By • 2/9/09
In the comments section of The Beginning of White America, one commenter asked how I planned on building the pro-white movement through this site. This is, of course, the crucial question. All our philosophizing and commenting will never amount to much unless it is guided by a strategy to increase our readership and the influence of our ideas. It is in the struggle to spread its message as far and wide as possible that the vitality of a movement lies.
The scope of the question is vast, however, since it encompasses many different types of problem. On the one hand, there are the problems of theory: we must size up our target audience, white Americans, and figure out how to sell our ideas to them. On the other, there are the problems of practice: we must evaluate the tactics of activism and the techniques of publicity. Each of these sides of the problem is itself multifaceted, and all of the facets are murky. What follows is my best guess at a solution to the first half of the problem. A follow-up article will deal with practice. Because the way forward is dark and mysterious, it would be foolish to insist dogmatically on any set of principles, and I will do my best to remain open-minded to other suggestions.
In my view, the way forward is one of realism, reason, and reconciliation. The pro-white movement must be based on a realistic theory of human nature, which means that we should appeal to the self-interest of white Americans. Moreover, we should set reasonable goals for activism and reconcile our philosophy to the liberal ideals that are engrained in American culture.
The commenter referred to above asked whether I would try to attract “white nationalists” to the site. White nationalists are certainly welcome to come, but I will not be catering to them because the philosophy of white nationalism is, in my view, a poor foundation for white racial advocacy—this is why I have used the admittedly awkward term “pro-white,” never “white nationalist,” to describe my own beliefs.
My disagreement with white nationalism goes far beyond rejection of the anti-Semitism that is characteristic of this philosophy. Rather, the fundamental flaw is that white nationalism is, at bottom, only an empty tribalism that is more likely to repel than attract white Americans. While some white nationalists have done interesting and productive work and have succeeded in attracting a sizable number of followers, the weaknesses of this philosophy, in my view, are likely to prevent it from developing into a significant political movement.
The core claim of white nationalism, as it has been expounded by writers like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald and by scores of bloggers and commenters at websites like Majority Rights, is that humans possess an innate instinct to be loyal to their ethnic group that evolved through the pressure of what Frank Salter has called “ethnic genetic interests.” Whites have turned their back on their instinctive ethnic tribalism, the story goes, and must be persuaded to embrace it again.
For reasons I sketched out here, I have never been convinced by this line of thinking; indeed, I am very much in doubt that any instinct for racial loyalty exists at all. To sum up my case, if people were loyal to their race by instinct, the friendliness to diversity that characterizes contemporary Western societies would be impossible, and whites would not tolerate the pervasive denigration of their culture and history that I have labeled leukophobia. Besides, the nature of instincts is such that it would be impossible for a whole racial population to simply lose one.
People are motivated by self-interest, not by any instinctive attachment to their race. Consequently, they will be attracted to the pro-white movement only if they perceive it to be in their interests to join. Herein, of course, lies the reason why our ranks are so sparse: our culture demonizes white racial solidarity so thoroughly that, generally speaking, white people correctly perceive it to be in their interest to stay as far away from us as possible.
If our movement is to be successful, we must convince white Americans that it is with us that their true interests lie. Whites will join the pro-white movement because they fear minority crime, or because they sense that minority cultures threaten their own, or because they are angry at anti-white discrimination, or because they believe that non-whites are responsible for poor economic conditions. We will succeed by focusing on these very concrete and selfish concerns, rather than trying to persuade people that they possess an instinct for racial loyalty.
Another problem applies not only to white nationalists, but to the whole of the pro-white movement: we have never made any effort to reconcile our project with fundamental American values. Pro-whites have fostered the myth that our movement fails only because it is demonized and censored by hostile elites. If only we could speak directly to white Americans, we think, they would be persuaded by us and come over to our side by the millions.
The problem is, unfortunately, much deeper than that. Not just elites, but white Americans as a whole believe deeply, even religiously, in liberal values like tolerance, egalitarianism, and individualism. Our philosophy clashes with these values; after all, pro-whites believe that some peoples and practices should not be tolerated in our country, that racial hierarchies are inevitable and right, and that collectivist racial solidarity is desirable. Pro-whites thus try to force an entirely new set of values on white Americans while making no place for the existing ones.
The way forward for the pro-white movement lies in finding common ground between our own values and those of our public. Consequently, we must make the case that, while values like tolerance and egalitarianism have many merits, they become harmful when they are taken to extremes and are not counterbalanced by opposing goods. Tolerance of a thoroughly intolerant religion like Islam will lead to the end of the tolerant state. Egalitarians do harm when they demand equal outcomes for groups of differing ability. This sort of argument has worked for the European immigration restrictionist movement and for conservative critics of affirmative action. The pro-white movement should imitate their success even as we also insist on our distinctive principles.
A final problem with the pro-white movement is that our political goals are wildly radical and unrealistic. When I talk with pro-whites, they commonly tell me that the aim of the movement should be the racial partition of the United States, the mass deportation of non-whites, or some form of revolution.
Listening to such grandiose ambitions always leaves me depressed. The world in which any of these events would be possible is so distant from the one that we live in that these goals lead to no concrete activist practice. Indeed, unrealistic ideals tend to lead to inertia in the present because we can find no pathway to them from the world as it really exists. Moreover, people outside the movement rightly regard people who rave about racial partition as buffoons, and possibly dangerous ones.
All we can do right now is try to persuade people of the core tenets of our movement, and we will only be able to transform the American consciousness by focusing on projects that are feasible today. A historical precedent will illustrate this point. When the black civil rights movement was starting out in the early 20th century, it did not demand affirmative action and busing, because such goals would have been unrealistic in the context of the times. Rather, civil rights advocates demanded feasible reforms, such as equal funding for black and white schools and an end to lynching. Through their advocacy of minor changes in social policy, the civil rights movement effected the major changes in social attitudes that laid the groundwork of their future success. Above all, by successfully manipulating the issue of lynching, the civil rights movement linked all forms of white ethnocentrism with hatred and bigotry, thus forging the concept of “racism” that has been so effective in demonizing the pro-white movement.
In the same manner, pro-whites should work towards goals that are feasible today. That means we should be talking about the stimulus bill and the school board rather than wasting our time on remote fantasies. As we agitate on these issues, we should seek ways to present the basic principles of our movement in a sympathetic light, so that we lay the ground for further advances in the future.
The path of realism, reason, and reconciliation should not be viewed as a cowardly compromise. By no means am I suggesting that we pull our punches: we must go on hitting people with the hard facts about innate racial differences and minority dysfunction. Rather, reconciliation means that we must respect values that conflict with our own and listen to our public as well as preach to them. Such a course is a natural outgrowth of the aims of the pro-white movement. After all, why would be so eager to save white America if we did not find some value in its culture already? It would be odd if we wished to save white America by destroying it.