Are Race Realists the True Liberals?
By • 1/31/08One of the big topics I’m going to address over the coming year is why the race realist movement, along with its more mainstream handmaiden, the immigration reform movement, always loses. We saw it again on Tuesday—the one electable candidate left in the race who made illegal immigration a serious issue, Mitt Romney, was defeated in the Florida primary by a diversicrat who has been one of the foremost advocates of amnesty. We’ve got to face it: John McCain will probably be the Republican nominee. We can all go on hoping against hope for a Romney comeback, but it is unlikely.
A majority of the public supports immigration reform in the polls. So why is it then that Republican voters would opt for a man like McCain over Romney? And the evidence for racial differences, as we all know, is overwhelming. So why are race realists treated as pariahs?
I’ve written before that our failures are due to the “yahoo” problem that plagues race realists. There is a widespread prejudice that whites who have a sense of racial solidarity are backwards, ignorant, and hateful. I’d like to refine my perception of the problem here.
In my last article, I described some of the core values that define the West, including individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. There is no doubt that Westerners hold these values very dear. Their centrality to the Western ethic is manifest in the American Constitution, with its guarantee of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship, and the Declaration of Independence, with its assertion of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The reason why liberals win is that they have managed to define themselves as the ones who uphold these Western values. What are activist groups for non-whites called? Civil rights groups. What is the name of a group that actively spreads anti-white propaganda? The American Civil Liberties Union. The very name “liberals,” in fact, suggests that these people are the partisans of liberty.
So when race realists try to argue against the liberals, we run into an overpowering headwind. “What! You’re against rights and liberties?” people cry in disbelief. “You sick freaks! You Nazis!” We can’t even get a hearing because liberals have defined themselves as the defenders of Western values so successfully.
We’ve seen in some of my recent blog entries that the public’s perception is completely inverted. Recently, minority groups have forced Frances Semler out of a municipal job because she’s a Minuteman and brought human rights complaints against Canadian publishers for criticizing Islam. The big daddy of all “civil rights” heroes, Martin Luther King, restricted Americans’ rights to live around and hire who they wanted.
I think the key to victory for race realists is for us to attack liberals’ self-portrayal and grab the mantle of defenders of Western values for ourselves. We should present ourselves as the true proponents of values like individualism, pluralism, and tolerance, and the other side as the authoritarians. We might even want to argue that we are the true liberals.
The facts lend some plausibility to this redefinition. Not only are “civil rights” groups actually restricting our rights, but it makes eminent sense that racially conscious whites should defend Western values, since “Western” essentially means “white.”
The tricky part, though, is that the racially conscious society that race realists aspire to establish would probably inflict some hardships on non-whites that they could plausibly argue are restrictions of their rights. It is impossible to know for certain what form such a society would take, but whites would almost certainly be at least a bit “more equal” than others.
The way to finesse this difficulty is to argue that virtues like tolerance, individualism, and pluralism must have limits. We should allow them within reason, certainly, but not to the point where they destroy our culture.
The details need to be worked out, and I will write about them more in the future, but such is a general outline of one form that race realist activism could take.
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.
Ian Jobling notes:
“The way to finesse this difficulty is to argue that virtues like tolerance, individualism, and pluralism must have limits. We should allow them within reason, certainly, but not to the point where they destroy our culture.”
I agree with you here, as well with your position that pointing out that we are the true defenders of such Western traditions, is one of the most effective means of battling the sanctimonious “liberals” positions. However, it is also important to point out (and to do so with as much contemptuous irony as possible) just how closely they mirror Stalinists, Maoists, and Hitlerites in their own right. For example, when they gushingly prattle on about the virtues of miscegenation or unrestricted immigration, it always hits them where it hurts most, when you point out that these are forms of gradual genocide of the white race. They normally don’t have any retort, except the hysterical accusations and name calling they excel at, that only intensify as you continue to drive that point home.
In short, they mostly lose it.
Even when they are being rational and cordial about it, pointing out the insanity of their positions can have a sobering to chillingly “lucidity moment” for one of them or a Twilghter. Recently a personally respected colleague of mine, asked me to review their written justification of our department’s continued employment of psychologists. This individual included a point that read something like this: ‘educating other staff on white privilege and its impact on minority clients in our agency.’ I returned my review with some clinically oriented suggestions on other points, but on the “white privilege” point I slammed it hard. I noted: “White privilege, so-called, is a Neo Marxist construct that was created to simply demonize whites and their accomplishments, while also excusing the social pathologies and abnormalities of nonwhites.’
Dr. White Privilege came back with a smirk and presumed to “educate” me on my “misconceptions” about this idiocy. Long story short, I educated him about the Marxist roots of multiculturalism, the demographic changes of America’s population between 1965 and 2007, and some of the implications of the “white privilege” folly that this individual was so fond of, particularly for white children recently born. As Dr White Privilege has two such children, let us say the fight response gave way to a fright response.
Or put another way, the cocky condescending smirk did not remain to the point of exit!
Romney is by no means a long shot. I’d say either are capable of winning it, but I think McCain’s lead here is deceptive. Even if McCain wins, it will tighten up at the end in my estimations.
I believe Republicans are against amnesty but they weigh a number of issues when they vote, so amnesty is just one of them.
It is important to point out that what McCain is doing is socially unacceptable within his community. He’ll have to face that. On the other hand, the Democrats want amnesty. I don’t deny that McCain wants it, but Republicans will restrain him more than Democrats would restrain their nominee. So while I will staunchly oppose McCain until the nomination (which he realistically may still lose), if he does win, I’ll support him over the Democrats.
Ian writes:
The reason why liberals win is that they have managed to define themselves as the ones who uphold these Western values.
Whoever gets the nomination - indeed whoever is elected as president - will it really make any difference to the concerns of traditional conservatives? (Qualifying the noun “conservative” with the redundant adjective “traditional”, is a symptom of the flux in which conservative opinion swirls at the present time.)
If we were to do as Hamlet instructed and hold the mirror up to nature to show the very age and body of the time, its form and pressure, we would discover the ubiquitous presence of liberalism. It broods over everything. Is any president, Republican or Democrat, likely to lead an administration that will roll back the tide of liberal universalism? Is it even possible for a US president - except in minor and unimportant ways - to undo the moral, social, and political constraints with which liberalism has shackled Western society?
The root of the problem is, of course, that ‘White Americans’ are not a homogenous self-defined ethnicity as the various European nationalities are (or were?)- most European nations can trace back roots extending back thousands of years to pre-history and were formerly (up to 1945 at least)were extremely conscious of their shared blood and of the soil their forefathers died to conquer or defend. I fear that lack of ‘blood-consciousness’ will always thwart all attempts to organize ‘White Americans’ by race - and terminally so. Remember the USA is around 65% White now (if you accept decidely dodgy census figures) and this will fall to minority status in 30 years, so basically the game’s over. The 1965 Immigration Act is the ultimate culprit.
“A majority of the public supports immigration reform in the polls. So why is it then that Republican voters would opt for a man like McCain over Romney?”
It’s mind boggling; it has a twilight zone feel to it!!!
It just goes to show you how easily the masses are manipulated by the media. Plato once stated: “The masses are incurably ignorant.” That certainly has proven itself right time after time after time….
As long as the media — and the message it sends forth — is controlled and scripted by people that have contrary positions to ours (white race-realists), we will continue to be marginalized and portrayed as social outcasts.
Taryton said: “As long as the media — and the message it sends forth — is controlled and scripted by people that have contrary positions to ours (white race-realists), we will continue to be marginalized and portrayed as social outcasts.”
That really gets to the heart of it, Taryton. You never hear the MSM accurately portraying McCain for the Amnesty Shill that he is. Usually, not even Fox News does it, although finally, just last night, particularly on Hannity and Colmes, I sensed an urgency to unmask McCain for his amnesty promotion. Well, what took them so long?
That was Romney’s biggest goof in the campaign; not sensing white America’s outrage over the open-borders, multiculti invasion of Mestizos. Nobody asked us if we wanted this… ever. And yet Romney played too nice until after Florida was already lost. In my view, he mistakenly worried about offending the many Hispanic voters in Florida, instead of properly defining McCain’s amnesty position. Let’s face it, after McCain offered up amnesty, if Mitt was not fully on board with that, there was no way hispanics were going to vote for Mitt. There was no way he could outpander McCain.
Now, a week too late, he seems to get it and is really hitting McCain hard on amnesty. My feeling is that most of the electorate is so blithely ignorant of the issues that they voted for McCain thinking that he’ll actually stop illegal immigration. It’s Romney’s grand error for not going for that underbelly much earlier and oftener (sic).
Hannity, Rush, Coulter et al, are near apoplectic over McCain as the nominee (I regard him as nothing less than a traitor on the issue). Even Newt was doing a very good job of defining McCain as a liberal.
Just a huge miscalculation on the part of the right to not go after McCain on amnesty much, much earlier. It may be too late to derail him at this point. I for one, will not vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I realize there are other issues in the campaign, but nothing is so fundamental as the very preservation of our Western Heritage (and demography). If you are populated with a bunch of third worlders, your nation will become third world. There’s no escaping that reality, though it completely eludes McCain.
I have a special antipathy for phonies. With Barack and Hillary, you know what they are; extremely liberal. It is a badge they wear proudly. McCain is a liberal pretending to be a conservative. He is loathsome, in my view.
The US as it presently exists may be only 65% white, but who knows what it may be in future. Any number of events — e.g., war, disease, population transfers — could serve to alter the racial balance. Birth rates could change too. We don’t even know what the US will look like in 30 years. If the US breaks up, as I expect it will, the racial composition of the different parts could differ vastly.
I think it is important to keep in mind that current demographic change in the US is the result of deliberate policy. It’s not the result of natural phenomena, like a tsunami. The marginalisation of whites and our displacement in our own homelands are calculated, intentional processes. It is being driven by deliberate policy choices and trends facilitated and encouraged by power elites in government, media, business, and academia.
Knowing this, makes it easier to avoid feelings of apathy and helplessness, which too often lead to despair. Attributing white racial decline to “natural forces,” against which we are totally powerless, can provide an excuse to sit at home and do nothing. Maybe it can also help racially conscious whites start to understand just what we need to do to regain power and reverse the decline. It will require action.
There are many things I love about this website, but there is a sense of pessimism in many of the articles that I just can’t bring myself to agree with.
For example, consider the following quote from the above article:
“One of the big topics I’m going to address over the coming year is why the race realist movement, along with its more mainstream handmaiden, the immigration reform movement, always loses. ”
We don’t always lose. There are many signs of improvement over here as well as in Europe. They may not be happening fast enough but they ARE happening. And I agree with John PM in his assessment of Super Tuesday.
There have been comments in previous articles such as “all other race realist movements have failed”. This is another theory that I find hard to believe as well. I also still don’t believe that white people are being fully honest when they answer these polls asking them if they are true race realists.
I hope this post doesn’t cause any friction. As I said, I love most everything about this website, but it is only fair if I am allowed to express myself in the minor areas where I disagree.
Here is an interesting tidbit of news.
Last night on Hannity and Combs, Ann Coulter declared that should Senator No Brains get the nomination and be faced with Hillary in the general election, she would campaign and vote for Hillary. Personally, I think this is hilarious because I have been saying the same thing ever since the Florida debacle.
If we have to vote for a Red, better a Stalin in a dress and pumps then a Trotsky cross-dressing as a pachyderm!
To Courtney, regarding:
“We don’t always lose. There are many signs of improvement over here as well as in Europe. They may not be happening fast enough but they ARE happening. And I agree with John PM in his assessment of Super Tuesday.”
That is the spirit Courtney, like your British ancestors would have said, keep a stiff upper lip!
We have lost battles, not the war; even as Ian Jobling notes above the immigration issue still remains on the table in the public’s top 3 or 4 major issues in this election year. Senator No Brains, being the little weasel that he is, continues to skirt and lie about where his loyalties are; this being with the Third World invaders and not real Americans. I just heard on the news, that Romney intends to unleash between 3 million and 8 million dollars worth of political advertisements of the sort I mentioned in my first post above, in the Super Tuesday states.
Maybe between this and the understandable outrage of conservative pundits like Coulter and Limbaugh, Governor Romney will skin himself a little whining Red weasel on Super Tuesday?
Hey, God let it be so!
I always thought that it would be helpful for race realists to list their goals. Or to put it another way what do we want? To give it a try here are my top five:
Bring back absolute freedom of association. If a white store owner at a private business does not want to sell to blacks or vice versa that is freedom. They may boycott his business, this too is freedom. This will also apply to sellers/renters of housing, property, etc. This will not apply to the government which leads to..
Government will end all racial set-asides, affirmative action, forced busing, quotas, racial/social engineering. They are in the business of governing not creating unbuildable utopias.
Return absolute freedom of speech. Speech is currently being used as a weapon against Whites in a game of “Gotcha”. If somebodies feelings get hurt, well too bad, move on. You are not supposed to like everyone/everything in the world.
Control violent out of control criminals without regard to race. If a large majority of blacks are committing crimes then a large majority of blacks will be incarcerated. This is the “let the chips fall where they may” plan.
Enforce the existing laws on the books concerning illegal immigration. One of the reasons governments form is to protect its citizen from invasion.
If this sounds radical think that not that long ago it was the law of the land.
To Ian, “The racially conscious society that race realists aspire to establish.” I have asked the following question on several boards and never recieved an answer. “What was different about society pre-1960s that resulted in a segregated, white emphasized society? The answer popped in my head one day. I do not believe that whites for the most part were ever overly racially conscious. Perhaps they were racially sub-conscious. I don’t remember anyone talking about white pride or white anything when I was growing up. Are there any old movies (except for Birth of a Nation) where whiteness is discussed? The reason that this was not discussed is because this was the natural order of things. Whites currently will struggle to live in white neighborhoods and work the system to have their kids attend mostly white schools. Foremost in their minds is not black/white but safety and a good education. My point is that we are the way we are not because we have lost touch with our racial consciousness but because we have lost our freedoms combined with massive propaganda/misinformation from the media/public education.
Ian Jobling notes:
“We’ve got to face it: John McCain will probably be the Republican nominee. We can all go on hoping against hope for a Romney comeback, but it is unlikely.”
At this point in time, we do not have to “face” anything; Super Tuesday has not yet happened and Comrade No Brains McCain is absolutely despised, by most of the conservative/Republican media powerhouses in this country. You name them: Limbaugh, Hannity, Buchanan, and so on, have all openly stated that this man does not have a single respectable conservative position, beyond his support for continuing the occupation of Iraq. Rank and file Republicans listen to these people and often base voting decisions on what they have to say. For example, on the issue of Comrade No Brains’ lie about the Romney position on the “time table withdrawal” of troops from Iraq alone, Sean Hannity (the most moderate of the three I mentioned above) has been slamming him almost daily on his radio show.
Moreover, Mitt Romney still has raised far more money and has a personal fortune that can sustain him through this “crushing” Florida victory of Comrade No Brains, who is still running in the red by the way. Please consider that 36% over 31%, was hardly all that great of an achievement in so crowded a field. Please keep in mind that Romney beat him in Michigan by 39% over 30%. Also, for another example, on the Fox News Channel I just saw a very effective Romney commercial that shows a photo of Hillary Clinton, while an announcer asks a variety of very unflattering questions about the “Senator’s” liberal record. These questions mention the amnesty issue and the fact that this “Senator” was even see as the “perfect running mate” for John Kerry in 2004. It then intones, “was this Senator Hillary Clinton?” It then observes, “no it was Senator John McCain” and cuts away to a very gloomy photo of him.
Ian Jobling, please do not make the mistake of buying the “mainstream” media’s and Washington establishment’s coronation of McCain as the “inevitable Republican nominee.” He is no more so, than Comrade Obama was after Iowa for the Democrats.
Or put another way, the fat lady isn’t singing just yet!