Who Are We?
—————————
So this is the other side of the Right, eh? Not bad; though of course nothing like as classy as the hushed, oak-paneled, Chambers-of-Commerce-financed precincts of Conservatism Inc., whose entrance is now barred against me by an angel with a flaming sword. The furnishings are a bit cheesy in fact, if you look too closely, which of course you shouldn't. Do those drapes really match that carpet?
Nice people, though — most of whom, truth be told, I've known for a decade or more. And after watching Conservatism Inc. for a quarter of a century running along behind History's great rumbling juggernaut squealing "Would you mind slowing down just a teeny bit, please?" there is always the faint hope that this other crowd might actually turn us back some way towards liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism.
But who are they — I mean, we? What do we call ourselves?
For a special-interest website like VDARE, there is not too much of a problem. "Immigration restrictionist" will do just fine. Still, to the degree that we are imbedded, in, and frequently cross-post commentary from, the wider world of non-mainstream conservative bloggers and websites, we ought to have some consistent way to talk about that world. So what do we say?
Our enemies have a vocabulary of their own for talking about us. Their current favorite is "white supremacist." The phrase is of course wielded with malice, to conjure up images of fire hoses, attack dogs, pick handles, and segregated lunch counters. It conveys that we are unkind people with cruel thoughts.
From a strictly semantic point of view, however, "white supremacist" is not bad. If we must have a multiracial society, then most of us would say that a benign and well-mannered white supremacy, with equal opportunites for talented nonwhites to rise, is the way to organize it. Our opinions aside, it is probably what most people, including most nonwhite people, actually want.
Anyone who prefers non-white supremacy is after all spoiled for choice: thirty-some sub-Saharan African nations, a dozen or more black-majority Caribbean nations, Mexico and Central America, any number of nonwhite-run municipalities in the Western world …
None of these places, to my knowledge, is being stormed by desperate hordes of refugees from the horrors of white supremacy. The black American highschooler quoted in this exchange with his teacher helps make the point:
One day I asked the bored, black faces staring back at me: "What would happen if all the white people in America disappeared tomorrow?"
"We screwed," a young, pitch-black boy screamed back. The rest of the blacks laughed.
Indeed, the one sub-Saharan nation with a decent-size stock of whites still helping keep it together, is constantly having to expel illegal immigrants from elsewhere. White supremacy works better than any other kind, for everybody.
We shouldn't let our enemies dictate the language, though. And the Whatever Right includes many separatists — people who want to exercise supremacy only over their own stock, and don't much care how the rest cope. That hardly counts at "white supremacy." What else have we got?
How about "white nationalist"? It has a currency here on our own side. Jared Taylor has flirted with it, though I think he now prefers "race realist." I don't quite get it, though. To which nation is "nationalist" attached? "White" isn't a nation, nor likely to be one.
It's not that I'm objecting in either case to the word "white." American conservatism, a few eccentric outliers notwithstanding, has always been a white movement; and this is just as true of mainstream conservatism as of our To Be Decided variety. I have attended a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and debates, both mainstream and outlier. Lemme tell ya: There ain't too many raisins in that bun.
I was in and out the offices of National Review for 14 years, and the only black employee I ever saw was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. (Hi, Alex!)
This is all as one would expect. Our black and mestizo minorities are, statistically speaking, short on the attributes that bring group success in a competitive modern society. If they commit themselves to conservative ideals —self-reliance and minimal dependence on government— they will pool even more decisively at the bottom of society than is currently the case. A much better strategy for them is to form a coalition with disaffected white and Asian groups (homosexuals, feminists, dead-end labor unions) as a voting force with which to elect redistributionist governments.
So I don't mind the "white." To the contrary, I rather appreciate its frankness, by contrast with the mealy-mouthed dishonesty of most conservative self-identification. Conservatism is white. Always has been, always will be. We may as well be up-front about it. I just don't think that "supremacy" and "nationalism" are good fits for anything.
(Whether "white" continues to be a good fit once the Arctic Alliance comes off, I'll leave to another time.)
"Race-realist" is OK, but again, Jared is plowing a specialist furrow there. Race realism is an essential foundation for discussing the social and political topics we want to discuss — it sure beats race denialism — and it's a key concept underpinning the Who-The-Heck-Are-We Right. But it's just one concept sharing space with others: the aforementioned liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism. I don't think race realism should be privileged.
So what do we call ourselves? I'm going to make a pitch for "Dissident Right."
The word "dissident" has its roots in Latin dis-, meaning "apart," and sedere, "to sit." Dissidents sit apart from the main crowd, don't join in the community singing, and refuse to applaud the Emperor's new clothes.
Dissidence is a very honorable estate, made so by the brave dissidents of the great totalitarian empires. Here is the gold standard:
[Wang Ruowang] was jailed by all the major Chinese despots of that era: by Chiang Kai-shek in the 1930s, by Mao Tse-tung in the 1950s, and again in the 1960s, and then by Deng Xiaoping after the student movement of 1989, which Wang — then aged 71 — vigorously supported … Wang enjoyed the distinction of having been expelled from the Party twice …
The sensational courage and integrity of those dissidents from totalitarianism in fact gives me pause. There might, I mean, be something a bit impertinent in comparing our occasional inconveniences with the horrors that they, and often their families and friends, faced up to.
There is also the air of loserdom that hangs over dissidence: what I once described in a column as "the futility of dissidence."
All right; I was obviously on a downer at the time. I've put in hundreds of hours with Soviet and Chinese dissidents, though, and they really are a shabby and depressing lot. (I'll except Wang Bingzhang, who was always smartly turned out.)
Still and all, we need a name and I suggest that "Dissident Right" is as good as any.
For a fallback position — considering the pusillanimity and careerism of Conservatism Inc., its eagerness to fall into line with any leftist doctrine that does not involve higher taxation or being beastly to embryos — how about just …
(drumroll!) …
"Conservatism"?