Prospects for Activism : Inverted World

[EagleEye]

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/prospects_for_activism/

Prospects for Activism
By The Realist • 8/30/07

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell.

The Inverted World has been running for more than eight months now, and there has been no more gratifying time in my life. Although the work goes slowly because I have a full-time job with a long commute, I feel I have made substantial progress in the project I set out for myself last December of exploring the nature, causes, and consequences of the “whites as cancer” myth. I am grateful to those of you who have joined me for the ride.
However much I enjoy this work, it falls far short of what is needed to bring about real change in public attitudes. As long as our movement is confined to websites like this one and a few sparsely read publications, it will never have any real impact, and the broad mass of Americans will never hear our message.
I think that what we need to put our movement on the map is a lobbying group that advocates for race realism and combats the “whites as cancer” myth.
The Internet has made lobbying much easier than it used to be. With a few clicks of the mouse, activists can send messages by fax or e-mail to Congress, and such communications can make a difference.
Consider the extraordinary success of the immigration restriction group NumbersUSA. It currently has 447,000 members—that’s up from 50,000 in 2004. The group makes it easy for people to send ready-made faxes to politicians, although you can send a custom message if you wish.
NumbersUSA members sent over a million faxes to members of Congress during the debate over amnesty earlier this year. The organization’s director, Roy Beck, has rightly described his cause as a “David-and-Goliath struggle.” On one side were ranged President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels, and the construction industry. On the other, a grass-roots activism group with a bit of nifty technology.
NumbersUSA’s ability to appeal to a large constituency has given them influence among politicians. The Immigration Reform Caucus in the House held weekly strategy discussions with the group during the amnesty debate.
However, NumbersUSA does not take a racial approach to the issue of immigration. In fact, their website comes equipped with the usual boiler-plate bleating about the evils of generalizing about ethnic groups. Consequently, their faxes deal with the negative impact of immigration on jobs, the environment, national security, and so forth. There is no hint that immigration will alter our culture because of fundamental differences between white and non-white populations.
Imagine what advocacy on immigration from a realist perspective would look like. A story that is much in the news recently is the murder of three blacks by Hispanics in Newark. The story has attracted attention because it is a powerful example of the effects of the sanctuary policies in place in most American cities, which restrict the right of police and other government employees to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The suspected leader of the murderers, Jose Carranza, a Peruvian national, has been arrested three times before on assault and child abuse charges, yet he was never reported to immigration authorities.
A realist activist group could use this story to make broader points about the negative characteristics of Hispanics as a group. Hispanics are are three times more likely to be in prison than whites, and four times more likely to be in prison for murder. This episode would also be a good occasion to bring out Hispanics’ other underclass characteristics, such as low high-school graduation rates and high poverty rates.
Another issue that would be rife with possibilities for realist activism is the measures that municipalities are enacting to restrict the entrance of illegal aliens. Take the legislation passed by the town council of Hazleton, Pennsylvania in 2006. Hispanic gangs had brought drugs and crime to the small city, and Hispanic children were overcrowding the schools. After a fatal shooting in which two illegals were charged, the town council, led by Mayor Lou Barletta, passed laws that prevented landlords from renting to illegal aliens and employers from hiring them. Hazleton is part of a trend: more than 90 municipalities have enacted legislation to keep illegals out. Last month, however, a judge struck down the Hazleton law, saying it conflicted with the federal government’s exclusive right to handle immigration matters and the supposed constitutional rights of persons within the United States. This ruling threatens all similar laws passed elsewhere.
A realist group could use this case to argue for the right of whites to segregate themselves from other races if they choose. The meaning that the contemporary legal system gives to the Constitution would have flabbergasted and outraged the founders. The Constitution makes it clear that the federal government has no right to restrict people’s right to choose who they associate with, so the real abrogation of the Constitution occurred with the passage of anti-discrimination laws in the 1960s. This injustice forces whites to resort to roundabout means to exclude people who violate the principles on which white societies are based.
In the near future, of course, there would be little chance that we could influence legislation. The political class would consider the faxes we were sending them little short of demented. In fact, if our group was successful enough to be noticed, it is quite likely it would harm the immigration reform movement, at least in the short term, as the Left would try to use our efforts to discredit the whole movement.
What, then, would be the point? First of all, speaking the truth is its own justification and needs no other. Beyond that, such a group, if it were at all successful would garner enormous publicity. The very fact that racially conscious whites had formed a lobbying group would stun America, and people would be eager to find out what it was about. When they did, they would discover that what they call “racism” is not based in ignorance and hate. Rather, there are perfectly good, even overpowering, arguments to be made for racial differences and for racial discrimination. Such a revelation could only strengthen the immigration reform movement in the long run.
Finally, the group would give focus to the pent-up energy of American realists, who have nothing to do now except complain on websites or fritter away their lives in isolated anger and anxiety. Indeed, the fractiousness that characterizes our movement is in large part due to its impotence. An activist group would be a more productive and satisfying outlet for our frustrations.
Of course, I would not make the mistake of giving critics an easy target or incurring suspicion of a hidden agenda. As has been argued before on this site, it is not enough to ignore the Jew-hating contingent of the racial right. Rather, since white racialism has such a dismal history, race realists must prove their sanity and good will by actively speaking out against anti-Semites, as well as other types of haters. I have done this in the past, and I would go on doing so. Because the rest of the racial right is not willing to perform these hygienic measures, I do not think any serious political activism can be expected from them.
Our movement will grow only if we can connect race realism with mainstream viewpoints. Although the initial base of support for a realist activist group would be the racial right, we would have to focus on appealing to people of more conventional views. One tactic would be to develop and clarify the hints of race realism discernible in the conservative movement, which have been discussed in several articles on this site (see here, here, and here.)
My dream is only that. I have not yet investigated in detail would be involved in setting up and operating an activist group. But I have made some inquiries, and I can form some estimate of the bottom line.
The main expense at first would be my own livelihood because I would have to quit my day job to run the group. This would also give me more time to research and write; I might be able to set up a blog with daily updates as well. I can live thriftily, and I have some personal resources. Let’s say $30,000 per year would suffice to keep me alive and active.
The technology for sending electronic messages to politicians is not cheap. One company that I know of charges $17,000 to provide this service for the first year; the cost sinks to $11,000 after the first year.
Throw in $10,000 to take care of the unexpected. I estimate then that about $60,000 per year would be enough to get the project off the ground.
People are naturally reluctant to donate money to someone without a track record of success. What I will propose to you then is this. I have enough savings to lease the software and survive for a year. If I show some signs of success after that time, would you agree to support the group in the future? You can answer either in the comments section, or by sending an e-mail through the contact page. Also, any other thoughts about strategies for activism or funding would be more than welcome.
People who read websites like this one see the first glimmerings of a great truth, and I believe that we can actualize that truth in the world of politics. However, accomplishing this feat will require sacrifice from all of us, and I hope that you will decide that my project is worthy of yours.

race realists must prove their sanity and good will by actively speaking out against anti-Semites, as well as other types of haters. I have done this in the past, and I would go on doing so. Because the rest of the racial right is not willing to perform these hygienic measures, I do not think any serious political activism can be expected from them.

He should join JTF.

[EagleEye]

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/a_philosophy_for_activism/

A Philosophy for Activism
By The Realist • 9/14/07

The last column on The Inverted World, “Prospects for Activism,” generated much impassioned commentary, and, because this is an issue of such urgent interest, I want to respond to at least some of the comments in a full-length column. Commenters had a variety of suggestions for pro-white activism, including starting lobbying and legal defense groups, creating videos for YouTube, and writing Wikipedia articles on race. People also suggested that I expand this website by adding forum or a blog.

I am willing to consider all of these ideas, but I cannot accomplish any of them alone. We will move forward only when all of you who read websites like this recognize that the future of this movement depends on you. As I have said, I do not currently have time to do anything more than write my articles. There are only two ways in which any of these projects will come to fruition. First, you can do the work yourself. If you want me to add a forum, offer to create and administer it. If you want a blog, send some sample entries in for me to consider or get other writers to do so. If you want videos for YouTube, make some.
The other way is for you to make a pledge to support me if I decide to quit my day job and start an activist group. Let me make clear that I am not asking for money right now. As I said last time, I agree to set up the group and run it for one year. I am only asking that you help me to continue the group if you think my effort has merit. When you make your pledge, you can tell me what you would like to see done and what your criteria for success are, and you can judge for yourself if I meet them.
Six of you have already written in to make pledges, and I thank you for it. I will only seriously consider quitting my job when I have at least 50 pledges, however.
So please contact me here with any pledges of support or other offers of assistance.
The commenter Guessedworker made a crucial point: realists do not yet agree on the basic goals and strategy of pro-white activism, and it is useless to begin lobbying before we know what we are lobbying for and how we want to achieve it.1 I agree with him that we need to establish a philosophical basis for our activism before we begin. Some other commenters suggested the form such a philosophy might take. Here I will evaluate their thoughts and give my own opinion on the matter.
One popular suggestion is that our activism should be founded on opposition racial discrimination against whites, particularly “affirmative action,” while avoiding the subject of racial differences or other controversial matters. The reasoning is that, since our culture opposes racial discrimination, such a group would be more palatable to the public than one founded on straightforward race realism.
The problem with this philosophy is that it would attack anti-white discrimination without attacking the ideas on which such discrimination is based. Affirmative action makes perfect sense if you accept the orthodoxies of our age: the races are the same by nature, and experiencing racial diversity makes us better people. If you don’t challenge these ideas, complaining about discrimination against whites won’t do any good, because liberals will be able to argue convincingly that this discrimination is justified and beneficial.
Even worse, protesting racial discrimination will work against us in the long run. The single most crucial task of any pro-white activism is to establish that some types of racial discrimination are natural and right. It is this idea alone that will make possible the major transformations that must occur if white cultures are to be saved. A sane immigration policy, for example, depends on the premise that we should discriminate in favor of white immigrants and against non-white ones. In starting a group that called racial discrimination evil, we would be strengthening the anti-discrimination orthodoxy that is destroying us.
Finally, political movements based on opposition to discrimination against whites already exist. Ward Connerly’s successful campaigns to get affirmative action overturned in California and Michigan, for example, were founded on this idea. If you genuinely believe that the abolition of racial discrimination will solve our problems, there are already plenty of established organizations that you can support, not only Connerly’s campaigns, but also the Center for Equal Opportunity, which is chaired by Linda Chavez. Of course, if you contribute to this group, some of your money will be used to promote amnesty, which is another of Chavez’s major causes. However, this shouldn’t bother you too much, as support of amnesty is perfectly consistent with a philosophy of non-discrimination.
One comment suggested that we make opposition to discrimination merely the public face of our movement, while covertly inculcating a spirit of racial partisanship. However, how many would be fooled? As Wikitopian pointed out, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, one of David Duke’s many failures, took the anti-discrimination line, but no one fell for it.
Another philosophy for pro-white activism is that of racial interests. According to this line of thinking, all races have an interest in prospering and multiplying. Other races seek to advance their racial interests through activism, so whites are justified in doing so too.
This is a common argument on the racial right, often expressed in American Renaissance, as in its euphoric review of Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests.
Essentially, this “racial interests” philosophy is just a variant of the anti-discrimination one in that the key idea is that whites should be allowed to behave in the same way as other races. Hence, it falls prey to all of the criticisms above.
There is something else wrong with this philosophy. When I’ve spoken about my beliefs to people who do not share them, I have sometimes used the argument that living things have a natural interest in perpetuating their own kind. I’ve found, however, that this argument has no resonance with people at all; indeed, they find it bizarre and creepy. Why, they wonder, should they want to perpetuate the white race just for the sake of doing so? This tack puts the matter on such an airy, metaphysical plane that it does not connect with people’s real concerns.
If neither an appeal to non-discrimination nor to abstract racial interests will work, what will? The prospect of cultural change. To thrive, people need a culture that supports them as much as a fish needs water. Our key task, therefore, must be to convince whites that increasing diversity will denature this vital element and turn it into something hostile, like the poisoning of a lake.
Making this argument requires us to attack racial orthodoxy directly rather than distorting our message to conform to it. We would have to expose the behavioral differences between whites and non-whites, the ways in which diversity degrades life, and the groundlessness of the “whites as cancer” myth.
Moreover, we need to attack the motives behind racial orthodoxy. I agree with the commenters who stated that we should not be gratuitously harsh towards non-whites even as we criticize their influence on our culture. But I do think it’s legitimate to be harsh to the anti-ethnocentric white elites who have profited from the “whites as cancer” myth at the expense of their own people.
These is a broad outline of a philosophy, but the details are largely unclear. The current race realist movement has been very good at exposing two differences between whites on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other: IQ and crime rates. Naturally, these differences would be essential to making our case that diversity will change our culture in ways that are contrary to white interests. However, of themselves, they are not complete. Because of the enormous drops in the crime rate since the early 1990s, most white Americans do not live in imminent danger of crime, so publicizing black and Hispanic crime rates may not persuade people. Moreover, most people associate high IQ with asocial nerdiness, not understanding the effects of a population’s average IQ level on its culture.
Also, Asians have higher IQs and lower crime-rates than whites, so these attributes cannot fully justify pro-white activism. Besides, if someone asks you why you love America, does “Because we’re so law-abiding” or “Because we’re so smart” seem like an adequate answer?
The fact is that there are untheorized, or poorly theorized, aspects of the white personality that cause us to build unique cultures. The effects of these personality traits are relatively easy to understand: no cultures have been as innovative as those of whites; it was white cultures that invented representative government and abolished slavery. Whatever is the source of these phenomena is our racial essence, and it is that which is precious to us. The success of our cause depends on defining this essence and explaining to people that it is the biological basis of the culture that we love.
Whatever the essence is, it undoubtedly has something to do with freedom. White societies place a unique value on the right of all humans to think, speak, and live according to the dictates of their own consciences. We see this in the Western invention of the concept of human rights in the Enlightenment. We see it again in the Anglo-American campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century. We see it in President Roosevelt’s 1941 declaration that American foreign policy would be based on fostering the “Four Freedoms”: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. This defense of freedom has dictated American foreign policy ever since, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. One can love the spirit that motivated these efforts even if one finds some of them misguided,
In my opinion, we need to attack racial orthodoxy straightforwardly rather than trying to placate it and define what it is about the white race that makes it precious to us. We must, in short, refine our great truth and then utter it without apology. Of course, doing so will expose us to furious resistance, and perhaps even outright persecution. But the lesson of history is that great truths, once they have matured, can never be suppressed and that any orthodoxy that opposes them, no matter how powerful, will fall.