The Two Camps in the White Preservationist Movement
By • 3/12/08Last weekend I got into a debate with the people at ARlist, a Yahoo discussion group sponsored by American Renaissance magazine. I had posted an announcement of my plans for activism there, and some of the list participants looked favorably on my project. However, most of them—or, at least, the ones who comment the most—reacted to my post with outright hostility. The reason? My stance on David Duke.
A link to my article The Insanity of David Duke is displayed conspicuously and proudly on the Inverted World homepage. The article examines Duke’s claim that the Israelis were complicit in the 9/11 attacks and finds that there is no real evidence for it; in fact, Duke gets the facts wrong in at least one important instance. I also point out that, if there were anything to Duke’s theory, the mainstream press, which is quite willing to criticize Israel, would certainly have reported it. In short, Duke’s promotion of this theory suggests that he is motivated by a hatred of Jews so powerful that it overwhelms his sanity.
None of the Duke fans on ARlist who responded indignantly to my post attempted to contradict the facts as I had laid them out in the article. Rather, one accused me of being an “enemy infiltrator,” possibly in the employ of the Mossad. Another believed that my article must be bogus simply because I quoted one pro-Israeli advocacy group, as though everything Israel’s supporters write must be lies. Another expressed amazement that I would care about the vilification of Jews when I am not myself Jewish.
The most common criticism, however, and the one that I think best expressed the true reason for the anger of my detractors, was that pro-white writers and activists had no business criticizing each other. As one RA Fonda wrote:
WHY do you go to the trouble to criticize a fellow white loyalist? If you do the zog’s work, why are you not a ‘tool’ of the zog?
In other words, the ARlist posters’ message to me was: “We don’t care about the truth. David Duke is on our side and should thus be exempt from criticism. Anyone who does criticize him is our enemy.”
This incident is interesting because it reveals the tone of the American racial right and is further evidence of Jared Taylor’s willingness to tolerate and enable anti-Semitism. However, the discussion also clarified my perception that there are two camps in the white preservationist movement with radically different perspectives: one camp is motivated by tribalism, whereas the other is motivated by the love of Western values—I will call this camp “values preservationists.” The distinction is outlined in Arguments for White Preservation.
Tribalists believe we should be loyal to the white race for the simple reason that racial solidarity is natural. The tribalist says, “Since I am white, I naturally ally myself with white causes and, where possible, take the white side in any argument, because white society and culture are mine.” My adversaries’ position seems to be rooted in this perspective. For them, it did not matter whether Duke was telling the truth or not. Rather, they supported him simply because he was fighting on the right side. The tribalists found it absurd and suspicious that I would stick up for a tribe that I do not belong to.
Values preservationists, on the other hand, are motivated by love not of the white race in itself, but of the unique attributes of Western culture, such as individualism, pluralism, and the orientation towards truth. Since I am a values preservationist, it is quite natural for me to object to Duke’s slanders against Israel. After all, the reason that I favor white preservation in the first place is that I value the West’s tradition of orientation towards truth and objectivity. Since those values plainly do not guide Duke’s work, I not only dislike it but regard it as a betrayal of the ideals of our movement.
I continue to think that only values preservationism will be effective in bringing converts to our cause. Tribalists wish to appeal to whites’ natural instinct for racial loyalty. However, I have argued that this instinct is probably non-existent; at best, it is weak. On the other hand, whites are strongly motivated to defend the Western tradition of liberal values, as the success of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders testifies.
Finally, I find the reaction of the Duke fans to my call to activism tragic. They are trapped in a radicalism so paranoid and hermetic that they cannot participate in a shared reality with the rest of Americans, let alone express their anger through political action. The result is that they take their anger out not on the political establishment, but on people like me.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Ian Jobling notes:
“For them, it did not matter whether Duke was telling the truth or not. Rather, they supported him simply because he was fighting on the right side. The tribalists found it absurd and suspicious that I would stick up for a tribe that I do not belong to.”
While there is a considerable amount of value to your Tribal preservationists versus Values preservationists argument, it holds one minor flaw. The flaw is that many here and at AR (the official website at least) do consider Jews to be white, or part of their tribe. Indeed, for those arguing that David Duke is an acceptable spokesman for our cause, the exact opposite holds true. For your antagonists on the AR list it would not be “treasonous” or even strange for you to defend the French or Russians, even though both of these countries express overt hostility to the USA at times because they are seen as white, but for Israel and the Jewish people there is no quarter because unlike the French or Russians, these people do not see Jews as white.
To them, Jews and Israelis have taken over all of the West’s institutions and are covertly plotting the destruction of white Gentiles worldwide. To them: it doesn’t matter that one of the most horrified reactions to the 9/11 attacks outside of the USA, was both by the Israeli government and populace; or it doesn’t matter that hundreds or maybe even thousands of Jewish Americans died in the destruction of the WTC. In their world view, our “nonwhite” racial rivals, the nefarious “international Zionists” (both from without and within) have everything under their control and orchestrate every disaster to befall white Gentiles from the crucifixion of Christ, to the last murder or rape of a white person to occur today by a nonwhite. Indeed, as you point out, it is an insane and acutely paranoid weltanschauung, but it has its roots in the Nazi movement and all the anti-Semitic societies and groups that preceded it, or that have followed it as well.
Or put another way, not only is David Duke a maligned hero to them, but so too are Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler.
By on 3/12/08 at 7:37 pm
Instead of aspiring to the higher ideals of the preservation of Western values, they gravitate to their base instincts of resentment and misguidedly direct their revenge against a specific group.
When will they, the Duke followers, realize it’s the entire political-left that are the opponents of White preservation and traditional Western culture? The ‘left’ is comprised of all races, religions, and worldviews; it spans the entire spectrum of socioeconomic status, but the fact remains the majority of the proponents of “Whites as a Cancer” myth are NON-Jewish-college-educated-Whites.
It’s the smug, self righteous, “I’m morally superior to you,” anti-White-male, anti-Western culture PC Whites (both Jew and non-Jew), that I dispise so.
By on 3/12/08 at 10:20 pm
I agree with you on the vital importance of explicitly repudiating neo-Nazi-ism, Jew-hatred, and conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations against Jews and Judaism.
Just as many Leftists and liberals during and before the Cold War were seduced by the siren song of Communism, or were soft on it and more anti-anti-Communist than anti-Communist, so many pro whites are seduced by neo-Nazism or are soft on it.
The Right quite rightly insisted that advocates of socialist and welfare-state policies clearly, proactively, and consistently denounce and reject Communism and the regimes it dominated.
Men such as George Meany, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and others are remembered fondly for their moral clarity on these issues.
We must do no less, for moral and pragmatic reasons. Justice demands it, and very few whites will respond favorably to any race realist or pro-white arguments if there is a reasonable basis to believe that it will lead to a reprise of the Third Reich.
Given the late hour for our people, this makes the task of creating an intellectual, cultural, and political movement that is Nazi-free all the more urgent; our survival is at stake.
But I think it is wrong, even strange, to blame this predicament on racial loyalty, pro-white sentiment, and love of one’s own people. Such things are essential by definition to any healthy pro-white movement, and in no way necessarily lead to Naziism.
While Naziism is crippling our ability to respond effectively to the race suicide our people is embracing en masse, we must remember that it is liberalism that is at the heart of that suicide. James Burnham’s acclaimed book summed up that reality in its title.
By on 3/12/08 at 10:26 pm
In other words, the ARlist posters’ message to me was: “We don’t care about the truth. David Duke is on our side and should thus be exempt from criticism. Anyone who does criticize him is our enemy.”
This is the way a cult works. Anyone outside the cult is simply pointed to as an outsider, rather than refuted and debated. If you disagree with the cult, you become part of the conspiracy.
Tribalism isn’t a strong argument. I’ve already gave it my criticisms in previous posts.
By on 3/13/08 at 11:35 pm
An obvious problem with the tribalist argument is that even though races are important and they do exist, they have fuzzy boundaries and a significant minority of the population are of more than one race.
From a white perspective, Jews are very much on that fuzzy boundary,therefore to talk about Jews being automatically against white interests, because they are not white,is absurd.
Also this Jewish problem seems to be on the wane in other white countries. Note for example how German nationalists talk of “Zionist” interests rather than “Jewish” interests.
By on 3/17/08 at 1:42 am
The other side of the coin is that crazy Neo-Nazis talk about killing Jared Taylor on internet forums because he is too pro-Jewish.
Maybe Jared Taylor is afraid of these goons?
By on 3/17/08 at 9:15 am
From a white perspective, Jews are very much on that fuzzy boundary,therefore to talk about Jews being automatically against white interests, because they are not white,is absurd.
The big mistake most “wns” make is to go by pigmentation rather than real anthropological characteristics. There really is nothing fuzzy about it if you truly understand this. Even if some of the Mediterranean people’s such as Jews (this is ignoring the admixture) have darker pigmentation, they still are irrefutably Caucasoid in bone structure and irrefutably cluster closely to other Caucasoid populations. Meds were some of the first Caucasoids.
The criticism of the tribal argument also involves the fact that people identify ethnically and even religiously rather than racially. If you go with the tribal argument, you have to accept infighting (which I don’t see as a poblem).
By on 3/17/08 at 12:32 pm
The big mistake most “wns” make is to go by pigmentation rather than real anthropological characteristics. There really is nothing fuzzy about it if you truly understand this. Even if some of the Mediterranean people’s such as Jews (this is ignoring the admixture) have darker pigmentation, they still are irrefutably Caucasoid in bone structure and irrefutably cluster closely to other Caucasoid populations. Meds were some of the first Caucasoids.
Just out of curiosity, do you in that case consider Arabs and Pakistanis whites too? I wouldn’t mind having the best educated South Asians in a white country (provided they’re not Muslim), but as a whole these groups tend to have the same low IQ and typical problems of other non-white groups.
By on 3/17/08 at 5:38 pm
Remember the white/non-white divide isn’t the be all end all for me. I support dividing the white race? Do I think a good amount of these populations are Caucasoid? Yes. Do I think all Caucasoids are equal? No!
This is like asking if Russians are white. It depends on how much foreign admixture they have from neighboring nations. A small amount of arabs have absorbed negroid blood, and a small amount of pakis have (most likely) absorbed mongoloid blood. I would say the two populations are still predominately Caucasoid. It should be noted that Arabs have a lower IQ, but I believe Islam has had a dysgenic effect. Before Islam, the Arabs were actually more scientifically advanced than Europe (which was in the dark ages). Jews have stressed education and have undergone persecution that raised their iq, whereas Arabs had their most intelligent people repressed. That is why the iq gap is so wide, despite the common ancestry.
It should be noted that studies have found less negroid admixture within Jews than Arabs. Even though most Arabs don’t have negroid blood
By on 3/17/08 at 7:04 pm
Daryl, the default American, European, Australian/New Zealand “man in the street” / instinctive standard is good enough for me.
That places Teutons, Nordics, Celts, Slavs, Mediterraneans, and Greeks within the fold, with Jews as apparently or honorarily white, and excludes Turks, Arabs, other Mideasterners, and South Asians.
By on 3/18/08 at 10:03 pm
Very interesting debate. I guess I’m a tribalist. I will always value human beings, my flesh and blood, over abstract ideas and ideologies.
By Josh on 3/12/08 at 6:52 pm