Alt-Right, Politics, recent

Arresting the White Backlash

Anyone who wants to explain what’s happening in the West needs to answer two simple questions. First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect? If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear. Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment.
~Eric Kaufmann

The Overton Window that admits acceptable discourse on increasingly taboo subjects has been narrowing. Racism has concept crept to include moderate voices while the cultural Left, which privileges issues of identity over inequalities of class, now dominates a number of important and influential mainstream institutions, including academia, the media, and parts of the corporate world. The twentieth century shift from monoculturalism to multiculturalism is now often understood in quasi-religious terms, as if this development constitutes a unidirectional movement from darkness to enlightenment. However, the speed of this transition and the vertigo it can induce, especially among people with naturally conservative temperaments, has opened a black market for far-right figures to stoke resentment against the conjoined forces of post-civil rights liberalism, cosmopolitan universalism, and internationalist globalisation.

One such figure is 21 year-old Nicholas J. Fuentes, a self-described catholic paleoconservative and apparent ethnonationalist, who has steadily built an online army of predominantly young Gen Zs and Millennials calling themselves Groypers (a reference to Pepe the frog’s obese cousin). Their sworn foes are not leftists but conservative (and generally Trump-sympathetic) organisations like Turning Point USA and the Daily Wire, which they feel have abandoned “true” conservatism and ceded cultural power to the Left. This antagonism boiled over at a series of recent speaking events held by mainstream conservative activists like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, which were disrupted by Groypers barking conspiracist tropes about homosexuality, the influence of Israel, and the decline of white populations. “These are the forces we’re harnessing: tribalism, populism, nationalism.” Fuentes has waxed bluntly. “This charade of liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy. It can only go on for so long.”

The question we should be asking is not why these ideas exist at all, but why they are gaining traction now, particularly among the younger generations. Although the prevailing tendency of right-thinking people is to view the ascendance of Donald Trump and the far-Right as a scourge produced by historical white privilege or else a consequence of bad economics, the surge of populism over the past few years corresponds to broader cultural trends that predate Trump’s presidency and form the subtext of our culture war.

Since the 1990s, the percentage of white Americans who identify with their race has nearly doubled, while a majority of white Americans now believe that whites are discriminated against—one of the more accurate predictors of a Trump vote. This spike in what Duke political scientist Ashley Jardina calls “white identity politics” has coincided with a doubling of the rate of immigration over the same period. Meanwhile, bitter political polarization has intensified between Democrats and Republicans, and one of the deepest divides is their respective views on race and American history. These trends have combined to shape the context of our cultural moment and create a self-perpetuating feedback loop of grievance and resentment: the changing ethnic composition of the country puts a strain on white ethnic identity; conservative whites respond by becoming increasingly radical along explicitly tribal lines; the “religious” anti-racist Left expands its definition of racism to stigmatize its opponents; polarisation and mutual hatred are exacerbated, and so on.

America First

The modern iteration of the “America First” movement is preoccupied by shifting demographics in the West, a transition the political scientist Eric Kaufmann has dubbed “WhiteShift” in his book of the same name: the decline of white majorities caused by immigration and intermarriage, and a loosening of the boundaries of whiteness to include mixed race people (a development about which ethnonationalists have decidedly mixed feelings). To complicate matters further, the sense of identity threat and cultural loss felt among whites is occurring alongside an increasing willingness to tolerate anti-white rhetoric in elite progressive circles, fomenting unnecessary bitterness and resentment.

The tendency on the Left is to see this shift into a “majority-minority” paradigm as opening the door to a new society in which we transcend the sins of our past. In reality, the changing ethnic composition of the population is already intensifying deep cultural antipathies that aren’t being naturally resolved. To the far-Right, the demographic decline of whites not only represents a reduction in status but also a political threat to the Republican Party and the death rattle of white ethno-cultural traditions. These demographic anxieties are being marshaled to sell a new brand of hyper-reactionary conservatism that promises to reclaim a sense of heritage. In a video entitled “Demographics Are Destiny,” Fuentes asserts that “the name of the game for this century is rapid demographic change in America which is driven by mass immigration.”

According to this view, while immigration transforms the racial composition of the country, incoming minorities will vote Democrat and contribute to the already quickening social and economic breakdown of the West. In a speech at white nationalist Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance conference, Fuentes, who cites the paleoconservative writer Samuel T. Francis as his antecedent, argued that his generation is the answer to the problems brought about by the Baby Boomers. The Hart-Celler Immigration Act Of 1965, he said, was passed against the will of the American people and lies at the root of our subsequent woes. “The most pernicious lie of the Boomer generation,” he proclaimed, “is that race is only skin deep.”

There is a comforting myth that white backlash politics are merely a revival of the ideas which conceived of slavery and Jim Crow—the last gasp of unreconstructed white racial supremacy that yearns for a return to Whites Only water fountains. But this assumption ignores the complexities of modern life, and the “racist” epithet sometimes only emboldens those it is intended to shame. Since the cultural upheavals of the 1960s, social capital has diminished, single parenthood has skyrocketed, wages have stagnated, religious and civic engagement have declined, the economy has become increasingly stratified, rates of suicide and depression have risen, and there is less trust in our institutions than ever before. Millennials and Generation Z are confronted with the absence of a clear path to acquiring meaning, and lives that promise to be less abundant than those of our parents (in relative terms). This leaves disaffected young people more susceptible to the tribalist pull of identitarian movements. Like all radical ideologies, America First offers to explain this web of disparate grievances with a neatly packaged narrative that sees white Americans as the noble victims in a heroic struggle.

Demographics Are Not Destiny

Leaving aside its dependence on top-down conspiracism, unapologetic racialism, self-fulfilling prophecism, doomsaying, historical revisionism, and unfalsifiability, this narrative relies on questionable assumptions. First, contrary to both radical Left and Right pundits, it’s not obvious that more immigration will result in fewer Republicans and more Democrats. The Democratic Party was at its most dominant during historical periods when the electorate was most racially homogenous—such as between 1938 and 1968 when the population was 90 percent white.

Second, the majority of Hispanics and Latinos who come to this country self-identify as white on the census, and when those numbers are factored in, the white share of the population has actually grown between 2000 and 2017. And most Hispanics come to identify as white, the longer they live in the country. (Fuentes, incidentally, is a quarter Hispanic and identifies as white.) Political coalitions are always realigning around different values and identities. Given that innate psychological temperament is one of the better predictors of political orientation, the notion that one half of the political spectrum would somehow disappear as a consequence of increased diversity borders on the absurd. If a mass exodus from the Republican party were impending, we have yet to see it.

Furthermore, racial identity is an inaccurate benchmark of attitudes and beliefs. According to surveys conducted after the Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of polled Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that “whites are under attack in this country,” and 53 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to “protect and preserve its white European heritage.” It’s also worth noting that two of the foremost spokespeople of America First nationalism, Michelle Malkin and Jesse Lee Peterson, are Asian-American and Black American respectively. In sum, demographic change itself won’t necessarily impact culture in ways paranoid paleoconservatives imagine.

Unfortunately for the America First project (and fortunately for anyone who has faith in the moral progress of the country), the vast majority of Americans approve of legal immigration and rates of intermarriage are higher than they’ve ever been. Ethnonationalism is obviously a dead end. It’s the collective stories we tell, the cultural norms we accept, and the principles we abide by that make us who we are and determine the success of a society, not whether the people around us look like ourselves. 

Ethno-Traditional Nationalism

What might a path forward look like that can eclipse both the tribalism of the radical Right and the religious zealotry of the radical Left? A possible solution can be found in what Eric Kaufmann calls “Ethno-Traditional Nationalism”: valuing the ethnic majority and its cultural symbols as an essential part of a pluralistic nation alongside other ethnic groups. This is distinct from the ethnic nationalism supported by the far-Right. While the latter urges strict racial uniformity and stratification, the former allows for a moderate expression of white ethnic identity balanced with the identities of other ethnic groups. This is the difference between harboring a racialist ideology that stigmatizes outsiders, and feeling a sense of attachment to the historic lineage of one’s nation, a distinction that helps explain why many minorities are disturbed by the decline of white majorities. Importantly (and perhaps counter-intuitively), there is virtually no correlation between bearing a stronger white identity and harboring greater antipathy towards minority groups. Indeed, it is people that already feel a sense of cultural loss that are more likely to express hatred of an out-group.

As rapid technological and cultural change continues to sweep the ground beneath our feet, it is necessary to allow for a healthy expression of national identity—a sense that our individual efforts and struggles are connected to a larger story that existed before we were born and will continue long after we die—that isn’t tied to a history of oppression or some past golden age. That won’t be possible until whiteness is seen as an ethnocultural identity like any other, with its own vision, stories, and idea of itself, rather than an all-encompassing and malevolent power construct. Ethno-Traditional Nationalism represents a nonpartisan response to runaway sectarianism that allows for the necessary disentanglement of race and culture.

Moving beyond the populist moment would provide space for a more honest and necessary conversation about questions relating to white identity. How do we square the encouragement of collective identity among historically marginalized groups on the Left with the discouragement of white identity? How long is this asymmetry sustainable? Is “white identity inherently racist,” as whiteness studies scholar Robin DiAngelo has insisted? Is there a difference between racial self-interest and racism? If so, what is it? And what exactly constitutes a racist view? Is it wanting less immigration? Resisting interracial marriage? Wanting to live in a neighborhood comprised of one’s own ethnic group? Moreover, what might a positive vision for the future look like for those who identify as white, considering that this group still accounts for most of the country? And when will it be acceptable to let go of the reflexive assumption that whites hold all societal power? When whites are a minority? When social and political diversity reflect that of the population? When every last white racist is dead and gone?

The answers are not obvious. But anyone who wants to live in a robust multi-ethnic democracy that celebrates our commonalities without denigrating difference, rather than a diaspora of warring camps moved by racial and political enmity, should concern themselves with the questions. If we fail or refuse to do so, something worse than Donald Trump awaits us.

 

Samuel Kronen is an independent writer interested in culture, politics, and identity. You can follow him on Twitter @SalmonKromeDome. He also runs a YouTube channel called The Invisible Man on the side.

Photo by Josh Johnson on Unsplash

Comments

  1. Leftist writing about conservatives always follow the same script. First they begin with conflating the alt-right (whatever that means) with Conservatives. Next they claim these conservatives are angry and motivated by hate and racial animus. These conservatives are ignorant deplorable racist but fortunately enlightened white progressives like the writer exist to hold them in check. It is in essence a good v. evil fable. The story of the maladjusted violent white make has been told several times and was the subject of the 1993 movie “Falling Down”.

    So are whites upset? Yes Are whites upset about changing demographics? By and large no. What most whites are bothered by is ethnic pride and culture are considered good things to be celebrated, except by whites. Yet when whites enjoy or celebrate other cultures, they are accused of cultural appropriation. Whites are tired of being told only they can be racists which is the same as saying only whites can be evil. Conservatives whites reject the notion that they and their culture are a problem to be corrected or eradicated. It is not racial demographics to which conservative whites object but rather racial hypocrisy. Are we to live in a world where people are judged by the content of their character or in a world where being white is considered a malady? Leftist can only view conservatives with a jaundiced eye because to see conservatives as they are interferes with the Leftist identity of racial champion.

  2. “The answers are not obvious. But anyone who wants to live in a robust multi-ethnic democracy that celebrates our commonalities without denigrating difference, rather than a diaspora of warring camps moved by racial and political enmity, should concern themselves with the questions. If we fail or refuse to do so, something worse than Donald Trump awaits us.”

    This and the topic of the article are important things to consider…until the last sentence cuts a fart right as the elevator doors close.

    Not going to play the trump apologist because I’m not a fan, but what does Trump have to do with any of this? Why the parting shot? It’s like you had a great presentation at a business meeting and then yelled “suck it!” on the way out the door.

    How is it possible that an intersectional vs white supremacy civil war awaiting us isn’t worse than living under a park bench covered in seagull shit as our sitting president? Regardless of how you feel about trump, make your points and stand by them unless your points somehow tie into trump as the root of white backlash, which in my estimation your piece actually works to disprove.Please edit this thing, because your piece looks fine until you start saying stupid things in it.

  3. Quillette seems to increasingly follow the famous Robert’s second law of conquest (" Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing."). It started with a courageous attempt to disseminate the mainstream views in psychology and it is now full of National Review/The Atlantic style gate-keeping pieces. Let’s dig into this essay.

    However, the speed of this transition and the vertigo it can induce, especially among people with naturally conservative temperaments, has opened a black market for far-right figures to stoke resentment against the conjoined forces of post-civil rights liberalism, cosmopolitan universalism, and internationalist globalisation

    I love the framing here. It is only the “speed” that is causing the problem. The evolution is good in and of itself. The conservative pointing out the issues are, on the other hand, “stocking resentment”.

    “Leaving aside its dependence on top-down conspiracism, unapologetic racialism, self-fulfilling prophecism, doomsaying, historical revisionism, and unfalsifiability, this narrative relies on questionable assumptions. First, contrary to both radical Left and Right pundits, [it’s not obvious that more immigration will result in fewer Republicans and more Democrats.”

    First, I have to give the author props for the tsunami of name-calling he was able to pack in one sentence. Second, yes, they might not be fewer republicans but what kind of republican party will it be , just a watered down version of the democrats? Their worries are about the issues: immigration, second amendment, law and order, affirmative action. With a dwindling white population, they lose on all of those issues, and if the author seriously engaged with their ideas, he would notice that the data seriously backs them up.

    Second, the majority of Hispanics and Latinos who come to this country self-identify as white on the census, and when those numbers are factored in, the white share of the population has actually [grown] between 2000 and 2017.

    What’s the point of that argument? Hispanic is not a race. A self-identification from somebody coming from another country means nothing. The 70/30 voting pattern in favor of democrats and their radical policies still stand.

    Furthermore, racial identity is an inaccurate benchmark of attitudes and beliefs. According to [surveys]conducted after the Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of polled Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that “whites are under attack in this country,” and 53 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to “protect and preserve its white European heritage.”

    The key word here is “trump voter”. Those people are minorities in their respective communities: 70/30 in favor of democrats for Latinos and something like 80/20 for Asians when it comes to voting. The only thing you are saying here is that the small share of minorities that the republican party gets think like the whites!

    the vast majority of Americans approve of [legal immigration] and [rates of intermarriage] are higher than they’ve ever been

    After massive waves of immigration, I wonder how much of the support for further immigration comes from the descendants of the recent waves of immigration. Also, all the far-right people know ethnonationalism is dead. They just want a level playing field when it comes to identity politics.

    " It’s the collective stories we tell, the cultural norms we accept, and the principles we abide by that make us who we are and determine the success of a society, not whether the people around us look like ourselves.

    Ok. What makes people accept the collective stories? what makes them abide by the cultural norms? isn’t a certain level of ethnic homogeneity required for that?

    The Eric Kaufmann’s ending is simply a nice spin on “losing with honor”. The rise of Fuentes and Co is not due to “resentment”. It is due to very clear threats. Most people are and will always be tribal. The demographic decay of Europeans will translate into cultural decline. The history that they cherish will be progressively sidelined. Increased affirmative action will bar many middle class white men from quality jobs and programs. Moreover, nobody will care about the social issues affecting them (crime, opioid crisis), and, most importantly, their demonization will be unrelenting.This is why there is a “backlash”.

  4. It certainly appears the author, like nearly all leftists, only know people on the right from what other leftists, equally ignorant, write about conservatives. I have been deeply immersed in the conservative world for twenty years (altho I consider myself to be a classical liberal) and I never recognize the world of right of center people as described by these authors. I find it impossible to believe they actually know any conservatives well enough to write about them.
    The conservatives I know, and I have known hundreds, bear no resemblance to the right-wingers these lazy and ignorant authors write about.

  5. The real tragedy of the Culture War, is that quite quietly, behind the scenes and in a manner deliberately overlooked by the Media, real heroes are solving the real roots of structural and systemic racism. Whether it’s Dr Raj Chetty showing that fathers really do make all the difference in terms of social mobility; Munira Mirza elucidating that a lack of trust, on the part of BAME individuals, accounts for almost all sentencing disparities by race in the UK court system; or Jonathan Haidt talking about how Barrack Obama’s unleashing of the Educational Bureaucracy, to tackle perceived racism in disciplinary offences, actually harmed African American educational outcomes and reinforced the school-to-prison pipeline- the evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

    The overwhelming majority of structural and systemic racism exists for either largely intractable scio-economic reasons, or because of perverse systemic interactions, especially where social and cultural forces combine with top-down arbitrary approaches. Often, it is the the very urge to address historic grievance, or the need to banish perceived racism in the here and now, that lies at the core of perverse racial outcomes. Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’ was in large part, meant to address the tricky issue of Reparations by indirect means, by offering disproportionately poor African American communities disproportionate Government Aid to address their circumstances- but in the long run, it also ended up disincentivitising Black Fatherhood.

    So how does all of this bear on the conversation of racial strife and growing levels of resentment between groups? Well, once we understand that only a relatively small portion of systemic racism is caused by unconscious or implicit bias, it completely deflates the Left’s argument that there should be some arbitrarily ‘Equity’ to compensate for some overwhelming sea of racism that we are all swimming in, some of us, unwittingly. We need to fix the problems at the roots of perceived racial injustices, instead of applying band-aids to gaping wounds, which are only likely to become septic over time.

    Diversity and Inclusivity are fine things because they reinforce our sense of Fairness and encourage socially harmonious relations. So multiple methodologies of finding talented individuals as early as possible, to substantially aid in their nurture, should very much be the order of the day. Mentoring systems would be an incredibly potent and rather cheap way of addressing the natural advantages other groups possess, through access to potent ‘family and friends’ knowledge networks. But arbitrary ‘Equity’ as a means to artificially correct for perceived privileges that are proving to be more illusory than real, is tearing society apart with grievance and counter-grievance. It’s the fertile ground on which White Supremacy is sown.

    Instead of becoming activists, we need to become better detectives, and address ourselves to the very real problems of the perverse systems that lie at the heart of systemic injustice- because in tackling the issues that perversely affect one group, we will find that our own groups have been marginally dispossesed by the very same means- just not as much. The cause as always, should be emphasising our common humanity, rather than setting one arbitrary group against another. There need to be real solutions that offer real hope, even if we know that there the results can only make the world incrementally better- because that is how all progress is made.

  6. This wa-a-a-y off subject, but I would like to wish the great staff and the fantastic commentariat of Quillette a very Merry Christmas or a happy whichever bacchanalian excuse you use to celebrate the winter solstice. You have brought welcome knowledge, wit, and acumen into my old life. Looking forward to appropriately clear vision and insight in 2020.

  7. That was also the sentence that made me stop giving this author a chance at having my respect.

    Left-wing smugness is overpowering, and left-wing obliviousness to said smugness is tremendous.

  8. While nowhere near as bad as this article, the opening paragraph of Helen Pluckrose’s piece in Areo shows the same leftie superiority as this. In a piece about why Labour lost the UK election so badly she begins by deriding the US president and Boris Johnson and by (unintended I’m sure) those of us stupid enough to have voted for them.

    That’s it that the reason you lost and will continue to lose, the writer of this piece just continues this with a little more nastiness.

  9. A good case study to help us understand the phenomenon of a resurgent “white” ethnic politics is the paroxysm of Confederate Statue smashing that convulsed the nation in 2017. One example that I found most disturbing was the World Worker’s Party riot in Durham, North Carolina wherein a mob of SJW’s pulled down a monument in the town square that had stood for 110 years and was erected as a memorial to the hundreds of Durham Confederate soldiers who died far from home and were buried in unmarked graves from Pennsylvania to the coast of Alabama. I doubt many in the crowd had even a modicum of knowledge about the U.S Civil war. Few of the participants were Black. Many were South East Asian and Hispanic, however.

    Now, I myself am of a multi-ethnic heritage; Anglo-German and Mexican Irish. I was born and reared in Utah and have no real connection or sympathy to the Southern Confederacy, outside a fascination with the novels of William Faulkner. What I do have though is a natural revulsion towards vandalism and the destruction of public property. There is something Orwellian about the sight of plinth sans its statue.

    I don’t like the fact that so many of our better educated immigrants, particularly those of Asian and South Asian extraction who believe that they should become the champions of the Black American in our oftentimes contentious but inter-familial struggles. To take on this mantel of “wokeness” is a presumption bordering on impudence. Many Indian intellectuals speak openly of their Manifest Destiny to demographically dominate England and America. The Boer in South Africa is an affront to human dignity even if he has roots there that are 4 centuries old. To deny an African a home is Sweden or Germany or Britain at the expense of the state is an affront to human dignity because we are after all one human family. This is the 21st Century’s White Mans Burden trope.

    Last, let me say that the real driver for a resurgence in white identity politics is that the white working class are no longer the only ones under pressure from waves of mass immigration. The HIB Visa has done to the STEM field what illegal Hispanic immigration did to the construction and landscaping trades. It is easy to hate poor whites for their backwardness when you are ensconced in a Fortune 500 company with a 6-figure salary. It is much harder to do so when you are handed a blue slip and see a Pakistani engineer with a box of office belongings waiting to take your place at half the salary. The author would have had more credibility had he mentioned that the phenomenon he writes about is happening simultaneously all over the world and most poignantly in the so called Scandinavian socialist utopias.

  10. " The Democratic Party was at its most dominant during historical periods when the electorate was most racially homogenous—such as between 1938 and 1968 when the population was 90 percent white." - this is some embarrassing historical ignorance on the part of the author. He appears to be unaware that back in 1938, the Democrat Party was - just like the Republican party - representing the interests of white people. In fact, the Democratic party was the party of the KKK and separate drinking fountains.
    But things have changed in a 180 degree turn. Now the Democrat party has turned into the anti-white party. If your goal is to remove any and all power from whites, you naturally vote for the Democrat party. Not saying that is the ONLY reason to vote Democrat - but that is your home if you have this particular desire.

  11. I think some of what is going on when the Left refers to angry conservatives is projection. Leftist tend to be a ball of negative unpleasant energy. Everything is bad; racism, sexism and homophobia are pervasive, the world is about to end, capitalist are plotting to rob us of our wealth, everything is unfair, oppressors are everywhere, ect… There is always a need for a protest or demonstration. They utter phrases like, “how dare you!” They seldom smile and have no sense of humor. They are shrill and constantly raging against things. They experience more joy tearing someone or something down than they do building someone or something up. I pity their existence.

  12. What the author failed to do was clarify when exactly migration becomes colonization. This seems to be the crux of the problem. The Germans and Scandinavians who moved to Minnesota in the 1850’s did not move there to become Plains Indians, live in tepees and subsist on bison meat. They were there to farm, practice Christianity and have a dozen kids each. The Somali has moved to Minnesota not to become Nordic and Christian but to build himself an Islamic theocracy complete with FGM and polygamy, polyandry in the case of Ilhan Omar, Congresswoman (D), and do so at the expense of the native born tax payer. The Left in Minnesota champion these people not for what they bring culturally and financially to Minnesota, they do so as a affront, a rebuke to the Northern European population and its culture. This is the madness of the left on full display. Invite in an unlimited number of very fecund people from the worlds most troglodyte culture and possessed of the world’s most regressive religion as a counterbalance to the Catholic who is uncomfortable with third trimester abortion or a Lutheran who likes to see a creche in a public space at Christmas time.

    The Sioux uprising in Minnesota in 1862 cost the lives of hundreds of white women and children, most killed in the most gruesome manner. This is seen by many on the left as a positive development, heroic even, and a natural reaction to the pressure the plains Indians felt towards incursions on their lands. If a white Minnesotan today were to even look askance at a Somali woman in a full burka with 7 children in tow buying $300 worth of lamb at the Aldi grocery store in Columbia heights using a SNAP card this man would be considered a bigot and must then suffer all the opprobrium the community can muster. People have had enough. Carl Benjamin, aka Saragon of Akkad brought up an interesting point in a recent YouTube podcast; Why are the problems of integration and rising resentment towards immigrants in Britain not focused on all immigrants, not even the South East Asian Hindu and Sikh who are after all brown skinned and non-Christian? It seems that the Hindu and Sikh are there to be British and not there as a vanguard for a worldwide Arabic and Muslim Caliphate.

  13. Gaslighting is very popular on the Left. It is often hilariously illustrated on Quora, where left-wing people will post both their public-consumption lies and their true thoughts on a question side-by-side.

    A common example involves questions asking whether the Left advocates socialism. A few Leftists will write, “That’s ridiculous! Nobody’s actually advocating socialism! Quit watching Fox News!” Alongside their answers will be the answers of other Leftists, who declare “Of course we all want socialism! Capitalism is evil! Only an idiot who watches Fox News would think otherwise!”

    The second set of answers makes the first set seem ridiculous. Yet there they are.

    So too this question. Is there a movement to “eradicate whiteness?” Of course there is; plenty of people proudly declare their support for it!

    Yet alongside them are others, gaslighting us all, insisting that nobody thinks that way.

  14. White, male, boomer libertarian here. Honestly, had never heard of Fuentes or Taylor, since I don’t subscribe to far-right ideology and don’t follow any of that sort of garbage.

    Canadian, too, but I would have voted for Trump in a NY-minute. Why? Because he gives the elites, the chattering classes and the liberals fits!

    I’ve long ago given up the thought that I could vote FOR someone, where virtually all my life I’ve been left to vote AGAINST a particular politician. I couldn’t care less who you sleep with. I couldn’t care less what you call yourself. As a libertarian who believes in freedom and my own human rights, I do care when you try to impose your will on me.

    In the end, the analysis is simple. I’m going to vote for the party that is going to screw me the least. For a long time now, that’s been conservatives.

  15. Regarding the article more generally…

    The author’s approach is thoughtful, but he fails to really grasp the underlying issues which motivate the identitarian or white nationalist right. He also takes deliberate policy choices as received words from God that cannot be questioned or changed, only accepted without fuss.

    I am highly educated (Ivy League undergrad to master’s), live in an ultra-liberal coastal metropolis, have travelled all around the world, and married an immigrant. But I consider myself a white nationalist, for two principal reasons:

    1. Most of the world is a backwards s**thole. Whatever complaints one might have about North America, Europe, or East Asia, they are a paradise compared to places like Egypt, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, or Indonesia. Some of this relative failure is historical bad luck, most of it (IMO) is down to innate genetic traits or deeply-rooted cultural factors. Importing people from the Third World quite literally brings those intractable burdens to one’s own shores, and will in the long run and at large scale totally mess up the host country.

    2. Historical experience suggests multiculturalism is a dead-end, and literally insane to pursue as a deliberate policy. Almost without exception (Switzerland perhaps being the only one), tribal and ethnic disputes totally dominate and poison the politics of multi-ethnic states - even in first-world states like Spain, Belgium, and Northern Ireland, to say nothing of Africa or South Asia. The only way around this problem (often only a temporary fix) is to define an “other” outgroup that you can all agree to unite against - which, by the way, is exactly the strategy currently pursued by the Democrats, who must unite Mexican immigrant laborers, Asian tiger moms, underclass Blacks, Middle Eastern shop owners, wealthy white gays etc. by whipping up hatred and resentment of straight white males.

    That last bit, more than anything else, is what triggered the “backlash”.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

151 more replies

Participants