Jack Whorley, American Renaissance, April 11, 2014
As more and more whites shed their racial illusions, they invariably begin to wonder what kind of race-oriented political action is possible. I believe that at least in our time, racial politics will be effective only when they are not explicit, and are camouflaged as part of a larger political program.
When I became racially conscious, I wanted to join a political party that acknowledged the reality of race. However, the few overtly racial political groups I found were not attractive. They lean to the far right: They take socially conservative positions against activities I think are not harmful — such as sexual relations between consenting adults — or or are harmful only to oneself, such as drug taking.
But even if I were socially conservative, openly racial politics is a dead end. Most voters find racial awareness unpalatable, if not reprehensible. Any party with an explicitly “pro-white” position will find only a handful of supporters, and many would be afraid to support the party openly.
However, there is a concept on which race realists and mainstream whites can agree, and that is individual liberty. Some people theorize that whites have evolved a uniquely developed sense of personal liberty. This is where libertarians and race realists can find common ground.
The main argument against libertarianism, of course, is that it promotes unlimited immigration. However, there is a school of libertarianism, of which Hans Hermann Hoppe is the most prominent spokesman, that recognizes the importance or borders. Since the modern state has stolen so much wealth from its people and turned it into “public” goods, the people have the right to keep out aliens, who have not contributed to the creation of those goods.
Another objection to libertarianism is its permissiveness — acceptance of drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography — which detractors believe harms society. I don’t share that concern, but surely race realists can agree on one thing about “vice:” Its effects last only for a generation or two, whereas the loss of white populations and homelands can be permanent. Perhaps those who are worried about the consequences of a permissive society should be able to set those concerns aside in favor of more pressing matters.
I doubt that the brand of paleoconservativism endorsed by most race realists is necessary for our survival, and I believe a free-market alternative has greater promise — at least for now. This is because it speaks to ideals of personal freedom that libertarians can support. The challenge is to frame key pro-white concepts as “pro-freedom” concepts, in the following way:
The freedom to choose how to spend your own money
If there are to be entitlement programs at all, they should be pared down to the barest necessities: food, shelter, emergency medicine. Anything else would depend on private charity. Liberals can pay for anything they like–with their own money. This would be a huge benefit for the country, since it would be much more difficult for freeloaders–of any race–to have herds of children who also grow up to be freeloaders or criminals.
The freedom to hire the best candidate
There must be no racial preferences or quotas in the public sector. However, the strictly libertarian position would allow racial preferences — indeed, outright racial discrimination — by private actors. In the short term, this may be bad for whites because some private schools and businesses are so mesmerized by nonsense about “diversity” that they would discriminate viciously against whites if they could. However, there are bound to be schools and employers that would drift towards selection on merit, and they would soon pull ahead of competitors that select on diversity. Also, the principle of free choice, even if it works against us in some cases, would be a huge gain, as follows:
The freedom to choose customers and tenants
Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason at all. A landlord should also be able to choose his tenants. Such action should be perfectly legal, and could be the basis of increasingly explicit white communities. The first acts of open discrimination would be publicized and might attract demonstrations and boycotts. However, as the practice became more common–and as non-whites also recognized the benefits open preferences for their own groups–discrimination would become better accepted and more widespread.
Policies such as these let the free market flourish, and promote meritocracy. They also restrict the power of government. Therefore, both libertarians as well as those who wish to ensure a future for white populations and believe whites can thrive on a level playing field can agree on them. Advocates for whites may find paleoconservatism more desirable, but they should remember the spoiler effect of unpopular fringe ideologies. Many liberals, for example, argue that the Democratic Party lost the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 because of the vote for Ralph Nader.
If a pro-white political philosophy is to gain traction in a world that now finds it abhorrent, it cannot overtly present itself. Pro-white advocates will have better luck adopting mainstream ideologies that include advantages for whites.