September 29, 2005
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
those of whites—and whites will not like
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
or slaughtered. In another decade or three, South African
whites will face the same
Can anyone guarantee that the fate of a dwindling white
minority in America—or in Britain or
be any less grim?
We are dicing with the future of our country and with
the very lives of our children
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.)