to: home page
Rationale for a Liberal Wing of the White-Identity Movement
by William McGaughey
People of European ancestry - white people - are still the majority population of the United States. Therefore, it is strange that the white race is widely despised, even hated, in the United States. If this nation’s majority population is despised, it does not bode well for the nation as a whole. If, as Lincoln believed, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, then a nation whose majority population is held in low regard will certainly decline.
Much of the hating goes under the label of “anti-racism”. It is alleged that white people (unless proven otherwise) are “racists”. The entire society is “racist”; there is what one would call “institutional racism”. White racists are “white supremacists” who believe that people of the white race are superior to other people. The idea of white racism is accompanied by a legacy of violence and oppression reinforced by images of lynchings, Klan rallies, whipping of slaves, and separate bathrooms or bus sections for blacks and whites in the segregationist south.
There is little doubt that black people have been mistreated in such ways by whites. However, that is not the entire picture. Slavery, cruel as this institution was, also included acts of kindness toward slaves by their white masters and vice versa. Booker T. Washington, himself once a slave, describes how post-Civil War emancipation posed challenges for both the black and white population of the South; and how, sympathetically, they often tried to help each other cope with the new situation. But as we move farther away from that situation in time, historians more insistently paint a one-sided picture of white oppression. This attitude has hardened into the vilification of white people in general. John Brown has been reborn countless times over in academia and the press.
It is this agenda of racial hatred - in this case, anti-white hatred - which I wish now to challenge on moral grounds. Hatred is never a morally edifying position. However, it is no more justifiable to hate white people for sins committed by persons of their race in the past or in the present than it is to hate black people for their sins. And, yes, hatred flows both ways. Yet, according to a twisted argument, racism does not flow both ways because of a widely-quoted definition which says that racism is hatred plus power and whites allegedly have all the power. Therefore, by definition, blacks cannot be racists or assume any of the moral baggage that this term implies.
Race relations cannot be objectively addressed because the pro-white position has been thoroughly demonized. This demonization takes place in universities, in Hollywood, in the news media, in churches and synagogues, and in other opinion-forming institutions. Deservedly or not, there is a lurid suggestion of violence surrounding any person or group that expresses sympathy for white people as a group. There are vilifying organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation that tirelessly track white sympathizers as “hate groups” and pass this information along to the news media for the purpose of creating social pariahs.
For a nation that is supposedly controlled by white people presumably to serve their racial interests, it is indeed strange that the demonization of groups aspiring to represent the interests of the white race has become like a civic religion. Law enforcement has such groups in its cross hairs. Not wishing to run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, businesses police racial speech in politically required ways. Courts routinely uphold special rights and privileges for “historically disadvantaged” - i.e., non-white - groups. The only dissenting views are the deeply suppressed thoughts of individual whites who in their heart know that this is wrong. But they are afraid to express that opinion out loud.
However, there are a few persons or groups, widely regarded as “racists”, who do dare express their opinions out loud. Some are remnants of the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazi groups which, though usually not themselves violent, are historically linked to violence. Some are defenders of the Confederacy or the old South, historically linked to slavery and “Jim Crow” patterns of segregation. Some others, such as American Renaissance and the American Freedom Party, are newly formed organizations that simply advocate for white people. They, too, are vilified as racists. They are white-supremacist organizations whose opinions deserve not to be heard even though violence has never been part of their program.
Is it inherently disreputable to support or favor white people as a group? I think not. If it was acceptable for black people to organize along racial lines in the Civil Rights movement, it is also acceptable for whites to organize. The difference, of course, is that whites comprise the majority population. To be the majority population does not mean that this population has all the power, however. Quite the opposite. If whites had all the power, then people advocating for their interests would not be regarded as social pariahs. White people do have some impediments to overcome. One of those would be the idea that they, being white people, have no legitimate grievances where others do.
Since it is only a very small group of Americans that has “come out of the closet” to express sympathy for white people, the persecution of such opinion continues. How to overcome the demonization and regain the moral high ground is the question.
Are the pro-white advocates also “white supremacists”? If so, is that a morally defensible position? Is anyone allowed to think that he or his group is superior to another person or group? Although it happens all the time among all types of people, there is, I think, a moral difficulty with such a position. Can I look someone else in the face and tell him that I think I am superior to him in intelligence or character? This would be anti-social behavior, to say the least.
So what do these “white supremacists” do or say?
Some have used violence to keep black people down. In that case, I would agree that they ought to be condemned. However, it appears that only a small number of whites engage in racial violence. Such suspicion falls mainly on the police.
Some whites say that white people are more intelligent than blacks. There are genetic differences between the two races. On average, blacks have lower scores on IQ tests than whites. I have not bothered to verify that assertion because it would lead nowhere with respect to public policy. On the other hand, if blacks do have lower scores, it is, in my opinion, no fault to say so. To tell the truth is not morally offensive. But, again, it matters to what uses such truth is put.
Some whites say that blacks engage in criminal behavior to a greater degree than whites. Blacks have a higher crime rate in many or most categories of crime. Here, again, there are objective criteria for making such judgments and it is no moral offense to tell the truth. However, I also believe that individuals rather than groups are the proper targets of criminal prosecution.
Some whites (and some blacks, too) believe that interracial marriages are wrong and those involved in mixed-race parentage should be condemned. They are entitled to their opinion but they do not have a right to force that opinion on others. People do not get married for political reasons but because the right person came along where another did not. Still, I would not say that opposition to interracial marriages in itself merits condemnation as being racist
Some whites want to live in a society that reflects their own values. They are disgusted with destructive black culture or “ghetto behavior”, especially as exhibited in popular culture. They believe such influences are corrupting their children. Again, I would say they are entitled to their opinion. Opposition to black culture does not merit being regarded as a racist pariah.
In all these respects, the white advocate is, in a sense, attacking black people. The white advocate is making negative judgments of blacks. Blacks, of course, have done the same to white people. In that respect, the movement to advance the interests of white people mirrors what blacks and others have done to advance their interests. Objectively, whites should not be condemned for this if it is common practice. They should not be demonized.
On the other hand, there may be a “higher path” for group advancement that does not involve tearing others down. I would call this the “moderate” or “liberal” wing of the white-identity movement since it limits itself to opposing the opposition to white people. Most existing groups belong to the “conservative” wing since they involve opposition to black behavior as well as supporting white interests.
To the best of my knowledge, the “moderate” pro-white position hardly exists. These moderates are people on friendly terms with blacks who also want to advance white identity. I once tried to establish a political party along those lines. It was called “New Dignity Party”. As this party’s candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis in 2009, I received roughly 1 percent of the vote despite a strenuous campaign. It was a poor showing. Somehow my message failed to connect with the voters.
The conservative wing of the white-identity movement has a stronger foothold in American society despite the stigma attached to it. Why is that? In addition to a history of struggle, such groups attract recruits because their position seems “stronger” than the moderate position. Such is the stigma attached to white advocacy that it takes courage to affiliate with such a cause. It takes someone willing to fight. The fighters are therefore attracted to fighting blacks where would-be peacemakers might not be motivated enough to declare themselves on this issue. Only someone willing to endure persecution would become involved in a cause of advancing white identity. The others will hold back out of fear.
The pitch made during the Civil Rights era was that white people ought not be “prejudiced” against blacks even if they had personally experienced black misbehavior. Because some blacks are criminals or rude or dishonest people does not mean that all black people are. Because some neighborhoods have become dirty and dilapidated after blacks moved there does not mean that your neighborhood will go south if a nearby home is sold to a black family. Give individuals a break. Fair enough. Still it is the tendency of the human mind to generalize from numerous specific experiences. Those who do form negative impressions of blacks from personally gathered facts do not deserve to be demonized as racists.
A problem I see is that the political and cultural establishment starts with the premise that blacks are innocent victims of racism and will not let facts point the way to alternative explanations. If test scores are lower in predominately black schools, it must be because those schools have inadequate resources. An unthinkable explanation is that the black students often have a lower level of intelligence, a genetically determined trait, which causes them to do poorly on tests. If police pay particular attention to black criminal suspects, they are engaging in “racial profiling” caused by the officers’ racist tendencies rather than that the incidence of crime is higher in the black community and the police are “fishing” where the fish are. Again, public policy requires restraint in reaching sweeping conclusions, especially in regards to race, but the socially and politically mandated abandonment of honest thought processes should also be a matter of concern.
We have a situation in America where politics drives not only policy but public thought and expression. The Democrats need the black electorate to remain monolithic if they are to win elections; and blacks will remain loyal to the party if the right things are said. The Republicans, while having little hope of winning black votes, say the “right things” lest they antagonize the white female suburban voter who has an idealized view of race relations. Politics makes racial discrimination a prosecutable offense. Business managers, landlords, and others are subject to stiff financial penalties if they discriminate against blacks or permit discrimination by others in facilities that they control. They are thus required to become enforcers of politically correct thought. To have racially malicious thoughts while committing a crime makes this a “hate crime”, which brings enhanced penalties.
We are living in a society fettered by political correctness and the intimidation it engenders. Quite naturally, some whites will feel resentment toward this situation; and, sometimes, their resentment will rise to the level of hate. For their own society to stigmatize them as racists for having honest thoughts drives some to the point of desperation. The human spirit, yearning for the free expression of truth, drives some of these people to become involved in white-identity organizations that are widely regarded as racist because they have negative opinions of blacks.
Again, there are two paths that might be taken towards white redemption which I call the “conservative” and “liberal” paths. In the remainder of this paper, I want to argue on behalf of the liberal path. The liberal path is that which refrains from attacking black people but which instead limits itself to challenging the hatred directed at white people and removing obstacles to advancing white identity. Necessarily a chief target will be opinion-setting and policy-making institutions that exhibit hostile attitudes toward whites. It will be Hollywood and the entertainment industry, major news media, government, universities, and religious organizations.
Why lay off the blacks if they are the visible face of hostility toward white people? Remember, first, that blacks comprise a small percentage of the total U.S. population. That means that others, mostly white, have played the decisive role in creating the climate of hostility toward whites. I also believe that police attitudes and actions directed toward black people have not been the best; there have been way too many police killings of blacks. However, that is not the main reason.
Let’s suppose that genetics drives bad black behavior. What do we do about it? The only reasonable solution would be to get rid of the black people. Would the majority white population try to kill them or limit their reproduction? Would blacks be sent back to Africa? Would separate homelands in America be established for blacks similar to the Indian reservations? All of these options are politically and, I think, morally unfeasible.
Then, if blacks are here to stay, is it better to try to tear them down and destabilize their community or is it better for blacks to prosper? I say the latter. If whites prosper, it is better for blacks also to have stable and peaceful communities than to be unstable and disturbed and cause trouble for those around them. But blacks rather than whites must bring that about. Whites need to tend mainly to their own white identity.
Therefore, the strategy to be pursued in advancing white identity would be to attack those who attack whites, be it blacks or other whites. If we bear no malice toward others but simply defend ourselves against unjust accusations, then we can go out in public, look others in the face, and say what we truly think. It is our accusers, rather, who will be on the defensive in seeing us. We can, for instance, tell the black preachers who blame whites for black people’s ills that they are the ones mainly responsible for their own behavior. We can tell them that they, the preachers, are misusing the authority of Jesus to engage in political warfare against others. Judge yourself first.
The same advice goes for white people - judge yourself. There may be something within the white psyche or tradition that has brought on our people’s problems. Identify what this is and take corrective action. Also, find ways to build up the white community. Find and celebrate white heroes. Defend those heroes against ill-meaning attack. Defend the history of our people. Find the basic goodness within ourselves and try to make this a larger part of our life experience in the future.
Recognize also that being white is only part of our identity. We who live in America are all Americans. We are all human beings. As racial animosities subside, these larger aspects of personality may come to the fore. But first a battle to combat anti-white hatred and ridicule needs to be fought. The demonizers need to be put down.
Specifically, as Americans, we need to defend freedom of speech in all its forms. So-called “hate speech” is Constitutionally protected. While we ourselves should aspire not to hate, we should also oppose the silencing or vilification of those who do express “racist” sentiments. Those sentiments reflect upon the persons expressing them but, if honestly felt, they do deserve to be heard. And so, the “gotcha” game played by the news media in periodically exposing gaffes or misdeeds of racist whites should be condemned. A balanced picture of race relations deserves to be seen.
If unseen forces within the commercial media prevent this from happening, that could be a problem. Ultimately, the blame for bad race relations lies with the cultural elite. On the ground level, people get along fairly well.
to: site home page