American Mind: Defend America – Defeat Multiculturalism

The American Mind website is always worth reading.

I have high hopes for these conservatives as they strike me as the only set of people around who are capable of fixing the American Right in the post-Blompf and post-Conservatism, Inc. era. I would say that first we have to cut out the oligarchs who now control our politics though. As long as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers can buy the policy agenda, nothing will change.

I currently don’t have the time to read through these essays, but pretty much everything here is likely to be fully compatible with the 3.0 movement that I have been sketching out. At some point, I will return to describing the rise of political correctness in a historical context and analyze it as a discourse in the way that Michel Foucault would have done. We will examine its disciplinary institutions like the ADL and the SPLC and the manner in which they wield power over our culture.

Defend America – Defeat Multiculturalism

“Today, multiculturalism and its politics of identity pose an existential threat to the American political order comparable to slavery in the 1850s or communism during the Cold War. Once confined to graduate seminars and the ethnic “studies” departments at our nation’s colleges and universities, multiculturalism is now the authoritative ideology reigning over higher education, our media and political establishments, legal system, and corporate boardrooms.

If we do not reverse multiculturalism’s advance, it will continue to undermine our country and constitutionalism, destroying the possibility of a common good and a life of civic peace. Indeed, multiculturalism threatens to take down western civilization as whole. …”

The Contradiction At The Heart Of Identity Politics

“David Azerrad has written an incisive, deeply-researched essay which skewers the dominant New Left ideology of American high culture.

Drawing on an extensive intellectual history, he traces this creed back to the black, ethnic, women’s, and gay liberationist movements of the 1960s, demonstrating how their avatars adopted a Manichaean “us-versus-them” worldview that demonizes white straight men. Azerrad shows the problems did not begin with the post-2014 campus antics catalogued by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff but begin in the 1960s. …”

Justice? That Aint’ It, Chief

“Identity politics has breached the confines of the ivory tower, David Azerrad argues in an important new essay. Now, it holds sway over nearly all of public life. Today, writes Azerrad, “we all learn to distinguish the victimized groups who should be honored from the oppressor groups who must perpetually atone for the sins of their forefathers.”

“There are still, of course, other ways of looking at reality in America today, but none so thoroughly dominates the public square as identity politics. While it has not fully conquered the public’s mind, it does reign almost unchallenged among the elites. Politicians, professors, producers, pundits, Fortune 500 CEOs, tech gurus, journalists, and the coterie of other famous, credentialed, and successful people who comprise our ruling class all worship at the altar.” …

The Moral Basis of Identity Politics

“Today’s political discourse is dominated by the language of “identity politics.” David Azerrad is right about that, and he provides plenty of convincing evidence about what it means.

One wonders whether any policy can now be discussed outside of the framework of “race, class, and gender.” Even environmentalism must be hammered into the same Procrustean bed. Professor Josephine Donovan writes, “feminism … embraces the amelioration of life on earth for all life-forms…. We believe that all oppressions are interconnected: no one creature will be free until all are free—from abuse, degradation, exploitation, pollution, and commercialization. …”

Their Sin, Your Penance

“I’ll respond to David Azerrad’s important essay by taking up a question he suggests in concluding: following its own logic, how might identity politics play out? The question is worth asking for the same reason it’s difficult to answer. The theory and rhetoric of identity politics has little to say about what it would mean—how America would look and feel—if all the grievances of all the victim-groups constituting the identitarian coalition were satisfactorily resolved.

Azerrad’s demonstration that victimhood is central to identitarianism implies that those who happen to belong to groups whose grievances have been fully addressed would regard their identity, formerly essential to their sense of who they are, as a trivial detail, like being left-handed or having a name that starts with a vowel. Identity politics would be self-extinguishing. ..”

Progressivism’s Aristocratic Fantasies

“David Azerrad gives a thoughtful treatment of the origins and essence of identity politics, one that will be useful for those curious about the genesis of our shibboleths: structural racism, intersectionality, white privilege, wokeness. I commend Azerrad for presenting an intelligent, provocative thesis at all; academics whisper these ideas, but few pen them. On question of origins, I will add some comments, and on the question of essence, I must beg to differ.

Identity Politics as Nihilism

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, race, class, and gender groups had “legitimate grievances” for unequal treatment, but broke with the civil rights movement (3, 12).1 They turned to identity politics, a metaphysics (“the most fundamental dimension of reality”) that disavows nature, or “objective reality,” and frames all relations in terms of power (5, 15). This is more than an “Americanized version of tribalism;” it “is first and foremost a politics…of oppression” that “celebrate[s] victimization” (2, 3, 2). According to Malcolm X and Armando Rendon, whites “are born devils by nature” (5-7). In consciousness-raising, a victim becomes woke to the institutionalized oppression that explains otherwise unrelated phenomena, and one must take sides in the struggle.

That struggle is against America, which for the woke “is at its core a supremacist regime that oppresses certain groups” (5). …”

Focus on the map.

There are two possible majority coalitions in the current American electorate: the national-populist authoritarian coalition that Blompf created in 2016 which combined Right-Authoritarians and Left-Authoritarians which was supposed to realign American politics. Similarly, there is the emerging populist-progressive Yang coalition of Left-Authoritarians and Left-Libertarians.

The issue that divides populists and progressives is the political correctness, multiculturalism, identity politics and the toxic racial resentment and hatred of Whites that it leads to. Unfortunately, Conservatism, Inc. has played along with this game and has submitted to the doctrine of political correctness, multiculturalism and identity politics, which brought us Blompf in 2016 and whatever comes next in 2020. Coming back from that will require reassembling and improving on Blompf’s 2016 authoritarian coalition. It will require a far superior leader than Blompf who can appeal to educated voters, getting rid of the grifters and donors and staffing a future administration with better talent.

joking/not joking maybe we should criticize the secular moral paradigm we live under in the 21st century which is political correctness enforced by an atheist elite and assert what we truly believe is authentically moral and contrast it with the evil created by the status quo

About Hunter Wallace 9709 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

30 Comments

  1. Good friggin grief ! Finally someone(s) who get it. Now they’ve taken step 1 … will they take step 2 and mention THE only obvious solution ? That America must Balkanize. I say 4 new Republics as a general conversation starting point ours being … well you know … A VERY ENLARGED CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA FOR WHITE CHRISTIANS ONLY. It’s sad and amazing we don’t even hear this from Hill, Duke or Spencer !!! Do they think even their ability to “talk” will continue much longer ? They act as if there’s no hurry. When they realize they’re wrong it’ll be too late.

    Good article buddy.

    • Gray Ghost,

      In your mind under partition who gets the Southwest? Where do the blacks go? etc. What 4 republics did you have in mind?

  2. “formerly essential to their sense of who they are, as a trivial detail, like being left-handed or having a name that starts with a vowel.”

    Clearly, this was written by a Right-hand supremacist. The Hate, the EVIL.
    I’m just shaking, I can’t even………

    • Left-handed people have lived under the iron fist of right-handed tyranny for too long! End the discrimination towards those with a different hand orientation! Our oppressed minority demands special rights and reparations!

  3. They’re talking about the standard conservative CivNat version of multiculturalism, which means “aim for assimilation, not identity politics.” That’s nothing new.

    • Civc Nationalism is White Genocide with flag waving. Identity politics only becomes “a problem” for these people when Whites want to participate.

      There is nothing nationalist about a Civc Nat, since nation means a people with a common lanaguage, culture, and *heritage*. We should call these people what they really are: Civic Statists.

      • Unless they’re talking about White Genocide they’re not helping. We aren’t going back to 1950.

    • @Rich – right-o. It’s all more Civ Nat PLEADING. No matter what any-one says – it all comes down to Race. Tribalism. Period.

    • This is nothing but a depressing rehash of the cuckservatives’ platform for the last 60 years or so. The losing strategy of appealing to colorblind unity and rejecting White tribalism and nationalism as thoroughly as the foreign, brown, invasive tribalism that is displacing the CivNats.

      This is “America as an Idea, a System, and an Economy” rather than “America as a People.”

      As such, it’s still a position of deep weakness. It’s the bow-tie straightening, prim-and-proper, maiden-aunt, propriety-haunted, tut-tutting “lets not talk about race, ethnicity, heritage, or identity” bullcrap that made cuckservatives the useful losers of the Uniparty for generations.

      It’s just a pity that Hunter decided to become some kind of slightly edgy outrider for the eternally defeated CivNat Cuck.

        • Are you joking? Those types have zeroed in on PC since “The Closing Of The American Mind” was published in 1987.

          This is not a sign of progress. This is exactly how cuckservatism always was. If you are suggesting that criticizing PC is a new thing for these types, you are comically wrong.

          • In my view, bucking political correctness and attacking it directly as immoral is new ground for conservatives. Their customary response to it has been to let the Left seize the moral high ground and walk all over them

        • Mr. Wallace,

          They are just one form of evil fighting another. There has always been identity politics. That is what people are. These conservatives believe in Israel Zangwill’s melting pot garbage. They would destroy what we are which is distinct peoples and races.

          American history has always been different ethnic groups looking after themselves with racial voting blocks. These conservatives are lying or are fools to think this is only a recent phenomenon.

          I consider them way more of a threat than even extreme white nationalists. To me I consider the Republican conservative to currently be my main enemy.

          What government rules you does not determine who you are. It just means the mutual rights and obligations that exist in a society.

  4. My biggest fears are assimilation and miscegenation. Identity politics will prevent some of both.

  5. “In the late 1960s and early 1970s, race, class, and gender groups had “legitimate grievances” for unequal treatment, but broke with the civil rights movement. They turned to identity politics…”

    Sure, the original “civil rights movement” had nothing to do with the bad political correctness that came later. In fact, PC betrays the legacy of civil rights.

    This is just 90’s neoconservatism repackaged.

  6. The fatal problem is that they are still trying to “take back America”.

    The correct play is splitting it up. We will be routed unless and until we get that.

    We cannot live with these people anymore, and as I always ask, why would you even want to?

  7. more Prop Nation claptrap from the Cons.

    anyway, once the Urban whites have been exterminated,

    skin color + facial features = your uniform. Then

    ballistics, not ballots, will determine the future.

    Genghiz Yang and his wide-eyed Futuristics?

    currently @ 1.5%.

  8. I would say that first we have to cut out the oligarchs who now control our politics though. As long as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers can buy the policy agenda, nothing will change.

    Getting rid of the influence and incentive of money in politics would be a step in the right direction.

  9. “Azerrad shows the problems did not begin with the post-2014 campus antics catalogued by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff but begin in the 1960s. …”

    The problem is that we’re stuck with dealing with politics from the last two centuries, instead if dealing with today’s problems. Which are nothing like those of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

  10. You really need to stop using the heretic, Luther as a model for defeating this madness. Luther brought all of this about! All roads lead back to the Protestant revolt. There would be no political correctness without Luther and Calvin.

      • Mr. Wallace,

        If you are saying the French Revolution was Catholic. That would be false. It strongly violates Catholic principles as well as immediately attacking the Church. The French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution and other radical principles.

        Now was the French Revolution inspired by Protestantism directly? I do not think so. I have been taught it was freemasonic in nature. Protestantism in England was pretty radical under Cromwell but became more traditional when the Monarchy was restored.

        The most consistent enemy of the French Revolution was Protestant Great Britain. Perhaps Susumcorda above meant that the rebellion against the Church in the 16th century helped create the ideas of revolting against both Church and State in later centuries. I do not know. That would take way more knowledge than I currently possess.

        Catholic Spain fought to the hilt against France when they were invaded in 1808——with the help of the British.

    • It’s not heresy to stand against wrong. Luther simply didn’t go far enough. You Catholics are always good for a laugh.

    • I have to say I don’t understand the Protestantism at all either. Aren’t most of us here because we are tired of being part of a culture that doesn’t reflect who we are? And at base doesn’t this robbing of our culture come from not having a strong enough definition of who we are to begin with, therefore leading to the destruction of our meaning of words, therefore leading to the destruction of our values, therefore leading further to the destruction of the meaning of our words, and so on and so forth?

      How do you fight this with a starting presumption that Truth is personal? What, exactly, do you hope to achieve in this battle? You can build a church right now, get a few families together and maybe it will last a decade and maybe it will last 100 years. It might last as long as your family remembers you even if you hadn’t started a church or maybe a bit longer. But what have you accomplished beyond that? There is nothing Protestantism can’t accomplish within the current civilizational rubric. A Protestant can have whatever they want, basically. They can have their Bibles and read them and talk to people about them and form individual churches that reflect their particular spiritual revelation. You can form church communities, help each other out, do whatever the fuck you want.

      What a Protestant can’t do is take part in continuing to germinate the seeds of a massive civilization that will be around for another 1000 years, that will reflect your values long after you are gone, that fulfills ones general need for their people’s lasting genetic imprint on this earth. For a Protestant this kind of thinking is imperious and oppressive. That’s why they always end up siding with jews because jews also believe that a massive genetically white spiritual civilizational imprint is imperious and oppressive.

      I don’t get it. I will never get it. I have spent the last 20 years trying to get it. I don’t understand what they expect to accomplish. Many seem to have a particular reverence for civilizational decay as being a revelation of God’s work, leading to the belief that it would be wrong to actually do anything about it, like be a part of the massive Church that created their civilization.

      How do you fight alongside people when you know the second the battle is over they are going to run off and form thousands of different churches so the entire thing you are fighting for can be overtaken again post haste? How do Protestants even fight alongside each other when you know in your hearts that any one of you could form a church tomorrow that would end up being diametrically opposed to everything you are fighting for today, and that it would be spiritually wrong to deny them that right as you claim that right as your own to begin with?

      I don’t get it.

Comments are closed.