The Left and White Supremacy

Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.

-Saul Alinsky

Saul was right. To win, you have to be willing to be corrupt. And to corrupt others. To a radical Marxist community organiser like him, corruption meant stirring up hatred in the community to get the members to do what he wanted them to. To use their own human frailties as weapons in his battle against western civilization. As he said, Mankind has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.

And good ol’ Saul wrote the book on how to pit one against the other. Today if Saul were to write that same book, he would talk about mankind being divided into two parts; the Whites and the White-nots. Same tactic. Different pawns. But we do not live in a racially bi-polar world anymore than we live in a world of haves and have-nots. The middle class is why Marxism never got a foothold in the west. Everybody is on a sliding scale from pauper to prince. There are too many classes for Marxism to work.

Similarly, there are too many races for this new tactic to work either. In fact, one could argue there are no real races per se, just different shades along a continuum from darkest black in the Congo, to the freckle-faced whitest white in Ireland. You and I are somewhere in between, along that continuum, not just by the vagaries of who are parents were, but by geography itself. Is a Greek man white? What about a Sicilian? How can a Frenchmen be white, but not necessarily a Spaniard? Does the race change as you cross the Pyrenees? See the problem? To a large degree, race, as something that can be defined neatly,  is a construct of the New Marxists. (which is why when Rachel Dolezal, uber champion of all things black, claimed that race was an artificial construct, the Left turned on her. Make note of that. She did not recognize the significance to the New Marxists of what she just said.)

Since the term “white supremacy” is thrown around by the left, we must first discuss race as they see it, in order to understand white supremacy as they see it.

They see race primarily as binary. You either are, or you are not. Meaning you are white, or you are not. You are White or you are a white-not. And this is why it is classic Marxist thinking. This theme of white supremacy is a narrative on the left in this century in the way that the theme of class struggle was all the rage in the last century. Whereas the left separated citizens into haves and have-nots, today with globalization redistributing wealth on an unprecedented scale, the Marxists have moved onto a new way to engender internal strife – race struggle – the whites and the white-nots. And it is here that the Left has adopted a strange and disturbing view of the world. A view that sees the world through the prism of neatly defined racial groups.

By definition, that is what racism is – when you see the world through the lens of race. Strangely, they see only two races. The superior and the inferior. They see whites – however they define that, and anyone who is not white. And anyone who is not white gets lumped into this insultingly broad group called “non-whites” – just as if those people were leftovers from the creation of white humanity. Phil Leotardo, of Sopranos fame, said there are no scraps in his scrap book. Well, to the Left, anyone who is white-not is a metaphorical scrap in such a book.

This is where the irony starts. The irony of the left calling their political opponents racists.

It has long been noted that there are double standards for what whites can do and what non-whites can do. What they can say. Even what they can think and not be attacked for thinking it. And while it is a shame that we have to divide the world into white and non-white, that is the division that he Left has forced upon us. That is how they see the world, racial groups vs whites. So, we must deal with them on their terms. So when I reference whites and non-whites, I do so referring to however the Left sees it.

So, let’s get on with it and see who the actual white supremacists are. Let’s see who views one group as  inherently superior.

If a black man is a nationalist, meaning he believes in America First, that is considered fine. No ulterior motive is assigned to him. But if a white man is a nationalist and believes in America First, for some reason, that is not fine. He gets assigned such a motive and is derided as someone so morally repugnant, he does not even deserve political representation. That this has happened is astounding and I tip my hat to the New Marxists for pulling it off so quickly. Give the devil his due. They have combined two heretofore perfectly acceptable things – being white and being nationalist – into one thing so odious it has become a slur.

And should we speak of racial pride, meaning pride in one’s own ethno-cultural group, it is fine, and in fact, encouraged for people of African descent to have pride in their race. Or Hispanics. Or Native Indians. Or East Indians. Or Arabs. Or Persians. Or Chinese, and on and on. But it is taboo for a person of “white descent” to have pride in his race. In fact, whites are the only race to be discouraged from showing pride in their race. Not just discouraged, but excommunicated from the entire political process. Just ask any GOP congress critter if you, as a white nationalist, should vote for him or her. They will say, please don’t. The only white person who is allowed to be proud, is in a gay pride parade.

And while it may seem ironic that the one race that is famous for building the modern world should be the one race forbidden from having pride, it is actually not ironic at all. Why? The answer to that gets to the heart of how the left thinks about the people they refer to as non-white.

The answer should be obvious. And if you ask the left, you will get the obvious answer. Their argument is the white race as a collective is so dominant in the world, that all members of this race must be held to a much higher standard in order to allow the non-white to do better in relation. Ergo, while we need to encourage non-whites to be proud, ostensibly since they have so little to be proud about, by the same token, we must discourage white people from having pride in their race, since the accomplishments of the white race are so obvious that to have such pride reeks of racial triumphalism. This is very much in the way that it is considered drôle to make short jokes at the expense of short people, but just harmless ribbing to make tall jokes of tall people. How’s the weather up there? – fine. How’s the weather down there? – not fine. That implies that you see one as better than the other and you wish to protect the feelings of the inferior.  You just didn’t realize it.

This dynamic of promoting one and lowering the other is what the social justice left calls punching down vs punching up. To punch a white person, perhaps literally as Antifa likes to do,  is to punch up. To punch anybody who is not white, is to punch down. Worse, they claim that not having this double standard is to promote said punching down.

Thus, the left will argue, the double standard needs to be created and maintained. Non-white pride = good. White pride = evil. Two standards required of neighbors and countrymen because … well, because they see the races as not being equal.

Natch.  Kind of like watching a performance between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. You gotta feel for the Generals, amirite?

Therein lies the hypocrisy. The very thinking they attribute to some white guy honoring a confederate statue – latent white supremacy – is in fact evidenced not only in their own thinking, but it is the very basis of their argument of accusing others of white supremacy. They are in effect saying that whites are so good, so dominant, so capable as a race, that each member of that group needs to be held to a higher standard of self-loathing, while each member of the non-white race needs to be held to a lower standard, not just of conduct, but of how they are to be viewed – almost as children or handicapped people.  George W called this the soft bigotry of low expectations. Perhaps he should have called it white supremacy. George was being generous to the left. As always.

For example, the left views criticism or jokes of non-whites to be akin to making criticisms or jokes of the handicapped – obviously distasteful at the very least. You can make a joke of an Irishman, because the Irish can take it, and should take it since they are fully capable – they built the Titanic after all – but it would be frowned upon to make a joke of a handicapped Irishman. Similarly, you can make a joke of a German, but by god you better not make a joke of a Kenyan, or a Namibian. That is just plain wrong, because  . . . once again, you don’t make jokes of the handicapped. Or what about a more relevant example from modern America. If a white man assaults a black man, that white man is a racist. He is evil. But if a black man assaults a white man, a white woman, or even a white child, he is not evil. He is a child himself, incapable of dealing with the modern world around him and therefore deserves understanding not condemnation.  Ouch.

Got it? That is how the New Marxists, what are commonly called social justice warriors, think of non-whites. They see them as members of an intrinsically inferior group which human decency would require that you protect. Nobody should think that mocking a down syndrome person is funny. To the Left, the non-white world is one huge collection of people who metaphorically have Down syndrome. And you don’t punch Down.  The fact that Asians have higher academic scores than white kids in the sciences is something they prefer you don’t notice. Like a lot of other things. That messes up the narrative.

But that is how they view the non-white races. They view them as you would view the physically or mentally handicapped – even when their scores are better. And they view blacks almost as if they were pets, like animals incapable of promoting their own self-interests. This is why most of the people on the social justice left are white and not the non-whites. White lefties are much more likely to have this racist view of reality than black people, or any other race, taken at random.  Tell a black joke to a mixed audience, and I assure you, almost all of the people offended will be whites. The black people will laugh. The black audience does not feel inferior so does not feel the joke is malevolent. But these white liberals do feel that the black race – however they define that – is inferior, and while they may have deep sympathy for them because of this perception– it is exactly this perception of non-white inferiority that causes the white liberal to take offense. Basically, they are saying to themselves, “How dare this man punch down. I must take a stand against this.”

The social justice left believes it is fighting a noble cause – because they really do believe in the inherent latent supremacy of this collective they call White. And since they feel this way, they feel guilty for it. And because they feel guilty for it, they feel they need to atone. And to atone, they project this sin onto their political enemies and accuse their enemies of it. That is how they give themselves absolution. They have a thought, feel guilty for it, then transfer the whole thing to their enemies, which they are attacking anyway for a million other reasons. One and done.

This is one reason why it has been observed that modern day neoliberalism is a mental affliction. That is not just partisan hyperbole. Psychiatry already understands this dynamic. It is called projection. There could be millions of case studies, if psychiatrists themselves weren’t also such liberals.

This charge of racism or white supremacy is simply another one of the left’s projections. They charge the right with the very thoughts that they themselves harbor, and therefore attribute to their enemies. Those men standing by that confederate statue, for example, may not care for blacks. But so what? Some may have also wanted universal health care. Some may be vegetarians. Or gay. Or atheist. The point is they were not claiming racial superiority. They were there to stand up against political correctness and what they see as the beginning of a pogrom against their southern culture.

There were no uniforms on their side. No boots. And they certainly were not wearing black shirts or carrying clubs. The black booted thugs were on the left. The guys on the right were wearing penny loafers.  Whatever their political views, you can be sure these were not organized partisans championing racial supremacy. People who actually feel they are part of a superior group, do not feel threatened, as they do. People who feel very comfortable in their sense of superiority, think and speak and behave as the liberal does. They feel guilty for being white.  White guilt is the de facto proof that you believe the white race is superior – so superior in fact, that it can afford in its magnanimous way, to handicap itself to allow for a fair fight.  If that is not a belief in white supremacy, nothing is. People on the right are not afflicted with white guilt. If anything, they feel, justifiably or not, that they, and they culture, might soon be wiped out. That is a feeling of inferiority if it is anything. If the left wants to accuse the alt right of anything, it should be that.

The alt-right does not claim to be superior to anyone. They want equal treatment. They want their statues, their flag, their heritage, and their country respected just as they are forced to respect the statues and heritages of other ethnicities. The Charlottesville rally goers were forced into acting on behalf of a group, which is unfortunate, since it reduced them to thinking in terms of racial groups. But this is what happens when you have double standards. At some point, even people who heretofore would have never been political, or even loathe to consider themselves right wing, reach a juncture where they feel as individuals they should take a stand. It is not only constitutional, it is the duty of every citizen to stand for what they feel is right. Even if the chattering classes say they are wrong.  White pride is not white supremacy anymore than black pride is black supremacy. One is simply politically correct and one isn’t.

Now, at this point, the left might try an intellectual dodge. At this point they might say whites are dominate NOT because they are better in any tangible way, but because they control everything in some conspiracy to keep the white nots down – just as the Old Marxists claimed that the haves were keeping the have nots down. Which is laughable, of course. Whites are the only ethnic group that does not think and vote as a bloc. It is the only ethnic group that hates itself on such a scale, and puts such self-haters into all the powerful positions.

But what if we allow this argument for a second. Let’s explore this angle – the argument that non-whites can’t get a fair shake because whites are in control of society in some kind of conspiracy against non-whites.

Is that not the very argument that anti-Semites make of the Jews? And what is the defense of Jews to that claim that they control everything? They say, Sure we do, but only because we are smart and industrious, we value education, have a stronger family unit, etc., or at least more so than other ethnicities, and not because we as Jews have a conspiracy going.  And the left has no problem with this reasoning since a disproportionate number of the white social justice warriors are Jews themselves who accuse Donald Trump and the Alt-right of latent anti-Semitism, when they are not accusing them of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and global warming.

Well, if that argument is acceptable against anti-Semitism, why is the same exact argument not acceptable to the Left when it is used against their own claim of  society rigged in favor of whites? Can not those supposedly white supremacists make the same claim? Can they not say that whites are dominant in society because, well, as a culture at least, they are pretty smart. Pretty industrious. Pretty hardworking? And they value education and have a stronger family unit, etc., all the trailer trash, hicks, and Jerry Springer rubbish notwithstanding?

Ah. Sauce for the gander.

I am an ecumenical guy. I am willing to entertain any argument, regardless of how ridiculous, as long as my opponent remains intellectually honest. That means remaining consistent with his arguments. But the left wants to have it both ways. They want to charge others with harboring racist thoughts, when they themselves use racist premises to formulate their very arguments they use to charge others with racist thoughts. Then, after making that charge, they don’t allow their opponents to use the same defense that they allow ethnic groups to use.

So why? Why did the Left go insane with race and gender and sexual orientation? And race. Did I mention they went insane with race?

At the end of the ‘60s, we believed we were on a path to all coming together to accept certain premises, primary among them was that all people need to be treated equally, and that race or religion or gender should not be taken into account in assessing groups or the individual. Everybody stands on their merits. The idea of viewing people as members of a group was considered now obsolete. It was considered regressive. And it was. People were individuals, not ambassadors of racial collectives.

Well, fast forward 50 years. The Left has turned that on its head. Now everyone is first and foremost a representative of the racial group the left pigeonholes them into. Nobody is an individual first. They look at your face and they decide what group you are going to represent, and based upon that, they then decide what you can say, do , and even think.

Why? Because they have seen that if we have a society that is totally fair to everyone as an individual,  some groups will still remain behind. Just as if that should even matter. You will never have parity in human society between groups. Humans are not products. We are not commodities. We are biological creatures. We are products of our respective culture. As such, with different cultures, we can not be all the same in the ways that would produce the same results.

And since the left is about engineering a Marxist utopia – thus the communist imagery on their protest signs – a colored blind society was not going to work. A gender-blind society was never going to work. And so on. It was then they ditched the whole equality ideal that King was famous for advocating, and went to plan B.

Plan B is what we see now. That is where the insanity comes in.

Social justice. With a fist. That means group justice. Screw justice for the individual. Take into account race and gender at every turn. Punish one group, favor another. Fire one person because of what he is, hire another for what she is. Fight nature, persecute thought and speech, gin up racial animosity, and get revenge on the son to punish the father – even if the father did nothing. He might have thought something.

In this strategy to undo western society, the Marxists have gone from class struggle as a narrative to race struggle as a narrative. “Racism”, “white supremacy”, are terms that are as ubiquitous today in the lexicon of the Marxists as bourgeoise and proletariat used to be. They throw those terms around like they used to love to call your father or grandfather a capitalist pig – even if they had no capital.

So these terms are tactics in a fight to undermine the western world. The fight has not changed. Find a lefty protest group, and you will find a hammer & sickle on a sign. Watch for them. Feminist protests, Palestinian protest, environmental protests, illegal alien protests, teacher’s strikes, Antifa protests, BLM, pedophile rights groups, the one common denominator is the Soviet Hammer & Sickle imagery. It will be in there somewhere.  It is the same crazed warriors fighting the same crazy fight. Just the guns and the ammo have changed. And just as those left wingers from the past who chanted those slogans 50 years ago were almost always themselves from comfortable, and sometimes, wealthy families, and who enjoyed the privileges of wealth and felt guilty for it, and wanted to punish you for their guilty feelings, so too today the Marxists are projecting their guilty racialist thoughts onto their political enemies. It is not just typical psychiatric pathology, either. If you ask Saul Alinsky, it’s good form.




Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply


The Politics of Light Bulbs

Vichy (Establishment) Republicans Consider Distancing Themselves From the President Who Got Elected Due to Their Tone-Deaf Failure to Do Their Jobs.