Racial conservatism

This was drafted June 2012. I just came upon it in my computer. I will have further thoughts to post on this theme in the near future.

I have never referred to myself as a white nationalist, and I rejected white nationalism some years ago as it became clear that virtually all white nationalists are racial/materialist reductionists and anti-Semites.

I have consistently referred to my own belief system on this subject as “racialism,” or “moral racialism,” which I define as (1) a recognition of the specific ways in which race in general matters to society; (2) a recognition of the specific qualities, talents, and importance of the white race; and (3) a loyalty to the white race and the desire to protect and preserve it and assure a society in which it and its best qualities may flourish.

However, while I have been personally comfortable with the label, “racialism,” even “moral racialism,” is never going to work or be adopted in the conditions of modern society. Also, “racialist” to many people means the same as racist, i.e. morally wicked.

There is another name for my belief system that I have occasionally used (here, here, and here), but not emphasized. I think the time may have come to emphasize it: “Racial conservatism.” The term works in several ways. First, as I have said many times, true conservatism must deal with all the crucial dimensions of human existence that we want to preserve. Existing conservatism has never explicitly recognized race, and that is why racial conservatism is needed.

We have “social conservatism,” “family values conservatism,” “economic conservatism,” “national defense conservatism,” “constitutional conservatism,” and “patriotic conservatism.” Each is necessary and has its place. What is needed is to add racial conservatism. It expresses exactly what we are about.

Consider social conservatism, This means that there is a recognition of certain truths about human beings, human families, and human society, and the commitment to preserving, restoring, and maintaining a particular order of society in which those truths are recognized and will be expressed.

Well, in the same way, racial conservatism means a recognition of certain truths about race, and the commitment to preserving a particular race, namely the white race, and a society and civilization in which its characteristics, qualities, and talents will be the norm and can evolve and develop themselves without impossible hindrance, unlike in liberal society.

- end of initial entry -

Daniel F. writes:

I am grateful to you for helping me to understand the deficiencies of the unqualified “right-liberal” persepective with which I formerly identified. In significant part through your influence, I have come to understand that, to be viable, a society must have a basis in an organic community, a particular living culture and a some kind of shared vision of the good beyond the satisfaction of individual desires. Thank you for your insights, painful as it as sometimes been for me to accept them. May you find peace in your current trial and may you remain in the presence of the Creator always.

February 18

Bruce B. writes:

I used the phrase “racial conservative” here in a VFR discussion about white nationalism. I once had seen Sam Francis refer to David Horowitz as a “racial liberal.” That’s where I got the phrase from.

LA replies:

You didn’t just use the phrase. As can be seen from the 2009 entry you linked, you apparently suggested it to me for the first time and I liked it. Thank you.

In fact, the ideas I expressed in my response to you are so similar to the ideas in this current entry that I will quote that earlier exchange in its entirety:

2009 exchange between Bruce B. and LA

Bruce B. writes:

I prefer “racial conservative” to “white nationalist.” I think anything with an “ist” in it sounds more threatening, especially if it also has the word “white” attached to it. I think my term conveys what we seek and emphasizes that it’s non-threatening. What do you think?

LA replies:

I like “racial conservative.” It’s precise and appropriate.

This goes back to my long-standing critique of conservatism. What is conservatism about? The preserving and flourishing of certain constitutive aspects of our reality and the values connected to them. So, we have “economic conservatives,” “social conservatives,” “family values conservatives,” “cultural conservatives,” “constitutional conservatives,” “Christian conservatives.” All those types of conservatives are recognized as part of the conservative mix. But there are two problems with this picture. One, the various types of conservatives are often in different rooms, only seeing and defending one part of the whole, rather than the whole. Two, there is one type of conservatism that is completely missing from this recognized conservative mix: racial conservatism. Without racial conservatism, all the other types of conservatism will go down, because without the continuance of the Anglo-European white majority and its culture, everything else about our society will be lost. That is why I said in my speech at the 1994 American Renaissance conference that a conservatism that lacks a recognition of fundamental racial realities is not a serious conservatism.

Bruce replies:

The only thing I don’t like about it is that if you say that’s what you are it can sound like that’s all you’re for conserving, so it needs qualification.

LA replies:

I agree, it absolutely needs qualification. :-)

[end of 2009 exchange]

- end of initial entry -

February 18

Thucydides writes:

Any effort to talk sensibly about race runs straight into the human universalism that is a core commitment of contemporary left liberalism. It holds that all men are the same in all times and places, and that particular identities, whether racial, ethnic, religious, national, linguistic, etc., are superficial and epiphenomenal, and not constitutive of the individual.

In fact, while humans have certain fundamental universal characteristics, or they would not be recognizable as human, these are quite basic, and by no means fully determine the person. The liberal view reduces the human to a kind of generic cipher, stripped of all constitutive allegiances. This is a creature that does not exist.

One of the major political parties is entirely dependent on continuing to agitate non-white minorities into a state of hatred and paranoia. Blacks, for example, constitute about 12 percent of the electorate, and vote from 88 percent to 95 percent Democratic. The Democratic party would be entirely out of business without them.

The history of slavery and segregation make it easy for those on the left to attribute the worst motives to anyone who tries to talk sensibly about race. Most people simply don’t even try. This seems unlikely to change.

LA replies:

Of course it’s unlikely to change.When I speak of a movement of white people to preserve, promote, and strengthen the white race and assure societies in which the white race and its good qualities will flourish, I am speaking, first, not of a national, public political movement, for such a political movement is not possible at this time, but a movement in consciousness, feeling, and behavior, the behavior including the maintenance of voluntary, small scale communities.

Such communities already exist in great numbers in the U.S., where whites live among virtually all-white populations and maintain a white way of life because they prefer it that way, while they don’t explicitly think of themselves as a white community, and in fact they are overwhelmingly liberal in their explicit beliefs and would be horrified by any suggestion that they are pursuing and preferring whiteness. I am residing in such a white area right now. But such communities need, eventually, to become explicit about their white character and identity.

I am speaking of a commitment to maintain the valuation of and allegiance to whiteness regardless of all external opposition and condemnation and all external lack of power, such as is the case currently. I am speaking of an effort and a movement that will need to last generations before it hopes to acquire external power in society. Whites insanely gave up control over their own societies and over themselves, in perhaps the greatest unforced error ever to befall civilization. It will take a long, long time to win it back..

The key to ultimate success is that whites must never, ever give up. They must, regardless of the total lack of current external support, hold the hope of the rebirth of white Western society as a flame in their souls, just as Columbus held his idea as a flame in his soul. And then, finally,—after who knows how long—they will win.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 17, 2013 04:16 PM | Send