Jared Taylor joins Richard to discuss the upcoming American Renaissance Conference, as well as his 25-year experience in thought criminality.

You can register for the 2012 AmRen Conference here. 

Novelist, commentator, and AtlRight co-editor Alex Kurtagic joins Richard to discuss his recent speech at NPI's fall conference in Washington, DC, "Masters of the Universe." 

Video of Alex's full speech can be downloaded at NPItv.com. 

When a chubby man in a Phoenix diner offered to buy me dinner, I had no idea of who he was or of the consequences of chatting with him for another hour. The internet rumours, the blogs, the newspaper articles, the phone calls at all hours of the day and night, the death threats, the mace, and more . . . none of it was on my radar screen. I had been driving all day and I was starving. Club sandwich, please, and hold the tomato.

I assumed him to be a customer of the diner who was simply curious about what was going on, especially as the antifa protesting outside had drawn everybody’s attention. It's not unusual to encounter curious bystanders while on a book tour. The result of that conversation was not one, but three, sleazy articles about me.

The man was a journalist, though he did not disclose it to me until afterwards, when someone confronted him. As it turned out, he had come at the invitation of the antifa.

Call me naïve (which I certainly was), but I tend to take people at face value. There is something about two-faced people that doesn’t compute with me. How could this person be so nice to my face and then turn around and write nasty articles about me? Did I really deserve that? I had been kind to him and remained courteous even after his admission to having engaged me under false pretenses. I couldn’t understand where the rabid hatred had come from.

Yes, David Irving is controversial and I was aware of that (though when I first got involved with him, my awareness of that was marginal), but until this point, his enemies had left me out of the fight. Some people might say I should have expected that not to last, but I was new to it and no one ever warned me of what I might be getting myself into. I don’t think I could have been reasonably expected to anticipate it given my limited knowledge of such matters at the time. And because I would never stoop to such tactics, the thought that someone else might do it, and do it to get to me somehow, never crossed my mind.

Eventually, I learned that almost all journalists are like this. Oh, a few I’ve talked to have been okay, but at the end of the day, most of them are subject to their editor’s demands. The story that gets printed is never the story you gave them in the interview. A sensationalised story sells better than a balanced story, after all. After David Irving’s emails were hacked, the UK’s Daily Mail ran a story on me (complete with my copyrighted pictures, which they had stolen and used without permission) based on snippets of these emails, which they twisted in order to create a story where there was none. Not once had they attempted to contact either of us for clarification prior to going to press. It’s just another example of how the media makes the news, but rarely reports the news.

It is thanks to journalists that the antifa came to know of me. They targeted me initially because of my association with David Irving. Because they had decided that they don’t like David Irving, they declared me guilty by association, playing judge, jury, and executioner. That I look “sufficiently Aryan”, as one newspaper described me (was it supposed to be an insult?), is apparently further evidence of my guilt. Were I a dark-complected Latina, like David’s previous assistant, I doubt they would had paid nearly so much attention to me. But my genes dictated that I be born with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Mea culpa.

As anyone else who has been the target of Left-wing hatred knows, it is more of an annoyance than anything. I am not easily offended. Posting on the internet that I should be raped and murdered does not make me cry myself to sleep at night. Leaving me voicemails saying that I am a “racist whore” does not drive me to overdose on Prozac. I roll my eyes and I move on. You see, I’m a busy person. Unlike antifa who are usually unemployed and unemployable, I don’t have time to sit around being offended. And I don’t have time to be offended on behalf of anyone else. The antifa, on the other hand, seem to spend their entire day feeling offended by the existence of people who think differently than they do, but who otherwise don’t bother them. I cannot imagine a greater waste of life, nor can I understand what motivates them to exist in a state of perpetual outrage.

The antifa don’t understand the real effect of their efforts to “name and shame” me. Sure, I got a few prank phone calls and I lost some friends, but that’s trivial stuff. What they have given me is a wider platform and greater networking opportunities.

By publishing my telephone numbers, the antifa caused me to receive numerous calls from fellow pro-white advocates who were concerned for my safety and well-being. I made several new local contacts and I expanded my network of friendly faces across the country. The phone calls I got from concerned strangers far outnumbered the ones I got from people who wanted to tell me they hate my guts even though they don’t know me.

By publishing my email address, the antifa also facilitated the involvement of several people new to the movement who write to me asking how they can get involved. Most of the time, I can direct them to someone in their area who runs an active group.

Additionally, by outing me, the antifa have made it easier for me to be active in the pro-white movement. I don’t have to worry about anyone finding out about me. This means I can take on a greater role in organisational and street activism. I can start an openly pro-white business. I can write articles and sign them with my real name. I can more easily network because people can Google me and know that I am genuine in what I do.

Had I not been outed, I would have continued my quiet existence and avoided any real involvement for fear of being discovered. I neither regret nor relish having been exposed. It is what it is and I can’t undo it. Yes, there are some things that are better accomplished by people who remain in the shadows, but there are also things better accomplished by people who have gone public. We need both kinds.

So this is my advice to anyone who finds themselves targeted by the enemy: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Look for a way to turn the inconvenience into an opportunity to help the movement. Do not be intimidated.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

This quotation, widely attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, probably has much more pedestrian origins. Nevertheless, it and similar quotes conveying a chronological evolution of the reaction of one’s opponents came to mind when reflecting on the suppression of the last two American Renaissance conventions. These suppressions of freedom to meet and assemble were orchestrated by what are likely a pitifully small handful of pasty, self-hating, White, neo-hippy morons and their ironically ethno-nationalist friends of color. However, reflecting on the history of peaceful and uneventful conferences that had preceded these two, one wonders if this transition from ignorance and derision on the part of the instruments of the Establishment to a position of ambivalence or tacit approval of means of suppression is wholly accidental.

I myself doubt this and I would take the aborted attempt to associate American Renaissance with the deranged Jared Loughner as well as the perversely innovative Deratany lawsuit as examples of a diffuse but intelligible trend towards silencing undesired voices in the West’s political and ideological spectra. Thus, the disruption of the American Renaissance conferences; as well as other disruptive/suppressive events, including antifa chest-thumping about their amazing bravado and derring-do in the face of an elderly, bookish Englishman and a comely lady are examples of an escalation that seems to have tragic, historical parallels.

There are a few things that are notable here:

Yesterday, I shook off the hangover from the open bar at the Election Night party and read about our historic victory.  The conservative movement has heroically stopped Obama’s diabolical scheme to make America socialist, with John Boehner as our weepy Leonidas. Conservatism is flush with victory and all throughout the land, ambitious College Republicans, my fellow think-tankers, and unemployed scribblers are dreaming of staff jobs, committee assignments, and midnight tangos with the supple interns of Capitol Hill. The “beautiful losers” made excited references to 1994, seemingly blind to the reality that the “Republican Revolution” did nothing to stop the growth of government or reverse cultural decline and President Clinton cruised to victory two years later.  Nonetheless, young conservatives are cute when they are happy, and I tried to hold my tongue as wild proclamations were made around the office about the imminent end of Big Government.  

It was satisfying to see the Democrats go down to defeat, in the same way it was satisfying to watch Jon Stewart’s pained expression while reporting on President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Evil, or rather, the Evil Party, was justly punished. At the same time, let us be under no illusions about the Stupid Party.

It gives me no joy to say this, not even the contrarian Schadenfreude expressed by denizens of the Alternative Right when the conservative movement, yet again, fails to move. Despite years of disappointment and the cynicism that can only come from working in DC, there was something that suggested this year would be different. The Tea Party is not Astroturf -- it is remarkably decentralized, grassroots, and leaderless, and though corporate front groups like FreedomWorks claim to speak for it, the Tea Party’s feelings on immigration and Islam suggest that there is something more here than Republican strategists slapping a new label on a program of tax cuts for millionaires. With Tom Tancredo mounting a spirited third-party run, Sharron Angle actually speaking up in defense of actual Americans, and institutions like the New York Conservative Party openly defending White advocate Jim Russell, this actually seemed like more than politics as usual. 

As part of the process of developing what might be called a “revolutionary Right” for North America, I have endorsed both anarchism and secession. Yet anarchism is merely a theory of the state (or against the state) and secession is simply a tactic. Anarchist theory per se has little to say about what kinds of communities might exist independently of an overarching state, and no one is going to endorse secession for its own sake without some wider end in sight. I suggested in a recent interview with Dr. Tomislav Sunic that anarchism, secession, and white nationalism have something of natural triangular relationship with each other. While I do, indeed, believe this to be the case, the question remains as to whether white nationalism is an adequate intellectual or strategic paradigm for the growing alternative right. I would maintain that it is not.

This is not to say that white nationalists do not raise many perfectly reasonable and legitimate issues. Such issues include affirmative action and other forms of “reverse discrimination,” mass immigration and immigration abuse, the high rates of violent crime in minority communities, the formal or informal forms of censorship associated with “political correctness,” state interference with associational liberties, anti-white bias in hate crimes reporting, the desire for cultural self-preservation, the double standards involved with the label of “racist,” the extra-legal actions by left-wing vigilantes against those with views on race that defy liberal orthodoxy, the suppression of scientific inquiry in the name of egalitarian ideology, the influence of foreign lobbies on U.S. foreign policy, and a good number of other things. Nor should we be interested in taking seriously the liberal dogma that any sort of expression of political and racial self-interest, or ethnic pride and celebration, by whites constitutes “hate” or “racism.” One can love one’s wife or mother without hating all other women. One can have a preference for one’s own family without feuding with other families. One can favor one’s own children without abusing or mistreating other children. So the issue is not whether white nationalism violates this or that liberal taboo, but whether white nationalism “alone and unaided” is the most effective way of addressing matters such as the aforementioned.

The first order of business is the identification of the enemy, and the enemy is clearly those who are currently in control of the institutions that rule us: the state, the corporate plutocracy, the banking cartel, the mass media, academia, the legal system, and others whom our fearless editor has with great perspicacity dubbed the “sociopathocracy.” Nowadays, even an ostensibly “conservative” institution such as the military has succumbed to political correctness. White nationalists and those who share their concerns are certainly under attack by these institutions, but so are plenty of other people. Consequently, a resistance movement that defines itself exclusively, or even primarily, under the banner of race will be unnecessarily self-limiting. Far better to incorporate the issues raised by white nationalists, immigration restrictionists, and others with related concerns into a wider paradigm that packages together the issues raised by parallel movements and overlapping interests who are under attack by the same institutional authorities. There is a nearly inexhaustible list of such tendencies, including advocates for fathers’ rights, men’s rights, family sovereignty, religious liberty, the right to bear arms and act in self-defense, anti-tax, pro-life, national sovereignty, property rights, cultural preservation, quality and freedom in education, local autonomy, and many other things. Additionally, there is the growing list of economic issues generated by the ongoing dispossession and eradication of the traditional middle class courtesy of our plutocratic overlords.

The label of “white nationalism” brings with it a good deal of baggage that is not easily discarded. What do most people think of when they hear the term “white nationalism”? Do they think of Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and Steve Sailer or do they think of the KKK, David Duke, Tom Metzger, uniform fetishists, the Aryan Nations, and The Turner Diaries? If we must choose a label, would not something along the lines of “conservative revolution” be more appropriate? Such self-identification puts us squarely in the tradition of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Junger, Schmitt, Spengler, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Evola, De Benoist, and Faye. Such a label allows us to group together a wide assortment of issues and movements under a common banner and against a common enemy. Beyond that, we need to consider the not insignificant number of minority, mixed race, or persons from mixed families that share many of our ideological and cultural concerns, or at least sympathize with many of our issues. Is it wise to push away an Elizabeth Wright, Paul Gottfried, Norman Finkelstein, David Yeagley, Carol Swain, Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Jesse Lee Peterson, Israel Shamir, or Mayer Schiller?

“Conservative Revolution” is conceptually broad enough to accommodate an array of anti-liberal forces within a framework of respect for natural hierarchies and particular attachments to family, community, religion, tribe, ethnicity, and other primary reference groups, and in a way that is compatible with traditional conservative and libertarian skepticism of “big government” and overly centralized power. On a horizontal level, it can accommodate tendencies ranging from fervent white nationalists to religious conservatives who are indifferent to race issues per se but oppose Cultural Marxist attacks on their faith and traditions to Jews and African-Americans who oppose mass immigration from the Third World. On a vertical level, it can include scholars of Machiavelli, Burke, and Nietzsche on the high end and conspiracy-mongers or Alex Jones fans on the low end. Such a framework also opens the door to wider acceptance by a threatened middle class that is rapidly sinking into the ranks of the lower proletariat and lumpen sectors. It is those sectors that will ultimately feed the numerical ranks of our movement, and in politics there is no victory without numbers.

Recently Keith Preston, one of my favorite contributors to AltRight, wrote an article entitled "Why We Will Win." Keith makes the compelling case that, though it may not appear to be so, both liberalism and Communism have utterly failed in their world-changing agenda and the unstable hybrid it created will collapse due to its own contradictions. As a former member of those circles myself, I don't see any weakness in his argument, though it's perhaps overly optimistic to think that the Left will disintegrate anytime soon.

Keith's timing was fortuitous, as I have been brooding over "Why We Will Lose," due to various events I have observed.

This article will be different from my others. No one likes harping on the negative, and I'm no exception.  So, don't go shooting the messenger -- these "8 Reasons" are being discussed to get these issues out in the open so that we can reverse these trends. (To keep things brief, I'm going to avoid discussing deeper psychological explanations as to why these eight things might happen.)

Perhaps surprising to some, none of the issues I raise have anything to do with money. Although we certainly have a financial shortfall that is a symptom of a deeper problem, money is not the real issue. Similarly, none of my complaints have to do with the painstaking task of getting new recruits; that's important, of course, but not directly involved with why we will lose. (Many movements that attract thousands of dedicated followers will, despite this fact, lose.) This article addresses the human material already present in "Alternative Right communities," as they are.  I'm also not going to mention keyboard warriors for the same reason -- they're a symptom of a larger problem.

8. Demographics -- We simply don't have the length of time required for a political movement to galvanize across all fronts.  The cultural organism is in its twilight years and there is little evidence to suggest that things will turn around anytime soon. Cities and regions long considered epicenters of Western civilization -- especially in Europe -- appear to be nearly irretrievably lost.  Many of the people that share our values are not bucking the cultural trend by having families, and it looks like the recent experience the Serbians went through over Kosovo is what we are witnessing across a civilization.

7. Lack of Experienced Activists -- We have a few visible leaders within our movement.  Leaders are important, not so much as "Great Hopes" but as brand names people can identify with. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.  But we need the middle people: the organizers, planners, networkers, and facilitators that make events happen. There is a learning curve on how to do this, and its no surprise people don't know how to take their involvement to the next level.

6. Kryptonite to Women -- Okay, maybe what we're doing isn't kryptonite to all women, but many women won't associate with our ideas. Why is this important?  Because it leaves half our people out of the struggle. The women that do stick around have to deal with a constant litany of abuse and frequent courtship invitations from unwanted suitors.  Beyond the often-restated tropes about crime against woman, nothing says "you are not important to us" than sexualizing women in the movement. Don't tell me that's not an issue.  I've seen it happen in all kinds of radical circles, and ours is the worst for it. With our woman folk that contribute to the cause, be encouraging and helpful and not discouraging and unhelpful.  We need women's help, now more than ever.

5. Ageism -- I know most of you weren't expecting that one, so after you finish laughing, hear me out. There are major cultural differences between the younger generation of activists and those over 40. These conflicts between age groups cause frustration and distrust. Older activsts don't like having "kids" showing up and possibly suggesting new ways of doing things.  The young kids don't like the old people, who, they view, do nothing but complain.  The ideal interaction should be based on older members sharing their experiences and lessons from the past and mentoring the youth to grow and learn how to be decent, outstanding adults in our community.  With few exceptions, I don't see that happening.  Instead we see clashes and unspoken animosity.  What does a 40-year-old intellectual have to offer a 19-year-old upstart? They would appear to be polar opposites, right?  But actually they have quite a lot to talk about.

4. People that show up -- We all know who the "reliables" are.  They're there at almost every meeting, every social event, every pub crawl. But that's all they do. They don't write about their views. They don't bring friends to meetings.  They might say they are going to do something, but it doesn't happen. But otherwise they are the most reliable comrades one could hope to have.  This may be a trait of a "typical person in a political movement," but our problem is that we don't have sufficient numbers of typical people. Thus, everyone needs to pull their weight to make the movement grow, or we will lose.

3. Our opposition knows how to appear attractive -- From media, film, graphics, writing, no one can blame our opposition for not trying to make the best propaganda they can.  Our side can't really say that. Our side prefers vitriol to humor and sarcasm to analysis.  As Alex Kurtagic recently wrote, "pro-White campaigners [need] to provide their target audience with better incentives than the apocalyptic warnings about economic collapse, race wars, and extinction." Pessimism is infectious --  but so is optimism.

2. Infighting -- Someone doesn't like an off-color joke someone made and decides that's going to be the reason to make them a sworn enemy of truth, justice, and the American way. Another person doesn't like how a person sends text messages. Another person is convinced that all we need is the Constitution and anything contrary to that idea is a Communist conspiracy.  It's a fundamental goal of our opposition for our side to break the links between us, create fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and pursue faulty lines of reasoning. This effectively fractures our efforts.  By and large our side does not need enemies -- we are our own best enemies and we defeat ourselves every time!  The enemy doesn't need to fight; they just have to scoff.

1. No one shows up -- Of all the reasons, this is the most serious.  Millions of people support a given idea and none show up to express it. Thus no critical mass is built. Politicians go with what appears to majority opinion -- or the most passionate, active minority. (The Tea Parties have used this to their advantage.) The regulars will show up and think they are all alone. The ability to win a conflict is dependent on a movement converging at the critical moment of a systempunkt and having its agenda carried through. Showing up usually means a small investment in time and energy.  It can be as simple as showing up at a meeting about illegal immigration or coming at a speaker's events.  Or it can mean making it to a meeting that your friends are hosting (because you have friends that live near you in the movement, right?).

This is my Top 8 reasons why we will lose.  It is up to you to make sure this doesn't happen.