Having watched the video of Jamie Kelso’s experience at the CPAC, I was struck by Mr. Kelso’s insistence on the right of White people to control their traditional homelands. I believe the main reasons why he failed to make headway with his propositionist challengers is that he was attempting to win an ontological argument about race with abstract logic, when beliefs about race (like religion)—not despite, but because they are ontological—are singularly impervious to reason. There is nothing Mr. Kelso could have said that would have persuaded his opponents. There are things he could have done, but more on that later. Firstly, I would like to contradict Mr. Kelso and state that, no, presently White people neither have the right to exist nor the right to control their traditional homelands. We had that right in the past, but not anymore.
Concepts like rights are meaningless without force, or at least the willingness to use force. An abstract code of law, perhaps even morality, may grant people any number of rights; but in practice, it is the possession and unfettered use of overwhelming might that makes rights, not the other way around. This is why the American Indians have no right to claim possession of United States: it is not that the European settlers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century proved in a court of law that the former too were immigrants, or that they demonstrated that Europoids had inhabited the region before the American Indians’ ancestors immigrated from Siberia. None of this was even known at the time, and certainly the European settlers would not have cared if it had been. The American Indians were simply unable to match the technological and organisational might of the European colonists, and their constitution was also weak in the face of alcohol and newly introduced European viruses.
Much is made in our circles of the lack of rights for Whites in modern South Africa. Whites once enjoyed superior force in relation to the Bantu Blacks that comprised the majority of the population there. Then the Whites decided to cease their use of force and hand over their country to the Bantus. The Bantu, armed with their numbers and the White man’s weapons and state apparatus, seized the opportunity to use force against their former masters, many of whom subsequently deemed it safer to emigrate (a great number of them now reside in their ancestral homeland in Britain). Yet the Bantu are not indigenous to the region: they came originally from what we call Cameroon and arrived in Southern Africa in the fourth century—that means they were still relatively recent arrivals when the White man came. The much older tribes, the San people, whose presence in Southern Africa goes back some 10-22,000 years, remain more or less rightless under Bantu domination, much as they were before (see my TOO article, Deconstruction: I Know How to Do It Too).
When it comes to rights, therefore, we must for all practical purposes treat them as inextricably bound up with force, and when it comes to force, it is a case either use it, or lose it.
At the CPAC event Mr. Kelso was on stronger ground when he pointed out that the United States belonged to White Americans because the latter built the country. Not to be pedantic, but I would further point out that White Americans not only built it, but also conceived and created it. There was no United States in the North American continent before the White man arrived, and there would be no United States now had the White man not successfully colonised and organised the region in his own image. Had the White man remained oblivious of the existence of the continent we call America (even the name is ours), no nation states would exist there today; indeed, small parts of the continent would be controlled by mostly pre-historical tribes, isolated by large swathes of uninhabited space.
For similar reasons, we cannot consider the Blacks in the United States to have “as much right” to the country as the Whites. Blacks made up a small percentage of the historical American nation, and for whatever reasons, the economic output of Blacks on average has been vastly inferior to that of Whites. Indeed, in the contemporary United States Blacks cost more than they produce on the whole—particularly when we consider the cost of violent crime and welfare recipience, where they are disproportionately represented.
I do not say this to humiliate Blacks in the United States; I say it because it has become a trope of postmodern times for many Whites to repeat the liberal mantra that Blacks have “as much right as Whites or anybody else” to claim ownership of the country, and because implementing this idea will ultimately lead to the destruction of both the United States and the Whites who still sustain its existence.
Yes, some Whites from centuries ago can be blamed for creating a multiracial society through their purchasing of Black slaves. And, yes, a number of other Whites since then can be blamed for not adequately rectifying the situation once the slaves were emancipated. There was once a movement to have the former Black slaves sent back to Africa, and, indeed, Liberia was created for this purpose. Alas, most of the funding and support favoured the movement for integration, and White Americans ended up with the fractured society that they have today, presided over by a Black man.
Yet, past policy mistakes, egregious as they were, do not negate the fact that the United States was conceived, created, built, and organised by the White man: it is in every regard the White man’s creation, not the African’s or the Amerindian’s. It has also been defaced by foreign elements, but it is still, even if decreasingly, a White man’s country.
An interesting mental exercise would be to imagine that Whites in the United States decided to abandon the continent and return to their ancestral homelands in Europe, taking with them, or else dismantling, everything that their ancestors built over the past four hundred years. Would we see a global superpower rise in the region, controlled by Blacks, Mulattoes, and Mestizos, and Amerindians by 2,400? Haiti, which over two centuries years ago was left with much of the infrastructure that was built by the French does not provide an encouraging precedent: rather than half way there, they have regressed and stabilized at a lower economic and ecologic niche, more in line with Sub-Saharan Africa than with modern France. Even though only much less time has elapsed, former White countries like Rhodesia and South Africa are clearly headed in a similar direction.
Turning now to what Jamie Kelso may have done, he was clearly at a disadvantage being the sole proponent of White rights and White interests at the CPAC conference. Eventually, faced with the solid opposition and hermetically sealed minds of the abstract propositionists, he opted for a tactical retreat. I suggest it would have been different if he had arrived accompanied by thirty to fifty well-dressed, good-looking, educated, articulate, tall race realists—young Jared Taylors, in effect, some of whom were also members of CPAC. His opponents may have attempted to engage in an argument, but it is easy to imagine that they would have been overwhelmed by such forceful opposition: not just because of the opposition’s looks or numbers, but because the opposition’s arguments enjoyed forceful physical and semiotic backing. It is likely that the propositionists would have become frustrated and resorted to epithets before withdrawing to grumble among themselves, and congratulate each other on their moral superiority . . . in retreat. It is also likely, given the human tendency to jump on bandwagons and respond to physical attractiveness and formidability, that the sheer force of numbers would have compelled some to adopt a more open-minded attitude, and even make concessions. Had they seen that there is wide-spread support for the position Mr. Kelso tried to argue, it is easy to imagine that some may have reconsidered their anti-Whiteness, and come to see the White rights position as alternative rather than immoral. With enough confrontations of this nature, some, perhaps glad to be liberated from PC, would have embraced the alternative position, and become acerbic critics of their former co-ideologues. We have seen this process wherever there has been a regime change.
Needless to say that scoring victories of this kind will require forward planning and organising, as well as an acute awareness of the fact that, ultimately, it is force, the appearance of force, or the threat of force, whether muscular or psychological, physically manifest or semiotically sublimated, that in practical terms validates or invalidates any claims to rights. At the moment, the claim to White rights remains invalid, because a great number of Whites remain unwilling forcefully to defend the rights earned by their ancestors, and because a powerful minority of Whites are actively ceding those rights or colluding with foreign ethnic elements in their sale for personal profit or advancement.
This is clearly because the rights accrued over generations have created the illusion that our power and our rights are eternal—“inalienable”, as the early English colonists used to say. Although Whites have been in retreat for nearly a century now, the sheer magnitude of the power accumulated over the centuries, plus half a century of relatively uninterrupted peace and economic prosperity, instills a sense of complacent omnipotence—the kind of confidence that makes possible indulgence in luxuries like liberalism, universalism, and feelings of racial guilt. Normally it will take a severe rupture to shatter such confidence, and awaken Whites to the need actively to look after their racial interests. But our current establishment is well aware of this, and, accordingly, pursue a strategy of incrementalism, false consciouness, and managed decline. Thus the crisis needs to be precipitated—precipitated semiotically so that it may occur intellectually.
Backing logical arguments with an attractive and formidable presence at events like CPAC’s may be one way to achieve this on that class of battleground.