Intellectual Self Defense for White Nationalists
by John Young
ONE OF THE JOYS of White nationalism is that it is an outgrowth of verifiable facts of reality that generate ideas that are consistently applicable. The result is that intellectual defense of White Nationalism is straightforward.
All of the attacks against White nationalism fall into two broadly defined categories. The first (and largest) category is the ad-hominem attack in which the qualifications/parentage/intentions/associations of the writer are questioned as a substitute for addressing the substance of the matter. The second category is attacking of the facts either by questioning their veracity or by obscuring their veracity through the re-definition of terms, straw-man and similar arguments. In this article I would like to expose the inner workings of these attacks for the benefit of all. There is a small — very small — third category of attacks focusing on facts, logic and sources — and this will be explored too.
Ad Hominem: White nationalist thinkers receive many ad hominem attacks. While I can’t address all of them, I think some benefit may be derived from examining the attacks which demand biographical information (e.g. qualifications), those that impugn a White nationalist’s motives, those which use slurs (such as “racist”), personalization, and those that attempt to paint White nationalists as Nazis-who-want-to-gas-six-million-Jews through guilt by association.
Biographical Information: A demand for biographical information is a no-win situation because no matter how qualified the author is, some fault will always be found in the qualifications. This is especially true if the author wants to maintain some degree of privacy and not have the ADL mount a letter-writing campaign against his employer. This is a no-win situation in that even a highly qualified individual’s biographical information would be unverifiable unless he essentially provides his full identification for the whole world to see. It is a simple fact that while many people and organizations say they support free speech, they really only support speech that agrees with them. Beyond that boundary, they actively seek to deny free speech through economic and other pressures applied to people whose arguments they cannot otherwise refute.
It must be understood that anyone making an argument against multiracialism/global monoculture will be deemed unqualified unless she just happens to be a lesbian Ethiopian Jewish Holocaust Survivor with AIDS who speaks Spanish and works as an activist for La Raza. Even then, if the arguments are pursuasive, she will be dismissively labelled as a “self-hating Jew” as are most Jews — whether Ethiopian lesbians or not — who dare to deviate too far from the norms established and monitored by a plethora of organized Jewish groups. Thus, any revelations concerning a White nationalist’s biographical information and/or qualifications would not be helpful in winning an argument anyway.
A person who demands biographical information, then, especially when all the facts are easily verified by anyone capable of using an Internet search engine, is not the sort of person who is actually interested in debating the substance of the issue. He has already made up his mind, and no amount of facts, citations, or biographical information will convince him. He is instead trying to steer the argument down a channel in which the author either has no defense or exposes himself to serious retribution.
The way to deal with this sort of attack is to point out that any argument accompanied by evidence and logic stands on its own, without regard to the ethnicity or other qualifications of the author. This is how to answer demands for biographical information.
Impugning of Motives: Many arguments against White nationalist thought could be summarized as “he says he values human diversity, but that’s just a smokescreen for what he really wants: he wants to … (insert atrocity here.)”
Obviously, such questioners don’t know any White nationalists personally, and therefore have no idea what a White nationalist’s “real” motivations must be. And that is the exact response to this sort of attack: where does the specific nationalist or organization being attacked explicitly support the implementation of this-or-that atrocity? In 99% of cases, no such advocacy can be found.
In the absence of the particular nationalist or an organizational spokesman to answer such questions, any advocacy or statement of motivations should be taken at face value; and any statement of intentions on the part of a particular nationalist or organization — barring explicit evidence to the contrary — needs to be taken as definitive since only the individual being cited is truly qualified to know what truly lies in his own heart and mind.
And this is the same response in real-time debate: Do you really know what is in my mind? Are you a mind reader? If you are — why haven’t you collected the $1,000,000 reward offered by the Amazing Randi? Well — since you can’t read my mind, you would do best by sticking to arguments that don’t involve mind-reading.
Anything beyond this on the part of a detractor amounts to a suspension of the time-honored Western tradition of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Guilt by Association: This is the most prevalent sort of ad-hominem attack experienced by Euro-Americans who take a position favorable to their ethnicity, so it warrants greater examination.
In short form, the Guilt by Association argument goes like this: “Adolf Hitler believed in racial differences, you believe in racial differences. Therefore, you are a Nazi. Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and so you want to kill 6 million Jews.”
This sort of shoddy logic, if used to construct a building, would result in a collapse before the first floor was ever built. Let me explain the logical errors.
First, in order for a particular belief to definitively classify someone as a follower of a particular philosophical system, that belief must be unique to the philosophical system.
Thomas Jefferson believed that because of racial differences, racial separation was a prerequisite for the preservation of Liberty, yet he existed long before Adolf Hitler was ever born. The same with President Monroe, for whom the capital of Liberia is named since that country was specifically founded by America for the purpose of repatriating Africans. A person who believes in racial differences and separation could just as justifiably be called a follower of Jefferson or Monroe as a follower of Adolf Hitler. Likewise, Israel’s immigration policies — based on ancestry rather than religious devotion — exclude non-Jews. So simply believing in racial differences doesn’t make someone a National Socialist, a Jeffersonian, or a Likudnik. Their argument is preposterous. [Secondly, it is not National Socialist Germany’s mistakes or errors these disingenuous opponents are criticizing, anyway. Instead of criticizing error, they are condemning virtue when they denounce the recognition of racial differences by a society and the making of racial survival one of that society’s main purposes. — Ed.]
If a belief in racial differences (or anything else) is based upon a sufficiently strong scientific basis as to be considered factual by a rational person, then the belief transcends philosophy altogether and can be more accurately described as simple adherence to factual reality, rather than an irrational belief in any particular philosophy.
The scientific basis for racial differences is incredibly strong. While some might argue semantics — i.e. whether the term “race” or “population group” or “ethny” is the proper term to use — the simple fact is that all the terms are describing the same phenomenon and the differences between these groups are more than skin deep, and so profound that admixtures of as little as 3% are readily detectable via genetic testing.
Entire exhaustively documented books have been written on this topic if someone is truly interested in the facts, so only two references are provided here.
The first is from Dr. George W. Gill, Professor of Forensic Anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He says:
If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established — major races: black, white, etc. — then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
The second is from a company called DNA Print Genomics, describing one of their genetic testing products:
DNAPrint™’s genealogy product, ANCESTRYbyDNA™ 2.5, is a pan-chromosomal assay for genetic ancestry. The test surveys 176 Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) to provide an inference of genetic ancestry or heritage. The AIMs were carefully selected from large-scale screens of the human genome; and are characterized by sequences of DNA that are more prevalent in people from one continent than another. Using complex statistical algorithms, the test can determine with confidence to which of the major bio-geographical ancestry groups, Sub -Saharan African, European, East Asian or Native American, a person belongs, as well as the relative percentages in cases of admixed peoples.
Obviously, if the only differences between different races were the genes controlling skin color, it would be impossible for such a test to actually ascertain degree of admixture. This being possible, it is an established fact that racial differences have a genetic basis. The social-construct theory is just pie-in-the-sky advocated by people who are either outright lying and know it, or are so ignorant they can’t be helped. …
Personalization: This is an odd form of ad hominem attack that usually goes something like this: “I lost my auntie Gertrude in the Holocaust/My uncle Joe was lynched by racists … and I know where this is heading … etc.”
Obviously, such claims are unverifiable but in the spirit of fairness should be accepted at face value. The problem is that they attempt to give the attacker a sort of special/unassailable standing while shifting the debate from a matter of the discussion of evidence and logic to a personal realm of guilt which has no place in the search for truth.
Your response should go like this in order to direct the argument back to a fair playing field: “I am sorry about your Aunt Gertrude/Uncle Joe, and I can appreciate that such an intensely personal experience could adversely affect a person’s ability to keep an objective open mind, but please explain to me how accurately reporting that different races react differently to different clot-busting drugs places you or anyone you love in danger.”
What you have done here is used the attacker’s ad hominem personalization and admission of intense personal/emotional involvement to realistically question their ability to remain objective, and then re-focus the primary issue on solid factual ground.
Substantive Attacks: Attacks on the substance of White nationalist arguments typically focus on quibbling over definitions/semantics in order to divert from the key points being made, impeachment of sources (covered somewhat above) and (rarely) an argument over the substance of the issue based upon sources that deliberately self-censor for reasons of political correctness.
Semantics: One attack on the substance of White nationalist arguments is that the very concept of “nationalism” having anything to do with race is absurd, since a nation is composed of whatever human beings happened to reside within the territory controlled by a particular government. This is a case of replacing one definition with another in order to avoid the true substance of the issue.
The valid definition of “nation” used by White and non-White nationalists is biologically based rather than government based. Both definitions are “correct” — but only one is correct within the context of ethnic nationalism — and only a disingenuous opponent would try to shift the argument by redefining the terms.
All one has to do to counter this sort of argument is to first point out the correct definition, and then use the definitions surrounding the State of Israel and the Nation of Israel to clinch the matter into an unanswerable conundrum for the opposition.
There is an important distinction between the the State of Israel and the Nation of Israel, as the Nation of Israel consists of every single person on earth of Jewish ancestry no matter where, or under what government, he may reside. Thus, the White nation would consist of every single person of White ancestry no matter where, or under what government, he may reside.
At that point, the argument is recast in such terms that any universalist opposition to nationalism based upon ancestry would necessarily deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Once this has occurred, any opposition to nationalism becomes opposition to Israel, which most opponents of nationalism would never suggest, though a few universalists may.
If such a universalist is encountered, then the appeal to fairness can be made: if all peoples are truly to be equal, then they should all be allowed to setup their own exclusive states to house their nations, not just Jews.
At this point, their only recourse is to argue in favor of Jews being a master race — and thus entitled to consideration that should be denied to other races — or surrender the point.
Impeachment of Sources: This commonly takes the form of “so-and-so is not a valid source because he is funded by a racist/he is a racist/etc.” In essence these are ad hominem attacks against the source, and are combated as described above by shifting the argument back onto the substance of the matter.
Rarely, an opponent may openly question whether a source you have used even exists. The only solution here is to either demonstrate proof or find other verifiable sources who echo the same sentiments.
Opposing Sources: Occasionally, the opponent will start echoing the thoughts of contradictory sources, such as Stephen J. Gould. It would be worthwhile, in advance, to read Rushton’s The Mismeasures of Gould (http://www.eugenics.net/papers/jprnr.html) in order to be prepared to counter such arguments.
Dr. Matt Nuenke’s essays and reviews typically blow most opposing sources out of the water. In addition, he has written two very interesting books, available for free online, as The Myth of Racism in two volumes. (http://web.archive.org/web/20050212191952if_/http://home.comcast.net:80/~neoeugenics/racebook.doc and http://web.archive.org/web/20050212182847if_/http://home.comcast.net:80/~neoeugenics/RaceBook2.doc) These books thoroughly dismantle all of the “we are all the same” types of arguments, and will give you incredible intellectual ammunition.
Opposing Logic: Occasionally, White nationalists will encounter logical arguments. A close examination of these arguments, though — because there are really only a handful — reveals them to be re-hashes of arguments already made by equalitarian apologists such as Stephen J. Gould. A familiarity with the work of Dr. Nuenke, and Dr. Rushton, both referenced above, will reveal the problems with those logical arguments and give you the ammunition to defeat them.
As can be seen from the foregoing, there really is no credible intellectual opposition to White nationalism. Anytime a debate is forced, we White nationalists will always come out on the winning side because reality is on our side.
* * *
Source: National Vanguard, October 2005