“Social Justice” as a Coercive Therapeutic

“White privilege” is a cultural Marxist code word for nothing more than the same in-group mutual preference that is shared by all peoples everywhere. The predominance of in-group preference is why there are Korean churches in the United States; it is why the word “China” denotes something other than a geo-spatial convention. But, like all cultural Marxist terms, this one has only selective application, à la Gramsci. It is a correlative expression intended to belie the existence of a social pathology that is formally and forensically, ipso jure, denied existence within not only other ethnic groups, but also agglomerate populations that are artificially selected. An example of such an agglomerate is the construction “people of color,” a phrase which in practice means simply non-white, and an intellectual entity which has no existent correlative. One supposes this is done to emphasize the commonality of those groups in the single qualifying characteristic that matters for racial politics: that of being “other,” in contrast to the fictional hegemony of “whiteness.” However, if one takes the policy of race-based university admission criteria (affirmative action) as an example of public policy that is directed toward such artificial collections, this policy is formally denied inclusion in the class of social privilege by those who deploy it. By such contortions of reason, we see that it is not unequal treatment that is systematically attacked in policy by race demagogues, which, per definitionem, cannot be European. It is rather the chimerical evil of “white privilege” -that is, unequal treatment is only deleterious when practiced by whites. Further, class-based unequal treatment is deemed, in a prejudicial manner, to be lacking any conceivable justification, wherever it is seen, though there may in fact be many noble and even merciful reasons for employing it. Unequal treatment is rarely opposed when it facilitates protections directed at populations with so-called special needs. The question of discrimination then becomes one of merit, and those who have a vested interest in asserting that need has a purely social cause are foremost in drawing a distinction between forms of incapacity, or the difference between need that has a biological or a sociological explanation.

This inversion of the definition of special privilege amounts to the use of sophistical method in the development of a rhetoric of race, which white liberals employ in order to undermine the social and intellectual legitimacy of any of their peers in whom racial thinking might be manifest. More directly, those who use such inversions in rhetoric are sophists, like ancient Thrasymachus.  In this connection, the term “white privilege” is deployed in much the same manner as once was “the Jewish question.” Its use is itself an act of critique, the presentment of an aporia for solution. It is a “probematization” of a state of nature, since the question is never one such as,  “is there such a thing as ‘white privilege, is it harmful, and, if so, to whom?” Instead, it is an imperative statement of the form, “something must be done about white privilege.” It assumes what it has to prove, petitio principii. The salient question is rather, what, if any, difference exists between the ethical status of “white privilege” and the privilege exercised by other majority peoples throughout history who have obtained socio-economic, and therefore political, dominance? A related question is, why is black racial consciousness, presumably encouraged for the sake of opposing that of whites, of a different order and essence than that which it combats? It is readily observed that black racism must be treated differently by the liberal than white. As we will see, it must be granted the status of a therapeutic in order to privilege it, that is, to exempt it from the logic it employs in its own critique of white privilege. Among black intellectuals, Thomas Sowell (almost solely) is to be credited with the repudiation of this sort of sophistry. The motives of liberals in this subversion and inversion of nature and history are many and complex, no doubt, but all, at some level, seem to involve the notion of “social justice,” which I would like to talk about for a moment.

Examining the linguistic construction “social justice” one detects the presence of something like a sleight of hand. The posterior term is conditioned by the anterior: it is a peculiar form of justice which is indicated. In fact, in usage the metonym “social justice” does not refer to impartial and objective criteria of justice. It cannot make any such reference if it is to function as a fillip of the special rights by which an oppressed minority social class intends to obtain redress. By its very definition, social justice is not justice (either by the standard of equal treatment before the law, or by some objective moral criteria that we presume would be equally applied). Instead it is is only “justice” for some, and the class for whom social justice is justice proper is precisely that class which claims that it is just. That is, it is a self-authorizing identification that does not require the consent of other populations. Thus, social justice does not refer to transcendent values at all, but is rather a cipher that stands in discourse for the power emanations of a self-identified social class, or the very in-group determination that is denied legitimacy for whites. For this reason—and owing to the fact that it is consciously utilized in this way by minority intellectuals and their enablers in the European auto de fé on racial privilege—the term must be treated as a pure inversion, a potent example of Platonic irony, and an inquisitorial device.

The academic justification for the implementation of social justice, over against mere justice, is this: the institutions of the United States are not conceived to be the possession or birthright of a people, but are somehow the result of wholly impersonal forces which shaped the country (the term “nation” cannot be applied in this connection). From this perspective the culture of the country is merely an historical happenstance to which any and all may apply for domination and control. In his manifesto of white racial consciousness, The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson put it this way,

“The most truly disadvantaged are those [...] who stubbornly go on believing that a set of highly sophisticated institutions developed by and for a particular people at a particular point in time and space is operational for all peoples under all circumstances.”

We may add further to the point by saying that such men, it seems, insist that these institutions be made serviceable to all, in spite of their irreconcilability to them, and that Archimedes’ lever be used to accomplish the feat. That is, no exertion is too great, no public policy too sacrificial of the interests of the (still) majority, the historical settler people of North America, and the builders of its unique civilization. Serviceability to the minority not sufficing, it is also to be declared their own inheritance, their property. As though they were genuine heirs themselves of the world their fathers didn’t create—heirs not by the edict of those creators of the European world, but by a latter day judicial fiat. By this means, the “posterity” to whom the blessings of constitutional liberty belong is an indefinite host comprised of those who are willing to expropriate it from its heirs. A fellow author refers to this horde as “neo-americans.”  It were as though the culture and institutions of North America had been deposited intact on the continent by foreign gods, or extraterrestrials. In order to arrive at this conception of culture as a-historical object, as the universal possession, mentioned previously, history must be detached from culture and institutions, déraciner. Such a procedure is highly problematic, in that it assumes that institutions are not historical, that they do not attach to a peculiar people—and further insists that any person, regardless of social heritage, is a fit participant in, and more, a caretaker of, such institutions. Events put the lie to such an assumption, when the institution of the courts, and the laws they promulgate, are already under irrational and self-contradictory pressures in order to address supposed inequality. To gain its prize, minority racial politics must destroy the integrity of the institutions it claims it is fit to defend. In this method, culture must be cleansed of its ethnic sources—or, rather, certain ethnic claims on historical precedence must be denied, while others must be advanced, on the basis of the in-group determination we have just examined. Allowed to be completed, this course of action would end in nothing short of the destruction of culture itself, and its replacement by the ersatz unities of a purely economic existence. Such we have seen come to partial fruition in our own time. 

Control, and not equality, is of course the positive objective of social justice, since it is the sole means by which such false justice may be obtained. Were it justice proper being sought, coercive methods in its attainment would be superfluous. The logic is stark in its irrationality: only thieves oppose laws against thievery, hence only racists oppose laws to correct the effects of racism, therefore their opposition is mooted by moral necessity. Presumably, there is no limit to the moral necessity which demands satisfaction; it is merely a matter of determining the identity of the plaintiff in the case at law against the world itself. Used in this way, the definition of racism appropriated by minority interests can make no moral reference, or it functions to undermine the very logic of redress. Another way of saying this is that the very criteria used to determine membership in the group that is the beneficiary of social justice are themselves “racist,” in that they use external, biological attributes. It will be seen that the functional definition of racism is pragmatic rather than moral: a racist is whomever opposes the aims of the minority, whatever they may be, as articulated by its self-appointed rhetors. The question that must be asked is, who determines this moral necessity that moots the wishes of the majority? My tentative answer is that who determines this necessity is a matter of actual control, that is, positive law, and not a moral question at all in its present application.

There is a hidden implication of this logic that reveals itself on examination: to refer to a form of justice, unsupported by reasoned argument, which is not recognized as such by a majority or significant plurality is to imply that this population is non compos mentis. That it does not know what is right by the use of its own faculties. It is to imply that there exists a psychological malady unknown to them which prevents the apprehension of what is really just. Reference to the diseased state of the subject who is to be coerced is, of course, implicit in the manner in which racial politics is lately conducted. Racism must be classed as a disease or it becomes merely another idea advanced by yet another interest group. The confinement of “racism” within the diagnostic space privileges it within the wider social therapeutic, and gives its cure the approbation of “medicine,” and more generally, that of “science,” that unassailable procedure which has the object of curing the superstitions of others. White liberals have read their Foucault, and have appropriated the consciousness he “problematized.” This is where the postmodern therapeutic of equality becomes what it claims it opposes, an architecture of mere force, whose justification is said to proceed from Reason.

The cultural Marxism that decries “privilege” advances by the rhetoric of moral presumption and bombast, and such rhetoric is used to assert, in the face of contrary evidence, that there is consensus on a matter about which there is no consensus. It is a baldly counter-factual claim that degrades and poisons those who accept it on its face as truth, by virtue of the unassailable privilege in discourse of those that proffer it. That is, it is a privileged rationality that attacks white privilege. It is used to avoid rather than to foster investigation of moral value, and is of the same substance as the ever-present testaments to the vox populi by the propagandists of totalitarian regimes, who wish to gain false propriety by lies concerning popularity. It is a means of disguising the fact that legitimacy has been in fact abandoned as an objective, it hides the bludgeon beneath the judge’s robes. It is indeed a paradox that minorities would avail themselves of justice (here meaning only dominion) by means of privilege, a position which justice itself demands they subsequently divest themselves. The point is hardly worth argument. Or is it to be supposed, alternatively, that white self-divestiture is to be the final step in a social evolution where utopia consists in the relegation of whites to a position of abject socio-economic subjugation -a permanent reversal of fortune? And is it a measure of our development as a race that we would accept such a position with equanimity, even where we are empowered by God (through nature) to effect a different end? I confess that I have yet to see an intellectually satisfying defense of the means by which inequality will lead to equality by some series of recognizable steps. Such a claim is an open sartorial fiction.

And let us be frank, special exceptions proving the rule, no people who once gain control do so in order to voluntarily relinquish it, once some specific social value for which dominance was obtained is achieved. Such behavior is unexampled in the human annals, aside from Christian charity, or its perversion, since none will expend such effort only to bestow its rewards arbitrarily as a matter of moral “necessity.”  Rather, in the ordinary course of things, “privilege” is obtained by the mere fact of dominance, and not as a collective, self-conscious program of oppression. There are many ways in which dominance is obtained. Socio-economic and political dominance in a people’s native land is of the course of nature. And it is to be relinquished to a foreign minority by virtue of the bad conscience of the few imposed involuntarily on behalf of the many? Certainly not. And this end could not be accomplished but by the energetic support of an elite that is intransigently anti-democratic. Under ordinary circumstances, loyalty to a foreign population or government by a native is considered treason. But treason is the means by which the fact of native social dominance is called into question. 

It is a liberal conceit to intentionally confuse what is a mere fact of history with acts which confer collective culpability. It is only by a self-contradictory edict of genetic guilt that whites are burdened with culpability for past inequality. Such a legal device is further un-Christian. Deuteronomy 24:16 forbids the inheritance of guilt. That sins may be visited on offspring is a matter of sin’s effects, and is not a juridical principle. Even today, the law respecting voting rights is different for states which have “an historic pattern of discrimination.” This is guilt inheritance, and it is special privilege. Further, the theonomist notes, it is a violation of Leviticus 24:22, where we care to insist that our laws reflect a Christian heritage, or anything more historical than mere convenience or power. That is, where we care to have any law other than positive law. In this process we glimpse the unacknowledged reliance that secular-political schemes of social justice have on the poisoning of the Christian conscience. Indeed, such reasoning cannot logically proceed by a sociobiological rationale, which tends to obscure not merely the question of why the summum bonum is what is claimed, but for whom it is a summum bonum in the first place. In such a scheme, humanitas is subordinate, and group preference cannot be displaced. Thus by sociobiological arguments it is impossible to argue that group dominance is “unfair.” By such reasoning native dominance is simply a fact, not a subject of moral critique. It is only by virtue of the capture and torture of the Christian conscience, that all that attaches to white ethnicity must be aggressively rooted up, while the chauvinism of its accusers is left to flourish. Without white Western legal traditions stemming from Roman law, and the Christianized common law, such arguments buttressed by the idea of fairness are quickly seen to be ridiculous.

In contemporary politics, the same opprobrium toward in-group thinking that white liberals display is not applied to blacks, whose preference for Barack Obama is simply because he’s perceived to be black. It is obvious that, since Obama is bi-racial, the emphasis of the President’s hyperdescent is evidence enough that his “blackness” is a consciously selected attribute by his supporters. Obama’s white mother is known to have been disappointed in his cultivation of specifically black bona fides, which give the lie to liberal claims that their position abandons the entrenchments of specifically racial politics -a ruse which seems perpetually present in the electoral politics of the left. We may only conjecture that perhaps she herself suffered the psychological pangs of the treason he committed: to use the historical institutions of the West to attack its native peoples. When white liberals decry racism per se, rather than specifically white racism, then we’ll have the first evidence that they are serious enough about the question of race as an intellectual proposition to at least bother with logical consistency. But as long as black racism (and the interracial crime it so amply underwrites) is formally denied existence along with the historico-ethnic sources of American culture and institutions, the outcry against “privilege” is hardly worthy of intellectual attention. It remains to be recognized, however, that such absurdities have genuine power to persuade, by means of emotive sympathy and the unassailable infra-rational instincts that are turned to this purpose. Meantime, the tools for dispelling such absurdities are, in the long run, not primarily political.

Van Prinsterer on National Life

Kinists are often taken to task on the basis of our claim that there is a national life (and by extension a racial life), and not merely a tribal life. While it is true that the tribal social organization, being built immediately and directly out of near and intermediate relations is the primary component, commerce and interchange between tribes, based on shared characteristics, commonalities of law, unities of custom, among other traits, aggregate to bring into being a larger, more expansive existence. In the passage below from Gillaume Groen van Prinsterer, taken from his important treatise Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution, we find an eloquent expression of this conception:

Where several states form a close union as a result of origin,location and intercourse, unity of development cannot be absent. e.g. in Greece. What differences between cities and tribes, what antagonism between Dorians and Ionians! What contrast between Athens and Sparta! Yet there was a Greek nationality; and it would be possible to show that those diverse tribes, landscapes and localities all contributed — not just by imitating each other but also through their own proper development — to the progress, stagnation and decline of the national life.

And would there not likewise, after the fall of the Roman Empire, have been unity and coherence among the European states, a European nationality? There was unity of origin (through the melting or dwelling together of the barbarians with the inhabitants of the Roman domains); unity of development and vicissitudes (resistance to the continual migrations of nomadic peoples; feudalism; crusades; rise of the towns; recovery of royal power); unity of learning and culture (chivalry; the influence of Antiquity; the universal use of Latin); unity of religion (with respect to it, common participation in every change).

Especially the last three centuries. Thus Heeren is right in calling his work a History of Europe’s Political System and Political Association (preface, v; p. 18). (general criterion) Visible everywhere is the intermeshing or crossing of interests; shared turbulance and strife; the parallel development of learning, of culture; the diffusion of the same principles and ideas; even the blurring of the separate nationalities, so that Sterne compares them to worn-off coins. On what, then, would the hypothesis rest that the revolutionary current was proper well-nigh exclusively to France?

History confirms this reasoning.

Kinism is not an ideology, it is a life force arising out of the memory and investigation of the neglected traditions of our fathers, those pre-modern traditions that more closely resembled the mutual understandings of the ancient Western church. As such, there is a diversity of views on what degree of consanguinity and cultural resemblance constitutes an equal yoking of partners, and the conditions for stable, peaceable national existence. What is clear is that there has occurred in the geopolitical entity referred to as the United States a specifically national disintegration that violates any reasonable understanding of these conditions, and the result has not been the development of a post-national life, but strife, enmity, and mutual suspicion arising out of the violation of natural barriers, accumulated over ages. While it is also clear that national life is something that is in the eye of the beholder, that is precisely the point, and why Kinism insists on the principles of self-determination and voluntary association, incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, dedicated to the posterity of the people, and not the involuntary social engineering of governments and economic elites.

A. Kuyper on the “Advance” of Humanity through Racial Intermingling

It is becoming undeniable, through the tireless research of Kinists in the area of the orthodox doctrine of nations, that the scions of the Reformed Faith, a group encompassing all its significant pre-modern exponents, viewed nationality as rooted in natality, and as both the natural and scriptural basis of human polity. One such exponent, Abraham Kuyper, who was a major influence on the Theonomic developments within orthodox Calvinism leading up to Rushdoony, is below quoted in a passage bearing remarkable similarity to Kinist writings on the subject. His subsequent excursions from this solid ground form the basis of a deviation that reflects the gradual loss of Calvinist orthodoxy in the area of the doctrine of nations and the basis of polity. As our research progresses its effect will inexorably be the pressing upon modernist and post-modernist Calvinism (denying the reality of race, and the beneficial effect of racial unity and exclusion, God-ordained role in the redemptive-historical drama) of a stark dilemma: abandon the doctrinal/theological heritage that they claim as their possession, and declare themselves progenitors of a rootless and autonomous dogma of secular socio-political faith, or embrace the doctrine of nations that Kinism is, gradually, proving is the immemorial doctrine of the Christian church.

The quote below is taken from Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism -Six Stone Lectures: Calvinism in History (pps. 29-30 [65-66 in the PDF pagination]):

In China it can be asserted with equal right that Confucianism has produced a form of its own for life in a given circle and with the Mongolian race that form of life rests upon a theory of its own. But what has China done for humanity in general, and for the steady development of our race? Even so far as the waters of its life were clear, they formed nothing but an isolated lake. Almost the same remark applies to the high development which was once the boast of India and to the state of things in Mexico and Peru in the days of Montezuma and the Incas. In all these regions the people attained a high degree of development, but stopped there and, remaining isolated, in no way proved a benefit to humanity at large. This applies more strongly still to the life of the colored races on the coast and in the interior of Africa; a far lower form of existence reminding us not even of a lake but rather of pools and marshes. There is but one worldstream, broad and fresh, which from the beginning bore the promise of the future ; this stream had its rise in Middle-Asia and the Levant, and has steadily continued its course from East to West. From Western Europe it has passed on to your Eastern States and from thence to California. The sources of this stream of development are found in Babylon and in the valley of the Nile. From thence it flowed on to Greece. From Greece it passed on to the Roman Empire. From the Romanic nations it continued its way to the North-western parts of Europe, and so from Holland and England it reached at length your continent. At present that stream is at a standstill. Its Western course through China and Japan is impeded, meanwhile no one can tell what forces for the future may yet lie slumbering in the Slavic races which have thus far failed of progress. But while this secret of the future is still veiled in mystery, the course of this world-stream from East to West can be denied by none; and therefore I am justified in saying: that Paganism, Islamism and Romanism are the three successive formations which this development had reached, when its further direction passed over into the hands of Calvinism; and that Calvinism in turn is now denied this leading influence by Modernism, the daughter of the French Revolution.

And further… from pps. 30-31 [68-69 in PDF pagination]:

From the high-lands of Asia our human race came down in groups, and these in turn have been divided into races and nations; and in entire conformity to the prophetic blessing of Noah the children of Shem and of Japheth have been the sole bearers of the development of the race. No impulse for any higher life has ever gone forth from the third group.

Thus far, the historic doctrine is established, that national existence is properly based in natality, and that polity is established on this ground. This is the ancient and venerable doctrine. But here, Kuyper, like many immediate pre-moderns, goes astray, and, following the siren of eugenics, asserts that inter-mixture of blood is the harbinger of progress, and not of decline. Kuyper’s objection, then, is not to tribal, or racial, intermingling, but, like a true eugenics advocate, Kuyper only approves of the right blood to inter-mingle. The logical conclusion of the doctrine is one that lies unstated in Kuyper’s exposition, but is undoubtedly the inevitable conclusion. While he clings to the notion that this inter-mixture of blood brings in the beneficent characteristics of foreign types, he neglects to factor this principle in the the very decline (via modernism’s caricature of Calvinsm) that he decries. We then, after establishing the historic doctrine, enter realms of the specious with the importation of modern follies:

(Page 31 [68])

Thus on the one hand there are groups which have dominated exclusively their own inherent forces and on the other hand groups which by commingling have crossed their traits with those of other tribes, so having attained a higher perfection. It is noteworthy that the process of human development steadily proceeds with those groups whose historic characteristic is not isolation but the commingling of blood. On the whole the Mongolian race has held itself apart, and in its isolation has bestowed no benefits upon
our race at large. Behind the Himalayas a similar life secluded itself, and hence failed to impart any permanent impulse to the outside world. Even in Europe we find that with the Scandinavians and Slavs there was hardly any intermingling of blood, and, consequently having failed to develop a richer type, they have taken little part in the general development of human life.

This, of course, is nonsense, given the evidence we have of advanced navigation, metallurgical arts, mythology, and other signs of high civilization from the Scandinavian “race”. Kuyper here seems to conflate the imperial/progressive/gnostic impulse with the “advance of humanity,” and in doing so confuses materiality for spiritual and cultural development, knowledge for being. The relative isolation of the Mongolian, and the infusion of its developments into classical Chinese culture through the dominance of its elites, while failing to “advance humanity,” nevertheless attained a very high level -a level in comparison to which the modern Western malaise would appear to be a decline, on the basis of its refinements in the arts, in political character, in nobility. Further, Kuyper’s views fail to take into consideration contemporary (to him) advances in historical analysis, made by scholars such as Tenney Frank, that mark the decline of Greek and Roman culture to their respective imperial periods, during which the importation of foreign stock as domestic slaves, and inter-mixture with them, immediately preceded the historical symptoms of cultural decline and eventual dissolution. 

The sole egress from this dichotomy is the frank denial of decline, at which point the doctrine of advancement through commingled blood is shown to be hollow, and dependent on a false view of human “progress” that is equally flawed. In this Rushdoony departed from the view of his intellectual mentor, and departed from a novel “orthodoxy” that had secreted within it several of the presuppositions of the dogmas it would deny: namely those of the French Revolution, and the boon wrought by the unqualified “brotherhood” of man. Kuyper’s goal in these lectures is to free Calvinism of the guilt for, and the taint of, the French Revolution and its ideals. In doing so, he uses intellectual materials tainted by this very disorder, and undermines his case in a way that Van Prinsterer, before him, had not done.

 

The Secret of Oz? Value from Nothing.

So the Secret of OZ is money from nothing? Ever heard the term “not worth a Continental”? Supporters of value-from-nothing monetary schemes like Alex Jones and Bill Still can’t answer the obvious query: how do you get it into circulation? Their answer? Price and wage controls, and barrels of Continentals on street corners, free for the taking. This is supposedly an improvement on the current scheme: the issuance of credit by banks based on loans from the government. The U.S. monetary problem does not orginate in the means of issuance of currency, but in the creation of currency via Federal debt and in the fractional reserve regulations on banks that permit them to create “value” ex nihilo through the issuance of credit, which creates a systemic liquidity problem by creating more debt than can be repaid, thereby putting pressure on quantitative controls and concentrating money in banks, rather than in productive enterprises.

If the government spends money into circulation, then only rising government expenditures can inject enough liquidity into the economy. Result? A gargantuan state, and the concomitant statism. If you place it on street corners in barrels, you will require an enormous increase of government control over the economy (i.e. the central planning that libertarians say they oppose) needed to stifle spiraling inflation. Jones verbally opposes the “Weimar Republic” inflationary scheme of the Federal Reserves monetization, and yet then supports a monetary policy as a solution which proposes to end parity to metals altogether and simply issue currency “directly to the people.” And how is this supposed to cure inflation, pray tell? What it accomplishes is the sans-culottes dream of taking fake wealth from the banks and redistributing it to “the people.” But we knew that this is what Jones’s populism would eventually amount to: “Money for nothing and your kicks for free.” Money as mere symbol does not work. Money must have a function, that is, be valuable in and of itself. But this in itself shed light on the essential problems with monetary systems in general, that is, systems of abstraction by which all products are made symbolically universally fungible: the symbol detaches from the substance of the value that underlies it. When it does, it functions merely as scrip, and you have the essence of socialism without the name. The symbolic nature of money detached from any substantive value is required for the industrial capitalist economy, based as it is on abstract interchangeability, and it necessitates the eventual adoption of creatio ex nihilo of value to support its expansionist telos. The term capitalism was created to indicate a system in which “the few” who own the means of production, hire the many, who work for wages in an ever expanding economy based on consumption -an economy that enriches the few and eventually impoverishes the many. This is a very different idea from the market economy, in which all men (ideally) become not sellers of labor or skills on a market of buyers, but producers of value, for themselves and their families -owners of the means of production, reapers of profit.

So, with this brief thoguht exercise, we can easily see that Social Credit monetary policy (which is precisely what the Secret of OZ suggests we adopt) is either an inflationary spiral or a statist utopia. It is not a wonder that all Fascist economies (such as Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussollini) eventually adopt this policy, since they are statist in nature. And neither statism nor destructive inflation is God’s plan for money, which is gold and silver.

Alternative Right’s Saigo Appealing to the Neutral Angels of Our Natures

Apparently, Hanna Saigo at Alternative Right (a site we normally recommend) thinks that brushing up against White Nationalism is a bad thing. Her comments are made in the context of Glenn Beck’s craven obeissance to “conservative” King clan member, Alveda, the “civil rights” leader’s niece. To her credit, Saigo disapprovingly quotes an ABC News recap of King’s comments at the recent neocon Restoring Something Rally in which King disparages “white privilege,”

On the 47th anniversary of her uncle’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, politician and activist Alveda King has joined conservative commentator Glenn Beck at the same spot to bring people together in paying tribute to America’s soldiers and “restoring honor” to America…

While speaking in front of tens of thousands today in DC, King said that she hopes that white privilege will become human privilege and that America will soon repent of the sin of racism and return itself to honor.

Same victimhood, different day. King is regularly on display in Beck’s rhetoric as a self-identified “conservative.” Convervative King, liberal King, the culture of grievance is the same. At least she didn’t call for genocide, as other black “intellectual” leaders have done. Beck was not alone in his capitulation to the liberal view of the “sins” of our racist past. Neocon Sarah Palin (whose coup against the Tea Party is undoubtedly covertly underwritten by the GOP) called slavery our (meaning white people’s) “greatest national shame.”  So much for historical insight. But then again, no one would accuse Palin of the sin of intellectual nuance.

But later in Saigo’s piece, in describing what Beck “could” have said short of damaging his position with Fox, we are surprised to find enumerated the platitudes of race “neutrality.” Has that really become the “paleoconservative” or “Old Right” position on the matter? To quote Saigo, what Beck could have utilized without jeopardy are,

“...constitutional, legal and moral arguments against affirmative action, enforced diversity and third world immigration which don’t brush up against white nationalism…”

So, white Nationalism throws off such a stench that one must not even brush up against it. Black grievance-mongering and explicit racial politics are, on the other hand, rose water in which we may douse ourselves without olfactory offense.Why is it that the case for “Middle America” must always be a passive case (non-discrimination) and the positive, pro-white case nugatory? It’s because “neutrality” isn’t really neutral. Rather, it has already capitulated to every demand of every petty black race demagogue to have been granted by God the inalienable right to a microphone, teleprompter, and cable coverage. Funny thing about racial pressuppositions, they tend to start you out on one side or the other of that imaginary neutrality line. And Beck’s already far to the left of it.

In Saigo’s advice to Beck, we are presented with the false dilemma of influence verus truth, and the accommodationist stance presented as, invariably, the price of influence. But politics really isn’t “a game of inches,” as Saigo says. The right hasn’t been moved to the right in decades. They aren’t interested in being moved to the right. We have become a country amalgamated by force out of largely intractable factions. When electoral politics produces representatives who cease being representative, then new alignments must be sought, and the nation’s founders made provision for just such an eventuality.The credulous “game of inches” is the game in the front of the house, the sucker’s game. The real action is in the back of the house, where the stakes are higher. Such a game assumes there is real debate taking place on issues that are, as yet, undecided. It is this very assumption that creates the illusion of political efficacy, since all questions of vital importance were decided long ago by other means than a ballot. But assuming that political action still matters (a very debatable premise) then we might offer that when perpetual numerical minority means that desired outcomes of the legislative process are politically infeasible, a people has a right to seek redress. This goes to the heart of our fabled national unity, a fiction which uses the theater of political opposition to hold instinctive enemies in suspension, vying for a social domination that will never arrive. 

For Middle America, racial politics is a game played by your opponents rules, a zero sum game, until you finally decide it’s rigged. And when that day of realization comes, you have to determine if you, yourself, will take the dias you have been afforded by careful compromise, and immolate yourself on it for something higher, something greater. The right to lead, perhaps? That something greater is not the “right wing” desideratum of neutrality. Yockey would have said that the death of neutrality is the beginning of politics proper. Everything else is positioning for the carrion of ideals. Beck should know this, and Saigo certainly does.