Posted on June 25, 2018

Why They Hate; Why We Love

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, June 25, 2018

It began with a necklace. It ended at the guillotine.

Queen Marie Antoinette wanted a spectacular piece of jewelry originally created for Louis XV’s mistress. She secretly met with a cardinal to persuade him to buy it for her. She then refused to pay the cardinal, adding fraud to covetousness. In his classic, The Coming of the French Revolution, Georges Lefebvre wrote that “the affair of the diamond necklace in 1785 finished her reputation in the eyes of the whole nation.”

But Marie Antoinette never wanted the necklace. The letters to the cardinal imploring his help were forged. Her part in the visit to the cardinal was played by a prostitute in disguise. It was all a plot to steal the necklace. Legal proceedings cleared her. Unfortunately, so many were determined to believe Marie was a dissolute spendthrift that the myth of a parasitic queen did the work of truth.

Most humans reinterpret or dismiss new evidence to fit preexisting beliefs, especially in politics. In Suicide of the West, James Burnham dismissed even the possibility of productive discussion with a convinced ideologue. “What is there to discuss?” he asked. “He will either reinterpret those facts so that they become consistent with his ideology, or deny them.” Left-wing journalists and people who read and believe them exist in a different reality from that of President Trump’s followers. The divide will only grow as new technology such as “deep fakes” makes even video evidence questionable. Soon, Americans won’t agree whether something even happened, let alone how it should be interpreted.

Conservatives are beginning to understand what race realists discovered long ago. What we want is objective, rational discussion about population differences—a “conversation about race.” Yet even the most scientific, dispassionate, and high-minded discussion of race is met with violence and media hysteria. Many race realists conceal their views for fear they will be targeted by a national publication or smashed with a bike lock.

Race realists are not immune to bias. Like most people, they believe their views are sound and their opponents are wrong. Still, most race realists change their minds if they get new evidence. Any racial realist, by definition, follows scientific truth wherever it leads. As a white person, I don’t welcome the finding that Asians usually have higher scores on intelligence tests than whites. However, I accept the evidence.

In contrast, particularly when it comes to race, many liberals base their opinions on what can be termed a redemptive myth. Given the unquestioned liberal premise of racial equality, how do they explain inequality? Through appeals to persistent white racial exploitation, and by deconstructing “whiteness” as an evil force. If “whiteness” is destroyed, equality can be achieved and mankind will be saved. White advocates should not deceive themselves; many millions of whites sincerely believe this.

Burnham, among others, argued that “guilt is integral to liberalism,” but unlike in Christianity, there is no resolution, no Savior who relieves the burden of sin. Therefore, the struggle against oppression “appeases” the liberal’s guilt, but also “irritates” it. Eternal salvation has been exchanged for eternal guilt. “Within the universe of liberalism there is no point at which the spirit can come to rest,” Burnham wrote, “nowhere and no moment for the soul to be able to say: in His Will is our peace.” Liberalism is a church without salvation.

Yet this is only a partial explanation. “Guilt” about race is not solely directed inward, but pinned on a scapegoat. When engaged in a righteous struggle, guilt is assuaged by the intoxicating feeling of self-righteous hatred one can glimpse in the faces of self-styled “anti-fascists.” Just as Bolsheviks blamed the kulaks for the failures of centralized planning, and revolutionaries blamed the French queen for the poverty of her people, so do Cultural Marxists blame “racist” whites for the persistence of inequality. Because inherent racial equality cannot be questioned, no other explanation is possible. Given continued racial and national inequality, leftists must expand the ranks of those they hold responsible for inequality.

Today, it is no longer only white advocates who must face mobs and threats of violence. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen’s home has been picketed by protesters. President Trump’s press secretary Sarah Sanders was kicked out of a Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia. Florida attorney general Pam Bondi was accosted by protesters outside of a “Mr. Rogers” documentary. Democratic Congressman Brian Sims, who represents Philadelphia, reacted to the news Mike Pence was to visit his city with a photo of his middle finger and the words: “So . . . get bent, then get out!”

Part of what drives this is what President Trump would call “fake news.” For example, Time recently ran a cover photo showing the president looming over a crying Honduran child. CNN’s Chris Cillizza and the Washington Post’s Eli Rosenberg called the cover “powerful.” The photo was used in a campaign that raised $13 million in donations for pro-immigrant charities, fueled by what USA Today called “rage giving.” It turned out the child in the photo had never been separated from her mother; her mother was coming for purely economic reasons, she had been previously deported, and she took the child on this dangerous journey without the knowledge of the father.

Similarly, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau recently shared photos of immigrant children sleeping in what appear to be cages. His wrote: “This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible.” Actually, the photos were from 2014. Mr. Obama’s then-Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson defended the shelters, arguing it was necessary to avoid “catch and release.” No one is hounding Mr. Johnson at his home or at restaurants.

All of this makes sense in the context of myth. Racial egalitarians have a powerful vision of an ideal society that has overcome racial inequality and “whiteness.” This vision is incompatible with reality, but this is not a handicap for egalitarians—it’s an advantage. The fight against biology and human nature can never be won, so it can go on forever. It offers an endless reservoir of rage, motivation, and combativeness. It gives believers otherworldly motivations like those of jihadists or Crusaders. It is not a caricature but a compliment to call our opponents Social Justice Warriors.

White advocates can point to periods in history when political arrangements were similar to what we might prefer. In contrast, there is almost no time, place, or institution that has not been contaminated by “racism.” Venerable brands from National Geographic to Harvard can justify their existence only by apologizing for the past. If current trends continue, their future leaders will no doubt be apologizing for insufficient anti-racism today. As Burnham suggested, liberals will never declare their purpose achieved, but must constantly find new evidence of oppression.

Conservatives underestimate the dedication and hatred of their political opponents. For all the conservative critiques of “moral relativism,” liberals are the ones who have the sharpest vision of what is right and wrong. Sarah Sanders tried to take the high road after being asked to leave the Red Hen:

Yet Jeet Heer of The New Republic (who has a verified account on Twitter) responded with contempt:

As did another “verified” Twitter user, Scott Dworkin:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters declared war: “I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store.”

These liberals are acting out of deeply held beliefs. If you believe immigration laws violate human rights, those who enforce them are evil. Social norms, polite language, or basic courtesy are false values that shield conservatives from the righteous indignation they deserve. As an increasing number of liberals are arguing, subjugating, bullying, and ultimately overwhelming political opponents is the way forward. If mass immigration continues, this strategy will work.

“What can men do against such reckless hate?” Unfortunately, we must separate not just from non-whites, but also from those whose ideology means eternal conflict. Polarization will only increase in the years ahead, and an ever greater number of people will be lumped in with white advocates as enemies to be destroyed. “Liberalism,” in the sense of more permissive social beliefs or more expansive government control, will always have a place in a white society. However, the contemporary form of liberalism driven by racial guilt and resentment can have no place in any civilized society. Its absolute need for an enemy to blame for inevitable inequalities and policy failures ensures eternal conflict.

There’s a broader lesson. Anti-white hatred must be matched and overcome by love for our people. White advocates must cultivate what Saul Alinsky described as a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, we must have a hard-headed understanding of tactics and current politics. At the same time, we must pursue our own absolute and unchallengeable Ideal, a redemptive myth that undergirds our morality and sustains our efforts.

White advocates are not just struggling for scientific truth, rational public policy, and an empirically better society. We are fighting for our people—for our lives and, more broadly, for the very possibility of peace and human advancement. Every white man and woman must accept this not just as an intellectual principle but as the central tenet of a holy faith. The cause of our people remains our lodestar, no matter how strong the temptations of materialism or the powers aligned against us. No fight in history has ever been more important.