Should Whites Pursue "White Interests?" by Noah Carl, at Aporia. I react badly to even the title, and think the answer rather obvious. However, as it is apparently not obvious to some growing fraction of Americans (or so it is claimed), perhaps it is good to connect to an essay on the subject. After describing what goes into non-white identity interests, Carl continues the thought:
I am opposed to all of the measures listed above. However, this doesn’t mean I’m in favour of white identity politics—it simply means I’m against non-white identity politics. If we’re using language consistently, then white identity must mean something quite different from “classical liberalism plus immigration restrictionism”. It must mean demanding special privileges for whites. And that’s something to which I’m also opposed.
2 comments:
If you treat a group of people as if they have a group identity and vote as a bloc long enough you will eventually convince them to follow your lead.
I think the American right went through a crisis in the last decade or two because they seemed to lose and lose and lose and not be able to do anything about it even when they could muster a majority and hold Congress and / or the presidency. There was a shift where some conservative thinkers seriously asked what methods the left were using to win, then studied and adopted those methods. Thus we had conservatives quoting Alinsky, etc.
One of the effective strategies the left has used is racial politics. Some conservatives saw this and decided they needed to adopt that weapon as well.
It was always a trap, of course. Adopting white identity politics is great for the left because it is an abandonment of conservativism. The left converted these former conservatives, and they are no more than another faction of the left, now. Or, maybe to put it differently, they have now played right into the leftist worldview and become a willing and increasingly enthusiastic part of it, whether they see it or not.
Why does the left use racial identity politics? Because they are a revolutionary movement. They have to destroy the United States to rebuild it into their idea of a just society. White identity politics will play perfectly into this, helping to destroy the US and its culture.
That said, when Carl says, "If we’re using language consistently, then white identity must mean something quite different from 'classical liberalism plus immigration restrictionism'. It must mean demanding special privileges for whites", I have to disagree. I am suspicious of anyone who redefines someone else's philosophy for them. That seems consistent to Carl, but so what? Who said political movements are consistent?
Post a Comment