To go mainstream or not to go mainstream

There was a bit of a dust-up recently (hat tip) about whether alt-right bloggers should go mainstream in reaction to Chuck’s recent move to the more mainstream, which itself was the consequence of his excellent coverage of the Martin-Zimmerman affair. I’m firmly in the "don’t go mainstream" camp.

I do everything to keep my readership at about the level that it’s currently at. If it gets higher, I stop blogging for a while, or I publish a bunch of posts at one time instead of spreading them out, etc.

As I’ve written elsewhere, with mainstream status comes a politically-correct muzzle. There are simply certain things you can’t say when you become mainstream. I’d prefer to be able to say what I want. I have no desire to get Derbyshired. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Steve Sailer) I trust pseudonymous bloggers more than people that blog under their real name – you’ve got to be a little bit crazy to blog under your real name if you don’t censor yourself.

I always have and still do like Chuck’s website, but he recently engaged in some comments on white nationalism that highlight the concern associated with going mainstream. I happen to agree with Chuck’s points. I believe Chuck really believes his own points as well. I don’t mean to pick on Chuck at all. But, since he’s gone mainstream, I couldn’t help but wonder: If Chuck liked white nationalism, could he say so?


16 Responses to To go mainstream or not to go mainstream

  1. Why go mainstream? It is the arena of our enemies. You will be asked to strip naked, cover yourself with oil, and be set alight for the amusement of the rotting robber-aristocrats. If you attract levellers, repel them. If you are asked to immolate yourself (debate), refuse.

    Do not use leveller methods to achieve noble aims. If that’s all you know, do nothing.

    It is fine to entertain other reactionaries or paleoconservatives, but repel the most boil-ridden levellers with a swift hand. They will eventually get the better of you.

    And if you absolutely must take an active role in changing this world, then find this millenia’s Alexander, and reveal to him his destiny. You might even die happy.

  2. Chuck Rudd says:


    Thanks for the fair treatment. I am sort of turned off by the discussion mainly because I don’t see myself as being any big, important figure in the alt-right sphere.

    But I’ve never been a White Nationalist so it’s impossible for me to say whether I would write about it or own up to it if I were.

    The jump off point for my two posts was this: I came into contact with a ridiculously bigoted extremist nut job who considered me a part of the controlled media, out of hand, mostly because it reaffirmed in his own mind that he was fighting the good fight. And if he was seen as answering my questions, he’d probably be considered a sell-out or whatever. I called this guy “stupid” and annoyed some of my commenters. The struggle has been brewing within me for a while as I believe that because I do cover race issues as well as my coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, that the harder-core mindless racist types felt that they could say whatever they want in my comments section. They can say it – I rarely censor – but I can also push back on their rhetoric. This usually doesn’t happen in the sphere, but I’ve never really shied away from an argument or a contentious debate.

    But as for the mainstream v. non-mainstream discussion: I consider it all a discussion about truths. There are about a million different topics which could be covered truthfully at any given moment. Mainstream work limits the number of truths that can be covered. But I believe that staying outside the mainstream i.e. the alt-right sphere also requires a certain kind of censoring. Did anyone in the alt-right sphere write much about the Tulsa murders last month or the killing of the black guy in Mississippi? No. So we all censored in that regard too.

    But most of the people talking at me about this have other careers or they consider blogging/writing to be a hobby. I’m pretty much consumed by this. We’re at two different points then. I’m truly not extreme enough to appeal to the Occidental/AmRen/WN types, but I’m moderate enough to (possibly) make my way at moderate conservative venues.

    • Foseti says:


      Thanks for not taking the post personally – I had absolutely no intention of offending/criticizing you in any way and I’m glad you didn’t take it that way. Best of luck to you

    • Unamused says:

      “I came into contact with a ridiculously bigoted extremist nut job who considered me a part of the controlled media, out of hand”

      join the club.

      anyway, AmRen ≠ WN/Occidental

      • Christopher says:

        Jared Taylor embraces the term.

        “Our debate between Jared Taylor (white nationalist) and Steve Sailer (citizenist) …”

      • formerly no name says:

        “Embraces” is too strong a word:

        What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.

        What perhaps most succinctly characterizes those whom Mr. Raimondo calls “white nationalists” is the conviction that it was a terrible mistake to abandon national-origins quotas and throw the United States open to immigration from everywhere. As Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina wondered at the time: “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people? What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?” There were no good answers to those questions then and there is none today.

        So anti-Nixon Watergate hero Sam Ervin was a white nationalist?

    • Anonymous says:

      ridiculously bigoted extremist nut job

      He’s already got the mainstream vocabulary down pat.

      • K(yle) says:

        I think he’s talking about Alex Linder who is considered an ‘extremist nut job’ even by some people that openly call themselves racists, or anti-semites.

  3. PA says:

    I’m on record cheering and championing Chuck breaking into journalism. I really think he’s got the right mix of qualities to affect the discourse from within the system. But as they say, when you dance with the devil, you dont change the devil, the devil changes you. I dont mean just on race, where Chuck is a reluctant warrior. I mean things closer to his heart, like anti-feminism.

    But its hard to maintain integrity. May this question haunt you and also guide you Chuck whenever you’re undetermined pressure to sell out: “was Whorefinder right?” Hang that on your wall.

    • Chuck Rudd says:


      You and I have been friends for a while. But you’re suggesting that I lack integrity. If you’re going to say it, I’d ask that you back up the claim.

      • PA says:

        I never said that. I said that you will be under a set of pressures that’ll test your integrity.

    • Erik says:

      Over here they say: Man wishes to dance a lively dance with the Devil, but the Devil wishes to dance a deadly dance with Man.

  4. james wilson says:

    It is true that pitifully few people will not be sorely affected by hostage syndrome through working in the MSM. But I can think of one exception offhand. Joe Sobran. He actually went the other way.

  5. ThomasT says:

    There is also a third approach:
    Go mainstream, keep writing as if you were not, get noticed after a while, get Derbyshired, go back to secluded blogging but with a now much larger audience due to your former mainstream exposure.

    Myself, I very much believe in Nock’s “remnant” and I neither care nor think it’s possible to change the mainstream. But if you think you can do it and have the stomach to deal with your personal “one week of hate”, the third approach might work for you.

  6. Phlebas says:

    The first contrarian internet writer that I remember latching onto was Mark Steyn, the author of “America Alone” which as I recall is a book about the threat posed by Muslims demographically overwhelming Western civilization. Eventually, one feels able to more or less think freely about political subjects without any Pavlovian inhibitions; perhaps fringe mainstreamers like Steyn are useful in gently loosening the constrictions of self-censorship, before the heavy-duty cutting implements can be applied.

    On the other hand, it seems to me that some fringe mainstreamers fulfil the negative function of acting as court contrarians or safety valves for resentment of the establishment. I’m not sure I can distinguish between the two, or if there even is a clear difference. So I’m ambivalent about these people.

  7. I think the desire to go mainstream is based on this idea that if you affect more people, you will have greater impact.

    This is true, but only if you intend to steer a mob.

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: