Previous Story Next Story View Comments Post a Comment Send This Page

Taylor vs. Sailer—Survival v. “Citizenism”

AR Articles on White Racial Consciousness
Twelve Years of American Renaissance (Nov. 2002)
Race and the American Identity (Dec. 1998)
The Morality of Survival (Jul. 1995)
Morality and Racial Consciousness (Jan. 1995)
More news stories on White Racial Consciousness

Jared Taylor, VDARE.com, Sept. 29

[Peter Brimelow writes: I’ve said before that Steve Sailer is under the characteristically innocent impression that he is the house moderate here at VDARE.COM, although he gets us into more trouble than any other single writer because of his subject matter. Here Jared Taylor proves Steve is indeed a moderate, by arguing that his ideal of a color-blind civic consciousness is not practical in an America that is being rapidly transformed by public policy. This is a serious debate—which means you won’t find it anywhere except VDARE.COM. Jared and Steve last debated on California’s Racial Preference Initiative, here and here. Steve will reply on Sunday night.]

By Jared Taylor

In what passes for political debate today there is so little in the way of principles that it is almost a compliment for someone to say, as Steve Sailer did in his September 18 VDARE.COM column The Color Of Crime And The New Orleans Nightmare: George W. Bush vs. Jared Taylor, that he disagrees with mine.

Discussing the futility of uplift programs that ignore the realities of race and IQ, Mr. Sailer mentioned my foundation’s recent report, The Color of Crime and predicted that the Mainstream Media would ignore it both because the contents are true and because I could be described as a “white nationalist.”

It was at this point that Mr. Sailer evoked principle. He conceded that all other races except whites unashamedly promote their own interests. But he pronounced himself in favor of “citizenism,” or acting “in the best overall interests of the current citizens of the United States.”

He then explained that because it “is so unnatural [to work for the interests of a haphazard collection of people rather than one’s own kin], it’s the least destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance humanly possible on an effective scale.”

I am staggered that the usually hard-headed Mr. Sailer should promote something precisely because it is unnatural. “Citizenism” has an eerie resemblance to Marx’s “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” The goal of communism was to abolish selfishness and build a classless society in which all members would behave unnaturally, putting the public interest before their own. Very uplifting, to be sure—and the cause of untold horror.

Societies cannot be built on mistaken assumptions about human nature. “Citizenism” assumes that race can be made not to matter, and that citizens will set aside parochial ethnic interests for the good of all. This is as grievous a misreading of human nature as was Marx’s assumption that selfishness could be made to disappear.

Perhaps I should offer a correction: It is a misreading of non-white human nature. The whole idea of the Civil Rights Movement was for everyone to dismantle racial consciousness and become a happy band of brother/citizens. American whites made a genuine effort at this—at least they passed legislation and struck public poses consistent with it—but no one else did. When whites abandoned their collective interests it was unilateral disarmament. Every other group rushed to exploit this weakness.

Mr. Sailer’s rejection of racial consciousness for whites is inexplicable in light of what he understands about race. He knows the races are not equal or equivalent, and do not build the same kinds of societies. He knows non-whites make endless demands based on spurious claims of “racism,” which they claim accounts for their own failures. He has even described race as a form of extended family, which means it is the largest group to which humans feel instinctive loyalty.

Given this clarity of thought—a clarity that sets Mr. Sailer apart from 99.9 percent of people who would call themselves “conservative”—what course of action would he propose for white people?

Continue to preach “citizenism” when no one else practices it?

Continue to fill the country with people who do not hesitate to advance their interests—material, cultural, and biological—at the expense of whites?

Continue to act only as individuals in the face of organized dispossession?

Presumably, since he writes about it so much, Mr. Sailer wants all Americans to understand the association between race and IQ. But this would represent a revolution in racial thinking that would knock the already-rickety props out from under anything so unnatural (but uplifting) as non-racial “citizenism.”

Let us assume that Mr. Sailer has his way, and the facts about race and IQ become widely accepted. Whites now fully understand that blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which “citizens” must pay.

Whites also now understand that Asians, in the aggregate, will take the best jobs, fill the best universities, and if enough of them immigrate, perhaps even form a ruling elite.

And no matter how hard Mr. Sailer promotes it, “citizenism” just doesn’t catch on with non-whites. Blacks and Hispanics continue to promote interests that cannot be reconciled with those of whites, and even Asians catch the spirit of tribalism.

Will whites still put uplift over survival?

Mr. Sailer’s other objection to white racial consciousness has nothing to do with principles: He just thinks it won’t attract many people any time soon.

It is true that today’s race-liberal white elites preen themselves on their fashionable views while keeping their own lives almost entirely free of non-whites. This kind of isolation will be harder for their children and impossible for their grandchildren. More and more whites are beginning to understand this.

However, this brings us to an inconsistency in Mr. Sailer’s views. He implicitly concedes that more whites will think in terms of race as they become minorities. But why should becoming a minority make any difference?

I think Mr. Sailer would agree that it is because non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments—not those of whites—and whites will not like that society.

Why should whites persist in “citizenism” until their country has been transformed beyond recognition—and switch to racial consciousness only when they may no longer have the numbers necessary to salvage their society?

Every day that whites practice “citizenism” while non-whites fortify the racial ramparts makes it that much less likely that future generations of whites will have a society that reflects their heritage, their culture, their folkways, and their aspirations.

The nightmare ending for a white minority is already playing itself out in Zimbabwe, where whites have no rights, and will eventually be driven out or slaughtered. In another decade or three, South African whites will face the same choice.

Can anyone guarantee that the fate of a dwindling white minority in America—or in Britain or France or Holland—would be any less grim?

We are dicing with the future of our country and with the very lives of our children and grandchildren.

Whites still have the power to save their civilization and to ensure their own survival as a distinct people. They will use this power only if they throw off the mental shackles of an unnatural and unreciprocated “citizenism.”

Jared Taylor (email him) is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow’s review, click here.)