Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.
Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.
We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.
Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.
In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.
Critique of pure empiricism
Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.
Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.
The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.
In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.
When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.
The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.
Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.
The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.
Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.
Critiques of liberalism and its effects
During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.
Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.
The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.
Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism
The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.
This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.
Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.
In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.
Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.
The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.
Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.
This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.
The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.
Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.
Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.
The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.
Theory into practice
In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.
The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.
The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.
In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.
The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.
The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.
Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.
Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.
A Reply to Mr. Kurtagic
by Jared Taylor
We should use liberal morality for our own purposes.
I suppose I must be a typical, theory-aversive, pragmatic Anglo-Saxon. I read Mr. Kurtagic’s article with interest and admiration, but I am not persuaded that we have to change the moral foundations of the West before we can make progress on race. As Mr. Kurtagic notes, trying to change a society’s morality is a long and uncertain process, and if that is what our survival depends on, we are doomed.
I want whites to wake up to the crisis of their dispossession and to take action to stop it. We don’t have much time and we don’t have many friends. To launch an attack on an abstract moral system could conceivably do some good, but it is a distraction from the main fight. It is also misdirected because liberals do not even believe what they claim to believe.
Needless to say, a morality so drugged on equality that it could not distinguish between citizen and foreigner, genius and moron, male and female, or black and white would be a false and suicidal morality. A healthy society does not fear or paper over inequality; it praises and rewards superiority. But the morality of the Left is not the pristine body of theory Mr. Kurtagic supposes it to be, but a hash of contradictions and incoherence. Mr. Kurtagic fails to note the breath-taking hypocrisy of the Left’s egalitarian pretentions and does not see how the Left’s own principles can be used against it to support racial consciousness.
We will not lead anyone to our way of thinking by saying we oppose prevailing morality. That is as pointless as trying to convince non-believers by citing the authority of the Bible. It is far more effective to appeal to an opponent’s own principles, and apply them in ways that support out goals.
A caricature of the opposition
To begin with, it is important not to paint a false picture of our opponents. Contrary to what Mr. Kurtagic says, liberals do not want to strip people of every form of identification that goes beyond the individual. Liberals love their families as much as conservatives do. They are loyal to their schools, their home towns, and their sports teams. They claim it takes a village to raise a child. In America, many of them still go to church.
These days, lefties even claim to love America. They care about how many medals America wins at the Olympics. They rage about “shipping jobs to China,” and denounce “America’s enemies.” There were as many American flags at the Democratic Convention as the Republican Convention. Barack Obama carried on about “the greatest country in the world” just as much as Mitt Romney did.
The Left even promotes racial and ethnic consciousness—so long as it is not white. Blacks openly campaign for black votes, Hispanics openly campaign for Hispanic votes, and no liberal ever complains. All the ethnic studies programs at universities are of, by, and for lefties. There is only one group identification the Left forbids and that is white racial consciousness. Just because the Left hates a group identification we value does not mean it disavows all larger identifications.
It is true that liberals claim to value equality, but their own lives are monuments to inequality. They are just as greedy for money, fame, big houses, nice cars, private airplanes, and special treatment as anyone else. Who ever heard of a liberal turning his back on any of those things in the name of equality? Liberals send their children to private schools so they can get into the best colleges so they can get the best jobs with the most money and power. They want to marry smart, good-looking people, not dimwitted frumps. They get amniocentesis so they can abort defectives. They don’t want their wives and children to be equal; they want them to be superior. They never talk about equalizing outcomes for themselves. Liberals hate equality and would be terrified it they saw it slouching their way.
Almost without exception, when liberals try to bring about the equal outcomes they claim they want, it is in ways that require no sacrifice from themselves. It is taxes and “programs” that will give college educations to semi-morons, nice jobs to blacks, and expensive medicine to loafers. No white liberal ever moved out of his corner office and gave it to an oppressed minority.
When liberals talk about lifting people into equality, they never mean it for people they don’t like: evangelical Christians, conservatives, men, poor whites, tobacco chewers. They mean it for only three favored groups: non-whites, women, and homosexuals. Some of them mumble about fair play for fat people, deaf people, ugly people, etc., but only the most crazed lefties have their hearts in that.
So let us set aside the view that liberals have principled convictions about equality. They have a vague notion that it’s not good to have very rich people and very poor people, and they think government should rig things to reduce inequality. That is probably a genuine conviction, but that is as far as it goes. They also would rather die than appear to be anything but noisily in favor of equality for their three pet groups—non-whites, women, and homosexuals—but only so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them.
Liberals think poor blacks should have the right to live in nice neighborhoods—so long as they go somewhere else. Race does not exist, and Haitians and Hmong make excellent Americans, but fortunately, they don’t go to school with Junior. Homosexuals should be able to marry and smooch in public, but please, Lord, don’t let Junior turn out queer. Women should serve in combat, but not even Nancy Pelosi sends for a woman to unclog her toilet.
Liberals’ devotion to equality is therefore not systematic or even deeply felt. Its main purpose is to make them look and feel virtuous without requiring that they actually do anything virtuous.
Mr. Kurtagic writes that our weakness is that we lack theory, but liberals don’t have a theory, and wouldn’t know one if they saw one. All they have are socialist yearnings and a deep, deep need to conform.
Of course there have been regimes that operated according to rigorous theories of equality: the communist regimes. And, indeed, Mr. Kurtagic tells us that it was the incorporation of Marxism into liberalism that made it even more egalitarian and impervious to race realism. He adds that it is Marxist historiography that gave us the notion of whites as the oppressor class. And yet, the whites who lived for decades under Marxist egalitarianism are the most healthy and racially conscious whites anywhere.
Communism was explicitly based on egalitarian theory. If there was ever a system that could be killed only by overthrowing its theoretical foundations it was communism. And yet the Soviet Union did not collapse because its leaders lost the battle of the theories. It was battered to death by reality.
Not one of the movements that show the most promise in Europe began with a critique of egalitarian theory. Jobbik, the Danish Peoples Party, the Austrian nationalist parties, the French identitarian movement, the Vlaams Belang, the Russian nationalists—their appeal is to blood and soil, not theory. The movement that has followed Mr. Kurtagic’s prescription and first tried to change moral foundations—the French New Right—is an increasingly irrelevant talking shop.
The real target
Our real target is not a mostly phony egalitarian ideology. Nor is it homosexual chauvinism or delusions about the equality of the sexes. Our target is the inability of large numbers of whites—and non-whites—to understand that we have the right to survive as a distinct people with a distinct culture. Our opponents do not—and I repeat—they do not fail to understand this because they have a sophisticated ideology of equality. Jesse Jackson and Alan Dershowitz and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are not committed egalitarians. Mr. Jackson puts black over American interests, and Professor Dershowitz has a firm grasp of Jewish interests. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Reid are just confused.
It may be exciting to imagine that we are forging a new morality and to wonder how historians of the future will classify that morality, but the best arguments for our side are rooted in the plain language of today. They arise out of the contradictions, hypocrisies, hatreds, and stupidities of our opponents.
The most obvious of these is the spectacular double standard the Left applies to whites. Non-whites can be proud but whites can’t. Non-whites have interests but whites don’t. Non-whites can have organizations but whites can’t. When a white kills a black it’s hate, but when a black kills a white it’s homicide. Non-whites can preserve their majorities, but whites can’t. Al Sharpton is a civil rights leader, but I am a hate monger. It would be tedious to go on. Despite what Mr. Kurtagic says, this is not devotion to equality; it is a brazen celebration of inequality.
Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse. His reply will certainly not be a lecture on equality theory. Most liberals have no answer to questions like that and just walk away. The ferocious ones tell you that whites deserve what is coming to them because they are uniquely evil, and that the world will be better off when we die. Again, that is the very opposite of an egalitarian position, and one so vicious that most liberals would be afraid to take in public.
If persuasion is our goal, it is far more effective to appeal to our opponents’ own principles than to plant ourselves in a separate moral universe. If liberals really believe in equal treatment for all people, whites should be able to take pride in their heritage and live in countries where they are the majority—just like everyone else. This is an appeal to equality, not inequality.
People hate to be exposed as hypocrites, and exposing the hypocrisy of liberalism is one of the best ways to discredit it. Ask a liberal to name a single majority non-white neighborhood he would like to live in, or to name a single majority non-white school he would like his children to attend. As Joseph Sobran used to say, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan. Even the looniest liberals understand race—when it affects their lives directly. It is that understanding at the personal level that we must persuade liberals to apply at the national level.
Again, if persuasion is our goal we must appeal to what we have in common with our opponents. They think and behave just as we do—the only difference is that we are honest and they are not. To use a particularly smarmy, liberal expression, liberals just need to get in touch with their own feelings.
Despite what Mr. Kurtagic says, a desire that one’s people survive is not a repudiation of egalitarianism. It is a repudiation of equivalence—it is an assertion that Germans and their society are different from Nigerians and their society—and even the worst lefties would have to agree. They might be happy for Nigerians to replace the Germans, but their unwillingness to let Germans replace Nigerians shows they realize that there are differences. They simply have to be forced to explain why it is right for Nigerians to replace Germans but wrong or Germans to replace Nigerians.
That is why Mr. Kurtagic is wrong to suggest that our desire to be left alone stands or falls on whether there is a prevailing morality of equality or inequality. If we have to wait until we have brought about a sea change in moral thinking before we can assert the morality of our own survival, we will be waiting until it is too late. In fact, a prevailing morality that grants all peoples and cultures equal rights gives us a strong claim in the eyes of liberals. A true egalitarian should care about the prospects for native Frenchmen as much as he does about those of the Nepalese or the Athabascans. A white liberal should worry about the survival of his own subspecies as much as he worries about the survival of spotted owls and snail darters. Again, it is more effective to use liberal principles to our own advantage rather than try to destroy them.
For several decades, liberals have chipped away at any obligation for individuals to stay tied to each other. There was a time when divorce was shameful, because married couples had made a formal promise to stay together and because a stable household is good for children. Now, we have no-fault divorce. When people get tired of each other they move on, promises and children be damned. Why don’t liberals apply this principle to groups? Blacks and whites never promised to live with each other for ever in a loveless marriage. Wouldn’t divorce be the “progressive” solution?
One of the ideas that emerged from the First World War was the self determination of peoples. This is an egalitarian principle; groups should not be subject to the rule of others, but should have the right to seek their own destinies. This was the principle on which Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Estonians, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenians, and many others emerged as sovereign peoples. Why must whites, whether in Europe or North America, be denied what is rightfully granted to Uzbeks and Slovaks?
None of these appeals—to fairness, equal treatment, or self-determination—requires a morality of inequality. Whites as a group—and not just liberals—believe in fairness. Non-whites, blacks especially, tend to care only about their own advantage rather than about rules everyone must follow. Whites are much happier if they think they are practicing reciprocity, fair play, and equal treatment. They will not act in their own interests if they think they are taking unfair advantage of others. They will take steps to stop their own dispossession only if they believe they are acting fairly.
Finally, Mr. Kurtagic believes that it is the morality of equality that prevents liberals from understanding race, and that this morality must be overthrown before their eyes will be opened. Something is certainly blinding them. And yet, where are our arguments more likely to be successful: at the slippery altitudes of moral theorizing or at the level of gene frequencies and crime statistics? Like communism, liberalism will be battered to death by the facts before it concedes that its morality was mistaken.
Whether they admit it or not, most people seek theories that justify their intuitions. They do not study competing theories, choose the most convincing, and vote accordingly. Theory is not conquered by theory but by failure. Most liberals lost their illusions because they were mugged by reality, not because they lost faith in a theory.
Perhaps Mr. Kurtagic prefers a morality of inequality because it does not come with the smell of justification or propitiation. And, indeed, I am arguing that we have to plead our case, to justify our goals, even though what we are saying should require no pleading or justification. There is a heroic quality in simply taking possession of what is rightfully ours, but that would require more allies. Whites can protect their majorities only when something closer to a majority of them believes they have something worth protecting—and that it is moral to protect it.
Our job is to persuade our fellow whites—even liberals—and we will do so by appealing to their own principles and their own aspirations, not by declaring war on them.
A Reply to Jared Taylor
By Henry Wolff
You may not be interested in theory, but theory is interested in you.
At bottom, most people are hypocrites. They rarely live up to their professed ideals except in cases where it is personally advantageous or, at the least, not disadvantageous. Ideals are still important, however, particularly when they are embraced by an entire society.
Mr. Taylor says that work seeking to displace the dominant liberal morality is “misdirected” because liberals often do not practice what they preach. But this is not the case.
To understand this, consider Christians. While they all agree that the Beatitudes are worthy of emulation, very few practice them in their everyday lives. They consider their shortcomings “sin,” and feel guilt when confronted with their inability to live up to their morality. There are a few very concrete cases when their behavior may change on account of their morality—they will not murder, abort a fetus, or engage in homosexuality, for example—but even in these cases they may “fall short of the glory of God.” Still, when it comes to policy, you can count on Christians voting pro-life and against gay marriage.
It is similar with liberals. They may send Junior to an all-white school or befriend only people of pallor, but this is their equivalent of sin and they will either feel shame or rationalize their actions if confronted on these matters. Mr. Taylor says liberals need to just “get in touch with their feelings,” but this would be like confronting Christians with their sins and expecting them to decide they weren’t so sinful after all. This would require a change in morality.
When it doesn’t inconvenience them, liberals too will abide by their morality, and this can have serious consequences. Liberal morality was certainly at play in early November when voters in several states voted in favor of same sex marriage, for example. Our opponents may behave as we do in many important ways, but they certainly don’t think as we do, as Mr. Taylor alleges.
Mr. Taylor says we should confront the Left on their double standards, but he fails to see that they aren’t double standards at all from an egalitarian’s perspective, which holds that whites, males, Christians, and heterosexuals are impediments to universal human equality and that, therefore, their rights should be curbed until equality is achieved. This is the whole idea behind “affirmative action.”
It’s no coincidence that there are no white studies, men’s studies, or heterosexual studies on college campuses except when their purpose is to further the interests of “historically disadvantaged” groups. It’s also no coincidence that whites aren’t allowed homogeneous countries. Third-World immigration to the West is a sort of global affirmative action to make up for colonialization and slavery. Any policy, deed, or orientation that helps bring about the equality of human groups is considered moral under liberal dogma, and anything that perpetuates hierarchy among them is immoral. Hillary Clinton is a committed egalitarian, just not the sort Mr. Taylor wishes her to be.
It may be possible to convince some non-committed liberals that we believe in “true” equality, as many already attempt, but this won’t work on well-versed liberals like Tim Wise who are already convinced that “white privilege” is the reason why it’s immoral (inegalitarian) for whites to organize or have racial consciousness.
A central point of Mr. Kurtagic’s piece, which Mr. Taylor does not address, is that important race-realist facts will be ignored or interpreted unfavorably in the current moral environment. It’s one thing to convince a liberal that Nigeria and Germany have distinct cultures worth preserving and another to suggest that only whites have the genetic endowment capable of preserving German culture.
Facts about racial differences in IQ and temperament, which are significant justifications for white solidarity, are verboten in public discourse under the reigning morality. Even if their evidence were accepted, liberals might argue that’s all the more reason for affirmative action, miscegenation, etc., and indeed I personally know a few who do.
Our message will thrive when an acceptance or even an encouragement of difference is seen as virtuous. We help bring this about when we say that liberal “sins” like self-segregation and in-group preference are normal and healthy. This does not require existence in a “separate moral universe.”
Mr. Kurtagic is right that activists must have an articulable moral theory that is grounded in a coherent political theory (or several), but the latter is necessary only for intelligent whites concerned with that sort of thing.
Contra Mr. Taylor, liberals do have theory—quite a bit, in fact, and it’s taught in university classrooms across the nation. For instance, Ronald Dworkin, the second-most cited American legal scholar of the 20th century, articulated liberal theory in “Liberalism,” an article that has been cited 523 times. Members of the much-criticized Frankfurt School are responsible for incorporating Marxist elements into liberal theory, and they too are widely taught. For some whites, particularly those who comprise the elite, the way to their hearts is through their minds, and it will take affirmative political theory of our own to achieve this.
Activists I’ve met from the BNP, Front National, Vlaams Belaang, and other right-wing parties in Europe are all well versed in rightist political theory. They tell me intellectually-inclined liberals in Europe are familiar with names like Alain de Benoit, Guillaume Faye, Julius Evola, and Oswald Spengler. I believe the prevalence of rightist theory in Europe is an important factor in why the continent has so many committed right-wing activists. All of the younger, college-educated American race realists I know are familiar with the work of the intellectuals I just mentioned. This is no coincidence.
Marxism attempted to educate even the proletariat in political theory, a tactic premised on equality, but theory is only for those who can understand it. For the rest, sound bites akin to “white privilege” and “diversity is our strength” will suffice.