race

Civil War 2.0 Will Be Livestreamed

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.

The events of this summer are a taste of what’s to come in the fall, and even more so, November 9, 2016.

Someone is going to win the Presidential election, and regardless of whether it’s Trump or Clinton, the loser’s supporters are going to feel existential angst about America, and their place in it, far beyond the usual.

Pat Buchanan advises us to take a Chill Pill; “For when a real powder keg blew in the ’60s, I was there. And this is not it.” And yet…in “The ’60s” (and the early ’70s, which is when some of the worst SHTF) we had the evening TV news and the papers. The crazy spread slower then. This time, any and every incident is going to be magnified and extremely accelerated. (more…)

Conservativism and Race

nikkihaley

At the start of this election some think that the GOP would be re-branding itself. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio seem like the card to wing back the Latino electorate while Ben Carson was think could win a bigger portion of the black vote. However it was Donald Trump who made this election about race. First denouncing illegal immigration was seen by many liberals as code name for anti-Hispanic racism. Some neo-Nazis endorsing Trump haven’t help the Trump attempt to portray himself as a friend of minorities neither Trump retweeting them. The Muslim ban upset the Arab community and the use of the term “Anchor Baby” made Asian immigrants angry. The fact that most of his supporters are white is not necessary strange in Republican politics but his campaign has reached to unprecedented level of lack of political correctness. Michael Brendan Dougherty argue that paleoconservative writer Sam Francis predicted the rise of The Donald. Considering that Francis was an openly racialist, one has to wonder if the new kind of conservativism that Trump has to deal particularly with race or does that all the conservative tradition relation with explains the popularity of the billionaire.

Conservativism usually speaks about preserving a tradition, in most cases the western tradition. But is that western tradition has to deal with race? One could argue that at least in America conservativism had to do with a limited government. In the words of Daniel Hannan, limited government is a heritage of the Anglo-Saxon culture. However the campaign of Trump has made angry most libertarians by promising a big government that rivals in size with the socialist dreams of Bernie Sanders. Some describe these new form of conservativism as nationalism. Nationalism is still associated in America with the Nazis but nationalism is not inherently racist. During the 70s there in Latin America and Africa some governments that represent a left-wing forms of nationalism that promote the respect of the indigenous population. However after the Battle of Seattle the left had been preaching an alternative form of globalism and denouncing nationalism.

But not only Donald Trump is alienating minorities. Over The American Conservative, Musa Al-Garbhi reach to similar conclusions of my analysis about why there aren’t Black Republicans. Candidates are trying to preach to a white audience and dismiss black voters. Why this happen over and over? Republicans had forgot the legacy of the GOP on racial issues before Goldwater was in a lot of ways better than the Democrats. But that not only happen to African Americans. Arab Americans which are generally more socially conservative that other groups dismiss Republicans for their attacks that some of them consider Islamophobia. Hispanics come from Latin America where governments had proved to fail, however because preaching being against illegal immigration they had demonized an entire ethnicity. Even Asian Americans whose opposition to affirmative action and language of family values could had made them near to the GOP had prefer being part of Democrat Coalition over what they see as a narrow agenda in the Republican Party. Probably libertarians and maybe some reform conservative like Nikki Haley or Jon Hunstman had try honestly to reach out to minorities.

Pat Buchanan which a lot of people compare to Donald Trump for his insurgent campaign in the 90s had some advice for the real estate mogul. He says that Trump represents the future of the GOP and that his nationalism is his opposition to both globalism and interventionism. He believes Trump could win, I don’t. I think that despite that is probably that in 1992 or 1996, Buchanan as the Republican nominee would had beat the Democrats. Now the panorama is different. He spoke about Reagan Democrats and while they maybe still some of them, most working class Democrats are minorities who distrust the GOP and particularly Donald Trump. He may try to sound a little different but I don’t see much difference. The BlackLivesMatter movement had an important impact in the African American population equal to the movement against deportations in the Latino community. Trump against Hillary Clinton maybe a close election but against Bernie Sanders he could be defeated by landslide.

But nationalism has other problems, some of the neo-Nazis supporters of Trump are trying to infiltrate the GOP. How the party is going to deal with them when the Republican nominee says a lot of the same things. Libertarians also may feel that they are no longer part of the Republican coalition. But in the future if some libertarians stay they could try to bring a real civil war on the right of their limited government philosophy against the big government nationalism. The fact that besides the Paul family the most prominent libertarian is Justin Amash, son of immigrants from the Middle East show that maybe there is path for GOP of rejecting racialism and stood for a message of self-reliance among communities of the color. Maybe that is the only way.

White plight

The Southern Poverty Law Center is going to have an aneurysm over my plea to consider the struggle poor whites face in America. The piece is (where else?) over at Taki’s Mag today. An excerpt:

The racial privilege status of white trash makes them unattractive to the media because being penurious and pale-skinned is not respectable. While poor minorities are viewed with dignity and sympathy (as they should be), the same doesn’t apply to Caucasians. The white working class is, as Baptist minister Will Campbell put it, “the last, the only minority left that is fair game for ethnic slurs from people who would consider themselves good liberals.” Since the Progressive Era, the U.S. government has made it a goal to forcefully equalize society between races, classes, income scales, and gender. But to Campbell, “poor whites have seen government try to make peace between various warring factions but they have not been brought to the bargaining table.”

The result is pockets of despair in many parts of the country, most predominantly the South. And while it’s true that poor whites have always existed in America, the callous disregard for their difficulty we see by blue bloods in the Acela corridor is new. People like Kim Konzny have been stripped of dignity and left to fend for themselves without the assistance of the media or Washington elites. Unlike impoverished blacks who hold tight to faith and community, they are without an honorable sense of identity. If they cling to the Bible, they are seen as brainless, flat-earth bumpkins. If they somehow succeed in getting out of the trailer, they are demonized and told they’ve earned nothing because of “white privilege.” If they try to stick with their own kind, they are called neo-segregationists.

 

Read the whole thing and look for me listed somewhere on the SPLC’s Hate Map. I’ll be kickin’ back in short-shorts and combat boots with an Old Milwaukee pounder in one hand and four fingers down with one proud in the other. Boy howdy!

(Image source)

Power Word: Blackface

Movement conservatives have this thing that they do whenever someone is questioning the latest steps toward military aggression. They compare it to appeasing Hitler, because Hitler was appeased and Hitler was bad. So like a lawyer making his closing arguments to a jury, they say, “But what about… WORLD WAR TWO!?”

I call this Power Word: World War 2, like those spells from Dungeons and Dragons that were power words that could not be resisted by their target. Similarly, Power Word: World War 2 ends the discussion, because non-interventionism is obviously wrong, since it’s a proof by contradiction. Everyone has to believe in World War 2 as the good intervention (duh!).

But all the beautiful people know that neoconservatives are stupid, so I will focus on a power word that the beautiful themselves love to use. And that is Power Word: Blackface.

A week or two there was a story about a white man named Michael Derrick Hudson who got a poem published in one of the most prestigious journals of poetry in the country. Hudson had previously had the poem rejected from lesser journals about 40 times. So he used the name Yi-Fen Chou because he thought that appearing to be something other than a white male would get his poem published.

He was right.

“Bluntly stated, I was more amenable to the poem because I thought the author was Chinese American,” the (non-white) editor of the journal, Sherman Alexie, explicitly stated.

Despite the overt favoritism toward poets because of their non-maleness and non-whiteness, in bizarro Twitter world, people took this fiasco as proof that Hudson actually had some sort of unfair advantage.

The contradictions between the narrative and the reality are obvious. But the issue for the commentariat is that this ordeal had:

  1. A white man coming out on top
  2. A white man doing it by seemingly outsmarting people of color, and most, importantly
  3. A white man turning a left-wing narrative on its head.

They couldn’t turn to him getting something because of his privilege, since the exact opposite happened 40 times. So where could the thinkpiece industry find its outrage release valve? Power Word: Blackface.

Blackface was a bad thing. It degraded black people by portraying them as buffoonish and contemptuous. It’s obvious that blackface not being socially acceptable is a good development. Yellowface was a bad thing as well, and Hollywood had quite a few examples of dressing up white people to make them walking stereotypes of Asians, like in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (the header pic). People who write by-the-numbers outrage thinkpieces aren’t very smart, and so they lazily painted Hudson with this brush.

The poet-troll didn’t wear yellowface though, despite the shrieks of the folks at Salon and the Guardian. No stereotypes or degradation happen. In fact, even the editor of the journal that there was nothing “Asian-seeming” about the poem he accepted. Hudson just beat a”no white males allowed” filter that apparently exists at a lot of places, and this made those who want to see those gates do their job very angry.

The absurdity of this becomes evident when considering that 19th-century female authors adopted male pen names to get published and read. It’s not a secret that George Eliot was actually a womann named Mary Ann Evans. Even J.K. Rowling supposedly adopted a gender-indeterminate name to appeal to broaden her appeal. Were these women degrading men and wearing “manface”? No, that’s obviously ridiculous. It’s equally ridiculous to say that Hudson was being a racist and wearing yellowface.

The blackface smear happens lot, and it happens when the contradictions in cultural Marxism are laid bare. People couldn’t quite articulate why Rachel Dolezal is evil and Caitlyn Jenner is brave, so they said “remember that blackface thing? That was bad! And this looks similar!”

Pointing out superficial similarities in things is something that every first grader has mastered. So why are adults paid 100 dollars per article to do it and why do we all pretend that it’s thought-provoking?

Rachel Dolezal is a victim, but not a black one

The tragic murder of nine black Americans in a church in Charleston, South Carolina has taken the wind out of the controversy surrounding the borrowed identity of Rachel Dolezal. The fire isn’t out completely. But national attention is slowly being diverted away from Dolezal, and back to matters of importance.

This is good because the less attention given to Dolezal, the better. Rather than slink away after being exposed as a fraud, the woman who spent decades pretending to be black has gone on national television to defend her charade. She refuses to believe that just because she was born to a white family in Montana, she can’t just up and switch races. Her intransigence speaks to the larger issue of what we mean when we say “race” and what it means to be black in America.

Conservatives have a point in all this hubbub: if race is a pure social construct with no biological foundation, Dolezal should unquestionably be able to claim the mantle of blackness. Anyone who challengers her is a bigot, ignorant of basic social science. Thus, Dolezal might have been born to a white family and grew up white, but can still identify as black without the fear of being unaccepted. That’s the logical conclusion of the “race is not biology” meme.

(more…)