Sunday, November 25, 2018

The Z Blog | Understanding The War On Whitey

It is tempting to think that the war on white people we see today is some sort of weird incoherent spasm of Progressivism. As Steve Sailer likes to believe, it is part of an electoral strategy to keep the coalition of non-whites from killing each other. If they are focused on how much they hate white people, white men in particular, then they won’t fall into slaughtering one another. That’s a tempting belief, because it suggests it will abate on its own, once the various tribes of the Left have exhausted themselves.
While there may be some truth to that assertion, at least in the narrow confines of electoral politics, the truth is we are simply seeing the next phase of a war that started not long after the end of the Second World War. It was not an explicit war on whitey, as we see today, but rather a war on white ideas about how best to organize a society. One front was the war on institutions, by overrunning them and turning them into pillboxes, from which the Left could attack white society. The academy is the most obvious example.
Another front in this war has been the attack on the basic concepts that whites in America have accepted as the foundation of order. In the 1960’s, the Left managed to outlaw freedom of association, with civil rights legislation. The long held view that you are free to associate with whom you like was banned, in favor of a system of permissions, administered by the courts. Like in a prison, white people now need to seek permission to associate or disassociate. You’ll note that non-whites are free to organize as they please.
Another white concept that has been under attack for generations is the notion of free inquiry. A peculiar feature of the West has always been a curiosity about the world and a willingness to consider new ideas. Openness predates the Enlightenment and is the reason the Enlightenment happened where it did. There’s no analog in Mesopotamia or Asia, and certainly nothing similar in Africa. Free inquiry, the willingness to reconsider old ideas and debate new ideas is a quintessentially white concept.
Of course, the only way you can have free inquiry is to have the freedom to challenge accepted notions in public. Free speech, as a political concept, is just the implementation of free inquiry in the realm of current affairs. The war on speech that we see today, actually started generations ago, as part of the general war on whiteness. In the 1970’s, neoconservative thinker Walter Berns successfully argued that free speech was limited to “good speech” by which he meant speech that served the interest of his team.
This quickly became neoconservative dogma. In the 1980’s, for example, neocons attacked Ronald Reagan’s choice of M.E. Bradford to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, on the grounds that he was insufficiently worshipful of Abraham Lincoln. An essential element of the neoconservative persuasion is a deification of Lincoln as the true founder of the Republic. Questioning that questions the neocon role in the American narrative, so that sort of speech can never be tolerated.
Later on, the odious carbuncle Bill Kristol used a similar tactic to drive off the paleocons, particularly Pat Buchanan. The charge this time was that the paleos were not sufficiently worshipful of Israel and Judaism. Of course, the neocon analogs on the Left were more than happy to lock arms with their brothers in making war on Buchanan. This is something we see happening again as Jewish intellectuals and commentators across the political spectrum lock yarmulkes to fight the menace that is Donald Trump.
That’s why we see the overturning of basic contract law and property concepts by the finance and technology giants. De-platforming is part of the war on whiteness, specifically the rule of law. When a registrar steals the domain name of a site they don’t like, that is no different than government agents busting up their property. It’s state sponsored terrorism by proxy. The rule of law and the orderly administration of the law are white concepts, so overturning them is as important as attacking white people directly.
This war on whiteness, that has now become an explicit war on white people, is an accident of history. Some paleocons used to call it Hitler’s revenge, because it grew out of a response to the holocaust. Jewish intellectuals after the war struggled to understand why the Jews of Europe did not fight back. The Warsaw ghetto uprising, for example, is interesting only because of its uniqueness. Instead of this puzzle resulting in self-examination, the response was an obsession with antisemitism and fascism.
The Frankfurt School, for example, started as a project to apply Marxist concepts to the culture. That’s where we get the term “cultural Marxism.” The project quickly curdled into an obsession with antisemitism and fascism, culminating in The Authoritarian Personality, a model for evaluating the morality of white people. Inevitably, that moral code was based on what the authors thought was good for the Jews. Anything that was exclusive or excessively curious about the role of Jews was deemed to be fascist or proto-fascist.
In a strange way, Hitler’s real revenge was the curdling of diaspora culture into a war on Western civilization and a self-defeating war on white people. Of course, the defeat of the Nazis also unleashed American Progressivism as a global firestorm of cultural destructiveness. The Nazis could not hold a candle to the viciousness of the modern human resource department staffed by left-wing harpies. The popularity of Man in the High Castle is that it seems benign in comparison to today’s cultural environment.