The fundamental question white nationalists must answer is:
Why will Euro-America be better off with race as an organizing political principle?
In what ways will the American middle class benefit if our politics is reshaped along racial lines instead of the current competing principles of "equality" and "individualism"?
In this newsgroup, I have often argued that we are being forced to accept race as an organizing political principle out of necessity. With the multi-culturalists whipping up anti-white racial feelings among the non-European groups, the "color blind" society advocated by libertarians and other individualists cannot happen.
How could the libertarians enforce a "color blind" society?
Outlaw racial block voting by minorities?
Absent disenfranchisement for such behavior, the anti-white racial politics will always win out over the racially blind variety - with escalating costs imposed on the "color blind". After all, clever politicians like Clinton bet their careers on proven winners - not "color blind" losers.
Simple self-defense against the demands of non-whites impels race as the organizing principle for European-Americans.
But there is a much more important structural reason as well. Not only do we have the defensive or "negative" reason outlined above, but a positive one. Let me illustrate with a case study.
Two days ago I was surfing the radio channels here in Texas looking for a "business channel" with regular market reports. I ran upon a "talk radio" show. It was one of those typical shows staged by an establishment station to defuse white anger. They found two good 'ole boys with strong Texas accents to fool fellow whites into thinking that their interests are being explored, while the conversation is always steered in safe directions.
Apparently, one of the talk radio commentators stirred up a fuss with a local Austin paper over the issue of tax abatements and other concessions given by the City of Austin to Samsung, the Korean industrial giant, as an inducement to locate a manufacturing plant in the area.
From the paper's perspective, the issue was racial insensitivity to Koreans. From the talk show host's perspective, the issue was why Americans must spend American tax money to get them to come here.
What happens is that American cities will typically give back the city's share of property and income taxes for 20 years to a large employer, and agree to build access roads, sewers and other required infrastructure if the employer will choose it rather than some other competing location.
Now this practice poses all kinds of delicate problems that ought to be at the center of fierce public debate.
Out of one side of their mouths, city staffs will typically argue that the new employer will generate more tax revenue, even as, out of the other, they give it all back to that employer.
Local reporters are too dumb and too low paid to understand. Cities claim that they need new tax revenue to finance new roads and schools, although the concessions to the new arrival make clear that funds or credit sufficient to build the infrastructure will be extracted from current residents. Simply stated, tax money is being taken from the existing residents to pay for the new arrivals.
The local retail merchants who dominate the Chamber of Commerce will benefit slightly, because growth in retail sales at rates exceeding the rate of inflation are possible only with population growth. They will favor the tax rebates and other inducements.
The city government will benefit, because a new employer, and the in-migration of its new employees, will expand the need for city services (schools, police, administration) and expand their empires.
Will the current residents benefit? Probably not.
But in any event, the city staff will not even consider their interests in the planning process. In fact, no methodology exists for even considering those interests. For example:
- What if the new plant causes several thousands of people (not employed at the plant) to wait an extra two minutes in traffic each day? How should this lost time be valued?
- The mantra of all American politicians is "jobs." But do the kind of jobs and the kinds of workers make a difference to the existing residents?
- Suppose the plant will pay $10 per hour, not enough to support a family. Do the existing residents benefit from an increase in these types of jobs? - Suppose 80% of the plant's workers will be immigrants paid the minimum wage. Suppose that to afford housing these minimum wage workers will pack themselves into homes and apartments at a density of 8 to the bedroom (as they do now in Southern California). Will the advent of such a plant and its subculture benefit the existing residents?
- Will the advent of new arrivals force schools to dumb down standards, or will the new arrivals exert pressure to improve the learning process?
- Would existing residents be better off if the money to be spent on new roads and sewers were spent on additional parks or less crowded schools instead?
None of these questions are even asked. And there is no mechanism in place for current residents to express their wishes.
Cities argue that the expense of tax abatements and other goodies to the big corporate employer will be made up over time by sales and income taxes projected to be paid by the newly arriving workers. Present value calculations are typically missing from the analysis. Wishful thinking and rosie scenarios can be found in abundance. The only thing certain is expanding government.
In America, new arrivals always win and existing residents always lose. It is the same on the local level with tax abatements as it is on the national level with immigration.
The voice of existing residents is never even heard.
The problem, of course, is that America is not a nation. American governments are never asked to define who they must benefit or protect. If all governmental actions must clearly and demonstrably benefit existing inhabitants, then you get very different results on all levels. Not all economic growth is good and not all jobs are equal. Admitting illegal aliens and employing them illegally at half the minimum wage will boost measured GDP. If GDP and "jobs" are the only criteria by which government is measured, then the policy of not enforcing immigration laws is a winner. It creates jobs and boosts GDP.
However, the downward pressure on wages of existing residents, the increased welfare costs and the degradation of the quality of life of most existing residents (essentially everyone except those employing the illegals) is devastating.
Governments and the elites that run them have far greater flexibility to pursue their own institutional interests if they are never forced to define who they must protect.
Without a nation or race of specific people to protect, governments are free to adopt any policy favored by any special interest that is convenient to them at the time. They are free to pit the interests of new arrivals against the interests of existing inhabitants for the purpose of enlarging their power and influence.
Our American governments sit by passively as illegitimacy soars, and our central cities are taken over by violent gangs. Our large corporations stimulate demand for overpriced brand names by encouraging self-absorbed lifestyles that have produced birthrates among Euro-Americans far below replacement levels. Again - no problem! Just replace them with hordes of new arrivals from the third world! Indeed, our local, state and national governments behave as if they were already under U.N control.
In truth, it has been this way for nearly 400 years in America. From the importation of children kidnapped from the streets of London to the importation of African slaves, existing inhabitants of America were considered to have no input and no interest in the decision. The importers of cheap labor were never asked how disruptive the new arrivals might become to existing inhabitants. Similarly, the great waves of immigration following the Civil War were undertaken at the behest of industrialists in search of cheap labor. The interests of existing inhabitants were not taken into account at all (not even when my parents were admitted in 1945).
The problem for our American governments has been that to define the purpose of government as protecting the welfare of the existing inhabitants threatens to eliminate many of the policies that politically active special interests support.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, with our ever expanding populations of non-European immigrants, any attempt to force governments to protect and foster the welfare of existing inhabitants would be labeled as "racist" because it would delay the ultimate date of non-white political control.
Even if the purpose of protecting existing inhabitants is phrased in neutral, non-racial terms, and administered in a non- discriminatory fashion, the non-white minorities would make it a racial issue because it would frustrate their goal of ultimate domination. Any policy or objective that delays the day of reckoning will be made a racial issue. It is a measure of their aggression and their hate.
Thus the answer to the question "Why will Euro-America be better off with race as an organizing political principle?" is simple.
For the first time in our history, governments at all levels would have a specific people and culture to protect and foster.
For the first time in our history, the vast resources of local, state and federal government would be applied to improve our lives, rather than to tear us down.
For the first time in our history, the requests of special interests would be turned down unless it could clearly be shown that the lives and wages of existing inhabitants were improved by granting the request. No other criteria would apply.
Sadly, our local, state and federal governments do not recognize such a thing as an "American." There are only "citizens of the world" all with equal claims to entry, social services, and your tax dollars.
America is not a nation, because it cannot identify a single people who's culture and welfare it fosters to the exclusion of other goals.
America is not even a "country," because it has no generally respected borders.
America has been stolen from us.
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.