back to main page


Some principles of New Dignity


This is a package of political proposals and positions. Maybe you do not agree with some of them. New Dignity Party fancies itself the liberal wing of the pro-white race movement. You have our permission to opt out of positions that you do not like and still support the New Dignity approach. Many speak of having a "big tent"; we practice this. We reject none for having an opinion that is sincerely and honestly held. No one is beneath anyone else's dignity. What you think is a part of your identity which is to be respected by me even if my beliefs are different.

We advocate on behalf of white people because there is a crying need for such advocacy. Our constituency is defined as much by political circumstance as demographics. We are for all those people that the Civil Rights model of politics is against whether it be: white segregationists and racists opposed in the 1950s and 1960s, men of sexist or patriarchal tendencies scorned in the 1970s and 1980s, homophobes and immigrant-haters loathed as bigots in recent decades, or anti-Semites denounced in all places and at all times. We are those persons said to be on the wrong side of history. We are that residual population shown little respect or mercy, and that "other" whom decent people ought to avoid. Whoever feels left out of President Obama's emerging political coalition is welcome to join us. But let's start with the whites.

Barack Obama rose to political prominence by delivering a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention about an America where there were neither white nor black people, and neither red states nor blue states, but only the United States of America. That was a high-minded sentiment and Obama was elected President on such a principle. But then, in his 2012 reelection campaign, the President reverted to the standard politics of demographic divisiveness practiced during the past half century, focusing particular attention on women, Hispanics, and the GLBT community. Black voters, not having to be persuaded, supported him by a better than ten-to-one margin. It was a 180-degree turn from Obama's earlier political identity. The president's people personally savaged Mitt Romney because, as a business man, he took full advantage of tax and other laws that Washington politicians of both parties had put in place in exchange for financial contributions from Wall Street interests. Plainly put, this was not a campaign designed to unite the country but one that would show the despised white man the door.

The problem is, of course, much larger than Obama and others of his political persuasion. It is larger than problems that can be attributed to the black race. We are talking about changing anti-white attitudes, among white people as well as among other groups. And where we have caused our own problems, we are the ones responsible for doing something about this. It's always more productive to deal with what is within our own control than try to change someone else.

Even if white identity needs urgently to be revisited, there are also many other problems facing Americans. It would be good to look at some of them.

A long-festering problem has been the series of murders and subsequent cover-ups that began with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, if not earlier. No, a lone gunman did not kill Kennedy. There was, in fact, a conspiracy, and it involved high-ranking people within the U.S. Government. To date, we do not have an official explanation for this incident that lays reasonable doubts to rest. The same is true of assassinations involving others such as Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and Senator Paul Wellstone. The government knows something about these murders that it is not willing to share with the public. Democracy cannot survive a situation like this. We cannot have secretive groups within government killing our elected representatives.

An even more egregious situation would involve the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. No, jet-fuel fires in the upper stories of the two World Trade Center towers did not cause those towers to collapse and fall neatly to the ground in less than ten seconds. Numerous architects and engineers have testified that this is physically impossible. And what brought "Building Seven" down later in the day even though it was not hit by aircraft? The answer must be something like a controlled demolition; and this means a conspiracy. Suspicious circumstances also surround what is said to have been the crash of an air plane into the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania. Not only were the 9/11 events given a dishonest investigation but it has been considered unreasonable, even illegitimate, to have doubts about what the government claims happened. The respectable media are quite monolithic on this point. Until they and others show a rekindled appetite for truth, we cannot be confident that our democracy will last. What are these people hiding? We want to know.

The Number One issue in the 2012 presidential election was said to be jobs. Unemployment near or above 8 percent is unacceptable. Government needs to do something about this. Yet neither President Obama nor Governor Romney offered a credible program to create jobs. The one talked of educating young Americans for jobs of the future, and the other of tax policies that would encourage greater investment. Neither makes sense. Outsourcing to foreign countries has contributed to loss of U.S. jobs. Both spoke of increased exports, not mentioning that imports would likely increase as well. But the real problem is that machines are taking over much of the "work" needed for useful production. The same output can be produced with fewer human beings. The classical solution is to cut working hours accordingly. The mainstream politicians will not consider this because Wall Street is opposed. Someone has to raise reduced work time as an option for creating jobs. Organized labor isn't doing it. Why not us?

Finally, we need to take a stand in defense of the free-enterprise system where the buyers and sellers of products negotiate price. Such a system is undermined where insurance pays the bill. Insurance is a wealth-redistribution scheme where many pay into a fund and a few make claims against it. Sometimes this is necessary but it has been made too large a part of the system. We need to get medical costs down, not force more people into paying for other people's care. Another threat is government-imposed licensing. In the name of improved quality, government has imposed an additional barrier to productive enterprise. This is a sop to educators whose services are required for the license. It keeps prices high, both because the educators need to be paid and because newcomers are excluded from an occupational field who might compete with current practitioners. In general, the big guys collude with government to prevent the little guys from also participating in a lucrative trade.

It may be, however, that sometimes government does need to intervene in the free market to ensure an equitable allocation of scarce resources. The shorter-workweek proposal would be an example. Government needs to create incentives to reduce working hours so that, as automation proceeds, the available employment opportunities for human beings will be more widely shared. It also makes sense for government to subsidize renewable energy sources while taxing non-renewable ones so that the society's long-term energy supplies will remain stable. It makes sense to impose taxes that will pay for externalized costs of products not borne by consumers. Government does have a legitimate role to play in the economy so long as it acts in the public interest and does not favor one group over another because of political influence.


See also: Americans have a right to their own identities rather than ones prescribed by others. Some facts related to toppling of the the twin towers A collection of writings on the economics, politics, and history of the shorter-workweek proposal. How some landlords in Minneapolis fought local government.