Right now, we face a typical democracy problem: a stupid ideas has become a trend and no one knows how to respond to this.
On the Left, where people are both stupid and evil (unrealistic, egotistic), they thoroughly support this development. They want identity politics, or racial tribalism for minorities, to thrive and critical race theory, or racial guilt for majorities, to dominate our schools and media.
On the public Right, where people are stupid and selfish (unaware of the civilization question), they oppose this idea because they see it as destructive to the unity of their society.
For those of us on the raging realist front, identity politics like other political correctness and critical race theory, like other egalitarian grievance operations, resemble the rest of the great democratic experiment.
Instead of focusing on the quality of people, our society wants lots of obedient dummies because that way they can eliminate most problems and keep industry functioning in the short term.
They want people who will vote against the majority so that the bureaucrats can take over from culture. This has already mostly happened, which is why election 2020 was able to be stolen.
This means that everything they say is inverted. Whatever they claim is inherent is artificial; whatever they claim is artificial is innate, logical, and part of the wisdom of nature.
For example, consider this fear screed from the Establishment:
Identity politics is tribalism by another name. It is the deliberate and often unnatural segregation of people into categories for political gain. Under this cynical program, the identity of the group subsumes the identity of the individual, allowing little room for independence, self-realization or free thought.
For more than two centuries, we have been able to weave together the disparate threads of a diverse society more successfully than any nation on earth. How? Through the unifying power of the American idea that all of us—regardless of color, class or creed—are equal, and that we can work together to build a more perfect union.
Identity politics turns the American idea on its head. Rather than looking beyond arbitrary differences in color, class and creed, identity politics separates us along these lines. It puts the demands of the collective before the sovereignty of the individual. In doing so, identity politics conditions us to define ourselves and each other by the groups to which we belong. Soon, we lose sight of the myriad values that unite us.
Wait a second: the American idea from back in 1790? Or is America an “idea” at all, instead of an organic outpouring of Western Europe designed to select for hardy pioneers and freethinking religious dissidents instead of people obedient to the bureaucracy that had taken over Europe?
Remember the Naturalization Act of 1790, written in the same year as the Bill of Rights?
It limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants — in effect, to people from Western Europe — who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age.
Then consider that nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention equality; that came later with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment based upon it, which was written to give force to a law that almost certainly would otherwise have been overturned by the courts for its incompatibility with the Bill of Rights.
If there is an “idea” behind America, it is not that America is the idea, but that the American idea is for a type of government that will protect its people, who were intended to be ethnic Western European Nordid-Cromagnid-Dalofaelids. This was intended as a WASP nation, and only when industrialists began importing Southern, Irish, and Eastern Europeans to feed their factories as part of “Progress” did that change. Much like our Mexican illegal aliens today or the Chinese labor in California, these people were presumed to be staying a short while, earning some money, and then going back home. Instead they stayed.
In other words, America is not an idea; America is a people and a place, and the American idea was designed to protect them, specifically from both tyrannical aging European power structures and the rising mob rule.
Today’s conservatives have lost sight of this because they are essentially liberals. They believe in equality; no actual conservative does. They defend unions, diversity, entitlements, foreign entanglements, and other things no conservative would. By defending the time when they last thought we were great, they have incorporated the bad of that time along with the good, and they see us as the Union in 1866 and the Allies in 1945, forgetting that both were steps toward Communism.
Some have noted that identity politics is a necessary part of diversity:
The United States is a multicultural society in which different cultures — African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women — have their own values, histories, and identities separate from and sometimes in opposition to dominant Anglo, white, male culture.
If you have other groups among you, they will want their own histories, and that requires abolishing your history as the heritage group. You will have to become a minority alienated from the government and dominant culture (or anti-culture as we have now) in order to understand who you are. This is why majorities never realize that they have culture; they have given their culture to the newly-multicultural society, and do not realize that it is theirs, not belonging to that society or to the other groups among them.
Leftists make identity politics into critical race theory by using critical theory, a standard egalitarian argument which says that you take from the haves to give to the have-nots:
Fonte said, critical theory — which explains the difference in group outcomes by classifying groups as privileged or marginalized — further undermines free society because it directly opposes the concept of “liberal, democratic jurisprudence.” Individual justice is subordinated to social justice — the oppressors and the oppressed.
These concepts fundamentally undermine our republic, Fonte said, and while he had no answer to solve the threat, he said a return to patriotism and national identity was a better way forward.
The best that conservatives have come up with is “patriotism and national identity,” by which they mean, again, America as an idea. This idea is the Constitution, Christianity/Israel, free markets, and radical individualism. Now they have backdoored the 14A idea of “equality,” the same meaning used by the Communists, into that same idea of ‘Murka.
It is worth noting here that a nasty part of American politics involves Israel. Our Christians want to support Israel so that there can be a final war in Har-Megiddo and everyone can be “raptured,” or sent on to Heaven by magic. The Ratpure in theory will follow the predictions in the Bible, which are told are both literal and the inerrant word of God, and therefore Christians support Israel so that Christians can get to heaven, while the rest of democracy is bought by the Israel lobby just as it is bought by industrial, special interest, union, and foreign lobbies. That is the nature of democracy: votes are properties, and they are for sale, especially tacitly, meaning that if you give people free stuff they vote for you, doubly so if you pay for it by taxing the heck out of some group they hate.
Fonte has no idea what he has said here. If we extend his statements to their logical conclusion, he has just stated that our legal system opposes culture. We can have a substitute, “political culture,” based in the Constitution, now including the 14A, but we cannot have actual culture, since that will clash with equality.
Others want to overcome what they see as a division imposed by identity politics and not naturally a part of it:
Identity politics in the American context almost inevitably carries an undercurrent of “we, in this group, are the good Americans; those, in that group, are the bad Americans.” Whether we like to admit it or not, that’s a near-dominant theme in our modern politics and our arguments on social media.
Here he hits on the problem of multiculturalism: one group wins out over the others. The idea of pluralism, which is that everyone wins through mutual tolerance, does not actually play out, because instead each group schemes to get powerful enough to conquer the others, since otherwise it exists at their whim and grace only.
In other words, diversity means that we are constantly fighting to define the one group that is “good.” Since we are egalitarians now, that group must be the have-nots, which is why this country first worshiped the poor, then women, then minorities, then homosexuals and transgenders, and now simply seeks to obliterate itself so the third world can take over. Egalitarianism induces a simultaneous lack of goal and need to manipulate others through symbol that drives people insane.
The point of the American experiment, fueled in large part by Europeans fleeing a continent full of rigid class roles, limited opportunities, political and religious repression, was to create a country where you could be whatever you wanted to be, and your group identity didn’t matter. You didn’t have to be born a nobleman, it didn’t matter if your faith wasn’t the same as the majority’s, and we didn’t have a king who could toss you in a dungeon if you criticized him.
He is projecting here. No one ever talked about your group identity not mattering, or social class not existing; in the Constitution, the founders demanded a social hierarchy based on competence within the Western European group they intended to inherit America:
But we shouldn’t fear the word “aristocracy.” Or even aristocracy itself. The Founders certainly did not. In fact, they sought to establish an aristocracy, and in the Constitution they demand that America be ruled by aristocrats.
In this — this selection of a few by the many — we find not only the substance of something aristocratic but the name as well. Thomas Jefferson calls these elected officeholders members of the “natural aristocracy among men.” James Madison, in Federalist 57, declares that “the aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men” of high caliber.
Nor, Madison says, should we base this aristocracy on the qualifications historically privileged by law — qualifications such as those “of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession.” None of these characteristics, he maintains, should be “permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people” in their election of officeholders. Madison instead defines the best rulers as those “who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.” The natural aristocrat would be judged in light of the common good.
In other words, you were born a nobleman, just without title, and once you demonstrated an ability to serve the common good, you would become wealthy and powerful within society and government so that you could use your exceptional competence to benefit everyone else!
It is ironic to see conservatives and liberals agreeing on anything, but the public versions of both agree on the idea that America has no culture and relies on ideology and economics instead:
“The idea that America has a shared past going back into the colonial period is a myth,” Colin Woodard, the author of “Union: The Struggle to Forge the Story of United States Nationhood,” told me. “We are very different Americas, each with different origin stories and value sets, many of which are incompatible. They led to a Civil War in the past and are a potentially incendiary force in the future.”
The country was settled by diverse cultures—the Puritans in New England, the Dutch around New York City, the Scots-Irish dominating Appalachia, and English slave lords from Barbados and the West Indies in the Deep South. They were often rivals, Woodard noted: “They were by no means thinking of themselves belonging to a protean American country-in-waiting.” The United States was “an accident of history,” he said, largely because distinct cultures shared an external threat from the British.
When Athens and Sparta went to war, in the fifth century B.C., the Greek general and historian Thucydides observed, “The Greeks did not understand each other any longer, though they spoke the same language.” In the twenty-first century, the same thing is happening among Americans. Our political discourse has become “civil war by other means—we sound as if we do not really want to continue to be members of one country,” Richard Kreitner wrote, in the recently released book “Break It Up: Secession, Division and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union.”
In fact, for the Founding Fathers (politically correct term: “Framers”) the idea that a Western European group would inhabit and rule America, and that anyone else would be here at the invitation and tolerance of that ruling group. All of those different groups differed in terms of political orientation, perhaps, but not in ethnicity (Dutch, Scots, and English are all ethnic Western Europeans).
However, both public Left and Right want to argue that the bureaucracy must win, and that we can have ideology and markets, but never organic culture, because if they did that, they would see that the founding groups of America — English, northern Germans, Scots, Dutch, and northern French — were in fact from the ethnic Western European Nordid-Cromagnid-Dalofaelid group, like everyone else who ever created an instance of Western Civilization, such as those in Greece, Rome, the Tarim Basin, India, possibly “Atlantis,” Europe, and now North America.
We even have quasi-cucks — I say this because Mr. Dreher does broach some difficult issues sometimes — advocating for the abolition of race so that we can also abolish culture and be purely ideologically motivated:
Tribalism is the normal condition of human societies. If this were to happen in America, God forbid, we would only be reverting to the historical norm.
In Spain last week, I was telling one of my interlocutors that America managed to achieve something pretty spectacular in the bloody history of mankind: a society that actually made good on the idea that race should not matter, and that one stands equally before the law.
Apparently he slept through history, philosophy, and literature, since a broad reading of those shows us that ideology and realism are opposites. Ideologies are symbolic belief systems designed to “correct” reality as it is, where realists accept reality as it is and attempt to find the best possible option within it.
A realist accepts tribalism because he recognizes that it would not have come about unless it addressed some need, such as the ability to conserve culture and defend a genetic group.
Who likes ideology? For one, those same industrialists who brought us “Progress” the first time around, as factories replaced farms and cities ate up the wilderness. They want a way to manipulate people in a centralized manner, much as Genghis Khan or Darius did, by issuing forth streams of symbols. Forget culture, which has checks and balances as well as a sense of proportion; they want absolute obedience, so that when high command issues a demand, an army of morons marches forth in utter conformity to perform the same procedure in order to make it come about.
It took a long time for ideology to take over. As recently as the generation of our grandparents, Americans recognized that diversity is fatal (from Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century, by Cheryl Lynn Greenberg, quoting “Confidential Report from National Opinion Research Center: Trend of Semitic Question,” March, 1944, 1, AJC IVF:Public Opinion Polls/NORC):
[A] 1943 poll revealed that “90 percentof the American people stated that they would rather loose [sic] the war than give full equality to the American Negroes.”
Right now, the Left promotes identity politics in order to overthrow the majority (“heritage Whites,” a.k.a. ethnic Western Europeans as the Founders intended). Previously, conservatives promoted identity politics in order to preserve the founding majority, but that failed after WW2, since at that point we were committed to being as much anti-Hitler as we were toward the 14A. Equality, ideology, and bureaucracy won out over organic culture.
Now the Right finds itself railing against tribalism, despite knowing that this is the wrong approach, since every society that thrives has a solid majority of a single ethnic group. However, once you let the diversity in the door, to oppose diversity means calling for the breakup of the society you claim to defend, and most conservatives see themselves as conserving the 1980s or the 1950s, but nothing as far-reaching as a continuity between 400 B.C. when Plato wrote about the threat of failure to Western Civilization, 1789 when we adopted our Constitution, and the future where our civilization survives for thousands of years or longer.
If they were to do that, they would be breaking the fourth wall and pointing out to the voters that our entire system rests on denialism, or a refusal to see that we are in full civilization collapse because of the moronic decisions of the voters made in panic or obsession with seductive ideas in trends, like equality itself.
That in turn would have us look to what the Founders intended, and realize that the only future for America involves WASP supremacy. A society can work only if it has only a single ethnic group in it, and that means our founding group, the WASPs (a shorthand for ethnic Western Europeans). Everyone else has to go back home. We either do this or die.
Tags: critical race theory, critical theory, diversity, identity politics, idpol, marxism, multiculturalism, race, rod dreher