following to say about The Vanguard in a post of that title:

    In embryonic form, it exists.

    I’m not talking about National Vanguard, Vanguard News Network, or any of the “vanguardist” groups described by Leonard Zeskind in Blood and Politics, but the real thing, the future brains and leadership of the White Nationalist movement. After years of skepticism, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. It took me almost a decade to cease to be the consummate outsider.

    There is a whole different breed of racialist out there: intelligent, highly educated, clean cut, normal, decent and disillusioned, patriotic White people who are furious about their impending dispossession and intend to do something about it. They are not the type who join the existing fringe organizations like the NSM, KKK, Aryan Nations, or WCOTC. At the present moment, they don’t have a political outlet in which to channel their energies and frustations, but continue to observe the White Nationalist scene from a distance. Now this is the sort of group I have been waiting to join.

    Full text here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/10/13/the-vanguard/

    Hunter, what happened to all the talk about romanticising our fringe and moving discourse through the overton window, etc.?

    The facts on the ground haven’t changed substantially enough to negate the analysis since the publication of this piece, nor have your core beliefs on race and the JQ, yet you openly proclaim that you are no longer a WN and spend much of your time hammering away on this divisive “mainstreamer vs vanguard” false dichotomy, which you yourself shot down in the post I’ve reproduced above.

    This is all very sad and unnecessary.

  33. The biggest problem of the vanguardist approach is that our worst enemies, the communists, also write about the coming collapse in their literature and also see it as an opportunity for establishing their dictatorship of the proletariat. Considering the communist track record of taking power during times of crisis, I’d consider them to be far better at pulling something like that off than any groups of right wingers I can think of.

  34. At the same time, Pierce made a very valid point in his “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” article. Conservatives are normally on the defensive. The Dream Act is a perfect example. We tentatively won this round, but we won a defensive round. The democrats will be back with another amnesty in 3 years or 10 years. They can continue to take assault opportunities and only need to win them once. Or our RINO enemies in the GOP might gain ground and give us a McAmnesty.

    We need to take the offense. Don’t get me wrong, it should be offense from within the system. But here are some of the offensive things on my wish list:
    1. Repeal of the federal hate crimes law that the democrats passed.
    2. A moratorium on legal immigration.
    3. Completion of the border fence.
    4. Turn Puerto Rico free so the statehood issue will be dead forever.
    5. Restriction of supreme court jurisdiction so that a judge can’t destroy matrimony.
    6. Repeal of the Brady Bill and other gun control laws.
    7. Repeal of at least some parts of the voting rights act.
    8. End birthright citizenship.
    9. A national right to carry reciprocity law.
    10. End H-1b visas.

    When I see items like the above on the GOP congressional agenda, I’ll know that we are on the offense and the democrats are on the defense. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen much indication that the GOP majority will result in much more than a better round of defense for a few years.

  35. Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

    There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.

    In the “vanguardists” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.

    Synthesis

    In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.

    There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.

    The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.

    The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.

    After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.

    The Fringe

    In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

    Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.

    Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.

    The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.

    Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.

    Final Thoughts

    I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.

    I completely endorse this position and would be willing to publish it at Counter-Currents today, even though the author is a vicious and deceitful enemy.

  36. Hunter, what happened to all the talk about romanticising our fringe and moving discourse through the overton window, etc.?

    (1) A year later, I have a lot more experience with “our fringe.”

    (2) A year later, I have far more experience with working in mainstream politics.

    (3) A year later, Arizona has given us a workable model.

    (4) A year later, the Tea Party has stormed Washington.

    (5) A year later, the reaction of the White Nationalist movement to the above has convinced me there is nothing of value in vanguardism.

    (6) A year later, I am familiar with Saul Alinsky and his methods.

  37. In sum, the major difference between December 2009 and December 2010 is that back then I was just someone writing about White Nationalism from the vantagepoint of my own computer screen.

    I spent 2010 getting out from behind the computer screen. I’ve been to Washington. I have been to a ton of events across the South and North. I have found a workable model. I have also studied the reaction of the White Nationalist movement to ongoing developments.

    The last year convinced me to start cutting my ties to the White Nationalist movement and looking elsewhere for solutions to our problems.

  38. “The obvious problem with this theory is that the Jews are more than happy to put the vanguardists on television and write about them in newspapers. They almost never miss a chance to do so.”

    That does create an interesting opportunity though if they chose to take it. It reminded me of Linder publicizing the deaths of those two kids by having a rally in Knoxville (i think it was) because an NS type rally will always attract antifa and a lot of media attention.

  39. Jack Ryan made a good point above.

    The most effective “vanguardists” are conservatives who rejected the public school system by home schooling their kids or putting them in private schools. That is a practical, constructive response to an identifiable problem.

    Conservatives are light years ahead of White Nationalists in creating a Christian counterculture. Just look at Liberty University in Virginia. They have created a thriving alternative media (talk radio, forums, blogs, websites) to undermine the legitimacy of the mainstream media.

    Here again, we see a stark contrast with White Nationalism. Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic cater to people who are disillusioned with the status quo (read the Free Republic comment threads on racial issues these days), but instead of getting alienated and becoming an “Avenging Angel” vanguardist, they respond in a constructive way through practical action in the real world.

    That’s the major difference:

    A “mainstreamer” has no illusions about the status quo, but instead of getting alienated and taking a clearly destructive turn, he tries to search for a practical, constructive response to the problem.

    The “vanguardist” dwells on his dislike of the status quo to the point of becoming alienated. He loses his sympathy for his fellow citizens and starts to take on a dislike of them.

    He loses his ability to influence and communicate with his peers. Without the ability to communicate, he sees no other hope but in sheer destruction, and begins to advocate punishing Whites as a response to our deteriorating circumstances, which only empowers our enemies.

  40. In order to “change the culture,” you first need a degree of legitimacy, or no one else will listen to you. This is one of the major lessons that I have learned over the past year.

    There is no contradiction between “changing the culture” and engaging in mainstream politics. Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns gave him the legitimacy to write bestselling books. The same is true of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

    The best attempts to “change the culture” that come to mind are Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment, Amren’s The Color of Crime, Nicholas Wade’s science columns at The New York Times, Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby, and Samuel Huntington’s Who Are We.

  41. Greg Johnson talks about “a metapolitical struggle.”

    The most effective example of a “metapolitical struggle” can be seen in the immigration debate. The word “amnesty,” for example, has crippled our enemies attempts to push legislation through Congress. All conservatives have to do is to shout “amnesty” to justify their opposition to bills.

    The use of the term “amnesty” is the best example of a response from the Right to the term “racism” on the Left. Talk radio has picked it up. Another example of the necessity of working in the mainstream.

    A clear example of “effective metapolitics” is what Imagine2050 decries as The Tanton Network: NumbersUSA, CIS, and FAIR which work with Republicans in Congress to publish and distribute restrictionist studies and talking points.

    As it happens, the Pioneer Fund provided these groups with some of their start up capital. That was the best investment in “metapolitics” in the history of the pro-White cause.

  42. There is no contradiction between “mainstreamer” practical politics and “effective metapolitics.” The two could advance together like an army and an air force.

    I made that clear a few weeks ago. There is plenty of work that can be done in that area which would actually be helpful.

    I think the biggest and most obvious gap is American historical revisionism. Why can’t the metapolitical warriors destroy the halo around Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement? Get Merlin Miller to make a movie about it.

    That would be helpful.

  43. A missed opportunity for “effective metapolitics” would have been a response to Nancy Pelosi’s lie that the Founding Fathers would have supported the DREAM Act. A clever piece refuting that nonsense might have been able to get some traction.

    What’s even funnier is that alienated vanguardists don’t realize they have the most success when they try to engage the mainstream. When they write reviews about Hollywood movies that ordinary people have seen and have an opinion on, their web traffic tends to spike.

    They come here and attack me for writing about college football. Of course that is the easiest way conceivable to introduce race realism to an audience of millions because ordinary people follow the games and know about the criminal history of the players involved.

  44. “I spent 2010 getting out from behind the computer screen. I’ve been to Washington. I have been to a ton of events across the South and North. I have found a workable model. I have also studied the reaction of the White Nationalist movement to ongoing developments.

    The last year convinced me to start cutting my ties to the White Nationalist movement and looking elsewhere for solutions to our problems.”

    Would you mind giving a basic outline of this workable model?

Comments are closed.