Some Conservatives Fear White Nationalist Success
by Karl Kammler
Jewhouse Tilove's Ripple Effect
In a past VNN piece, "In Case of Jewish Co-Option, Break Glass," I analyzed an article written by Jonathan Tilove of the Newhouse News Service, "Brighter White Nationalists May Emerge From Shadows." Tilove's article suggested that the high quality of discourse he found at the 2002 American Renaissance conference might indicate that the White Nationalist movement is gaining influence and breaking into the "mainstream." I noted that the Tilove article should encourage our Movement, since the Establishment is now defensively conceding ground to our agenda, much as the conservative movement conceded ground to the Left and was eventually neutered.
Now, that pregnant Tilove article has caused "the other shoe to drop" in the conservative camp. Scott McConnell, a columnist for the New York Press and a former Buchanan operative, distanced himself from White Nationalism and AR in his latest piece, "Minority Whites." It is a sloppy piece that attempts to offer some reasons why McConnell believes White Nationalism is unworkable as a coherent political force. I'll recount and refute his arguments, and forward a theory as to why he wrote his hit piece.
McConnell Can't Define "White"
McConnell organizes his reasons for his skepticism of White Nationalism under four headings. The first of these is "White People, Who are They?" Here, he suggests that the concept of "white men" is artificial. Many will recognize this argument as a variant of the usual liberal line asking us to "define 'White," while hinting that it is impossible to do so. McConnell adds a paleoconservative twist to this old argument, though, by quoting Joseph de Maistre, a French thinker who opposed the universalism that ran rampant in his day. Maistre suggested that there were no such things as "men," but there were Englishmen, Germans, and the like. Maistre was a good particularist, something we could use more of these days.
However, McConnell misses the larger significance of the fact that de Maistre was writing in Europe, in response to the French Revolution. Obviously, the universalist concept of "man" struck de Maistre as absurd. In Europe, there are indeed Italians, Russians, and so on. These differences matter. In America, though, the various peoples of Europe accumulated and assimilated, and nicely so, despite the occasional bump, since they had a common genetic and racial heritage. These are the European-Americans (Whites!) of today. They often still self-identify as Irish, for example, especially this close to St. Patrick's Day. Many, if not most, European-Americans are blends of the various white ethnicities. That is what we have to work with; it served America well, until the multiracialists clamored to assimilate the unassimilable in the 1960s.
McConnell's interpretation of de Maistre is more applicable to refuting the designs of the European Union. The platform of the National Alliance cautions against EU-style homogenization in the same spirit as de Maistre, stating:
We must have new societies throughout the White world which are based on Aryan values and are compatible with the Aryan nature. We do not need to homogenize the White world: there will be room for Germanic societies, Celtic societies, Slavic societies, Baltic societies, and so on, each with its own roots, traditions, and language. What we must have, however, is a thorough rooting out of Semitic and other non-Aryan values and customs everywhere. We must once again provide the sort of social and spiritual environment in which our own nature can express itself in music, in art and architecture, in literature, in philosophy and scholarship, in the mass media, and in the life-styles of the people.
Note the use of the plural in the phrase "new societies," and the enumeration of particular White societies. I suspect that there is also room for an American society, one that would be thoroughly White. Joseph de Maistre would be proud, even if McConnell would be left confused. After all, McConnell defines Blacks as "an old American ethnic group" [emphasis mine].
McConnell is unable to perceive "white culture," and suspects it does not exist. Maybe it is because he is like the fish that lives its entire life in water, unable to fully appreciate its aquatic environment. However, there are plenty of Blacks, and corporate sensitivity training films, that readily identify "white culture" -- as evil. Many Blacks also laugh at White cultural notions of time and schedule-keeping, excusing the characteristic, chronic tardiness of Blacks as "CPT: Colored People's Time." Columbus Day celebrations, for instance, are another aspect of "white culture" that must be eradicated, in the eyes of non-whites. McConnell's blindness to "white culture" is akin to that of the student who toured the university: he sat in the classrooms, browsed the libraries, slept in the residence halls, ate in the student union building, met the professors, and spoke with other students, but said he never saw "the university."
De Maistre's Razor: Can McConnell Define "America?"
McConnell is sensitive to the violence that abstract concepts sometimes inflicts upon particularity, but he fails to apply de Maistre's razor to his own treasured abstract: America. McConnell's fourth argument against White Nationalism, "It Means Giving Up on America," exposes this blind spot. McConnell writes, "while there is no such thing as 'white culture' there is still a recognizable American one...it obviously includes blacks." This fourth argument, based on a denial of "white culture," has much in common with McConnell's first argument. One wonders, though, if de Maistre visited modern America, whether he would see "Americans," or "White Americans" and "Black Americans."
Blacks are an integral part of "American" culture, for McConnell. This shows that McConnell's political ideology is hopelessly present-bound. Before the 1960s-era "civil rights" legislation imposed by the Federal government, most Americans saw themselves as occupying quite a different nation than the Blacks. McConnell also fails to mention the friction that the Confederate Flag generates within the Black community. He misses the separatist tendencies that come with having an exclusive television network, BET, as well. McConnell permanently fixes his gaze upon the horizon, over which lies that mythical place where all the Blacks "assimilate," and race is revealed as being "only skin deep."
McConnell's "White Protestant Guilt"
McConnell's second and third arguments, "We'd Feel Too Guilty" and "It's Against My Religion," both boil down to the same sentiment that White Nationalism is somehow immoral. McConnell writes:
Any effort by American whites to construct their own exclusionary political institutions, separate from American blacks, would be crippled from the outset by intense feelings of guilt and unworthiness. Most whites would understand it as a fundamentally selfish act, and no one can accomplish worthwhile goals without believing them to be good.
McConnell's concern is a good example of the "racial nihilism" and misplaced altruism that Richard McCulloch discusses in The Racial Compact. McCulloch states:
Racial preservation requires racial separation. Members of one race should not take offense or be resentful if members of another race seek to be separate from them, as required both for independence (sovereignty, self-determination, or racial freedom) and continued existence or preservation. It should not be regarded as a provocation, slight, demeanment, disparagement, insult or criticism of other races, but recognized and respected as a requirement for life and independence.
Jared Taylor's June 2001 American Renaissance article, "Arguments for Our Side," handles the "selfishness" issue in much the same spirit as McCulloch quoted above. Taylor notes that non-whites never concern themselves with whether their political machinations are "fair." Taylor realizes that Whites are highly genetically inclined toward altruism. Taylor thus offers the sound advice that "you should always emphasize that you want nothing for whites you are not happy to grant to all other peoples: the freedom to be left alone to pursue their destinies."
H.A. Scott Trask, in his July 2001 AR article, "The Christian Doctrine of Nations," addresses the religious variant of the "selfishness" issue that McConnell raises. Trask refutes the idea that racialism is un-Biblical, and McConnell acknowledges this, stating, "Christianity has co-existed with racialism for much of its history." Indeed, in 1 Timothy 5:8 the Apostle Paul writes that "...if anyone does not provide for his own...he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." The principle holds for the race, which is an extended family.
American Renaissance addresses McConnell's concerns in back-to-back issues. McConnell must have missed these important issues, as he writes, "I browse AR when it comes, but it doesn't really speak to me." Sure, and he probably reads Playboy just for the articles. His history books also must not have spoken to him, since Whites at one time did have the "exclusionary political institutions" McConnell writes about, and they didn't feel guilty about them, at least until much later when Jewish infiltration of our news and entertainment media was well under way.
That's What Politics Are For, Conservatives!
The purpose of the AR conference, which is McConnell's topic, is to answer precisely the kinds of common, fallacious arguments he presents. McConnell treats the current state of thinking on these issues as given, unchangeable, and even true. Our job is to challenge the validity of those Leftist arguments, and convince Whites that they should not feel guilty about defending their interests, nor should they see it as selfish or immoral. McConnell instead throws his hands in the air and claims that Whites will never change their minds. If people can never consider other points of view, why does McConnell bother to write at all?
McConnell must be the textbook definition of a conservative, in the narrow sense: aimed at preserving the status quo. He states, "it may be impossible to experience the modern Protestant liturgy...while entertaining racialist visions." The trouble is, the "modern" Protestant liturgy, and "modern" mainstream conservatism, is just the warmed-over liberalism of thirty years ago. That is a status quo not worth preserving. Yet, McConnell's writing drips with the desire to hold on to the way things are now, not the way things were before America was hijacked and befouled.
McConnell's Shiny New Neo-Con Press Pass
The manner in which McConnell structures his article is very revealing. He really only has two arguments against White Nationalism, but he breaks them up into four, as if to make his piece feel more impressive, much like the schoolboy who pads his essays with filler in order to reach the minimum page length his teacher expects. McConnell is a professional writer, so why would he resort to such juvenile tactics?
To borrow a phrase from McConnell, he published his article as a "fundamentally selfish act." He deliberately structures his straw-man arguments as a means of achieving political redemption in the eyes of "the powers that be." He is manufacturing his own "mainstream" credentials by performing a little "historical revisionism" on his autobiography. Now McConnell can tell those who fired him from the editorial staff of the New York Post for being too politically incorrect, "See, I was on your side all the time."
Not that McConnell was ever fully on the side of White Nationalists. His chief virtue was that he at least used the word "White" in his columns and challenged the occasional PC taboo. McConnell's columns, by articulating the idea that Whites might have interests of their own, are useful, and act much like a "gateway drug" toward a deeper understanding of true White Nationalism.
What's it All Mean?
McConnell sees that White Nationalists are winning, and that they are serious. If McConnell actually believes his two arguments, then he may be nervous that White Nationalists are not willing to settle for tinkering around the edges of the current System. McConnell has concluded that now is the time to make amends with the System before the fun really starts.
I congratulate White Nationalists for reaching the stage where some of those ostensibly on our side feel the need to bail out. These lukewarm friends fear that their own comfort and security within the System is threatened by the growing progress and visibility of White Nationalism. Sides are being taken, and true lines are beginning to be drawn. Those who know they won't be able to take the coming heat are getting out of the kitchen. On our side remain true and dedicated political fighters. Our day draws ever closer.