|
Why Whites Should Be Racially Conscious
by Max Power
August 12, 2002
We may define a "white nationalist" as one who
believes that all racial groups are essentially tribal
in nature, and that this nature is only being
suppressed in the majority of whites, either because
they're told that seriously entertaining such beliefs
"is what led to the Holocaust,"[1] or, as is the case
in some European countries, out of fear of
imprisonment. The aim of the white nationalist is to
reawaken long-lost ethnocentric tendencies in whites,
so they don't join the dodo bird on the extinction
list. White nationalists have historically been a
diverse bunch, cutting across political boundaries,
from avatar of private property Thomas Jefferson, to
the socialist Jack London. In the following paragraphs
I shall attempt to argue that whites have good reasons
for being racially conscious, and maybe provide
suggestions as to how white nationalists can gain
inroads at accomplishing their goal.
A preliminary question that deserves to be asked,
though invariably isn't, is whether whites were ever
racially conscious to begin with. That is, are whites
only racially conscious for utilitarian reasons --
i.e., the usual reasons (black and mestizo crime) that
prompt "white flight"? Were whites racially conscious
in the sense of regarding one another as an extended
family, with shared memories, a common outlook, a
common destiny and a common temperment, and radically
distinct in these respects from the black, red and
yellow races before the Holocaust occurred and "hate
speech" laws were enacted in Europe and Canada?
Unfortunately, I don't have the historical resources
at hand to prove conclusively if they were or not, and
the time required to collate the footnotes would
exhaust my current time constraints.
However, I will at least say this: whites evolved
seperately from other racial groups for tens of
thousands of years, and operated in close proximity
with one another in hunter-gatherer tribes where the
environment selected against (among other things)
uncooperative behavior and racial unfamiliarity. It's
a pretty safe bet that whites are racially conscious
to some degree and that it's probably embedded in
their biology; how large a component is a question
history should be able to answer. The question here is
whether "hard" racial consciousness -- that is, racial
consciousness that isn't utilitarian -- seems faithful
to the behavior whites displayed around other racial
groups throughout history, e.g. whites and blacks in
the antebellum south, whites and blacks in pre-WWII
colonial Africa, whites and Asians and even whites
themselves.
The fact that the bloodiest conflicts in recent years
have erupted between whites in Ireland and the Balkans
seems to render less plausible the notion of whites
having a strong sense of racial tribalism. The only
comment I can offer here is that this just reinforces
the commonsensical observation that further
integration is doomed to failure, for if groups with a
minutiae of racial differences betweem them struggle
to get along, how can anyone expect Moslems from
Pakistan and voodoo priests from Haiti to be anything
other than shock troops for the Jewish mandarins to
bring down white gentile societies? For the time
being, I'll leave this one to the historians, and
possibly a future article.
The first step towards getting whites who show no
concern at the prospect of imminent dispossession to
open their eyes isn't to cite psychometric literature
showing the racial IQ discrepancies, because this
usually results in a chain of neverending arguments
ranging from slavery to the Holocaust, to just being
called a "racist." The first step, rather, is to
convince these apathetic whites that other racial
groups are tribal; that regardless of where the
Chinese, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Somalis and Haitians
congregate in the world, their culture, customs and
folkways invariably follows them. You could point out,
say, that the Chinese community in Vancouver, British
Columbia is indistinguishable from the one they
putatively left behind in Hong Kong. This is a
decidedly less controversial approach than saying that
blacks and mestizos have lower IQs than whites. It's
also an easier sell, since one of the Jewsmedia's
favorite slogans is for us white gentiles to
"celebrate diversity" and multiculturalism, for which
non-white immigration gives rise. The second step is
to show that these groups are outnumbering whites in
formerly white countries by citing UN Population data
showing the declining white birth rates.
You then need to explain to these apathetic whites
that their race is the only race that's apathetic
about their own racial future; that is, whites are the
only group in the world whose racial interests are to
have no racial interests. These apathetic whites
obviously feel this is the correct, or best position
to adopt regarding this matter. That said, you must
point out to them that by holding this view, whites
are setting the stage for the day when they'll be
greatly outumbered in formerly white countries by
people who hold the opposite view -- namely, that race
does matter, and that their racial interests are worth
preserving at the expense of other groups, whites
chief among them. In a sense, whites prize racial
apathy over the consequences it will bring, when
they'll either be forced to reconsider their apathy,
or won't be able to be apathetic at all, because they
simply won't "be."
When whites claim that their current trajectory
towards dispossession is "inevitable" and will "happen
whether you like it or not," what they fail to realize
is that they themselves will have to accept
consequences just as dire as those who point out that
the consequences will be dire. They will have to
accept that their view of race, which they feel is the
correct view -- for why else would they hold it --
will be supplanted by its polar opposite.
Another way in which whites can make inroads at
spreading their message is by fiction. When Jean Paul
Sartre and Albert Camus began pondering the loss of
value and ultimate purpose of post-theistic man's
existence, they didn't write their musings down in
dusty academic philosophy journals. Rather, they made
fiction their medium of choice, and used their
imagination to convey their worldview to the reading
public, successfully making existentialism a staple of
Western thought. Now, from what I gather of the
stories that've been submitted to VNN, playing in the
realm of ideas was not a concern of the authors when
they wrote them. These banal, ad nauseam rehashings of
the Turner Diaries may be cathartic to the author, but
they bear no relation to reality, and they certainly
won't cause anti-racists and apathetic whites to
rethink their positions on race. Subtle these stories
aren't.
Jasa Petrovic Slovjanski made a great point in an
earlier article, wherein he said that video games like
"Ethnic Cleansing," where the object is to shoot
blacks and Ariel Sharon, only serve to reinforce a
stereotype white nationalists themselves create. The
same principle applies to the aforementioned stories.
White nationalists should stop writing these "one man
army"-type stories, where the protagonist mows down
blacks and Jews, and instead borrow Aldous Huxley's
idea of fiction as a holdall, flowing with ideas and
opinions.
-------------------
[1] This is the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a
belief. Even if it were the case that holding the
belief that racial groups are tribal and differ in
average intelligence led to the holocaust, it wouldn't
follow that racial groups aren't tribal or that they
don't differ markedly in average intelligence.
MAX POWER
|