Chuck talks more about his disagreement with white nationalists, and I get a better idea of his philosophical stance.
Of whom the American nation properly consists is a matter of contention. VDare.com takes the position that it is properly composed of the descendents of British Protestants, and possibly German Protestants as well, but not later arriving white ethnic groups such as the Irish, Italian, Poles and other eastern and southern European ethnics, Jews, or Catholics, and that the arrival of these people created the corrupt populism manipulated by the elite for their own ends enshrined in the New Deal. The wave of Third World immigration that started 50 years ago is of course even worse, and the issue they focus on. The idea that the American nation is based on a set of political ideas and principles is derided as the “proposition nation”- only northern European Protestants can be real Americans.
The problem with this is that the primary rivalry in America has always been between groups of British Protestants, those of the North and those of the South. Other groups have been merely pawns in this game. HBD guru and VDare veteran Steve Sailer takes a more sanguine and politically acceptable view, which approaches the issue of immigration from the standpoint of “citizenism”, that the immigration policy of the US should explicitly benefit those who are citizens now, and should not be conducted for the benefit of immigrants. “Citizenism” isnt’ the same as the proposition nation but Chuck seems to conflate the two. As he says-
“If we’re talking about the process or the system, this country was not founded on an aesthetic principle. It was founded on processional principles – I assume we’re all familiar with the founding documents. If the rule of law prevails and if the system is sound, it doesn’t really matter which pieces go where. Taylor et al have an eye on the preservation of certain aspects of the culture or the heritage. They want a certain outcome, and they aren’t really concerned with whether or not the system operates fairly and consistently.”
The first problem with this, as Chuck should be willing to admit, is that there is no “process” or “rule of law”. The elites do what they want and invent a legal principle to justify it, and it has been this way from the beginning. The second problem is that while whites don’t particularly prefer their own kind, because we have been conditioned not to for generations, all other groups do- blacks and Jews especially, Hispanics to a lesser extent.
A nation or political entity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Just making something white won’t eliminate all or even most problems, but a system where non-whites have a lot of power they can use against whites is miserable for whites and ultimately doomed.
The idea that differing racial groups can deal with each other honestly and fairly in the framework of an objective set of rules has been tried and failed. Chuck lives in a state, Kansas, that is 78% white, 11% Hispanic and only 6% black. He reports dealing with bad black behavior on the job, but doesn’t seem to understand how it permeates the culture, society and politics. I think he is comfortable with what he believes and will remain a “color-blind” constitutionalist conservative. Or he may come to appreciate that NAMs have a corrosive effect that the current system not only does not correct but actually encourages.
Does Jared Taylor care whether the system operates “fairly and consistently”? I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t operate fairly and consistently now. It operates to keep elite whites in power by selectively benefiting those who support them, NAMs and a large portion of white women. Do I want a system that selectively benefits me? I do indeed! I plead guilty and make no apologies for it, and I don’t accept the arguments or moral stature of a system arrayed against me.