to: main page
What should a pro-white group advocate?
The American people have become divided between the majority white population and the non-white minority following a model established by the black Civil Rights movement. What issues or programs ought a pro-white group advocate?
Immediately, it would appear that pro-white politics should oppose black people by criticizing their behavior. For instance, whites could argue that blacks have a higher crime rate, have lower IQ scores, are sexually promiscuous, hate whites, ruin neighborhoods, do poorly in school, etc.
I do not rebuke persons who make this type of argument when the facts warrant it but do believe it cannot be the basis of a successful political movement for two reasons: First, not all black individuals exhibit such negative behavior. Unfairness to them will not win sympathy for the pro-white cause. Second, to the extent that the behavior is genetically determined, there is little that government or anyone else can do about it except for unrealistic and unwarranted proposals such as sending blacks back to Africa, killing them, or limiting their births. (Otherwise, if some blacks threaten or abuse whites thinking whites are too cowardly to fight back, such behavior may end once the white population acquires a backbone. But it is individuals, not groups, whose behavior needs to be changed in this case.)
The conclusion is that is that the black (or other minority) population should not be the target of a pro-white politics. Again, there are two reasons. First, a political movement is more likely to succeed by staying positive. We can build up whites without tearing down blacks. Keep the focus on our own achievements and path to a brighter future. Second, the required negativity can and should be directed against those in government, foundations, the media, education, religion, etc. who impose a negative identity or adverse policies upon whites. Such policies and personnel can be changed through political action. That should be the goal of a pro-white politics.
Let me give an example of a similar situation where a happy result was achieved. In the 1990s, small landlords in Minneapolis including me became scapegoats for inner-city crime and were punished by police and inspectors directed by the city’s elected officials. We organized to fight back. Outsiders assumed that, because we were a landlord group, we were organizing in opposition to tenants (as tenant organizations have organized in opposition to landlords). No, we organized against abusive city government; and the tenants union actually sided with us. Our political activity reached a peak in the city elections of 2001 where the Minneapolis mayor (a black female), the president of the city council (a white female), and four or five others on the city council who were opposed to landlords were replaced by persons more friendly to us.
The point is that the community’s power structure tends to put us each in a box and have us fight our nominal opponents. In this case, advocates for white people are or ought to be fighting blacks, our opponents say. In reality, our adversary is not the black population in general or individually but particular persons, organizations, and interest groups that exhibit hostility toward whites. Certainly this includes government officials. However, it also includes media commentator and officials, college professors and administrators, much of the entertainment industry, certain corporate executives, religious activists, and non-profit advocacy groups and those who fund them.
Hostile persons in government can be removed through the ballot box. (That will be difficult unless the required foundation is laid through grassroots activity.) For the rest, a variety of challenges can be mounted including protest rallies and picketing, comments at public meetings, letters to their financial supporters, product boycotts, websites and blogs, and direct personal communication. A number of people should be involved to keep the protest going.
Two organizations which certainly should be confronted are the Southern Poverty Law Center headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Anti-Defamation League headquartered in New York City. Both are relentlessly hostile toward non-Jewish white people. They judge white people’s struggle for a separate, positive identity as expressions of hate. White people need to judge these organizations as centers of anti-white hate which spread their dark, fearful message through the media and the courts.
Whoever successfully manages to judge the other is the winner of this political contest. Therefore, keep the focus on those persons or organizations that have judged us adversely. Turn the tables on them. Accuse them of anti-white hatred and don’t downplay the word “white”. Be outspoken. Academic historians notwithstanding, we are not ashamed of our race.