In "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism, a column appearing this past week on the V-Dare.com and the American Renaissance websites, columnist Steve Sailer writes, "By 'citizenism,' I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners."

Thus does Sailer repeat, perhaps inadvertently, a standard "love the one you're with instead of the one you're like" argument used by blenders.

This same argument could be restated thus: We should favor those who are genetically unlike us if they happen to live near us in this geographic area of the planet that has been called America and we should not so favor those who are genetically like us if they don't live on this particular piece of dirt.

It almost sounds as though Sailer is advocating for a version of the Stockholm Syndrome.

That Mr. Sailer apparently doesn't understand, or does, but chooses to ignore, the importance and primacy of genes, genotypes and phenotypes (genes, for short) in both the small and the big picture of existence and in the meaning of life, seems clear from his column.

To fully understand why Sailer's argument that we should value citizenship over genes is an error of the first magnitude, one must start with the sure scientific knowledge that we are our genes and without our genes, we are not ourselves. While that may sound a little silly, it is the truth.

Genes are essential. Change them, or water them down, and we are not Us. Thus, if we like who we are, it is important for Us to protect, to preserve, to improve and to multiply our genes. This is done by mixing and mating with others who are Us and by not mixing and mating with those who are not-Us.

While having a bias in favor of our fellow American citizens made sense for Whites when America was mostly a genetically homogeneous White nation, it doesn't make much sense today when America is not what it was. In fact, having such a bias is unnatural. It is also harmful for the improvement of Whites in particular and for the improvement of the species as a whole. This is so, because such a bias, and the blindness to genetic similarities and dissimilarities that it encourages, leads logically to bedroom genocide and the resultant clustering of genetic traits in the middle of the Bell Curve--where dwells the one size fits all human--the Tan Everyman.

If you're unclear what Sailer is suggesting, note that he lumps all non-Americans into the term "foreigners." Thus, according to Sailer, White Americans should help non-White Americans over their fellow Whites who happen to have been born in different countries.

This is old and tired thinking of the type we saw during the two world wars, where low consciousness White Americans went to war against White Europeans who were demonized as the others, when that's not what they were at all. The truth of existence is that White Americans are much closer to White Europeans, who may not even speak the same language and who live far away, than we are to non-White Americans who do speak our language and who may live next door.

To be clear. There is no genetic American. Once, American and White were nearly synonymous. No more.

As Sailer goes merrily on his misguided jingoistic way, he continues, throughout his column, to emphasize the wrongheaded view that artificial citizenship should trump natural genes.

It can't be emphasized enough that this advocacy of the artificial non-genetic identity "American," rather than the authentic genetic identity that we are born with, is a basic error in thinking.

Such thinking can, and has, led to a soft form of genocide, not just of Whites, but of non-Whites as well. Go ask some present day blue eyed "Indians," whose Indian ancestors wanted to be "just Americans," and practice what Sailer calls "citizenism," about this.

Chances are you'll find these present day watered down Indians now scrambling to prove--either out of a new found pride in genes, or because they want to open casinos--that they have some smidgen of Indian blood left in their veins.

The truth of the matter is that without a critical mass of Indian blood, one is not really an Indian at all. Same thing with all the other races.

Or, better yet, go visit the Black Jamaicans with German surnames and have them show you pictures of their White German great grandparents. Then, try to keep a straight face as you tell Whites with consciousness that finding identity as a citizen of an artificial nation; as a Jamaican or as an American, for example, is better than finding it in genes.

Sailer also writes: "A huge number of Americans grasp that we are lucky to be American citizens and they want to pass on their good fortune to their posterity ."

Ah, Mr. Sailer, "posterity" refers to children and offspring. If Whites are replaced by non-Whites so that America is all non-White, should Whites feel joy that they have passed on something to those who are not really of their posterity? Why? Where's the value in that? Shall we feel pride, as we lie in our graves, that those who inherit what we have created are not our people and that they do not have Us--our genes--within them? That makes about as much sense as it would to feel pride if sentient ants suddenly called themselves Americans, waved tiny American flags, and took over.

Sailer then tells us: "But the odds seem a whole lot better that “citizenism” will prove more effective at defending America from harm than... White Nationalism ...."

What makes Sailer think the goal of those with White consciousness (aka, at least for this column, "White Nationalists") is to defend the artificial and blended nation, America? His premise is wrong. My guess is that the goal, and the proper one at that, of many with White consciousness is to defend White people whether they happen to be in America or not.

It's important in life to be able to distinguish between the artificial and the genuine and to not foolishly defend the artificial at the cost of the genuine.

The United States of America has been around for a couple of hundred years. Our genetic lines have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Which is real? Which is us? Which is our most essential identity? If America is gone, but our genes survive, do we survive? Yes. If our genes are gone, but America survives, do we survive? No.

Our real identity is found in our genes, not in a written constitution or in the ideas and notions of fallible men.

A nation, including America, is a little like a river. Both the nation and the river have names that remain constant but with contents that can change markedly.

Even though the names may remain the same; who among us would drink the polluted water and, while gagging, try to convince others that it's still sweet because it once was so and because the name is the same? Those who would do this, might be the reality deniers among us who will knowingly avoid the many no-go, non-White areas of our large cities--made no-go by non-White genes--and pretend such areas don't exist or that they don't have a genetic cause--all the while they wave the American flag as though this is 1900's White America.

The water is not sweet and this is not 1900's White America.

America is now post-American America. The water has changed. White Americans are less and less the major part of our nation river. They are disappearing all the while they smile as they're being sold down the river with a big lie that our strength comes from our diversity. Their salvation, though most may not know it, is to reject the conceits and lies of this Dark Age and find their identity in their genes, and to treat those genes as sacred.

Blind patriotism and loyalty toward a nation made artificial through a disconnect from genes is a major error in the struggle to survive. And, one does not survive unless one's genes survive so that one's descendents are of the same genotype and phenotype.

To think otherwise would be to be like ants feeling blind patriotism and loyalty to an anthill, simply because it's called an anthill, even though it is now full of grasshoppers who are killing off the ants.