Non-Radical Revolution and Separation

Last week, I departed from my usual culture-centered article to ask the question, hardly a new one in my circles on the Internet, about what we ethno-conservatives (I’ll use that term this time around) can do, politically, to further our cause. I was honored with several wonderfully thought-provoking essays from Howard Harrison and Mark (I’ll refer to them by first names for convenience although the Heritage American likes formality). Both, if I recognize Mark rightly, are experienced commentators on our National Situation and friends of this blog. I would indeed like to post their responses separately but since that does not seem likely to clarify anything for the reader I’ll simply recommend that you please give the comments a careful reading. There remain in my mind a few principles I’d like to put on the table concerning activism (that horrible word), but that will have to wait for a subsequent entry.

The reality of the spirit of resistance

Although I am regularly discouraged by the unwaning devotion of my liberal relatives and colleagues to their accustomed political beliefs, I hold at core a firm belief that “the spirit – of nation, of freedom, of social restoration –  lives underneath” the dismal surface of our public discourse. There is much intuitive evidence for this. I am occasionally jolted by a very non-liberal outburst from the most politically correct person; and among less educated whites like the gentleman who replaced my water heater recently and reported first-hand what it is like to work in black and immigrant areas of Detroit, there is almost nothing to prevent support for an ethno-conservative position except that no one has ever presented it to them as an option. (The technician confused me by talking about someone named Bomma who wants to take away our guns, and I’m not sure if it was a deprecatory nickname or just his natural pronunciation of our president’s name.)

In the virtual world of the Internet, the ethno-conservative movement is alive and well; new blogs appear constantly, some very good, and a few organizations have come into being as well. One could spend the entire day, every day, just following news and events from that perspective. That perspective is largely unrecognized and entirely misunderstood by the mainstream media, and it still lacks real power; but no one who is acquainted with it can fail to sense its very real – dare I say it, revolutionary – potential.

Because of that I am not impressed by the writer of this article, who though he gives the Tea Party movement fair treatment seems to be engaged in wishful thinking when he considers the possibility that it is falling apart because of internal bickering. This is the shallow liberal view that holds conservatives to be motivated by petty insecurities and petty self-interest and sees them as doomed one day to fade from the scene. I have no idea whether the Tea Party movement itself will endure, but I do know that the spirit behind it comes from the heart of the people of Middle America, who are motivated by a genuine concern for the future of their country and people.

Tea Partiers Turn on Each Other

After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become embroiled in internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money and is at risk of losing its momentum.

The grass-roots activists driving the movement have become increasingly divided on such core questions as whether to focus their efforts on shaping policy debates or elections, work on a local, regional, state or national level or closely align themselves with the Republican Party, POLITICO found in interviews with tea party organizers in Washington and across the country.

Now the disagreements and the sense of frustration they have engendered could diminish the movement’s potential influence in state and national politics.

I think the real division in the “conservative movement” is between those who hold to certain bottom-line conservative values (those once held by 99% of the American population) and those who accept the political triumph of modern liberalism and want “conservatism” to become a more patriotic, business-friendly “brand” of liberalism. The exponents of modern liberalism would like to think conservatism is falling apart, but what is really happening is that it is rediscovering itself.

Non-radical revolution

The question that arose in the comments was whether to work within the existing power structures or whether to abandon this as hopeless and work entirely outside the system to create an alternative society, possibly one physically separated from the rest of the historical country (for us, America). Howard argues persuasively, even inspiringly, for the first option, what he calls a non-radical revolution, while Mark expresses the view, certainly one I have shared, that it may be too late for this and that we need to begin doing groundwork for an entirely separate future society.

I am moved and impressed by Howard’s proposals and ideas. He envisions a long-term Gramscian “march through the institutions” over a period of decades, and thinks, based on a spiritual sense similar to mine, that ethno-conservatism is growing and that liberalism is far weaker than it currently appears. (I would only ask that he continue inform his readers of whatever concrete signs he has discovered of change in our favor. I spend too much time in a very liberal environment and it sometimes is overwhelming.)

How, indeed, can we say this non-radical revolution cannot work when it has not really been tried? We might indeed bewail the fading away of people like Pat Buchanan, and think that if he could not succeed, the younger generation, in so many ways inferior to Buchanan’s in education and understanding, could not possibly do any better. Yet Buchanan worked in a different era, when America may have not been ready for his message, when he himself may not have fully seen where things were going. His successors may find ways to operate within the system in ways we cannot as yet imagine.


At the same time, in one way or another, spiritually, physically, or both, there will have to be some kind of white separation, as Mark points out. From the perspective of our present society this is a radical agenda indeed, and the demographic factors do result in a situation which may not be adequately addressed by the idea of a “non-radical revolution.” I have never, at the individual level, wished for complete and total separation of white Westerners from other races and ethnic groups. But the assault on our society by mass non-white immigration does force us to stand up for our racial group. Questions which one would prefer to keep in the realm of individual choice, like interracial marriage, become fraught with social and political significance, like it or not.

I thus find nothing objectionable about Mark’s statement that “The goal is a nation for my people and my people alone. We can’t share a nation with other people without this same problem eventually arising one way or another, and so every proposed solution short of separation is actually a non-solution.” I might not put it this starkly myself, but I find the truth in what he says undeniable. It is not a matter of “whiteness” being a goal or ideal in itself. Rather, it is a matter of working backwards from the question “what kind of society do I want to live in and my children to inherit?” I see no escape from the conclusion that such a society must be largely white. This is the thought we need to make it acceptable to express – among whites.

Patience, patience….

A personal admission: people who know me would probably describe me as a patient person, since I seem to be steady and deliberate in what I do, but in fact I have probably been hindered in life by my impatience, by the desire for quick results, more than anything else. I was reminded by this by a comment by Howard on my last entry, where he pointed out something indisputably true about the ethno-conservative movement: “It will take us fifteen to thirty years to build power” and “I can afford to take the long view. Can’t you?” Well, I thank him for his reminder to keep a healthy perspective, something always found in his own writing. We ought to counsel patience to ourselves every day. Howard’s estimate may even be on the short side, but he is surely right in setting fifteen years as a minimum. So let’s get to work, for that time will pass like a summer dream. Isn’t that the point? We want to be a part of something that will last a thousand years. And he who works for the future lives in it today.

Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. (Ps. 37)


10 Responses to Non-Radical Revolution and Separation

  1. Dr.D says:

    Stephen, you are indeed most fortunate to have both Howard J. Harrison and Mark commenting on this blog. They have contributed hugely. Wow!

    You picked up Howard’s comment, “I can afford to take the long view. Can’t you?” It is very sound, as Howard’s comments always are, and for all of you I think it definitely does apply. In my case, however, the answer is somewhat different. I am an old man. There is a very good chance that in 15 years I will be gone, and in 30 years it is a virtual certainty. One way to look at that is to say that it will no longer by my problem, but that is not the way I see it. I am very concerned with what I leave behind, because I have part of the memory of what was. When I am gone, it goes with me, except to the extent that I have been able to pass it on. This gives me a strong sense of impatience, a desire to act now.

    On the one hand, I’d like to follow Mark’s call for violent revolution now, but I know that this would not have a happy outcome. (I think my desire grows out of a huge frustration with the people I see in power today and a desire to pull them down, or use them to decorate light poles.) I do agree very strongly with Mark about the idea that we need a nation for our people and only our people. Failing to do this has proved to be our undoing. We thought we could do it, but the degenerates within our own people have turned on us and sided with the others, and we are on the road to oblivion. Old Atlantic talks about this regularly, particularly about the numerical studies he has done with the Wright Island Model.

    We are indeed blessed to have Howard and Mark, and we may hope to hear much more from both of them.

  2. stephenhopewell says:

    Dr.D, all the feelings you describe are familiar to me but of course greatly sharpened by your stronger memories of what was and the diminished amount of time you have left. God willing, you still have a decade or more to make something of!

    Mark’s remark hits all of us as basically true, yet not currently anywhere in reach; the one thing that may give us hope is the sheer power of the idea. Once you have seen it it seems impossible to let go.

  3. Mark says:

    Well, thank you for the encouraging words about my earlier comments. It’s exhiliarating to be discussing these topics with like-minded, serious, mature men of my people – my brothers – like this.

    I would like to make it clear that I’m not calling for violent revolution. I’m not “calling for revolution”, period. For one thing, I believe that is considered sedition and is a federal crime. What I am doing is “thinking outloud”, so to speak, and playing the role of devil’s advocate by putting forth for consideration the argument that there MAY be no way to preserve ourselves as a people through the existing political framework.

    I found myself in agreement with most all of Howard’s points in response to my last comment in the previous post. A question I will pose, however, is how we could, given the demographic realities, accomplish his proposed agenda of halting the immigration of nonwhites and muslims, deporting illegals, and so on. I suspect that it has been established by now in Supreme Court case precendents that any laws passed in pursuit of those goals would be considered unconstitutional, as being violations of the racial or religious discrimination prohibitions that have been read into the Constitution by previous activist Supreme Courts. I believe that in order to have a law that banned the immigration of muslims or that stopped non-white immigration, we would need to amend the Constitution to make it explicitly legal to discriminate on the basis of race and religion.

    There’s a very high bar for passing Constitutional amendments, which probably explains why it’s been so long since one was passed. In a country as divided as ours, I think it is very unlikely that we could get enough members of Congress elected to pass such an amemdment and then get the 3/4 of states necessary to ratify it. I think that opportunity is, in practical terms, gone at this point.

    However, it is still not absolutely beyond the realm of possibility, I suppose. If we had the support of the vast majority of the 65% of the population that is white, and if we had very high voter turnout so that we were an even higher proportion of the voters, perhaps somehow we could get the 2/3 of Congress elected that we’d need to pass such an amendment.

    Or perhaps we could get a like-minded president elected, and enough senators, and perhaps enough Supreme Court vacancies would open up at the right time, that we could appoint enough justices to gain control of the Court and then have them abandon the precendent of the previous cases and rule that racial and religious discrimination is legal.

    The problem is that we do not have anything like the support of that proportion of the white voters and by the time we do, give current demographic trends, we will not be 65% of the population anymore. I agree with Howard that it would be critical to reverse the immigration trends, because solving this problem within our current governmental framework means it’s all about the proportion of the electorate that we can muster to our side. (Or else, the number of votes we can steal or voting officials we can corrupt. But as I said before, this is not the route we want to go. We need to be known for our integrity.)

    I suspect that we are on the cusp of an exponentially fast change in the demographic makeup of the country. I have read that already, in California, there are towns in the southern part of the state that are more or less completely Mexican in makeup and where the local politicians openly buy votes at election time, Mexican-style, by giving out free food to voters and so on. I think that as these hispanics gain increasing political control in the border areas, they will de facto open the borders for the easy influx of their brothers and sisters, regardless of what federal border laws are passed. We’re already seeing stories about hispanic border guards who are caught smuggling illegals into the country. Further, the whole immigration debate right now is about whether to grant an amnesty. It’s not about whether to actually deport illegals. The best we can currently hope for is just not granting them amnesty. And yet they win even if nothing at all is done, because every child an illegal has here is automatically a citizen and future voter.

    So I have to say I just don’t see a realistic path that gets us where we want to go by electing congressmen and trying to get laws passed. But having said that, I think we need to pursue that path at the same time we are exploring other alternatives and planning ahead for various scenarious. It doesn’t need to be either/or.

    I think that what our meta-strategy should be can be expressed very simply: pursue excellence. Reach for a clear vision of a high quality outcome, a beautiful outcome, and take those everyday small excellent steps in that direction. And that is what I would say to Dr. D., who is older and only realistically has a decade or two left of life: maybe the final goal can’t be accomplished in that timeframe, but ultimately that doesn’t matter because what matters now and, I believe, for our eternal souls, is that we reach for excellence and quality and beauty. And that is the reward in itself, here and now, while also being the most effective possible meta-strategy for achieving our long-term goals.

    I say that because I want to do what’s right. I am not in this fight for the cause of white supremacy. I’m in this for the triumph of beauty and excellence and quality, and I believe that is best served by each distinct people on earth having their own nation to live out their particular vision of quality and beauty. I think you have the most peace on earth that way and the most REAL diversity of ways of life and cultures that way.

    So I would say that on an individual level, the excellent strategy is to pursue personal excellence at the same time we are reaching out to like-minded people so that we can form bonds and organizations to magnify that excellence in the way that a group is larger than the sum of its parts. We need to spread the message to our brothers and sisters (literal and figurative), build our skills, our physical health and wealth, and polish our arguments.

    I’ll end on an optimistic note. An old friend was in town this week on a family matter and I had a couple of opportunities to sit down with him for several hours for a visit. The topic of politics and race arose and I had a chance to make my case at some length. I was pleasantly surprised. My friend and his wife are liberals, Obama supporters I would guess. And the first words out of his mouth on the topic of race and demographics were something to the effect of “it’s too late for white people, it is what it is, there’s nothing that can be done about it.” Well, we went on to discuss these issues at length and I mentioned a few key ideas such as that whites have as much right to a racial identity as non-whites do, and as much right to ensure our continued existence.

    Then yesterday I got an email from him: “Really enjoyed the time we had to talk. A lot to think about, but I can see where you are going with it. Don’t think we’ll see big changes in our life time, but every journey starts with one small step.” So he was ready to hear some encouraging arguments. He had heard nothing in his liberal echo chamber but discouraging arguments that whites’ proper role is to quietly lie down and be steamrolled in the name of Diversity, and when someone actually presented the kinds of arguments we’ve been discussing, something in him resonated to that. I think there’s an awful lot of white men out there who feel that way.

  4. Rick Darby says:

    Howard’s estimate may even be on the short side, but he is surely right in setting fifteen years as a minimum. So let’s get to work, for that time will pass like a summer dream. Isn’t that the point?

    Sweet heavens, Stephen, for those of us a fraction more advanced in years than you, 15 years is a long flipping time.

    I want peaceful revolution and I want it now.

  5. Great conversation! I’m older as well, and have no intention of lying down in the path of the bulldozer called diversity. I plan on moving NW when I retire; not soon, unfortunately, but soon enough. I can only pray that there are younger folks working on the numbers issue and producing “excellent” children, and lots of them.


  6. […] I am receiving an embarrassment of wonderful comments. Thank you all, and especially Mark for his latest one. I will be back at this blog after the holiday, aiming for Friday Dec. 4 or so, but maybe with an […]

  7. stephenhopewell says:

    Rick, jeez, here I am trying to talk myself into being more patient, and everyone writes to tell me I can only say that because I’m so young…:-)

    I want peaceful revolution now too.

    But I am over 40 myself. Immature, maybe, but not that young. We really need to reach much younger people if this is to work.

    Mark, I love the anecdote about your friend. I have a couple of friends like that with whom I at least feel safe in trying, though I’ve never gotten quite as positive a reaction. That is a GREAT sign.

    Laurel – glad you are still visiting! Well, young people are hardwired to reproduce, maybe it won’t take that much persuading….:-)

  8. Mark says:

    If you liked that anecdote, I have another.

    I’ve been close to the daughter of a friend of mine since she was a child. A few years ago she graduated from college with political science and international relations majors. She has been steeped in liberalism since she could talk, what with her mother being a left-wing Scandinavian and her teachers in the public grade and high schools and in her college courses being Paul Wellstone-type liberals. Her political science degree was from a quite left-wing university so naturally she has all the left-wing arguments memorized.

    Two things give me hope for her, though. One is that years ago I began taking her to a shooting range to learn to shoot a handgun, and later, an assault rifle. She agreed to go, I guess, because as she put it, it gave her some “redneck cred” among her liberal friends – her version of rebellion, I guess, dabbling in the forbidden world of conservative troglodytes who actually dare to keep and possess firearms. At any rate, she found it exhiliarating and empowering. Her younger sister, also as liberal as they come, took to guns even more naturally than her older sister and has actually gone as far as to help establish a gun club at her very liberal eastern college. (Though the school won’t let them actually keep or shoot guns! They can only discuss them.) She’s still politically quite liberal but I have hope – there’s something intoxicating about a little personal power and when she hears other liberals insisting on banning guns, she is going to think twice about the rest of their arguments, too.

    My second reason for hope was the reaction of the older sister when we had a discussion about race and identity. She was excoriating me for my racist views, and I asked her a question: “You know those remote tribes down in the Amazon? Do you think they have a right to want to remain just who they are, without any mixing-in of diversity or other languages or religions?”

    The question just stopped her in her tracks. She blushed and got that awkward look and smile on her face that we all get when we’re caught flat-footed like that and said “…and so you’re saying that if they have a right to do that, then so do white people…hmm….I’ll have to think about that….” The thought had never occurred to her before. This political science major had never once in four years of discussion of politics ever come across the idea that white Americans have a right to protect their identity as much as any exotic Third-World people that liberals fetishize. And she had no answer to it. I think it planted a seed…it takes time for a person to change their mind about something, but when you can plant a seed like that, I think it grows whether they like it or not because it’s true.

  9. Bartholomew says:

    Hello all. First, I’d just like to thank Mr. Hopewell for a great blog and a fascinating post in particular.

    I’m in grad school right now and while I myself gave up most of my liberal views a few years ago, I know plenty of people my age still clinging to theirs. I’ve noticed, though, that at least some traditional conservative type arguments must be reaching their ears. You notice it by the words they add to the blacklist.

    Mark and ___ mention that the word “indigenous” implicitly challenges Liberals assumptions regarding race. After all, white people have to have come from somewhere too.

    Well, the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Lord Sacks, thought the same thing. He pointed out that the decline of the European family has meant a decline in European fertility, leading to a decline of the “indigeonous” peoples of Europe.

    The Left has always talked glowingly about Third World indigenes, but they were less than impressed when Lord Sacks tried it.

    Suddenly, “indigenous” was a “dangerous word” and it didn’t take long for the Libs over here to start claiming the same. Just the other day, a prof of mine corrected a student for using the word “indigenous” (this time referring to a Third World people group), claiming that it was a “dangerous word” and that we’re all just people anyway.

    • stephenhopewell says:

      Thank you for the kind words, Bartholomew. I hope you are managing all right in grad school. If you’re in the humanities, you are really in the belly of the beast.
      It would not be a bad thing at all for conservatives/traditionalists to go on the offense on linguistic issues, to highlight the falsity and mendacity of so many concepts (like “diversity” or “indigenous peoples”) that do so much harm today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: