This afternoon I participated in a conference call of the Jacksonian Club. I came away from the discussion even more determined to continue along my present course.
Here’s the rub: of the 200 people who expressed interest in the Jacksonian Club, we managed to speak with 5 of them on the telephone. In my previous post, I predicted a huge drop off from the initial enthusiastic response, one that has since come to pass.
In a nutshell, this episode confirms what I have long suspected: White Nationalists are not serious about their own ideas. They are unwilling to translate their own ideas into effective action. As we saw, most White Nationalists can’t be bothered to talk about their ideas on the telephone.
Draw the logical conclusion.
1.) If White Nationalists are unwilling to talk on the telephone in a free conference call, are they going to uproot themselves and migrate to the Pacific Northwest to start an IRA-style rebellion against the U.S. federal government?
2.) If White Nationalists are unwilling to face down a digital camera, are they going to build mass membership grassroots organizations to force the political spectrum to bend in their direction?
3.) If White Nationalists are unwilling to start where their peers find themselves today, do they stand any chance of persuading ordinary people to convert to their radical views?
4.) If White Nationalists cannot build a viable alternative to the status quo in the real world, do they have anything of substance to offer potential recruits interested in change? Can they hold the people who have already been converted?
5.) If White Nationalists can’t be bothered to communicate with ordinary people in terms they understand, can they persuade enough Whites to converge on a conclusion as radical as the ethnostate?
6.) If White Nationalists cannot talk on the telephone, can they be bothered to rise up in a massive rebellion that could possibly destabilize the status quo and end the prevailing taboos?
The correct answer: no.
Why is that? The question demands a compelling answer.
My answer is that White Nationalists are afraid of social ostracism and employment discrimination. If there were no perceived consequences to talking on the telephone, White Nationalism would mature along more normal lines.
The conclusion I draw from this is that there is effectively no difference between explicit White Nationalists and implicit White conservatives in the real world. Neither group will act without the indispensable cover of mainstream legitimacy.
Thus, if any effective challenge is to be mounted against the status quo, it must come from within the mainstream, not from the fringe. This isn’t optional. Explicit White Nationalists themselves are unwilling to construct their own alternative.
So what is a ex-White Nationalist left to do?
Joining the Mainstream
Reality has dictated our starting point. White Nationalists are unwilling to act in the real world without the cloak of respectability. The only way to get them to do anything is to give them tasks which can be done safely without real world consequences.
In a single stroke, this decision will alienate the rhetorical radicals. Having grown accustomed to the fringe, they don’t have the appetite to reengage with the mainstream. They prefer to substitute effective incremental progress in the real world with the satisfying feeling of instant gratification that comes from blowing off steam in virtual reality.
This is not the loss it appears to be. It is not like they were going to do anything effective anyway. As in economics, the rhetorical radicals are a “sunk cost.”
A minority of White Nationalists have the good sense to realize that rhetorical radicalism is synonymous with active pacifism. They realize that ordinary people have to be converted to our views. They intuitively grasp what this is likely to involve.
1.) It means starting where people are at today, not where we wish them to be.
2.) It means communicating with people in terms of their own experience, establishing trust between leaders and followers, and guiding the public in a more radical direction.
3.) It means settling for achievable goals.
The measuring stick is effective action: are we persuading people to adopt our views? Are we mobilizing them? Are we changing the political spectrum? Does this work?
Talk is cheap. Words should always be tailored to the objective at hand. If our words are emotionally satisfying people who do nothing while alienating those we can’t afford to lose, we shouldn’t hesitate to change our tone.
The most we can hope for on White Nationalist front is persuading a handful of the more realistic, pragmatic racialists to participate in the Jacksonian Club.
Radicalizing the Tea Party
The vague idea floating around the Jacksonian Club is that we need to create a stronger version of the Tea Party – a middle ground – between implicit White conservatism and explicit White Nationalism. We need a real world physical meeting place to accomplish this. That’s not far off the mark.
I think it is doable. As in the White Nationalist movement, there are people who are a lost cause, and there are others who amenable to persuasion. We should focus our efforts on building a bridge between the latter.
What does this bridge look like? What are the goal posts in between the Tea Party and explicit White Nationalism?
1.) Convincing Whites that a racial double standard exists.
2.) Convincing Whites that they are “racists” by definition.
3.) Convincing Whites they have lost their country.
4.) Convincing Whites they are outsiders.
5.) Convincing Whites to abandon apathy in favor of engagement.
6.) Convincing Whites that changing racial demographics cuts against their interests on issues like taxation, spending, and the size of the government.
7.) Convincing Whites the political class hates them for racial, cultural, and religious reasons.
8.) Convincing Whites they are justified in overthrowing the political class.
9.) Convincing Whites they are being displaced by a hostile invasion.
10.) Convincing Whites the Republican Party must be policed by engaged citizens.
Implicit Whites who accept the above propositions are well on their way to explicit White racial consciousness. The Jacksonian Club should be a place where these key themes can be introduced and emphasized to an audience of implicit Whites.
The goal should always be to create as much polarization as possible. Give people real world tasks they can accomplish. Capture ground from the enemy. Refuse to cede any new ground. Appeal to self interest and idealism under the cloak of moral principle.
This will work.
Whites who feel like they are making an impact in reality will feel less inclined to drift down the rat hole into the fantasy world that exists on the internet. In such a beachhead, they will pose far more of a threat to the status quo than they would have otherwise.