Mainstreaming speech, not ideals.
I’ve been critical of Trump, but I’ll give him credit for not wanting to “pivot” for the general election (at least so far), not behaving like a mainstream politician by disavowing all his previous positions.
There are some who think that is an error; others will say I’m hypocritical because I’ve also criticized Trump for his continued buffoonery.
But there’s a difference – a big difference – between what you say and how you say it. This is something that Der Movement in general, and the mainstreamers in particular, fail to understand. It is not a choice between foaming-at-the-mouth radical speech on the one hand and mainstreaming of your ideals on the other. Instead, you absolutely keep all your original ideals, as radical as they are, and express those ideals in language that makes them appear more reasonable to your target audience (*).
I have previously discussed how Trump could have addressed that obnoxious NEC waving a copy of the Constitution around at the DNC, an approach that could have coupled a strong anti-immigration message with the appearance of rational Presidential behavior.
For another example, consider Salter’s masterpiece, On Genetic Interests. In that book, Salter argues for a race- and ethnic-based nationalism, and against mainstreaming civic nationalism, and does so in the context of reasonable universalist themes (“Universal Nationalism”). That can be favorably compared to Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, in which, ultimately, Whites exterminate all other races. In both cases, an advocacy of biological/genetic-based nationalism is made, which is considered radical by the System’s standards. But what a difference in tone and style! No one can reasonably accuse Universal Nationalism of being mainstreaming, as it would result in racial nationalism and ethnostates, yet it is a completely different species of argument from Piercian wild screeds. Hopefully, the point is made.
*Oh yes, I’m a “hypocrite” for the intemperate language at this blog – despite repeated comments on how such language has been an intentional parody of Der Movement and of certain activists beloved of the same critics who term my parody writing as “insane” (who’s really the hypocrite here?). Nevertheless, since retarded trolls are too dim to understand this, I’ll try and keep tongue out of cheek and refrain from open mocking of “movement” language (although some of it will still appear for the sake of comic relief).