The clueless right

The clueless right

Tell me again that no third party will ever succeed in America.
Tell me again how the Republicans are ‘the best we can hope for.’

It seems I’ve been told that so many times in recent years, but in light of this, how can anybody say those things in sincerity, or without shame?

”Mr. Cain got a jump on other potential GOP 2012 candidates Wednesday when he formed a presidential exploratory committee, which allows him to raise money for a possible White House run. None of the likely frontrunners have taken that step.

The Atlanta radio host and former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza said he plans to spend several months seeing if he can drum up enough support among donors and voters to justify a full-blown campaign.”

The FReepers, who to me represent the ‘average’ GOP voter, seem beside themselves with excitement about Cain running for President, not to mention Allen West, who also sends a thrill up the collective leg of the FReepers.

However, I am dumbfounded that even the FReepers are still trotting out this old chestnut:

”He will be a powerful put-down to the myth of ‘republicans = racist’

Now that some brave and powerful black conservatives have put their necks on the line – and WON – there will be more who will step forward.

Without being able to use the race card – the libs so long successful lie – a card now maxed out and soon to be canceled – they will be hard put to refute opposition stances.”

Can you believe anyone can say that with a straight face after the last two years of experience? Does the name ‘Michael Steele’ ring any bells over in FReeperland? What about J.C. Watts? Condoleezza Rice? Colin Powell? Is there anybody I’ve forgotten?

One more reminder: surely some of you here remember that some Republicans said that same thing about a certain candidate in 2008. If he were elected, surely that would disarm the left and minority voters, because it would put the lie to their claim that this was a ‘racist’ country, and they would no longer have any excuses about how blacks can’t succeed in this country. Therefore there would be no more race card to play. People actually said that. How has that worked out? Anybody noticed?

Maybe it’s been a smashing success and I just haven’t noticed.

Really, though, what hope is there for the Republican Party in the next election? The other candidates or wannabees — Romney, Gingrich, Pence, Jeb Bush, ‘Huckster’ Huckabee — could there be any sorrier slate of candidates anywhere?

And yet there are still those who say that a third party can never succeed; it will just elect the Democrats yet again. Invariably somebody brings up Ross Perot and how he caused the election of Clinton. But would Poppy Bush have been any better, apart from the sex scandal thing?

Of course a third party will not succeed as long as people keep denouncing the very idea of it, and calling it a hopeless cause. As long as people convince themselves, or let others convince them of that supposed certainty, then no, a third party will never succeed.

People do forget that the Republicans started as a third party.
Just because third parties since then have failed to capture much support does not mean that it can never happen. There is a first time for everything, and if ever there was a time, it is now, for a party that might actually represent the interests of the American majority.

The Tea Party is the great White hope for some people — but the Tea Party faithful seem to see themselves as the great Diverse hope, apparently, with their ardent courtship of minorities and the ‘colorblind’ crowd.

Some might say, ‘Cain (or West) might be a good conservative gentleman and a wonderful candidate.’ Some people put great stock in their success in past endeavors, business or the military. Surely we can see for ourselves the folly of electing a relative unknown, or a candidate without the right kind of experience. Some might say ‘why does his race matter? Why shouldn’t Republicans run a black candidate?’

No matter how conservative a black candidate might be, for such a man to be President at a time when things have never been tenser amongst the races would mean that such issues would only be further complicated, not soothed, as some people claim. And it would further marginalize Whites within the Republican Party, as political correctness would be reinforced tenfold, with everybody leaning over backwards to show their ‘colorblindness’ and to be ‘sensitive and inclusive.’ We would be even more constrained in acting towards our own interests — which, once again, do not coincide with those of any ”minority community.”

Having Republicans join Democrats in the never-ending quest for minority approval and for the ultimate Black Savior would only mean that we would be that much farther away from any addressing of our needs and interests. End result: we would be more marginalized than ever, if the GOP becomes another haven for politically correct identity politics.

And as others have pointed out along the line, it will become established policy that we should have a black (and later, other minority) president as some kind of gesture of good faith. To elect a White president after two (or more) black presidents would be denounced as a ”big step backward” towards the bad old days of discrimination and ‘White hegemony.’ Republicans would not counter these accusations, but would buckle under and try even harder to appear non-racist.

At this point, electing someone as a gesture of goodwill or a statement against ‘racism’ or as a way of proving how PC we are is just a very bad reason to choose the occupant of the highest office in our land.

Let only the best candidate be chosen. But at this troubled point in our history, having another presidency in which race would be front and center all the time is the last thing we need. It would not pour oil on the troubled waters, but would be more fuel for conflict.

Down the slippery slope to — where?

Down the slippery slope to — where?

Several of you have mentioned the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ repeal. I have only a few things to say about it. First, it’s been in the works for a long time, and of course what Clinton began, this regime is completing.

We’ve seen the military come increasingly under the sway of political correctness, what with things like ‘diversity’ being a primary objective in the military, and women on submarines, to mention only two examples. One of the most shameful and shocking symptoms was when Casey at the memorial for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre said that a bigger tragedy (bigger than the deaths of soldiers) would be if ‘diversity’ was decreased as a result. That comment should have evoked way more shock and outrage than it did.

The military has been captured by the left, which is bizarre because the leftists strike an anti-military pose. But now it’s ”their” military, you see, and they will remake it in their perverse image, with ‘diversity’ and tolerance being the goals, not defending the United States of America and its citizens.

The co-ed military was really the thing that made this latest step inevitable. The same arguments that we might make against gays openly serving (sexual tensions, destruction of camaraderie and morale, sexual distractions, ‘sensitivity’ issues, etc.) were made against the proposal for a co-ed military, and were rejected.

The left always works relentlessly toward their goals by increments. Women in the military first, now gays. What will be the next target? Because trust me, there will be a next frontier; some barrier they want to demolish and some standard and tradition they just have to trash. We already have non-citizens in the military. What next?

We could trace all this back to the whole affirmative action idea, too; if we choose or prefer people based on traits like race, then next comes gender and ‘sexual orientation.’
I suppose there will be quotas for recruiting each type, with ‘diversity’ as always being the top priority.

I would think that in any case, patriotic Americans would not want to serve in this politically correct, ideologically-driven regime. However, do we want our military to be made up of various people who see the military as a place to make some kind of ‘social statement’ or to carry out some ideological war against tradition? Do we want our military to be made up of people who are joining only to get free education, training, or citizenship? That’s something to think about.

Identity and conflict and White Identity in Postmodernity

Identity and conflict


Tom Sunic, in an Occidental Observer piece called White Identity in Postmodernity, discusses the minefield of “White identity”. He writes of how many Whites in the West, wary of expressing a White identity, choose instead a sort of neutral national identity, as with most Republicans whose identity is bound up exclusively with national patriotism and loyalty to ‘the American idea’. For many on the left particularly, who have been schooled to regard White identity as not only illegitimate but as prima facie ‘racism’, their choice is often to identify with some subculture. He cites the examples of Whites who champion the cause of Tibet or, in his words, ‘exotic Afro or Asian escapism.’ These types are very common among those who are politically leftist. Everything they do and everything they enjoy is meant to express their desired solidarity with some Third World culture or cause. They may wear ‘rasta’ dreadlocks or tattoo themselves like tribesmen of some sort or wear some kind of Third World ethnic garb, and listen to Third World music and eat exotic foods and worship at the altar of Asian religions or some kind of syncretic faith which involves Third World traditions.

Many less exotically-identified American liberals instead choose to identify with black Americans or Afrocentric culture. Their counterparts back in the 1970s and 80s may have been more likely to pick ”Native Americans” as their ersatz identity.

What seems to be the important thing in adopting such a false identity is to express solidarity with some ‘underdog’ or downtrodden group, apparently as a way of assuaging their hyper-developed consciences about history’s wrongs. For the last 40 years or so, Whites have been taught at every turn that their identity is in itself a guilt-saturated thing, because their ancestors were the authors of most wrongs in the world.

Sunic mentions that many Europeans or European-descended Americans may not discover any ethnic or racial identity without being threatened by someone else’s national identity, and he uses the example of the break-up of Yugoslavia to illustrate his point.

He also emphasizes how victimhood and victimology are at the heart of the many competing minority identities which are proliferating in the West. There is inevitably a hierarchy of victimhood, and in our country blacks and to some extent Jews enjoy primacy in this department, though the exponential increase in the number of Hispanics in our country threatens to topple the current victim-order.

When I was in college in the 70s, as all this victim-veneration was just reaching a new peak, I noticed, to my surprise, that blacks did not like to share the victimhood mantle with other minority groups; there was instead a competition among the minority groups as to whose suffering was most intense or most prolonged. Blacks at that time fell back on frequent references to ‘400 years of slavery’, sometimes extended to ‘500 years of slavery’ or ‘500 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow’ or some such claim. American Indians were enjoying a vogue in the 1970s, and there were many Ward Churchill types running around campuses, their identity being based on having supposedly had a remote ”Native American” ancestor. Asians were also in the victimhood sweepstakes, and their claims centered on past expulsions of Asian immigrants or the internment of Japanese during World War II.

But I noticed that these groups did not work together; they were all intensely ethnocentric, and quite competitive or jealous when it came to sharing the victimhood spotlight. They might put aside their rivalries to participate in some anti-White demonstration on campus but generally they were wary of each other, or outright unfriendly to one another.

As Sunic points out in his piece, when victimhood is claimed, that implies a victimizer, or a ‘monster’ as he says. It does seem to be an ironclad rule: the common thread in all the victimhood narratives is “Whitey did it.” It is Whites who are to blame in every case; there is always a Honky in the woodpile when a cry of victimhood is raised.

And as Sunic says, the victimology leads to conflict not only between the vicitims and the accused (and automatically convicted) White victimizer, but among minority groups scrambling for their place in the hierarchy and their share of the spoils. If ‘reparations’ for blacks are to be paid, there will be outcries from Hispanics, who will demand payment for the ‘theft’ of their fictional Aztlan. What happens when the spoils are no longer so plentiful?

And more importantly, what will happen when the goose that laid the golden egg is moribund?

Sunic says that an authoritarian society is necessary to manage all the divisiveness that is inherent in such an unstable system; his words are that ‘high levels of social control’ are needed. We are seeing that happening. And many of us wonder if that is not one of the reasons why our rulers have purposely introduced so much diversity into Western countries: to break up any natural cohesion and racial integrity, and to produce instability as a prelude to their further plans. Otherwise we can only conclude that our ”leaders” are utterly incompetent and clueless. Either explanation is sobering to say the least.

Sunic describes the psychological state of Western White people as being overwhelmed by the constant barrage of guilt and the clamoring by the various voices of grievance and discord. I think this is taking a toll, as he implies, and I think it may reach a tipping point before very long, unless the cacophony of complaints and accusations stops. Is this too part of the plan, I wonder?

He says that Whites don’t have the option of claiming victimhood themselves, but actually some do just that; for example in our country, those who see their immigrant ancestors as having been victimized by founding-stock Americans a hundred or so years ago are rather good at bringing up their grievances, and these same people all too often side with illegal immigrants and work towards open borders and the third-worldizing of America.

America is perhaps more disunited than other Western countries in that respect; those European countries which are monocultural and monoethnic have a decided advantage over those countries with more than one nationality within their borders. This is illustrated by the comments on this AmRen thread discussing Nick Griffin’s remarks about Black and Asian residents of the UK not being Britons. Someone asks whether ethnic Irish in the UK are ethnic foreigners, and several answer ‘yes’. A squabble then erupts between posters who appear to be Irish-descended Americans and Anglo-Americans or British posters. It’s an interesting but complicated argument, with people citing British celebrities who are supposedly ”really” Irish. There seems to be some confusion about Irish people of Anglo-Norman descent, or people of mixed English and Irish descent. So even in the United Kingdom there are elements of ethnic conflict, though among closely-related peoples. America is not the only English-speaking nation with internal divisions among close kin.

These are issues that have to be addressed, along with ideological and religious divisions in our country and other Western countries. If we lack the capacity to put aside our other differences in favor of uniting based on our kinship connection, we really don’t stand much of a chance.

White Identity in Postmodernity

Tom Sunic

April 23, 2009

We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our grandparents never asked questions about the meaning of identity; they never worried about who they were. They took for granted their affiliation to their religion, to their tribe, and to their race. It is with the rising tide of multiculturalism, followed by the waning of the traditional nation-state that identity becomes a problem.

The term “identity” has become fashionable because it can mean everything and nothing at the same time. It is no accident that it is much in vogue today because, as noted in a recent publication of the Institut für Staatspolitik, it has a resonance more scientific than national consciousness or national soul.‘”

After the tragic experience Europeans had with their brands of nationalisms during World War II and its minor extension during the recent Yugoslav war,  the European political class prefers to use neutral terms such as ” national identity.” The old expression “national consciousness,” which in the German language has a particularly strong resonance (i.e., Volksbewusstsein) or in the French language conscience nationale, smacks of fascist vocabulary and must be prudently avoided.

By contrast, the expression “national identity” sounds neutral. It can be used by all even by those who reject their national identity or who discard the notion of racial pride. Even the icons of the left often give lip service to national pride by posing with patriotic symbols.

Barack Obama, American Patriot

It is true that when a White European or White American speaks of the “national conscience” of his ingroup, the mainstream media will automatically point to the rising spectre of racism.  In the postmodern world, the barren term “identity” provides a certificate for decent civic consciousness, excluding any suspicion of xenophobia or the rejection of the Other.

Most White Europeans and White Americans resort to “functional” identities with no ties to their racial or cultural identity. Psychological research shows that Whites have fairly strong identities as Whites at the unconscious level — what Kevin MacDonald terms “implicit Whiteness.” But at the explicit, conscious level they identify themselves as Americans, or Christians, or classical music fans.

Indeed, for many Whites in the postmodern world, identity is expressed by the choice of different life styles and adherence to exotic mores. These new postmodern trendy identities replace the old identities derived from our racial and cultural heritage.

For example, an ever growing  number of Whites, while gleefully expressing their French, American, English or German roots, extol bizarre supranational and transnational identities. They gladly embrace exotic Afro or Asian escapism,  or the rap music of urban America. They detect their new identity not in the primeval White vicinity of their own village, but places as far away from their actual lives as possible.

Alain De Benoist observes that in postmodern society, individuals often seek alternative identities by identifying with trade marks, logos, or exotic imagery. If a new fashion dictates that new identity must be sought in Jewish Kabbala or in the mimicry of the life style of a Negro tribe from Timbuktu,  it will be gladly embraced.

Madonna proudly sporting her identity as a Kabbalist

Quite possibly modern European Americans or Europeans at large cannot become racially conscious without first facing serious physical threat by someone else’s well defined identity.  Witness the break-up of Yugoslavia, when many Croats discovered an intense form of national identity thanks to the onslaught of Yugoslav communist tanks.   

Victimology: A negative identity

In a multiethnic and multicultural society, the identity of different ethnic groups is incompatible with liberal individualism. On the one hand liberalism preaches the free market with happy consumers as the ultimate identity for all; yet on the other, the very dynamics of liberalism cannot dispense with the conflicting racial and ethnic identities in its own multicultural body politic.

In fact, as ironic as this may sound. multiculturalism (which is the fraudulent euphemism for multiracialism),  presents the biggest  threat to the liberal system This is because it provokes the sentiments of victimology among its different ethnic and racial constituents.  Modern multicultural society, as the former Yugoslavia has shown and as modern US is showing daily, is a fragile system prone to racial and ethnic tension. Pierre André Taguieff a French left-leaning writer and politically  correct dissident, notes, that “particularly interethnic rivalry can be radicalized by the slightest spark (a minor event ) and merge into a conflict resembling a civil war.”

Since the end of the Cold War, the political class claims its identity by constant resurrection of the fascist straw man and the forever looming anti-Semite. Even if that anti-Semite bogeyman is not around, he must be reinvented in order to provide credibility to the liberal system. Over and over again.

At the beginning of the third millennium, one can hear on all wavelengths endless horror stories about the evil Hitler a man who is surely destined to live forever in infamy.  It appears that liberal democracy cannot function at all without using the negative Other.

The Jewish Holocaust has become a critical component of identity for the Western world in need of new quasireligious symbolism — the culture of the Holocaust. In 2005, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, Horst Köhler, tearfully declared in the Israeli Knesset that the responsibility for Shoah is part of German identity.” (“Die Verantwortung für die Schoa ist Teil der deutschen Identität.) Similarly, the former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder declared that  “the remembrance of the Shoah  belongs to our identity.”

Think about that. If taken literally, it would mean that one could not think of oneself as a German without also thinking about the role of Germans in the Holocaust. To be a German is to have the mark of Cain branded on one’s forehead.

This culture of the Holocaust is staunchly maintained by the judicial system in Europe. The perception of either real or surreal anti-Semitic identity triggers judicial wrath. Any academic who questions the modern Jewish narrative can easily land into the claws of the Criminal Code the dreaded German StGB, Section 130, or the French “Loi Fabius- Gayssot.”

There is an obvious double standard here. It is widely permissible to exercise one’s own identity by cracking jokes against “fat Krauts”  or  “stinking Frogs.” or “hypocrite  Wasps.” One can go even go so far as to utter a mild joke against proverbial “camel riders.”  But a minor joke about Jewry is unthinkable in the media and political circles of America and Europe. One can criticize the Other by invoking free speech, provided that the Other is not a Jew.

Ersatz-substitute identities

In their desperate search of a non-racial identity, White Europeans resort to ersatz identities. For instance, they espouse the Palestinian or Tibetan identity or the identity of some distant Third World tribe as if it was their own identity. They will spot some lost Indian tribe in the Amazon forest and then, with all vicarious passion, strive to protect and preserve it.

But when it comes to defining and preserving their own racial identity let alone preserve their race, they remain silent. To say aloud “I am proud of being a White European” smacks of racism.

Such substitute or foreign-inspired ersatz identity is particularly strong when it is couched in the narrative of victimology. Europeans are keen at erecting monuments to exotic tribes that they never heard of until the day before yesterday especially ones that may have been victimized by Europeans. Days of atonement keep accumulating on the calendar. Every White European or American politician is obliged to pay moral and financial tributes to peoples whose identity has nothing in common with his own.

While Western media and opinion makers assure us that history is creeping toward an end, we are witnessing a staggering demand for the revival of non-European micro-identities, often couched in selfcentred victimhoods. And each of those non-European victimhoods requires an expanding number of its domestic dead and foreign culprits. Culprits are always White Europeans, who are forced to practice the ritual of remorse.

The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was the fundamental pillar of the old Greco-Roman historical memory in Europe, cedes its place to Levantine inspired jeremiads for victimhoods of Asian and African tribes. Slowly but surely, the European sense of the tragic is supplemented by a fixation on non-European identities.

What a scandal if a White European or American statesman fails to display remorse for the past suffering of some non-European people! What counts is the endless enumeration of non-European victims of the European past.

In this postmodern “battle of memories,” victimhoods cannot be equal. Some must take precedence over others, and it’s quite obvious that the Jewish Holocaust is the apex of victimhood in the postmodern West.

But there is a grave danger for all. Given the victimological atmosphere that prevails today in the multiracial West, each non-European tribe, race, or community is led to believe that its own victimology is unique. This is a dangerous phenomenon because each victimology competes with other victimologies for pride of place.

The story of the 20th century is that the greatest mass murders in history — the mass murders of communism — were made possible by the Marxist ideology of victimization and they were rationalized in the name of tolerance and socalled human rights. The communist ideology of victimization resulted in the dehumanization of dissident intellectuals and political opponents, and even whole groups of people with monstrous consequences.

The spirit of victimhood must search for its negative identity by negating and abolishing the Other, who is henceforth no longer perceived as human, but depicted as a monster. The spirit of victimology does not serve to prevent the conflict. It renders the conflict inevitable.

The diverse identities in the multicultural West are a severe problem. On the one hand, modern liberal Western societies require that each non-European ethnic group receives an appropriate identity and its right to historical grievance; yet on the other, liberal societies are unable to function well in an environment beset by ethnic Balkanization.

In particular, the contest of diverse victimologies makes the functioning of the liberal system extremely precarious. In essence, each victimological spirit in multiracial society is confrontational and discriminatory. It creates a climate that promotes divisiveness in the society. The only way such societies can function is with high levels of social control. This prospect is doubtlessly viewed quite positively by postmodern intellectuals. But it will lead to alienation and disengagement for the great majority — especially for Whites who cannot claim victimhood and who are forced to witness the disintegration of their once homogeneous communities.

American and European societies are facing a schizoid situation. On the one hand, they are being overwhelmed by the rhetoric of negative identities derived from guilt feelings — the various anti-colonial victimologies and the endless palaver about past European fascist crimes. Yet on the other hand, one can barely hear a word about gigantic crimes committed by Communists and their liberal allies during and after WWII — crimes committed to avenge the Marxist victimology of the class struggle.

Whites in Europe and America have to overcome the sense of territorial rootedness and intra-ethnic infighting. European racial and cultural identity stretches from Argentina to Sweden and to Russia and to many other places on the globe.

Even more importantly, White people must explicitly accept a White identity. This explicit White  identity does not imply that Whites are superior to other peoples or that other peoples are not also unique and have a right to maintain their uniqueness. It merely states that we are a unique people with a unique culture and that both our people and our culture are worth preserving.

White identity can best be preserved in the transcendental sphere of its own uniqueness. But White uniqueness need not and should not come at the price of denying the uniqueness of other peoples and other races.

Tom Sunic (; is an author, former political science professor in the USA, translator and former Croat diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age ( 2007).