View Single Post
Old August 25th, 2011 #104
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[this is a gem of wrongness. it is what i wrote to refute above. it is perfectly articulate expression of a very common view - i would call it an immaculate misconception. i've interpolated comments to make clear where and why religious conservative racial nationalist haller is wrong. (first posting, then will make the corrections, will take a few minutes, but they'll be in THIS post)]

Posted by Leon Haller on August 25, 2011, 08:08 AM | #

Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, et al:

How is someone like me - a ‘lone wolf’ blogger for many years, sympathetic to anything pro-white, trying to get the message about white persecution and impending extinction out there among alleged conservatives (with a multitude of lengthy comments here at MR, too - one of the few places I haven’t been banned (thank you, GW)) - supposed to decipher the truth from all this “he said/she said” crap?

For example, I met Sam Dickson once at an AR conference many years ago. I don’t know him, but I do know of him - and that he has spent decades fighting for the white man’s cause. Here he’s disrespected. Whom ought I to believe?

What Hunter says about appealing to conservatives is what I have been saying just recently here at MR, as well as for years and years and years and ... I think it’s what Jared Taylor has believed, too.

Politics is about power. In democracies, that obviously means roping in the largest number of people. The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base? The base of any movement to save the white race - the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony - is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Note by “base” I don’t mean leadership, or “core”, or theorists. I simply refer to the conventionally recognizable class or group which is most likely to respond favorably to pro-white (whether open or implicit) initiatives. Obviously, it’s white people, but given the ideological, economic, cultural, religious and ‘lifestyles’ heterogeneity of whites, given, that is, that whites are variegated, and do not march in such lockstep as other races seem to, at least wrt ethnic and racial issues, white preservationists need to figure out the identifiable already existent group with which our message is most likely to resonate.

Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England (or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles), it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh"). The white Left today is very nearly defined by its commitment to ‘diversity’. How many racist white Democrat ("hard-hat") working class voters are there anymore? I would say, strictly empirically, very few. Of course, there may be a few whites who vote Democrat, that is, against their racial interests, because they somehow benefit from liberal largesse (perhaps they are government workers with generous pensions; I have a disgusting neighbor like that, a quite racially/culturally conservative middle aged-white man who voted for CA Governor Jerry Brown strictly to protect his bloated, CA taxpayer provided pension). But the vast bulk of liberal voters I have met in my life have not, I think, been secret racialists voting Democrat for reasons of greed, like my neighbor. Most seem to sincerely support one or another aspect of the liberal agenda, the contemporary foundation stone of which is commitment to racial diversity and equality.

These are not brainwashed persons, except in the most general sense. They are sincere race liberals, and they number in the millions (for Brits, recall my struggle on the English police blog: simply telling the racial truth about the recent riots triggered a groundswell of PC opposition - and this was a blog purportedly speaking for those on the ‘front lines’ of the racial attacks!!).

My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet ‘unawakened’, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” (not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content). In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different ‘streams’, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge. People like David Duke and and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny ‘uniforms’, indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing ‘clean-cut’ and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP concerns from conservatives, our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP (and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness) is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is). This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity (the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right") and policies of white preservation. (Hence my personal attraction and commitment to intellectual theories which seek to unify classical conservatism, Christianity (Bible-based or natural law-based), and modern racial science.)

In much larger part, it means jettisoning (or at the very least muting) those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema. Insulting Christianity (especially in America), even if all forms of supernaturalism are in fact false (not my view, incidentally), is counterproductive in the extreme. (Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.) Excessive emphasis on genetic determinism is likewise not something conservatives, with their bedrock beliefs in free will as the necessary counterpart to moral responsibility, will find persuasive or appealing. Nazism, and even ‘naming the Jew’, simply will not get traction, at least for the foreseeable future.

In terms of rigorously dispassionate analysis, I think only some form of fascism will save Europe (I think something very different is needed in America, more of a libertarian separatism or freedom-of-associationism). But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Of course, the nonwhite colonizers are pouring in, making ultimate victory ever more problematic, so we need to be aggressive about this gradualist process. We must all never relinquish any opportunity to spread the truth about race. But we must be as moderate as possible in our presentation, and limited in our agenda. For now, we want legal immigration terminated, illegals deported, and the anti-white spoils system dismantled (maybe also throw in ‘law and order’ and ‘concealed carry’). When we have built up a critical mass of whites adhering to this agenda - and have actually, legislatively accomplished it - we can move our ‘goal-posts’. But set those posts too far back initially, and you will find you can’t even muster a team.