A few weeks ago, Gregory Hood of American Renaissance published an exquisite piece on so-called ‘identity politics’, and why white identity is the necessary remedy. The full piece is worth reading, but in condensing Hood’s analysis, 3 points especially warrant restating.
First, conservatives shouldn’t take civic nationalist, universalist rhetoric from non-whites all that seriously. For in most cases (as I argued in December), non-whites’ deepest loyalties lie external to Western nations. So when non-whites exalt democratic ‘values’ or the ‘Bill of Rights’, this rhetoric commonly serves as a politically expedient tool: in diminishing authentic expressions of Western identity and thus abetting their ongoing demographic conquest. Hood outlines one such example:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Hispanics should be exempt from immigration laws but also says America is “special” because everyone who comes here can enjoy the Bill of Rights. Though she’s participating in the political system, this is hardly a successful example of “assimilation” or “integration.
Second, white conservatives are often naive in perceiving that civic institutions are colour blind. To the contrary, these institutions–democracy, individual rights, due process and liberty–are implicitly white, in existing as products of a particular and defined people. Racial minorities simply do not see themselves in or identify with the architects of America’s great triumphs–the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, D-Day or the first moon landing–nearly to the extent that traditional Americans do. Hood explains,
Even if cloaked in appeals to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the triumphs of American history are overwhelmingly those of white history. For non-whites who don’t see themselves represented by the Founding Fathers, identity politics provide a source of pride and power. Why should non-whites identify with slaveholding Southern plantation owners, Western pioneers, or the Pilgrim Fathers of New England?
Third, non-whites are only likely to ‘assimilate’ when a powerful, confident European identity is asserted on the native’s part. This is perhaps Hood’s most entrancing observation, for we routinely hear liberal-minded whites cite their ‘Asian and black friend’ to justify rejecting white identity. Yet in truth, for minorities sincere about assimilating to their fullest extent, whites must resoundingly assert their own racial consciousness. For in Hood’s view,
The minority of non-whites that regard themselves to be “American” must understand they are assimilating into that identity and are a part of a fundamentally European nation. Instead of being granted privileges because of their supposedly oppressed status, being considered American at all is a privilege granted to a minority of non-whites. After all, before civic nationalists can encourage “assimilation,” there must be a strong, unapologetic identity that minorities are expected to embrace.