Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:39 | #

Let’s be honest and admit what many of us would rather forget: in many cases, conservatives actually believe in racial equality.

I suspect way too many of them repeat in private what they utter in public.

They view immigration as a general good.

National Review promotes MLK as a conservative.

And recall Jamie Kelso’s interaction with young mainstream conservatives last year in DC.

I, for one, would be hard-pressed offering any unqualified support to those pompous, self-righteous little brats.

Good luck with that, Brett. You do it.

There’s also a class angle.

Conservatives know that only a “low-class trailer-park buck-toothed piece of white trash” can be racist; therefore, any white man discussing racial differences must be a “low-class trailer-park buck-toothed piece of white trash”.

Perhaps there’s a case to be made for infiltrating mainstream conservative groups or in offering an ‘olive branch’ to such organisations, with a view to winning them over.

But I doubt it.

People respond to strength, good-looks, ruthlessness, charisma, style, and confidence.

Don’t apologise, don’t make excuses, don’t back down.

People are drawn to alphas.

If more WNs would adopt these qualities, the mainstreamers would come.

WNs should stop acting like fringe nutters with weird obsessions, and more like attractive, articulate winners.

This is my perspective, as one who long ago moved from mainstream conservative circles to full-blown WNism and beyond.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:16 | #

People respond to strength, good-looks, ruthlessness, charisma, style, and confidence.

People respond to intelligence, integrity, clarity, vision, sincerity, and conviction.  Or something like that.

The difference between a convincing charlatan and an actor in history is the difference between form and substance.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:42 | #

intelligence, integrity, clarity, vision, sincerity, and conviction

We already have those, in spades.

But we absolutely lack the others!

If you want to appeal to people, including mainstream conservatives, the focus must be on form, or style.

Cultivate charm and charisma, wear a suit and tie, and don’t forget to smile.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:20 | #

Brett,

Thank you.  This question - the Conservative Question - is part of this blog’s history because it was founded out of a personal conviction on my part that only a complete political metamorphosis could free the anima of racial Europe, and the easiest route to that, I thought, was to create a synthesis between the thinking conservative and the instinctual nationalist - these two being falsely antagonised, I thought, by the action of the modern liberal paradigm.

Eleven months in I was writing this:

Now, I happen to be of the conviction that the political right cannot fulfil its historic destiny unless and until intellect and instinct operate in harness.  In large part, MR is an experiment to test this thesis.  From the difficulties we have had these past months it is clear that this is a formidable, perhaps impossible undertaking.  It requires the right of the fissure to mature politically and to review its understanding of Conservatism, because that is the only current, viable alternative to a liberal milieu.  And it requires the left of the fissure - at least the intellectuals there, who are strategically essential - to re-assess whether they may be wrong about the crisis in the West, and their humble neighbours right.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_minds_and_the_bloods/

I gave it a few months over two years more, then pulled the plug on the experiment, and embarked on a different kind of search.

Conservatives in the West, I have learned at some cost in time and mental labour, are liberals because they are essentially people for whom the sensible thing is to go after what they need - respectability, self-regard, material reward, position, or just a competitive edge.  So they orient themselves towards the established political order.  Doesn’t make any difference whether it’s Iranian clericism or Soviet communism or Hayekian neoliberalism.  The conservative is substantially untroubled by any difficult questions.

He, along with all the rest of the creatures in the zoo, is going to have to be humanised.  No other way to do it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:28 | #

Selous,

I don’t want to appeal to “people”.  I want to appeal to the people who appeal to people.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:56 | #

Are mainstream conservatives our target demographic any more than mainstream liberals/leftists?

Most average people who self-describe as left/liberal (with a small ‘l’)are not experts in the works of Marx or the thoughts of the Frankfurt school, they are because its just part of the air they breathe, they havent looked into it really. Their commitment to the multicult is a mile wide and an inch deep (Svigor’s line I think).

Superficially conservatives may be nearer our position but in the world at large Im just not sure there is much in it.

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:37 | #

Brett Stevens,

One word answers the question “Why aren’t mainstream conservatives racialist?”: Jews.

Mainstream conservatives won’t be mainstream for long if they start expressing racialist views, and conservatives expressing racialist views won’t get to be mainstream in the first place.  You have the Jewish money power to thank for this.

Your characterization of liberals vs. conservatives is naïve.  Why aren’t the so-called liberals, apparently endorsing the notion “the individual has the unrestricted right to do whatever he or she wants to,” not liberal regarding evangelical Christians, the army recruiting on campus, freedom of association, or freedom of speech?  And how is the endorsement of communism by some “liberals” consistent with a wish for a high level of individual freedom, as your statement implies?

“Reaching out to conservatives requires we abandon race as a central point, and reach out for a social standard, common values and collective identity instead, because inevitably that will lead to race, culture and soil.”

Sorry, if we abandon race, whereas it’ll be a tactical move in the beginning, soon, newcomers will find that mentioning anything that points to race is prohibited and the inevitability won’t be a social standard leading to race but an organization that ends up being another in a long list of Jewish-infiltrated, and thus ineffective, ones.

Instead of abandoning race as a point to reach out to conservatives, hit the bull’s eye: expose the Jew.  Everything else will follow.

Now you could say that the conservatives wouldn’t be all ears if Jews are mentioned.  So adopt an indirect way of going about it: expose the money system and urge monetary reform.  This strikes at the root of Jewry’s power… the rest will follow.

Posted by anon9823 on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 02:59 | #

One word answers the question “Why aren’t mainstream conservatives racialist?”: Jews.

Basically.  The same word also for the most part explains why mainstream liberals aren’t racialist.

My previous comment didn’t go through - is there a spam filter?

Posted by Selous Scout on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:11 | #

I don’t want to appeal to “people”.  I want to appeal to the people who appeal to people.

Exactly! You’ve got it.

And that’s why you’ll need to ‘up your game’.

You’re doing a good job so far. An outstanding job, I would say.

But it’s a different game now.

Start targeting the shadow-elites, i.e. those who influence the others.

But don’t neglect style, fitness, form.

Fitness is essential.

Cultivate charm, wear a suit and tie, and don’t forget to smile.

We’re gonna win this thing!!

Esse quam videri

+

Posted by Selous Scouts on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:19 | #

Roman Virtues.

Posted by anon9823 on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:49 | #

For example, you would be hard-pressed to find a mainstream conservative who will not acknowledge in private the following:

Is this a joke?  I have talked about this kind of stuff with plenty of conservatives in private and most of them will acknowledge very little of what’s on your list.

That biological differences exist not only between races, but between ethnic groups, and social classes and castes in all ethnic groups. Even more, that biological differences also exist between individuals, and that intelligence and moral character are for the most part heritable.

Pretty much everyone knows that there are biological differences between individuals.  We know that some people are smarter than others, that smart people have smart kids, and that there’s not much one can do to increase his own intelligence.  Race differences are sort of the same way but there’s a stronger taboo against acknowledging reality in this case.  I think the vast majority of conservatives subscribe to a cultural view of Black intellectual inferiority.  Look at the popularity of e.g. Bill Cosby’s statements about Blacks among conservatives.  That sort of thinking is entirely different from and essentially incompatible with the racialist view.

That diversity is a nightmare because it requires the destruction of culture, which in turn requires a strong Nanny State, which creates a haven for the crassest kind of commerce. Conservatives know that a strong culture is better than all the cops, “education,” propaganda and courts in the world.

Actually, many conservatives favor ethnic diversity specifically because it atomizes society, promoting individualism and making a welfare state or other collectivist economic systems less practicable.

That evolution is compatible with Christianity

Most of my relatives are creationists, as are roughly 50% of Americans according to polls I’ve seen.  You’re out of your mind with this one.

There are no “Blank Slate” individuals because you cannot educate, discipline and mould someone into an ideal as you would make metal parts. Individuals are individuals. They are not equal, but in fact widely different.

This one is widely acknowledged by left and right.  In fact liberals are often mocked for treating everyone as a “special snowflake”.

That the leftist use of race is as a method, not as an end goal. The leftist goal is class warfare; importing anti-majority voters, destroying majority culture, confusing politics and generally introducing chaos and failure supports that mission of class warfare and wealth redistribution.

Again, diversity makes wealth redistribution much more difficult.  That’s the main reason why there’s much less wealth redistribution in the US than in Europe.

That a nation is defined by its people not its political system, its economy or its rules. These things are simply the lowest common denominator that a nation with little in common can agree on.

Do we live on the same planet?  Conservatives are extremely legalistic.  “We are a nation of laws, not of men.”  Constitutional patriotism.  Where are you getting these ideas?

That Social Darwinism made us strong and a lack of it weakens us. Most people are appalled by this, but much as Darwinism brought us out of our dumber simian roots, social competition has forced people to develop more intelligence and greater social and moral awareness.

Setting aside whether this is true or not, I don’t think you’ll find many conservatives talking like this, even in private.  Conservatives are extremely averse to evolutionary thinking.

That entitlement programs and racial pity destroy the black community as well as the white community.

“Destroy” is probably too strong of a term (entitlement programs for Blacks are really only a minor nuisance to Whites compared to the other problems we face), but conservatives will probably mostly agree with this.  Again though, the stuff about entitlement programs harming Blacks is completely different from the racialist view that says Blacks are just inherently incapable, for the most part.

The liberal/conservative divide, in the US, is primarily about economics.  Conservatives want lower taxes, less government regulation, less social spending, free trade, etc.  Beyond that, conservatives tend to be into fundamentalist Christianity and militaristic foreign policy.  I don’t think there’s much basis, other than wishful thinking, for viewing conservatism as some form of covert White nationalism.  In fact much of what conservatives believe is inherently antagonistic to racialist thinking.

By the way, “Brett Stevens”: are you a Jew?  I’d say that there’s, oh, about a 95% chance that you are, but maybe you could go on record one way or the other.  Should be a fair question, considering you acknowledge that ethnic groups may differ in moral character - might be nice to know if you happen to belong to a certain ethnic group that has been selected for dishonesty and dissimulation for the past 5000 or so years.  Seemingly everything you write has some sort of subtle pro-Jewish tinge to it, including this article - it’s easy to suspect that you’re just suggesting WNs support mainstream conservatives because mainstream conservatives are slavishly pro-Israel.

“Brett Stevens” on why we shouldn’t criticize Jews:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/naming-the-jew-and-why-you-wont-see-it-here/

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:24 | #

Brett is finding out why it is a waste of time to engage the WN ghettos of cyberspace. These people are lost in their own little fantasy world. If we hope to influence our peers, we must do so on our own initiative.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:26 | #

If memory serves, 45 percent of Mississippi Republicans openly say they want to ban interracial marriage. There are millions of White racialists in the United States.

Neo-Nazism is incompatible with White racialism. It has a hard ceiling of 1 percent appeal. It is a useless fantasy ideology that appeals to hopelessly marginalized personality types.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:42 | #

HW - some people are equating nazism with WN but generally they those who want to point out that white ethnic awareness = nazism = wantingtokill6millionjews. Why are you so willing to help reaffirm that equation?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:11 | #

“From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on
closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis
H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry
H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ‘‘Mexican immigrants
are making a reconquest of the Southwest/*99
Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction
also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction
League put it, “racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin” whose “racial interests and
prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest.” But unlike in 1924, the Jews
were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers,
livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests,
who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans
were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic
disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that
the Mexicans were “timid” workers who always “knew their place” and were willing to
work “all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick.” Certainly the
“wetbacks” were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American
Cattle Raiser’s Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three
daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were “just as safe as if they had been
with me…. Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We
would never think of such a thing.” 100

Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
by
Jonathan Peter Spiro
B.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1982
MA. (Pepperdine University) 1994

Here we have an example of conservatives who were racialist and who stilled desired an open border for Mexican immigrants, not because of their fear of Jews, but because of a desire for economic well-being, in other words a pursuit of self-interest.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:12 | #

Re the title question:

They should be, and more and more of them are becoming so. But they are hampered by the heavy influence of Christianity at least on American conservatism (though I’d bet money with anyone that the Right in all historic white nations contains more genuinely religious persons than the Left). Christianity for the most part today has been ideologically polluted by liberalism, especially of the racial variety. IT IS AN ELEMENTARY THEOLOGICAL MISTAKE, BUT ONE PROMOTED BY CHURCHMEN INDIFFERENT TO WHITE SURVIVAL (and note: it is not the place of churchmen to be concerned with nationalist or really any political issues).

1. Christianity does not say that we must lie about empirically established racial differences, or that groups have universal rights to self-esteem and legal (let alone political or economic) equality with other groups.

2. Christianity does not say that Biblically understood “nations” (ie, ethnocultures) are somehow sinful and must be abolished through migration, miscegenation or multiculturalism.

3. Christianity does not condemn out of hand pride in one’s heritage and ancestry (excessive pride, as excessive pride in anything, yes).

Even atheist WNs make a huge mistake appearing hostile to Christianity. It is far more intelligent to do as I do, and hoep to do in detail in the future: demonstrate the moral compatibility of white survivalism and the historic faith (something our ancestors took for granted - I have only to reflect upon my own very Christian, very racialist (but not racist or hateful) grandfather to know this: he was open with his views, but the priests still loved him and came to our Sunday dinners, and apparently weren’t ‘horrified’ on those occasions when my grandfather would ‘go off’ about black criminals, or ‘“too many Orientals”,  or liberals or whatnot, etc).

GW talks about a deep revolution in white psychology being needed. I think I agree, but disagree wrt its content. The root of modern western Man’s malaise is spiritual breakdown. Everything wrong with our societies has resulted from the decline of the old philosophical superstructure. All the old virtues - patriotism, chivalry, self-discipline, thrift, etc - have been (allegedly) discredited, with only ‘tolerance’ and environmentalism and equality to replace them. This was a long time coming, and the root problem - impiety - far antedates PC. I don’t know how to recapture the mind and culture, other than through a racially renovated and renewed Christianity, not necessarily of the shallow Bible-thumper variety, but such as characterized both Reformation and especially Counter-reformation.

But we can always go the fear route with conservatives specifically. Unless we develop white consciousness and end immigration, your interests and property will be at the mercy of future Obamas, or the savages marauding through London last week. Neither is good for business, to say the least.

Posted by anon9823 on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:40 | #

Brett is finding out why it is a waste of time to engage the WN ghettos of cyberspace. These people are lost in their own little fantasy world. If we hope to influence our peers, we must do so on our own initiative.

Yet all you ever do is preach to the choir.  Your ever-dwindling fan base consists solely of WNs, most of whom read your site before you became a “mainstreamer” and keep checking in primarily out of sheer habit.  You are clearly not picking up any new readers.  And here you are posting comments at a WN site.  Can you give me a single example of where you have posted comments at a mainstream conservative site in the past, say, several months?  Are there any examples of mainstream conservatives giving a damn about or even acknowledging the existence of you or your blog?

Tell me, why don’t you just go piss off to a tea party or whatever the fuck if that’s your idea of the truest expression of White American racial consciousness?  From where I sit, it looks like White nationalism is steadily gaining ground, and you are merely upset that you have ruined your reputation and alienated pretty much all your potential supporters at this point.

Posted by Stephen on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:06 | #

Most “conservatives”, or “conservative” politicians at least are not conservatives at all, as they are not interested in conserving anything. They are only interested in advancing radical free market capitalism and breaking down all cultural barriers to this end. They only make a few concessions to cultural conservatives on issues that don’t really mater to them or can be turned into a pork barrel.

Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:47 | #

Brett Stevens makes the mistake of assuming that politics is polarised between conservatism and liberalism. Furthermore, he makes a similar incorrect assumption that conservatism is a values based ideology, which it is not.

Someone who wishes to ‘conserve’ is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo, whatever that might be. Therefore a conservative living within a politically correct, multicultural society, will want to conserve the politically correct and multicultural character of that society. A conservative would not feel motivated to take the radical step of changing his society back to a former state, conservatives don’t think like that.

Racial nationalism is not conservatism because racial nationalism wants to mould society to conform with specific ideological objectives. Racial nationalism is radical in outlook and seeks change. Racial nationalism would even seek to change an already racial nationalist society, to improve it, and so that it will in future more readily and effectively serve our ideological objectives.

A conservative in a racial nationalist society would seek only to maintain the status quo, and if the status quo shifted, they would seek to maintain, to ‘conserve’ the new status quo.

This is why in a politically correct, multicultural society, conservatives are to be found defending those liberal facets of such a society and resisting the efforts of both racial nationalists and liberals to effect change.

In a society in which it is taboo to publicly express politically incorrect thoughts, a conservative will be found abiding by that taboo and frowning at anyone who breaks it. They may permit the expression of politically incorrect views in private and they may agree with such views in private, both they will not do anything that might disturb the status quo, that would not be conservative!

Brett Stevens states;

Conservatives after all are those who conserve, or retain whole things for the collective based on what has or has not worked in the past.

However, this is not so. As I have explained conservatives are those who seek to retain for the collective, things that work now, here, today, under the present system, whatever that might be.

Brett Stevens states further;

Strong cultures, family-oriented societies, chaste and sober values, a strong identity and heritage, and relatively homogenous societies (think Finland or Japan) are the most successful nations on earth. Conservatives at heart want to emulate that.

And …

Conservatives by their very nature endorse ideas that resonate with natural law, the organic order of society, and identity politics. They dislike hatred; they love an opportunity to build and nurture the population that most accurately represents their constituents.

However, in an already multicultural and multiracial society, the ‘constituents’ of most conservative politicians will be non-Whites and of non-European ethnicity, they will be single parent families, homosexual rights campaigners and Moonies, and conservatives will want to ‘conserve’ that.

Conservatives are only interested in conserving “Strong cultures, family-oriented societies, chaste and sober values, a strong identity and heritage, and relatively homogenous societies” if that description accurately describes the status quo. If not, then they won’t. They will support whatever the status quo actually is.

Conservatives might endorse in private “ideas that resonate with natural law, the organic order of society, and identity politics”, but they will not say so in public, if to do so might disturb the status quo. That would be radicalism - that would be extremism.

This is why conservative politicians from areas that are largely untouched by multiculturalism and multiracialism express views the traditional values of the society from which they come, but as soon as they get to Washington and are subject to a different set of values and a changed status quo, their views change and they conform, defending and conserving that new status quo.

Our salvation as a race will not come about through conservatism, but from racial nationalism and the change and the radical action that our ideological objectives require.

Posted by Alaric on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:37 | #

Conservatives aren’t racialists because they’re cowards. Revolutions aren’t waged by the weak, but by the cunning and strong. Conservatism is the essence of weakness.

Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:08 | #

Give Brett a break. He’s young and inexperienced. Keep in mind, there are many others out there like him.

We must find a way to sculpt the next wave of WN leaders.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:27 | #

Did Alex Leonder get a testosterone patch?

Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:40 | #

No, lil’ Jimmee, he probably found a good way to ignore you and the other commie eunuchs.

Tell us again, how do you say “emasculated” in Gaelic?

LOL!!

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:02 | #

Selous,

I suspect you’ve misunderstood the underlying intent of my comment, which is understandable, and not a problem.

It’ll all come out in the wash.

Posted by Cagliostro on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:19 | #

Nationalism is a intirnsic expression of a people having the same race, language,common history, tradition, religion. This is the natural habitat of nationalism. Having established the building bloc of racial nationalism, one can move onto expanding the conception of race and nationalism linking with other equally compatible nationalists who also have a race, history ,tradition, language and common racial roots. Natonalism and WN has a long way to go to prove itself as a viable vehicle for white survival and yes white dominion, as it used to be , as it used to be known. There is no point in just surviving, standing still is a covert way of moving backwards, an egregious example of what transcends today. The white- nations in race have stagnated, allowing their dominance to slip away, allowing their living space to be inundated with non whites, allowing their culture , history and traditions to be corrupted by extraneous influences. The nations of geographic demarcations ( like the USA) who hold a myriad of racially competeing groups, animus against each other , and an underlying common animus against white races are an exceedingly risky environment for white survival. In an environment such as that white exctinction is assured over a period of time due to biological receding numbers swarmed over and swamped in a sea of nonwhites. As time goes by, the dominance of hybrid americanism and its hegemony will eventually set and wither away destroying everuthing in its midst. The struggle will continue, but the battles will not be won by intellectual dithering and circomlocuted philosophysing .  The white nations must first regain their sovereign status, reinstaurate their racial backbones and then militate assertively . The enmy is not a diverse, diffuse abstract enemy but a racial one. A Racial enemy can only be combatted by another racially aware nation/s. The racial enemy has the hybrid,diverse,and rootless masses of forlorn souls as ammunition and fire toward WN. In the context of America and americanism, the geographical compact has to fragment and broken up in pieces, balkanized leading to a terriotiral secession where the WN can begin the building of their racial homeland. In the present configuration of America , this move is not possible at this moment, this premise is not conditon for abandoning the nascent struggle.

Posted by Remnant on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:37 | #

There is a lot to agree with in this posting: race, even though it matters, should not lead us into reductionism.  However, when a society has veered unhelathily to one extreme (multicult, leftism, etc.), it is understandable if not inevitable that some segment of the population will vere in another extreme in order to act as a corrective.  It is unlikely that a “middle-of-the-road” or mainstream conservative will right all of the imbalances brought about by failed liberal policies.  To that extent, it is misguided to see white nationalists as “extremists”.  If a doctor prescribes tarantula venom to a patient, the analysis of whether that doctor is a menace hinges on knowing whether the patient suffers from a cold or from hearth disease (where it has known medical properties).  Likewise, it is impossible to judge national chauvanism (of any kind) outside of its specific context and circumstances.

That said, I disagree with several implications of this article:

1. You are caricaturing white nationalists.  Many WNs are not “racists” any more than you are.  People like Jared Taylor would have little interest in racial issues had not society forced it upon him.  Others, such as Hunter Wallace, have made it clear in their positions that there is still a place for non-whites in society, in accordance with local and traditional understandings: in many ways, the South had dealt with its racial issues much more successfully than the North.  And it was in fact a caricature of the South that led to its demonization and to war.  Moldbug has uncovered many of the relevant sources that shed light on this.  Don’t make the same mistake of caricaturing WN in a reductionist and misleading way.

2. You are overly optimistic about the unstated racial views of many mainstream conservatives.  Liberal propaganda has not just been successful among the left, its has succeeded to a great extent among the mainstream right.  Your assumption that mainstream conservatives believe in HBD, believe that a nation is defined by its people not its political system, and so forth, is not in my view borne out by the evidence.  Jared Taylor’s response to Robert Greenberg, which starts about 2/3’s into the following link, gets it right: most mainstream conservatives say they believe all people are equal, the US is a proposition nation, anyone can be an American, etc. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/08/when_whites_lie.php

The biggest gap between mainstream conservatives and white nationalist types is that the latter are unafraid of learning, and speaking, the truth.  More of the former will come to accept WN if they open their minds a bit to new ideas.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:50 | #

Jimmy Marr,

Regarding whether Alex Linder got a testosterone patch (reference: his response to Breivik), I’d guess his testosterone levels have risen as he’s not been taking his medicine, risperidone.

For the uninitiated, risperidone, among other things, is used as an anti-psyhotic (schizophrenia) and sometimes for bipolar disorder, both of which could be co-morbid.

How else does one explain Linder:

a) describe Jews as the people who create the terms, the agenda, the definitions, the framework and the ideo-structures of communism, socialism, leftism, liberalism, feminism and journalism such that it’s the judeo-communist filth that’s been “filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers,” for which the Jews deserve to be exterminated, a day that’s coming; 

b) gloat over the killing of a good portion of the rising generation of future non-Jewish leaders of the socialist Norwegian ruling government turning Norway into another third-world shithole?...

c) insist that Breivik did the act that’s attributed solely to him when the manifesto’s clearly written by Jews, fully serving Jewish agenda, leaving no doubts as to the identity of the massacre’s perpetrators… and there’s also the logistics.   

Great job Linder!  Now back to risperidone or, better still, I’d say use berg spray liberally.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:58 | #

The axis of variation for present politics is across shades of liberalism - there is little expression of genuine collective or communitarian ideas (ethnocentric or otherwise) from the mainstream right or left. Instead we have Hayekian inspired neo-liberalism (right-wing liberals self-describing as conservatives) and PeeCee life-style/values multicultural liberals of the left (self-describing as socialists).

From the right, center, and left there are non-liberal traditions - we must renew and synthesis the best of those elements and redefine the radical, post-liberal ‘common-sense’ center ground. It remains an open question of tactics as to how explicitly ethnocentric the new post-liberal ideology should be in public. But remember it is a good move to make the ‘psychological costs’ of supporting it as low as is practically possible.

Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:59 | #

Here we have an example of conservatives who were racialist and who stilled desired an open border for Mexican immigrants, not because of their fear of Jews, but because of a desire for economic well-being, in other words a pursuit of self-interest.

Conservatism = Cynical Opportunism of the Nouveaux Riches.

I don’t want to appeal to “people”.  I want to appeal to the people who appeal to people.

I don’t think Brad Pitt & Co are too interested in the stuff that is being discussed here.

Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09 | #

How else does one explain Linder:

a) describe Jews as the people who create the terms, the agenda, the definitions, the framework and the ideo-structures of communism, socialism, leftism, liberalism, feminism and journalism such that it’s the judeo-communist filth that’s been “filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers,” for which the Jews deserve to be exterminated, a day that’s coming;

b) gloat over the killing of a good portion of the rising generation of future non-Jewish leaders of the socialist Norwegian ruling government turning Norway into another third-world shithole?…

c) insist that Breivik did the act that’s attributed solely to him when the manifesto’s clearly written by Jews, fully serving Jewish agenda, leaving no doubts as to the identity of the massacre’s perpetrators… and there’s also the logistics.

Sadly GuessedWorker doesn’t seem too fond of Alexei Linderski.

Posted by john on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:32 | #

They see race as a cultural manifestation - change the culture and everyone will come around to their way of thinking. In other words they are ignorant dangerous morons, all of them. Whites have to form their own governments - no conservatives allowed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:32 | #

AWA,

Have you asked Alex about whether our relationship has been hostile?  Obviously not.

Raise your game before you take to your criticising me.

Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:04 | #

Guessedworker,

Have you asked Alex about whether our relationship has been hostile?  Obviously not.

Raise your game before you take to your criticising me.

I wasn’t criticising you and not being too fond of someone does not imply being up in arms against this someone, I was just saying something that seemed to be a given fact regarding your stance on the glorification of killings and VNN.

Here is what you said:

VNN is the right place for that kind of comment.  Killing people - any people - is not our way.

Alexei Linderski is the man behind VNNForum, VNN which is basically an extension of his opinions and views. It is obvious you do not have a postive view of VNNForum for diverse reasons which you made clear, VNNForum and Alexei Linderski? Guilt by association and not only that Alexei Linderski made it clear that he endorse the killings of gentile commies and jews and VNN commentators glorifies that, which is something you frown upon as you view such stance as being detrimental to the cause and as you said before ‘is not our way’.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:16 | #

Lurker,

I know plenty of such Neo-Nazis. Where should I start? Greg Johnson, Alex Linder, Harold Covington, etc.

Posted by svensson on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:27 | #

Ever since 1945 the common refrain has been: “Don’t be a racist! Be what you want but don’t be a racist!”

You can be anything, but anything, as long as you don’t tread along the racial path. Be a satanist, adulterer, liar, it’s all fine but don’t ever dare to say that races exist, that races are different from each other, then you’re finished. Your career is finished, your social life, your whole staying in polite society. See e g Enoch Powell, he got kicked out into the cold for daring to speak up about the danger of importing different races onto British soil.

That may answer the question why so few conservative politicians find it worth the risks to ponder racial questions. Until now that is, I think the tide is turning but it might still take a year or two. But then - le voici, la delugue…!

Here’s a post on my blog with some or other thoughts on rightist views like immigration, race etc:

http://angels1-5.blogspot.com/2011/06/radical-rightist-i-am.html

Some paragraphs down I question Solchenitzyn’s dictum that “Russian nationality is not about blood, it’s about spirit”. I see that as the stance of a typical drawing-room conservative, a lazy well-meaning guy who didn’t live in a country threatened with mass immigration. So that may be another reason for conservatives not becoming racially conscious: laziness, dullness of spirit and the Christian idea of brotherhood of Man taken too far, i e into Realpolitik.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:11 | #

Yet all you ever do is preach to the choir.

If I have been writing about White Nationalism at Occidental Dissent, this will certainly come as a surprise to me. I haven’t written about White Nationalist in quite some time.

Your ever-dwindling fan base consists solely of WNs, most of whom read your site before you became a “mainstreamer” and keep checking in primarily out of sheer habit.

I’m a pretty good political analyst. I spend most of my time responding to other political analysts in the blogopshere or on mainstream news sites. Just sharing my thoughts like everyone else.

I learned a year ago that the White Nationalist movement was an ideological morass that appeals to alienated people in cyberspace who live in shattered communities. It is highly unlikely that the changes I desire in the American South will ever come through the White Nationalist movement.

You are clearly not picking up any new readers.

You know this how? The purpose of writing is to influence people who write for other websites. My job as a political analyst is to create a discourse that others can adopt and use for their own purposes.

And here you are posting comments at a WN site.

I came over here solely because an article had been written about my website. I had not written anything about Majority Rights in god knows how long.

Can you give me a single example of where you have posted comments at a mainstream conservative site in the past, say, several months?  Are there any examples of mainstream conservatives giving a damn about or even acknowledging the existence of you or your blog?

Smiles.

I’m quite sure I have plenty of readers. As I have said, my job is to create paradigm, to change the discourse, to influence others, to put information into cyberspace where anyone can come across it, even powerful people who are looking for answers to problems such as, say, the loss of legitimacy among the liberal establishment, or the growing problem of “flash mobs” in Europe and North America.

Tell me, why don’t you just go piss off to a tea party or whatever the fuck if that’s your idea of the truest expression of White American racial consciousness?

LOL

Well, let’s see ... “white supremacy” was the official motto of the Democratic Party in Alabama until the 1960s. I’m quite sure there are plenty of White Alabamians who agree with my views. The same is true of White people who live throughout the American South and well beyond.

I don’t have anything against the Tea Party. They want to cut the size of government. This government is destroying us in the Heartland. Why would crippling this government be a bad thing? It’s not.

From where I sit, it looks like White nationalism is steadily gaining ground, and you are merely upset that you have ruined your reputation and alienated pretty much all your potential supporters at this point.

I’ve been around for 10 years.

I don’t see White Nationalism gaining any ground. In fact, it looks to me like White Nationalists are having the very same debates they have been having for 10 years now, as events spiral out of control around them. Nothing has changed.

In Britain, the flash mobs just burned the United Kingdom to the ground. They launched a revolution in GW’s country. Hopefully, this will inspire him to talk directly to the establishment now from the medium of his own website, and to stop wasting his time on fringe characters who clash in the comments over various interpretations of a fantasy ideology.

I am not a White Nationalist. I am really and truly not involved in the White Nationalist movement. I care about White people, but 99 percent of people who care about their White brothers and sisters are not White Nationalists.

Why do I need supporters who are alienated people who are scattered across the world? What I really need is influence in my own state and community. In order to gain influence in my own state, I need to help the people who live here solve problems. That is what is called being a responsible citizen, not an ideologue who rants into the darkness of cyberspace.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:16 | #

Conservatives aren’t racialists because they’re cowards.

Yes, I know.

It takes a great deal of heroism to call yourself “Alaric” and preach revolution in cyberspace. Why isn’t everyone else heroic enough to follow your example?

Revolutions aren’t waged by the weak, but by the cunning and strong. Conservatism is the essence of weakness.

I’m quite sure that conservatism is objectively stronger than whatever fantasy ideology you are subscribing to this year.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:33 | #

quote]Did Alex Leonder get a testosterone patch?

My question yesterday was too cryptic, and has lead to some misunderstanding.

What I was trying to hint at was the possibility of a confluence of conservatism and radicalism as symbolized by a hybridization of the names of two people who represent previousl dichotomous views; Alex Linder and Leon Haller (Alex Leonder).

Haller stops short on the JQ. Linder seems to have strategically circumnavigated it.

A more concise formulation of the question might be: To what extent does Alex Linder’s reformulation resemble the views of Leon Haller on steroids?

Posted by FB on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:04 | #

What does it matter whether so-called “conservatives” are in office or Left-liberals? Canada’s so-called Conservative Minister of Justice wants to criminalize linking to Web sites some faceless bureaucrats of judicial hacks might deem offensive.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/hands-off-my-link/1113343958001/page/6

Posted by Drifter on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:25 | #

Brett is finding out why it is a waste of time to engage the WN ghettos of cyberspace. These people are lost in their own little fantasy world. If we hope to influence our peers, we must do so on our own initiative.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/why_arent_mainstream_conservatives_racialist/#c112946

He’s probably seeing what I am seeing. The nationalist right has the initiative right now. Victory over liberalism, modernity, communism, globalism, etc. is what’s needed.

Sorting out our sectarian impurities can and must come later. If the Frankfurt School Neocons aren’t going to lead White Western Man worth a damn then the nationalist right, racialists, and so forth must take the reigns in their stead.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:37 | #

The wiki page of the “Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime” which Levant’s video references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_Protocol_to_the_Convention_on_Cybercrime

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:45 | #

GW that is a disgrace as a ‘law’ - welcome to 1984! I will say America’s laws and tradition on this topic are far more robust.

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:13 | #

Jimmy,

I understood it all right—and laughed it off.

You’re not as profound as you pretend you are, not by a long shot.

You’re missing the action occurring right before your eyes.

C’mon, chaps, get serious!

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:29 | #

Excellent quote from ‘Brandon’ (8/16 @ 8:16) on Chechar’s blog:

The opposition that is being raised up, represented by Mr Breivik, will be single men as he is and there will most likely not be any intentional networking between them. They will act independently of each other, but in a Spiritual unity, not knowing of each other’s existence.

http://chechar.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/linder-on-breivik/#comments

Posted by Bubba on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:35 | #

Conservatives loooove Hershey!

Foreign students walk off Hershey’s factory job in protest
Liz Goodwin

Hundreds of foreign students on a State Department cultural exchange visa program walked off their factory jobs in protest on Wednesday.

The J-1 visa program brings foreign students to the country to work for two months and learn English, and was designed in part to fill seasonal tourism jobs at resorts and seaside towns. The 400 students employed at a Pennsylvania factory that makes Hershey’s candies told The New York Times that even though they make $8.35 an hour, their rent and program fees are deducted from their paychecks, leaving them with less money than they spent to get the visas and travel to the country in the first place.

Some of the students were assigned night shifts, and said they were pressured to work faster and faster on the factory lines.

Businesses save about 8 percent by using a foreign worker because of Social Security and other taxes they do not have to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/foreign-students-walk-off-hershey-factory-job-protest-214310205.html

Posted by Kenneth Day on Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:08 | #

There are some attempts to show that Conservatism means conserving the people not some contingent ephemera.  It has potential.

http://www.thebritishresistance.co.uk/tim-haydon/1185-burning-britain-and-the-three-times-treachery-of-liberalism

http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/10/standing-on-firm-ground-of-ancestral.html

http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-nation-politics-of-race.html

http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/10/rt-hon-j-enoch-powell-mp.html

Posted by nvrennvren on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:25 | #

in china,they use the opposite idealogy to suppress people’s opinion to promote patriotism : if you don’t love your country, then you must despise your own people.you are one of the people, you hate yourself! you are pathetic..

since most chinese actually are not patriotist,
I guess most whites are also not self hating?? I mean privately

Posted by nvrennvren on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:44 | #

the government know the weakness of humans, they always manuplate their people to serve their own good

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:13 | #

I tried posting the following comment at the nationalconservatism blogspot,  re the “standing on firm ground” column; not sure if I succeeded.

————————————————————————————————

Thank you for this excellent column. I am an American who has long wanted just such a brief summary of actual British patriots who opposed the “unarmed invasion” (great title) , along with the history of the issue as well as mentions of books which analyzed it. I am thinking of writing a book under the title “The Fall of White Civilization”, delving into the exact history of how - not only legislatively, but also rhetorically - the white nations capitulated to racial universalist utopianism, which presumably will have destroyed them within a few decades, or by the end of the century at the latest. 

My only criticism of the column is that we needn’t be so solicitous of the immigrants themselves. Some immigrate to better themselves in lawful and honorable ways (which does not mean that they do not still pose an existential threat to national survival). But many come simply because the ‘livin’ is good, because they can sponge off Western welfare states, or because they wish to criminally victimize the native born population.

The other point is that race absolutely is central to the issue. As a Northern European American white man I could never truly become British in a cultural sense - though any white children of mine could indeed perfectly assimilate. But I am racially and behaviourly indistinguishable from many British, and thus I could more or less ‘fit in’ with your society. The same cannot be said of someone nonwhite, whose very race is a constant visible marker of his alienness.

Posted by nvrennvren on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:17 | #

actually the west heavilly promote blacks etc just to weaken asians(mongols)
mongols will rise, if the whites don’t do anything. white elites know that, especially jews.
eventually the yellows will catch up with whites at everything.so, how to prevent the yellows from going up?
2 ways. one is to destroy the them,I mean genocide. second, is using tactics.

Obama isn’t stupid, he said something like” if china rises to power,that will be the end of the world.”
1.4 billion chinese(mongols!) can easily ruin the earth,genocide everyone.

you see america rarely deport mexican illegals, but very often deport chinese illegals that cross pacific ocean.
as for the legal immigrants from china.. the officers always make sure they are not spies. they must show their total loyalty before joining america.

helping japanese arise in far east was also a strategy to soften chinese..

the hate between chinese and japanese was provoked by jews to balance the power in far east.
japanese are not racially proud people. they kissed the white men’s ass to rule the East.

whites people don’t need to worry much about blacks etc..blacks are inferior,everyone knows, from genius to idiot,no one will really believe the negroes are equal to Non-negros..blacks can only murder a fews whites, or race mix with a few white female idiots .they can never do big harm to anyone,they are genetically much much inferior to anyone else. even if giving them all the money and gold in the world, they would still be groids thousands of years behind other races. fact won’t change.

it’s the chinese who are the nemesis of the whites..
I believe to control the yellow peril is still top confidential in america
the liberals especially pay lot of attention to china, monitor chinese internet infos

promoting racial equality is simply to prevent the rise of the East..
the game of the world is EAST VS WEST… african negro? irrelevent.whites can solve negro problem in a few days if they want. but to defeat the orientals…need very clever strategy

this is from a chinese of course.

Posted by nvrennvren on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:24 | #

by the way , racial equality was the biggest lie in 20th century.. but it might be a good strategy for whites to maintain their dominance in the world..

Posted by nvrennvren on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:49 | #

when one world government form, blacks will be treated much worse, and maybe just like slaves as they used to be.

the good days for blacks(1964-??) wouldn’t last too long..i pity blacks .afterall they are human. but the world is cruel

Posted by money money money on Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:02 | #

What do the fat cats at MR think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc&feature=relmfu

Posted by Clare on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:35 | #

Because the left have put their nonsense in all the universities, and appear intelligent, even (so called) conservatives will feel prod to learn from the left what they are supposed to call ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’ etc, without thinking why the left invented these words.

As for Christianity, I’m ambiguous about it and not just because I’m irreligious. Within the West, strongly Christian societies are the most likely to oppose policies such as mass immigration and liberalised abortion. But yet Moslem societies do even more to resist them, so the Wests social problems are largely rooted in certain aspects of Christian theology which Nietzsche condemned.

Posted by ellen on Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:27 | #

Instead of further polarizing those on the right against each other, I want to explain the logical reasons for this behavior, and then explain how we can reach out to these people and form bonds. This will require you to give up the assumptions you have made about politics since you were a younger person. I apologize for the inconvenience but at the end of the day, you either want to succeed—or you don’t. No middle ground.