Realists Should Appeal to Whites’ Love of Freedom
By • 3/14/08Last week, I described an effective strategy for race realists in converting the racially unaware: comparing human races to dog breeds. This week, I have another recommendation: making the point that whites show more respect for freedom of speech than any other race.
Freedom of speech is a core element of the Western identity, rooted in the tradition of pluralism and tolerance that characterizes our culture. The idea of freedom generates particularly powerful emotions in Americans. We are “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” The Bush administration effectively mobilized support for the invasion of Iraq by claiming it would promote freedom in the Middle East. Liberals are particularly fervent about protecting freedom of speech; in fact, many of them believe, hysterically, that Republicans are fascists who are bent on suppressing civil liberties. By casting whites as the race of freedom, then, you will appeal to deeply held values.
My theory that high respect for freedom is an innate trait of the white race is borne out by non-whites’ unfriendliness to criticism. Whites react to criticism, even abuse, respectfully. Whites don’t ban the books of Susan Sontag because she called us the “cancer of human history”; in fact, Sontag is a hero to many. We don’t silence blacks like Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who rant about whites’ destructiveness and say “God damn America!”
Such respect for criticism does not characterize non-whites. Muslims are the group most obviously intolerant of criticism, so they should always be your starting point. The Danish cartoons controversy is the perfect example. The Muslim protesters of the cartoons shouted, “Freedom of speech is like a plague!” and carried signs saying things like “Behead those who insult Islam.”
The same point can be made about Hispanics. Remember the case of Frances Semler, the Kansas City government employee who incurred the wrath of Hispanic groups because she was a Minuteman and a critic of illegal immigration. The National Council of La Raza boycotted the city because it hired Semler and got other minority groups to threaten boycotts. Semler eventually resigned in disgust.
It’s easy to make the same point about blacks as well. Remember the 2003 Rush Limbaugh case. When the political commentator and football analyst made the mild claim that the media overrated quarterback Donovan McNabb because he was black, a judgment that many mainstream commentators believed perfectly reasonable, the NAACP and Al Sharpton called for him to be fired. Limbaugh eventually resigned over the incident.
It seems the same for all non-whites: whenever you say anything that they believe harmful to their interests, they don’t tolerate your right to an opinion. No, they call for punishment.
You can bring your point home by pointing that white nations score much higher than non-white nations in the Reporters Without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index.
This point is especially useful if anyone calls whites or white countries “fascist.” You can proudly respond that whites are the race least inclined to fascism and hit them with the above.
Race realists have tried to draw others to our side by touting whites’ high IQ, but that plainly has not worked, probably because the issue of intelligence does not have much emotional appeal. But whites do get emotional over the issue of civil liberties, so portraying whites as the race of freedom will likely be more successful.
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.
“…so portraying whites as the race of freedom will likely be more successful.”
Your point is well taken.
However, I’d like to add something. In discussions I’ve had with other Whites concerning the proclivities of black people, I’ve used the following facts with great effect by pointing out to them that:
1) Blacks are arrogant.
2) Blacks are violent.
3) Blacks do not speak the same language as Whites.
4) Blacks do not dress the same as Whites.
5) Blacks do not have the same standards of behavior (mores) as White people.
6) There is not one place on earth where Blacks are the majority that is not a filthy, crime- ridden, dung heap.
7) In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks developed no written language.
8) In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks erected no monuments of note.
9) In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks built no
architectural structures above the level of
mud brick and grass.
10) In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks have achieved no feats of engineering.
12) In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks made no scientific discoveries
13) And the coup de grace: In all of sub Sahara Africa Blacks never even discovered the wheel.
I’ve enumerated this list of mine to Whites who have had even a modicum of contact with Blacks, and they instantly recognize them all as being true. And what’s even better, I’ve enumerated the same list to young, idealistic, college educated Whites and over and over have received the same dumbfounded silent stares of someone who recognizes the truth, has just had their illusions shattered, and — best of all — can offer no rejoinder to these facts.
Try these points sometime and see what happens. I guarantee you’ll get the same non responses.
WJP’s points may be true when applied broadly, but they do not address the topic of Ian’s post.
They also, in many cases, do not apply to American blacks. Specifically, all the facts about sub-Saharan African Blacks failures to advance do not, in and of themselves say anything in particular about American Blacks. The first five items are all easily subject to individual exceptions, even if they may be broadly true. As a university professor, I have had a number of Black colleagues, and they are as nice as the white people on the faculty. These are not the average Black man on the street, but the statements are too easily shot full of holes with exceptions to be of much value.
Ian’s argument presented in this post is essentially positive, pointing out superior things about the white race. WJP has presented only a very negative argument, a put-down of the Black race.
I’m not sure that the dumbfounded stares WJP has received have been because people were so overwhelmed with the brilliance of the argument presented here. There could be another reason.
I never said that the proclivities I enumerated applied toward all Blacks, merely the overwhelming majority of them. And I stand by what I said when I said that anyone who has had any dealings with Blacks in susbstantial numbers over a long period of time would agree with my assessment to a man and to a woman. I know, because I’ve asked them.
Yes, I have met this Black and that one who was indeed smart, friendly, civil, personable, etcetera, etcetera. And it is manifestly true that what makes a Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell such a stark exception is that they are the exception. Basically what makes people like them stand out and held up as examples is the degree to which they approximate and exemplify White standards of behavior, not Black ones.
And I believe the list does advance the case for Whites because it lists the characteristics which, by and large, separate White behavior from Black behavior. And, yes, Whites of course can be arrogant, violent, stupid and so on.
How do the things I list apply to American Blacks? Inasmuch as the traits of the races are largely genetic and inasmuch as American Blacks are genetically and historically linked to African Blacks they do apply to American blacks, and aptly so. Now I may not walk the halls of tweedy academia, but I assure you I have the intellectual wherewithal to interpret experience. And at the risk of coming on like a know-it-all, I can say without hesitation that I lived and worked for years — years, mind you — in neighborhoods you pray your car doesn’t breakdown. My assessments comes from a lifetime of experience and are shared by countless others.
My arguments are not so easily shot through with holes as you say. I say to you, ask them. Ask the people who know Blacks, not this or that academic, but the people who regularly deal with everyday White-hating blacks (and make no mistake about it, they hate you and me). Ask them what their view of Blacks is, and I’ll bet you a dollar to a dime, they will agree with everything I’ve said. Everything. And their assessments like my assessments come from one and thousand experiences and interpretations garnered from the being hit in the head with the hard rock of Black reality.
And lastly, like you said you weren’t there when I’ve said these things to well meaning Whites. And as I said above I may not walk the halls of tweedy academia, but I have the intellectual wherewithal to interpret experience. I know the silence and body language of a person whose argument had been refuted and whose illusion has been shattered.
And one more last, last thing, I never said my list/arguments were brilliant, as you snidely said. I only said they were right. And since they accurately describe the negative attributes of Blacks, which are diametrically opposed to the attributes of Whites, they thereby cast Whites in a positive light.
“Race realists have tried to draw others to our side by touting whites’ high IQ, but that plainly has not worked, probably because the issue of intelligence does not have much emotional appeal. But whites do get emotional over the issue of civil liberties, so portraying whites as the race of freedom will likely be more successful.”
Maybe, maybe not, Ian.
I suspect that Whites — well meaning Whites — will counter that fact by saying that all Blacks have to do is overthrow the despots that rule Africa and replace them with governments which are freely elected democratic republics, complete with civil liberties like freedom of speech. Then they will be just like Whites, those Whites will say. That is a phenomenon Blacks can perhaps emulate.
I think that if race realist Whites really want to hit a hot emotional button with other Whites, then the subject of Black criminality and Black on White crime should be raised. Few issues raise emotions to a higher pitch than crime, particularly violent crime.
I bet every honest White knows in their heart of hearts that Blacks commit the overwhelming amount of violent crime that plagues America. They may not say it out loud, but they think it. Pressed on the issue liberal fools may use the tired excuse that it’s poverty or White racism that causes Black crime, or that it’s the “legacy of slavery” or some such rationalization.
But deep down I truly think they know that Blacks are by nature a violent, war like race wherever they are. All we have to do is get them to admit it. That’s the hard part.
So, to dwell on the positive aspects of White nature, I think it would do well to point out that White people are far more orderly, civil, and law abiding. Those attributes I think will be instantly more recognizable as being inherently White qualities.
WJP,
Racial differences in law-breaking and intelligence are no doubt a strong point for race realists. However, I pointed out the weakness of these arguments in A Philosophy of Activism:
“The current race realist movement has been very good at exposing two differences between whites on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other: IQ and crime rates. Naturally, these differences would be essential to making our case that diversity will change our culture in ways that are contrary to white interests. However, of themselves, they are not complete. Because of the enormous drops in the crime rate since the early 1990s, most white Americans do not live in imminent danger of crime, so publicizing black and Hispanic crime rates may not persuade people. Moreover, most people associate high IQ with asocial nerdiness, not understanding the effects of a population’s average IQ level on its culture.
“Also, Asians have higher IQs and lower crime-rates than whites, so these attributes cannot fully justify pro-white activism. Besides, if someone asks you why you love America, does “Because we’re so law-abiding” or “Because we’re so smart” seem like an adequate answer?
“The fact is that there are untheorized, or poorly theorized, aspects of the white personality that cause us to build unique cultures. The effects of these personality traits are relatively easy to understand: no cultures have been as innovative as those of whites; it was white cultures that invented representative government and abolished slavery. Whatever is the source of these phenomena is our racial essence, and it is that which is precious to us. The success of our cause depends on defining this essence and explaining to people that it is the biological basis of the culture that we love.
“Whatever the essence is, it undoubtedly has something to do with freedom. White societies place a unique value on the right of all humans to think, speak, and live according to the dictates of their own consciences. We see this in the Western invention of the concept of human rights in the Enlightenment. We see it again in the Anglo-American campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century. We see it in President Roosevelt’s 1941 declaration that American foreign policy would be based on fostering the “Four Freedoms”: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. This defense of freedom has dictated American foreign policy ever since, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. One can love the spirit that motivated these efforts even if one finds some of them misguided.”
In my recent work, including both of the recent articles on the nature of the West, I’ve been trying to capture the basic traits of Western culture to which whites are most profoundly and emotionally attached.
The problem in Ian’s theory is that it is awfully similar to the pseudoscientific claims of the Nazis. Hitler didn’t claim that the Jews are less intelligent or law-abiding but he argued that Aryans “create culture” whereas Jews “destroy culture”.
Concerning racial essence, Ian Jobling writes: Whatever the essence is, it undoubtedly has something to do with freedom. White societies place a unique value on the right of all humans to think, speak, and live according to the dictates of their own consciences.
I dare say that black people love liberty - i.e. what we would call unfettered liberty or license. Freedom accompanied by every just restraint seems to be a difficult concept for black people and some other groups to acquire. In other words, they don’t grasp the essential point that absolute freedom is indefensible. All our liberties, including freedom of speech, are subject to the rule of law.
Failure to internalize a sophisticated theory of freedom probably accounts for the intolerance of justified criticism.
Tribalist wrote, “Hitler didn’t claim that the Jews are less intelligent or law-abiding.”
Didn’t the Nazis ban IQ testing because German Jews obtained higher scores than German non-Jews?
Jewish Racial Conservative,
The Nazis used IQ testing in their eugenics program. It is possible that they banned studies comparing the IQ of Jews and non-Jews. Evidence that Jews are intellectually superior would of course be embarrassing.
Eugen Fischer summarized the attitude of the Nazi regime thus:
“I do not characterize every Jew as inferior, as Negroes certainly are, and I do not underestimate the greatest enemy with whom we have to fight. But I reject Jewry with every means in my power, and without reserve, in order to preserve the hereditary endowment of my people.” — Eugen Fischer, lecture, June 20, 1939
Curiously, Fischer remained a respected member in the academic community after the war and actually did some good. He told to UNESCO that racial differences in intelligence surely existed and this comment was included to the 1952 UNESCO statement on race. His Nazi buddy prof. Fritz Lenz was also consulted. Lenz was of the opinion that whites and blacks don’t belong to the same species.
You can read the UNESCO statement here: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
IQ testing was banned and denounced as “Jewish” in Nazi Germany. Arhur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have documented this. The NSDAP was extremely anti-intellectual, and quite possibly the most anti-intellectual political movement in European history (and this was made obvious by the intellectual and artistic poverty that Germany was plunged into almost immediately after the Nazi takeover).
What I am afraid that what you have not addressed here is the (unjustified, but inevitable) Liberal response, “Oh, but they have a reason to feel that way.” Some how, in the leftist liberal mind, this covers all objections, the fact that they have a complaint makes their (mis)behavior completely acceptable, no matter how egregious it is.
We all know that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the muzlim reaction to the big Mo cartoons, but we know what they did anyway. But even now, there are Anglo-Saxons, some Americans, some British, etc. who are solemnly saying, “Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to insult.” They are quite willing to back away from freedom of speech, just because the muzzies have pitched a hissie fit. They have bought into the objection that muzlim offense nullifies the long held understanding of English Common Law and American Law that freedom of speech has almost no limits beyond those of public safety (not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.).
With regard to the meskins, they too feel aggrieved. They say that their land was stolen. They refuse to recognize the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and naturally our liberal will agree with the greasers. So you see, they have a right to want to shut down discussion if they don’t like the way it is going. They have a grievance. Or at least, that is the liberal/meskin logic.
And on and on it goes. I’m afraid that your argument only works with reasonable, intelligent, right thinking people for whom we did not need the argument in the first place.
It is awfully hard to argue reasonably with a liberal. They have no brains (as Ann Coulter has argued previously).