By The Realist • 8/30/07
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 per year after that.
Throw in $10,000 to take care of the unexpected. I estimate 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.