Richard Spencer links to Alexander Hart's First, They Came For American Renaissance. Next, For Establishment Conservatives—But They Deserve It., but disagrees with one idea:

I doubt I’d second Hart’s admonishment to mainstream conservatives, “You better defend AmRen because you’re next!” — and I don’t just say that because I have little use for the conservative movement. Why should we conclude that the Left-liberal establishment, which most definitely does dominate the culture, would want to destroy CPAC, National Review, and Townhall.com after it’s done with AmRen?  My sense is that Establishment is quite happy with an opposition that’s not particularly bright or perceptive and that essentially reaffirms all of its most fundamental assumptions and beliefs. If Kathryn Jean Lopez didn’t exist, then surely the Left would have been forced to invent her. An opposition like AmRen is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of matters; no opposition at all is dangerous because it makes people wonder. The conservative movement should rest assured; their place is secure.   

[VDARE on AmRen 2011 | Whiteout]

Compare William F. Buckley's great work of making conservatism "respectable" by stabbing other conservatives, e.g. the John Birch Society, in the back. Years later, the John Birch Society is still considered a pariah, and when they participated in CPAC in 2010, the "usual suspects" went wild.

If you search for "buckley conservatism respectable" one of the first results you get is the Birch Society magazine's commentary at the time of Buckley's death: Conservatism, Buckley style: the mainstream media used the occasion of Buckley's passing to credit him with making conservatism modern and respectable. But what kind of "conservatism" is that?[March 31, 2008]

Good point! See Buckleyism: The Harmless Persuasion, by Tom Piatak for more.