Conservative Ritual Sacrifice
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 11, 2012
The more conservatives grow to depend on the white vote, the less they are allowed to talk about it. Leif Parsell is a young activist formerly employed at the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a think tank that tried to push the Maine legislature in a conservative direction. He holds fairly conventional opinions for a conservative activist and made the mistake of discussing them online. Lefties created an anonymous attack blog selectively to quote him, and within hours, he was fired from his job as a news reporter for the center. Not only did the Maine Heritage Policy Center fail to defend him, it actually thanked the bloggers who attacked him.
What did Mr. Parsell actually say? First, and most damningly, he denied that diversity is automatically a benefit. He hedged his position with conservative rhetoric about “race and ethnicity” not having to matter, adding that “there doesn’t have to be a difference between the American experience of Italians or say, Costa Ricans.” Perhaps naively, he linked to a Jared Taylor video produced by the National Policy Institute, and this was enough to permanently cast him as a “white supremacist.” Mr. Parsell also made points about the “ethnic decline” of Western populations that would not be out of place in the works of the late Samuel Huntington, Pat Buchanan, or for that matter, the works of Mark Steyn that were sent free to every new subscriber of National Review.
Secondly, he defended Augusto Pinochet, saying “At least Pinochet’s actions were justified by the defense of the rule of law, common decency, and the promotion of free societies.” This is a classic case of conservatives disowning their own past. Rather than a full fledged endorsement, Mr. Parsell argued that Pinochet’s right authoritarianism was necessary to defend Chile from Communism. This is the case conservatives made at the time. Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in Latin America, but it is a hallmark of conservatism to apologize for and denounce the policies that made it that way.
Finally, Leif Parsell apparently once bought clothing from a German retailer named Thor Steinar. Thor Steinar has several locations in Germany and does not sell anything “racist.” That would be difficult, since it is owned by Arabs and Germany has some of the stiffest anti-free-speech laws in the world. Nonetheless, anti-white extremists have decided that Thor Steiner is “linked” to racism, and therefore even buying one of its shirts is proof of evil. It should be noted that the only reason we know who bought shirts is because the supposed “anti-system” hackers that call themselves Anonymous broke into the websites of several “far right groups” in Germany, and splashed private data onto the Internet — including the names of people who bought Thor Steinar clothing. Journalists that would shrink from revealing the name (or race) of accused criminals rejoice in using illegally obtained data to smear a young activist.
The conservative group predictably collapsed at this news, fired Mr. Parsell, and began prostrating itself for ritual humiliation. Most sickeningly, it thanked the people who are dedicated to destroying it. The “progressives” who took Mr. Parsell’s scalp are of course completely conscious of their racial agenda, and understand that the supposed free market paradise the Maine Heritage Policy Center wants to create is completely counter to their goal of racial egalitarianism. Fortunately, Mr. Parsell has not backed down. He defends his remarks, pointing out the obvious: Maine conservatives should not apologize for declining to support the destruction of their majority-white state.
Conservatism is growing ever more implicitly white yet it furiously scourges itself for not attracting more non-whites. It clings to a “colorblind” rhetoric of individualism and free markets but refuses to see that they depend on a majority-white population. Because conservatism cannot recognize the extent to which its favored policies are rooted in the thinking of whites, it dares not openly oppose demographic changes that will make those policies impossible to achieve. Thus, it fails even in its own limited objectives of reducing spending, restricting the growth of government, or preserving a modicum of constitutional government. The hard Left knows better. It understands that the American conservative movement is utterly dependent on the European-American majority that created the country.
Until conservatives see at least as clearly as their opponents they are doomed to failure and oblivion.