The Battle of Opposites
Race and Diversity in a Modern World
The ethno-nationalist, especially, is accused of ‘racism’, and this accusation (in the modern sense) seems to always fasten itself upon the accused no matter how reckless. Even false accusations can be valuable, because they draw attention to important issues.1 In official practice, anti-racism is targeted at white-ethnics, and white ethno-nationalists in particular. In their case, racism includes not only hatred and abuse, but any distrust of others, any special concern or preference for whites, any recognition of whites as a distinct, and unique ethnic people.
Moreover, and much more importantly, anti-racism also imposes on ethnic-whites an egregious burden to sacrifice their interests to those of non-white ethnic groups. If a white-ethnic does something at odds with a socially perceived non-white interest or desire, for example if he fails sufficiently to favor racially slanted entitlements, he is racist or at best insensitive. Public statements, on the contrary, by non-white ethnics, are more often than not, revolting and bigoted to white-ethnics, without fear or favor. Ditto for a true ethno-nationalist.
The suggestion by many, that anti-racism draws support from anti-white bigotry is, of course, correct. The so-called ‘white elite’ who, through their introverted sense of altruism, seek to make themselves look ‘altruistic’ to those they, in their own minds, remain in the higher position, and remain responsible to those they feel ‘superior’ too; most members of our ruling leadership are identified as white, but they, themselves, identify themselves by ideology and class rather than by ethno-nationalist identification; their rejection of racial identification is primary to their claim to power.
By attacking whites as a group these individuals identify themselves with the ‘principle of law’ we now are forced to live under. Moreover, ethnic-whites are not now immune from the slings and arrows of the modern anti-racist, and to a greater degree, the anti-racism of judicial review which will, more often than not, override such popular majorities (such as we see in specific State challenges) which would protect ethnic whites from adverse or discriminatory treatment as whites.
Although bigotry is thus a factor, this dominant anti-racism is not the foundational premise of such an attack on whites. The differing treatment of whites and others has a deeper and more principled explanation. As a governing philosophy, anti-racism must be practical as well as idealistic; it values consistency, but its overriding goal is the complete obliteration of racial ethnic-states which are based on majority white-ethnic imperatives. It therefore permits anything, such as anti-racist intolerance, that weakens the position of dominant ethno-states. Fire must be fought with fire; the power of ethno-nationalists is such that only the combined power of class, ethnicity and the state can neutralize it. The function of multiculturalism is to ease the tension between idealism and practicality by portraying differing treatment as an aspect of equality.
The premise and articulation of affirmative action and other race-based transfers of power are supposed to undermine ethnic distinctions, but what seems to power them is unending resentment. After a third of a century of effort on their behalf blacks, especially the educated, are more likely than ever to hate whites and white society.
This tendency, of course, is a natural one; the continuing and obvious failures in this regard, show either a impenetrability with blacks or a deeply profound malevolence with whites, and egalitarian programs demand the latter interpretation. Indeed, anti-racism requires anti-majority racism. An anti-racist ruling class must treat the majority as presumptively wrong. Moreover, the culture and habits of the majority – its Folkways, in the parlance of Henry Sumner Maine - must be discredited as a distinct ethno-state - puts minorities at a disadvantage, and since habits and culture (i.e. race-culture) are what make a people what they are, those specific and unique aspects of themselves, which make the ethnic whites, in this case a people, must then, of necessity, be vilified and attacked; the white-ethnic majority must, at the same time, be defined as racist, and therefore evil and unfit to rule or even exist.
The ethnic nationalist knows that attempts to eradicate deeply rooted human proclivities are, of necessity, revolutionary and tyrannical; the ethnic nationalist knows that we are well into this dictatorship of the mind and, increasingly, the body.
Rather than attempt a utopian transformation of human nature, it seems better to accept the distinctions men, all men, find important, and let them deal with them in customary ways that make sense to those involved; abuses and extreme cases can be dealt with as such. Things classified as ethno-centric attitudes -- ethnic loyalty and governance – are, of course, necessary features of social interaction. The ethnic nationalist, see racial identity as closely related to men's habits, attitudes and loyalties, and is plainly relevant to membership in a common effort like carrying on a business. The fact that men universally take ethnicity into account in choosing associates is the best possible evidence that it makes sense for them to do so. Life, that is, life worth living, depends on culture, and culture on ethnicity.
Ethno-states cannot survive without preference for one's own people and their way of life, or without an environment in which a particular ethnic people sets the tone. French culture could not exist if there were no setting anywhere dominated by Frenchmen. The relation between culture and power, like that between culture and race, is not simple, but it cannot be abolished altogether. Race-culture exists by being a necessary and commanding presence; men share a common culture only when they can rely on common values and habits and hold one another to those same intrinsic standards.
Anti-racism, therefore, is at odds with basic principles of human life. In practice, eradication of racial differentials requires destroying all cultures and thus all possibility of a tolerable way of life. Anti-racism is therefore blatantly unrealistic. Its lack of realism explains a great deal: as in other cases, refusal to face obvious features of human life leads to hysterical irrationality and the tendency to see profound evil everywhere, especially in the faces of one's opponents. Why then has anti-racism -- a principled campaign to abolish the significance of ethnicity at any cost -- become so overwhelmingly dominant?
The causes are complex.
Intellectual support for anti-racism is presupposed by everything recognized as legitimate scholarship. Anti-racist laws impose comprehensive requirements that codify required attitudes. Accepted historical understandings have made the Holocaust a wild-card in any discussion of racial matters. All these conceptions seem to be more effect than cause. Laws and fundamental scholarly presumptions do not generate themselves, and in a different world the moral lesson drawn from that Second War of Fratricide would be the horror of alliance with the Soviet Union, an anti-racist, anti-hereditarian and universalist state – now, sadly, approximating our own.
Anti-racism is thus an aspect of a pervasive social, cultural, and even conceptual transformation. It has come far and fast because of the rapid growth of the conditions upon which it depends. The most dramatic changes were in the '60s, when the civil rights movement was felt to discredit existing society, but they had been long in preparation and have continued since. Public recognition of the transcendent has collapsed; in the United States courts even make it illegal. The churches themselves have abandoned transcendence in favor of these ‘worldly’ concerns, first and foremost anti-racism.
Anti-racism is, however, vulnerable because it depends on opinion, and it is weak on the merits; it will become more vulnerable if confronted frequently and forcefully with argument. The relation of ethno-nationalism to the social order must be explained and scientific and empirical facts exposed. Moreover, agendas which lead to radical egalitarianism must be opposed, cultural traditionalism and acceptance of ethno-nationalism promoted. Race must be put in perspective so that where it matters it can be treated as other things that matter are treated. The modern must be turned against the modern: since anti-racists dominate established media, their opponents must make use of new technologies that are less susceptible to central control, and since anti-racism is the status quo we must reach out to the young and disaffected.
The ethno-nationalist knows that he cannot win this battle without tools. His tools are the realizations and obligation too his ethnic-state, his racial fellows. A majority ethnic republic, then, is the guiding light of all rational individuals who want to realize a brighter and more resilient people and future. The absence of such a vision has enabled anti-racists to win victory, after unopposed victory. This must, and will change.
While a non-anti-racist society need not strive for racial purity, it would recognize the difficulty of combining freedom, diversity and equality. Those things may all be good, but they do not dine well together. A non-anti-racist society would therefore accept at least informal, limited and local ethnic hierarchy, and restrict immigration, especially of those whose ethnic background is radically different from that of dominant groups. Devolution of power within a federal structure could maintain freedom while accommodating some diversity by allowing groups to have settings in which each is locally dominant. The greater the diversity, however, the more difficulties are likely to arise. Free government requires mutual loyalty and common goods and standards. Such things can grow up among a mixed population, but they require time and favorable circumstances. They are unlikely to exist where an ideal of equal citizenship is combined with extreme ethnic mixture and political accommodations – that is, compromise.
How could a non-anti-racist society arise from what we have now? Agitation against anti-racism, while necessary, will not be enough. Local and marginal improvements are always possible, but for major changes certain preconditions are obvious. Bureaucratic centralization will have to decline radically and the importance of ties based on various forms of kinship grow. The radical centralization of political life through the mass media will have to come to an end, and ethno-nationalist arms of propaganda in the ascendant, as well as the importance of the transcendent -- most concretely, common moral principles not reducible to self-interest -- become once again generally accepted. All these are difficult to achieve. Current trends are to the contrary, and things like acceptance of the authority of the transcendent cannot be achieved by fiat.
Some feel a good society cannot be an intentional construction, yet this must remain in hearts and minds of seers and poets as that ‘goal beyond goals’. Moreover, bad societies can ruin themselves, especially as their principles approach logical perfection, and it is possible to cooperate with the growth of something better. The failure of liberalism will reverse current trends in its favor. As the public culture becomes too empty to support trust and cooperation, bureaucracy will become useless, world markets unreliable, and ties of kinship and religion once more at a premium. As the denial of all sources of knowledge other than sensation and formal logic makes reason and even language impossible, men will turn to the transcendent, in their own lives and as a basis for cooperation with others. In the end they will find ways to live a tolerable life, even under the circumstances modern technology has created, and, since man is an embodied, social and historical animal, the pattern will necessarily include traditional local community and therefore ethnicity.
_____________
Notes:
1 Cf. J. Taylor – Paved with Good Intentions, chapter 6, and Laird Wilcox, Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America,” 1995.