[Bret L]

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

Dec 2nd, 2009 by Hunter Wallace

A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed.

"Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, “vanguardist” wing of the movement and the newer, “mainstreamer” wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.

Origins and Beliefs

The lineage of the “vanguardists” can be traced back to a number of
twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are
William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith’s Christian
Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party,
William Pierce’s National Alliance, Glenn Miller’s White Patriot
Party, Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen’s World Church of
the Creator and Cliff Herrington’s National Socialist Movement. Let’s
be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of
them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist
organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.

The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a
willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric
rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the
Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic
politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of
incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of
Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a
focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as
they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the
aftermath of their long anticipated “collapse” of the federal
government.

In a certain sense, the “mainstreamers” have always existed. America
was explicitly founded as a “white man’s country.” Racialists
dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners,
these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen,
doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who
found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and
the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally
gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed
to the margins after America’s WASP ruling class was overthrown by
monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.

The split between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” can be traced
back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted
to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the
incipient “mainstreamers,” created the White Citizens’ Council. They
litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty
commissions, hoisted the banner of states’ rights, invoked
interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to
comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated
public schools, created private academies, and voted for George
Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered
“massive resistance” to integration.

In the final days of Jim Crow, the “mainstreamers” kept the
“vanguardists” at arm’s length. They generally wanted nothing to do
with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance
of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were
not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and
lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in
America’s role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually
fought in Europe. These people were FDR’s voters and the base of the
Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal,
decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong
belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.

Unlike the “vanguardists,” the “mainstreamers” are defined by their
belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of
White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an
electoral path to victory. The “mainstreamers” reject violence,
strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the
Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass
membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social
collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical
strategy.

Since the late 1980’s, the “mainstreamer” wing has enjoyed a
resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind,
Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist
Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition
from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes,
moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in
Louisiana. The White Citizens’ Council evolved into the Council of
Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer,
launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There
are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the “mainstreamer”
point of view.

In the 1990’s and 2000’s, largely due to the spread of the internet
and the death of “vanguardist” leaders, the “mainstreamers” wrestled
back control of the pro-White movement from the “vanguardists,” who
had dominated the scene in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The typical White
Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional
unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-
violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them
have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively
in cyberspace.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I

Ever since the resurgence of the “mainstreamers,” a destructive myth
has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the
“vanguardists” are responsible for the marginalization of racialists.
If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the
Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory
goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found
advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White
Nationalist movement.

This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The
“mainstreamers” once dominated the entire American nation, but they
progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in
the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on
for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the
crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the
emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.

The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-
racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition
of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New
Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its
anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the
state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the
1830’s. In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” the remaining anti-
miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were
repealed in the wake of the Civil War.

The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several
Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was
pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often
synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial
attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the
anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in
the late nineteenth century.

The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact
that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were
still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration
represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim
Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World
War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their
anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.

In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War.
White liberals like Claude “Red” Pepper and Franklin Graham were
thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly
resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by
force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress
to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation
revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in
the socially conservative Black Belt counties.

In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled
parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated
segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal
system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White
racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had
collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-
miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v.
Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the
South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put,
the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and
print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto,
the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always
gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist
editors.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II

At this critical junture, the “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophe
from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the
“vanguardists.” The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites
responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in
conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the
way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial
arguments against “big government.” Instead of fighting the racial
battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They
would engage in “practical politics,” strategically retreat, and
extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the
Democratic Party.

The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964
presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep
South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was
defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the
Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated
McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries.
In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a
Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who
had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale
in 1986.

In the 1990’s, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into
its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast
became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South
became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two
parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous “Red State” vs.
“Blue State” divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact
that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became
conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans,
focused on “practical politics,” and became steadily deracialized over
the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at
today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.

Vanguardists Triumphant

The “vanguardists” who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in
the late 1960’s, 1970’s, and early 1980’s didn’t win through superior
arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default.
The “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and
most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics.
The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the
pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.

In the late 1980’s, the “mainstreamers” began to stir again, but found
themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when
the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States.
They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The
fringe group image stuck and lots of “mainstreamers” began to draw the
erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament …
which brings us to where we are today.

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."

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...mainstreamers/
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=6923#comments