Prologue to a Political Philosophy for the Pro-White Movement
By • 7/8/09 |
The pro-white philosophy is mired in confusion. |
In February and March, I proposed that we try to design a political party, if only as a mere thought experiment. This idea attracted a great deal of interest—in fact, activity on this site, and especially in the forum, has been never stronger. The suggested positions were substantially predictable: curbing immigration, ending affirmative action, demanding the use of patriotic textbooks in the schools, and so forth. There was also debate about how we should make our appeal to Americans, whom we should try to attract, and other such matters of practice.
The interest elicited by my proposal indicates that the project of forming a political party is a fruitful one, and I remain committed to it even though I have turned my attention to other topics in the intervening time. Developing a political movement will, however, require a great deal of effort. The short and undistinguished life of the American National Party, now a mere domain name,1 teaches us that there is much more to creating a political movement than simply putting up a website with a little well-meaning boilerplate.
One of the reasons that my attention wandered was that, when I tried to write up a manifesto for the new party, I found that I did not understand the philosophy behind it. What principles generated our political ideas and gave them coherence? What our movement needs is a political philosophy, or a definition of our notion of political justice and of the ground rules on which a state should be constructed. Our principles must not merely be clear but must meet some standard of ethics. A movement founded on unethical principles could well be worse than the status quo we seek to supplant.
Even if formulating political philosophy results in no political action, the endeavor still will not have been in vain, as it will clarify the philosophy of the pro-white movement (PWM), which is mired in confusion, teeming with knotty contradictions, unexamined premises, and dubious logic. The result will, hopefully, be an improvement in the quality of pro-white commentary and debate. Last year, I wrote an article called The Principles of the Pro-White Movement, but this left all the real problems untouched.
The definition of the political philosophy that I deem appropriate for the pro-white movement cannot be accomplished in a single article. This is the first in a series of articles that will deal with the subject. No political philosophy is put forth here; rather, this article will merely outline the types of questions that such a philosophy should address.
The definition of the pro-white movement
I continue to look for a better name than the “pro-white movement,” which is uninspired and awkward. Setting this problem aside, the definition of the term is obviously a movement that seeks to advance the interest of white people. The scope of our movement is confined now to advancing the interest of white Americans, although we look with sympathy and solidarity to ethical varieties of pro-white advocacy abroad. What exactly is the interest of white Americans, however? To retain our traditional culture? To preserve or to increase our numbers? Political domination of ancestral white homelands? World domination? These questions must be threshed out.
The justification of the pro-white movement
After defining our movement, we must explain why a PWM should exist at all. Why, among all possible groups available, do we select the white race as the basis for a political movement?
Two answers to this question can be gleaned from today’s pro-white writing. The first is the “racial (or ethnic) interests” justification. According to this school of thought, races have a collective interest that causes each race to strive at least for its own preservation and, in some formulations, also for dominance over other races. The racial interests philosophy is almost always based on genetic similarity theory, or some variant of it, according to which human beings possess an instinct for racial loyalty that evolved for the same reasons as family loyalty: to increase the prevalence of the racial genotype through extended kin selection. According to writers like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald, all races except for whites have a keen sense of their these interests. Whites need to recover an awareness of their own racial interests and work to advance them or lose the racial power struggle by default.
Another possible grounds for the pro-white movement is the fact of innate racial differences—for example, in intelligence, moral reasoning, providence, and criminality. On this view, the innate characteristics of whites cause them to create societies that are particularly desirable. Allowing non-whites to achieve political dominance in ancestral white homelands would change white societies in undesirable ways.
These two justifications of the PWM are constantly run together in pro-white commentary, but they ought to be distinguished as they are fundamentally different. The racial interests philosophy posits that the pursuit of racial interests is good in itself—all races ought to seek to secure their own interests simply because it is in the nature of races to do so. The racial differences philosophy regards the pursuit of racial differences not as good in itself, but as a means to an end: whites should pursue their racial interests as a means to preserving the desirable societies that whites create.
The two philosophies have clearly different consequences for political practice. As an illustration of this point, let us suppose there existed a race of blues that was physically and genetically different from whites but behaved in exactly the same way as whites do. Supporters of the racial interests philosophy would want blues to be treated as a threat to white interests, just as other races were. However, supporters of the racial differences philosophy would take the view that, because blues differed in no relevant respect from whites, the two races should be treated in the same way.
While I have chosen a hypothetical case to distinguish between the implications of the two philosophies, subsequent articles will demonstrate that they result in profoundly different approaches to real-world politics.
The question of racial superiority
We must also address the question of whether racial superiority is a meaningful concept. So far I have spoken “racial differences” in behavior, which implies a relativist, non-judgmental stance towards these differences. But is this relativist stance appropriate? Or is there some standard according to which we could judge one race superior to another? If there is, it is an essential part of a pro-white political philosophy to define this standard.
The political principles of the pro-white movement
Having explained what the PWM is and why it is justified, we must set out our political principles. These principles define a concept of justice appropriate to the PWM and specify the ground rules of a just state.
Among Western populations today, there exists a strong consensus on some political principles. Westerners believe in mass “one man, one vote” democracy, in a suite of inalienable rights—including the right to free speech, free worship, free choice of a lawful occupation, and so forth—, and in non-discrimination by race, religion, and national origin. In the United States, while liberals and conservatives disagree about the meaning of the principles and their application to particular cases, there is no meaningful resistance to any of the principles themselves. Though in some cases they do not act on them, all of the mainstream parties in Europe and the English-speaking world at least pay lip-service to these principles. Profound outrage greets any challenge to the Western consensus. Nationalist politicians and activists in Europe have been treated as pariahs and even as criminals for rejecting these principles.
These commonly accepted principles are often called “liberal,” but this name is inappropriate as it confuses consensus beliefs with those of a particular political faction—the term “liberal” is normally used in contrast with “conservative,” not to designate the principles that liberals and conservatives share. Consequently, these principles will be called here “consensus Western political principles,” or “consensus principles” for short.
The confusion in which the PWM is mired becomes particularly apparent when one asks where we stand with regard to these consensus principles. Is our movement compatible with them, or do we reject them? Do pro-whites believe in mass democracy? Do we believe that people of all races should be accorded the same suite of rights? Do we believe in non-discrimination by race? If not, on what grounds do we object to consensus principles, and what would we put in their place?
It may be that the PWM should adopt principles that are consistent with consensus values. On this view, our goal should be to combat anti-white discrimination, such as affirmative action, and other forms of unequal treatment, such as the unfair bias against whites in history textbooks. Such an approach would, so far from being incompatible with consensus principles, speak in their name.
On the other hand, it may be that the PWM should advocate racial discrimination in some form. If so, what type of racial discrimination should we recommend, and on what grounds? There are several possible answers.
On the one hand, it is possible to advocate for a form of racial discrimination that is compatible with the equal treatment of all races. For example, the free association justification of racial discrimination, briefly discussed in my principles article, dictates that all races be allowed to discriminate in favor of their own in their choice of neighbors, employees, schoolmates, and so forth. So a Korean apartment owner ought to be free to accept only Koreans as residents, and a white business owner ought to be free to choose only white employees. The freedom of association argument might also be used to justify racial discrimination in immigration policy, as the natives of a country must, of course, associate with immigrants.
A pro-white political philosophy could also advocate the unequal treatment of the races. On this view, it would be legitimate to accord some races greater rights than others. For example, restricting some races’ right to vote or immigrate to the United States could be justified either on the ground of racial interests or racial differences. An advocate of racial interests would justify such unequal treatment on the grounds that it was crucial to white racial interests. A believer in racial differences could argue that allowing non-whites to vote would lead to the enactment of laws that are incompatible with the values that whites cherish.
If the PWM does advocate for unequal treatment of the races, we must explain not only why such inequality is justified in principle, but what particular forms it should take. If we accept inequality in rights, does that mean a white nation could deprive non-whites of all rights? Would atrocities like genocide and slavery be acceptable? Surely not, but why not? We would have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate restrictions on the rights of non-whites.
The great confusion
I said above that the PWM was mired in a great confusion. An example of my own confusion over political principles emerged in my altercation with David Kelsey, who runs The Kvetcher blog, earlier this year. Kelsey wrote a sympathetic review of this site, painting me as an “equal opportunist,” or a sort of civil rights advocate for whites. In his interpretation, the point of the pro-white movement was to combat discrimination against whites and other forms of unequal treatment. Kelsey detected no incompatibility between the intellectual orientation of this website and consensus Western political principles.
I disagreed with Kelsey and pointed out passages in my writings in which I have argued for discrimination in favor of whites. However, my answer was unfair, as Kelsey was picking up on one strand in my writings. The fact is that I do sometimes speak in the name of non-discrimination; for example, in a recent activism campaign, I urged rejection of a federal hate crimes law on the grounds that it would give non-whites preferential treatment over whites. Indeed, I could well be accused of hypocrisy, as I have opposed granting privileged status to non-whites on the principle of non-discrimination, but have advocated privileged status for whites.
Such obvious incoherences—and I will point out more in the forthcoming articles—bog our movement down. It is unlikely that we will convince others of our views, nor will we even be able have fruitful conversations among ourselves, if we do not know what we believe. One of my goals in constructing a political philosophy will be to demonstrate that there is a perspective from which the contradiction I have just outlined can be reconciled.
Concluding thoughts
If the PWM wishes to displace consensus principles, we must understand their strengths as well as their weaknesses. We must determine why principles like universal democracy and non-discrimination appeal to people and whether or not this appeal is justified on moral grounds. If consensus principles have a sound moral basis, then we must figure out how to incorporate them into our own philosophy rather than rejecting them. Such a process of understanding and incorporation should even extend to the variant of consensus principles known as liberalism, our detested enemy. Racial right commentary has made a lot of hay out of the absurdities and evils wrought by liberalism. The path forward lies in understanding why liberalism maintains its appeal in spite of all its drawbacks.
People may object that my project is impractical. Rather than repelling people by articulating a philosophy that many will find noxious, we should, a pragmatist would say, cooperate with mainstream causes that are in the white interest, such as curbing affirmative action and restricting mass immigration.
I reject such pragmatic considerations because the allure of this project is too powerful for me to resist it. I have been turning these questions over in my mind for so long that I want to figure out an answer to them that satisfies me at last. Besides it would be ridiculous of me to sacrifice philosophical speculation on the altar of pragmatism at this point: nothing about this website is pragmatic. The very title is an assault against the Western political consensus. I am an idealist by nature, and so, I would imagine, is almost everyone who reads this site.
Most importantly, though, we should never give up hope of persuading the world that we are right. It may be that the world reviles the pro-white philosophy merely because the arguments in its favor have never been stated in their strongest form. How can we give up on a philosophy that currently exists only in glimmers and hunches? Once the gold is purged of its dross, it is possible that the world will recognize its true value.
Finally, I doubt that any effective practical endeavor is possible before we understand our principles. Having grasped these, we may want to devise a philosophy for mass consumption that omits our more controversial tenets. However, the public philosophy would probably be a weak one if it were not constructed on the basis of underlying and concealed principles. In other words, I do not think that we can be pragmatic before we have understood our ideals.
- When I published this article, there was no website at the American National Party’s domain. However, in mid-July, the ANP put a new website up. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
www.goldenstateparty.com
While you were bumping your gums, the ANP was hard at work.
If I had my way on this the principles for the PWM should be thus:
Organize all efforts towards advancing the interests of white Americans at home and abroad. This statement is broad enough to encompass the amoral realities of international politics, the highs, lows, and risks of economics, and takes into reality national interests. It also focuses us-we must do it ourselves-Russia won’t be the savior of the white race.
Agree to disagree on the trivial issues that have so far divided the PWM-and focus on combining efforts to achieve obtainable objectives in the here and now. There isn’t any point to dredge up the history of the US Civil War, who did what to whom in Europe between 1919 and 1948, or what particular spiritual beliefs someone has. The former controversies belong to prior generations, and there is no benefit to the PWM in shooting down a potential ally’s particular persuasion. Additionally, drop overwhelming concern for shadowy conspiracies involving the Federal Reserve or like bodies. The barbarians are at the gate NOW and they aren’t in the shadows-they’re in the open, screaming for our blood.
List a series of obtainable objectives and work towards those goals on all levels. My list: a. End all Third World Immigration replace it with something like the 1924 Immigration Act. b. End Affirmative Action. c. Disband the EEOC or end its funding d. Re-segregate the schools. e. Reverse the welfare subsidies for non-whites to shrink in numbers over time. f. Keeping our territory at all costs and expanding our territory if we can. f. Influence the politics of both parties, that means voting and donating!
All people in the PWM should connect with their local community and be open and polite about their views. By connections with community, I mean join a church and go every Sunday, and join civic organizations such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Great and Glorious Herd of Reindeers, Toastmasters, etc. All active in the PWM should keep their business affairs honest, pay their bills, and donate to charities.
Morality of the society comes, I think, from two sources. The attitudes of people in civic, religious, and charitable, organizations (see point 4) and a clear reason for pursuing your course. In this case-people should be pro-white-because whites are superior to all the rest of the races in every form of human endeavor-from squalid and horrible war to glories of exploring space.
The accepted basis for a successful racial platform must stem from two basic points, the defense of the race & its existence, a continual program of eugenics. that is to say, white people must work to be healthy, reasonable and logical in all aspects of their lives and surroundings.
All forms of entertainment, education, behavior and deportment must uplift the individual and or the community.
Joe,
Oh, I see, the ANP changed its name and put up a website with the same old boilerplate. That doesn’t sound like very hard work to me. I predict substantially the same outcome.
I hate the term “white” - it is too abstract.
I am a European-American (who lives in Europe).
I would like to see a Pan-European movement that would include Europeans, Euro-American, Euro-Australians, Euro-Africans, etc.
Such a global movement would have simple goals, and would include any number of individuals and groups who/which disagreed on all sorts of issues.
these goals would be to
1) guarantee the territorial integrity of Europe, North America, etc., and prevent them from losing their white majorities.
2) Insure the physical survival and future fitness of the European race worldwide in sufficient numbers.
This minimal program could be the basis for cooperative action, and would require a minimal consensus.
The philosophical basis should be:
Europeans (Caucasoids) are different racially (genetically) from Negroids and Mongoloids, have created a different type of civilization, and have historically occupied different territories, and have different group interests.
A hard sell at the moment, but the Copernican shift is coming, and must be accelerated.
I recommend a minimalist pro-white philosophy. Being pro-white can actually be quite simple. It just means being willing to say that you are looking out for the interests of your race. Causes like immigration restriction and eliminating affirmative action should be supported from an openly pro-white perspective. The philosophical bedrock doesn’t have to be any more complicated than the following: If people of other races can look out for the interests of their own kind then whites should be able to also. I advise caution in going beyond being merely pro-white. Anything that is threatening to nonwhites should be avoided. This includes separatism and supremacism. The subject of inherent differences ought to be downplayed also.
In regard to my previous comment, one question would be: How does one go about tacking “pro-whiteness” onto causes that are currently being advanced on a race-neutral basis? For affirmative action the answer is pretty clear. For immigration reduction things are a little more complicated. To start with, one could just use all of the same arguments being made by the mainstream restrictionist organizations and then simply add the statement that you are making these arguments on behalf of white people. Does it have to be any more complicated? Nonwhites in nonwhite countries have no trouble coming up with a justification for keeping immigration levels low. This is why I think pragmatism is what is called for here. We are in a battle against leukophobia, a.k.a. anti-white political correctness, a.k.a. white guilt. The best way to combat this is to take a metaphorical chisel and hammer to the barrier that makes it socially unacceptable for whites to say that they are looking out for the interests of their own kind. What is needed is pragmatism combined with courage and dedication.
Joe,
If you manage to make a success of the Golden State Party, I’ll be a supporter. I read the materials the ANP website and I’ve skimmed the GSP website, and I can’t say I was inspired, but I could be wrong. It’s great that you’re at least trying. Good luck to you!
By way of explanation, when I first found out about the American National Party back in March, I panned it, and I still think my criticisms were valid. It seems from Joe’s comments that the same people who created the ANP have now launched the Golden State Party. I’ve read some more of their website, and I find the ideas much more substantive and better expressed than the ANP’s. So I advise a look.
I still find these guys crazy on economic issues. They seem to be opposed to lending by banks, on which our economy depends. In fact, when bank credit started drying up last year, the whole economy nearly collapsed.
In our system, there exists more debt than money to pay it. In fact, the way most money is created is through purchases of mostly U.S. Treasuries by the Federal Reserve or through commercial banking. That is, the Federal Reserve - a central bank made up of privately-owned member banks - loans money to our government at interest. Commercial banks also create money through lending to businesses and citizens. Both practices involve creating money out of thin air. As every dollar created must be paid back with more than a dollar, the debt owed can only be repaid, in temporary fashion, if the creditor is so kind as to issue another loan in the same manner as before, or if the economy can grow at an unnatural rate. If ever the creditor decides not to provide this loan, and if the economy cannot maintain an unnatural rate of growth, many people will be unable to pay their debt, leading to a sea of people who require social welfare programs in order to simply survive.
So the GSP is against lending by banks at interest. What do they propose to put in its place? How are people supposed to buy homes and cars or start businesses without getting loans? I’d advise the GSP to get rid of all this stuff and focus on the issues that are going to draw most people to the party: immigration, crime, hostility to globalization, and so forth.
suggestion for your site:
a mini forum for brainstorming and proposing strategy/tactics for various white/European rights movement, for example:
communication: establish global networking system for Europeans in favor of European rights w/ restricted membership and plenty of privacy (our own facebook)
legal: small European nationalities and ethnicities (Norwegians, Finns, Latvians, etc.) should be taking advantage of international laws designed to protect the rights of indigenous people.
legal: challenged the constitutionality of speech laws all the way to Supreme Courts.
media: make visible emblems of national pride a fixture of European society: T-shirts, posters, etc. saying “Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc.and proud”
education: scholarly quarterly publication (James Watson as titular editor?) that promotes awareness of human biodiversity in a politically neutral way: target audience: elite readership consisting of individuals occupying policymaking positions (subscription list kept anonymous if necessary)
Ultimately a pro-white movement must be based on reciprocity otherwise known as equality. By equality I don’t mean a beleif in racial egalitariansim but the assumption that the rights that whites demand they must extend those rights for non-whites to have.
For instance if Whites demand a right to self-determination they must extend that right to non-whites aswell.
Aparthied for instance is not an example of reciprocity as Whites enforced segregation when it suited them but allowed integration when it was in their interest for example employing Blacks as servants to do menial tasks around the house.
Mr. Jobling,
One cannot understand the crisis we face a people, until one understands the implications of fractional-reserve banking and the issuance of money as debt, both of which are practices of the Federal Reserve.
The GSP does not take issue at all with the notion of credit or of interest. These things are absolutely necessary to allow for economic growth. In fact, these items are fundamental and are not merely characteristic of more sophisticated economies.
It is important that you understand one simple principle: when you create a debt at interest, you are requiring of the debtor to contribute to economic productivity something which was not there before (growth).
You mentioned above that people require loans for homes. It is important to recognize that these are instruments of growth. That there are more people who need homes is a sign of growth.
Paying back a debt with interest requires that the debtor actually produce something OR take on further debt.
In the U.S., money is created by 3 ways: The Fed purchasing treasuries on the open market - this is a loan at interest to the United States government. Money is also created through commercial lending, where loans are created by creating multiple claims on the same dollar (something known as counterfeiting). And money is also created through actual printing by the U.S. Treasury, something which is mostly insignificant.
Understand that, through commercial lending and lending the government funny-money at interest, the banking system gets money for nothing. This is real money that we actually give them for doing absolutely nothing and for providing a service that our own government could just as easily provide.
Now, you must recognize that, if we cannot grow at a rate fast enough to cover the rate of interest required by private banks for having provided us a service we could have gotten for free, the value of our own money is diluted, and our quality of life is lessened.
So, we can see that there is a situation in which private banks need our economy to grow at an unsustainable rate to continue receiving our wealth for having done, essentially, no work at all.
If they demand too much money from us at once - that is, if they require us too grow too fast - our money is very quickly diluted, as we can’t keep up. People get angry, and the very existence of these banks becomes threatened.
Recalling an important lesson from macroeconomics, a course we all took in school, we find that economic growth is the product of three factors: capital, labor, and total factor productivity. The quickest way to grow, then, is to simply introduce a greater labor force. We can simply bring in tens of millions of people and create a service industry that exists to exist. While there is absolutely no purpose in that growth, it allows the banks to sustain an unsustainable system a little while longer.
Immigration, globalization, forcing people together against their will, and denying people basic human rights, like the right to an identity, culture, to freedom of association, and the like, is all very much related to our economic system, which is entirely unsustainable.
Sorry Joe,
I can’t agree with you on banks causing the problems of the white race. The United States and Great Britain have had central banks in some form for centuries. Throughout that time Western Europeans changed their little continent from a poor extension of Asia to the great light of the world and the British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and French added many territories to the white man’s world.
While the Federal Reserve could use a swift kick in the behind, this doesn’t mean that an otherwise proven system should be scrapped. One of America’s worst depressions was after President Andrew Jackson paid off all the Federal Government’s debt and destroyed the Central Bank.
I think “globalism” is important. I like Italian olive oil and French wine. In fact I think globalism, banking, trade, credit, and such are the very flower of the white race. This great network is under threat from too many non-whites in our territory. With Wall Street on our side we can become an unstoppable movement. Let’s focus on objectives that are the proximate cause of our troubles. I’ve listed them above.
I agree with Duncan Hengest’s five points, but also with Steve’s emphasis on eugenics:
Here in Europe, state subsidies are leading to a demographic catastrophe, with the Muslim (Caribbean, etc.) population taking over western Europe within a generation or two.
at the same time, the state in Europe has been subsidizing the reproduction of low-grade Europeans as well, and ultimately, the two populations are converging: the Turks and Arabs tend to be on the level of African-Americans (average IQ 85, 20 points below Northern Europeans), but countries like Germany also have large contingents of low-grade locals cannot function in a 21st-century technological society, and are essentially wards of the state from birth to death.
the abandonment of eugenics on the part of European societies means that even without her resignation, we will inevitably deteriorate to the level of Africans.
I live in Europe, as well (I am a US citizen). Everywhere do I see mixed black/white couples. It’s rampant. It’s much more prevalent than in the US. I don’t have the statistics - these are my observations. I often see really pretty blond women - and I mean get-any-guy-they-want pretty - walking around with mulatto children. Why, for God’s sake? Why should their precious phenotypes be lost for our race? And they and their children will be lost for our cause. Let’s say we decide on and are able to implement a population swap: the whites from Africa come to Europe and the Blacks from Europe go back to Africa. What will happen to these mothers? Will they follow their mulatto children to Africa? Or will they stay in Europe and give birth to new children?
Another thing I don’t understand is the white males’ behavior. How can they allow this to happen? Shouldn’t they fight for their women? Shouldn’t they try to beat back strangers who want to steal their women? Shouldn’t they fight especially hard for the prettiest ones? Isn’t that the natural biological response? If the fighting spirit has gone out of our culture, maybe we are not worth saving?
In response to the letter written by Felicie on 7/15/09 at 3:33 pm.
There are two definitions that I would like to share with you and the other readers of this site: 1) the Neanthertal Option, this is the condition of those people that cannot understand the problems that they face or the means by which the problems can be resolved. These people are defective and naturally bound for destruction as the Neanderthal of the past. 2) The Quaker Disease, to understand the root of this definition one would need to read the book Wilderness Empire by Allan W. Eckert. The Quakers of Pennsylvania in 1753 were incapable of taking the side of white pioneers facing attacks by Indians. They of course changed their minds in a great hurry when their own children were dying at the hands of these same Indians. The Quaker Disease is marked by the inability of a person to learn by way of reason or logic. They learn more in the manner of an animal, via the application of pain.
The white women that you are referring to falls into the first definition, and rightly deserve their destruction as race mixing is a form of destruction. They should NOT be defended because they should not continue as part of our race.
Felicie,
I understand your concerns regarding white males’ cowardice to fight for the prettiest women. Mother nature has created this behavioral pattern in order for every species to produce healthy offsprings and therefore to preserve her genome. With whites males, it seems they exhibit a biological anomaly. It seems to me that most white males are raised and educated “feminine” these days. Unlike some centuries or decades ago, no one is educating young males anymore about their duty to protect family, property and wife. Also, we live in a society where figting is not essential for one’s survival, hence the boys are not exposed to physical competition and are not taught how to defend themselves or their relatives. Man’s honor has lost its meaning in a society which pursues equality.
Why are so many white females going out with non-white men? Have you noticed that many darker skinned men are more aggressive, rude, macho and troublesome - probably owning a big car? I have always been asking why any woman would mate with such a type of creature, when there are plenty of ordinary and handsome white males available? Now I have come to the conclusion that white women seek for the manhood in the non-whites, a property that their instincts direct them into and that they aren’t able to find in the “feminized” white males. Mating with non-whites gives white females a feeling of protection, power, recognition - and an exotic flair (which non-whites seem to radiate). White males don’t fight for those girls, first because they don’t know how, secondly because they hesitate to get in trouble - it is safer to go home and leave their fingers, because they would not compete with non-white’s aggressiveness, strength and group network, and thirdly because they were taught in schools and colleges that whites must tolerate aliens and make life comfortable for them - beating a non-white would produce news headlines, as you know. Instead, many white males date with Asian women, because they are more submissive and soft, and because it doesn’t take much effort to get them, just being a Western European is the golden key. The Asian females look then after the golden anchors - the passports of the host country.
I don’t know what to say more at this point. Similarly to what you said, I think a society that has abandoned to preserve her culture, territory and genome has actually not deserved to survive.
I don’t see why it has to be about race? Why not endorse these 3 principles as the core of the Party:
Free speech
Freedom of association and private property: which would allow people to live in communities with people they want to live with. This would include schools, youth groups, community groups, and religious organizations. Freedom of association and private property also allows people to own businesses and hire and fire who they wish.
Gun Rights
If people (no matter what the race) support these 3 principles then I don’t see what difference race makes? Freedom of association and private property is especially important if America is going to function as a truly “diverse” nation. America could be truly diverse if people are allowed to live among who they wish. There’s no reason why there can’t be a black dominated political area in the Mississippi Delta, while gays walk around in the underwear on the streets on San Francisco, while parts of the Pacific Northwest are dominated by whites? Most social problems can be addressed at the local level and people can enjoy the way of life they like. There would be no need for concerns over immigration becuase local polities would decide if they want them or not.
Turn the focus to embracing TRUE diversity not racial identity politics.
I have been searching for two years now for a coherent statement of the demands of the European-American civil rights movement in the United States (of course, no one calls it that, but that’s what it is, and that is what we should be calling it!!!), and so far have found nothing.
It seems to me that for liberals in recovery, or for those experiencing doubt, etc., such a document, giving a clear summary of the aims and objectives of the movement, should be a simple Google search away, and to take no more than three or four minutes to read.
For example:
Aims of the European-American Civil Rights Movement in the United States
In a free and democratic society, no one shall under any circumstances be jailed, persecuted, harassed, or fired for stating “heretical” views on race and hereditary. We demand the right to express our views freely without threat of persecution.
We believe that they European or white race is distinct genetically, culturally, and in terms of psychology and temperament from the other human races. We believe, therefore, that Europeans or whites have interests that are different from those of other races.
Furthermore, this is what virtually all Europeans/whites believed up until around 1960 or so. We demand the freedom to teach and discuss the facts about the history of European attitudes toward race.
We demand the right of freedom of association, including the right to live in whites-only communities, to send our children to whites-only schools and colleges, to shop at whites-only stores. Crimes rates are so high in most black communities that this is not a question of “prejudice,” but instead of the physical survival and safety of our children.
We demand that the federal government make available to all free of charge clear, accurate and easily accessible statistics on race and crime in America. Classifying Hispanic perpetrators as “white” is a clear violation of our civil rights, and must cease immediately.
We believe that they abolition of the civil service exams because of “disparate outcome” has been a catastrophe. We demand their reinstatement.
We demand the abolition of all laws which are designed to apply differently to different races or ethnicities. In the United States, all laws must apply equally to all citizens. This applies to the all laws relating to “disparate outcome” (and especially the “four fifths law”).
Racial preferences for some minorities means – axiomatically – violating the civil rights of other groups. We demand the abolition of all racial quotas and preferences.
To the extent that racial quotas and preferences remain temporarily in force, they shall under no circumstances apply to individuals who emigrated to the United States after the introduction of civil rights laws in 1964. This must include Puerto Ricans.
We demand a thoroughgoing reevaluation of the constitutionality of race-based quotas.
“I don’t see why it has to be about race? Why not endorse these 3 principles as the core of the Party” By BamC on 7/17/09 at 12:03 am
The three ideas that you are speaking of originate & emanate from the white race. When the white race falls, all else falls with it.
The three ideas that you are speaking of originate & emanate from the white race. When the white race falls, all else falls with it. (Steven)
This may or may not be true, but I’m pretty sure we can find non-whites who would support these principles as well? At the same time, there are lots of white people (on the Right & and Left) who would oppose this level of freedom.
I don’t think you should turn off potential allies. If a group of Asians out West want their Chinatown to be for Chinamen only, then this type of thing may appeal to them as well. Your so called “movement” would be much more likely to attract support if its about freedom, and not purely about race. You can use slogans like:
“True diversity for all Americans.”
or
“Bringing community back to America.”
or
“Real diversity is strength.”
People must understand a multiracial country is inferior no matter what circumstance.
Take the example of France. France does what many online advocate America do-that is treat people like individuals and play down multiculturalism. France never opened bilingual schools, never collects statistics on crime or birth rate based on race and never practiced affirmative action. PM Sarcozy recently banned the Burqa(a traditional garment for Muslim women) as well. The result? In 2004 and still today, “youths” burn cars and generally cause chaos. The establishment responds by acknowledging the “salient discrimination” against Muslim-looking individuals and by putting pressure on employers to adopt a sort of AA for employees with Muslim sounding surnames. In other words race became an issue in a country that refused to recognize the race of an individual.
Just as ‘hbd’ blossoms to question the absolute equality of all races we must also point out the failure to make race unimportant to a country’s citizens.
Answering comments by, BamC on 7/18/09 at 3:49 pm.
“I don’t think you should turn off potential allies. If a group of Asians out West want their Chinatown to be for Chinamen only, then this type of thing may appeal to them as well.”
I hope that we aren’t miss understanding one another but in regard to your above statement, the times have moved beyond this possibility.
It’s no longer about a town for Chinese or Africans or Japanese. It’s about all white people losing every country that they live in all over the world.
By the way, it’s not about them having a town; it’s about whites no longer being allowed to have a white town. We can not wait for allies, we are on our own in this.
Some good comments on this thread, but I’ve been thinking about this issue all afternoon, and wanted to propose moving to the next step. I see that I’ve been preceded other posters in the general intent, but let me propose some specifics—as in a platform.
Here are three platform planks that only a Marxist criminal [is that redundant?] could protest:
We <i>demand,/i> freedom of association.
We demand freedom of speech.
We demand equal protection under the law.</em>
The fact that your posting has drawn so many interesting responses suggests that you have made a good beginning in sorting out the various strands of a pro-white movement.
It’s important to clarify what we mean by a PWM, and if there are differing views — which there are — to discuss them openly. As I read your essay and the comments, I realized that my own ideas are kind of fuzzy in some areas.
There will never be unanimity in a PWM, nor should there be — only authoritarians have unanimity (and that only on the surface) — but a kind of rough consensus does need to emerge.
I was with you almost entirely until one of your last sentences brought me up short:
… we may want to devise a philosophy for mass consumption that omits our more controversial tenets. However, the public philosophy would probably be a weak one if it were not constructed on the basis of underlying and concealed principles.
If the principles are just and reasonable, why is there a need to “[omit] our more controversial tenets”? What’s the rationale for “concealed principles”?
Only a few sentences before, you say that “it would be ridiculous of me to sacrifice philosophical speculation on the altar of pragmatism at this point: nothing about this website is pragmatic. The very title is an assault against the Western political consensus. I am an idealist by nature, and so, I would imagine, is almost everyone who reads this site.”
Without necessarily rejecting any form of pragmatism or tactical emphasis, I hardly see the virtue or effectiveness of a political philosophy that is afraid to put its cards on the table face up.
I’m not afraid to put my cards on the table—that’s what I’m doing. However, I’m leaving open the possibility that, if we believers in the PWM ever try to advance our goals in the public sphere through a party or lobbying group or whatever, we may want to disguise our agenda to omit its more controversial tenets. For example, if we believe that the mass expulsion of populations can in some circumstances be legitimate, we may want to hide that belief from a political establishment that regards mass expulsions as an indefensible wrong and would work to suppress us for this reason. On the other hand, we may not—I’m only leaving tactical dishonesty open as a possibility. My point in the passage that you cite is that we cannot understand how to be practical before we know what it is we really believe. So we’ve got to put our cards on the table first and see what we have before we decide how to play them.
P.E. Zero: thanks for liking my username. I think it’s a good ‘shorthand’ for my personal story, and I imagine others could say the same thing.
Steven above asks “Demand? Just how will you / we back up this demand?” My response: the concept here is “rhetorical”. If there can be rhetorical questions, then a “rhetorical demand” seems intellectually valid as well.
In other words, I don’t have an immediate answer, and I don’t think it matters. We see—no, we are deluged with—reports of “demands” from “activists”, “minorities”, and various flavors of leftist egalitarian bozos. I doubt they have the firepower to impose their views on the white population of the US, let alone the state and federal governments. Their demands accomplish one thing: raise “awareness” of their issues, never mind how trivial or self-serving. I call these demands “rhetorical”. Someone else always does the heavy lifting, of course, with my tax dollars and yours.
What matters is that we raise awareness too—meaning we no longer let our enemies set the rules and terms of engagement. The most egregious example is of course the non-word “racist”. The dumbest, most clueless phrase I think I’ve ever heard is “I’m not a racist, but” [fill in the blank with any un-PC statement]. This is the sound of an argument being lost before it has started. “Racist” is name-calling, and my response will always be name-calling right back, in terms I would not repeat here.
But more than that, we should present our legitimate claims to what “everybody knows”:
-freedom of speech, which includes freedom to acknowledge common-sense observations of human bio-diversity.
-freedom of association, which we are not obligated to justify to any person or organization (are you listening, EEOC?)
-equal protection under the law, as in no double standards, and therefor no “protected classes”.
We must demand these things explicitly, as many times as required to make a dent in the giant mental prison of the egalitarian establishment.
I am South African.
I am convinced that a meritocracy is the only means of saving the Caucasians/Europeans/Whites from destruction; in all the articles, the inability of Blacks to compete on equal terms are highlighted. A meritocracy shall therefor result in a superior society.
Well, when I was writing this article, there was nothing at that domain. Now the ANP has put up a new website.
This thread has impelled me to do further thinking (ouch! Ouch!) about political philosophy and the pro-white movement.
My tentative conclusion is that PWM politics should be the equivalent of what is called in aviation the minimum equipment list. That consists of the items that must be working correctly for the aircraft to be permitted to take off, because they’re essential for safety. It’s okay for an airliner to be flown if a reading light is burned out or a coffee warmer in the galley is on the blink. But the cockpit instruments must be working, even though they all have back-ups.
How does this translate into politics? I believe that for the PWM to be effective, there are a small number of basic principles that have to be pursued, and a larger range of items that might be desirable but should not be considered mandatory. Some of these secondary goals might be controversial even among the pro-white community. Others might come about “naturally” if the basic principles are accepted in society as a whole.
Another reason for limiting to a few the number of basic principles is to avoid dilution of effort. The energy needs to be applied to pressure points, not scattered.
Several of the previous commenters have made good points about the fundamentals. I claim no original thinking here and am glad to annex ideas that others have reached before me.
So here is a suggestion for the minimum equipment list of the PWM — the broad principles that cannot be reduced (and, from a strategic standpoint, should not be unduly enlarged):
1. Freedom of association in the private sphere. Individuals, organizations, groups, clubs all should be able to include who they want and exclude who they want, for good reasons or bad reasons. In current practice, non-whites are already permitted such freedom. This would not apply to any organization supported by public (ultimately, taxpayer) funding.
2. Freedom of speech, the press and, perhaps most important these days, electronic media. The only exceptions should be those few that are time-tested and commonsensical — overt threats of or calls for violence, shouting fire in a crowded theater, and so on. Libel and slander laws would still exist, but they would be strictly civil cases with no government intervention except for providing a venue for settling claims. There should be no “hate” speech laws, no “fairness doctrine,” no government restrictions except the very limited ones mentioned above.
3. A virtual end to immigration. Not just illegal immigration, which can be made legal by a show of hands and a stroke of the pen. In a world where population pressure comes mainly from dysfunctional non-white states, whites will inevitably become a smaller and smaller proportion of the population as long as immigration continues unabated. Their self-interest cannot be maintained if they are an ever-shrinking minority. No PWM can defeat sheer numbers, however successful it might be in attaining its other goals.
We could stop there for now. There are many other worthwhile changes to press for — reforming the educational system, reforming the electoral system, etc. But they are more likely to be realized as effects than as causes in their own right. First things first.
I think the PWM will need two separate organisations a political party and educational/protest organisation. Trying to get into local government whilst also trying to educate the propulation about racial differences in brain sizes using just a political party is a sure fire way to get nowhere fast.
Taking a modern example of the enviromental movement, it has an extremist protest organisation called Greenpeace, which is less concerned about popularity, but more about raising awareness about issues they care about. Simultaneously the Green Party contests elections and engages with the people on issues they care about it and try to show how a green alternative will improve their lives.
In the pro-white movement we would have an extremist protest organisation called say the ‘Pro-White-Front’ in which the activists try to raise awareness of things close to the PWM heart but which are unpopular positions that no political party should touch.
The other organisation would be a political party called say the ‘American Party’ which would focus on popular greivances like illegal immigration, afirmative action, crime, globalisation etc,
Those are some great ideas you have commenter ‘Brit Realist.’
As you write: “I think the PWM will need two separate organisations: a political party and educational/protest organisation.”
However, I think a tripartite organizational system that is intra-cooperative to a great extent would be a bit better than the dualistic one you propose.
Say, for instance: distinctly split the pro-White movement in the USA, the UK, Australia, various European countries, etc in to at least 3 distinct factions, with each main faction even having various subfactions; however, the 3 main factions would be something like: (1) the mainstream political faction (for local, state, and national politics); (2) the educational/informational faction (for educating the general White public about genetics, racial/ethnic cultural differences, IQ issue, mass non-White immigration, globalization, race/ethnicity and crime, and other issues of importance to Whites); and (3) the semi-radical activist ‘Pro-White Front’ faction as you write.
America is too far gone, all you can hope for is some small white islands. America will reelect Obongo and maybe he will get more terms or the next president will be a negro republican. White Americans are not racist at all, they are worshipping Obongo and their daughters are marrying negroes in greater numbers while more and more young whites are homosexuals. There is no way back, all you can do is talk while the majority of whites don’t care. You are wasting your time.
Being prowhite has nothing to do with being American. Patriotism should be dropped. Millions of whites have died due to patriotism.
America has done more to hurt the White race than most other countries.
We should be teaching through our platform that we never fight whites in wars, that all whites are our kin folk.
Like many people after 9-11, I was interested in learning more about extremism. This led me to some “white supremacist” websites and now after 5 years, I think I can say I understand this movement better than most academics and definitely better than what most “watchdog” organizations report to know.
White Nationalism is the inevitable entry of white people into identity politics. This appears to be a natural occurrence within a multiethnic State. Concerns over immigration, affirmative action, black on white crime, and negative portrayals of white people in education and media are certainly increasing in white America. The result of these concerns is the growth of websites such as this one; and one important detail in the growth of such sites is the increased sophistication of thought among its contributors.
As I’ve read your material I’ve found myself sympathetic to some of your concerns. At the same time, I’ve noticed that constantly reading WN literature makes one more sensitive to these issues. IOW reading about these issues day after day will make you overly frustrated with the situation. This is why racial minorities have the perspective that they have. Since American media and education constantly reinforces the “minorities being oppressed” narrative, they tend to see oppression in all aspects of American life. I would recommend that white nationalists think about this as well. How much of your concern is due to you reading WN websites day after day?
It appears that WN agree on the idea that creating a “white homeland” is the only option? I would recommend rethinking this. America offers an extremely good way of life regardless of political correctness. Most white Americans are not unhappy with the situation, so talking about separatism will only turn people off who may have valid concerns over immigration or forced diversity.
You should also think about what it is that you truly want? Is it truly an all white country that you want or is it really a way of life? In the former USSR there were all-white States in Eastern Europe but they didn’t offer a decent standard of living. By emphasizing race you cut out possible allies that wish to live the same way you do. Instead of focusing on race why not focus on ideas? If a Korean or African American supports you right to private property or supports limits on immigration, why deny yourself a friend? I want to be clear that this isn’t a plea for tired old conservatism. I do believe that many ideas found on these sites can form the base for a new Rightwing. The critiques of multiculturalism and the common sense approach to immigration are some of the better ideas. The old conservatism of Buckley and Reagan are dead, the window is open for a “New Right” but by making it purely a white racialist movement your chances of truly changing things are almost impossible.
As I said above, America still offers a fine way of life. I don’t think you should give up on this country yet in favor of revolutionary white nationalism. Regardless of rates of black on white crime or anti-white sentiments in the media, America is by far the best place on earth to live. If you stop obsessing on race every day you will notice that your worries will decrease. Remember that inner peace comes from our perceptions, and allowing a situation to upset you (like an interracial couple) says more about you than the situation itself.
Re:Michael O’Sullivan - “Millions of whites have died due to patriotism. America has done more to hurt the White race than most other countries. We should be teaching through our platform that we never fight whites in wars, that all whites are our kin folk.”
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your comments in that many of the wars between all of the various White/European peoples and/or nations throughout history have been in some sense ‘fratricidal,’ think about these issues in the following way…Spengler says:
“Talk of world peace is heard today only among the white peoples, and not among the much more numerous colored races. This is a perilous state of affairs. When individual thinkers and idealists talk of peace, as they have done since time immemorial, the effect is always negligible. But when whole peoples become pacifistic it is a symptom of senility. Strong and unspent races are not pacifistic. To adopt such a position is to abandon the future, for the pacifist ideal is a static, terminal condition that is contrary to the basic facts of existence. - As long as man continues to evolve there will be wars. Should the white peoples ever become so tired of war that their governments can no longer incite them to wage it, the earth will inevitably fall a victim to the colored men, just as the Roman Empire succumbed to the Teutons. Pacifism means yielding power to the inveterate nonpacifists. Among the latter there will always be white men — adventurers, conquerors, leader-types — whose following increases with every success. If a revolt against the whites were to occur today in Asia, countless whites would join the rebels simply because they are tired of peaceful living. - Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact. If the white races are resolved never to wage war again, the colored will act differently and be rulers of the world.” - http://www.toqonline.com/2009/07/spengler-on-world-peace/
I only oppose war between whites. We as white people need our own territory and it will often take war to keep the third world hordes at bay.
Infernal hails!
Modern American White Intellectualism is hilarious to me because, formed under party lines, the whole thing subtextually reads like an excuse for a slack jawed hootnanny (complete with bathtub gin and familial carnal relations) in praise of the virtues of white-ness, even though it has very little to do with patria and more to do with insecurity. Why?
What roots bind thee to thy nesiote firmament?
My theory is that you, the white man are fearful that your daughter is having interracial relations because of your obsession with penis size and latent homosexuality. Maybe you don’t want to learn Spanish because you think they’re talking about you in the third person in front of you at the bank. Or perhaps you’re angry there is no White Appreciation day to celebrate your ethnic heritage*. Those are valid points! But instead you choose to throw up the muslin veil of statistical evidence (ad referendum) and and “us vs. them” attitude. Maybe you know a brown guy that you just do not like because he is actually smarter than you and you want to attribute it to reverse discrimination. You would rather drink beer and watch Nascar to take the edge off after work because you have to work under Mohammad or Jamal. You would rather consort with criminals of your own kind (a kakistocracy if I ever saw one…white governance cannot live without imperialism…parasites). Did Voltaire not die for your sins? Natura abhorret a vacua. Cry now and cry later because borders will always be dotted lines.
To you whites who are trying to prefigure a racially divided society using RPG style maps and class assignations, I suggest you publish a non-asinine magnum opus rooted in logic and reason since they are the proscribed tools of progress for your race that bypasses the cliche self-preservation and pathetic desperate stance.
Embrace non-intellectual Barbarian civility (as described by Veblen). Put your disposable income where your mouth is: design a flag that isn’t derivative of German Worker Party designs or George Orwell’s proclivity to smoking pipe…maybe a homosexual German fashion designer could help.
Hence all articles published forth shall be referred to as White Post-Intellectualism. I plan to create the wikipedia page and sell the rights to a movie. And by Odin, no one is born Aryan, it is earned (linguistics, not skin color). I will continue to visit this site and see the online published works of you mongrels for a laugh. All praise to Hegel for your lot is a saprophagous daddock and devoid of faith. Submit to self-destruction.
Þat er þá reynt, er þú að rúnum spyrr
How about simply infiltrating the Republican Party and reshaping it? America has had a two-party system for so long that I think people will have a hard time voting for a new party on a massive scale.