Negative White Identity

Something weird is happening. The Democrats are forming white support groups for Kamala Harris. In a campaign shaped by fundraisers dedicated to every identity group imaginable, whites are surprisingly not left out. Two different affinity groups have emerged to support the presumptive Democratic nominee: “White Women for Harris” and “White Dudes for Harris.” This is an odd sight in American politics. Whites aren’t supposed to organize on the basis of their race in our society. To do so for a candidate hostile to their interests is downright bizarre.

These developments sparked a lot of interest. Some liberals thought it was great. Conservatives thought it was ridiculous, with some figures even arguing it proved leftists were the real racists. Some remnants of the Alt Right thought this was a great development, claiming this opened the way for white identity politics.

If that’s true, it’s not the kind of white identity the Alt Right wants. It’s a negative white identity foisted upon the historic American people by DEI. Business trainings and school indoctrination encourage whites to have this self-hating identity. Many right-wingers have predicted that this would lead to a backlash among whites where they then assert a positive white identity. But the whites for Kamala show the opposite. It indicates whites might just embrace this negative identity and organize themselves under this rubric. It’s a terrible prospect.

The highly respected political scientist Richard Hanania claims that Kamala’s white pitch says “it’s ok to be white. That is, as long as you’re a good person, which means supporting reproductive freedom, not being “weird,” and voting Democrat.” He argues that this is a clear sign that Democrats are moving away from woke and that Democrats no longer see whites as a problem.

That’s not really true. Whites are still a big problem in the liberal worldview. The white affinity groups are actually proof of how embedded DEI thinking is in their minds. A white person group for any Democrat would’ve been too weird in the past. But DEI’s fixation on affinity groups, primarily for minorities, has made this possible. DEI sessions require schools and businesses to divide students and workers into racial groups. The non-white groups encourage a positive identity that stresses the greatness and achievements of their respective bloc. The sessions also teaches them to view whites as the source of all evil and to remember the oppression that they have suffered at the hands of the Caucasians.

When these breakout sessions occur, the whites have to go somewhere. They usually get their own affinity group, but they learn a very different lesson from their non-white peers. They are taught about how bad white people are, how privileged they are, and how they need to work to atone for these sins by doing more for minorities. They learn it’s terrible to be white and the only way to make up for it is to use their whiteness for good–which means they embrace race communism.

This was abundantly clear in whites for Kamala zoom calls.

Social media influencer Arielle Fodor laid out the purpose for the White Women for Harris call: “BIPOC women have tapped us in as White women to step up, listen, and get involved this election season. This is a really important time and we all need to use our voices and influence for the greater good.” Note, the only reason the call emerged is because they got permission from “BIPOC women.” Whites need to know their place, first and foremost.

White women must defer to non-whites and never speak over them. They must also acknowledge their privilege. “As White women, we need to use our privilege to make positive changes,” Fodor said. “If you find yourself talking over or speaking for BIPOC individuals or, God forbid, correcting them, just take a beat and instead we can put our listening ears on.”

The White Dudes for Harris call provided a similar message. Organizer Ross Morales Rocketto emphasized that this group was not like the bad whites. “Throughout American history, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that when white men organize, it’s often with pointy hats on, and it doesn’t end well,” he said. But this group would instead be a chance for white dudes to check their racial and gender privilege. Along with acknowledging their white privilege, speakers sought to emphasize that real men defer to women and never dare criticize a lady.

To drive home the humiliating aspect of the zoom calls, speakers made sure to disparage themselves as a racial group. Actress Connie Britton dubbed her group “Karens for Kamala,” letting the audience know that the participants think it’s lame to be white. None of the other affinity groups used a slur to denigrate themselves. They talked about how awesome their group is. Only the white groups talked about how much they sucked and they aren’t worthy of a powerful woman of color.

The events invited a lot of mockery. Part of that mockery was inspired by just how ridiculous it was. No one wants to see rich and famous people bemoan their privilege and talk about how they cried over Hillary Clinton losing. But another part of it is how society trains us to view anything explicitly white-coded as lame. For years, comedies would portray whites as stiff dorks who lack the coolness of blacks and other non-whites. Doing anything “white” would strike people as a boring outing at a country club. Whiteness is lame, non-whiteness is rad. Conservatives affirm this sentiment as much as liberals. When given the opportunity, they will lambast the Democrats for being too white.

These white affinity groups don’t say it’s ok to be white. They still say it’s a bad thing, but maybe not completely evil. As long as the individual white denigrates their whiteness, vows to support non-white interests, and votes blue, then they can join a White Dudes for Harris call. But that’s the extent of group identity. It’s still a shameful thing to be, but they need to organize around it anyway.

Think of it as more like Alcoholics Anonymous than the Black Panthers. Alcoholics also have a shared group identity, but it’s one they’re not proud about. They get together with other alcoholics not to promote alcoholism. They do so to work against the addiction they suffer and keep their resolve against the problem.

DEI teaches that whites should organize in the same way. Individual whites suffer from the ill of whiteness, and they need group therapy to treat it.

Some liberals worry that there shouldn’t be any explicitly white groups because, even if they uphold left-wing ideology, they weaken the taboo against such formations. This will then lead to a white identitarians that asserts an aggressive whiteness as a backlash against woke. Many on the Right also think this will be the result, but see it in more positive terms.

I’m more skeptical.

It’s more likely that DEI’s white affinity groups will be accepted by those forced into them. They will come to see whiteness as negative because that’s what authority tells them. They want to fit into the herd, so they follow along with it. If it doesn’t negatively impact their life (as in denied employment opportunities), then they will check their white privilege. If they see it as the ticket to social respectability and career advancement, they will happily lament their whiteness in a zoom call.

The real issue with DEI isn’t that it might lead to a white backlash. It’s that this insidious ideology will sink in among whites and make them embrace a negative white identity. Many whites will succumb to it as long as it’s not accompanied by direct adverse effects on their lives. If a negative white identity required them to move into a dismal ghetto, then you’d see a backlash. But if whites can keep the suburban home, don’t expect an uprising.

This is why it’s critical to eliminate DEI from all facets of life. Banking on an eventual backlash by a radicalized white population is not a good strategy. We may end up with a permanently neutered white population instead.