Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 2

Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 1

At the end of the first part of this post I said I’d look a little more closely at the specifics of the Dissident Right’s logic and compare it to my own way of looking at where we are.

First off let’s acknowledge something that we cannot afford to forget.  The Dissident Right (or Alt-Right if you prefer) was the only group who both knew what was going wrong in this country and weren’t afraid to say it out loud.  They recognized that the Left was in control of all the levers of power and the Establishment Republicans had no intention of changing the results of the Left’s program.

The Dissident Right explained exactly how the schools and colleges proselytized the children and how the Media, the Democrats, Big Business and the Courts twisted every part of society until nothing remains of the normal world of just a few years ago.  And as proven, the Establishment Republicans use the anger this generates to get themselves re-elected.  But once in office they can be depended on to never actually reverse any of this destruction and instead just talk about how dead set they are against whatever the next outrage is.  And when that outrage becomes law they just move along to the next.

And the Dissident Right identified the fact that both Parties and Big Business were determined to use immigration, both legal and illegal, as a means to swamp out the votes of the citizens of the United States as a way to eliminate all resistance to their agenda.  It was plain during the 2016 election that none of the Republicans, no matter how “conservative” he was, would say a word against illegal immigration for fear of being called a racist.

And the Dissident Right was the only group that supported Trump.  Everyone else either said he was a joke or abhorred him for being a vulgarian.

So, as I said above, ignoring the Dissident Right means ignoring the only group that knew how we were losing the Country to the Left and how we could stop them from doing it.  Clearly what they say has to be carefully considered.

But you might say, why not just jump on their band wagon?  For me, that is a disturbing choice.  The Dissident Right is comprised of people who believe that differences in race and even ethnicity prevent a heterogeneous state like the present United States from living in harmony.  They believe that the future will be a fractious hodge-podge of identity groups that, led by the trouble-makers on the Left, will spend all their time pursuing imaginary grievances against the European Americans that they’ve been told are holding them back from being happy.

The Dissident Right points to affirmative action discrimination and the destruction of the family and the LGBTQ lawfare warriors and de-platforming of people on the right and say we are already there and that once we are a majority-minority-nation, things will only get much worse.

Accepting this hypothesis as true is not something I would do unless forced by irrefutable evidence.  But having it espoused by people who have been right about things that the majority were wrong about means I have to find reasonable arguments for why the Dissident Right is mistaken in their conclusions.

Instead of going through a bunch of cases and subsets of categories I’ll sum up the problem we’re experiencing by saying that in the 1960s when the economy was very strong the leaders of the Democrat party saw that they no longer had an unbeatable coalition of disaffected voters like they had in the 1930s and 1940s.  They decided to follow the Marxist playbook and weaken their enemies by sowing as much division as they could.  They espoused abortion as a way to destroy the family and they sponsored all the grievance movements to further fracture the country.  They infested the schools and steadily eroded intellectual life until even the sciences were politicized and distracted from their primary functions.  And they enshrined massive immigration both legal and illegal.

But even when all this was going on it was still possible for a conservative leader like Ronald Reagan to rally the Right.  And when that happened, the country was able to see itself as one people.  It was only when we were led by people who believed in the propaganda of the Left that everything has fallen completely apart.  Basically, since 1988 (thirty years) we have been living under the rule of the Left and their Globalist Echoes on the Fake Right.  Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama allowed every outrage of the Left to happen to us with either enthusiasm or feigned reluctance.

This track record is why I think that the Dissident Right may be mistaken in the irreversibility of the changes we are experiencing.  In just two years President Trump has installed a whole generation of federal judges who will begin the process of reversing the damage done by the rogue judiciary.  Without Justice Kennedy it’s possible that the SCOTUS will reverse the decisions that found a constitutional mandate for abortion and gay marriage and affirmative action.  Those types of actions would change the world we live in.  Once those injustices are addressed people would see the world much differently.

The final thing that I need to address is the Race Realism that the Dissident Right says will prevent the United States from existing in harmony.  They claim that both differences in behavior and feelings of separateness will forever keep different races and ethnicities from living peacefully together.  My experience with diversity is a product of growing up and living in New York City in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.  Believe me when I tell you that things were very far from harmonious in the “glorious mosaic” that existed in that era.  There was a separate neighborhood every ten to fifteen blocks and mostly the ethnic and racial groups didn’t happily mingle or even interact.  There were riots and even several large areas of the city burned down.  Crime was rampant and the subways were very dangerous as were the parks and other empty areas.  Of course, the Democrats were always stoking the unrest with grievance propaganda.  But then I remember what happened when the city finally had had enough and elected a law and order Republican, Rudy Giuliani.  It got better!  And indeed, the people of all races and ethnicities felt more united and less angry when a sensible government started enforcing the law and holding everyone accountable.

I won’t claim that there aren’t differences between people.  In fact, I’ll go one step further and says we’re all different from each other.  Every family has a smarter kid and a tougher kid and a kid who doesn’t follow the rules.  But if one kid does better in school you can’t hold him back to make the less smart kid feel better about himself.  And as every parent knows, the best way to keep the peace in a family is to come up with reasonable rules and make sure that everyone follows them.  It’s only when you see someone else getting away with something, you’re not allowed to that trouble begins.

So, this is getting overly long.  My way of thinking about this is that if we can elect non-leftists who want to restore normalcy to the country, we can do it.  Maybe it won’t happen.  But just saying it’s impossible doesn’t appeal to me, at least not yet.  President Trump has given me hope that it can be done.  Let’s see if he can do it before we throw in the towel.

Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 1

One of the most troubling aspects of the America we now live in is the racial animosity exhibited almost universally across the whole spectrum of political ideologies.  Of course, the Marxists and their descendants, the Progressives, have perfected it into a weapon that they use to inflame hatred against Americans of European Descent or as we used to call them Americans.  But the fallout of this multi-generational strategy is that their opponents, especially on the very farthest edges of the Right Wing are learning to use this same tactic in reverse.  A whole generation of Alt-Right and Dissident Right ideologues are focusing on racial identity politics and the tactics of racial polarization to the exclusion of almost anything else.  In fact, this idea that racial identity will trump all other ways of uniting and dividing people has actually made headway among formerly “color-blind” conservatives.  My read on this is that rather than any effective proselytizing by the Dissident Right, the real catalyst for this transformation was the racial animus and partisanship demonstrated by the Obama Administration during the Black Lives Matter and other teachable moments that our “Dear Leader” talked down to us about.

In that sense I somewhat understand the depth of the hatred that has developed along the racial divide.  The behavior by the Justice Department in fueling these fake police incidents was outrageous and did enormous harm by throwing fuel on the already hot flashpoints that exist in the crime ridden ghettos where the police are just about all that stands between poor people and the law of the jungle.

But what it has turned into on the Dissident Right is a conviction that civic life and law and order cannot transcend differences between people of different races and ethnicities.  The more thoughtful voices in that community do not contend that we are headed for some kind of civil war or balkanization of the United States.  They talk more about individual states ignoring laws that they do not agree with and going their own way on these things.  In fact, this is not that different from what California and some other places have already done on immigration law with their so-called sanctuary cities.

What this all amounts to is the Dissident Right declaring that the Progressives have outmaneuvered the Right by increasing legal and illegal immigration to the point that they will have a permanent dominance over electoral power and will use it to create a permanent grievance machine to disenfranchise Americans of European Descent by punitive means such as affirmative action and other discriminatory policies.

Are they right?

I prefer to think that they’re not.  My read on this is that the situation has been exacerbated by Republican “leaders” who actually seem to buy into the fairness of minority identity politics out of some kind of ancestral guilt or because they see electoral advantage in joining the progressives.  The proof of this can be seen in the success of a civic nationalist like Trump who isn’t guilted into kowtowing to illegal immigration out of fear of being called a racist.  Once you disarm the Progressives of that weapon you find out that the majority of Americans, even in Blue States, want immigration laws to be obeyed.

I contend if the Right forcefully advocates for full enforcement of immigration laws and the elimination of reverse discrimination policies by the government and other entities, it will go a long way toward lowering tensions between the various groups living in the United States and will allow people to start thinking of each other as neighbors and not potential enemies.

Am I right?  I can’t claim I’m sure.  I think the next few years will be indicative of whether the Dissident Right is correct or whether there’s still time to fix the mess we’re in.  And believe me, I don’t minimize how bad things have become.  On the worst days, I shake my head and look at maps to see where I can move to that will allow me to stave off the worst of it for a little longer.

In the second part of this I’ll look a little more closely at the specifics of the Dissident Right’s logic and compare it to my own way of looking at where we are.

Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 2

Racism for Me But Not for Thee

William Voegeli has an article at Claremont Review of Books titled RACISM, REVISED.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/racism-revised/

In it he reviews the New York Times (NYT) differeing stance on racism committed by white people and non-white people.  The case in point is their employee Sarah Jeong.  She has a Twitter history that is littered with the most egregious anti-white bias imaginable.  But the NYT waived their hands at this and said it was those evil white trolls that made her do it.  But when an equivalent bias was shown by a white person, off with his head.  Very interesting read.

 

 

 

 

10NOV2018 – American Greatness Post of the Day – Don’t Give in to the Left’s Moral Blackmail

Jeremy Carl should be commended.  As a Jewish American there is enormous pressure from his friends, relatives, acquaintances and colleagues in the Jewish community to fall in line with the progressive narrative and blame President Trump for any acts of violence committed by any maniac that can’t be undeniably proven to be funded directly by George Soros.

His American Greatness article addresses the elephant in the room, namely, that the face of Progressive Leftism is riddled with liberal Jews who play the anti-Semitic card as a means of pummeling Republicans into guilty silence.  And he identifies the objective of the strategy, to paralyze the victim and make him a sitting duck for the sucker punch that will surely follow.  So, blame Trump and the Republicans for a crazed anti-Semitic murderer and follow up with the gun control offensive.  The perfect one – two combination.  Mr. Carl spells out the fact that President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are Jewish and that the ploy has lost its punch against him.  And he also addresses the extreme anti-white hatred that some Jewish Progressives have now openly displayed.

My favorite passage is, “Nor should we sit silently while Jewish leftists like the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg attempt to exploit the atrocity in Pittsburgh by echoing the phrasing and vision of white supremacists by celebrating the demographic decline of white people in America like a cartoon Jewish villain from a Neo-Nazi propaganda piece.”

I think this gets right to the crux of the matter.  If your aim is to avoid anti-Semitism it would seem the best strategy would not be to exhibit anti-white bigotry.

It’s refreshing to see a Jewish conservative finally calling out his coreligionists on something that is a divisive and dishonest tactic that feeds an image of the Jewish community that they would be better off not encouraging.

Pride is Okay but Okay is Not-Okay?

I’ve always heard that Gay Pride is good.  So Pride in being gay is good.  But apparently just not feeling bad about being white is bad.

https://apnews.com/549fe3bdd059488e9032f72fd255d2da

I had heard about these signs that are showing up randomly.  Now if they said something  about it being the best then maybe you could make a case for it being a supremacy thing.  But it doesn’t even go as far as saying good.  It just says okay.  It must really be bad to be white it it’s not even okay to feel okay about it.  Sucks being me.

 

It’s Official The New York Times Has Sanctioned Racism Against White Americans

A terrible thing can have good consequences.  It can be a clarifying moment.  An obvious example is the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.  The event was a human tragedy and a terrible blow to the United States militarily.  It left the U.S. interests and people in the Philippines at the mercy of the Japanese armed forces.  But it galvanized the country to such an extent that millions of young American men immediately enlisted in the armed forces and everyone else steeled themselves for the imminent war.

So, that’s the archetype.  Now drop your sights ten levels down and observe a clarifying moment on a much smaller stage.  Over the last couple of years, the left has been using the persistence of internet records to banish anyone who has ever said anything that is now politically incorrect.  An example that comes to mind is the libertarian journalist Kevin Williamson who was hired and fired by the Atlantic over the course of a few hours because some left-wing trolls dug out his anti-abortion tweets and shamed the Atlantic into firing him.  Of late, the right has been trying to use the same trick.  Mike Cernovich produced a very large number of tweets by Hollywood director James Gunn that flippantly espoused pedophilic opinions.  His employer, Disney, terminated him immediately.  And most relevantly, The New York Times fired Quinn Norton, a white woman, back in February for having twitter comments that people thought were racist or anti-gay.

Now comes Sarah Jeong.  She was just hired for seemingly the same job that Quinn Norton was fired from and the evidence of anti-white racism in Jeong’s Twitter feed is more than knee deep.  In fact, it seems to be practically an obsession.  A mountain of quotes has been circulating on this situation.  The New York Times answered these criticisms by saying that Jeong was just responding in kind to racists and she will not be penalized because of it.  So, it’s official.  The New York times will fire white people if there is even a pretext for calling them biased but it will ignore even blatant anti-white racism by non-whites.  For the average reader of this blog I don’t think any of this is a shock.  Basically, it’s business as usual at “the Gray Lady.”  But who it might shock are normies.  They may have thought that we are all equal in front of the internet mob.  They might have imagined that the New York Times would always prefer to avoid the appearance of harboring an openly racist employee.  Well, if they’re paying any attention at all to the details of this case they will see that they were wrong and the New York Times didn’t.  That should be a clarifying moment.  The New York Times says it’s okay for a non-white journalist to openly express racial hatred against white people.

It occurs to me that the correct way to handle this is not to complain to the New York Times.  They obviously don’t care.  But how about their advertisers.  Would for instance, a company like Disney respond to complaints from its customers by pulling ads from the New York Times?  How about Walmart?  Could they be persuaded to pull ads?  Seems like a worthwhile thing to do.  But at least it’s clear who the New York Times cares about and who it despises.  Clarification noted.