An
opposing argument.
Some in
the “movement” – including some “movement intellectuals” – are championing the
concept of “mainstreaming” and cite France’s Front National (FN) as a sterling
example of this paradigm. After all, as these “movement” think tankers
report, the FN, it seems, is these days saying it doesn’t matter if the French
become a minority of the population of France. Doesn’t matter! What
does matter then? Constitutional patriotism? Culture?
Citizenism? “French values?” Haven’t we heard all of this before? Isn’t
sacrificing principles on the altar of “electability” one of the main reasons
that “conservatism” in the USA has become completely useless, why the GOP
betrays White interests over and over and over again? But, the
intellectuals tell us, this mainstreaming allows the reborn nationalists to
influence policy, and to legitimize discussion of important issues. A Le
Pen victory in 2017 would lead to more “free speech” on issues of race and
immigration (has the FN campaigned to overturn France’s speech laws?). There’s
the usual hopeful “movement” assumptions here, the usual “mind-reading” and
assertions that public pronouncements should not be taken at face value, and,
instead, we need to value hypotheses, beliefs, assumptions, hopes, and
fantasies over ice-cold realistic facts. You see! Just wait!
By mainstreaming their message and dumping the old core ideology, the FN will
become electable (By golly, they are even attracting French Jews! How
wonderful!), and they will be elected, and then the “kid gloves” will come off,
and we will at that time deal with the race problem! You just wait!
I do not
believe that mass mobilization, ideological fervor, activist support, memetic
understanding, and political fundamentals – in essence, a party’s or movement’s
entire worldview - can be turned on and off like flipping a switch, or
can be turned around like switching a gear. If the FN spends years
convincing supporters that it is not about race, that French nationalism is
independent of French ethnicity, if they preach the constitutional patriotism
argument that France can remain French without ethnic French being the
majority, then how realistic is it for them to suddenly turn around one day and
say: “Surprise! We were just fooling you! It really is about race, and
now…” I can’t see it; worse, they poison the well for everyone else, they
redirect the righteous anger of the displaced French people to a culturalist
dead end of anti-White “citizenism.” Aracial nationalism - the “pop
culture far-Right” or “far-Right Light” – can serve as a safety valve for
majoritarian discontent, much the same way implicitly White “conservative
Republicans” do in the USA. All the potential power is dissipated,
frittered away, expended into maladaptive directions. And how do we know
what the FN leadership’s true feelings and beliefs are? Do we need to
guess? Maybe they really believe that ethnicity is irrelevant to
“Frenchness.” WNs love to make assumptions that “X” is “really one of us”
(e.g., the current breathless schoolgirl infatuation with Putin), and WNs get
burned every time. I apply Occam’s razor and instead assume that public
pronouncements match private beliefs, until such time I have definitive
evidence otherwise.
Hardline
activists – the support that’s a mile deep but an inch wide – become disillusioned and disenfranchised by mainstreaming, to be replaced by fickle
and ephemeral "support” that’s a mile wide but an inch deep. This latter
support, weaned on a diet of citizenist pap, may vanish overnight if race is
ever re-introduced into the French political equation. And if we decide
to ignore Occam and assume that the citizenist pose of the FN is really a ruse,
the problem then becomes that “popular support” and “electability” may become
ends in themselves; in other words, means become ends and the original ends
vanish. The “apparent” belief system becomes the “real” belief system,
and the endgame is all about attaining and maintaining power, not actually
doing anything constructive while in power. The FN may come to believe
that the ruse is reality and that the trickery should become the new, real,
permanent ideology. Thus, this is similar to the GOP supporters in
America, who talk of “electability” without ever asking “what do we want our
candidate to be elected for?” You see, being elected is the end in
itself, there is no other underlying ultimate objective. That’s the end
result of “mainstreaming.” To what end a FN victory if France becomes
part of Eurabia anyway? Why should we care? Because it “feels good to
win?” “Win” what? And it is strange that people who should know
better believe that “French Jews flocking to the FN” is somehow a good
thing. Why, yes, it may improve mainstreaming electability, but it is
also a danger sign – like the canary in the coal mine – that something has gone
drastically wrong with the FN. On the basic premise that “what’s good for
the Jews is not good for Whites, and vice
versa,” the growing enthusiasm of French Jews for the “new FN” should
really alarm folks who want to see the peoples of Europe saved from the rising
tide of color.
Of
course, mainstreaming has its place within the activist toolkit. As long as the core ideology is
maintained, enhancing electability through mainstreaming of the message can
work, when it is required. The problem is when mainstreaming completely
alters the core ideology, when ethnonationalism becomes replaced by
constitutional patriotism, culturalism, and citizenism. Then the means become
ends and all is lost.
I may of
course be wrong here and the FN mainstreamers may lead European nationalists to
victories and then proceed to enact a preservationist and ethnoracial
nationalist agenda. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But someone needs to
sound a warning alarm about mainstreaming, at least point out the potential
dangers. Why isn’t that happening, re: the FN? Is something deeper
going on here? Just like the omega males of the “movement” become
blushing schoolgirls over “macho man” Eurasianist Putin, I wonder if the beta
males of the “movement” are becoming blushing schoolboys over the “attractive”
and “charming” Marine Le Pen. A similar pathetic display took place in
2008, when Buchanan, Sailer, and other “America First” Paleocons started
gushing over “hot” man-jawed Neocon interventionist “Sister Sarah” Palin.
It is unfortunately a part of superficial human nature – Nietzsche’s “human,
all too human” – to value the messenger over the message. I can’t help believe
that if the current head of the FN was some sort of stuffy, pudgy, frog-eating
Frenchman, that there would be a bit less enthusiasm in the “movement” for the
mainstreaming going on there.
