State of the Union. Death of the Nation.

State of the Union.

Posted by George Poe on Monday, July 13, 2009 · 11 Comments

American Landscape

Locust says: You know what needs to be done, now grow some balls and do it!

As we edge into the second decade of the 21st century, American nationalists  must reflect on where we are, where we’ve been, and the direction we seem to be going. In 2009, the American nationalist scene is essentially non-existent. Our people (as few as they are) are fragmented, leaderless, and isolated from each other. Our politics have been hi-jacked by the dregs of society and run through the mud like clock-work in the mass media. We may have a few phantom organizations here and there, but nothing of genuine substance. Nothing that an educated, right-thinking, and concerned American can honestly throw his support behind without being associated with some of the worst elements of society. There has, no doubt, been attempts to start something here and there, some of the attempts indeed noble, but these fly-by-night organizations never seem to get anywhere and they seemingly fall apart as soon as they get off the ground.

Let’s face it, our politics have been  successfully pushed to the fringes of proper society by our opponents and often held there by those whom would call us friends. Our politics have not been given the courtesy of proper dialogue and debate, rather, it has often been the object of ridicule, hatred, and even persecution.  Given all the troubles (real or imagined) inherent in being a Nationalist, it’s quite understandable that many who might otherwise consider Nationalism turn away for an ideology less fraught controversy. It’s human nature to want to fit in and Nationalism has been successfully portrayed as un-American and even extreme, so our numbers continue to be thin.

Yet, the motivation behind Nationalist politics endures and the need for real alternatives mounts with each passing year – many are waking up to our politics. There is a baseline ground swell for the development of real Nationalism in the United States of America. The potential for a large and expansive grassroots movement is there, albeit tucked away. The problem for us open Nationalists is the need to become (in the eyes of our target audience) mainstream without being mainstream, which is a hard proposition to act upon because “mainstreaming” comes only with validation through numbers – something we do not currently have openly. The climate of manufactured fear that paralyzes most people considering our politics is indeed the strongest opponent fighting our need to become more mainstream. Sadly, these fears are not totally unfounded, which makes it hard to combat. Careers are on the line, livelihoods hang in the balance. It’s nothing we should scoff off as trivial, our opponents certainly do not.

I do think it’s important for any active Nationalist to understand the fears associated with our politics, not just of the consequences of being an open Nationalist in modern America, but of the psychological conditioning exerted by the system for the better part of 60 years on the American public. If one can not understand the current political and sociological state of modern society – and act accordingly – one has  little chance of making any headway for our politics and might even hurt us in the long run. American Nationalism in 2009 is plagued by fear and ignorance, not on our part, but on the part of those whom seek to silence us. Let’s not add to the fear and ignorance by avoiding the negative perception – least of all contributing to it.

The need for a legitimate and credible American nationalist organization is great. For the last 50 years we’ve seen not so much of a peep from American nationalists because of the fear and shame brought about by the system at large. Reject their false dichotomy and their hate. Our salvation comes through organization, networking, and hard work – banding together and creating a united front to represent our will as a unique people. We need an American National Party. We need you, lest we flounder around the political landscape for another 50 years.

The Necessity of Having a Nationalist Party

Posted by Thomas Gray on Monday, July 13, 2009 · 5 Comments

whoweare2.jpg picture by icaughtyoulookin

The Need for American Nationalist Party

What an emotional afternoon it was for us when, thousands of miles away, our cousins in Britain saw a breakthrough victory for Britain’s budding nationalist party, the BNP. Better than a month ago, now, we saw both Andrew Brons and Party Chairman Nick Griffin, elected to the European parliament, with the party taking in nearly a million votes. I suspect that, for us – for American nationalists – the night was just as emotional as was for anyone else in the whole of the Anglosphere.

Having had enough time to reflect on and properly gauge the enormity of the implications of the historic breakthrough, it becomes even more pressing the matter of developing our own party to represent the interests of our people in America.

In truth, all the necessary elements for a successful nationalist party appear to exist more so in America than anywhere else, yet we have before us the task of creating from scratch a party of our own. With respect to demographics, we are far worse off than any other country in the Western world, almost to the point that a political effort is may be ultimately futile, aside from the many non-political benefits it might afford us. Nearly as a matter of simply maintaining some semblance of civilization, one would expect Whites to have already come together under the banner of a political party, where they could encapsulate in an organization their collective will to be submitted to the political establishment.

Regarding our political system, while there isn’t any doubt that we are very much restricted by a system of ridiculous rules – no doubt put in place by the ruling elite to keep us from seeking political representation – many states have benefits that are very unique and actually favor us over our counterparts the world over. For example, in some states, like California, parties can achieve qualification, or access to be listed on the ballot, by simply having registered voters register as being affiliated with the party. While this may not appear as something of great importance, this is an amazing tool for any organization to utilize what ought to be considered a state-sponsored marketing information system, or a way to track how successful a group’s strategy as toward marketing has been. And no matter the persuasion, caliber, position, or strategy of the party, submitting to the democratic process brings to an organization an instant legitimacy in the eyes of its public.

One would expect, too, that the altering of every aspect of our way of life would serve as the catalyst to launch a nationalist movement of our own. Certainly, there are few places on this Earth, in recent times, where the quality of life has been diminished at such an astonishing pace, with the obvious exception of South Africa and Rhodesia, which no longer even exists. Whereas the American man could afford to both own a home and quite comfortably raise a family on his income alone only a few decades ago, the very idea of home ownership is now quite troubling and an unlikely prospect for those just finishing school. For many people, moving every few years to avoid having their children endure forced “enrichment” is become quite normal. Being absolutely restricted by an ever-growing criminal element is also the status quo for Whites in any “urban” area. You get the idea. It’s pretty bad out there, and it isn’t getting better.

Really, we’ve got absolutely no excuse for not having a party of our own. For far too long, and I am talking decades, our own supposed leaders have continually warned us against standing face to face with the political establishment, as if our positions weren’t good enough or as if they did not merit being represented. They have told us time and time again that such an effort, which has never been tried here and which has been proven absolutely successful time and time again overseas – by people who are in every way related to us – is not worth it or that we are incapable of such a feat. It’s time we drop all of these supposed leaders and do the right thing: build a party of our own.

We don’t need to infiltrate the Republican party. We don’t need the infrastructure of the Libertarian party. We don’t need endless petitions and recalls. We need to start our own party, through hard work and sacrifice. Nothing else will do.

One can imagine the immediate benefits that would come with such a party: legitimacy, a mission to achieving real power that does not involve illegality or violence, incredible organization and the specialization that comes with it, and economies of scale to dwarf those achieved by our counterparts in Europe.

It’s time to stop talking about it and start doing it. Let the American National Party website serve as a place to help us facilitate this new mission.

It’s only racist when you do it.

Posted by George Poe on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 · 3 Comments


One of the most distressing and downright baffling state of affairs in modern American politics is the absolute double standard in which many segments of society operates. Some of the most hypocritical examples are those within the arena of identity politics, which emanate primarily from the far-left. I am, of course, speaking to organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, NAACP, and the thousands of other organizations representing and defending minority communities in various fields. On the face of it, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with a community of people banding together to defend a common heritage for the sake of preservation and continued prosperity. I think most can sympathize with wanting some communal continuity with ancestors and the right to self-identify within a greater group. However, the aforementioned types of people reveal themselves as the true “racists” in their treatment of other communities. Particularly their treatment of and views on European-Americans organizing and defending their own communal rights as an ethnic group. These minority rights organizations (along with a willing media) often make it their business to attack, berate, and otherwise put down European-American ethnic interests. They do so under the guise of being “anti-racist” and “pro-equality”, but they allow themselves free ethnic expression and demand special consideration based on ethnicity, all the while scream  “racism” when European-Americans even mention their own ethnic extraction with any sense of worth.

Any objective individual with any sense of fair play understands this hypocritical and, at times, hateful double-standard is nothing more than a way for these groups to get a leg up at the expense of others people’s interests, specifically European-Americans. European-Americans, for their part, allow themselves to be shamed into letting nclr_header_bannerother communities of people step all over their own rights for the sake of an American way that never existed in the first place. Even as the decades since the Civil Rights era have passed us by, these minority rights groups have only found (more like imagined) more witches (i.e. White “Racists”) to burn, even when we are supposedly in the era of post-racial politics. More and more you get the sense that these organizations are less about “rights” and more about taking advantage of White-American society. They’ve managed to exploit hard working European-Americans and blame them for their failure to operate as a fully functioning community of people.

European-Americans, as a voiceless community of individuals, seem to be the only people that actually buy into the American pluralism myth and they do so at their own expense, as other groups only mouth American pluralism myth to progress their own ethnic interests. The effect of this has allowed over representation of extreme, anti-Western, anti-White policies to take root in all levels of government. Look no further than the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whom was a member of a few Latino organizations (including La Raza) and has statements on record that would be considered rabidly racist had she been of European descent. However, the vicious double standard is alive and well, so she’ll get confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court – one of the most influential positions in the nation.  Since the media is complicit in their holding these radicals accountable, their policies have and will continue change the face and culture of America into something that, in the end, isn’t American.

I believe we should start holding these groups to the fire and call them for what they are –  ethnocentric at best, “racist” at worst. We need to  call them and their supporters out as the hypocrites that they are and be relentless in expressing our ethnic rights in the very same way they’ve been so relentless against European-Americans. It’s time to fight fire with fire. We need to organize as European-Americans, as the founding stock of America, and take the nation back for our posterity – not for the misguided political ideals.


Posted by George Poe on Friday, July 17, 2009 · 1 Comment


Given the current political atmosphere, being an open ethnocentric individual can bring a lot of heartache, not just for yourself, but those around you, particularly if you are of European descent. The paranoia and  religious zealotry in which we treat the subject of race would be almost amusing, if it were not so alarming in its ferocity. The debate on how race, or ethnicity should play a role in society, or in people’s personal lives isn’t really up for negotiating in proper society these days. The views on race and ethnicity are pretty cut and dry for Euro-Americans. You either accept political dogma of multiculturalism and seek to diversify (which essentially means make more non-White), or you’re some kind of singled minded bigot that is worthy of society’s scorn. Evidently, there is very little, if any, middle ground on the issue of ethnicity and race. Personally, I find the issue of ethnicity and race far too complicated and far too critical to make such black and white (no pun intended) judgment call.

I was born and raised in Southern California and being relatively young I was essentially born into the world of multiculturalism and liberalism. Contrary to what some of you would like to believe, I do not walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I am perfectly happily with my current life circumstances and sure, there are some things I need to improve on in life, but the last thing I am looking for is a “scapegoat”. I am by no means a bigot, nor a hater of any sort, although I realize that my politics equate to nothing short of blasphemy in modern day politics.

I treat every individual with the utmost respect regardless of their ethnic origins, or religious disposition. I have a keen interest in anthropology and antiquity, as such, I acknowledge and appreciate the contributions other people’s have made to the sciences and arts. I’ve met some great people of  different ethnic origins than myself, some being far more capable people than I could ever hope to be.

Many ask me, in relation to my ethnocentrism, “Shouldn’t you judge a person by the individual himself and not by his, or her race?”, to which I often reply “Who is judging in the first place?” People assume that the only reason I make a distinction based on  ethnicity is simply because I make value judgments on people based on their ethnicity. I’m not a Nationalist, nor Euro-centric because I believe there is merit in making value calls on groups of people. Even if I wanted to, what standard would I use? It’s another oversimplification used by people whom are either ignorant, or have a political axe to grind. Furthermore, people are individuals, of course, but they are also members of countless different demographics. Politically, economically, socially, and yes, ethnically. There is a reason why political analysts, commercial marketers, and focus groups get paid big bucks to break down the populace into groups – we are all individuals and members of larger groups.

I am something of a new breed, politically speaking. I do not take for granted ethnic homogeneity, but at the same time I can incorporate some of the experiences that diversity can provide – within reason of course.  I have never considered holding a racial identity and the appreciation of other cultures to be polar opposites. In reality, I believe those whom can genuinely respect other cultures can more often than not foster even greater ties to their own communities. I can be loyal to my own ethnic community without being hateful, or distant with another group of people. Those who will tell you otherwise are lying and trying to create a false dichotomy to which you must choose an extreme. As a European-American, I love my culture, my heritage, and I will (and do) choose to make positive decisions to make sure that identity is secured. That does not mean it has to come at the expense of another ethnic group, both rhetorically, or practically. I no more “hate” other ethnic groups than an all-girls school hates boys.

What I do hate is hypocrisy. The type of hypocrisy that allows some groups of people free and full ethnic expression as a unique people, all the while denouncing and hurting other groups of people whom want the same type of expression. I do hate the fact that European-Americans are held to a completely different standard – in their own nations no-less. I hate the fact that if I say anything about it I’m somehow less than savory. I hate the fact that these so-called “liberals” supposedly champion human rights while doing all in their power to pass thought controlling “hate” laws, racist affirmative actions policies, and celebrate the decline of White-Western culture.

If you are an American of European descent, you need to wake up and realize that developing a sense of ethnic community is no bad thing. Defending that community is not wrong either, so long as you do it justly, responsibly and peacefully. You shouldn’t allow politically correctness  guide what you think should be acceptable, that isn’t freedom and that isn’t American. Race relations isn’t as black and white as many would have us believe. The sooner you realize that the sooner we can actually create something to the benefit of all.

Tax Day: Thank You, Sir. May I have Another?

Tax Day: Thank You, Sir. May I have Another?

by Tyler Cole

As Tax Day passes us by, Americans are reminded that much of the time they spent working was, in fact, dedicated to replenishing government coffers. And as we certainly can feel its effects, we are fully aware of just how much of our income goes to cover government transfers.  Even at the state and local level, Americans feel sharply the burden we are obliged to shoulder on behalf of an apparatus which is supposed to represent our interests. Americans have become accustomed to this state of affairs and have accepted high levels of taxation as the natural order of things.

What many of us do not consider, however, is the endlessness of this problem. We fail to realize that the need to increase taxes is a certainty under present circumstances. A great number of patriotic Americans are fed up with high taxation, and rightly so. However, increased government expenditure must continue, because of the demographic realities that face our nation. In accordance with the notion of the interaction between supply and demand, an increase in the use of government benefits must be paid for by taxpayers, a reality that Americans need to recognize. When the level of needy individuals outpaces government revenues, an increase in the rate of taxation is the inevitable outcome.

Increased taxation is merely the result of an increase in the ever-growing percentage of the American population that takes more than it gives. In order to provide this population segment with the resources it requires, self- sufficient Americans are forced to foot the bill. At a time, such as now, when Americans are being saddled with ever- higher taxes, we should be considering why the number of persons reliant on government aid is an increasing phenomenon.

Patriotic Americans must look beyond a mere “no” vote when considering the problem. We must dig to the heart of the matter, which is the mushroom-like growth of a needy underclass – one bent on milking to the fullest the concept of economic redistribution. How can productive Americans afford such redistribution when there is no end in sight to the amount they are expected to pay? The only way to combat increased taxation is to limit the growth of individuals reliant on the use of that tax money.

The most logical place to begin is with those we are allowing to enter the country. After all,  an enormous quantity of immigrants come to our country with very little money and without the educational capacity to achieve a high standard of living once here. Furthermore, we are increasingly made aware of the fact that the social practices of most immigrants are less than conducive toward the American manner of self-reliance. Whether by intent or otherwise, many immigrants, the vast majority of whom are impoverished Mexicans, become dependent on essential government services.

Tax payers are already finding it difficult to cover the cost of providing services to genuine Americans. Further exacerbating this problem, by importing millions of potential welfare recipients, is definitely not the answer. By continuing to allow the world to dump its poor at our doorstep, we are creating for ourselves a situation wherein we must continually provide for these people.

The Democrat and Republican parties have proven themselves to be utterly indifferent to the plight of tax-paying Americans. Although Republicans pay lip service to the idea of lower taxes, the two major political parties have both refused to curb immigration. Given the correlation between recent immigration and the rise of an underclass with an insatiable appetite for government handouts, one would think that first on our government’s agenda would be how to halt such a trend. This, however, is not the case, and as such, reveals to all the two parties’ complete betrayal of American interests. American tax payers will continue to see an ever increasing rate of taxation because the problems driving this increase remain unaddressed by America’s political establishment.

Immigration Tax-Credit Scandal
Illegal immigrants are abusing the EITC.

By James R. Edwards Jr.

Today is Tax Day, a day that recurs in infamy. All of us who work for a living and (unlike a number of Obama appointees) pay our taxes dread this day,

Tax Day is the perfect time to examine less-familiar facets of the tax code, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Economics writer Ed Rubenstein’s new report, The Earned Income Tax Credit and Illegal Immigration: A Study in Fraud, Abuse, and Liberal Activism, exposes a cruel combination: The EITC functions as a wealth transfer to the poor, while todays mass immigration imports poverty. The combination of these two factors makes a needless tax burden on native-born American families that much worse.

The EITC illustrates that tax cuts, deductions, and tax credits aren’t the same thing. Tax cuts refer to lowering the rate at which income is taxed. As we saw when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in 1981 as part of his economic-recovery program, tax-rate reductions boost prosperity generally — and sometimes even produce more revenue for the government. Tax deductions, of course, reduce the amount of one’s income that is considered taxable.By contrast, tax credits reduce one’s tax liability dollar-for-dollar — a $500 tax credit is worth $500 off one’s tax bill. And if a tax credit is “refundable,” as EITC is, the Treasury will actually pay the recipient if the credit is worth more than he or she owes in taxes. Therefore, through schemes such as the EITC, the government can “spread the wealth around,” to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama.

The EITC is exactly the kind of “tax relief” Obama talked about during the campaign and while promoting his economic-stimulus bill — welfare by other means. The stimulus package expands the EITC for two years, increasing the value of the credit, especially for households of three or more children.

Taxpayers suffer a one-two punch when the EITC pairs up with mass immigration: The EITC increasingly picks the pockets of native-born Americans and gives their tax dollars to low-income immigrants.

The Center for Immigration Studies [CIS] reports that nearly a third of immigrant households qualified for the EITC in 2006. Rubenstein says immigrants collected about $12 billion from the EITC last year — more than a quarter of all EITC payouts — and immigrants participate in the EITC at twice the rate of native-born Americans.

Moreover, increasing immigration will mean increased immigrant participation. The United States allots a million immigrant visas a year. By comparison, we accepted an average of 250,000 immigrants a year during our nation’s first two centuries.

Immigrants are eligible for the EITC so often because the United States allows “chain migration,” meaning that foreigners can migrate to the United States simply because  an uncle or a third cousin came here several years ago. There’s no requirement that they be educated, literate, or skilled. More than half of all illegal aliens and a quarter of legal immigrants never completed high school; by contrast, less than 10 percent of native-born Americans dropped out of high school.

Research by scholars such as Rubenstein, the Center for Immigration Studies’s Steve Camarota, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, and Harvard’s George Borjas has shown the consequences of these numbers. Rector found high-school-dropout-headed households pay an average of $9,700 a year in taxes but collect an average of $32,138 a year in benefits.

There’s no good reason why hard-working Americans should import new mouths to feed every year. We have a rule on the books that those who sponsor immigrants who are relatives must shoulder financial responsibility for them. But it is riddled with loopholes, so new arrivals and their U.S.-born children often become lifelong public burdens.

We also have a public-charge doctrine — enabling these immigrants’ deportation — that dates to colonial times. But it, too, has been gutted by liberals eager to show their “compassion” with other people’s money. How can we give Americans real tax relief? By reducing legal immigration to historic levels and adopting skill and educational requirements for all immigrants.

Some conservatives have argued that immigrants — Hispanics in particular — are “natural conservatives.” But that’s a hard conclusion to arrive at based on the facts. In addition to high immigrant participation in EITC, Rubenstein’s study shows the prevalence and ease of EITC fraud (more than a quarter of all EITC payouts), and reports that the EITC discourages marriage and encourages cohabitation and single parenthood.Meanwhile, the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald has chronicled Hispanic social trends. Half of all Latino children in the U.S. are now born out of wedlock. The birthrate among unmarried Hispanic women is higher than that among whites, Asians, or blacks. More than half the Hispanic children in this country now live in poor households headed by a single mom. Only 21 percent of Latino kids live with a pair of married parents. Unmarried Mexican-American parents who start out cohabitating are more likely than whites or blacks to split up.

People living with the consequences of this sort of conduct are drawn by pandering politicians and ethnic-advocacy groups into a cycle of dependency. That cycle involves sexual promiscuity, illegitimacy, gangs, crime, drugs, violence, fraud, dropping out of school, and reliance on government programs such as the EITC.

The EITC has become yet another means of depriving hard-working Americans of resources. Mass immigration feeds the fire burning up their money. This runs opposite to America’s immigration ideal, in which capable people come here to do for themselves, not to sign onto the public dole.

— James R. Edwards Jr. is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform
. This essay is adapted from remarks at a National Press Club briefing on April 14.

Global Katrina: Human Tide

Global Katrina: Human Tide

April 21, 2009 by willie

Global Katrina: Human Tide by Tyler Cole

Ever since multiculturalism assumed its dominant position as the governing social philosophy of our country, Americans have been subjected to a massive appeal for aid to individuals and groups less fortunate. Part of the success of this appeal has been its ability to play on the average American’s sense of fairness and historic sympathy for the underdog. As Americans, we know as well as any other people that it is indeed possible to overcome daunting obstacles and to achieve the unimaginable. This was the mentality that formed our nation and is what drives any continued success that we might experience. It is the American way, so to speak.

However, the American spirit of thought presupposes an ability to climb out of one’s negative circumstances and into a better life. That is America’s love of the underdog – what Americans like to think of as the pride of their collective psyche. The communist social-scientists and political vote-grabbers who brought us multiculturalism have twisted this very healthy feeling of ours into a type of bloodletting whereby Americans allow themselves to be bled dry all the while believing the process to be good for them.

Over the last forty years or so, Americans have been provided an abundance of opportunities to witness the many failed social experiments orchestrated by those representing the multicultural agenda. We have seen neighborhood after neighborhood sink into the Third World. Whole cities and counties have been completely transformed. Parks, schools, and shopping areas that were once recognizably American are now near picture-images of the slums from which their inhabitants originated.

Many American’s recognize the impact that our species is having on the world’s environment. At the very least, we all understand the negative circumstances that overpopulation creates. How can we expect to absorb such large quantities of people without incurring the obviously attendant consequences?

Out of control population growth will probably provide some of this century’s greatest horrors. America has already become a type of refugee center for whole segments of other nations. The situation today is much different from that of our nation’s founding; today, America is full. We are already overpopulated.

How can other nations learn to cope with issues of overpopulation when we continue to allow them to funnel their unwanted in our direction? The whole world will not long be able to sustain such growth. Everyday we hear news on the issue of planet sustainability. What about the famines and food shortages that many in the world are already experiencing? Should we invite them all to eat our food? How long is this sustainable? Americans need to realize that the future of our country depends on us coming to our senses and enacting policies that benefit our people. The first in a long list would be to limit the number of immigrants entering this country.

No mainstream political-party in America is willing to touch this issue. All are in agreement that recent arrivals make the best recruits. This goes for the Republicans as well as the Democrats, Bush no less than Obama. Each views their survival as depending on immigrant votes. They understand that if trends continue, whole portions of their voter base must be comprised of this demographic for them to continue winning elections. What are they going to tell their voters if famine threatens said voter’s former homeland? Are the Republicans likely to refuse the pleas of a potential swing vote? Are the Democrats going to say no to millions more added on to an already “minority” based coalition? Americans need to realize that we have become the underdog. No longer can we continue to play into the two-party trap. Both Republicans and Democrats care nothing for America. They are full willing to run our country into the ground – or to flood it.

Our Interests at the Expense of Others? Part 1

Our Interests at the Expense of Others? Part 1

April 21, 2009 by willie

Our Interests at the Expense of Others?
As our people are incredibly compassionate and ever-conscious of their affect on others, American National Party members should be made keenly aware that prospective supporters will be often inclined to ask whether or not we advance the political interests of our people at the expense of others. This is a very complex question, one that can, if gone about the wrong way, aid our opponents in repositioning us. Worse, yet, if gone about the wrong way, the likely result is that the prospective supporter dismisses our noble message as something other than just and fair.

When approaching the question, it is good to make use of a simple analogy to help relate the question to something less stigmatized by our opponents. Take, for instance, a particular scenario in which two wills are opposed. Imagine that, in this scenario, there is one man with a desperate need for money and another who holds the belief that he has the sole right to the money he has himself earned.

The desperate man is considered by his friends a good person, but he has fallen on hard times and now can afford neither food nor shelter; he hasn’t the means to support himself or his family. To survive, he robs a passerby who appears, to him, well-to-do. He means not to do the passerby any harm. He wants only his money, and many can sympathize with his position.

The passerby is also considered a good person amongst his circle. He has worked especially hard to achieve a position where from he could provide a pleasant existence for his family, having sacrificed a great deal of his formative years in pursuit of such a lifestyle. Believing that the other man is not justified in taking from him his wallet, the passerby commits to fighting back against the robber. As is usually the case when two wills are opposed, a struggle ensues.

In this circumstance, though, we are quick to identify that it is the robber who is in the wrong. But why is he wrong? Why is it not the other way around? Why shouldn’t we arrest the man who resisted surrendering his money to a man so desperately in need? We justify our claim that the robber is wrong in many ways. First, we recognize that, were everyone to adopt the practice, there would be a strong incentive to avoid work altogether. One could simply rob those who are foolish enough to continue to work. In fact, society would not function were it that the robber was justified in his robbery.

But why should that matter? Why is it that we can say with confidence that one man’s suffering is an acceptable loss in the pursuit of a functioning society? It sounds extremely silly, but it is an important question. And, in fact, many of our opponents would take issue with the claim that one man’s suffering is an acceptable loss. We come to this conclusion as a matter of measuring utility. When we make this proposition, it is in the belief that the good of the whole is more important the life of one man, that a group is capable of having a collective satisfaction greater than is possible for any one individual. We forgo finding the ultimate cause of this justification, instead recognizing that, ultimately, it is irrational and, simply, a natural inclination. We make other claims as well, all of which are beyond the scope of this simple argument and which we must postpone in confronting until a later date.

The above scenario serves as a strong analogy to the notion that we are somehow harming others when looking out for our own interests. We are not calling any group of people robbers, thieves, criminals, or anything of the sort. We are, instead, making the claim that, at present, a number of other groups, whether they identify with a race, an ethnicity, a religion, a political persuasion, or anything, have advanced their interests at our expense, similar to the actions of both men in the above analogy. But who is right, and who is wrong?

Affirmative action policies, quotas in admissions to public schools, the allocation of tax monies to one group over another, the abolition of rights to self-defense, to free speech, to freedom of association, the prohibition of freedom in determining one’s neighbors, employees, and children’s schoolmates are all things that we oppose. We oppose the idea that we do not have a right to liberty, to sovereignty, and to maintain our identity as a unique people with a unique culture. But others say that we are, in fact, wrong in our opposition of their will to extinguish those freedoms. They claim that their will should be recognized at the cost of forgoing recognition of ours.

We liken their position to that of the robber, were the robber bold enough to inform the police that they had, in fact, arrested the wrong man, having not locked up the man who refused to surrender his hard-earned money. We make the claim that our position is as justified as the position of the passerby. And, just as before, we can approach the justification of both positions – ours and theirs – in a number of ways.

In determining rights as to the autonomy of neighborhoods and communities, for example, we believe that a community ought to determine its membership. Obversely, we believe that it is not the right of the person who seeks admittance to force himself into the community against the will of its members, an idea supported by our ideological opponents. We recognize that, analogous to the case of the robber above, were everyone to adopt such a policy, there would be a strong incentive to avoid community-building altogether. One could simply move into an attractive neighborhood built by a people foolish enough to continue to build attractive neighborhoods. In fact, society would not function quite the same, if at all, were it that the community-seeker was justified in his moving in against the will of the community.

And, in the same manner as before, we could then ask why establishing community is worth dismissing the will of the man who wants not to build his own community but to benefit from the efforts of those who have. Of course, it is again a silly question to ask, but many of our opponents do ask such questions, and they are sincerely confused as to the proper response to it. In fact, much of their policy is based on the principle that the rights of the robber should be recognized at the expense of the passerby; therefore, it is important to have the appropriate answers at hand.

When having drawn conclusions about the case of the robber above, we observed that we do, quite often, use utility as justification for having called one thing right and another wrong. As a matter of utility, such a policy as to observe the right of the community-seeker at the expense of the community-builder is, certainly, detrimental to the cause of increasing the utility of all. True, a few people will gain satisfaction, for a short while, but there will be long-term, negative consequences affecting every aspect of the lives of all, to include those who were thought, at first glance, beneficiaries. There will be atomization, a loss of a sense of identity, and bitterness on behalf of those who feel wronged, and the nature of the community will be changed against its will. What once was will be, potentially, forever lost. And, there will be little incentive for the community-builders to move away and start anew, facing the prospect of the community-seeker simply forcing his will on the community once more.

And, again, we can further trace the root of what drives us to accept utility – or any of the many other claims we are making – in justifying our position – that the right of the community takes precedence over the right of the individual – but to do as much is beyond the scope of this short argument, and it is best left to a later date. Moreover, if a potential supporter genuinely takes issue with the notion – that a community has a right to some semblance of sovereignty – it is unlikely that sense can be talked into the prospect at all.

And this approach should be taken with all of our positions, for each one is truly justifiable, fair, and in keeping with the high moral-standards of our people, a people known well for their compassion, for their love of liberty and sovereignty, and for valuing greatly fairness and respect for the rights of others who do them no harm.

After having likened our opponents’ position to the position of those who would recognize the right of the robber at the expense of the passerby, it should become increasingly obvious to the prospective member that our interests are not at all at the expense of others. They are no more at the expense of others than the interest of the passerby to keep his money is at the expense of the robber.

To be continued…