By Hunter Wallace
The Atlantic is having a big debate on anti-racism.
Conor Friedersdorf, the cuckservative, argues in favor of an anti-racism based on colorblindness and individualism and warns that spurring White racial consciousness could backfire and lead to White identity politics:
“But I worry that the overall effect of encouraging white people to put whiteness rather than color-blindness or individualism at the center of their identity will be to swell and empower a faction in U.S. politics that Trump’s rise has helped to highlight. As the billionaire candidate climbed in the polls, Evan Osnos happened to be reporting on white nationalists, a tiny but nevertheless alarming portion of Trump’s base. …”
Adia Harvey Wingfield, a progressive sociologist at Washington University, takes the opposite view and argues in favor of a color conscious anti-racism that embues Whites with a purely negative sense of White identity:
“Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of colorblindness as an ideology. They argue that as the mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality have become more covert and obscure than they were during the era of open, legal segregation, the language of explicit racism has given way to a discourse of colorblindness. But they fear that the refusal to take public note of race actually allows people to ignore manifestations of persistent discrimination. …”
As someone who has no sympathy for “anti-racism,” I can see merit in both sides of this argument. When it comes to “whiteness studies,” there are some college students who will be inclined to believe what they are taught when they are exposed to it. These are the types who become SJWs. At the same time, there are college students who will take offense to it and react against it. These are the types who become WNs.
Years ago, I was exposed to “whiteness studies” while in college, not directly through my coursework, but through checking out the latest books arriving in the library. It left quite an impression on me. I became aware for the first time that there were people out there who had a major axe to grind against White people. In hindsight, that was definitely a major factor that pushed me into the WN camp.
If I had to choose between fighting “colorblindness” or “color conscious” anti-racism though, I would much rather fight the SJWs. In my experience, “colorblindness” anti-racism has far greater appeal to ordinary White people. It is far more insidious and harder to root out because it is based on a utopian outlook, not extreme self hatred. Just look at the way it has infected the Southern heritage movement.
SJWs are far more extreme in their “anti-racism.” They are more abrasive and their version of “anti-racism” is much more polarizing. It will repel far more people and send them running in the opposite direction. As Friedersdorf points out, I think we are starting to see that in the people who are gravitating toward Trump. Both versions of anti-racism are destructive to White identity, but the mushy, muddleheaded middle which we have had since the 1960 is more dangerous to our survival than two hostile camps.
Hunter if you really look at it, this conservative individualist Anti-Racist narrative is the same old Enlightenment pablum they have been slinging around since the late 1600’s. John Locke’s idea that all human beings are born equal and that they have inaliable rights was and still is absolutely insane.
White Supremacist apologists for Thomas Jefferson will claim that Jefferson meant that all White Men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence. Lets examine this idea. We have White Guy A here, an aristocrat who can read and write in three languages who is an architect and artist. Compare him to White Guy B who is an interent laborer who spent his life cleaning horse stalls and stacking firewood. Are these two men equal? Any thinking man would know they are not equal.
If I take the position that all humans are equal and that we should deny the reality of race, which is what conservative Anti-Racists say, then should I also deny the fact that IQ Tests clearly show that Negroids have a genetically lower intelligence and a genetic lack of self control? Should I deny that there are genetic differences in people of different races that make one more prone to a particular disease than another? Should I deny the facts of historical development that declare the inferiority of other peoples? Well if I am a Sean Hannity Cuck Anti-Racist the answer is yes.
The only proper understanding of human cultures and society is the Pre-Modern understanding our ancestors had before the Enlightenment. This was their firm belief that GOD and NATURE declared them superior and that it was their jobs to rule over the lesser beings. George Fitzhugh declared this as did Calhoun. This is what we fight for, a return to traditionalism. Throw the Enlightenment on the burn pile.
“SJWs are far more extreme in their “anti-racism.” They are more abrasive and their version of “anti-racism” is much more polarizing.”
With SJW its all about evil “white mails”. Hating whites is the only thing that holds that coalition together. If whites disappeared tomorrow, they would fall on each other like wolves.
I wouldn’t worry about the other version. Utopianism can only exist in almost 100% white countries.
Should whites be invisible, or visibly shamed and humiliated?
Nice dichotomy!
The reality is that the cows have already left the barn and we are fully engaged in a cycle of history that will see whites emerge as a fully self-aware force in the universe. The last time whites were one people was many thousands of years ago, before our ancestors spread out from the Black Sea to Europe, India, Russia, and the Middle East. We have been our various tribes since then, but now with the tribal barriers obliterated there is legitimately a white people once again, with a common language – English – that is not all that far from our original language!
As a parting thought, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (of “social Darwinism” fame) observed when he came to America that this land would produce the stoutest of the nations because white interbreeding would produce “hybrid vigor”; this is now world wide.
The raceblind faction still believes that they have some right to advance their own interests(which in turn will spawn charges of racism and privilege from the SJWs), if the SJWs push them out of that they are at the point of choosing between suicide and dropping anti-racism.
Sorry folks but listening to the Atlantic lie to you is painful. BUGs and the folks there especially Horus killed “anti-racism” literally a sea change happened within a short time period.
The Left has forsaken colorblind anti-racism for explicit anti-white rhetoric and the last anti-racists are the Cucks.
This was bound to happen but BUGs pushed it thru much faster, and that is what a consistent message will do versus tailgating the political bus with essays dealing with yesterday’s rhetoric.
“All were white males. All achieved greatly. All believed that the people whence they came were superior and possessed of a superior faith, Christianity, and hence fit to rule what Rudyard Kipling called the “lesser breeds without the Law.”
– Buchanan, in his column, http://buchanan.org/blog/purging-americas-heroes-124073
That about sums it up, actually.
Hunter let’s do a Vdare type fund raiser. It’s an important, vital part of a successful alternative right blog.
We have to learn how to raise some money and put things on a more business like footing.
Do I need to read the Atlantic article before laughing?
The trouble with color-blindness or meritocracy is that unless all groups in a diverse society practice it to the same extent then those groups who are the primary practitioners place themselves at a comparative disadvantage to the groups who practice it at most only to a lesser extent. Whites who practice color-blindness in such circumstances are not advancing justice but are instead putting in place a system that oppresses or at a minimum disadvantages whites. Like it or not a diverse society is going to be a society in which each group will have strong incentives to pursue its own interests at the expense of other groups. It will necessarily be an competitive and adversarial system but that is the reality in a diverse society. You can’t fight nature on a long term or large scale basis and win.
This is a topic I’ve put out a couple of videos on my YouTube channel.
https://youtu.be/9OyTN8v0q_g
This is all due to demographic changes. Whites are becoming a minority and the politics of the past, both left and right, are becoming irrelevant to them. Particularly Republican/conservative/libertarian politics. Anti-racism, anti-antisemitism, etc. are simply ploys to allow a parasite to stay attached to its host. But when the parasite becomes bigger than the host the ploy no longer works because the parasitism becomes too obvious. It is exposed as the victimization, racism, and robbery that it actually is. Anti-racism is code for anti-white, that’s a truism, and what soon-to-be minority whites are losing is the pretense that it is anything else.
Christopher Caldwell – “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” The latter will clearly be seen as slavery and robbery.
There’s another option that neither the color-blinders nor the color-conscious anti-whites have considered, even if just to dismiss it: the latino color-continuum approach – or “Latin house rules,” if you like. It’s very easy to characterize this as “racism,” but it’s actually anti-racist in terms of its social and political effects.
Color-continuum combines color-consciousness (which goes beyond merely color to consider a whole suite of racial traits, of course) with the steadfast refusal to cause racial harm or create deliberate racial disadvantage of color-blindness. It prefers white traits to black traits, but it refuses to draw a sharp line and instead revels in its ambiguity over categorizations.
Its anti-racist attitude is best demonstrated by the severe exception it takes to racial calls to arms, insisting that all belong to a common cultural identity. It provides ample evidence of its commitment to this ideal by practising widespread mixing and engaging in routine everyday cultural ‘celebration’ of its racial precepts. It’s simply not the case that a ‘white’ latino with a marked preference for ‘whites’ refuses to mix with ‘black’ latinos; nor is it the case that ‘black’ latinos, despite their position in the hierarchy of racial value, harbor resentment towards ‘white’ latinos.
Despite the silence or ignorance (you decide) of the two mainstream racial camps in the United States on this racial system, there is ample evidence that the America itself is headed in this direction. Even if it were not for the millions upon millions of Latinos who are raised in a cultural milieu in which such practices are routine, mixing between white and black itself creates a kind of racial confusion which tends to resolve itself by a latino-like compromise. Add to that mixing with asians and latinos on top, and the effect is exacerbated.
Kipling’s “Lesser Breeds Without The Law” referred, of course, to the Law of Moses, that source of spiritual AIDS which its Christian heresy has gifted us.
As I’ve before, the Cucks are more insidious and dangerous to us than the Libtards. We know the Libtards are hell-bent on our demographic destruction and perpetual humiliation. We can engage with them and expose their idiocy. The Cucks, on the other hand, would kill us with a condescending smile on their faces, they would use moral grandstanding and false concern and make us believe that as long as our “ideas” are perpetuated, our dispossession, displacement and eventual disappearance would be like the changing of the guard and we would live on through the ideals of liberty or some such bullshit. We have to call them out just like we do the SJWs.