One of the most significant characteristics exhibited by those of us who are adherents or fellow travelers of the Alternative Right is our capability of thinking about or discussing matters of race and immigration in a rational and open-minded manner. This distinction, as much as any other, is what separates us from our rivals on the Left and among the ranks of the mainstream "Right." For instance, most of us would probably agree that the overwhelming majority of anti-discrimination legislation of the kind that has been enacted over the past fifty years should be repealed. This stance ensures a pariah status for our camp in polite society. Yet our general opposition to discrimination prohibition serves to establish us as the vanguard of those seeking to fully uphold the venerable principle of freedom of association, supposedly one of those cherished classically liberal liberties along with the freedoms of religion and speech, due process and trial by jury, and so forth.
Whenever I have defended "freedom to discriminate" to the usual suspects-liberals, necons, left-libertarians, supposed "conservatives"-the frequent reaction is not unlike what I might expect to receive if I were defending gang rape or pedophilia. But the taboo nature of this issue should not inhibit us from confronting it with neither fear nor favor. Liberal propaganda not withstanding, the actual historical record of multiracial societies is not a pleasant one. The near-universal norm in such societies is that the ruling classes maintain political control by playing off different ethnic populations against others. Consequently, some populations are relegated to the status of second class citizens (or worse), or civil peace becomes impossible to maintain and horror emerges (see India/Pakistan 1947, Rwanda 1994 or the former Yugoslavia 1992).
Consider these recent events:
- Leading professional journals publish supposed serious studies considering the "problem" of racism among infants.
- A leading newsmagazine publishes an article on the "problem" of racism on the part of inanimate objects like cameras.
- A group of quack psychologists conduct a supposed study using MRIs to uncover racist brainwaves.
- A Scottish man is sentenced to jail for revving his engine in a "racist" manner.
- The head of state of a major Western nation proclaims it to be the patriotic duty of citizens to marry interracially.
Are we to seriously believe that such incidents are indicative of an ongoing process of evolution towards a higher level of racial tolerance and understanding in our contemporary societies? One of the monumental achievements of Western civilization has been the elimination of the large-scale religious persecutions that have plagued past centuries. Incredibly, however, prosecutions under archaic blasphemy laws have begun to reemerge in the West. For instance, Finland and Germany, supposedly among the most liberal, progressive, and secular nations, have in recent times seen prosecutions for the blasphemy of Islam. The only possible explanation for this is that what amounts to a new kind of theocracy has begun to develop in the West. This is not an Islamic theocracy, of course, but a secular theocracy rooted in the ideas of "multiculturalism." This new theocracy teaches that the greatest of all sins is differentiation on the basis of race, nationality, ethnicity or some other forbidden characteristic such as gender or sexual orientation. "Racism" assumes the same role in the ideology of multiculturalism as Satan in fundamentalist Christianity. Therefore, multicultural fundamentalists are perpetually in search of racist demons to cast out.
"Blasphemy" of Islam is obviously regarded as a crime not for theological reasons, given the predominance of secularism among Western elites, but because Islam is identified in the ideology of the multiculturalists with the non-European races and ethnic groups. Ironically, more conventionally theocratic clerics in Europe have also been subject to hate speech prosecutions for their criticisms of homosexuality. This has been the fate of both Christian and Islamic clerics. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the only principle that the multiculturalists hold to be as sacred as "anti-racism" is: "Defend the Sexual Revolution to the Death!"
As the wars of religion were brought to an end largely by the process of separating church and state, perhaps a third position beyond old-fashioned racism or the impending horrors likely to result from "multiculturalism" would the simple separation of race and state, i.e. removing the state from racial matters altogether and allowing complete freedom of association in matters of race. Consequently, individuals, families, businesses, churches, civic organizations, communities, and other associations of a private, voluntary, or quasi-voluntary nature would be free to discriminate or not discriminate all they wished. Of course, it goes without saying that most racial minorities and even many whites would view the implementation of such an arrangement as a major setback for social progress. Therefore, perhaps a compromise is in order. Perhaps the radical Right should consider reparations in exchange for the complete dismantling of the bureaucratic apparatus of civil rights enforcement and related policies, such as affirmative action. Some years ago, a group called Americans for Self-Determination presented an elaborate plan for the achievement of these ends. The plan can be read in its entirety on my blog. It's something worth considering, given the alternatives.