The Mainstream: A History

I don’t care about being “mainstream.”

This is largely due to my historicism. There was no such thing as the “mainstream” in America until the 1960s. We didn’t think of ourselves as a “Nation of Immigrants” until the 1960s. We didn’t care about accusations of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia or Islamophobia. We didn’t care about accusations of “white privilege” either.

All the various -isms and -phobias which are secular sins against the “mainstream” were created and popularized by the media in the 20th century. In fact, most of them don’t go back further than 1950. They don’t have anything to do with the substance of traditional Western morality.

You’re not a “good” or “bad” person because you reject the “mainstream” which is actually nothing more than a cartel of mass media outlets which didn’t exist a century ago:

Hunter Wallace
the authorHunter Wallace
Hunter Wallace is the founder and editor of


  • Have to give the mainstream credit for their cunning, they have everyone playing a cat and mouse game, the rules to which they invented half a century ago, a pretty astounding accomplishment. Very good article, straight to the point with definitive and clear proof. Now we have to outsmart them and start playing them off against each other. They love controlled chaos and division, they are the architects of it, sometimes an architect gets trapped in the ruins of his own building. Just set the trap and invite them in, how to do that, have not thought of it yet, but we are getting there, more people are pushing back. Have to keep the discourse civilized though and be smarter than they are.

  • According to the popularized view that existed for many decades, “rejecting the mainstream”, thinking on your own and “revolution” were all good. It was said over and over for decades that a major defect Germans had was conformity, not thinking on their own and embracing the mainstream and this supposedly resulted in the so called “holocaust”. On the other hand, Jews were well known for being revolutionary leaders (the Bolshevik Revolution) and their outspokenness is often praised with the word “chutzpah”. Just don’t talk about the Jews role in revolutions, or anything else. Enough people know about it, but Jews don’t want to known as being active in anything, unless it’s the most selfless activity with the desire of making the world a better place for everyone (with the emphasis on everyone else).

    The communists, the “good guys” to many in the west were often called revolutionaries. The fascists were not generally called “revolutionaries”, which had a positive connotation for many, although they could overthrow things too.

    Now that a part of the white majority contemplates revolution, revolution has become a bad word. What changed? Jews are in charge now, so the establishment is now good and revolution is bad.

  • “the “mainstream” which is actually nothing more than a cartel of mass media outlets which didn’t exist a century ago”

    This is a really good talking point and we should hammer it home constantly. This “mainstream” was nothing more than a marketing ploy by a tiny handful of TV companies starting around the 1960s and a little bit earlier with radio. The newspaper era had a much wider diversity of opinion. It was TV that was a monoculture from the beginning.

    As a liberal I’m totally against the Big Corporations and the Corporate media. I want some diversity of opinion.

    • Then why call yourself a liberal? Liberals love nothing more than state controlled economies i.e corporations and artificial interest rates.

        • Am I wrong? He asked for diversity of opinion in the market place and I proclaimed free market. If you have any other system freer than that by all means retort.

      • We should take the term ‘liberal’ back. Author V.K. Clark said that the National Socialist German Workers Party were pretty liberal for their day.

      • I believe in free speech, free markets, and limited government. That makes me a liberal, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says. The anti-liberals are the ones that LARP about a new monarchy and a state church. The modern “left” are just cultural Marxists. So I’ll stick to old fashioned liberalism.

        • “The anti-liberals are the ones that LARP about a new monarchy and a state church.”

          This is Spencer’s site, and I’ve never seen him engage in Monarchist Larping. And to put it lightly, Spencer developed the Alt Right in the early 2010s as a critique against the prevailing wisdom of modernity: free speech, free markets, and limited government.

        • I agree that we should insist on denying the term “liberal” to the Left. As in Europe, “liberal” is understood to mean Laissez Faire policy — non-interference by the government, to allow the associations and affairs of civil society to take their natural course.

        • People call that classical liberal. I wouldn’t even try to take back the word liberal isn’t been too corroded.

  • We should stop allowing them to control the narrative. We should stop being forced to explain ourselves in their terms (“No we’re not racist”, “We want multicultural rights for white people too”). This is weakness. Actually, we should completely and utterly ignore their narrative. Treat them as they are: existential enemies. We will not win unless we purge ourselves of their language and their concepts.

    • Indeed. Replace “homophobic” with “homocritical”.

      Q: “Are you a racist?”

      A: “Are you an ethnomasochist?”

Leave a Reply