Taylor vs. Sailer—Survival v. “Citizenism”

[Peter
Brimelow


writes:
I`ve
said


before
that


Steve Sailer
is
under the characteristically innocent impression that he
is the house moderate here at


VDARE.COM
,
although he gets us
into more trouble than any other single writer because
of his subject matter. Here


Jared Taylor
proves Steve is indeed a moderate, by
arguing that his ideal of a color-blind civic
consciousness is not practical in an America that is
being rapidly transformed by public policy. This is a
serious debate—which means you won`t find it anywhere
except VDARE.COM. Jared and Steve last debated on
California`s Racial Preference Initiative,


here
and


here
. Steve will
reply on Sunday night
.]

In what
passes for political debate today there is so little in
the way of principles that it is almost a compliment for
someone to say, as Steve Sailer did in his September 18
VDARE.COM column

The Color Of Crime And The New Orleans Nightmare: George
W. Bush vs. Jared Taylor
, that he disagrees with
mine.

Discussing the futility of uplift programs that ignore
the realities of race and IQ, Mr. Sailer mentioned my
foundation`s recent report,

The Color of Crime
and predicted that
the Mainstream Media would ignore it both because the

contents
are true and because I could be described
as a

"white nationalist."

It was at
this point that Mr. Sailer evoked principle. He conceded
that all other races except whites unashamedly

promote their own interests.
But he pronounced
himself in favor of "citizenism," or acting
"in the best overall interests of the current citizens
of the United States."

He then
explained that because it "is so unnatural [to
work for the interests of a haphazard collection of
people rather than one`s own kin], it`s the least
destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance
humanly possible on an effective scale."

I am
staggered that the usually hard-headed Mr. Sailer should
promote something precisely because it is unnatural.
"Citizenism"
has an eerie resemblance to Marx`s

"From each according to his ability to each according to
his need."
The goal of communism was to abolish
selfishness and build a
classless society
in which all members would behave
unnaturally, putting the public interest before their
own. Very

uplifting
, to be sure—and the cause of

untold horror.

Societies
cannot be built on mistaken assumptions about human
nature. "Citizenism" assumes that race can be
made not to matter, and that citizens will set aside

parochial ethnic interests
for the good of all. This
is as grievous a misreading of human nature as was

Marx`s
assumption that selfishness could be made to
disappear.

Perhaps I
should offer a correction: It is a misreading of
non-white human nature. The whole idea of the

Civil Rights Movement
was for everyone to dismantle
racial consciousness and become a happy band of
brother/citizens. American whites made a genuine effort
at this—at least they

passed legislation
and struck public poses
consistent with it—but no one else did. When whites
abandoned their collective interests it was

unilateral disarmament.
Every other group rushed to
exploit this weakness.

Mr.
Sailer`s rejection of

racial consciousness for whites
is inexplicable in
light of what he understands about race. He knows the
races are not equal or equivalent, and do not build the

same kinds of societies
. He knows non-whites make

endless demands
based on spurious claims of
"racism,"
which they claim accounts for their own
failures. He has even described race as a form of

extended family,
which means it is the largest group
to which humans feel instinctive loyalty.

Given
this clarity of thought—a clarity that

sets Mr. Sailer apart
from 99.9 percent of people
who would

call themselves "conservative"
—what course of
action would he propose for white people?

Continue
to preach "citizenism" when no one else practices
it?

Continue
to

fill the country
with people who do not hesitate to
advance their interests—material, cultural, and
biological—at the expense of whites?

Continue
to act only as individuals in the face of organized
dispossession?

Presumably, since he writes about it so much, Mr. Sailer
wants all Americans to

understand
the association between

race and IQ.
But this would represent a revolution
in racial thinking that would knock the already-rickety
props out from under anything so unnatural (but
uplifting) as non-racial "citizenism."

Let us
assume that Mr. Sailer has his way, and the facts about
race and IQ become widely accepted. Whites now fully
understand that blacks and Hispanics can never, in the
aggregate, become like white people. They will always
bring

crime
,
bad schools
, and

more social costs
for which "citizens" must
pay.

Whites
also now understand that Asians, in the aggregate, will
take the

best jobs
, fill the

best universities
, and if enough of them

immigrate,
perhaps even form a ruling elite.

And no
matter how hard Mr. Sailer promotes it, "citizenism"
just doesn`t catch on with non-whites. Blacks and
Hispanics continue to promote interests that cannot be
reconciled with those of whites, and even Asians catch
the

spirit of tribalism.

Will
whites still put uplift over survival?

Mr.
Sailer`s other objection to white racial consciousness
has nothing to do with principles: He just thinks it
won`t attract many people any time soon.

It is
true that today`s

race-liberal white elites
preen themselves on their
fashionable views while keeping their own lives almost
entirely free of non-whites. This kind of isolation will
be harder for their children and impossible for their
grandchildren. More and more whites are beginning to
understand this.

However,
this brings us to an inconsistency in Mr. Sailer`s
views. He implicitly concedes that more whites will
think in terms of race as they become minorities. But
why should becoming a minority make any difference?

I think
Mr. Sailer would agree that it is because non-whites
will fashion a society that reflects their

genetic endowments
—not those of whites—and
whites will

not like
that society.

Why
should whites persist in "citizenism" until their
country has been

transformed
beyond recognition—and switch to

racial consciousness
only when they

may no longer
have the numbers necessary to salvage
their society?

Every day
that whites practice "citizenism" while
non-whites fortify the racial ramparts makes it that
much less likely that future generations of whites will
have a society that reflects their heritage, their
culture, their folkways, and their aspirations.

The
nightmare ending for a white minority is already playing
itself out in

Zimbabwe
, where whites have no rights, and will
eventually be

driven out
or slaughtered. In another decade or
three, South African whites will face the

same choice.

Can
anyone guarantee that the fate of a dwindling white
minority in America—or in

Britain
or

France
or

Holland
—would be any less grim?

We are
dicing with the future of our country and with the very
lives of

our children
and

grandchildren
.

Whites
still have the power to save their civilization and to
ensure their own survival as a distinct people. They
will use this power only if they throw off the mental
shackles of an unnatural and unreciprocated "citizenism."

Jared Taylor (email
him) is editor of


American Renaissance

and the author of


Paved With Good
Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in
Contemporary America
.
(For Peter Brimelow`s review,
click


here
.)