Identity Politics for White Males

Since the 1960s at least, identity politics has dominated left-wing politics. It encourages group identification versus the rest. It is centered around resentment, grievance and a sense of injustice. Instead of being American, a person becomes a hyphenated American. Instead of being interested in the good of the inclusive group, moral concern is narrowed to some subsection of Americans.

Identity politics means claiming victim status and victimization requires victimizers. Differences in intergroup outcomes are to be attributed to discrimination against the group that performs less well. Evidence for discrimination, or evidence that should discrimination exist that it is in fact responsible for differing performances between groups, is thought to be entirely unnecessary. Thomas Sowell has an extensive analysis of this irrational phenomenon in books like Intellectuals and Race which I write about here.

Black Lives Matter is a racist, anti-white movement. The decision not to make their slogan “black lives matter too” is calculated to offend. It has been claimed by some that the “too” is implied and that no offense is intended. However, when it is proposed that “all lives matter,” outrage is expressed.

Commentators have argued that no one argues that breast cancer awareness campaigns discriminate against sufferers of other forms of cancer. A better comparison would be the bumper sticker “Violence against women is never acceptable.” Given that this prohibition omits half the human race, including black men, it is offensive. It is also, of course, false. Women murderers and perpetrators of violent assault are rarer than their male counterparts, but they of course need to be forcibly, i.e., violently, restrained when possible. The group of people most likely to be the victim of violent assault and murder is young males, which also makes the statement weirdly tendentious and misleading.

BLM is based on the lie that black Americans are being uniquely victimized by the police and the justice system. This belief is fabricated and “supported” by viral videos of various instances of what may or may not be, depending on which videos, murderous behaviors of certain police officers. Claims of systematic victimization cannot be vindicated by pointing to individual instances of bad behavior. What is required is an analysis of widespread behavioral patterns of police officers. Such analysis shows “in shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white.” Some of the viral videos actually involve black police officers interacting with black men, drastically confusing the “white men doing bad things to black people” narrative.

Black teenagers are hugely more likely to engage in disruptive and antisocial behavior in high schools. As a result, they are disproportionately punished and suspended. Because no evidence of discrimination is regarded as necessary, this different “outcome” is then attributed to racism.

Thomas Sowell points out that given that black men are much more likely to murder someone than white men, it is hardly surprising that their pathological behavior emerges in the classroom first.

The victims of black crime are disproportionately themselves black (p.3). Liberals do not give a damn. Since whites are still a majority of Americans, they are probably still the majority of liberals. So, white liberals demonstrate their callous disregard for black lives by supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. White liberal allegiance to liberalism means that black people can go to hell. The fact that blacks are literally dying, mostly not from police violence, but from each other is of no interest to white liberals whatsoever.

If blacks are proportionally much more likely to be involved in violent crime than whites, then there will be more interactions with the police proportionally and some of those interactions will go badly. Statistics from the US Department of Justice attribute 52.5% of murders to blacks between 1980 to 2008, while black males make up just 6% of the population. This makes blacks about eight times more likely to murder than whites.

Blacks are more likely to live on welfare, to have out of wedlock children, to be single mothers, to be involved in crime, have poorer educational and occupational outcomes and not to live up to their potential as measured by IQ. These things are blamed on slavery and white racism by BLM and white liberals. However, all those things got much worse after liberals instituted lenient sentencing, started blaming poor black performance on whites, and massively expanded welfare, all of which occurred in the 1960s. In 1954, 100,000 blacks were incarcerated. By 2011, there were 900,000. Homicide rates were much higher by 1990. In 1920, for instance, blacks had slightly higher employment statistics than whites and were slightly more likely to be married. No one thinks that racism has actually gotten worse since 1920. If slavery were to blame for poor outcomes, then the closer to slavery, the worse the outcomes should be, but they are not.

A major part of BLM is that whites must own up to “white privilege.” Again, this is based on differing outcomes which is, once again, regarded as the product of discrimination – in this case, positive discrimination.

By this “logic,” we should actually be talking about “Asian privilege” since Asians hugely outperform whites in the US. And also “Jewish privilege.” It is entirely arbitrary and nonsensical that whites should be singled out for attack even on the basis of mere attainment. Asians with IQs of 100 on average perform as well educationally and employment-wise as whites with IQs of 120. (James R. Flynn, Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991) p. 1.) Jews with an IQ of 100 perform as well as whites with IQs of 110. (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Race, op. cit. p. 79) What explains these differences then are cultural attitudes towards hard work and education, not biological factors.

A certain amount of bad feeling seems to be the result of the civil rights movement. It seems as though a lot of people imagined that political influence would equal economic success. The black riots of the 1960s seem to have been partly an expression of disappointment. However, there is no particular correlation between the two. As one black scholar has pointed out, Japanese Americans as a group are hugely economically successful, and have almost no political clout, whereas it is common to have Irish American politicians and yet Irish Americans lag far behind the attainments of Japanese Americans.

The notion of white privilege is both false, because it implies some unearned reward, and counterproductive for whites and blacks. If white, it suggests that no real effort need be made because educational and employment rewards will be handed to a white person on a plate. And it implies that blacks stand no chance of matching white performance because white racism is impeding them.

It is only thanks to reading analyses by commentators that I have come to see that white nationalism is identity politics for whites. White nationalism is what identity politics looks like when white people do it. White nationalism is certainly racist. So is BLM. White nationalism tends to have an implied threat of violence. BLM threaten violence and do engage in rioting. White nationalism makes the ugliness of identity politics apparent even to liberals.

One difference is that blacks are not being uniquely singled out and persecuted by police officers. However, white men are in fact being scapegoated and vilified as the preeminent perpetrators of oppression by BLM.  Even when both police and victims are black, as was the case when Keith Lamont Scott was shot by a police officer in Charlotte, North Carolina, Sept. 20th, 2016.

If superior educational and work performance is to be the sign of the devil, then any black who performs well will necessarily be regarded as “acting white,” and overly eager high school students will be beaten up and ostracized. This in fact happens. (Edelbert G. Rogers, The Relationship of Certain Measurable Factors in the Personal and Educational Backgrounds of Two Groups of Baltimore Negroes, Identified as Superior and Average in Intelligence as Fourth-Grade Children, to their Educational, Social and Economic Achievement in Adulthood (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1956, University Microfilms) p. 50.)

It also means that Asians and Jews should be the proper objects of scorn, since their performance is far superior to whites; according to the perverse logic of outcome thinking.

I suspect that whites remain the favorite scapegoat for blacks because of the participation of ancestral whites in the slave trade and because whites remain the majority of Americans. It seems to make more emotional sense that the majority might oppress a minority and undermine their performance. But in fact, this is not true. In many countries it is the minorities who grossly outperform the majority and the majority commonly institutes discriminatory policies (affirmative action) to try to defend itself, so to speak. The situation is the same in the US. Jews and Asians are the dominant minorities when it comes to performance.

Ethnic Chinese excel economically in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia despite discriminatory policies aimed at suppressing them. Ethnic Indians dominate Fijian politics and are the majority in professions like law and medicine. And ethnic Germans were once the top performing group in Czechoslovakia.

Whereas black Americans, women and homosexual groups are largely not scapegoated, white men are actually being blamed for most of the world’s problems and specifically for the failure of blacks and women to perform better. Many college courses are now devoted to this topic. “Black studies,” “Women’s Studies,” and “Post-colonial Studies” would not exist without their common perceived enemy. Being scapegoated can actually produce a group identity and certainly make it salient. Scapegoating binds the persecutors together but it can also bind the victims together. The injustice of the accusations then generate resentment and hatred within the persecuted group.

White nationalism holds up a mirror to BLM and to feminists and to every other group generated by identity politics. It makes visible the hatred binding groups together against a common perceived enemy. The irony is that white men actually are being persecuted, while blacks, women and homosexuals are the darlings of academia and the mainstream media. White men are the last group that it is politically correct to hate with a clear conscience.

BLM and feminists have concocted a false persecution story to bind them together in shared hatred of an imaginary persecutor based on “outcomes,” all of which can be explained without reference to what white men are doing or thinking. Looking around and finding all fingers directed at white men, they rather naturally are tempted to bind together for mutual protection and “solidarity” – that word so beloved by the left.

White nationalism is ugly, but motivated by actual verbal persecution and workplace discrimination favoring blacks, women, the handicapped and seemingly everyone other than white men. Academic job applications all include wording that is one step away from “white men need not apply.” The fact that white men often succeed anyway is consistent with the Chinese performance in Indonesia and other such groups.

42 thoughts on “Identity Politics for White Males

  1. Pingback: Identity Politics for White Males | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: Identity Politics for White Males | Reaction Times

  3. If a woman of any color says “I’m proud to be a woman,” everyone responds “You go girl!” If a black person of either sex says “I’m proud to be black,” everyone gives the thumbs up. The same goes for any declaration of pride by any non-white, non-male person. But imagine the reaction if someone were publicly to say “I’m proud to be a white man.” If a public figure were to say that, everyone on the left would be bouncing off the walls like gibbons. The implicit message of all this is: white males should be ashamed of themselves, mostly for having been born male (that lets white females off the hook), but also for having been born white. For any other group, we would rightly castigate such shaming as both racist and sexist, but when it comes to white males, it’s carte blanche shaming. Some “critical race theorists” claim that ALL white people are racist, whether they think they are or not. The irony of making such a racist claim seems to be lost on those people.

    I must make a confession: when researching my genealogy, I felt a strange sort of vindication when I discovered a Mohawk ancestor. A claim to political correctness! At least I’m not ALL white. Gee, maybe I could do like Elizabeth Warren and try to get some mileage out of it. But the fact that such thoughts even crossed my mind, however facetiously, bespeaks the craziness of how we think about race.

  4. Can you give some examples of white nationalist organizations or websites so I can get a feel for what you mean? I don’t know if e.g. you mean neo-nazis or immigration restrictions like

      • @Nick – I’m afraid you’ve lost me. I personally can’t stand the National Review so it would be surprising if my position resembled theirs. Enlighten me.

      • Thank you, Richard. I don’t care for Richard Spencer because he’s anti-Christian (or at least he was when he I first noticed his writing years ago – “Christianity is for wimps”.) I read e.g. VDARE, Chronicles, etc. and used to read View from the Right – I don’t know if that makes me white nationalist or not but I definitely don’t imply threats of violence.

      • Bruce,

        I don’t care for Richard Spencer because he’s anti-Christian…

        Yes, Spencer is correct that race is important, but he is wrong in making it the most important thing. In this, I don’t see how he is any different from left-liberals: liberals are correct that the individual is important, but wrong in making individual autonomy the most important thing.

        It’s just one idol replaced with another.

  5. So, what then is an American? Something along the lines of civic nationalism? So another left wing phenomenon emerging from the French Revolution and Enlightenment?

  6. Perhaps. I’m more concerned with whether or not that’s actually the criteria of American, and whether Burke agreed with it or not doesn’t change the fact that it is still a form of liberalism, which seems to be your central point of criticism of identity politics in the article above.

    But then, maybe Civic Nationalism inadvertently brought us to this point?

    • @Nick – Sorry. I miswrote. I should have looked up the phrase “civic nationalism.” I wasn’t familiar with it. I am in favor of nationalism, not civic nationalism.

      My central point is that we should work together as Americans and look out for each other’s welfare (not the welfare state) rather than divide into mutually antagonistic hate groups (not in the liberal sense) exclusively concerned with promoting their mutually exclusive political ends.

      Another way of framing it is that I am resolutely opposed to scapegoating and identity politics revolves around it. Modern liberalism can’t exist without it. Get rid of that and I’m happy.

      I’m attacking what is currently called liberalism or progressivism.

  7. Richard, your position is futile in the present meta. The only way to make it work would be to have a broad based ostracism of any person or group that goes clannish/identity. That’s not happening, except to white men who wake up and realize the score. You might not be interested in identity politics for whites but that is what is going to happen. Who…Whom is what’s left.

    • @Jehu – You may well be right about what is going to happen. It already has happened to a degree. I don’t like it when BLM do it and I don’t like it when whites do it. To embrace white nationalism is to resemble the repulsive tribes of the left. My article is pointing out the ways in which white males are being forced into that position. So it is a plea to the Left to quit it. They can’t seem to recognize the consequences of what they are doing and it is one reason they lost the presidential election and they still can’t figure out why!

      • They won’t stop doing it Richard. Also, the word racism is one you should try to avoid using. It isn’t a word whose definition you control nor is it one with a fixed honest definition. Don’t be Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ditto ‘cool’ or ‘relevant’. Should you somehow technically qualify as not-racist, cool, or relevant, the accepted definitions of such will be changed retroactively such that you never were not-racist, cool, or relevant. You aren’t dealing with honest or reasonable people and won’t be for some time.

      • @Jehu – You are probably right that they won’t stop doing it. That doesn’t mean you stop commenting on immoral behavior. The Left’s misuse of the words “racist” and “misogynist” etc., is alarming. I don’t have replacement backup words to substitute for them and I certainly can’t be bothered either inventing one or finding one. Totally rejecting BLM is enough to make me anathema – never mind my language. I’m not trying to be cool or relevant am I? I thought I was being openly beyond the pale.

  8. Richard, it is not possible to use the word ‘Racist’ correctly. It doesn’t have a real definition. Just use anti-white or anti-black or anti whatever fits. Use bigot if an irrational dislike really applies. Racist is a bullshit word that you’ll note was invented by communists in the early 20th century for memetic warfare, not to describe a real phenomenon. Were it a real type as such it would have been invented far earlier. Trying to dance to the tune of ‘liberals are the REAL racists is a losing game. Accept that blacks have interests as such. Whites have interests as such, Particular tribes have interests as such. These interests and their culture grow out of their own particular distributions of abilities, temperaments, and failings. Note that there’s no celestial dungeon master that insures that all these distributions are identical or even balanced. God doesn’t give a damn about such nonsense. One interest that everyone has is that of demographic hegemony over the geographic area within which they reside.

    • Off-topic I suppose but Google N-gram viewer indicates the word “racism” was invented in the 1920’s which means my grandfathers are older than the word. I have read claims the word is a translation (into French, then English) of the German word “volkische” which was a word invented by the German Left to describe the German nationalist right. “Racism” apparently became synonymous with Nazism in the 1930s and my personal opinion is that it should be used (if at all) only to describe Nazism and Nazi-like beliefs.

    • [I]t is not possible to use the word ‘Racist’ correctly. It doesn’t have a real definition.

      I don’t agree. Zippy has provided a succinct definition of ‘racism’ that I think is correct:

      [Racism] refers to injustices motivated by race.

      Just because a word is misused over 90% of the time doesn’t mean that it doesn’t refer to a real concept.

      Were it a real type as such it would have been invented far earlier.

      New words that refer to real concepts are invented all the time. What does the time of its invention have to do with anything?

      • When a word is misused 90% of the time it is time to retire the word. When a word’s effective definition is controlled by your enemies it is time to stop using that word.

      • “[Racism] refers to injustices motivated by race.” — Zippy

        And because your race is your father then “racism” refers to the injustices motivated by one’s father.

        And in the context of the West, “racism” is the “white (s)upremacy,” i.e.., the racially degenerate unjustice, of the white father as “preached” to his white son.

      • “What does the time of its invention have to do with anything?”

        I suppose one could argue that civilization has existed for thousands of years without the need for the word “racism” or an equivalent. And a counter-argument could be made that “racism” is a description of a uniquely modern pathology?

      • Bruce,

        I would think it has to do with the increased importance of race. Prior to the modern age, racial categories are not how people would have primarily identified, nor the primary way in which people were grouped in society. If people aren’t grouped primarily according to race, it’s less likely to occur to people to be racist. It would be like an American being anti-noble when our society is not categorized into nobles and commoners: it wouldn’t make a lot of sense. From what I can tell, race began to take on an increased importance in the modern age, but then especially in the second half of the 19th century and the first few decades of the 20th with the introduction of Darwinism.

      • Ian,

        I think historically, people were grouped by ethnicity – the other peoples near you were probably racially similar and different race groups tended to be separated by oceans, deserts, etc. You could be right about the timing, but I think race tended to be noticed more and more when peoples from different parts of the globe started coming in contact with each other with more frequency.

      • Bruce,

        I agree that historically people were grouped by ethnicity, but a key component of ethnicity is shared religion. (Also, there have always been multi-ethnic kingdoms and empires).

        I think race tended to be noticed more and more when peoples from different parts of the globe started coming in contact with each other with more frequency.

        I think this is true. To elaborate though, it seems to me that the reason whites came to see themselves as a people (or ‘meta-people’) in the first place is because of our heritage of the shared spiritual unity of Christendom. It’s the reason why there even is such a thing as the white race as a category. Mere biology can’t account for it. For example, why do we consider whites to be a meta-people rather than the broader category of Caucasians? If it’s all just biological race, the grouping seems arbitrary – why not something larger or smaller? If it consists of a shared spiritual and cultural heritage in addition to biology, however, the grouping becomes intelligible. Likewise, I don’t see Muslim Bosnians and Albanians as my people, despite genetically being white.

        Of course, at present the principle of unity for the white race is liberalism, which destroys all unity.

        Now that we’ve rejected our spiritual heritage, the result is biological race having more salience than it otherwise would (including in the mind of the liberal, who wants to destroy it). Those who want to make race itself our unifying principle – whether it be the racialists of yesteryear (e.g., Madison Grant) or the racialists of today (e.g., Richard Spencer) – have things backwards.

      • Ian,
        I don’t know the history of the use of “white” as a racial category, but suspect that it came about in a new-world (North-American) context where there were three distinct peoples (racially and culturally): Northern Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and Native Americans. I suppose in this context, “white” as an identity made sense.
        I believe the use of “caucasian” came about in the 19th centrury as anthopolgists began to study racial/population groups from a more scientific point of view.
        BTW, I don’t think that I disagree with anything you wrote – I’m merely trying to get some of my thoughts out this topic.
        Some of the folks at the Rockford institute have written about ethnicity being a better basis for identity than race – it’s less abstract than race. Just a thought.

      • Bruce,

        BTW, I don’t think that I disagree with anything you wrote – I’m merely trying to get some of my thoughts out this topic.


        Some of the folks at the Rockford institute have written about ethnicity being a better basis for identity than race – it’s less abstract than race. Just a thought.

        Agreed. Less abstract, and also more holistic. Though as Bonald has written, how any individual identifies might be considered a ‘pre-moral’ fact, something we don’t really have much of a choice about. On the other hand, we can oppose trends in society that we think will result in the primary societal groupings being driven by features that involve a more reductionist conception of man or that are in other ways less than ideal.

  9. I could use some help trying to figure out this conundrum: Prior to WWII, Jewish Americans were desperate for America to enter the war, to stop the persecution of their friends and family in Nazi Germany. You could say this was a “narrow moral concern.” However, the violation of human rights on such a scale and the eventual genocide the Jews experienced are certainly evils worse than war. No one can blame them for using all power at their disposal to seek help.

    However, when Charles Lindbergh made a speech in Iowa for the America First movement, he pointed out the mere fact that Jewish Americans, along with the Roosevelt Administration, wanted to get America into the war. For various reasons, he did not feel this would benefit Americans at all, not in the immediate or the long term future. Lindbergh was crucified in the press for identifying Jewish-Americans as such–as you say as “hyphenated” Americans. While I understand the terrible worry and desperation of Jewish Americans, I can’t see that Lindbergh did anything so heinous in identifying them as a sub-sect of Americans when they had already subdivided themselves along cultural and religious lines. The minute he did so, however, out came the cries of “Anti-Semite!” and “Lindbergh is a Nazi!” which shut down any possibility of further dialogue. Now, if the conversation had been allowed to continue, perhaps their plight could have become better known, and the greater majority of American people, who are far from heartless, could have been moved to support the war.

    As it is, Japan soon bombed Pearl Harbor and it all became rather a moot point. But quite regularly Lindbergh is still trotted out in the Press as a Nazi, when nothing could be further from the truth. It is exasperating.

    • @Susan – That’s very interesting. From your description, Lindbergh does not sound like Nazi or Anti-Semite.

      It seems fair enough to debate if and when, and for whom, a country might put its own citizens’ lives in danger. I am an American citizen, though born in New Zealand. NZ can only defend itself militarily from the smallest of foes given its population of 4 1/2 million people. There are strong linguistic, ethnic and historical ties between NZ and the US – though not as strong as with England, to which America is also related. When I came here in 1990 some of my American friends questioned my belonging to the “foreign student union” on campus, or whatever it was called saying “You’re not really foreign.” It was sort of a joke and sort of serious. I took their point. I am a white, native speaker of English like the majority of Americans; a good proportion of whom are also Anglo-Saxon like me.

      If NZ were attacked, I would hope that the US would defend us out of some kind of filial loyalty. But I could hardly demand it. Nor could I call them names if they decided not to.

      • It would be a good debate. It asks so much of people, to run around defending the world, even if morally correct. Maybe wars like this should be volunteer only.

  10. Identity politics is the predictable result of a massive “identity crisis.” The universal ingredients to an “identity crisis” is uncertain origin and a false final destination. American white males of Generation X are of this very volatile recipe. And because genuine white (S)upremacy has been deemed sufficiently verboten, no solution to an identity crisis exists and thus identity politics will proceed, inevitably, seeking to fill that void at the level of the individual white man who is not only deracinated, but completely dispirited.

  11. @Richard – My understanding is that the recent and increasing increasing racial conflict (in the US, UK and Europe) is – up to a point – exactly what the people (and demons) in power want, in order to justify more totalitarianism.

    (We already have a lot; but the aim is a society of maximal /universal surveillance, monitoring and micro-control – to fill minds with propaganda, punish deviation, and distract from consecutive and sustained thinking.)

    And (ultimately) ‘they’ want totalitarianism because it is the most potent weapon to use against Christianity, since it may induce people into value-inversion; such that people actively hate salvation and seek damnation; regard Good as evil/ ugliness as beauty/ lies as truth/ freedom as oppression and vice versa.

    At root, it’s a spiritual war (Not about economics, race, national prestige, social justice, the environment, sex/ sexuality or anything else material and this-worldly) – which is why what’s going-on is so utterly misunderstood by *all* mass mainstream secular discourse.

    • @Bruce – Whether intentional or not, a lot of the ruling elite’s ideas and policies have the net effect you describe.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.