Should whites pursue "white interests"?

The conservative case against white identity politics.

Written by Noah Carl.

Back in 2005, there was a four-part debate at VDARE between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor. The debate concerned the relative merits of Sailer’s preferred philosophy of “citizenism” and Taylor’s preferred philosophy of “white nationalism”. Since then, the prominence of the kind of white identity politics espoused by Taylor has increased substantially. Posts expressing support for “white interests” frequently go viral on Twitter, and centre-right commentators often find themselves ratioed by identitarian accounts. Here at Aporia, my colleague Bo Winegard has defended a qualified form of white identity politics.

In this essay, I will explain why I don’t subscribe to white identity politics and why I don’t think it will be successful in countries like Britain or the US or for the foreseeable future. In doing so, I will draw on the arguments made by Sailer in his 2005 debate with Taylor, while also offering some original arguments of my own.

What is white identity politics? In the podcast where Winegard and I discussed his essay, I put it to him that his version of white identity politics basically amounts to “classical liberalism plus immigration restrictionism”, which is roughly my own view.¹ And he more or less conceded that it does. This raises the obvious question: why use the term “white identity politics”?

When people talk about black identity politics, or non-white identity politics in general, what sorts of things do they have in mind?

• Affirmative action in universities, businesses and government bureaucracies.

• Use of anti-white jargon like “whiteness” and “people of colour” (a category defined by its exclusion of whites).

• Demanding reparations for slavery and other things done by the ancestors of whites to the ancestors of non-whites.

• Toppling or renaming of monuments to slaveowners, Confederate generals and other white historical figures.

• Altering university reading lists to include more books by non-white authors.

This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. Non-white identity politics involves demanding various kinds of special privileges for non-whites (or for specific non-white groups, such as blacks). In the case of affirmative action, the special privilege being demanded is obvious: that certain groups be held to lower standards in admissions. In other cases, it is less obvious. Toppling monuments of slaveowners involves demanding that certain groups get to overturn long-standing traditions concerning the status of particular historical figures.

I am opposed to all of the measures listed above. However, this doesn’t mean I’m in favour of white identity politics—it simply means I’m against non-white identity politics. If we’re using language consistently, then white identity must mean something quite different from “classical liberalism plus immigration restrictionism”. It must mean demanding special privileges for whites. And that’s something to which I’m also opposed.

Whites shouldn’t be held to lower standards in admissions. They shouldn’t denigrate other groups by attacking made-up ideologies like “blackness”. They shouldn’t demand reparations for things that were done to their ancestors.² They shouldn’t topple monuments of non-white historical figures. And they shouldn’t purge non-white authors from university reading lists.

Does that mean I’m in favour of constructing monuments to George Floyd and including Ibram X. Kendi on university reading lists? Of course not. But the reason matters. I’m not against those things because Floyd and Kendi aren’t white. I’m against them because Floyd and Kendi are completely undeserving. Floyd was a career criminal who was high on multiple drugs at the time of his death; Kendi is not a serious scholar by any objective standard. Meanwhile, there are other non-white figures, such as Frederick Douglass or W. E. B. DuBois, who are deserving. And I’m in favour of retaining monuments to them and including them on university reading lists.

When it comes to deciding whom we should honour, there are several competing principles that one might adopt:

• We should honour as many people from my race, and as few people from other races, as possible.

• We should honour people of different races in proportion to the country’s racial composition.

• We should honour people of different races in proportion to their merit and historical importance.

The first two principles listed above correspond to a stronger and weaker form of racial identity politics, respectively. The third principle reflects my own traditional conservative viewpoint. Note that because Western countries have been overwhelmingly white for most of their history, and because whites have a high level of cultural achievement, applying the principle will lead to mainly white people being honoured. This is incidental, however. The principle allows people of any race to be honoured, so long as they’re of sufficient merit or historical importance.

What about immigration restrictionism? How can that be justified from a traditional conservative point of view? Quite easily, I think. There are various principles to which one can appeal that don’t require carving out special privileges for whites. There’s the principle that immigration policy should serve the interests of current citizens. There’s the principle that immigration policy should not promote ethnic competition or raise the risk of ethnic conflict. Perhaps most important of all is the principle that immigration policy should not radically shift the country’s ethnic and cultural character.

I used the term “ethnic” there, so aren’t I carving out special privileges for whites after all? Not if you see a country’s ethnic and cultural character as a public good that benefits people of all races. If I happened to be an immigrant in Japan, I would be strongly against mass immigration of whites because I think the ethnic and cultural character of Japan is something worth preserving. This is despite the fact that mass immigration of whites would seem to advance “white interests” within Japan. As a foreigner who’d like to visit the country as a tourist one day, I hope the Japanese don’t embrace mass immigration of whites in the interim.

By way of analogy, the rule of law is also a public good that benefits people of all races. And it’s my belief in the rule of law that leads me to oppose both affirmative action for non-whites and affirmative action for whites.

There are several other policies associated with white identity politics that are worth discussing.