The left as an alliance of anti-white tribes

(Note: This entry was originally posted on May 27. I’ve moved it to the top of the main page because I think it’s important.)

It has been a truism for almost 20 years that the older kind of Marxist leftism has been replaced by multicultural leftism. Jeff W.’s comment, in which he describes the shift of the left from an “international workers’ movement into an alliance of ethnic tribes and disaffected groups.” is one of the most cogent explanations of this phenomenon that I have seen.

The other comments in this entry were written in response to various current entries, yet they all deal with the separate yet allied campaigns by the various factions of leftists and noniwhites to intimidate, silence, and subdue conservative whites. Therefore I’m posting them all in this entry.

Jeff W. writes:

You wrote: “that multiracial unum that so inspired [Horowitz] was a unum made possible by the anti-whiteness of nonwhites, and by whites’ approval of that anti-whiteness.”

Not all whites approve of the anti-whiteness of nonwhites. I know plenty of people who do not approve of it at all, and who wish that America could truly be the land of E Pluribus Unum. But there is a group of whites who are the allies of the nonwhites in their effort to seize control of government and use a tribal/racial spoils system to distribute America’s resources. Those elite whites want to participate in dividing the spoils. I might add that the current discussion about the Sotomayor nomination shows how far this spoils system way of thinking has advanced.

Tribalism is innate to human nature. People have always formed themselves into tribes, and the tribes have always warred against each other. I don’t believe anything can change that.

What has changed in our lifetimes is that the left has morphed from an international workers’ movement into an alliance of ethnic tribes and disaffected groups. The left now stirs up tribal hostility and benefits from the hostility it creates. This makes them more dangerous than they were in the old days when they used to sing, “Workers of the world, unite!” In those days they were working against the grain of tribalism; now they are working with the grain.

Rather than uniting the workers against property owners, the left now seeks to unite nonwhites, gays, Jews, atheists, feminists, government employees, environmentalists, leftists, convicted felons, the morally depraved, the poor, and any other disaffected persons they can find, against the remaining whites. (A good definition of PC speech rules is, “You can’t say anything bad about anyone in the leftist alliance.”)

I would also note that like pirate captains, the leaders of this motley leftist crew must constantly distribute plunder in order to prevent mutiny. Distribution of spoils is thus always uppermost in their minds.

The whites who are the targets of the leftist alliance can now be spotted at the gun stores, buying up all the ammunition.

James M2 writes:

I think of Western Civilization in it’s ideal state as a cohesive sphere of civilizational components, with the nucleus and catalyst thereof being Christianity. Some of the more obvious of these components would be a government of limited freedoms, spiritually/biologically/socially correct ideals of family and gender roles, the industriousness/inventiveness/genius of Western/European man, and a desire for preservation of a definite racial and cultural identity. Christianity congealed, quickened, and directed these components and others to become something greater than the sum of its parts: Western civilization. (I agree with Bill Carpenter’s response to the “What Christianity requires in order not to be destructive of society” thread from August 2007.)

No true thing can threaten another true thing, and these components, each being internally logical and “true,” can have only additive relationships with one another. They will dovetail together and remain logically consistent in any combination. And because you can only attack a truth with a falsehood, it follows that in order to attack Western civilization you must gather an array of false ideologies, and being false they will have neither internal logic when examined in isolation or integrity between one another (beyond the common focus of destroying the West.) So we have today Marxism/Socialism attacking our government, feminists and homosexualists attacking family & gender roles, environmentalists and gaia-worshipers attacking the industriousness and inventiveness of Western man, the principle of non-discrimination attacking our desire for self preservation, and Darwinism has particular importance due its ability to attack Christianity.

Each ideology in this liberal alliance of the incongruous is necessarily tyrannical due to the falsity of the alliance itself. (My belief is that the seed of tyranny may be present in each individual ideology, but their tyrannical natures are greatly amplified by the purposeful grouping together of these realms which don’t naturally fit. They must be forced upon the world in some way; people would not naturally adopt them.)

To your original question: I think it would be interesting to investigate whether the beginnings of a tyrannical inclination in Darwinists circles might be found to coincide with the grouping of these disparate anti-Western ideologies which have been positioned under the umbrella of the modern left.

LA replies:

Clearly there is an alliance of the incongruous. But I don’t follow how the tyrannical character of each member of the alliance stems from “the falsity of the alliance,” rather than from the nature of each member.

James N. writes:

Joseph C. writes:

“Liberals (and most conservatives) do not believe any society has a right to exist, that any people has a right to call a part of the earth “theirs,” to write laws, exclude others, etc..”

I think Joseph is quite wrong. Liberals (and most conservatives) believed that the Shona tribe had the right to destroy Rhodesia, to write laws favoring their own kind and to exclude whites. Liberals believed the Khmer people had the right to possess Cambodia, and to slaughter the Vietnamese who lived there. Liberals (and most conservatives) believed that the Bantu immigrants in South Africa had the right to displace Dutch-descended whites who had been there before they were in New Amsterdam, and to make discriminatory laws to destroy their society, because they were white.

Liberals (and most conservatives) believe the Japanese have a right to Japan, the Chinese to China, the blacks to Africa, the Uzbeks to Uzbekistan, the Arabs to Iraq (and to Palestine, too).

The only society they do not believe has a right to exist is a white or Western society, even in the historic homelands of the whites, EVEN a society given by the Lord God to the nation of Israel 5000 years ago. Their antidiscrimination principle is far from universal—in fact, it is quite selective.

Ed L. writes:

Just looking at the front page of the Washington Post this morning instantly reveals how slanted and inverted the reporting priorities of the liberal media are. The top headline is “For GOP, Court Pick Is a Double-Edged Test.” Ah! So the nomination of Sotomayor should be drawing our attention not to the Democrats, but to the Republicans! That sure makes a whole lot of sense, doesn’t it? If there were any logic in modern life, one would have expected the news headline, on the morning after the selection, to be a straightforward factual disclosure, e.g., “Obama nominates Sotomayor for High Court vacancy”—but nope, an adversarial partisan spin has to be put on before it gets out of the gate.

Further down on the left, we see an op-ed piece by Ruth Marcus entitled “Sotomayor’s Strengths” (Gee, I’m bowled over!). Ruth informs us that “She’s a “Newyorkican” Souter with a taste for Nancy Drew.” What’s a “Newyorkican”—are you one? How about Giuliani? Are the rest of us elsewhere in the country supposed to be impressed somehow? And what is Nancy Drew supposed to have to do with anything?

Also, note the piece directly below the Sotomayor/GOP headline about North Korea. In case you don’t readily see it, it’s in smaller print. It tells us that Pyongyang no longer feels bound by the 1953 armistice. That’s the lesser news of the day.

The same is true of the MSM reporting about the underground bomb test. I did not readily find a single news piece that made a straightforward factual disclosure of the test; it was all interwoven at the outset with politics (e.g., “North Korean detonation ups the ante for Obama”). Some news sites even put the piece under “Americas” rather than “Asia.”

James N. writes:

These two links (here and here) below describe the rejoicing in Hispanic communities over the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

The subversive questions are, “Why was there no rejoicing over Miguel Estrada’s “historic” nomination? Why didn’t they turn out when Miguel Estrada was being crucified by Senate Democrats? And why didn’t the Republicans, with their majority of 55, use their power to change the rules to get Estrada confirmed? Are they rejoicing because she’s Hispanic, or are they rejoicing because she’s a tribalist?

I actually wonder whether it’s not better to describe her, and others like her, as tribalists rather than leftists. For the entire brown wing of the Obama phenomenon, the leftism is a means to an end—to smash and scatter the historic peoples of the West—rather than an economic program to actualize. They like it because Marxism splits the whites. Just ask Joe Slovo’s ghost how the classless society in South Africa is working out.

Kathlene M. writes:

Not only must we succumb, according to the left, but Mark Morford, the nihilist sage of the left, predicts this:

“Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. It’s a done deal. It’s just a matter of time. For the next generation in particular, equal rights for gays is not even a question or a serious issue, much less a sinful hysterical conundrum that can only be answered by terrified Mormons and confused old people and inane referendums funded by same. It’s just obvious, inevitable, a given.”

Now former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson has become the new spokesperson for homosexual marriage, determined to take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The immediate goal is to overturn Prop 8 at the federal level. At this point I wonder if our country is worth saving. If this is our country’s “inevitable” future, I want out.

LA replies:

That’s really bad news. However, I never felt Olson was a real conservative, with those aviator glasses, a dead giveaway.

But don’t believe Morford for a second. THAT IS THE TECHNIQUE OF THE LEFT: to persuade you that you’ve already lost, and that there’s nothing to do but yield. ALWAYS remember that that is what the left does. I’ve mentioned before a Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk gets captured on some planet and is placed in front of a light which hypnotizes him and tells him his is nothing and destroys his will to live, and he must fight against this hypnotizing influence in order to survive. This is what liberalism is constantly doing to non-liberal whites.

Karl D. writes:

Here is a lighthearted link (sort of) about a book written for Conservatives living in ‘Blue States’. I must say however, that I have become so sick and tired of being politically isolated and feeling I must shut my mouth all the time amongst my neighbors that I am seriously considering moving to a friendlier state. Maybe Montana, Texas or Wyoming. I was born and raised in NY state (where I currently reside) but at times it just becomes too much to bare. When everything and everyone around you are hostile to your core beliefs. I almost equate it to how many must have felt living behind the Iron Curtain.

Thucydides writes:

The quotes from the new Supreme Court nominee are standard “Critical Legal Studies” cliches; there is no objective basis of judging, there are only varying “perspectives,” it is all about power, impartiality is only a pretense, judging is just a matter of (criterionless, that is arbitrary) choice which can appropriately reflect the “experiences” of women and people of color, etc. This is the appropriate legal philosophy for an age in which the Hobbesian war of all against all is carried on not by individuals, but by organized interest groups. It is a world in which tribalized interest groups see government not as a framework for civil society under a rule of law, but as a means to live at the expense of others, and to escape legal consequences of their anti-social behavior.

This is the intellectual environment in which President Obama was steeped during his years at Harvard Law School. For anyone to mouth this boilerplate I take as ipso facto proof of a lack of intellectual depth.

At least one prominent liberal, Jonathan Turley, shares the view that Sotomayor is a lightweight, as shown in this video.

Turley thinks Sotomayor’s appeals court opinions reflect a “lack of intellectual depth.”

If the liberals had been hoping for someone of sufficient intellect to engage seriously with members of the Court like Scalia or Thomas, or to think of creative ways to put together majority votes for a favored issue outcome, this appointment must come as a disappointment. If they simply want a reliably mindless vote for the liberal agenda, they’ll have that.

Jonathan L. writes:

A while back I created a light-hearted illustration of the absurd lengths to which one must now go to halt radical social liberalism.

A. Zarkov writes:

The British National Party’s pre-election broadcast used the image of Winston Churchill. Immediately the BBC publishes a call for a ban:

Using Sir Winston Churchill’s image in a British National Party election broadcast is “disgusting” and should have been banned, his family has said.

Just recently British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned radio talk show host Michael Savage from entering the UK solely on the basis of his opinions. Savage had not even applied for entry. Similarly Geert Wilders found himself banned. The modern British meme seems to be “ban him!” All this brings us back to Sotomayor.

The Hispanic political pressure group with enormous influence in the Democratic party, La Raza (the race), wants Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan banned from television, to name just a few. They are not at all shy about limiting speech and constantly shout phrases such as “hate speech is not free speech.” Sotomayor herself is not shy about publishing in the La Raza law journal. I’m afraid that we are headed for speech bans in the US. They already exist in most American universities, even public universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) constantly sues (and wins) actions against public universities for violation of the First Amendment. I advise VFR readers to browse the FIRE website. You will be absolutely appalled at what’s happening in our schools. It’s the British meme imported into the American university system. Once the US Supreme Court decides that “hate speech is not free speech” we will have gone the way of the UK, Europe and Canada. Ironically should BNP get elected we might find a future where the UK enjoys more free speech than America. Let’s hope not.

Kathlene M. replies to LA:
Thanks for making me laugh (about the revealing sign of Ted Olson’s aviator glasses) and for the positive reinforcement. It’s easy to be pessimistic when we are bombarded daily by the liberal media. The propaganda from the left has become increasingly fervent, probably because there remains resistance to liberal thought, and because the multicultural coalition of liberal misfits is only tenuously being held together right now by “the One.” How long can they retain unity, especially when “the One” inevitably falls?

When all the various factions begin to fight for the spoils, and shed their obeisance to their white-liberal-Democrat leaders, I cannot imagine how the Democrats as a unified party can survive. What amazes me more are the useful white idiots of the Democrat party who are not part of the wealthy white liberal elite. Do they really think they have a future in the non-white party? The choice of Sotomayor by Obama is a dead giveaway to all useful white liberal idiots that they will be cast aside so that non-whites will be chosen over them for the best positions of the future.

This Reuters article actually gave me hope. Homosexual activists have avoided a federal fight over homosexual marriage because the homosexuals fear they will lose. So there may be a silver lining to the bad news. This mother of all culture wars may help bring in new conservatives to Congress in 2010 if homosexual marriage is on the agenda.

John B. writes:

I think few of your correspondents realize how great a change the eradication of liberalism entails. What I would like is a nation in which whites live only among themselves, in avoidance of conduct that operates against grace, beauty, intellect, style, and concord. Ending non-white immigration and observing the principles of the “Founding Fathers” won’t effect this. When a liberal tells me I obviously don’t believe in “the principles this country was founded on,” I ask him why he thinks it necessary to point that out.

LA replies:

Yes, but what if millions of white conservatives became aware that there is this organized campaign to silence, intimidate, demonize, demoralize, subdue, and destroy them? That in itself would be a vast change. And of course it would be the necessary first step toward any further steps leading to an effective counterattack against liberalism.

Further, what if the increasingly radical politics of the Obama period—the kinds of developments being discussed in this thread—make it clear to millions of whites that such an anti-white campaign is indeed happening? Isn’t such an awakening exactly the positive outcome of an Obama election that I so often discussed as a hopeful possibility?

Richard P. writes:

You said:

“Further, what if the increasingly radical politics of the Obama period—the kinds of developments being discussed in this thread—make it clear to millions of whites that such an anti-white campaign is indeed happening? Isn’t such an awakening exactly the positive outcome of an Obama election that I so often discussed as a hopeful possibility?”

Unfortunately, I fear it isn’t enough. It’s not even close. There are now other millions who belong to the leftist tribes, and they will get more radicalized if whites show any awareness at all. In fact, millions who fit in their tribal categories and are currently apolitical or apathetic will rally to them. This is not the recipe for a restoration. It is a recipe for bloodshed.

It seems that we may be approaching an impasse that can only be corrected by some form of separationism, such as secession. The question remaining is whether it would happen peacefully or whether whoever controls the power of government, likely the left, would use force to stop it. In our age of fourth generation warfare there will be no Gettysburg or Appomattox. It would be much more like a continent-wide Gaza or Northern Ireland. No civil society can exist when one group within it seeks the destruction of another.

LA replies:

I was speaking of the possibility of whites awakening to what is confronting them, which is, obviously, the necessary first step before whites can do anything else. And what do you say? That an awakening won’t be “enough” to save whites, because the only thing that will save whites at this point will be secession. But how are whites going to secede, or do anything else, whatever it may be, if they haven’t first awoken?

Van Wijk writes:

Kathlene wrote:

“When all the various factions begin to fight for the spoils, and shed their obeisance to their white-liberal-Democrat leaders, I cannot imagine how the Democrats as a unified party can survive.”

I believe I touched on this subject in this short thread. When the various factions become large enough to reach this stage, politics as we know it in this country will have been long gone. At that point, the factions won’t let something as trivial as the law stand in the way of conquest, which is their true aim.

In fact, we may be coming completely unmoored from traditional politics as we speak. I see challenges to various immigration laws in our future, and Sotomayor can be relied upon to side with the immigrant 100% of the time. The more illegals are made citizens and given the franchise, the closer we come to crossing a threshold where we can simply no longer vote our way back to a traditional society. The dam will have burst. I think one good amnesty would be all that is needed for this to come to pass.

Regarding the various factions, most amusing has been the homosexual conquest movement. They are the only ones who are truly playing with fire because they are despised by the other factions. If White America comes to an end they will very quickly find themselves at the bottom of the ladder, far worse off than they ever were with us.

Kathlene M. writes:

The “alliance of anti-white tribes” thread has been very compelling reading. I agree with your point about the “possibility of whites awakening to what is confronting them” as a necessary first step. I see this awakening slowly happening around me here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Silicon Valley imports thousands of H1B-visa workers (mostly Asians and Indians) who have displaced thousands of whites in entire towns. People are quietly aware of it. Some white parents at the local public school have remarked how you can count on one hand the Caucasian kids in each class in the local public and private schools, which wasn’t true 10 years ago. At least two parents I’ve talked to are planning to move to California communities where whites (still) aren’t a minority, although they don’t phrase it that way (out of political-correctness).

LA replies:

The quiet awareness and quiet withdrawal you describe has been going on for decades. That’s not what’s going to save us. Only active, vocal, collective resistance can save us.

Mark P. writes:

Kathleen wrote:

“When all the various factions begin to fight for the spoils, and shed their obeisance to their white-liberal-Democrat leaders, I cannot imagine how the Democrats as a unified party can survive. What amazes me more are the useful white idiots of the Democrat party who are not part of the wealthy white liberal elite.”

Kathleen has hit upon the exact reason why the Democratic Party will not survive, but she actually has it backward. The non-whites will challenge the white elite for control. The white elite will be thrown out of power as the brown supremacists use their numbers to put themselves in power. The rank-and-file liberals will scatter and weaken to nothing … their world destroyed.

In fact, I firmly believe that a resurgence of white racialism and nationalism will come from the dispossessed Democrats. It’s no fun being a Democrat when you are not in control.

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Talk of secession is unrealistic. There is no “sectional” split in this country; it is ideological and cultural. Conservatives need to take a page from the liberal playbook and engage in widespread civil disobedience. It has to be widespread (i.e., many thousands or millions of people) to minimize the risks of government suppression of individual dissidents. The best and quickest way to strike at the heart of the modern liberal state is by refusing to pay taxes. If tens of millions of Americans engaged in coordinated tax protests—the real kind, not the kind where a few hundred people gather on the street corner and shout (which I gladly did myself at the last NYC Tea Party)—it would overwhelm the criminal justice system, bankrupt the government, and create an instant crisis of legitimacy—which is the only way to achieve any meaningful reform. So long as we continue dutifully paying our taxes like sheep, the modern liberal state will grow and thrive.

Van Wijk writes:

Steven Warshawsky wrote: “The best and quickest way to strike at the heart of the modern liberal state is by refusing to pay taxes.”

I’ve seen this idea put forward in libertarian circles as well. Unfortunately, the Fed just printed a trillion dollars without batting an eye. Also, refusing to pay taxes will give the state an excellent reason to imprison conservative-leaning people and seize their assets. (The state even has a number of new, unused prison camps that would be ideal for the purpose.) A few would be made examples of, and then the rest would kvetch and fall back in line because they would still enjoy a relatively high (though steadily dropping) standard of living. For civil disobedience to work, the people must feel wronged on a visceral level.

In my view, secession or revolution represent our only chances of survival. Steven is correct in that there is little interest in either of these at the moment. But as the number of 3rd-worlders in this country increase, so will the number of brutal assaults, rapes, and murders. I’m sorry to say it, but I believe this is what it will have to come to before our people will move. They’ve been living fat and protected for too long for their own good.

May 29

Kathlene M. writes:

Van Wijk wrote:

“But as the number of 3rd-worlders in this country increase, so will the number of brutal assaults, rapes, and murders. I’m sorry to say it, but I believe this is what it will have to come to before our people will move. They’ve been living fat and protected for too long for their own good.”

Christianity in America and the West may be going through its Garden of Gethsemane moment. Furthermore, like Jesus’ betrayal, Christianity is being betrayed by its own churches who have embraced homosexuality and other vices. I read some of VFR’s archives and noticed a comment in 2003 (“Sodomy Ruling/Moral Anarchy”) by “Bubba.” It had to do with C.S. Lewis and letting the poison work its way through the system. Like Jesus, Christianity and this country may have to suffer through its anguished death for the necessary resurrection.

(My source: “I’m pretty much with C.S. Lewis on this: while I detest the necessity of it, granting the current situation and the apparent trajectory of our political arrow, I say give the poision free rein. Let it kill the body, for only then will people finally be forced to confront the reality of how deadly it really is.” Posted by: Bubba on June 29, 2003 1:07 PM)

Mark P. writes:

Steven Warshawsky wrote:

The best and quickest way to strike at the heart of the modern liberal state is by refusing to pay taxes. If tens of millions of Americans engaged in coordinated tax protests

This is good, although I do not understand how this will be coordinated. Then again, how were the tax protests coordinated?

On the political level, I would like to see a Republican Party using liberal populist arguments to attack the financial stability of industries that donate to the Democratic Party. For the universities, price controls on their tuition. Sell to the public that education is being made affordable. For the entertainment media, a tacit approval of perr2peer filesharing and other copyright violations. Sell to the public as not wanting to violate privacy rights. For the legal profession, federalized workers’ compensation to put lawyers out of business. Sell to the public as efficiency increases. Etc…

Deprive a Democrat of his ability to make a living and you will never need to debate him.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 29, 2009 01:25 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):