A basic prediction of the alt-right is that, at some point, despite all the naming and shaming, whites in America will have to organize politically according to the rules of identity politics.
From the point of view of American whites, and especially white males, the identity politics of blacks, Hispanics, women and LGBT is reaching the point where, unless we organize politically as white males, we will be thrown under the bus.
In that process, people like me, that really don't like to identify by race, will be forced to join the white party, or perish in the wilderness.
But what about white liberals?
Up to now, white liberals have presented themselves as Homeric gods -- way above the earthly realms of humans -- dispensing divine justice, according to their whims or their deeply felt sense of justice.
But liberals have been teaching the world for 50 years about white privilege and the male gaze. Where does that leave male white liberals when whites are forced into white identity politics.
There have been some murmurings that the minorities in the Democrat Party are getting restive under the tutelage of white leaders. What is it that makes Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer so special? What makes them think they can represent the traditionally marginalized victims of white privilege in the future? According to current liberal doctrine it is monstrous for men to write about women and whites to write about blacks. How can any man presume to know about the female experience, or a white presume to understand the black experience?
Well, if that applies to writers of fiction then it has to apply to politicians. So how can Chuck Schumer, a white straight man, presume to speak for the voters in his Democratic Party that are overwhelmingly female, non-white, and LGBT.
At the moment, as indicated by Rebels of Google dumping to Breitbart, elite white males do pretty well at Google, because Google recruits from top Ivy League universities and finds a lot of elite white males. Then it recruits at lesser institutions to fill up the quotas with females and minorities. On this view elite white liberals are doing pretty well. And the Rebels say that to succeed as an ordinary middle-class white male you have to be really good.
Yeah and what about the unbearable whiteness of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google? Shouldn't they give way to real and genuine underrepresentated minorities. And I do not mean Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who according to reports is a Brahmin, the top caste in India that has been top caste for thousands of years. How about an untouchable next time, Larry and Sergey?
What happens to elite white males when identity politics takes over everything and elite white males are the only white males left un-conquered?
As I write in my latest American Thinker piece, there is only one workable alternative on offer to the war of all against all implied in the racist and tribal practice of identity politics. And that is nationalism.
In this, as in many things, our liberal friends have got the wrong end of the stick.
The correct judgment for the elite to make at the end of World War II was not to decide "never again" will we allow the ghost of nationalism to rise from Hitler's grave. It should have been to realize how remarkable it was, after the mess of World War I and the elite failures of the 1920s in Germany and in the US in the wake of the 1929 Crash, that ordinary people still stayed loyal to the completely artificial and cooked-up idea of nation, and did not revert to their more natural tribal and kindred instincts.
And yet the bottom line of elite politics for the last 50 or so years is to encourage tribalism and racism in their little darlings, the women, the blacks, the Hispanics, and more. It worked so long as they could name and shame middle-class whites into silence.
But of course, this elite politics was and is profoundly unjust. Nothing remarkable about this: that's what always happens when a ruling class rules and the inheritors of their dynasty exhibit a certain conceit for being, as they say, born on third base and thinking they hit a triple.
So last Saturday, after the Charlottesville riot, President Trump invoked our common identity as Americans.
I'd call it a strong statement in favor of the only idea that is going to stop the United States crumbling into dust.
And it is the last best hope of elite white male liberals. Only nationalism can save them from the humiliation of have to join the white party in the identity politics of all against all.
From the point of view of American whites, and especially white males, the identity politics of blacks, Hispanics, women and LGBT is reaching the point where, unless we organize politically as white males, we will be thrown under the bus.
In that process, people like me, that really don't like to identify by race, will be forced to join the white party, or perish in the wilderness.
But what about white liberals?
Up to now, white liberals have presented themselves as Homeric gods -- way above the earthly realms of humans -- dispensing divine justice, according to their whims or their deeply felt sense of justice.
But liberals have been teaching the world for 50 years about white privilege and the male gaze. Where does that leave male white liberals when whites are forced into white identity politics.
There have been some murmurings that the minorities in the Democrat Party are getting restive under the tutelage of white leaders. What is it that makes Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer so special? What makes them think they can represent the traditionally marginalized victims of white privilege in the future? According to current liberal doctrine it is monstrous for men to write about women and whites to write about blacks. How can any man presume to know about the female experience, or a white presume to understand the black experience?
Well, if that applies to writers of fiction then it has to apply to politicians. So how can Chuck Schumer, a white straight man, presume to speak for the voters in his Democratic Party that are overwhelmingly female, non-white, and LGBT.
At the moment, as indicated by Rebels of Google dumping to Breitbart, elite white males do pretty well at Google, because Google recruits from top Ivy League universities and finds a lot of elite white males. Then it recruits at lesser institutions to fill up the quotas with females and minorities. On this view elite white liberals are doing pretty well. And the Rebels say that to succeed as an ordinary middle-class white male you have to be really good.
Yeah and what about the unbearable whiteness of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google? Shouldn't they give way to real and genuine underrepresentated minorities. And I do not mean Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who according to reports is a Brahmin, the top caste in India that has been top caste for thousands of years. How about an untouchable next time, Larry and Sergey?
What happens to elite white males when identity politics takes over everything and elite white males are the only white males left un-conquered?
As I write in my latest American Thinker piece, there is only one workable alternative on offer to the war of all against all implied in the racist and tribal practice of identity politics. And that is nationalism.
In this, as in many things, our liberal friends have got the wrong end of the stick.
The correct judgment for the elite to make at the end of World War II was not to decide "never again" will we allow the ghost of nationalism to rise from Hitler's grave. It should have been to realize how remarkable it was, after the mess of World War I and the elite failures of the 1920s in Germany and in the US in the wake of the 1929 Crash, that ordinary people still stayed loyal to the completely artificial and cooked-up idea of nation, and did not revert to their more natural tribal and kindred instincts.
And yet the bottom line of elite politics for the last 50 or so years is to encourage tribalism and racism in their little darlings, the women, the blacks, the Hispanics, and more. It worked so long as they could name and shame middle-class whites into silence.
But of course, this elite politics was and is profoundly unjust. Nothing remarkable about this: that's what always happens when a ruling class rules and the inheritors of their dynasty exhibit a certain conceit for being, as they say, born on third base and thinking they hit a triple.
So last Saturday, after the Charlottesville riot, President Trump invoked our common identity as Americans.
Above all else we must remember this truth: no matter our color, creed, religion, or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country, we love our God, we love our flag, we're proud of our country, we're proud of who we are. So we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we are doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen.In liberal-land this is called a weak stance against racism.
My administration is restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty between this nation and its citizens, but our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other, and cherish our history an our future together. So important. We have to respect each other, ideally we have to love each other.
I'd call it a strong statement in favor of the only idea that is going to stop the United States crumbling into dust.
And it is the last best hope of elite white male liberals. Only nationalism can save them from the humiliation of have to join the white party in the identity politics of all against all.
No comments:
Post a Comment