Stephen W. Carson asks an interesting question on Twitter (would that intellectual curiosity abounded), relating to the column, “It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics”:
I would appreciate your perspective though.
Do you agree that “identity politics” is a thing?
If so, what patterns have you seen in “identity politics”?
9:44 AM – 22 May 2019
Hi, @RadicalLib: I believe the term “identity politics, which originated in academia, has become a cliche, and is also now nonsensical. It is used mainly by humdrum conservatives. Why do they use it? Probably because they, consciously or unconsciously, do not want to come to terms with the fact that our politics are almost exclusively anti-white, not anti-Other more exotic identities.
It’s also considered politically incorrect or “racist” to argue that there is a dangerous, anti-white sentiment among the cohort Ann Coulter has termed “our cultural overlords.” (“It might be of some concern to the rapidly diminishing white population,” she wrote, “that our cultural overlords are so tormented by ‘whiteness.'”)
Media conservatives refuse to cop to “anti-white politics,” for fear of being called racist.
Also, most Cons are mere maze rats. Not smart, they adopt Party positions without much thought; align along the positional grooves.
But “anti-white politics” it is. Here’s what Cons do as a method:
They to pretend that it’s all about Democratic politics. Dems are dividing us, the Cons screech. Thus do the Cons virtue-signal their position as seekers of national unity. We’re all in this together. No we’re not. As I wrote in the above column,
It’s not Identity Politics; it’s anti-white politics. For, blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics aren’t being sicced on Asians & Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky.
A similar tack, taken, incidentally, by both radio talker Tammy Bruce and author J. D. Vance on the Tucker Carlson Show, is to pivot away from race and anti-white hatred. To those who cleave closely to the contour of an argument, the pivot will seem inorganic. But to the Republican maze rat it’s rote.
To wit, Bruce was quizzed about Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s apology over “whiteness.” Tammy B. was expected to answer as to why men like Beto keep apologizing. (She ought to have begun by pointing out that Black men don’t apologize for existing.) Instead, Tammy pivoted from whiteness (the thing that informed O’Rourke’s apology) to … wait for this: “Humanity.”
It’s a Democrat thing, asserted Bruce, to apologize for the sins of humanity. Climate change, for instance. (At that point in the show, I scratched my head and wondered how she got from A to B.)
Incidentally, the questions posed to Beto by Republican Meghan McCain (the great philosopher) and her Republican sisters, were indistinguishable from the questions with which any black, lady Democrat would harangue the meek Beto: “Atone for your privilege, your sexism … if you were a woman, you’d not get away with being so audaciously Beto, blah, blah.”)
No. Our politics are brutally anti-white. I Wrote a book about what will come of this—and the perils of not naming the Beast.
A RECENT RELATED ARTICLE is: “The Demonization Of Whites By Mrs. Bill Gates & Other Dangerous Idiots.“