to: main page


The Moderate White Man’s Manifesto


Without a people of my own

As a white-male American now 70 years old, I sometimes feel that I have no community that I can call my own. I have no people. I have no country, at least not one whose leadership represents me. This is strange because my type of person is supposed to comprise America’s majority population. The United States of America ought to be my homeland. In a real sense, it is not.

Admittedly, my feelings of not being represented are based on subjective perceptions rather than upon evidence that would be considered objective. Race has a lot to do with this. Ever since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, I have been increasingly defined as a white person. I am submerged in the amorphous white melting pot of America rather than being a member of a European ethnic group. Whites have become a single and rather faceless people.

Why do I feel alienated in my own land? Without being able to cite chapter and verse, I perceive a subtle bias against whites. The government clerk (often female) who might have given me a break opts for toughness in my case. There is little sympathy for someone like me. My point of view is largely dismissed. I sense that a minority person in the same situation would receive better treatment. Maybe the idea is that, since I have been a member of a privileged class for much of my life, it’s time to even the score.

Objectively, whites can complain of affirmative-action policies with respect to employment and college admissions, minority set-asides in public contracting, and other one-sided policies that have been imposed in the name of “equal treatment”. Discrimination against racial minorities is illegal; not so, against members of the white population. “Racism” is considered exclusively a fault of whites, no matter how hateful anti-white attitudes may be. One seldom hears anyone with standing in the community defend white people against the many and various charges made against them as a group. The mainstream media are monolithic on this point. Even the statement that America is a (white) “racist nation” goes unchallenged.

The spoken and whispered reaction

Why are white people so passive? Why do they routinely submit to blatant prejudice against their own kind? It may be because the charge of “racism” carries such a stigma, including threats to one’s livelihood, that few whites will risk standing up for themselves as being white. They may secretly resent what is happening but will remain silent, knowing that the full weight of respectable opinion in the mass media, education, religion, and government may be brought to bear against them if they go public with their views. Their solitary acts of defiance would receive no support. What, then, is the use?

That is not to say that there are not conversations below the surface that support white racial identity. Whites huddled around the coffee machine at work may say things to each other that they dare not express in public. There are individuals such David Duke who openly express pro-white views. There are remnants of the southern Ku Klux Klan. Such persons and groups have become thoroughly marginalized and vilified as purveyors of racial hate. If you want a list of the reviled groups, contact the Southern Poverty Law Center. The commercial media are full of denunciations leveled at them.

The strange thing is that it is whites more than blacks who lead the “anti-racist” attack. They are whites who do not identify with white people as a group but with their own subset. They do not consider themselves part of the majority population. Whether they hate themselves as white or are legitimately offended by what other white people do cannot be determined in every case. Each thinks he or she is special - a cut above the average person. So the idea of racial or any kind of identity is rather complicated.

Speaking for myself, I think that it is legitimate to oppose the anti-white attitudes floating around in our society; and it is no more hateful to express such opposition than to criticize any other injustice or untruth that exists in the community. How to do this effectively is another question. Obviously, one would want others to confirm and support one’s opinions before jumping into the lion’s den of the public arena. So it is a matter of building pro-white communities that can do battle against the hostile forces of political correctness and provide mutual support for the volunteer combatants.

Slowly such communities are starting to form. The publication “American Renaissance” contains intelligent, temperate articles that make a pro-white racial argument. American Third Position is a pro-white political party starting to be active. Yet, while I applaud their courage and integrity, I am not entirely comfortable with the message. It seems that, for whites to be willing to stick their necks out on racial questions, they must go into a warrior mode.

Pro-white but moderate

I must confess that, while being pro-white, I am a moderate with respect to race relations. I have not yet found an organization that matches my own point of view. I have found that groups willing to speak on behalf of white people have developed an attitude of hostility toward minority groups that verges on “racism”. These groups may renounce violence. They may advance their arguments in intelligent, reasoned, and civil ways. They may be a white counterpart to organizations such as the NAACP that agitates on behalf of their particular people. Yet, advancement for white people is seen as a zero-sum game where negativity must be directed toward non-whites.

Maybe this attitude reflects human nature. We think of political struggle in terms of having an opponent to beat rather than, from a higher spiritual perspective, a struggle within oneself to develop a better personal identity. As someone who has developed close relationships with persons of other races, I am not interested in bringing racial conflict into my personal affairs and achieving “victory” on that level. Rather, I am interested in combatting forces within the larger society that express hostility against white people and so achieving an increased measure of dignity and self-respect for me and others of my race. National salvation depends on finding the right solution.

I said I detected “racism” in certain pro-white groups for which I admittedly have sympathy. To be a “white racist” does not mean that the person wants to lynch black people or re-enslave them. It does not imply that the person is consumed by hate. It simply denotes a group selfishness that is found in all groups of people. Still, I would argue that this is a condition which a person should aim to overcome.

White racism in its classic sense, denoting racial “prejudice” against blacks, ascribes negative group characteristics to black people: Black people are considered to be less intelligent than whites. They are personally undisciplined. They show a greater propensity to commit crimes. They typically slur their speech. It is further alleged that blacks are genetically predisposed to have these personal traits. This line of argument could be carried to the point of considering blacks to be sub-human so that their basic human rights might be denied, as in the days of slavery.

To express any of these group characterizations today, even if confirmed by studies and reports, marks one as a “racist” and invites a harsh reaction. What type of policy ought the community to adopt if, for instance, scholarly studies show that blacks have lower IQs than whites or exhibit consistently higher rates of crime? Unless one is prepared to suggest that blacks be shipped to Africa or become victims of racial genocide, there is no rational solution to the problem from a white point of view. We whites must simply get used to living in a community with blacks.

Furthermore, if society attempts to impose laws or regulations that assume black inferiority, they would be unjust to individuals who do not exhibit those negative characteristics. I would accept the argument advanced by Civil Rights advocates fifty years ago that it is wrong to show “prejudice” against individual blacks because one has formed a negative opinion of blacks as a group. One should try to be fair. Some black persons may not conform to the group stereotype. They deserve individual treatment.

The dominant attitude now is, however, to condemn anyone as a racist who makes negative comments about black people as a group, especially implying a genetic cause for black misbehavior. This throws the spotlight back on the accuser: he becomes a “mad dog”, consumed by irrational hate. Yet, the anti-black prejudice is not entirely irrational. Was it not Jesse Jackson who once said, that when he heard footsteps following him at night, he was relieved to find it was a white person. Call it “ghetto” behavior if you will, blacks need to own up to their own misconduct when it occurs rather than point a “racist” finger at the critic.

A way to put white people down

It cannot go unnoticed that the same types of people who routinely oppose anti-black prejudice are now expressing an even more virulent prejudice against whites. They are by no means inhibited from forming opinions of white people as a group and insisting that individual whites conform to that stereotype even if the evidence points in another direction.

An example would be the concept of “white privilege”, a hot topic in academia today. White people are thought to be inherently privileged because whites comprise the majority of people in the United States. If one should point to a white hobo or another white person who appears to be living a hard life, the proponent of white privilege would brush it off with the assertion that whites are “institutionally” privileged because we are living in a white society. Presumably, this society is biased in favor of individual whites.

The assertion of group characteristics, advanced even in the face of contradictory evidence, shows the intellectual depravity of those in the vanguard of anti-white opinion who are, regrettably, concentrated in some of our more respected academic institutions. This is a regime that perpetuates itself by fear and intimidation. White Americans, for their own sake and the sake of our country, must express opposition to such views. The monopoly of racial expression in our major opinion-setting institutions must be broken.

I link the degradation of white people to the degradation of America, so evident today. Since whites are America’s majority population, to denigrate them essentially denigrates the county. It allows an elite to subjugate everyone else following the pattern: First you vilify, then ruin. In this case, if the idea takes hold that white people are “racists” - i.e., evil - then they deserve punishment. The majority white population is then no longer the democratic master of the American political house but a dispirited population that deserves to have its unmerited privilege taken away by bankers, government officials, academics and media pundits, and security personnel. The fault lies with us rather than them.

Therefore, white people need to regroup and seek a different strategy. One approach might be to imitate what blacks did with the Civil Rights movement. Claim white disadvantage and seek to overcome it. The problem is that white people are America’s majority population. Our society’s leaders are still largely white. It would then make little sense to agitate to put more whites in leadership positions.

A better goal would be to try to have these leaders identify more with white people. Maybe greater racial solidarity would translate into closer kinship between the society’s elite class and the mass of people. People are less likely to abuse their sons and daughters or whomever they consider to be in some sense like them. However, anti-discrimination laws prohibit expression of such preferences. There needs to be an ideological framework for developing a political response for making the United States a more white-friendly nation.

Toward a definition of who I am

A good first step toward this end would be to define membership in the white people’s group. European ancestry alone will not suffice. I would propose three criteria for inclusion in this group: (1) I am an American. (2) I am a person of European ancestry who considers himself primarily white rather than a member of an ethnic subgroup. (3) I belong to America’s majority population and identify myself as such.

Such a definition would exclude certain persons who are biologically white: (1) Jews, because they think of themselves primarily as a group apart from the majority population, (2) Hispanic whites who consider themselves mainly Hispanic, (3) women, gays & lesbians who, though white, consider themselves as persons apart from the majority population, being a sub-group oppressed by the majority population.

Clearly, how people regard themselves affects membership in the population that I call white. If Jews, Hispanics, women, and gays and lesbians identify with the majority white population, then they are white. If they are alienated from this population or hold themselves as a people apart from it, they then belong to whatever sub-group they have chosen rather than the white race as I define it.

With this definition in place, one sees that white people’s struggle to advance themselves politically, economically, culturally, and spiritually is necessarily different than it has been for other people. Majority status is the reason. The underdog posture is unsuitable for their challenge. White people must advance as a people regardless of what others do. In other words, whites must stand on their own two feet and not pretend that their success depends on someone else’s good will or that someone else is holding them back. No, the majority population in a democratic society ought to prevail; and it it does not, there is a problem with the system of governance. It is not racial minorities but the political leadership that whites would then need to examine.

Some principles of healthy group identity

I propose that white people, organized as a group seeking racial advancement, deliberately pursue a positive self-identity following these principles:

1. Each group has the right to a healthy, positive identity regardless of past history.

2. Each group has the right to define its own identity rather than accepting someone else’s definition.

3. A healthy group self-definition is one that does not require some other group to stand in a negative relationship to itself.

Each one of us has multiple identities. I am: (1) a white person, (2) an American, and (3) a human being or citizen of the world.

As a white person, I participate in defining white identity. I neither attempt to define black people’s identity nor allow black people to define my racial identity. However, since both black and white people are American, it is appropriate for both to contribute to the definition of an American identity. Similarly, being fellow humans, black and white Americans as well as citizens of other countries all have legitimate input into the question of what it means to be human.

Generally speaking, it would be well to identify more with the broader group of humanity than with the narrower national or racial group. I am human first, American second, and a white American third. If I identify more with my race than with humanity or my nation, I might be called a “racist”. If I identify more with my nation than with humanity, I might be called a “nationalist”. The earth would be more peaceful if people, identifying with humanity, considered themselves primarily citizens of the world.

That does not mean, however, that race should be minimized as a component of one’s personal identity, especially when that part of identity is under attack. White people need to defend themselves against malicious criticism.

Moral dualism

Malice comes about, in part, through invidious comparisons with others: I am better than you. I am bigger and smarter than you, says the older to the younger child. I am intellectually superior to you, says the college-educated person to the high-school graduate. I am morally your superior, says the religious person to someone outside the fold. God is on my side.

White identity should be something else. Whites should revel in what they themselves have done, not in having beaten or surpassed other people. Their own positive identity should not depend on the negative identity of someone else. In today’s environment, positive identity is often defined in terms of superior victimhood. If you have abused me, then I am superior to you. This, too, is something that needs to be relegated to history’s dustbin. I should not nurse a grievance against you to make myself look good.

This means that some of the cherished images of our religious culture need to go: Moses confronting Pharaoh, David slaying Goliath. These are contentious self-images unflattering to others. God is on everyone’s side, not just yours. Since moral dualism is imbedded in western religion, perhaps it’s time to consider religions and philosophies of the east which assert the oneness of the Universe. From a higher perspective, good versus evil does not matter so much. All happens for a reason.

White people have been guilty of moral dualism as in historical drama where cowboys invade the west and Indians bite the dust. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. We whites who watched the movies cheered as another people was cleared from the land by rifle-toting cavalry. The dualistic view was also inherent in race-based slavery. Today, however, all types of people rightly receive recognition as human beings so that white people’s “winning” self-image must change.

Let us therefore be leaders in advancing our own identity without injuring others. Let us, for instance, celebrate the heroes of our race who distinguished themselves through creativity. Being originally from Detroit, I would pick such men as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Charles F. Kettering, William S. Knudsen, George Romney and others who built and sustained the U.S. automobile industry and other modern industries as my racial and national heroes. We all have benefitted from their creative imagination and skill.

I know it sounds wimpish to envision a world without enemies. But do real men need to show courage by fighting other men? Is the willingness to kill built into the genes of red-blooded Americans? I would argue that there are opportunities to show courage without resorting to this.

If white people are so brave, why do they not stand up for themselves and their race when the agents of political correctness remorselessly attack them? Is it so hurtful to be called a “racist” that one dares not act in self-defense? What is wrong with white people that they seem to lack any sense of racial dignity? One can be both courageous and a racial moderate who declines to attack other people as a means of advancing oneself.

Let's stand on our own two feet

My idea of a positive white identity would be to concentrate on one’s own activities and ignore what others are doing in comparison. Stand up on your own two feet to assert who you are, not comparing yourself to anyone else or claiming any kind of victimhood. It is not productive to develop a list of the bad things which members of the black race have done. From an identity standpoint, that is the black people’s problem. As a white person, just be yourself. Find within yourself a basis for pride in yourself and work on making this a larger part of your personality.

That does not mean, however, that a positive identity excludes all negativity or fighting for oneself. Certainly it is legitimate to fight the many attacks on white people. It is legitimate to fight against the idea that displacement of the white population in America by other peoples is good for the country as a whole. It is legitimate to fight the regime of political correctness that renders one-sided judgments to the detriment of our race. It is legitimate to celebrate white achievement and criticize persons who would dismiss this. It is even legitimate to claim that our scheme of self-worth, as not depending on another person’s loss, is superior to the ethic of the Civil Rights movement as it has recently become. It is legitimate to oppose one set of ideas with another.

A scheme of identity for everyone

We are presenting here a scheme of identity that anyone can use. There is no reason why whites and blacks cannot both prosper in their separate racial groups. As Americans living in the same land, there is no reason that they cannot prosper together. However, this is not happening now. Forced integration violates the boundaries of a healthy racial identity. Enforcement of one-sided anti-discrimination laws violates our sense of justice. Political correctness eviscerates freedom of speech. In a free society, people must be free to find their own way. A self-chosen scheme of positive identity is a good starting point for everyone. In America, we can become whoever we want to be so long as this does not impinge upon the rights of others.

We whites are therefore the master of our own identity if we want to be. As Americans, we proclaim our identity independence. Let no one else try to define us or shame us into becoming someone else. If such a self-empowering ideology can be developed, then we can hold our head high as white people, look others in the face, and unflinchingly tell them who we are. And if we are dissatisfied with ourselves as we presently are, we can work at becoming someone better. This power is already in our hands. It remains to find like-minded persons with whom to build a community of proud and strong white people to take our country back from those who, misusing history, would disparage our very nature and being.


Click for a translation into:

French - Spanish - German - Portuguese - Italian  


to: main page       Political Correctness  


who am I?      three principles of identity      identities in      paradox of education      several American identities      test for U.S. citizens      Inger Sites      Detroit chauvinism       Tecumseh’s brother    identity and globalization      workshop on racism      black and white identities      Ford and Lindbergh      Jewish conspiracy?      boy crisis      family tree      my birth family      father’s family      mother’s family      in search of my identity      resume      documents