The only and best arguments remain those rooted in merit , colorblindness and equal justice and protection for all under the law, while fighing against diversity , inclusiveness and equity on all issues. Right wing bigotry is just as bad as left wing bigotry
Interesting and doubtless well meant but the success of the extreme left means that it’s too late to separate the individual from the tribe.
The approach advocated would really only be viable if the extreme left were willing to roll back its gains which of course it won’t be.
The nature of the ‘political’ entails compromise short of war or surrender by one side. Any compromise will damage both the US and the west because the starting point of compromise dialogue is a position in which the extreme left’s gains have been immense, creating an expectation on both sides of an outcome not quite as extreme as the status quo but far from a basis on which the US citizens can aspire to lives of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Given human nature, why should whites expect that racial minorities will cease acting in their group interests? Secondly, given group differences in crime and conscientiousness, why shouldn’t whites resist the complete demographic transition of the US/West that will reduce the quality of life for generations to come? After hundreds of years, the US still haven’t solved the problem of black social dysfunction. Why add to this problem?
...."Left-wing racialism has been embedded in our institutions, laws, and policies" ...
Assuming recapture of the government and a return to individual rights and color blind merit, how will government counter outside sources of anti-white influence such as Hollywood, globalist corps, oligarchs, Blackrock, etc, all operating under the banner of the WEF/NWO. Anti-whiteness appears to me as simply another tool useful in achieving the globalist goals of replacing national rule with elitist one world rule.
One man, one battle at a time but sooner or later we will have to face the outside sources responsible for the current attack on our Republic, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those forces are abusing the very freedoms of western governance to conquer the western world.
The racialist paradigm is a reductionist trap. It’s regressive, and ultimately self defeating. It’s also artificial. It succeeds to the extent that it does because it advances the Left’s overarching agenda. The Left cares about race like it cares about women. You are useful until you aren’t useful. It’s all utilitarian. They don’t care about anything but power.
If one of us doesn’t matter, none of us matter. The only way to defeat this nonsense is to expunge it. Descending into a race war is exactly what the Left wants.
It seems you are sidestepping the main reason this is happening.
That mainly blacks have been using an asymmetrical racial spoils system for decades and that mass immigration is destabilizing when no other groups in the world hold this individualist view. Black organizations have minimized western civilization (clearly created by white people) while benefiting from mass wealth transfer in that of welfare and racial quotas. On a daily basis whites are given lectures while other groups are told to express their identity to the fullest extent. Not addressing this and the need to disarm other groups racial tribalism while denouncing the slightest white identitarianism is why this will persist.
Simply stating that we are a multiracial multiethnic country are very cute buzzwords but the reality is we are a mulatto country with a permeable ethnic majority (ie American ethics, whites). Pretending that tribalism will just vanish is foolish, the only option is for other groups to integrate into the majority. To do this selective limited immigration is needed (something I don’t recall you speaking of) and a respect for the majority is needed. Having a Balkanized society or pushing mass immigration with out assimilation and intermarriage is foolish.
There is nothing bigoted about whites expressing racial tribalism while everytother group is encouraged and the ethnic core that built this country is marginalized. You should first address the reason that this is happening not run to join left wingers in condemning it. Every country in the history of the world has tribalism and pretending it doesn’t exist is not a solution, only how to best manage it. American will still be majority white/white hispanic/mixed white for this century...you are right these categories are when considering Latino and mixed race artificial ...thus majority grieviences should be heard and respected just as minority ones have been for decades.
Yes white is an ethnic group in America it means ethnic American. It is all the groups that have assimilated into the founding Anglo population. (Something that has been discouraged of newcomers for 50 years) we are the only country that hates its founding stock and ethnic core, this will result in the destruction of our country and simply trying to ignore this for cookie cutter individualism will not change this. Only by acknowledging that we have a core population that military be joined or you shouldn’t come is what will.
Until people on the right call out other groups racial tribalism forcefully they should be quiet about American ethnic “white” tribalism.
The answer lies in acknowledging that yes white Western Europeans built the modern world nearly entirely and that should be acknowledged and respected, but it is a permeable group that can be integrated into. Blood and soil is not the answer but neither is pretending that modern civilization came out of thin air and not from a culture from a people.
You write: "The honest racialist would respond: the proper locus of rights is the group... My answer, by contrast, is: the proper locus of rights is the individual." Former libertarians who disagree with you don't necessarily argue that a group focus is better than an individual focus in the abstract or in an ideal world, in which everyone focuses on the individual. Rather, they argue that in the real world we live in, it's suicidal to focus on the individual when everyone else focuses on the group. It's a collective action problem, and unilateral disarmament is suicide. Your essay doesn't address this argument, but perhaps you can address it in a follow up. I understand that there's an embedded assumption that efforts like yours have been tried, have failed, and will fail, as desirable as they may be in the abstract, so your answer may simply be "but this time we'll succeed." That would be nice but evidence is scant so far, as much as I appreciate and like your efforts.
I agree with Rufo’s main points and welcome his attention to this topic.
He says that white racial movements have failed to gain an audience, but that of course seems to be changing (hence his post). Witness some of the comments here. I do believe he’s correct that it will prove a losing, indeed a counterproductive proposition, but many will delude themselves into thinking it can win or is in any case the only hope for opposing identity politics from the left.
One particularly egregious aspect of identitarianism is that it thrives on “heightening the contradictions” and thus welcomes its opponents’ extremism. Nothing would do more for white racialism than race-based killings of white people. That’s why the disturbed, violent fanatics dream of starting a “race war.” It’s the same dynamic that sees the self-declared warriors against white supremacy try to score points with every incident that might be seen as racist. The politics of victimhood requires a steady stream of victims, real or imagined, in a dangerous race to the bottom.
It is no surprise that some people argue that whites must organize by race to oppose enemies who categorize them by race and seek to expropriate their wealth and freedom based on race. The argument from liberal and non-racial principles is, you are correct, morally and pragmatically superior. The tit-for-tat response, replicating the prison yard model for personal and group safety, will nonetheless have adherents, out of frustration more than malice in most cases. The existence of these people and their policy proposals, to the extent they have any, makes the more classical liberal, individualized merit model which you espouse look moderate. In short, the people who are saying, in effect, "you want race? I'll show you race!" are moving the Overton Window in a way that inadvertently supports the Rufoian position. Perhaps this observation is a variant of NETTR. And if the Rufoian-type position gains momentum, many of the reactive racialists will, probably, abandon that stance. In short, let 100 flowers bloom. You do your thing affirmatively, on its merits, and the racialist faction will fail or advance on its own merits. You don't need to spend much energy distinguishing yourself from them. You have set down a marker here. Probably that is enough.
Chris, with due respect, colorblind equality does not exist outside of the neoliberal West which you have made a career chronicling the collapse of. Why do you characterize white Americans as radical for being proud of their race when countless societies across the planet are blame-free for having the same ideology? The "colorblind" standard you pine for is a vestige of the past which is doomed and dying.
What the left understood earlier than the right is that race does matter, to act like Japanese are the same as Somalians is preposterous.
During the 2020 "peaceful protests", there was a major charity effort on the part of celebrities to "help rebuild BIPOD businesses". My first response was, "what about the white owned businesses?" This was the first time I ever had any sense of having a "white identity", the sense my my "tribe" was connected to my skin color. It bothered me, and it still does. But I'm not sure the alternative. Conservatives don't have the power to change the rules, so we must play by whatever rules the Left sets. And as much as I don't like it, the Left has decided to award spoils on the basis of race.
Many people are poo-pooed when they say, as Chris implies here, that the rise of race-essentialism on the Left is going to create a white-identity backlash on the Right. I think people dismiss it because they think "white identity backlash" means tiki torches and white hoods in the streets. it doesn't.
Imagine a choice between a far-Left, 100% woke candidate (most of the Democratic party today) and a somewhat racist but populist Right-wing candidate (think a modern Huey Long.) A working class, white guy facing this choice may well say, "Well, that Huey Long guy sure says some racist stuff, but at least my kid won't get screwed out of college because he's white." That's what a "white identity backlash" looks like. And here's the thing, I have 3 teenage girls. I can absolutely see myself being placed in this position. I hate it, but in a choice between a Left-wing, anti-Christian, anti-white theocracy, and almost any other option... my vote lies with the people who hate me less. Even if I think they're completely wrong on everything else.
Ibram Kendi and Richard Spencer both agree that race is the most important attribute to every human and should control how we treat that person both socially and in law. All they disagree about is which race ought to be on top. If I have to choose between them, I know what my choice would be.
My hope is the GOP figures out how to respond to this in a colorblind way. Because if they don't, someone will respond to it in a non-colorblind way. And that's bad for everyone. However, Nikki Haley and Mike Pence at the debate made it clear that the donor class of the GOP still has its head stuck in the sand.
Very true, Chris. Both white supremacy beliefs and the belief that minorities are being dominated by systemic white racism in a predominantly white society are wrong. But it just so happens that the later wrong is far more prevalent than the former, and it has in fact become The Establishment. We must continually guard against white supremacy, but because government laws and policies are generated by The Establishment's premise that America is a systemic white racist country, we must focus on it first. Laws and policies are not developed as a result of white supremacy, though the Left claims this is the case. We shouldn't ignore white supremacist beliefs and guard against any such movements, but treating the threats in proper proportion is absolutely essential.
We know conservatives are divided, with a sinister populist faction. Populists don’t want immigrants (no matter how smart or how hard they work), they want to pretend that America can ignore the rest of the world, and they trend towards white identity politics. This group is growing, and it’s just as prone to divisive ideology, purges, and loyalty tests as the hard left. I am grateful that people like Chris are still out there, attempting to bring dialogue into politics and reminding us “that the racialist argument.. is wrong on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds.”
Great article. It’s only natural after being blamed, insulted and hated that a defensiveness would develop among some “ Whites.” . It’s a trap. But humans have emotions and fall into emotional traps ( that’s propaganda’s mission). Yes, we can be colorblind but still have family, ethnic, and racial identities. But without hate and blame. Remember when we had comedians who often mocked their own ethnic/racial group? A much better world that was, even if you found the jokes offensive at least we could sometimes have a laugh and get along better.
As a minority myself, I’ve been disturbed by one backlash symptom I see. That is a trend pushing for a theocracy. I get it. The left attacks religion. But the answer is not making America a Christian theocracy. A recent supposedly uplifting movie removed the Judeo from “ Judeo-Christian founding vslues” of our nation. America has Jewish citizens, Hindus, atheists and others who are patriots and have the right to be here.
Plus, while this religious revival may inspire some to get involved, a theocracy is as unworkable as a “Angry White identity.” Lest we become the cartoon the left draws of us. Traps every which way.
No to the Politics of “Whiteness”
The only and best arguments remain those rooted in merit , colorblindness and equal justice and protection for all under the law, while fighing against diversity , inclusiveness and equity on all issues. Right wing bigotry is just as bad as left wing bigotry
Interesting and doubtless well meant but the success of the extreme left means that it’s too late to separate the individual from the tribe.
The approach advocated would really only be viable if the extreme left were willing to roll back its gains which of course it won’t be.
The nature of the ‘political’ entails compromise short of war or surrender by one side. Any compromise will damage both the US and the west because the starting point of compromise dialogue is a position in which the extreme left’s gains have been immense, creating an expectation on both sides of an outcome not quite as extreme as the status quo but far from a basis on which the US citizens can aspire to lives of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Given human nature, why should whites expect that racial minorities will cease acting in their group interests? Secondly, given group differences in crime and conscientiousness, why shouldn’t whites resist the complete demographic transition of the US/West that will reduce the quality of life for generations to come? After hundreds of years, the US still haven’t solved the problem of black social dysfunction. Why add to this problem?
...."Left-wing racialism has been embedded in our institutions, laws, and policies" ...
Assuming recapture of the government and a return to individual rights and color blind merit, how will government counter outside sources of anti-white influence such as Hollywood, globalist corps, oligarchs, Blackrock, etc, all operating under the banner of the WEF/NWO. Anti-whiteness appears to me as simply another tool useful in achieving the globalist goals of replacing national rule with elitist one world rule.
One man, one battle at a time but sooner or later we will have to face the outside sources responsible for the current attack on our Republic, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those forces are abusing the very freedoms of western governance to conquer the western world.
The racialist paradigm is a reductionist trap. It’s regressive, and ultimately self defeating. It’s also artificial. It succeeds to the extent that it does because it advances the Left’s overarching agenda. The Left cares about race like it cares about women. You are useful until you aren’t useful. It’s all utilitarian. They don’t care about anything but power.
If one of us doesn’t matter, none of us matter. The only way to defeat this nonsense is to expunge it. Descending into a race war is exactly what the Left wants.
It seems you are sidestepping the main reason this is happening.
That mainly blacks have been using an asymmetrical racial spoils system for decades and that mass immigration is destabilizing when no other groups in the world hold this individualist view. Black organizations have minimized western civilization (clearly created by white people) while benefiting from mass wealth transfer in that of welfare and racial quotas. On a daily basis whites are given lectures while other groups are told to express their identity to the fullest extent. Not addressing this and the need to disarm other groups racial tribalism while denouncing the slightest white identitarianism is why this will persist.
Simply stating that we are a multiracial multiethnic country are very cute buzzwords but the reality is we are a mulatto country with a permeable ethnic majority (ie American ethics, whites). Pretending that tribalism will just vanish is foolish, the only option is for other groups to integrate into the majority. To do this selective limited immigration is needed (something I don’t recall you speaking of) and a respect for the majority is needed. Having a Balkanized society or pushing mass immigration with out assimilation and intermarriage is foolish.
There is nothing bigoted about whites expressing racial tribalism while everytother group is encouraged and the ethnic core that built this country is marginalized. You should first address the reason that this is happening not run to join left wingers in condemning it. Every country in the history of the world has tribalism and pretending it doesn’t exist is not a solution, only how to best manage it. American will still be majority white/white hispanic/mixed white for this century...you are right these categories are when considering Latino and mixed race artificial ...thus majority grieviences should be heard and respected just as minority ones have been for decades.
Yes white is an ethnic group in America it means ethnic American. It is all the groups that have assimilated into the founding Anglo population. (Something that has been discouraged of newcomers for 50 years) we are the only country that hates its founding stock and ethnic core, this will result in the destruction of our country and simply trying to ignore this for cookie cutter individualism will not change this. Only by acknowledging that we have a core population that military be joined or you shouldn’t come is what will.
Until people on the right call out other groups racial tribalism forcefully they should be quiet about American ethnic “white” tribalism.
The answer lies in acknowledging that yes white Western Europeans built the modern world nearly entirely and that should be acknowledged and respected, but it is a permeable group that can be integrated into. Blood and soil is not the answer but neither is pretending that modern civilization came out of thin air and not from a culture from a people.
You write: "The honest racialist would respond: the proper locus of rights is the group... My answer, by contrast, is: the proper locus of rights is the individual." Former libertarians who disagree with you don't necessarily argue that a group focus is better than an individual focus in the abstract or in an ideal world, in which everyone focuses on the individual. Rather, they argue that in the real world we live in, it's suicidal to focus on the individual when everyone else focuses on the group. It's a collective action problem, and unilateral disarmament is suicide. Your essay doesn't address this argument, but perhaps you can address it in a follow up. I understand that there's an embedded assumption that efforts like yours have been tried, have failed, and will fail, as desirable as they may be in the abstract, so your answer may simply be "but this time we'll succeed." That would be nice but evidence is scant so far, as much as I appreciate and like your efforts.
I applaud your philosophy of color blindness over the identity politics that's pushed vigorously by the Left.
I agree with Rufo’s main points and welcome his attention to this topic.
He says that white racial movements have failed to gain an audience, but that of course seems to be changing (hence his post). Witness some of the comments here. I do believe he’s correct that it will prove a losing, indeed a counterproductive proposition, but many will delude themselves into thinking it can win or is in any case the only hope for opposing identity politics from the left.
One particularly egregious aspect of identitarianism is that it thrives on “heightening the contradictions” and thus welcomes its opponents’ extremism. Nothing would do more for white racialism than race-based killings of white people. That’s why the disturbed, violent fanatics dream of starting a “race war.” It’s the same dynamic that sees the self-declared warriors against white supremacy try to score points with every incident that might be seen as racist. The politics of victimhood requires a steady stream of victims, real or imagined, in a dangerous race to the bottom.
It is no surprise that some people argue that whites must organize by race to oppose enemies who categorize them by race and seek to expropriate their wealth and freedom based on race. The argument from liberal and non-racial principles is, you are correct, morally and pragmatically superior. The tit-for-tat response, replicating the prison yard model for personal and group safety, will nonetheless have adherents, out of frustration more than malice in most cases. The existence of these people and their policy proposals, to the extent they have any, makes the more classical liberal, individualized merit model which you espouse look moderate. In short, the people who are saying, in effect, "you want race? I'll show you race!" are moving the Overton Window in a way that inadvertently supports the Rufoian position. Perhaps this observation is a variant of NETTR. And if the Rufoian-type position gains momentum, many of the reactive racialists will, probably, abandon that stance. In short, let 100 flowers bloom. You do your thing affirmatively, on its merits, and the racialist faction will fail or advance on its own merits. You don't need to spend much energy distinguishing yourself from them. You have set down a marker here. Probably that is enough.
Chris, with due respect, colorblind equality does not exist outside of the neoliberal West which you have made a career chronicling the collapse of. Why do you characterize white Americans as radical for being proud of their race when countless societies across the planet are blame-free for having the same ideology? The "colorblind" standard you pine for is a vestige of the past which is doomed and dying.
What the left understood earlier than the right is that race does matter, to act like Japanese are the same as Somalians is preposterous.
During the 2020 "peaceful protests", there was a major charity effort on the part of celebrities to "help rebuild BIPOD businesses". My first response was, "what about the white owned businesses?" This was the first time I ever had any sense of having a "white identity", the sense my my "tribe" was connected to my skin color. It bothered me, and it still does. But I'm not sure the alternative. Conservatives don't have the power to change the rules, so we must play by whatever rules the Left sets. And as much as I don't like it, the Left has decided to award spoils on the basis of race.
Many people are poo-pooed when they say, as Chris implies here, that the rise of race-essentialism on the Left is going to create a white-identity backlash on the Right. I think people dismiss it because they think "white identity backlash" means tiki torches and white hoods in the streets. it doesn't.
Imagine a choice between a far-Left, 100% woke candidate (most of the Democratic party today) and a somewhat racist but populist Right-wing candidate (think a modern Huey Long.) A working class, white guy facing this choice may well say, "Well, that Huey Long guy sure says some racist stuff, but at least my kid won't get screwed out of college because he's white." That's what a "white identity backlash" looks like. And here's the thing, I have 3 teenage girls. I can absolutely see myself being placed in this position. I hate it, but in a choice between a Left-wing, anti-Christian, anti-white theocracy, and almost any other option... my vote lies with the people who hate me less. Even if I think they're completely wrong on everything else.
Ibram Kendi and Richard Spencer both agree that race is the most important attribute to every human and should control how we treat that person both socially and in law. All they disagree about is which race ought to be on top. If I have to choose between them, I know what my choice would be.
My hope is the GOP figures out how to respond to this in a colorblind way. Because if they don't, someone will respond to it in a non-colorblind way. And that's bad for everyone. However, Nikki Haley and Mike Pence at the debate made it clear that the donor class of the GOP still has its head stuck in the sand.
Very true, Chris. Both white supremacy beliefs and the belief that minorities are being dominated by systemic white racism in a predominantly white society are wrong. But it just so happens that the later wrong is far more prevalent than the former, and it has in fact become The Establishment. We must continually guard against white supremacy, but because government laws and policies are generated by The Establishment's premise that America is a systemic white racist country, we must focus on it first. Laws and policies are not developed as a result of white supremacy, though the Left claims this is the case. We shouldn't ignore white supremacist beliefs and guard against any such movements, but treating the threats in proper proportion is absolutely essential.
We know conservatives are divided, with a sinister populist faction. Populists don’t want immigrants (no matter how smart or how hard they work), they want to pretend that America can ignore the rest of the world, and they trend towards white identity politics. This group is growing, and it’s just as prone to divisive ideology, purges, and loyalty tests as the hard left. I am grateful that people like Chris are still out there, attempting to bring dialogue into politics and reminding us “that the racialist argument.. is wrong on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds.”
I'm almost finished reading his book, AMERICAN COUNTER REVOLUTION
Great article. It’s only natural after being blamed, insulted and hated that a defensiveness would develop among some “ Whites.” . It’s a trap. But humans have emotions and fall into emotional traps ( that’s propaganda’s mission). Yes, we can be colorblind but still have family, ethnic, and racial identities. But without hate and blame. Remember when we had comedians who often mocked their own ethnic/racial group? A much better world that was, even if you found the jokes offensive at least we could sometimes have a laugh and get along better.
As a minority myself, I’ve been disturbed by one backlash symptom I see. That is a trend pushing for a theocracy. I get it. The left attacks religion. But the answer is not making America a Christian theocracy. A recent supposedly uplifting movie removed the Judeo from “ Judeo-Christian founding vslues” of our nation. America has Jewish citizens, Hindus, atheists and others who are patriots and have the right to be here.
Plus, while this religious revival may inspire some to get involved, a theocracy is as unworkable as a “Angry White identity.” Lest we become the cartoon the left draws of us. Traps every which way.