Vanguard News Network

by Mike Meehan

What is racism? Racism, properly understood, is the acknowledgement of the reality of objective, biological differences between the races. These differences that are so dramatic that racial mingling inevitably causes hatred and violence. Thus racial separation is the best way to preserve all races.

Racism, properly understood, is also the recognition that it is perfectly healthy and normal and right to love one’s own more than what belongs to others. It is natural, normal, and right to show preferences to one’s self, one’s family, one’s friends, one’s homeland, one’s nation, and one’s race.

Why is so healthy, rational, and enlightened an outlook as racism smeared as “hate�? To prefer one’s family to the neighbors is not hate. To prefer one’s friends to strangers is not hate. To prefer Ireland to France is not hate. I prefer Whites to other races, but that fact alone does not mean that I hate other races.

Preference does not mean hatred, but merely an inequality of loves. I love France, but I love Ireland more. And I perfectly understand why a Frenchman might feel exactly the opposite.

I will grant that some are people attracted to the White Nationalist movement simply because, for whatever psychopathological reasons, they are filled with hate, and they think that the movement will offer them a place to express their hate openly. But angry, hate-filled people are attracted to all causes. Every cause has an enemy, who is marked as an appropriate object of hate. Thus every cause will attract angry, sick people looking for an outlet for their aggression. I know from personal experience that anti-racists are typically a venomous, aggressive, hate-filled lot.

I suspect, moreover, that some marginal, psychopathic people are attracted to White Nationalism precisely because anti-racists have fostered the impression that we are all crazy.

But I also suspect that far more psychopathic haters are attracted to the cultural and political mainstream than to a marginal movement like White Nationalism. This is because the establishment offers no shortage of socially acceptable objects of hatred. It is, for instance, socially acceptable to hate White people, especially rural and Southern Whites, White Nationalists, Germans, Arabs, Muslims, and other enemies of the Jews.

So look for the majority of psychopathic haters in the ranks of the anti-racists, in the police forces, in the military, and in the mainstream conservative movement, especially among the warmongers.

But I must be frank. Although preferring one’s own race does not in itself lead to hating other races, I really do hate other races. This is where my enemies will place the close quotes, when they lift my words out of context to smear me. What follows is the context, i.e., some necessary distinctions, qualifications, examples, and explanations.

First of all, I find it very difficult to say that I hate anyone or anything. It goes against my nature. If anything, I tend to be too sentimental and soft-hearted, too open to appeals to emotion. I fawn over children and dogs, and I find it especially hard to say no to women.

Second, I do not hate all other races. If tomorrow we discovered life on Mars, I know that I would prefer my race to the Martians. But I would not hate them. Likewise, I prefer my own race to the headhunters of Papua, the Aborigines of Australia, the Pygmies of the Congo, and the Bushmen of the Kalahari. But I do not hate them. Why not? Because I do not have to live with them. Because I am separate from them. Because, so far as I know, they do not negatively affect my life.

If, however, the Catholic Church, the federal government, or the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society established a colony of Papuans, Aborigines, Pygmies, Bushmen, or Martians on my block, and I had to live in close proximity with them—and, worse yet, subsidize them with my tax dollars—then I probably would start hating them.

Of course it would begin slowly. I might try to get to know them at first. I might bring them food as a housewarming gift—although nervously, because I would not know if it would upset their stomachs or violate some unknown food taboo. Since they would probably know little or no English and show little interest in learning, I might try to greet them with a few words of their native tongue—although nervously, because I would always fear that the Pygmy word for “hello� would, to my ears, be undetectably similar to a cuss word. I would try my best to interpret their reactions, to determine how my friendly gestures were being received, but I would probably find them inscrutable and begin to feel uncomfortable around them. Every time they laughed, I would start wondering if they were laughing at me. Then, as time revealed more and more of our racial and cultural differences, we would really start getting on one another’s nerves.

A couple of years ago, I would have placed Polynesians on the list of peoples I had nothing against. But I had no direct contact with them. But then, while I was living in Southern California, several families from Samoa or Tonga moved in a few buildings down the block. I thought they were aesthetically unappealing: large, brown, flabby Australoid-Mongoloid hybrids. But they seemed pleasant enough at first. Then I started noticing certain annoying differences.

For instance, they are unspeakably filthy people. I have not gotten close enough to form an impression of their personal hygiene. But other forms of filth can be observed from a safe distance. For instance, they are fond of noisily socializing and eating together outdoors. This is bad enough, but days later the ground is still littered not only with trash and toys, but also with discarded food. After their last cookout, their landlord had to pay Mexicans to clean up after them. After another cookout, I found a mound of rotting fish, crawling with flies and maggots, dumped in a neighbor’s yard. Of course this kind of behavior would not be a problem in Tonga or Samoa, where it is probably accepted by everyone. But here it is disgusting and disrespectful, not to mention a potential health hazard.

Other behaviors are simply attempts to exploit White Americans, whom these Polynesians seem to regard with cordial contempt. It is hard not to be contemptuous of people whose commitment to “multiculturalism� means abandoning their own cultural standards whenever they conflict with foreign standards, no matter how barbarous and inferior.

For instance, when the local Samoans or Tongans (or whatever) found the washing machines in their apartment building engaged, they simply came over and used the machines in my building. I do not know how they got in. I suspect that they had their abundant children lurk around and then prop open the door when someone left.

Not only did this inconvenience people in my building who wish to do their laundry, it was a security hazard for doors to be propped open. Furthermore, once they gained access to the laundry room, the detergents I had left out without fear of theft by fellow Whites were rapidly depleted. These Polynesians did not even care to hide their theft by pilfering a little at a time. Either they are incredibly stupid, or they think they can steal from Whites with impunity.

Now these are minor problems, particularly compared with the plight of Whites living in Zimbabwe or Detroit. But they illustrate how irritating diversity rapidly becomes. Furthermore, I can’t honestly say that I hate Polynesians—not yet, anyway.

But if I confronted them about their behavior and the response were ugly, I might very well end up hating them. (I never confronted them because was planning to move in the near future, because it would have done no good, and because I have bigger fish to fry.)

But hate them or not, I don’t want to live around Polynesians, any Polynesians, ever again.

I do not deny that White people can be obnoxious. But I prefer obnoxious Whites to obnoxious non-Whites any day. Even the worst White people are easier to handle. At least I can appeal to common standards, and confronting them is not an international incident.

A third important qualification: It is possible to hate a group of people and yet not hate individual members. I am unfailingly polite in my dealings with individuals of other races. I have met likeable individual Blacks, Jews, Mestizos, and Orientals. I have even met non-Whites who are capable of adopting White standards and customs and living harmoniously in a White society.

But I never lose sight of the fact that these likeable individuals are members of races with identities and interests different from my own, races that inevitably come into conflict with my own when we share the same territory.

An individual Black, especially if nurtured by a White civilization, may turn out to be an intelligent and admirable scholar like Thomas Sowell. But a lot of Blacks living together according to their own natures never rise above primitive savagery. The potential Thomas Sowells are nipped in the bud. And when large numbers of Blacks are loosed on a White civilization, they inevitably drag it down to their level, as can be seen in Haiti, South Africa, and Detroit. There are just not enough good Blacks in the Black community to make any other outcome possible.

An individual Jew can make genuine contributions to White civilization. Gustav Mahler, for instance, was a first-rate composer. But a lot of Jews living amongst us according to their own natures and interests have been overwhelmingly destructive. Without the Jews, there would have been no Communism, which is the single deadliest folly in human history. (Christianity, another Jewish product, is not far behind.) Without the Jews, the United States would never have gotten into World War I. Without the Jews, there would have been no World War II. Without the Jews, the United States would not be at war with Iraq. Nor would the US government be planning wars with Syria and Iran. Nor would the US be pursuing a reckless anti-Russian foreign policy. If any of these adventures leads to World War III, a future historian will tell us that it would not have happened without the Jews either. Compared to these crimes, it seems almost petty to complain about the Jewish role in promoting cultural ugliness, filth, and degeneracy. There are just not enough good Jews in the Jewish community to make any other outcome possible.

By all means, treat individuals as individuals. But don’t fall for the folly of individualism, which denies the reality of group identities, group interests, and group conflicts. Be on guard when an individualist waxes gooey and sentimental about the Gustav Mahlers and Thomas Sowells and then “concludes,� by sheer assertion, that collective problems are non-existent or that collective solutions are immoral and out of the question.

Alex Linder once summed up this sort of individualism brilliantly: Because the Black race produced a Thomas Sowell, the White race must die. Because the Jews produced a Mahler, the race that produced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and countless other geniuses must perish. After all, if Whites were to secure their survival, that would be “collectivism.� But individualism founders on the fact that groups are real. And collective problems require collective solutions.

Another point of clarification: I think it is useful to distinguish between hatred for moral and non-moral reasons. When a person fails to meet a given moral standard, it is natural to feel antipathy toward him, and the more he knows better, the more intentional and premeditated his choice, the greater his guilt and the greater the anger we should feel toward him.

Not all antipathy has a moral component, however. I hate gloomy weather. I hate being sick. I hate mosquitoes. But I do not think that a glowering sky, invading microbes, or bloodsucking vermin are immoral. It is just that they are opposed to my interests. They interfere with my well-being. They cannot help it. But, by the same token, I cannot help feeling antipathy toward them.

Now I am not sure if there are any universal moral principles that apply to all races. I am sure, however, that only Whites take such notions seriously. I am also sure that such beliefs put Whites at a systematic disadvantage when dealing with non-Whites who do not share them.

When Whites are in a position of power and non-Whites want something from us, they can appeal to our universalistic notions of justice and fair play, and Whites are often swayed. But when non-Whites are in power and Whites want something from them, appeals to universal moral standards usually fall on deaf ears.

When the Blacks of Rhodesia demanded democracy in the name of equal human rights, the Whites eventually gave in. Now, when the few remaining Whites of Zimbabwe appeal to the same universal principles to preserve their lives and property, they are wasting their breath.

Universal principles trump group self-interest. But only Whites accept that trump and thus only non-Whites can play it. Imagine playing cards against an opponent who can trump you but refuses to let you trump him. You might win a few hands, but in the long run, you will be defeated.

The same is true of anyone who adheres to universal moral principles in a world ruled by ethnic and national self-interest. At the very least, prudence dictates that Whites not deal with other races in terms of universal moral principles until they play by the same rules.

So, when dealing with other races, I do not hold them to the same set of moral standards that I accept for myself and apply to other Whites. I do not hold non-Whites up to White standards and judge them wanting. Thus I do not have any moral antipathy to other races.

Being non-White is no moral fault. Non-Whites are not evil. Not even the non-Whites who negatively impact my life. They are just different—different in ways that impede the survival and flourishing of me and my kind when we are forced to live together.

This implies that non-Whites do not need to be guilty of anything for me to wish to separate from them. They cannot help being what they are. They are wholly innocent in the matter of their genetic makeup. But that genetic makeup alone is sufficient reason for me to wish to live apart from them.

But what about non-White criminals, specifically non-White criminals who prey on Whites, like O.J. Simpson or Mumia Abu Jamal or Tookie Williams? Are they not “guilty�? Logically, if I refuse to apply to non-Whites the same moral standards as I apply to Whites, I have to conclude they are not “guilty�—not in a moral sense.

But they are not “innocent� either. They are causes of suffering for White people and thus must be neutralized. Morally they are no different from rabid dogs, which are not “guilty� or “innocent� either, but that does not mean they should be left alive to spread death and destruction.

A critic might say that I am going to an absurd extreme to cling to the prudent fiction that White moral standards should never be applied to non-Whites. Maybe so. But look at the absurd lengths we go to in order to maintain the fiction that an O.J., a Mumia, or a Tookie is a moral agent: rational, dignified, freely capable of incurring guilt or seeking redemption. At a certain point, these farces take on the semblance of medieval animal trials.

One more point: The people I hate the most, with all the bitterness of moral condemnation, are fellow Whites who collaborate with other races to destroy their own. I do hold them to White standards of behavior. I do judge them wanting. And I hate them with righteous indignation.

This follows logically from my decision to apply White moral standards and moral judgment only to my own people. But I hesitate to say it for fear that it be taken as a concession to our anti-White culture that approves of and encourages White self-hatred as a tool of collective demoralization.

I showed a draft of this essay to a friend. He questioned the wisdom of giving our enemies a sentence like “I really do hate other races� to quote. My reply was: we White Nationalists claim that the mixing of races inevitably causes hatred and conflict. So it is silly for us to pretend that we are immune to the effects of racial mixture. If White Nationalists who claim not to hate other races are honest, then they are living refutations of their own claim that multiracial societies breed hatred.

I am living proof that multiracial societies cause racial hatred.

But here is another line to quote: I do not want to hate other races. That is why I want to live in a homogenously White society. Such a society would have plenty of problems, but racial hatred and conflict would not be among them.

Racism, properly understood, means recognizing biological differences between populations and preferring members of one’s own group. Racism has no necessary connection to hatred or violence towards other races. In a racial nationalist utopia, all races would have separate, homogenous homelands. All distinct tribes or nationalities would have separate homelands too.

Racial and cultural nationalism would not impede peaceful cooperation: the exchange of goods and ideas, tourism, international athletic competitions, artistic and cultural exchanges, studies abroad, etc.

But nationalism would impede the hatred and violence that are inevitable when different races and peoples are forced to share the same territories and governments.

Nationalism, consistently practiced, would even discourage war between ethnostates, since true racial nationalists would neither seek to rule over other peoples nor stand in the way of the secession of separate ethnostates from multiracial, multiethnic states.

Multiracialism and multiculturalism do, however, have a necessary connection to hatred and violence toward other races. In theory, of course, the advocates of multiracial, multicultural societies are all about love, tolerance, and peace towards all men.

Except, of course, for racial and cultural nationalists, for whom they have no love and tolerance, and against whom they are willing to wage wars of extermination.

But in practice, multiracial, multiethnic states do not work. They lead inevitably to hatred, intolerance, and bloodshed.

They even made a hater out of a nice guy like me.