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
Total nonsense.. The left controls every major institution in society and uses that leverage against the right, the right has no institutional power whatsoever. The left advocates for white genocide without repercussion and the right gets canceled for posting "White lives matter".
maybe people want what the left is selling. compassion, caring, color blindness, concern for the underprivileged. three is no “left controlling” anything. this country is in many ways a meritocracy and the best people and best ideas rise to the top. so quit whinning about your snowflake sensibilities and get on board with what non-radical people care about. this extremism is doomed to death
Ever hear of an instituion called SCOTUS? This Court overrulled Roe v Wade as well as Bakke ,s minimized the damage that prior Courts did with the Establishment Clause and has substantially cut back the power of the administrative state.-I think that era of any called deference to what adminstrative agencies do is over
"Racism" is a concept invented in the 20th century by Jewish communists in order to subvert the basic human instinct to prioritize our own in-groups. It is a psyop designed to destabilize and destroy society, and that is what we are seeing all across the neoliberal West. Japan is racist, Israel is racist, India is racist, all of our ancestors were racist if we understand racism to be acknowledging that not all races are the same. Embracing this "color blind" view that disparate people like Somalians and South Koreans are genetically and culturally interchangeable is obnoxious stupidity.
Oh, really? Good thing that couldn't happen here. But I'll tell you something; "Kill the Boer" beats "Kumbaya", every time. You'll understand that better when someone's hacking your limbs off while his friend rapes your wife.
Certainly then you'd support increased immigration from China - did you know that in China they consider ethnic Caucasians an underprivileged minority & direct affirmative action benefits their way?
Walk into any Democratically controlled city with a Soros progressive DA-The evidence is that most crime is committed by minority group members against other minority group members because of a dysfunctional family structure, and disdain for education
I'm more inclined to think it's because of a genetic predisposition to violence. But have it your way. I still don't want them for neighbors. Chris Rufo can virtue-signal about "judging people as individuals" all he wants. But if you get off the subway and everyone on the street is black, this ain't your stop, White Boy. Get back on that train while you can, I don't care who is DA.
I have been riding the NYC subways for almost 50 years- There is crime but Thank GodI have never seen or been a victim -and I have ridden the subway in some of the worst areas in NYC
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?
Is that what black people want, that the rest of us should try to solve their social problems? I've heard a number of times that black people resent white people who think black culture needs fixing. Even when there is a highly visible well-documented problem, spokespeople for black communities, self-appointed or not, have spoken out against interventions in black neighborhoods by liberal white do gooders.
...."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.
Absolutely well stated. Even pre pandemic I observed the decline in our nation education performance not only locally, by more importantly, Globally. Merit has been dismissed as part of an out of date that defines the Judeo Christian foundation of our Nation. Once everyone gets a trophy despite performance, the merit was not worth the
effort. Additionally, the Obamas came in with a very clear message of both victimization and a lack of commitment to the country that just elected them.
The rules were changed. Our new president created more racial divide when he was actually in the seat to show the values of the very free market open system that elected him. He could be the male mentor our cyclical fatherless projects desperately needed. Instead, victimization and rewriting history came to a generation of new students.
Merit was not cool. Spread the wealth was the new empowerment. Not self improvement.
History of how the west was settled is being rewritten. The very history of our early founding fathers has the first floor of Faneuil Hall, where the Chambers upstairs in Boston
had some of its earliest declaration’s discussed and signed by men like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, George Washington and Paul Revere and more in the harbors of Boston.
Visiting the city we grew up in the 60’s, it was astonishing that all tours lend inference that these founders gained great wealth due to slave trade. The entire first floor if
The Faneuil Hall market is devoid of plaques that for years proclaimed the purpose of this meeting hall. Yet, now there are rows of cases of books on Juneteenth.
The city labor were the slaves of the Europeans. On one plaque the quote stated ‘The Upstairs meeting hall was originally used for Boston town meeting, a self-governing body that discussed local issues. By 1760, the debates shifted when the British parliament imposed a series of taxes on commodities and everyday essentials to help pay the expense of the empire. Faneuil Hall was one of those venues where Bostonians argued about taxation without representation. The ongoing debates led to the revolution continued to resound within these walls. WHILE many considered Faneuil Hall the ‘CRADLE of LIBERTY “ there was Not yet liberty for all.
The last line of pity, never existed in these halls before or our celebration of Juneteenth.
The untruths have a lense on one thing. Racism and Victimization. The city is rich with history including the French Native American dwellers and as it grew... labor was so short, the Courtyard on Exeter St. Was built to house men/ boys to live in the city and were paid to build what is now back bay and the areas around the harbor.
How do we get to respect and equality without merit? Or, a system then sets a lower bar for success for anyone of any nationality?
Living in Charleston, SC now, the Slave labor was indeed the foundation of the empire in the production of cotton and indigo supplied to Europe. We understand the vital need to terminate this practice yet, our US History is simply not taught as it was founded. We must include. We must respect the truth.
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.
Another world for "the racialist paradigm" is the basic reality that people throughout history have always understood the basic truth that race matters. Everyone sensible around the globe outside of neoliberal societies in outright collapse know and understand that race is anything but meaningless. "If one of us doesn’t matter, none of us matter" is leftist nonsense, humans naturally prioritize the welfare of their in-group and always have, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Somalia or Japan.
Even blacks in South Africa are pining for a return to apartheid. The power grid worked reliably and you could walk down the street without fear of being attacked or killed.
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.
Sep 2, 2023·edited Sep 2, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
The simple reality is that there is no productive division between the individual and the "collective". They are interdependent units. A collective is only as strong, healthy and good as the individuals who comprise it. An individual is only as strong, healthy and good as the collective which nurtures him or her.
Any attempt to craft a conflict between individual vs. group should be met with reference to the interdependent nature of both. One is not "preferable" somehow to the other. Each is integral to the other.
I agree. It is possible though to have a legal regime that requires the law to treat everyone equally, while giving private individuals the freedom not to do so. This is in fact what the Constitution says on paper, if you reconcile the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association/assembly with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equality under the law. The express right to freedom of association has been studiously ignored while the civil rights regime has metastasized into a parallel constitution (see Caldwell), so what's written is not what we have in practice. But that was the compromise from the Civil War until the 60s.
Yes, equal treatment under the law is realistic, I agree with that. We don't have that today. We have blatant discrimination worldwide both (1) against one race and one race alone, getting a free pass from all governments and NGOs ("NWOGOs"), and (2) against any ideology that suggests that present course is bad, wrong, undesirable, hypocritical, or anything else that it actually is.
Freedom of association (which includes the right to NOT associate) has been thrown out the window and under the bus to pander to the "wokeism" parasite.
Equal treatment under the law might not be realistic given what's happening, though. In the "the woke are more correct than the mainstream" vein, equal treatment under the law is a white (or "white supremacist," in woke parlance,) value. In other words, once the population is sufficiently diverse, you cannot practically have equality under the law (which is Chris Rufo's goal). That's a bit of a black pill for some, including Rufo. For those of us on Team Reality, that's just reality though.
An analog might be decision to separate church and state after the religious wars in England. The state won't look into your religion, because that caused decades of war, but you're free to do so on your own.
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.
There’s a difference between “white supremacy” and the acknowledgement that the historic population and culture (white Americans) is being favored of those who come to the us as an economic zone. Anyone who will not recognize this is being disingenuous.
There is nothing wrong with saying everyone who comes here must be selected for economic and cultural compatibility and be expected to respect/integrated with the historic population....it’s what every nation requires.
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
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.
Who's stopping him? Certainly not I. Rather, I'm supporting his long-time focus CRT/DEI racism. But you might be having a problem with proportionality.
According to a recent article in Statista, a highly reputable, neutrally biased source from Germany, the race of mass shooters in the US reflects the US population. This runs counter to false narratives pushed by the Biden admin & the left leaning media.
Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population
Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors theracial distribution of the U.S. populationas a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around nine percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated, means no such conclusions should be drawn. Conversely, looking at themass shootings in the United States by genderclearly demonstrates that the majority of mass shootings are carried out by men.
Blacks commit 60% of violent crimes while making up 13% of the population. Simply untrue to claim there is an equal distribution of crime being committed by all groups. Some groups commit almost no violent crime, particularly asians. This is cultural; Africa filled with violence and Northeast Asia has almost none.
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.”
Even if the racialist argument is wrong (if liberty is respected, I don’t see why whites must surrender to demographic swamping), it doesn’t mean whites can control other groups from acting in their self interest--including economically exploiting and physically harming whites.
How about not staffing 800 military bases in 90+ countries, engaging in military conflicts on 4 continents and not tampering with every nation under the sun? Or would backing off on that constitute "ignoring the world" from your view?
I wouldn’t conflate populist tendencies on the right — which Rufo can be seen as part of — with racialism. Not all populism advocates or flirts with white identity politics. It can mean a rejection of the radical laissez-faire policies and military adventurism that ”conservatism” has brought us over the last several decades, as well as opposition to the identity politics of the left.
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.
One has to differentiate between policy/law and public culture. "Maximal ethnocentrism for nonwhites, combined with compulsory ethnomasochism for whites" is not a stable equilibrium. In practice, every group will converge on the same level of ethnocentrism, for better or for worse.
Greer and Kaufmann both have a point: white identity politics may well be coming, whatever the merits of arguments like Rufo’s against them, and we need to be prepared not just to oppose them outright but to think about how to channel them into less destructive paths.
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
Total nonsense.. The left controls every major institution in society and uses that leverage against the right, the right has no institutional power whatsoever. The left advocates for white genocide without repercussion and the right gets canceled for posting "White lives matter".
snowflake. quit whinning
maybe people want what the left is selling. compassion, caring, color blindness, concern for the underprivileged. three is no “left controlling” anything. this country is in many ways a meritocracy and the best people and best ideas rise to the top. so quit whinning about your snowflake sensibilities and get on board with what non-radical people care about. this extremism is doomed to death
Ever hear of an instituion called SCOTUS? This Court overrulled Roe v Wade as well as Bakke ,s minimized the damage that prior Courts did with the Establishment Clause and has substantially cut back the power of the administrative state.-I think that era of any called deference to what adminstrative agencies do is over
"Racism" is a concept invented in the 20th century by Jewish communists in order to subvert the basic human instinct to prioritize our own in-groups. It is a psyop designed to destabilize and destroy society, and that is what we are seeing all across the neoliberal West. Japan is racist, Israel is racist, India is racist, all of our ancestors were racist if we understand racism to be acknowledging that not all races are the same. Embracing this "color blind" view that disparate people like Somalians and South Koreans are genetically and culturally interchangeable is obnoxious stupidity.
Never! Mandela's successors ruined an economically great and a country where peaceful reconciliation after apartheid were possible
Oh, really? Good thing that couldn't happen here. But I'll tell you something; "Kill the Boer" beats "Kumbaya", every time. You'll understand that better when someone's hacking your limbs off while his friend rapes your wife.
Certainly then you'd support increased immigration from China - did you know that in China they consider ethnic Caucasians an underprivileged minority & direct affirmative action benefits their way?
Walk into any Democratically controlled city with a Soros progressive DA-The evidence is that most crime is committed by minority group members against other minority group members because of a dysfunctional family structure, and disdain for education
I'm more inclined to think it's because of a genetic predisposition to violence. But have it your way. I still don't want them for neighbors. Chris Rufo can virtue-signal about "judging people as individuals" all he wants. But if you get off the subway and everyone on the street is black, this ain't your stop, White Boy. Get back on that train while you can, I don't care who is DA.
I have been riding the NYC subways for almost 50 years- There is crime but Thank GodI have never seen or been a victim -and I have ridden the subway in some of the worst areas in NYC
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?
Well, for most of those hundreds of years, the US wasn’t really trying to solve the problem of black social dysfunction, now was it?
Is that what black people want, that the rest of us should try to solve their social problems? I've heard a number of times that black people resent white people who think black culture needs fixing. Even when there is a highly visible well-documented problem, spokespeople for black communities, self-appointed or not, have spoken out against interventions in black neighborhoods by liberal white do gooders.
No, not all those years. But many decades of trying and many billions (trillions?) of dollars have been expended.
I feel no tribal affinity with you, if that’s what you mean.
...."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.
Absolutely well stated. Even pre pandemic I observed the decline in our nation education performance not only locally, by more importantly, Globally. Merit has been dismissed as part of an out of date that defines the Judeo Christian foundation of our Nation. Once everyone gets a trophy despite performance, the merit was not worth the
effort. Additionally, the Obamas came in with a very clear message of both victimization and a lack of commitment to the country that just elected them.
The rules were changed. Our new president created more racial divide when he was actually in the seat to show the values of the very free market open system that elected him. He could be the male mentor our cyclical fatherless projects desperately needed. Instead, victimization and rewriting history came to a generation of new students.
Merit was not cool. Spread the wealth was the new empowerment. Not self improvement.
History of how the west was settled is being rewritten. The very history of our early founding fathers has the first floor of Faneuil Hall, where the Chambers upstairs in Boston
had some of its earliest declaration’s discussed and signed by men like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, George Washington and Paul Revere and more in the harbors of Boston.
Visiting the city we grew up in the 60’s, it was astonishing that all tours lend inference that these founders gained great wealth due to slave trade. The entire first floor if
The Faneuil Hall market is devoid of plaques that for years proclaimed the purpose of this meeting hall. Yet, now there are rows of cases of books on Juneteenth.
The city labor were the slaves of the Europeans. On one plaque the quote stated ‘The Upstairs meeting hall was originally used for Boston town meeting, a self-governing body that discussed local issues. By 1760, the debates shifted when the British parliament imposed a series of taxes on commodities and everyday essentials to help pay the expense of the empire. Faneuil Hall was one of those venues where Bostonians argued about taxation without representation. The ongoing debates led to the revolution continued to resound within these walls. WHILE many considered Faneuil Hall the ‘CRADLE of LIBERTY “ there was Not yet liberty for all.
The last line of pity, never existed in these halls before or our celebration of Juneteenth.
The untruths have a lense on one thing. Racism and Victimization. The city is rich with history including the French Native American dwellers and as it grew... labor was so short, the Courtyard on Exeter St. Was built to house men/ boys to live in the city and were paid to build what is now back bay and the areas around the harbor.
How do we get to respect and equality without merit? Or, a system then sets a lower bar for success for anyone of any nationality?
Living in Charleston, SC now, the Slave labor was indeed the foundation of the empire in the production of cotton and indigo supplied to Europe. We understand the vital need to terminate this practice yet, our US History is simply not taught as it was founded. We must include. We must respect the truth.
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.
Another world for "the racialist paradigm" is the basic reality that people throughout history have always understood the basic truth that race matters. Everyone sensible around the globe outside of neoliberal societies in outright collapse know and understand that race is anything but meaningless. "If one of us doesn’t matter, none of us matter" is leftist nonsense, humans naturally prioritize the welfare of their in-group and always have, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Somalia or Japan.
The Left cares about their liberationist agenda and to advance it, they need power.
You need to put quote marks round "liberationist".
Even blacks in South Africa are pining for a return to apartheid. The power grid worked reliably and you could walk down the street without fear of being attacked or killed.
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.
This can be changed but only if confronted. Most blacks are apolitical but black “leaders” push this tribalism and need to be confronted.
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.
The simple reality is that there is no productive division between the individual and the "collective". They are interdependent units. A collective is only as strong, healthy and good as the individuals who comprise it. An individual is only as strong, healthy and good as the collective which nurtures him or her.
Any attempt to craft a conflict between individual vs. group should be met with reference to the interdependent nature of both. One is not "preferable" somehow to the other. Each is integral to the other.
I agree. It is possible though to have a legal regime that requires the law to treat everyone equally, while giving private individuals the freedom not to do so. This is in fact what the Constitution says on paper, if you reconcile the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association/assembly with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equality under the law. The express right to freedom of association has been studiously ignored while the civil rights regime has metastasized into a parallel constitution (see Caldwell), so what's written is not what we have in practice. But that was the compromise from the Civil War until the 60s.
Yes, equal treatment under the law is realistic, I agree with that. We don't have that today. We have blatant discrimination worldwide both (1) against one race and one race alone, getting a free pass from all governments and NGOs ("NWOGOs"), and (2) against any ideology that suggests that present course is bad, wrong, undesirable, hypocritical, or anything else that it actually is.
Freedom of association (which includes the right to NOT associate) has been thrown out the window and under the bus to pander to the "wokeism" parasite.
Equal treatment under the law might not be realistic given what's happening, though. In the "the woke are more correct than the mainstream" vein, equal treatment under the law is a white (or "white supremacist," in woke parlance,) value. In other words, once the population is sufficiently diverse, you cannot practically have equality under the law (which is Chris Rufo's goal). That's a bit of a black pill for some, including Rufo. For those of us on Team Reality, that's just reality though.
An analog might be decision to separate church and state after the religious wars in England. The state won't look into your religion, because that caused decades of war, but you're free to do so on your own.
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.
There’s a difference between “white supremacy” and the acknowledgement that the historic population and culture (white Americans) is being favored of those who come to the us as an economic zone. Anyone who will not recognize this is being disingenuous.
There is nothing wrong with saying everyone who comes here must be selected for economic and cultural compatibility and be expected to respect/integrated with the historic population....it’s what every nation requires.
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.
The GOP won't figure it out, it is a dinosaur waiting to go extinct.
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.
It’s not as if Rufo has been focusing his attention on white supremacy. Let him have his one column about it before warning against disproportion.
Who's stopping him? Certainly not I. Rather, I'm supporting his long-time focus CRT/DEI racism. But you might be having a problem with proportionality.
According to a recent article in Statista, a highly reputable, neutrally biased source from Germany, the race of mass shooters in the US reflects the US population. This runs counter to false narratives pushed by the Biden admin & the left leaning media.
Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population
Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors theracial distribution of the U.S. populationas a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around nine percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated, means no such conclusions should be drawn. Conversely, looking at themass shootings in the United States by genderclearly demonstrates that the majority of mass shootings are carried out by men.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
Blacks commit 60% of violent crimes while making up 13% of the population. Simply untrue to claim there is an equal distribution of crime being committed by all groups. Some groups commit almost no violent crime, particularly asians. This is cultural; Africa filled with violence and Northeast Asia has almost none.
This is true, sadly. They also have a very high rate of no male mentor or Father present.
It's % of mass shootings, not violent crime.
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.”
Even if the racialist argument is wrong (if liberty is respected, I don’t see why whites must surrender to demographic swamping), it doesn’t mean whites can control other groups from acting in their self interest--including economically exploiting and physically harming whites.
How about not staffing 800 military bases in 90+ countries, engaging in military conflicts on 4 continents and not tampering with every nation under the sun? Or would backing off on that constitute "ignoring the world" from your view?
I wouldn’t conflate populist tendencies on the right — which Rufo can be seen as part of — with racialism. Not all populism advocates or flirts with white identity politics. It can mean a rejection of the radical laissez-faire policies and military adventurism that ”conservatism” has brought us over the last several decades, as well as opposition to the identity politics of the left.
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.
Scott Greer takes the other side of this argument:
https://highlyrespected.substack.com/p/the-great-white-debate
Eric Kaufmann is a must-read: https://www.amazon.com/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/1468316974
One has to differentiate between policy/law and public culture. "Maximal ethnocentrism for nonwhites, combined with compulsory ethnomasochism for whites" is not a stable equilibrium. In practice, every group will converge on the same level of ethnocentrism, for better or for worse.
Greer and Kaufmann both have a point: white identity politics may well be coming, whatever the merits of arguments like Rufo’s against them, and we need to be prepared not just to oppose them outright but to think about how to channel them into less destructive paths.
Hunh?