American Renaissance - 1 - April 2000
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.—
Vol 11 No. 4April 2000
Don’t Write Off the Liberals
A real racial movementcannot be exclusively con-servative.
by Melinda Jelliby
am a liberal. I am also a whitewoman committed to my race andcivilization. I am in favor of muchof what is called “big government,” Ithink the Second Amendment is ananachronism, and I have been reading
for more thanfive years. This may appear to be ashocking contradiction but, as I willshow, it is not. Nor am I alone in myviews. Admittedly, there are not verymany of us liberals-cum-racial nation-alists, but I predict there will be more.The white consciousness movementneeds friends–from across the politicalspectrum–if it is to succeed, and it shouldnot structure itself in a way that discour-ages potential allies needlessly.To read AR is to get the impressionthat racial consciousness is a packagedeal based mostly on opposition; oppo-sition to welfare, gun control, big gov-ernment, women’s liberation, homo-sexuals, the United Nations, free trade,and maybe even public schools and so-cial security. There is no logical reasonracial consciousness has to be tied tothese things, and to do so as explicitlyas AR does risks failing to be–dare I sayit?–inclusive. It is true that a clear un-derstanding of race is today more likelyto be found among people who also takecertain positions generally called “con-servative,” but there is nothing inherentor inevitable about this.
The Historical Perspective
As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually everyaspect of what is today called “racism”was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be nec-essary to note that that fabric has alwaysbeen made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were “liberal”by today’s standards. “Liberalism,” inthat sense, was perfectly compatible witha healthy understanding of the meaningof race.Although it probably saddens thehearts of most AR readers, it is possibleto view American history as the steadytriumph of “liberalism,” defined as thesteady dismantling of tradition, hierar-chy, and inequality in the search forequality. The very establishment of thecountry as a republic rather than a mon-archy was in this sense liberal, as were along list of Constitutional and legalchanges: abolition of the property quali-fication for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, votingrights for women, compulsory educa-tion, the income tax, social security, or-ganized labor, inheritance taxes, etc.,etc., all the way up to the AmericansWith Disabilities Act and homosexualmarriage.Whether one sees this as the marchof progress or the march of folly, mypoint is that however bitter the debatesmay have been over these policies, upuntil just a few decades ago neither sidedoubted that America was a Europeannation that could not survive if it ceasedto be European. The suffragettes, for ex-ample, wanted votes for women–a radi-cal idea at the time–but they were not“liberal” about race. And of course,many abolitionists, including AbrahamLincoln, wanted to free the slaves andthen expel them from the country. In thatsense, he was more “conservative” onrace than the supporters of slavery; hedidn’t want blacks in the country under
circumstances. My point is that eversince the founding of this country, it hasbeen possible to work for far-reaching,even revolutionary change without up-setting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.It is easy to find “liberals” fromAmerica’s past who were also “racists.”Take William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), certainly no reactionary. Hethought blacks should be prevented fromvoting “on the ground that civilizationhas a right to preserve itself.” At the1924 Democratic convention he spokestrongly against a motion to condemnthe Ku Klux Klan, and helped defeat it.His Populist Party running mate in 1886,Tom Watson (1856–1924), went evenfurther, calling blacks a “hideous, omi-nous, national menace.” In 1908 Watsonran for public office “standing squarelyfor white supremacy.” “Lynch law is agood sign,” he wrote. “It shows that asense of justice yet lives among thepeople.” When he died, the leader of theAmerican Socialist Party Eugene Debs(1855–1926)–certainly no conservative–wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic soul
It is racial nuttiness thatis our enemy, not liberal-ism, and they are not thesame thing.
Eugene Debs . . . sensible socialism.