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 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 Kings 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 grievance is the same. At least she didn’t call for genocide, as other black “intellectual” leaders have done. Beck was not alone in the 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 intellectualism.

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 the right to a microphone and a teleprompter. 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 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. 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.

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. 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.

Comments: