Ever since Donald J. Trump won the election, the Left has been trying to come to grips with it all. Why did so many people reject the One True Narrative? Why is America so full of evil racist meanies?
Beyond the standard leftist bogey of racism, they seem to be genuinely concerned with the rise of nationalism in the United States, and to some degree more broadly in the Western world.
I’m fond of joking that to the Left, anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren is a racist, even a neo-Nazi. And to be sure, whenever the Left try to brand anyone or anything as racist, they’re using a Kafka-trap: branding someone racist generally has the effect of putting that person and their defenders on the defensive.
Nationalism, for the Left, is integrally related to the bogey of racism—at least when practiced by Western Whites. Both constitute in-group preferences on the part of White people.
And now we come to the double standard. As I recently pointed out, black nationalism merges rather handily with far-left entitlement and theft.
On that note, I somehow managed to stumble across this fawning review of Black Panther by racial grievance-huckster Shaun King. Here, have a few paragraphs—consider it your daily dose of cancer:
“But let me close by talking about the movie. Nothing like it has ever been done before. Not just with a Black superhero, but with several Black superheroes. Black Panther had a whole cast of beautiful Black brilliance. Black scientists. Black Presidents. The style. The technology. The color.”
I enjoy a good fantasy as much as the next person (and probably more, since I actually write high fantasy), but you have to take a moment to appreciate the sheer hypocrisy of the left. Black expression of identity and in-group pride=Good. White expression of identity and in-group pride=Bad.
“But it’s even deeper than that. There is a movement we call Afro-Futurism, where we imagine a Black way of life free of White supremacy and bigotry. Black Panther, I think, is the first blockbuster film centered in the ethos of Afro-Futurism, where the writers, and directors, and makeup and wardrobe team all imagined a beautiful, thriving Black Africa without colonialism.”
And if it was historical reality instead of childish racial wish-fulfillment and piss-poor fantasy worldbuilding, a movie about Black Africa without colonialism would feature mud huts, iron-tipped spears, and malaria.
“Wakanda showed us our families in one piece. No war on drugs. No mass incarceration. No KKK. No lynching. No racial profiling. No police brutality.”
And all of those things are 110% equivocal, with no differences between them at all. War on drugs? KKK! And the modern social ills are all the fault of Whites, and in no way reflect disparities in the rates of crime, police encounters, or welfare dependence.
But if we’re being honest, the Left is not simply the side of black identitarianism and nationalism: they’re happy to shill for globalism when it’s convenient to do so, i.e. whenever it can undermine group identity and cohesion for Whites.
An example of this very phenomenon recently presented itself on my Audible:
Let’s break some of this down a bit:
“A lot of us don’t see ourselves in our bookshelves, our libraries, or our bookstores.”
It’s almost as if identity matters or something.
“Our bookshelves tend to be disproportionately White and disproportionately male and do not represent who we are in this country or who we are becoming.”
There’s so much to unpack here. Could it be that a bookshelf that is disproportionately White reflects a civilization that has also been White? And I say “has also been White,” because as he points out, “we” are becoming something else.
Disproportionately male? What is the right proportion of male authors? Should we expect a 50-50 breakdown between men and women? (Should we expect men and women to have the same priorities, statistically speaking?).
He complains about history, and then goes on to make a very interesting demand:
“Our bookshelves need to look like the future and not the past; they should be brimming with writers of color, women of color writers, indigenous writers, immigrant writers, women writers, LGBTQIA writers.”
Don’t you love the idea that Whites, and especially White men, are the past? This is nothing more than a demand for the diminution, demonization, and erasure of White racial identity, and especially of White males.
This is, again, the central leftist hypocrisy on nationalism, and the identity politics that provide the basis for nationalism: it’s perfectly okay for _everyone except for Whites, particularly White males. _
Now, if you’ve been following my work since the beginning, you’ll recognize this as our old friend, the Great War of Coalitions. More specifically, it’s the Left’s central coalition strategy: demonizing Whites, and especially White men, is how they recruit coalition partners (the Rainbow Nation brigade referenced by Junot Díaz above) and reward them through the welfare state, which actually works out pretty well for White leftists.
Of course, for this strategy to really work as intended, the target needs to not be able to fight back. And this is why leftists have to deny Whites any legitimate identitarian interests, particularly if they are to continue the globalist project of flooding Europe with migrants and fake refugees.
Now that we’ve identified the problem, what’s the solution? We have a leftist anti-White coalition that is designed to appeal to non-Whites, immigrants, women, and sexual minorities. If you are in any one of those groups, do you have to join the coalition?
On the other hand, we have everyone from moderate leftists and classical liberals to right-wingers such as yours truly who reject said coalition. If you are White, and particularly if you are White and male, is it necessary to go full Richard Spencer?
I submit that the answer to each of the above questions is a resounding No.
The way out of this coalitional struggle that the Left have foisted on us will not be easy, but a good start would be to offer a better-quality and more honest dialog on racial identity race relations. I see plenty of encouraging signs of this already.
A few principles for a more honest dialog might include the following:
1). Admit that many people have racial and other in-group preferences—and that’s okay.
People should not be demonized for expressing a preference to live in neighborhoods with people whom they perceive to be like them. Nor should they be demonized for expressing concern for persecuted national minorities in other countries, groups they again perceive to be like themselves, and trying to fast-track them to safety.
2). Recognize and reject racial grievance hucksterism.
The Left gets a lot of mileage out of grievances against Whites. We have to recognize this for the poisonous, contemptible strategy that it is, a tactic which in turn fosters resentment among Whites.
I’m hardly original here for pointing out that leftist anti-White rhetoric has done a fantastic job of creating the very bogey they now despise – the alt-right.
3). Be honest about real racial issues – and try to find common ground.
A significant part of my red-pilling experience on racial issues was the recognition that the left consistently fails to confront the truth about race and crime, race and welfare use, and the pernicious effects of leftist policies – usually chalked up to a supposed ‘legacy of slavery.’
We need to be honest about these and many other issues because they dynamite the entire narrative of “White privilege,” an intellectually malformed and morally perverse narrative which functions to demonize and delegitimize Whites.
4). Commit to Western and national identity.
We should unequivocally assert the validity of Western civilization, of national identity, and of nationalism over globalism.
Whatever else may be said about White, Western civilization, it has uplifted the entire world. As I recently pointed out with regard to the ongoing and accelerating White displacement and White genocide in South Africa, Whites elevated that country from mud huts and iron-tipped spears to automobiles, the internet, and pizza. Would a bit more gratitude, and a bit less resentment, really be too much to ask?
It is true that the West is the historical civilization of Whites. This in no way means it cannot include others now. What it does mean is that we need a better foundation for race relations, one which is not based on an intellectually and morally bankrupt, perverse doctrine which delegitimizes Whites.
We also need immigration control. It should not be controversial to suggest an end to the massive importation of the Third World into historically White, Western lands.
On the plus side, my own sense of this is that the backlash to the left’s crazy anti-White narratives seems to be growing. I suspect this is a good foundation for finding common ground and advancing the dialog in a more productive direction.
Other principles can and should be added as needed, along with refinements of the four principles suggested above.
It will not be easy to reform race relations and shift the conversation about identity in a manner that discredits leftist propaganda and hypocrisy. Still, it is worth doing, and my own sense of this is that the pushback against the Left seems to be growing (the Trump election being a notable example).
In this struggle, the hypocrisy, hysteria, and entitlement of the Left are working against them. They have become the embodiment of petty tyrants and bullies, hiding behind the comfort of institutions and the longstanding hegemony of their Narrative, all too often afraid to confront opposing ideas.
The only vision of race relations on offer from the Professional Left is the one promoted by the peddlers of grievances, half-truths, and the toxic racial blood libel of “White privilege.” It is a vision for hysterical, entitled children who need to lay their own grievances, inadequacies, and insecurities at the feet of the ever-present, ever-evil and oppressive forces of society.