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.