''Moderation in all things, including moderation.''
I had been pondering a post on the subject of whether our side needs to be (or simply appear) more 'moderate' so as not to offend the respectable folk, though this subject has been discussed a number of times here. It's a running discussion, really. However what prompted me to think about another post about it was the fact that I've noticed a trend. I've noticed lately that on a number of 'race realist' or nationalist blogs and forums, there have been calls for more a 'moderate' approach as the key to success.
I think all of you who have read this blog more than once know where I stand; I think the 'Big Tent' approach has been and will be a disaster for the hopelessly-lost Republican Party, and it would be no different for nationalists.
Once you try to unite too many disparate groups of people and avoid offending those who come in with a separate and 'special' agenda, you end up standing for nothing, and being neutralized. Once you accept the idea that this group or that group must be courted by accommodating to them or flattering them into joining you, you are committed to the never-ending task of trying to keep the 'special' ones happy. They in turn will be acting like prima donnas, demanding that you tend to their needs and wants, lest they bolt, and desert you. People who truly have a victimhood mentality and a sense of grievance toward the majority will be high-maintenance and probably divisive within the ranks, as some people get fed up with their need for coddling.
As far as courting our own people who have been heavily indoctrinated and who still cling to their politically correct conditioning, they will be of little help as they will constantly raise the usual hue-and-cry, or get the vapors, when somebody says something they perceive as 'racist', 'xenophobic' or 'anti-Semitic.'
I think such people will have to show they have come a certain distance toward being de-programmed or rejecting political correctness before they could conceivably be on our side. Those who are ambivalent, or who vacillate between being irately non-PC and returning to their sentimental and sympathetic mode towards the 'victims' are not likely defectors to our cause. I know people of this type, and it's baffling and maddening to have someone agree with you on something like mass immigration, and a moment later be fawning over the poor immigrants. Some women in particular are prone to this, in my experience. Years of habit don't disappear overnight for most people.
Another thing: it's one thing to get someone to agree intellectually that we cannot take infinite numbers of immigrants, or to agree that people are not ''all the same'', but another to strongly care about it. Many people agree vaguely that our impending minority status is not a good thing, and many more will complain about the stupidity of Political Correctness, but do they care deeply about these things? Many people don't care very much, when put to it. They will agree and go on as before, complicit in what is happening to this country, because they want life to go on undisturbed. They don't care enough to become involved, to do anything that involves commitment, or an investment of their time, or anything that might carry social costs.
Acknowledging certain facts or agreeing that certain unpopular opinions are true, does not mean that people care.
Even feeling a healthy indignation and anger at those who are displacing us is not enough. That in itself might manifest only as bitter cynicism and resignation, followed by detachment: ''America deserves to go under; most Americans are stupid and our country is beyond repair, so who cares?" I hear this kind of thing a lot on paleo discussion boards.
This kind of attitude will help ensure our demise, and I suppose the cynics will enjoy having their dark, dour prophecies come true: ''See? Told you so. I knew it was hopeless.'' Being able to say ''I told you so'' will be pretty cold comfort, I should think.
The missing ingredient is love for one's own. We can sit and intellectualize about what is happening and we might curse it and denounce those responsible for it (including and especially 'our own'; that's easy for some) but we are not motivated to do anything, especially anything hard, to change things if we are not motivated by love for our kin and folk, or even love for those who went before and all they did for us, and love for our yet-unborn posterity.
I'm convinced that only 'honoring our fathers' plus brotherly love, along with love for the past and concern for the future, can give us the strength and the commitment to go on in the face of long odds. And love for the truth, too, is at stake. How many people these days love the truth?
There are many who will be missing when the hard times come, because they do not care enough, because they have written their own people off, and count them as lost, not worth saving.
Sure, there are no-account people among us. More, unfortunately, than in the past. But despite the bad apples, I still see enough good in 'old Americans' to make them worth defending. It's not necessary to lie to oneself or to blind oneself and deny that our country has gone downhill, and that many of our people are lost. It's simply necessary to look for the good that is still there, and to focus on that good wherever we find it.
I realize that some on the hard right see me as a 'patriotard' or some other derogatory word because I cling to a love for our people and our past, but no matter. I love the America that is our people; this is not the same as 'patriotism' as it's commonly understood, or reverence for the state.
But to return to the original question of ''moderation'' as a tool for winning over more warm bodies, or earning our place among the self-designated respectables, I've said, and I'll reiterate, that it's not about getting 'the majority' on our side. A majority has seldom, if ever, been behind the momentous changes in history. That can be good or it can be bad; look at how much damage is being done by a relatively small group of leftist ideologues. Look at how these same ideologues have changed our country so much in the last half-century. They were never anywhere near the majority, yet they dominated because the majority was distracted or asleep.
The future of America will not depend on 'the majority', who will never get it. The majority are in most generations people who can't see past the ends of their noses. If we waste time trying to win over the obtuse majority, we will lose valuable time, and time is not on our side. The best we can hope for is that the majority will sit things out as they usually do, and that momentum will shift at some point.
Trying to create an inoffensive, 'respectable' pro-White movement will simply mean a nationalist version of the Republican Party, if we care to imagine such a thing.
And once we've allied with people whose interests do not mesh with our own, what then? At what point do we dissolve the alliance -- or are we then committed to a PC, multiculturalist 'pro-White' movement? What good would that be?
And those who are fomenting this idea all over the internet, this call to 'tone down' the honesty and the righteous anger, who is behind what appears to be a co-ordinated effort in this direction? It's been happening too often lately on a number of blogs and forums to be just accidental.
Numbers aren't everything. Quality, not quantity, is what counts, in this as in everything.