Ed Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism is an excellent catalyst for pro-whites looking to compete in a hostile ideological marketplace. Dutton’s argument simplified is that relatively low European ethnocentrism is the result of a genius-producing life strategy, high national IQ, and industrialization increasing genetic diversity, causing the collapse of religion and the circulation of maladaptive ideologies. Though I agree with the concern that Dutton’s hard biology neglects brainwashing, Race Differences still resonates deep with my experience. Arguing with anti-white whites really does feel like spinning tires with otherwise intelligent people who’ve evolved past a prior instinct and have no interest in returning to their ancestral environment. Often, a pro-white on Facebook may as well be transmitting prime numbers to Jupiter in hopes of life. And then in one fell swoop we’ve also explained more innate phenotypes, which rarely engage with or appeal to the public on our own planet.

What’s so pressing for us is the new environment. High intelligence and low ethnocentrism, from a low-stress environment, is unsustainable in the presence of highly ethnocentric, fast-breeding groups indifferent or hostile to European group interest. Thus, the vanguards of white identity, the meta-political pioneers, should look at success as one of two paths: either our peers are convinced to return to the repressed,  or our more instinctual, ethnocentric portions will be selected for later as it becomes increasingly adaptive in the new environment. Given the option, I think most of us would prefer our friends and family come along for the ride.

Keeping that mind, here are a few tools and suggestions from my time on the front lines.

1) Anticipate the Curse of Knowledge: The Curse of Knowledge is a cognitive bias stemming from our inability to truly think outside ourselves and from the perspective of another person. As Steven Pinker puts it, it’s “why good people write bad prose” (qtd. in Coyle), or in our case make bad arguments. An argument is only as good as its effect on the intended audience, so while something might read well to the in-group, it’s indecipherable hogwash to everyone else.

Pinker notes for sentence structure that each bit of information “has to connect to stuff you already know,” an “internal database” (Coyle). It’s why we’re taught to put informative words at the end of a sentence. The read is effective if we start with something relevant and approach new info ready to plug it in. The same applies more broadly to worldviews. The way we perceive new ideas is informed by our prior exposure and thus our internal narrative. And while it isn’t so much a problem communicating with those that have a similar narrative, our goal is to convince people that have consumed something different their entire adult life. They simply won’t make the same connections we take for granted.

A good example of this I’ll never forget—I was corresponding with an old friend from high school who’d lost touch for the better part of a decade. We’ll call him Frank. Frank reached out after discovering my wrong-think via dox, and we proceeded to have an email exchange over the course of several months. This was mainly me explaining myself and answering his questions, since he remembered me as a good person, and this didn’t mesh with his internal narrative toward pro-white politics. We were five-plus emails and 20,000 words deep when Frank said “I didn’t realize non-violent pro-whites were a thing. I think a lot of people don’t realize that.” And I had just taken this connection for granted. The competing narrative is so distorted and deep, it isn’t enough to exemplify non-violence or say it once from the start. We must be explicit, repetitive, and consistent to break the conditioning.

2) Keep it Simple: You’re going to keep seeing this idea of in-group vs. out-group communication, which is distinct from lying. If as Greg Johnson says, we are necessary and moral, we have nothing hide. However, that doesn’t mean all our internal debates are helpful to outsiders. Many are harmful. Take, for example, the “Ethnostate.” Do you want a white ethnostate? Well yes, in-so-far as you can call pre-1965 demographics an ethnostate. It’s a valid conceptual space for pro-whites to figure out what they stand for, what is plausible, possible, and what has changed. But in an out-group context, the term causes more problems than it solves. It invokes ideas that aren’t ours, such as purity or doing something with non-whites (What are you going to DO with all the brown people?). And it removes the conversation from policy where the trends are baked in. If current preferences are making us a minority by 2040, give or take, we want to repeal them in favor of, say, 1920s-era restriction that swings the math the other way.

There’s no reason to muddy the waters around people still programmed to be uncharitable at every turn. And this is especially true when engaging with concepts anti-whites have effectively weaponized. It’s a fun meme that the left can’t meme, but really, they dunk on us where it counts. Anti-whites are masterful at repackaging nuance into trigger words that change the rhetorical framing and shut down debate. X content creator? That’s how you get radicalized on Youtube. Empirically sound racial statistic? Those are white supremacist lies. Ethnostate? You mean violence and injustice. And so on, and so forth. We can better engage the out-group by anticipating their internal narrative and not feeding into it with our entire in-group tool kit.

3) Be Informative: If the talking points are simple, you need to be fluent with them or refrain from debate while improving your rhetoric. Just be realistic about your knowledge and public speaking. It’s okay to be wrong, but it’s unforgivable to then not seek out that information from multiple perspectives. All of us should know, or have nearby, our country’s immigration history, including demographics, dates, quotas, and other policy. Knowledge of historical restrictionists is a must. And I promise, keep talking and you’ll have this exchange:

“Non-violent white sympathy is a new thing. It’s never existed before, so I think that’s why people react so poorly to your group. All we know is white supremacy.”

Not true. What about restrictionist leader and House Rep. Albert Johnson (WA) in 1924:

“I dislike to be placed continually in the attitude of assuming that there is a race prejudice, when the one thing I have tried to do for 11 years is to free myself from race prejudice, if I had it at all” (MacDonald 267).

Or House Rep William Vaile (CO), 1924:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the Nordic race or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer, with a very low percentage of crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which have greatly enriched the world and which have, indeed, enriched us, a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vein about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble. What we do claim is that the Northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves” (MacDonald 269-270).

What about Rep Scott Leavitt (MT), also 1924?

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sabath), who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood” (MacDonald 270).

When that exchange comes, it’s impactful. And though Frank might leave the thread or change the subject, you’ve planted a seed that sprouts months down the line.

4) Reject Their Framing When Effective: Consider a recent string of headlines from a U.S. campus after white sorority members were caught on tape singing the word “nigger.”

• Fallout From Sorority Racial Slur Video Remains Unclear
• SGA Members to Lead Protest Against Alpha Xi Delta
• Intolerable: Use of Racial Slurs on Campus is Unacceptable
• Why We Cover Racial Slur Usage on Campus
• “Not That Hard to Not Be Racists”: Students Hold Protest Against Alpha Xi Delta
• Student Government Seeks Repercussions Against Alpha Xi Delta
• Words are Powerful: Racial Slur Incidents Spark 0n-campus Discussion

While the media class controls the narrative with white racism, the 2018 BJS Criminal Victimization Survey quietly dropped, and interracial violent crime disparities are not only staggering but getting worse as whites decline demographically. Heather MacDonald notes in City-Journal: “There were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That ratio is becoming more skewed…In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites; whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization has grown as well.  Blacks are also overrepresented among perpetrators of hate crimes—by 50 percent—according to the most recent Justice Department data from 2017; whites are underrepresented by 24 percent. This is particularly true for anti-gay and anti-Semitic hate crimes” (“A Platform of Urban Decline”).

Mention this in a thread on sorority slurs (since you won’t see the campus article on interracial crime) and worst case, you’ll lose your account, your job, your wife, and your children, get disowned by your parents, be ostracized from polite society, and face a torrent of verbal abuse or even violence!  Best case, you’ll be met with accusations of cherry-picking and whataboutism. Ah yes, it’s okay for white girls to say the n-word because of 2018 crime statistics. And if you’re unprepared, you’ll forget that’s not the point. Whataboutism is another word for communicating necessary trade-offs and priorities in actual, not ideal, politics. This is where we are strong. Highlighting visceral problems for our people in response to anti-white witch hunts undermines the entire programming. You force people to retract or double down on their absurd priorities. We get silent lurkers every time. That said…

5) Concede Legitimate Criticisms: This should be done both strategically and in principle. For the in-group / out-group dynamic, condescension is less persuasive than ignorance, and a sign of a healthy movement is one that acknowledges its excesses and adjusts to feedback. It comes down to personal responsibility and seeks to advance not stagnate. If there’s a legitimately toxic undercurrent going unchecked and someone points that out, we do ourselves no favors by remaining in denial. The sooner we remove the cancer, the sooner we get back to effectively advocating for our people in ways that matter.

Another example from Frank: we had a disconnect where being “just anti-immigration” didn’t compute. I understand that’s one thing you’re concerned about. What else? Granted, there’s much more to white identity than immigration restriction (which I’ll leave for another day), there’s still something to be said for identity politics lacking an aggressive, over-arching vision for society. And perhaps alone, it’s not enough. Acknowledging this is crucial for pro-whites to keep their horizons broad and adaptable. By pre-emptively diluting our own echo-chambers, we increase viability and the likelihood of whites from across the spectrum coming to our views.

And ultimately, convincing the out-group is the goal. It could be as Dutton suggests that “European people […] are low in ethnocentricism and, under certain conditions, this will lead to their being displaced by groups that are higher in ethnocentrism than they are.” That “it will be the collapse of their civilization and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more ethnocentric again” (3547).

Selection later. Or we can win the argument now.

Notes: