Back Issues

Volume 9, Issue 1: Non Est

Debunking Racial Rights

Douglas Jones

After slogging through piles of white nationalist/supremacist literature, it finally struck me that I had stumbled upon one of those unreached tribes which from childbirth has been handcuffed inside an Affirmative Action office. This is the only explanation. Here is a people who are obsessed with racial categories, race classifications, race distinctions, race relations, and did I mention race? Anything that flutters by their minds has to immediately be sucked within some racial cubicle. But race simply isn't that interesting. It's as if these people have never even heard of other possible topics of conversation. Perhaps we could start to undo all their ugliness by quietly smuggling them a thesaurus.

In a much touted paper, "The Racial Compact," white nationalist Richard McCulloch outlines a vision for fixing the world's oppressions by rearranging--what else?-- race relations. His key is to build worldwide recognition of racial rights, rights that serve to keep the respective races independent, separate, pure, and, probably, trustworthy, brave, and reverent too. His quite typical monotone on race leads him at one point to call for all worldviews to serve race as their goal: "The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially, culturally, and politically dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health, and best interests of the race." (On second thought, send this guy a redundancy editor not a thesaurus.) Black nationalists say similar things. For all such ethnically-obsessed groups, the chief end of man is to glorify race and enjoy it forever. If this isn't idolatry, I don't know what is.
As a treatment of rights, McCulloch's vision crashes in the corner at several points. For example, in his "Charter of Racial Rights," McCullogh declares that "All races have right to their own living space or territory, to possession of their own racial homeland . . . as a condition required for both their continued life and independence." Yet just prior to this, we were told that "All races have a right to . . . exclusive control of their own life and existence . . . free from domination, control or interference by other races." But if your race owns property in a territory claimed as a homeland by another, then we've got a serious knuckle fight. You would have an obligation to give up land that you have a right to keep.
Similarly, McCulloch disparages individualism as "idiocy" and defends racial groups as whole objects: "individual entities, whether tree or human being, come and go in their generations, but the larger entity of which they are a part, whether forest or race, lives on" (my emphasis). Yet at the same time, he later calls for a "rejection of the concept of `collective guilt,' which holds all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members of the group." Well which is it going to be? He demands collective duties but rejects collective responsibility. How convenient. Perhaps his race has some guilt to hide. It reminds me of the quip that Aristotle categorized ad hominem arguments as fallacies because he had a questionable parentage.
McCulloch makes some rather jelly-like things the bearers of civil protection. For example, races have the right to "love and value and be proud of what they are," as well as "a right to the affections and loyalties, love, and care of their members." A right to love and affection would sure put a new spin on courtship. He also turns ethnic jokes into a blood sport by opposing "any action" which has "the effect of taking persons away from their race, in mind or body, physically or in alienation of affections or loyalties" whether "with or without the consent or cooperation of its victims." We can't even poke fun at our own race, even though that is probably the only useful function of race.
In addition, McCulloch finds quick affinity with environmentalist categories. Both ideologies value the whole over the particulars--"Racial conservation has much in common with the conservation of nature. . . . Racial preservation depends upon the development of a conservationist ethic for race, or human nature, similar to the conservationist ethic developed for nonhuman nature." He then cites Vice President Albert Gore on environmentalism to support his point. Hmmm. It would be fun to see a news report about the Vice President's ties to white supremacy. Dreams can be cruel.
More importantly, white supremacists are excessively modern constructs. They try hard to deny it, but like Al Gore they are proud children of the Enlightenment. Marx, Rousseau, and Earth First! all try to get rid of the evil in the world not by the Spirit of God but by impotently moving around the furniture of society. Marxists want to get rid of evil by getting rid of the ruling class. Classical liberals want to get rid of evil by getting rid of the State. Modern liberals want to rid evil by getting rid of the market. Environmentalists want to get rid of evil by getting rid of those nasty humans. And white supremacists want to get rid of evil by getting rid of racial contacts. They are all Rousseauean rebels. They all draw the antithesis between light and darkness in the wrong place. But moving the furniture can't deal with the heart of sin.
We can test this easily. Let all the vast numbers of white nationalists across the U.S. and Germany have a territory of their own, say, a small county in Rhode Island (just not out here in the west). Then watch for utopia to sprout. All the evils they blamed on other races will magically appear in their midst. They won't learn though. They'll find some conspiratorial way to blame everyone else. But those outside can have fun watching the foolishness of modernity.

Back to top
Back to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2012 Credenda/Agenda. All rights reserved.