Why Whites Should Be Racially Conscious

by Max Power

August 12, 2002

We may define a "white nationalist" as one who believes that all racial groups are essentially tribal in nature, and that this nature is only being suppressed in the majority of whites, either because they're told that seriously entertaining such beliefs "is what led to the Holocaust,"[1] or, as is the case in some European countries, out of fear of imprisonment. The aim of the white nationalist is to reawaken long-lost ethnocentric tendencies in whites, so they don't join the dodo bird on the extinction list. White nationalists have historically been a diverse bunch, cutting across political boundaries, from avatar of private property Thomas Jefferson, to the socialist Jack London. In the following paragraphs I shall attempt to argue that whites have good reasons for being racially conscious, and maybe provide suggestions as to how white nationalists can gain inroads at accomplishing their goal.

A preliminary question that deserves to be asked, though invariably isn't, is whether whites were ever racially conscious to begin with. That is, are whites only racially conscious for utilitarian reasons -- i.e., the usual reasons (black and mestizo crime) that prompt "white flight"? Were whites racially conscious in the sense of regarding one another as an extended family, with shared memories, a common outlook, a common destiny and a common temperment, and radically distinct in these respects from the black, red and yellow races before the Holocaust occurred and "hate speech" laws were enacted in Europe and Canada? Unfortunately, I don't have the historical resources at hand to prove conclusively if they were or not, and the time required to collate the footnotes would exhaust my current time constraints.

However, I will at least say this: whites evolved seperately from other racial groups for tens of thousands of years, and operated in close proximity with one another in hunter-gatherer tribes where the environment selected against (among other things) uncooperative behavior and racial unfamiliarity. It's a pretty safe bet that whites are racially conscious to some degree and that it's probably embedded in their biology; how large a component is a question history should be able to answer. The question here is whether "hard" racial consciousness -- that is, racial consciousness that isn't utilitarian -- seems faithful to the behavior whites displayed around other racial groups throughout history, e.g. whites and blacks in the antebellum south, whites and blacks in pre-WWII colonial Africa, whites and Asians and even whites themselves.

The fact that the bloodiest conflicts in recent years have erupted between whites in Ireland and the Balkans seems to render less plausible the notion of whites having a strong sense of racial tribalism. The only comment I can offer here is that this just reinforces the commonsensical observation that further integration is doomed to failure, for if groups with a minutiae of racial differences betweem them struggle to get along, how can anyone expect Moslems from Pakistan and voodoo priests from Haiti to be anything other than shock troops for the Jewish mandarins to bring down white gentile societies? For the time being, I'll leave this one to the historians, and possibly a future article.

The first step towards getting whites who show no concern at the prospect of imminent dispossession to open their eyes isn't to cite psychometric literature showing the racial IQ discrepancies, because this usually results in a chain of neverending arguments ranging from slavery to the Holocaust, to just being called a "racist." The first step, rather, is to convince these apathetic whites that other racial groups are tribal; that regardless of where the Chinese, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Somalis and Haitians congregate in the world, their culture, customs and folkways invariably follows them. You could point out, say, that the Chinese community in Vancouver, British Columbia is indistinguishable from the one they putatively left behind in Hong Kong. This is a decidedly less controversial approach than saying that blacks and mestizos have lower IQs than whites. It's also an easier sell, since one of the Jewsmedia's favorite slogans is for us white gentiles to "celebrate diversity" and multiculturalism, for which non-white immigration gives rise. The second step is to show that these groups are outnumbering whites in formerly white countries by citing UN Population data showing the declining white birth rates.

You then need to explain to these apathetic whites that their race is the only race that's apathetic about their own racial future; that is, whites are the only group in the world whose racial interests are to have no racial interests. These apathetic whites obviously feel this is the correct, or best position to adopt regarding this matter. That said, you must point out to them that by holding this view, whites are setting the stage for the day when they'll be greatly outumbered in formerly white countries by people who hold the opposite view -- namely, that race does matter, and that their racial interests are worth preserving at the expense of other groups, whites chief among them. In a sense, whites prize racial apathy over the consequences it will bring, when they'll either be forced to reconsider their apathy, or won't be able to be apathetic at all, because they simply won't "be."

When whites claim that their current trajectory towards dispossession is "inevitable" and will "happen whether you like it or not," what they fail to realize is that they themselves will have to accept consequences just as dire as those who point out that the consequences will be dire. They will have to accept that their view of race, which they feel is the correct view -- for why else would they hold it -- will be supplanted by its polar opposite.

Another way in which whites can make inroads at spreading their message is by fiction. When Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus began pondering the loss of value and ultimate purpose of post-theistic man's existence, they didn't write their musings down in dusty academic philosophy journals. Rather, they made fiction their medium of choice, and used their imagination to convey their worldview to the reading public, successfully making existentialism a staple of Western thought. Now, from what I gather of the stories that've been submitted to VNN, playing in the realm of ideas was not a concern of the authors when they wrote them. These banal, ad nauseam rehashings of the Turner Diaries may be cathartic to the author, but they bear no relation to reality, and they certainly won't cause anti-racists and apathetic whites to rethink their positions on race. Subtle these stories aren't.

Jasa Petrovic Slovjanski made a great point in an earlier article, wherein he said that video games like "Ethnic Cleansing," where the object is to shoot blacks and Ariel Sharon, only serve to reinforce a stereotype white nationalists themselves create. The same principle applies to the aforementioned stories. White nationalists should stop writing these "one man army"-type stories, where the protagonist mows down blacks and Jews, and instead borrow Aldous Huxley's idea of fiction as a holdall, flowing with ideas and opinions.


[1] This is the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief. Even if it were the case that holding the belief that racial groups are tribal and differ in average intelligence led to the holocaust, it wouldn't follow that racial groups aren't tribal or that they don't differ markedly in average intelligence.


Tell a friend about this article:

Back to VNN Main Page