Ethno-Nationalism

The Right's Identity Politics Is More Dangerous Than the Left's

A renewed commitment to pluralism is its only cure.

|

I spoke last month at a conference organized by Arizona State University's School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, titled "Polarization and Civil Disagreement: Confronting America's Civic Crisis." I was on a panel discussing populism and tribalism in America. Below is a version of the remarks I delivered, which have taken on renewed relevance in the wake of the terrorist attack on two New Zealand mosques by a white nationalist.

"Liberty provokes diversity, and diversity preserves liberty. That intolerance of social freedom which is natural to absolutism is sure to find a corrective in the national diversities, which no other force can so efficiently provide."
Lord Acton

I left my native India and arrived in Louisiana on a cold winter night in December 1985 to study in the journalism program at Louisiana State University. There I took a class in media ethics with a true Southern gentleman named John Calhoun Merrill. Professor Merrill was something of a libertarian and a First Amendment absolutist, and he sensed that I was perhaps a natural fit for his "tribe." I was bolting from India, a Fabian socialist country, after all. And I had some Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand under my belt. He took me under his wing, introducing me to some great, and white, males: John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Popper, F.A. Hayek.

New Zealand Mosque Mourners
Adam Bradley/SOPA Images/Sipa/Newscom

The mid-'80s were the tail end of Ronald Reagan's term. That conservative president, in stark contrast to the current one, talked about America as a "shining city on the hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." It was also the relatively early days of the identity politics of the left. But when I met Prof. Merrill, the times were still innocent. The left hadn't yet started telling me to look at myself as a racial minority and a woman whose advancement in her adopted country would be stymied by rampant racism, sexism, and misogyny. And the right hadn't yet started telling me that I was a cultural and economic threat to its way of life. That if I put a hyphen in my identity, as every previous immigrant group has done, I'd be an "invader" signaling divided loyalties rather than simply an attachment to my birth culture. This was not a thought that seemed to have occurred to Prof. Merrill, a man, ironically, named after a fierce defender of slavery, even though, I, as an off-the-boat Indian with little money for new clothes and lots of homesickness, often showed up in class in a salwar and a dot on my forehead. He seemed to neither notice nor care.

Clearly, America today is not the America that I arrived in. Both the left and the right are arguably in a darker place, pushing their own form of tribal politics—both of which are a threat to America's liberal democracy, whose core promise is to protect individuals regardless of their tribal affiliation. Liberal democratic institutions have allowed individuals to cooperate and collaborate freely beyond the confines of their tribes, generating what Deirdre McCloskey has dubbed the Great Enrichment and Jonah Goldberg calls the Miracle. Yet now these institutions are under assault from both sides.

The left's excesses and efforts to silence reasonable debate through political correctness arguably helped to spawn the current backlash on the right. But even if that's true, the minority identity politics of the left is not ultimately as dangerous as the majority identity politics—the ethno-nationalism—of the right. I agree with conservatives like Goldberg and centrists like Francis Fukuyama that the antidote to the left's mishigas and the right's reactionary turn is a restoration of civic nationalism, a patriotism of liberal democratic principles, that can once again subsume the narrower tribal identities on both sides and bind the country together in a broad creedal identity. But I don't agree that this requires pushing toward a more culturally and socially homogeneous America. That, I'll argue, will only heighten the risk of majoritarian tyranny.

In fact, I think, we need the opposite: a redoubling of a commitment to the pluralistic project—or, in modern parlance, the diversity project—that James Madison said was the most effective bulwark against illiberalism. The right shouldn't treat diversity as a dirty word just because the left has sullied it.

There is no doubt that America has made very great strides in undoing the legacy of slavery and other injustices, as the right points out. It is also true that old biases and arrangements are still baked into existing social norms and power structures, as the left points out. If individuals face discrimination because of their membership in a group, they will band together as a group to demand relief.

Black Lives Matter might have its excesses, but it is hardly wrong when it demands body cameras on police officers to deter rampant harassment. Nor is the #MeToo movement off base in demanding a rethinking of lingering Mad Men–era attitudes in the workplace. Nor is it unreasonable that a diverse America would like Hollywood to reflect diversity and tell diverse stories that may have a broad appeal. There is no reason that a superhero shouldn't be black!

Indeed, it was inevitable that having won basic rights, minorities striving to find their place in mainstream America or women joining the workforce en masse would force a reckoning with old ways. As Fukuyama points out in his last book, identity politics is ultimately a quest for dignity or satisfaction of what the Greeks called thymos—that aspect of the soul that craves recognition. And it comes into play precisely to satiate the need for social recognition that formal liberal equality fuels but doesn't necessarily address. In fact, formal equality makes informal inequalities and injustices seem not less but more galling.

So the left's basic project is understandable. The trouble is its methods. In its eagerness to overcome these inherently intractable problems in one fell swoop, it has convinced itself that liberal democratic principles—free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, the rejection of all notions of collective guilt—are actually white patriarchal inventions that interfere with the quest for justice rather than aiding it. So on college campuses, debate and discussion are being replaced with trigger warnings; Title IX sexual assault rules are replacing due process and individualized findings with blanket judgments and collective guilt. The #MeToo movement isn't merely snagging serial predators like Harvey Weinstein but Aziz Ansari, a first-generation Muslim comedian whose "crime" was nowhere near the same league as Weinstein's.

No one's group membership tells you anything about their guilt or innocence in specific circumstances. To try to use such membership as a way to dispense justice will only create a whole slew of new victims, even among those the left otherwise wants to help, and generate pushback, including from its own ranks, which is already happening.

The left's main problem is that it is trying to knit together very disparate groups based on claims of oppression on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. The underlying assumption is that the world can be divided neatly into persecutors and persecuted. But this discrete binary is—to use the left's own lingo—a social construct that has little bearing in reality.

The left's identity politics is internally incoherent and self-undermining so that, ultimately, it'll have to rediscover liberal democratic principles if it wants to advance its ends—or perish. Victims on one dimension can also be victimizers on another. Women who are victims of patriarchy can also be homophobes, racists, Islamophobes, or anti-Semites.

Identity politics treats each individual as if he or she has a singular identity built around a singular interest. But the fact is that each of us is a sum total of multiple identities and multiple interests that sometimes collide and sometimes converge with different groups at different times. Each one of us contains multitudes, as Walt Whitman mused. In the absence of a unifying experience of massive oppression on one dimension—slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement—it isn't possible to ignore these inner multitudes and develop a single coherent movement around a single goal.

Just look at the Women's March: It studiously assembled a rainbow of leaders. But that calculated attempt at diversity made it impossible for them to agree on an agenda. Its minority members could not always get along with white women who hadn't experienced their adversity. The white feminists couldn't understand how their gender did not qualify them as proud second-class citizens every bit as much as their minority sisters. And then there was the tension between Muslim and Jewish leaders. The last straw were revelations that the march's black and Palestinian leaders, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour, were enthusiastic admirers of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, an anti-Semite, homophobe, and—remarkably—unabashed misogynist. How is it possible that feminist leaders would possibly have anything to do with a retrograde peddler of patriarchy? Because their concerns as a Muslim and a black trumped their concerns as women. Yet they won't allow their Jewish sisters the space to balance their feminism with other commitments and concerns.

If unifying everyone behind a march is hard, unifying everyone around a political agenda for electoral success is even harder. The predicament of the Democrats in Virginia—whether to fire accused racists or an accused sexual assaulter—is instructive. So are the attacks on Beto O'Rourke's white privilege. It shows that the game of identity politics requires such a high level of purity and conformity on so many dimensions that it becomes extremely difficult to find one leader who can please everyone. Ultimately, identity politics self-destructs by devouring its own. As Mark Lilla has noted, the left's identity politics can't win elections, only lose them.

So the left's identity-politics danger is limited because its self-destructiveness makes it weirdly self-correcting, although whether it can come to its senses before the next election is anybody's guess.

Majoritarian identity politics does not suffer from the same inner contradictions, on the other hand. The right does not need to pull together multiple unwieldy tribes with disparate interests to advance its ends. It has enough numbers in one tribe with overlapping identities of race and religion to launch a coherent and credible populist ethno-nationalism, as Trump's has shown. If tribal politics becomes the game in America, the right's mono-tribalism is much more powerful and dangerous than the left's multi-tribalism.

Princeton Univeristy's Jan-Werner Mueller has brilliantly pointed out that this sort of populism isn't so much against elites as it is against pluralism. A populist demagogue can claim to represent "the people" but not mean all the people, only the "real people" who back him. He makes it morally acceptable to exclude the others from the state's protection and patronage. Trump, Muller notes, has made many Americans see themselves as part of a white identity movement. Christian whites are the in-group. And who are members of the out-group? Hispanics, Muslims, portions of the media that don't cheerlead for him, and immigrants—not just undocumented ones but even legal ones from "shithole" countries.

What are the dangers of this movement?

This country maintained its cool in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 because President George W. Bush avoided even a hint of collective punishment. To the contrary, he went to a mosque and prayed for peace. This is in sharp contrast to, say, a country like India, where Hindu mobs in 1984 killed thousands of Sikhs in a mini-pogrom and in 2002 killed a similar number of Muslims. In Trump's America, it is an open question as to what an aggrieved majority fed a steady diet of suspicion of the Other would do in the event of another terrorist attack. When minority identity politics overreaches, it lamentably forces Christians to bake cakes for gays. When a majority united by ethno-nationalistic passions does so, mass violence, often with the overt or covert complicity of the state, isn't off-limits.

So how do we get rid of the identity politics of the left and the right and restore a civic nationalism committed to liberal democratic values?

I don't mean to sound sanguine, but sooner or later minorities, with or without the help of the left, will discover that they need to get over any silly notions that the Constitution is a tool of white patriarchal oppression rather than a great resource for their own protection. This isn't mere speculation. New York Times writer Mustafa Akyol recently pointed out that American Muslims aren't converting America to Islam by preaching sharia. They are converting Islam into liberalism. They are invoking pluralism, tolerance, and religious diversity to maintain a safe space to practice their faith, but in the process they are transforming their faith. As one Muslim activist told Akyol: "Once you invoke diversity as a value," it becomes hard to "deny a place to gay Muslims, Shia Muslims, non-hijabi female Muslims, less-observant-than-you Muslims."

But a majoritarian identity politics isn't self-correcting or self-immolating. It is self-perpetuating.

A majority, by virtue of its numbers, always faces the temptation of gaining an advantage by weakening the constitutional limits on its power and imposing its will on others. Anything that strengthens the possibility of a permanent majority, therefore, is bad news from the standpoint of our constitutional and economic liberties and anything that weakens it is arguably good news.

That's why I think that the emerging consensus among thinkers as diverse as Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, and Francis Fukuyama that America needs to refocus on social cohesion instead of diversity and rethink immigration is backwards. Goldberg frets that immigration might be economically advantageous but its impact on "social cohesion, civic and institutional health, and community trust," while hard to quantify, is undoubtedly negative. Fukuyama bemoans that a large number of immigrants weaken native support for large welfare programs and increase the appeal of quick-fix demagogues among the white working class. Sullivan maintains that immigration has undercut the national myths, shared icons, and common "pseudo-ethnicity" that binds America together.

In the same article, Sullivan also says, without any sense of contradiction, that the sharp fault line that was created between newly freed blacks and whites after the Civil War was diluted by a "myriad other ethnic loyalties" generated by the wave of European immigrants at that time. In other words, immigrants, who weren't yet initiated into polarized black/white and North/South divides, could see beyond America's sins to its promise of a better life. Immigrants may not arrive as partisans of limited government, but their starry eyes compensate for the gratitude deficit among the native population, rejuvenating America's sense of its worth and purpose. I doubt one will find too many foreign-born or even children of foreign-born among the ranks of Antifa.

Above all, there is a Madisonian benefit of immigration as a bulwark against majority tyranny. In the Federalist 10 and 51, Madison argued that tutoring the majority in the gospel of liberty would not be sufficient to persuade it to abandon the temptation of using the strong arm of government to advance its interests. Nor would efforts to "give every citizen the same opinion" by creating a homogeneous society work; nor could we depend on an "enlightened statesman." The solution, in his view, was to "extend the sphere": to enlarge the republic's population in order to "multiply the factions" to avoid the formation of a permanent majority.

Lord Acton went even further, explicitly emphasizing the need for diverse nationalities. In his essay on nationalism, he notes: "The presence of different nations under the same sovereignty is similar in its effect to the independence of the Church in the State….It provides against the servility which flourishes under the shadow of a single authority, by balancing interests, multiplying associations."

He goes on: "Liberty provokes diversity, and diversity preserves liberty….That intolerance of social freedom which is natural to absolutism is sure to find a corrective in the national diversities, which no other force can so efficiently provide. This diversity in the same State is a firm barrier against the intrusion of the government beyond the political sphere….That intolerance of social freedom which is natural to absolutism is sure to find a corrective in the national diversities, which no other force can so efficiently provide."

The left has badly overplayed its hand by insisting on a forced program of diversity. The right's program of engineered homogeneity might well be worse. If you replace the pluribus with unibus in "E pluribus unum," you can't really maintain a strong liberal democracy dedicated to protecting the liberty of all.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sam Bray receives Story (Bator) Award

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here we go…

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

        So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Just4Work.com

        1. The left’s identity politics is internally incoherent and self-undermining so that, ultimately, it’ll have to rediscover liberal democratic principles if it wants to advance its ends?or perish.

          Pasang iklan gratis

    1. The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

      The 9 Minutes that almost changed America: Congressional Baseball Shooting

      Quotes:
      Many lawmakers are mad, or frustrated, or saddened, at how quickly the story disappeared from the headlines given that the shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, targeted Republicans. The FBI concluded the shooting wasn’t politically motivated ? suicide by cop, they told members after an investigation.

      But Hodgkinson carried a list of names of lawmakers in his pocket: Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Trent Franks, Scott DesJarlais, Jeff Duncan, and Morgan Griffith. The list included their office numbers and short physical descriptions. He’d recorded video of the field in April of of that year ? a sign, the prosecutor wrote in his official report, that Hodgkinson “had already selected Simpson field as a potential target as early as April 2017.”

      His social media posts show that he hated Trump, and supported Bernie Sanders, for whose 2016 campaign he even volunteered. He once routinely wrote letters to the local paper, criticizing Republicans.

      1. The Jewish Center threats (they were blaming on Trump) back in 2017 were from a Bernie Bro also-media dropped it. Heck, Dohrn, a proud outspoken terrorist (and justification of the brutal Manson murders) somehow had/has a lucrative career in Academia and Law. The Rotherham Case, No Go Zones–no biggie?

        Extremism grows when the Media refuses to cover a story.

        1. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

          >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    2. I just started 6 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, thank you!”
      Click here >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

    3. “Anything that strengthens the possibility of a permanent majority, therefore, is bad news from the standpoint of our constitutional and economic liberties and anything that weakens it is arguably good news.”

      So it’s good news to weaken a majority that supports constitutional limits on size and scope of government? Or is it that such a majority is not permanent (what is? only Shika knows).

      I guess I didn’t get the memo ‘splaining how pandering diversity promoted by the left is all about limited government.

      So much illogic…so little time.

      1. It would make sense if, ohhhh I dunno, immigrants actually held smaller government views than native born maybe… But they don’t.

        Cubans, a HIGHLY self selected group, are the only “non white” immigrant group that are not left wing that I am aware of. I’ve never seen another one mentioned in anything I have ever read on the subject. I know former USSR immigrants are also right wing/libertarian. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same were true of others that fled communist countries, say Vietnamese…

        But other than that, they all vote left HARD. This actually includes recent Chinese immigrants strangely enough.

        So somehow replacing a demographic that likes the constitution, with a group that doesn’t, will equal more freedom! If only I knew how to do left wing math I suppose that would make sense…

        1. ” the only “non white” immigrant group that are not left wing that I am aware of.”

          Let me guess… if they’re not with you, they must be against you?

          There’s a huge middle-ground of people whose apathy towards politics ranges from “I’ll learn about a few things just before the election” to “I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!!!”

          I’ll suggest that most immigrants rate politics very far down their list of priorities. I believe this is true because most immigrants come here for economic motives

          1. Economic motives are not necessarily free market, more likely free stuff. Particularly given the propaganda the left is spreading.

          2. Dude, WHO CARES.

            Lots of Americans don’t know shit about shit either, and either vote, or don’t vote. But if 70% of immigrants vote left, and it’s 40% of native born Americans, even lower for white Americans… Well, that’s GOING TO shift the politics of the country to the left.

            People who vote for leftist policies ARE AGAINST ME. And every other freedom loving American.

            I see no reason I should destroy the civilization my ancestors built so that I can feel good about letting in a bunch of foreigners, even if 30% of them are cool and might in fact agree with the founding principles of the country. It is simple math dude. If a strong majority are against freedom, then we will get less freedom the more of those people we have.

            You can see it in places like Cali, where I’m originally from, and how voting trends have ruined the place. I bet even in Cali if you only looked at native born people it’s probably a 50/50 split, or conservative leaning.

          3. “I’ll suggest that most immigrants rate politics very far down their list of priorities. I believe this is true because most immigrants come here for economic motives”

            And if that resulted in them voting Right, that’s be wonderful

            But since they vote hard Left, the defense that “well, yeah, but they do so in a totally ignorant manner” is not much of a defense.

          4. “I’ll suggest that most immigrants rate politics very far down their list of priorities. I believe this is true because most immigrants come here for economic motives”

            And if that resulted in them voting Right, that’s be wonderful

            But since they vote hard Left, the defense that “well, yeah, but they do so in a totally ignorant manner” is not much of a defense.

            1. YUP.

              In fact most ignorant, don’t care about politics sorts tend to vote left… Because FREE SHIT sounds good. If you don’t know any better, who wouldn’t want free shit?

    4. This was a rather beautiful piece, Shikha. Please ignore the peanut gallery and continue your work. Thanks for writing this.

      1. Yeah right,

        I keep hoping Shitma will return to her native India. I suspect however, it will never happen as they are unlikely to put up with her shitma.

      2. The first half was quite good, since she knows those people. Her evaluation of ‘the right ‘ is clueless. Thinking that conservatives and libertarians are homogeneous groups is ridiculous. Maybe a few months in rural PA or IN would open her eyes.

        1. I agree BigT. I struggled to find why “the right’s identity politics is more dangerous than the left’s” in her article. It seems to boil down to ethno-nationalism, and fear of majority rule (ignoring that conservatives appear to be embracing our civil rights these days, while the left attacks our freedoms and wants more government power over our speech, contrary to the First Amendment).

          I suppose Dalmia sees Trump’s call to enforce the immigration laws (a call to enforce the rule of law, not a call to halt immigration – note Trump has tried to work with the Democrats on immigration who refuse to meet with him anymore about it) as a threat to legal immigrants and a desire to make sure America stays white.

          Sure social conservatives would like to make abortion illegal and flag burning illegal, but we all know that’s going nowhere (and Trump supports neither). So I see little threat from conservatives, but I do see liberals using force and demanding that government force be used, because they are offended by conservatives.

      3. The first half was quite good, since she knows those people. Her evaluation of ‘the right ‘ is clueless. Thinking that conservatives and libertarians are homogeneous groups is ridiculous. Maybe a few months in rural PA or IN would open her eyes.

        1. I wonder if Dalmia suffers from an inability to understand conservatives, a understanding deficit Dr. Jonathan Haidt has written about here in Reason: see “Born This Way?” in the 2012 issue. To paraphrase him, the especially liberal just don’t understand the moral foundations of conservatives, and as a result, attribute evil motives to them. So she see’s Trump anti-foreigner attacks (and the way I see it, Trump was blaming a lot of problems on foreigners to get elected, rather than blaming Americans for how they voted and what they got as a result – which I understand from the goal of getting elected) as anti-immigrant attacks. But really what has he done that’s anti-immigrant other than jawboning about one sided foreign trade, or trying to get immigration law fixed so people don’t flagrantly break those laws (which is something the Democrats and RINOs facilitated because they preferred that to actually changing the law)? Nothing that I’ve seen that is unreasonable (and IMHO, it’s not unreasonable to prohibit immigration from countries with Jihadist movements that can’t keep track of who the terrorists are).

  2. Trump, Muller notes, has made many Americans see themselves as part of a white identity movement. Christian whites are the in-group. And who are members of the out-group? Hispanics, Muslims, portions of the media that don’t cheerlead for him, and immigrants?not just undocumented ones but even legal ones from “shithole” countries.

    Aryan Nationalism is certainly nothing new. The meteoric rise of Right-Wing Terrorism is proof of its comeback.

    1. Meteoric? Citation fell off

      1. THIS ^^^

    2. Well said.

      So maybe now you’ll understand why I think you should renounce your predecessor Palin’s Buttplug’s Islamophobia.

      #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

      1. How many thousands have been murdered by Moslems, the past year, in Afghanistan, alone?

        How much attention has the nasty negress, Joy Reid, devoted to this topic?

        How much attention has the intersectional queen, Camel Toe Harris, devoted to this topic?

        How much attention has the Gaffe man, the dope from Delaware, devoted to this topic?

        How much attention has Dizzy Lizzy, the “Cherokee” charlatan, devoted to this topic?

        How much attention has Dingbat Don “blackhole” Lemon devoted to this topic? Man, he is a Bill Walsh and a Joe Montana and a Jerry Rice short of a west coast offense.

      2. So… you are FOR misogyny, homophobia, intolerance towards non-Muslims, censorship and violent suppression of critics of Islam, Islamic terrorism, etc.?

    3. Islamic “nationalism is 1400+ years old. Muslims are their in group. Islamic supremacism is their organizing principle.

      1. Correct. I oppose all religious nationalism especially the one you just mentioned.

        I oppose on individual grounds though – not as a White Nationalist (although I am white).

        1. Why are you still posting here after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links?

          1. We’re all he’s got. Isn’t that sad? Even those kids he abuses don’t like him. No matter how hard he tries to groom them.

      2. So there you go. Right wing identity politics is the worst. I think it’s appropriate to call Muslim conservatives/traditionalists a right-wing thing.

        1. Not in the US.
          Islamist alliance with progressives goes back to the New Left in the 60s and 70s

        2. What are you talking about? The meaning of the term “conservative” depends on the country it’s used in — in the Soviet Union, communists were called conservative, but in the U.S., conservatives are generally closer to libertarianism than their opponents are.

          In any case, in e.g. Pakistan, the more hardline Islamic groups are significantly more socialistic and wary of economic liberalisation. Benzhir Bhutto received resistance almost entirely from religious Islamic outfits. And terror groups in the Middle East are staunchly socialistic (see e.g. Osama’s comments on Noam Chomsky).

    4. There is no significant ‘right wing terrorism’. I think you damaged your brain even further jacking it to kiddie porn there PB.

      You sick fuckimg piece of shit traitor.

      1. ?

        Did I miss something?

        1. Shiteater is a Totalitarian who cannot intelectually connect with anyone that is not Republican or sufficiently conservative enough for him.

          Unfortunately, he just rants and threatens violence against anyone and everyone who is not “pure” enough.

          Fortunately, he is Last of the Shiteater and is not poisoning the planet with his DNA.

          1. Hihn sock?

            1. Maybe, but he isn’t even sort of wrong.

              1. Yeah, he’s totally wrong and you’re a sock for one of these shitbags. Probably one of the pedos.

    5. Do you pride yourself in ignorance? Just because ignorant assholes proclaim a shooter is right wing doesn’t make him so. This new shooter this weekend was a globalist for fucks sake. You assholes are fucking ignorant.

      1. The neoconservative right was globalist, you ignorant fucking asshole. And while it’s clear that identity politics are desperately important in your tiny brain, you’re in complete denial to pretend that white nationalism is anything other than right wing. There are bad people under every label; just because someone is “right wing” does not mean he’s part of your tribe.

        1. Go crawl back under your rock loser.

        2. A Progressive by any other name would still suck!
          Progressivism is just Communism with better propaganda!

    6. The “meteoric rise” that wouldn’t make a bottle rocket.

    7. Please show evidence of right wing terrorism. I see plenty of Left wing terrorism supported by the DNC (BLM, ANTIFA)

    8. Please show evidence of right wing terrorism. I see plenty of Left wing terrorism supported by the DNC (BLM, ANTIFA)

    9. Please show evidence of right wing terrorism. I see plenty of Left wing terrorism supported by the DNC (BLM, ANTIFA)

  3. I respect Niskanen for being honest. Would be nice if others were honest with themselves

  4. define white.

      1. Well, let’s be honest here… That is not a definition anybody REALLY ever uses.

        Whites is pretty clearly European Caucasians. MAYBE tossing in Jews and some of the other Semitic peoples, as they’re pretty damn pale. But most other Caucasians are Caucasian like whites, but not ACTUAL whites in most peoples minds.

    1. It depends on who is in the room. When three African-American guys hang out with a South Asian-American guy without any European-Americans present, they call him “Whitey” and ask him to fetch them some cigs.

      That reminds me, my friend didn’t text me back today.

    2. Fun fact.
      According to Ben Franklin, only the Saxons and English are White.

      Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Ben Franklin:
      … And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People
      https://goo.gl/sXV4Ag

      The Swarthy Swedes aren’t White – who knew?

  5. I gots the white privileges and my masculinity is very toxic.

    I also have a passport which is a form of the privileged and is also very racist and a form of colonialisms !!!!!

  6. There are over a dozen violent anti-Seimitic attacks in NYC every month at this point, but we’re not allowed to talk about it because the offenders aren’t white. Sure, if you rely on media narratives and the SPLC for statistics and analyses about who is “more dangerous”, you would think the world is swimming with dangerous white racists and nobody else, but only half of hate crime offenders are white, below their share of the population, and even mass shooters aren’t more likely to be white, just the inordinate amount of coverage.

    A few months after the Dylann Roof shooting, a black nationalist walked into a church of white people in Antioch, Tennessee and started shooting, after murdering a white woman in the parking lot. Luckily ushers tackled him and one got their own gun from his car. Did you even hear about that? No? I wonder why.

    That being said, ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE INSANELY RARE AND ARE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL FEARS.

    Far more people are murdered by previously deported illegal immigrants than in terrorist and hate crime attacks every year. The media justifiably calls fear-mongering about the first to be bullshit, but they encourage irrational fears of the latter.

    1. That is because mass media, for the most part, share the beliefs of those whose inequalities have been “formally addressed” but who are now on a nebulous quest for recognition, as Dalmia puts it. There will be minimal [if any] reporting on the incidents such as you describe [how much reporting, outside of Fox and online news sites like Townhall, have you seen of the antifa attack on the two US Marines in Philadelphia last December?]. That stokes the flames of outrage on a daily basis, on both sides of the issue.

      1. Mass Media also equates Asian Americans to White Americans. Asians are around 5-6% of the population, but outrank whites on STEM education, income and increasingly net worth. The left, government economists and media must lump a successful minority group in with whites to keep pushing the economic inequality meme and redistribution.

        1. Right; When it comes to making good victims to support the narrative, Asians just don’t. Much to their credit [generally speaking if I may be allowed to utter a positive stereotype; hey, as a WASP I get stereotyped all the time…]

        2. This is how the Slavic families in the USA became known as Crackers even though the Ottoman Empire imported White slaves from the Balkans until the late 19th Century and those families immigrated to the USA after the Civil War, for the most part.

        3. I really do wonder when Asians will finally come around again… They actually voted conservative through the mid 1990s, and then switched to voting heavily left wing. But all their interests line up AGAINST the leftists, as they ARE a smart, hard working, successful group. Fingers crossed it is sooner rather than later!

          1. Californians vote like Californians, Northeasterners vote like Northeasterners. And white Californians are actually racist against Asians, and the less politically correct white Californians are openly so.

            1. Racist how?

              Like ribbing their Asian friends for being good at math??? Cuz yeah, that happens. But almost everybody I’ve ever met in my life that legit DID NOT LIKE blacks or Hispanics or whoever was generally pretty down with Asians… Because there just isn’t much to not like.

              They’re nice people, hard working, clean, don’t commit crime, pay their taxes, etc etc etc. They display every trait people want out of good people… Other than voting a bit left wing lately.

              So if you’re talking about casual jokey kind of racism that makes SJWs shit their pants, like non PC jokes… Sure. But almost nobody ACTUALLY hates Asians.

    2. Talk about yr missing citations…lol…

      1. The FBI hate crime statistics are easy to look up. Every year between 20-25% of offenders are black, while around 50% of offenders are white. On average there are fewer than a dozen hate crime murders every year. While the government doesn’t keep track, there are about the same amount of national stories every year in which a previously deported illegal immigrant kills somebody.

        But these are ALL anecdotal incidents that do not indicate any sort of widespread problem. It’s just journalists and politicians fearmongering.

  7. Hypocritical bitch.

    And the Democrats DID get the game of identity politics going, with racial slavery apologetics. It paused for what, 2 seconds in the 60’s and is now becoming an anti-white party (judging from their OWN words and actions.)

    1. The funny thing about the Demorats becoming an anti-white party is that everyone at the top is white, and likely to continue being so for many years. If they were smart they would be throttling back a bit on the hate, but they aren’t very smart and can’t let go of the tiger’s tail either.

      1. They are quite smart. They don’t have to be consistent in their anti-whitism. Just look at who leads the charge today – rich white Leftists.

        Their tactic has them dominating the culture.

        1. They were “rich white leftists” until the left started talking about a wealth tax that bites with an exit tax (before that, they could manipulate the tax code-maybe AOCs 70% tax rate, she knows no one will pay it virtue signaling). It will be interesting to see how the future pans out for the democrats.

        2. I’m linking a video that investigates the people behind AOC. Not sure how many of you have seen this yet.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU

          They won’t stop with her. This will be the model for developing a voting block to direct the democrat party for full blown communism eventually.

      2. The funny thing about the Demorats becoming an anti-white party is that everyone at the top is white, and likely to continue being so for many years.

        I don’t think this is true. They intended to give only figurative power to the loons. But as we saw with Chelsea Clinton power isn’t figurative. The people they empowered don’t care if it was only intended to be used against non-leftists. The left won’t try to rescind it now because they still need it to fight Libs and Cons. By the time they realize it is effective against them but less so against us (because we are largely outside the institutions where these rules apply) they won’t have enough power within those institutions to change the rules.

        1. It’s a generational divide. White Baby Boomers leading the Democratic Party don’t mind their grandkids getting attacked for the crimes of past generations of Whites any more than they object to the national debt.

          1. Maybe that’s why the Clinton’s were so corrupt. They knew the next generations of their family wouldn’t be able to rise high enough in the party to extort from kleptocrats around the world. So they did it for their children.

    2. RTFA.

      Of course the left started identity politics but it is dissolving into harmless sub-groups. But today the White Nationalist movement is morphing into a violent monster with Trump as its leader.

      1. Why are you still posting here after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links?

        1. Fuck you, you liar.

          1. You got banned for kiddie porn and here you are posting. Why don’t you respect Reason’s property rights?

            1. Fuck you, you ratfucking liar.

              1. “Fuck you, you ratfucking liar.”

                Gee, busted again and that’s the best you got, turd?

              2. Why are you still here disrespecting Reason’s property rights after they asked you to stay out because you posted kiddie porn links?

                1. We’re probably the closest things to friends this child fucker has got.

                  It would be pathetic if he weren’t such a disgusting commie child sex predator.

              3. PB it isn’t a lie that your shit got banned. Nor is it a lie that your shitposting kiddie Orin links were deleted.

                You are one sick fucking pedo.

                1. What month and year did this happen? I don’t remember it.

                  1. Couple of weeks ago. He posted some kind of child pron link. Reason deleted his Buttplug account and scrubbed his comments.

                2. Not a surprise “Palin’s Buttplug” is a fucking kiddie diddler, most kiddie diddlers are leftards who can’t get a real woman or man.

          2. The main liar I see is you…. and it is getting old.

    3. Hypocritical bitch
      The moment I saw the headline I knew it was going to be yet another demagogic hit piece by Shika, Reason’s resident left-wing concern troll.

      1. Seriously. I vomit a little bit in my own mouth everytime I read one of her articles!

    4. The Dems have always been the racial identity politics party.
      They just changed sides in the 60s.

  8. Uh oh all the far right people here that masquerade as libertarian gonna be mad

    1. TRUMP SAYS WHITE NATIONALISM IS ALL FAKE!

      1. How about negro nationalism? Is it fake? Should it be condemned? Should it be ruthlessly and relentlessly ridiculed for being so racist?

        1. I can’t think of an example of “negro nationalism” other than the Nation of Islam and yes – that should be ruthlessly ridiculed as well. It is a racist hate group on the same level as the Klan.

          1. Why are you still posting here after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links?

          2. Do you have a problem with Minister Louis Farrakan (nee Louis Eugene Walcott) and the memory of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad?

          3. I can’t think of an example of “negro nationalism” other than the Nation of Islam and yes – that should be ruthlessly ridiculed as well. It is a racist hate group on the same level as the Klan.

            Lots of Democrats pose for pictures with Farrakhan. Obama did. The CBC did. Hell, Omar is David Duke’s new favorite Congressman.

            Number of Republicans posing with Richard Spencer is…?

            1. I’m amazed at how many people that voted for Clinton ignore the fact that she called a former high ranking member of the KKK a mentor. Yet, they say Trump is racist based on a much lower bar.

              1. GOP types, cucks, FOX flunkies, and conservatards overplay the Bobby Byrd KKK card.

                1. So true. He wasn’t a member of the KKK for their beliefs. He was a member of the KKK for the political capital. Duh.

                2. “”overplay the Bobby Byrd KKK card.””

                  It’s about what makes someone a racist in the eyes of liberals. Trump wanting better border control is considered racist which is a far lesser card than calling a former KKK member a mentor.

                3. Mike… what about the love for racial sterilization of the lower races liberals support with their love of Sanger?

                  1. We aren’t supposed to remember that.

        2. What Raza is La Raza talkin’ about?

      2. Islamic supremacism is fake.

        1. Doesn’t “Islam” mean “submission”?

          Islamic supremacism is a pretty fundamental part of the whole religion as far as I can tell.

          1. I thought “Islam” meant “30 second fuse”.

            *ducks*

            1. Ha Ha Ha…

              *BOOM*

            2. Islam
              Uslam
              Weallslam
              for Islam.

            3. I thought “Islam” meant “30 second fuse”.

              Granted, I do remember the night I when my friend’s co-parent woke me up by screaming to him, “You’re going too fast!”

        2. Yes, Iran calling for refionwide, and ultimately world wide caliphates is ‘fake’.

  9. The irony here is painful. Don’t you realize that your criticism of identity politics is in and of itself identity politics? Identity politics requires unilateral condemnation because it is anti freedom. When you try to blame one side or the other, you just perpetuate the problem. Are right wing identity politics more dangerous? Who knows. Maybe left wing identity politics created right wing identity politics. Maybe left wing identity politics just assault and rape instead of murder. Maybe they occur in third world countries so they don’t count. Maybe identity politics originated with the right wing. Regardless, someone has to be the adult in the room and call out this bullshit for what it is. All you did was play the blame game like a child.

    1. This. 1000 times.

    2. Left wing identity politics TOTALLY stirred this shit up on the right.

      If we could actually have open, objective conversations about some of the racial issues, without people screaming that it’s RACIST, this country would be soooooo much better off. The fact is a lot of problems DO come down along racial/religious lines… Which is just how shit goes down in the real world. But it’s the fact that the left turned it into something that cannot be rationally discussed that has made it such a problem.

    3. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

      To the Postmodern Left, all argument is simply rhetorical manipulation to the end of power.
      They use whatever arguments best manipulate you in the moment.
      It is a severe mistake to think they ever believe a word of their own rhetoric.

      It’s bad when their enemies organize, and good when they do.

  10. As soon as I saw the title I knew who the author was.

    1. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way Shikha can write idiotic nonsense like this is because she has never set foot outside a Blue urban/academic enclave and interacted with any regular American in Flyover Country.

      The consistent condescension and thinly-veiled hatred for working-class white folks in this article and others is exactly what I would expect from someone who grew up in the top half of India’s caste system.

      1. Ummm … Louisiana is a blue state?

        1. The journalism school at Louisiana State University, Shikha’s alma mater, is hardly a bastion of conservatism. It certainly fits the definition of a “Blue…academic enclave”.

          If she had spent all her time in Lafourche Parish then I might be convinced otherwise.

      2. The real question is why does Shitma get published here? And what does the fact she IS published here tell us about REASON?

        1. Reason has become postmodernist shilling for the Globalist ruling class.

    2. Ditto. Her inane bias is almost uniquely hamfisted among the columnists and contributors at Reason.

    3. My favorite part is how she is an immigrant in MY country, condemning MY opinions out of hand, because SHE doesn’t like it.

      She wants to FORCE me, and the majority of the country that was actually born here, to go against their wishes for their own country. How fucking out of control is that, just on principle.

      That’s like me going to India and demanding people give up Hinduism and start eating hamburgers three times a week or something. It just isn’t RIGHT to go to somebody elses country and then start telling them their perfectly legitimate opinions are bullshit, that they’re morons, and also HORRIBLE people to boot.

      The fucking nerve.

      1. Brown Man’s Revenge.

        The British did it to them.

        1. Well, they better hope that there is never a White Man’s Revenge To The Brown Man’s Revenge…

          Because I have a sneaking suspicion that it will make any of their pathetic attempts pale in comparison to the hell and fury angry white men will bring down on their asses if pushed too far.

  11. TL:DR

    White people get mad when they’re demonized for the color of their skin. This is bad for the left, whose goal is to eliminate white people, because there’s more white people in the US than any other race. The real problem is not demonizing white people, the problem is white people being the majority. Because white people are evil and should not be able to stand up for themselves.

    1. This is bad for the left, whose goal is to eliminate white people,

      Citation fell off.

      1. Why are you still posting here after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links?

      2. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11980

        Shout out to Marshal who posted this below

        1. OMG!! A panel of intolerant racists!

    2. If you make white people stand up for themselves, they’ll stand up for themselves, and we can’t have that, because they’ll win

      1. And for the record, I don’t want any violence. And racism is a waste of time. But it’s laughable that the left stirs up violence, hates openly on white people, then Shikha says the the right is worse because it’s response to threats of violence is more unified and powerful

        1. Its the sheer number of murders by right wing nut jobs. About 60-1 in ratio just in the USA.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

          1. Why are you still here disrespecting Reason’s property rights after they asked you to stay out because you posted kiddie porn links?

            1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

              That link has many uncited examples including possibly the dumbest attempt to connect a crime to right wing terror ever made, such as

              “Bank robbery Tulsa, Oklahoma 0 1” {{cn}}

              And the even dumber

              “Post-September 11 shootings Multiple 1 2″{{cn}}

              It says everything anyone needs to know about you that you find an uncited, unsourced wikipedia article to be proof of anything.

              Are you retarded? Because you sound like you’re retarded when you proffer that article constantly.

              1. Well “moneyshot” aka “guy who creeper stalked an old politician for years” is a known pedophile who got banhammered for posting kiddie porn links so he isn’t someone I’d trust with links to anything.

                1. Hey now! Im sure his NAMBLA links are rock solid.

          2. “Just in the USA”

            Yea, because if you expand it globally the left is responsible for deaths in the hundreds of millions.

            Need a source for that too?

        2. It was not part of their blood,
          It came to them very late….

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginnings

          1. That’s getting to be a popular allusion.

        3. Right?

          This has always been my thing: You commies REALLY think this is going to end well for you if you piss of white men in the USA? LoLz

          White American men are the most heavily armed and probably badass men on earth. Right wing dudes are disproportionately former/current military or police, or at least really into shooting guns for kicks.

          If they ever push too hard, this should could be over in 24 hours if there was open season on shit libs.

          Their entire premise is basically reliant on being able to poke a group of very capable people in the eye with a stick repeatedly, but assuming they will NEVER get tired of being poked in the eye with a stick and retaliate… Such a horrible strategy…

          1. What have the British done in the face of a million rapes of their children, aided and abetted by their government?
            Nothing that I can see.

            It’s unclear that Whitey has the will to fight back.

            1. Only because the ENTIRE political and media establishment has told them they’re EVIL for even realizing or accepting that these savages might not be FAR BETTER PEOPLE than they are.

              But lots of people know inside it is bullshit… They’re just too afraid to say anything out loud. Once that fear goes away, there could be a flood of hellfire and brimstone. That is how these things usually go… Anger gets pent up, more and more and more… And then BAM.

              1. But why does Whitey believe them?

                No other group I’m aware of feels guilty for being born.

                I blame Christianity. Or the lack thereof, depending on how you look at it.

                Whitey coevolved with a religion of guilt. They seem to need it. Take away Christianity, and that need for guilt will find another outlet.

          2. The classic move….threaten to murder everyone and then wonder why people want new gun laws.

            I agree, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And the never-ending torrent of “we are the tough ones, we have all the guns, we can’t wait for Civil War II so we can start shooting people for being liberal” is a) getting old b) WHY people keep asking for more gun laws. Cause you and all your tacticool buddies that don’t feel safe unless you open carry at Walmart can’t stop drooling over the prospect of being able to murder your neighbors for looking liberal.

            1. You have the causality backwards. The only reason pro 2A people have become so strong on the subject is BECAUSE all the progressive nuts have become so AGAINST not only the 2A, but also every other freedom America was founded on. If the country were being run by men like Thomas Jefferson who appreciated freedom, and guns were a single actual issue to deal with, I think people would be a lot more open to it. But allowing yourself to be disarmed RIGHT when totalitarians are tightening the vise is NOT a good idea.

              Nobody wants to fight or die… But if the choice is between that or slavery, lots of Americans will choose to stand up in SELF DEFENSE against tyrants.

  12. Ethno-nationalism threatens liberal democracy.

    Good. It’s about time something did.

    1. Really? You’d prefer autocracy, or an illiberal, absolute democracy where the majority can trample all over everyone’s rights?
      I think maybe you should look up what “liberal democracy” means. It’s nothing to do with the way “liberal” is commonly used in contemporary US politics.

      1. It’s nothing to do with the way “liberal” is commonly used in contemporary US politics.

        Vote early, vote often. – Liberal democracy

        1. Yeah, Chicago is not the defining example of liberal democracy.

          I really wish the word “liberal” hadn’t been ruined in American politics as it has been. I think it’s a very good and useful word in its older sense.

      2. The funny thing is, liberal democracy is PERFECTLY compatible with ethno-nationalism. In fact, it is the best form of ethno-nationalism, as an ethno state that is a dictatorship is far more likely to be militant/expansionist/etc.

        The USA WAS founded as a white nationalist nation. It worked just fine. There were bad things done back in the day, but none of them need be repeated. And nothing bad at all needs to happen in say Sweden if the Swedes simply decide they don’t want to become minorities in their own country. They just need to stop letting in foreigners. Which is NOT any sort of immoral thing to do.

  13. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has a long history of touting white nationalism, has taken his meme game to a violent new level.

    The disgraced lawmaker ? who was unceremoniously stripped of all his committee assignments earlier this year for previous white nationalist rhetoric ? shared a graphic that imagined “another civil war,” this time between red and blue states.

    “One side has about 8 trillion bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use,” states the meme, shared on one of King’s verified Facebook pages.

    “Wonder who would win…” added King, apparently not noticing that his home state was actually depicted on the losing side.

    HuffPost

    1. Why are you still posting here after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links?

      1. Did he actually post kiddie porn links?

        He has been alleged to have done so, but there appears to be no evidence to support the charge. If the response is that Reason scrubbed his links, that doesn’t satisfy the standard of proof.

        1. Of course not.

          The Trump-tard liars don’t want me posting here so they are waging a ratfucking campaign against me.

          They hate all us classic liberals including many of the writers here.

          1. Did classic liberals use child like name calling and generalization fallacies when assigning blame?

            I don’t think so. But I could be wrong about that.

            1. Like “Bushpigs”? For the profligate spending, spy state, and nation-building “wars”?

              It fits well.

              1. Why are you still here disrespecting Reason’s property rights after they asked you to stay out because you posted kiddie porn links?

              2. PB, we don’t want A sick pedo like you here. Go back to your NAMBLA cell. I’m sure you’re all busy plotting how to normalize your sex predator behavior. Here is a link to a Federalist article some of you might have seen on the subject.

                http://tinyurl.com/y4rnkfdb

                Unlike PB, it is NOT a link to kiddie lorn. Goddamn sick ducking child predator.

            2. Um, yes?

              You should read up a bit more about the Revolutionary War. It wasn’t all formal argumentation and carefully cited discussion points.

              1. Yeah, but they weren’t all classical liberals either so your point remains an assertion and unproven. Rather than suggesting others do the work of proving your point for you by “reading up” you should probably actually do something to prove it.

                Meanwhile screech posted kiddie porn links and got banned, then busted out his Libertymike sockpuppet to suggest that people should keep screenshots of those kiddie porn links for future proof. Yes he is that stupid.

          2. “They hate all us classic liberals…”

            Why can’t you post without lying, turd?

            1. I keep asking him why he disprespects Rwason’s request for him to leave. He runs away or pretends he doesn’t know what a ban is.

              My favorite was a very paranoid-schizo esque claim that a right-wing admin probably banned him, despite many people seeing him post kiddie porn links.

          3. The Trump-tard liars don’t want me posting here so they are waging a ratfucking campaign against me.

            Sure, it’s just a complete coincidence that you forgot your burner email password YET AGAIN within the span of a couple of months and had to create a new one, rather than you posting kiddie porn links.

            1. “Sure, it’s just a complete coincidence that you forgot your burner email password YET AGAIN ”

              Considering he admitted he was banned it is rather beside the point on the ” why the fuck are you still here after you got banned” front.

              The fact that many people saw the links before they got nuked is just gravy.

          4. “moneyshot|3.18.19 @ 12:48PM|#

            Of course not.”

            No one is surprised you lie about it after you got banned for posting kiddie porn links.

          5. You are not a classic liberal you fake, lying asshat.

        2. “Libertymike|3.18.19 @ 12:39PM|#

          Did he actually post kiddie porn links?

          He has been alleged to have done so, but there appears to be no evidence to support the charge. If the response is that Reason scrubbed his links, that doesn’t satisfy the standard of proof”

          Hi PB sock. Many people saw them. Your excuses ring extremely hollow.

        3. “If the response is that Reason scrubbed his links, that doesn’t satisfy the standard of proof.”

          Out of curiosity obvious sockpuppet of PB, what WOULD constitute proof? Screenshots of his kidde porn links?

          You’re THAT stupid?

    2. It’s interesting to note the “side” that removed a someone for racist behavior…

      Maybe if he wore a hijab he could have stayed a little longer.

    3. So owning bullets identifies you as a white nationalist?
      WTF?
      Maybe the “meme” contrasts people who support constitutional rights with people who reject those in favor of fake rights. People who see racism in everything must be pretty racist.

  14. *warms up the popcorn popper*

    1. Is it ‘white’ popcorn?

  15. Interesting article, albeit with Dalmia’s usual “but the right/white/Christian side is really bad” take on it; I do however appreciate the defining of the “left identity politic obsession:

    “…it was inevitable that having won basic rights, minorities striving to find their place in mainstream America or women joining the workforce en masse would force a reckoning with old ways…identity politics is ultimately a quest for dignity or satisfaction of what the Greeks called thymos?that aspect of the soul that craves recognition. And it comes into play precisely to satiate the need for social recognition that formal liberal equality fuels but doesn’t necessarily address. In fact, formal equality makes informal inequalities and injustices seem not less but more galling.”

    This has nothing to do with an formal redress to inequality, pas tor present. It is all about how persons FEEL about it and this is something no one can fix for them. No amount of reparations is going to make anyone feel better about themselves, but will only serve to fuel further demands until such persons are deemed superior to those they blame for this lack of confidence.

    1. Yeah, that was a very good description of how the left went from demanding rights for minorities that everyone should have to being completely insane.

    2. And of course half the inequalities they talk about are basically un stoppable, cuz women and men are biologically different and stuff… Evolution is a bitch! And most of the rest is either shit that is sorting itself out fine, or are cultural problems that people have to sort out on their own, because white liberals can’t force ethnic groups to behave the way they think is best for them.

  16. I knew it was Dalmia.

    How do people get so lost?

    1. Always start with the byline.

      I don’t give her any of my attention.

      But the comments threads for her rhetorical BS are almost always a good time.

      1. +1
        I click on the articles just to get to the comments.

  17. In the United States of America, six percent of the population commits fifty percent of the murders.
    Guess which six percent.

    1. The Amish?

      1. How can you trust a group of people that will not get on social media to spout an opinion. Their silence is suspect.

        /sarc

    2. the Gosnells

    3. I think it’s a lot less than 6%. That would be an awful lot of murders. To put it all on black men in general is engaging in some pretty heavy identity politics.

      1. It’s still factual.

        The truth is if we want to fix MANY problems in the USA, ignoring that there are MASSIVE racial disparities is NOT the way to go about it.

        Funding anti gang shit in rural Montana is a complete and utter waste of money, because it’s rural and filled with white people who don’t commit murders… Doing it in inner city schools filled with poor minorities might actually make sense.

        Libertarians get TOO caught up in the idea of the individual sometimes when there are clearly issues that DO go along racial/ethnic/religious lines. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that murder in the USA is primarily a black and Hispanic gang problem, NOT a problem with white, Asian, Jewish, Indian, etc Americans.

        One CAN accept that high level statistics have their uses, while also conceding that it doesn’t mean shit with respect to any given individual.

      2. Yes, it is “pretty heavy identity politics”.
        Wasn’t that the whole point of the article?

  18. Is there anywhere in the world where multiculturalism works?

    1. Depends on what you mean by “multiculturalism”. There are plenty of places where different cultures manage to coexist peacefully and productively. The US, Hong Kong.
      The problems come when people insist that all cultures are equally great and no suggestion otherwise is allowed, and when people want other cultures to remain unchanged and uninfluenced by the dominant culture.

      1. …while being allowed to degrade the dominant culture.

      2. LOL

        You think the USA is an example of multiculturalism working???

        The USA was at its best, running smoothest, when we were at the lowest levels of immigration in our history, and when basically all white people had fully assimilated into the shared “white American” culture. As soon as immigration started shooting up again, we went straight back to having a shit ton of problems, as we did in the past when we had tons of immigration.

        My definition of “working” isn’t simply that people aren’t shooting each other in the streets… It’s that people ACTUALLY get along, aren’t constantly at each others throats, etc. And the USA is definitely NOT that anymore.

  19. Wrong, wrong, wrong. My (and President Trump’s) nationalism is not “white” nationalism, it is traditional patriotism. My Republican concept of inclusion is a melting pot, not Big Brother socialist indoctrination. (You note how well that worked in the old Soviet Union, BTW. Every region got its dog bone project, but they still all hated each other.

    My country is exceptional. That is a good thing. It doesn’t mean we can open our borders and absorb absolutely everyone in the world who is living in lands that are messed up and dysfunctional. It means that America should be actively exporting its successful principles, not apologizing for them. The more nations that become like the USA not only in lifestyle and wealth, but in fundamental political principles, the better the world will be.

    I have a good Punjabi friend who remains a devout socialist despite making a fortune writing code. He could buy and sell me many times over but still I have to listen to dreary lectures on my white privilege.

    My response of late, “Hey, all these white hate crime statistics in America the lefty media is touting are bunk. They are basically verbal remarks offending some snowflake. They are not even nearly as violent as anti-fa protestors get up to. If you want to see really scary fascism, look at Hindu nationalism in India right now.”

    That shuts him up. Or I remind that communism deliberately murdered for ideological reasons7X at least in the 20th century the folks that fascism did.

  20. What you seem to be missing, is that “majoritarian” identity politics are on track to become mathematically impossible in the US, projected to happen about 2045. There won’t BE a majority anymore.

    Whites will still be the plurality for some time after that, but the plurality doesn’t necessarily win depending on how coalitions line up.

    1. And it’s all about the pay back.

      1. Yup.

        Even if I didn’t know of 1,000 other problems with mass immigration, I would be weary of allowing the USA to become a white minority country JUST because of the fact that all these minority groups are basically openly calling for retribution just for the sake of revenge and sticking to white people.

        NOBODY in their right mind, no matter their ethnicity, should WANT to become a minority in their own land. It is just asking for trouble, because minorities are basically never treated well historically.

  21. The Right’s Identity Politics Is More Dangerous Than the Left’s

    Keyword search: ‘destruct’ –
    Ultimately, identity politics self-destructs by devouring its own. As Mark Lilla has noted, the left’s identity politics can’t win elections, only lose them.

    So the left’s identity-politics danger is limited because its self-destructiveness makes it weirdly self-correcting, although whether it can come to its senses before the next election is anybody’s guess.

    Keyword search: ‘violence’ –
    When a majority united by ethno-nationalistic passions does so, mass violence, often with the overt or covert complicity of the state, isn’t off-limits.

    So, in her own words, the left’s identity politic’s MO is self-destruction while the right’s white nationalism *may* bring about mass violence and the right’s ideology is more dangerous.

    A million-cannibal march would be politically self-limiting and nothing for anybody to be worried about.

    1. As with the pussy hatted Womyns March, they will eat one another.

      I guess “your” intersectionality ain’t like MY intersectionality.

      1. “they will eat one another”

        Notice I tossed in a bone for Crusty.

    2. So the left’s identity-politics danger is limited because its self-destructiveness makes it weirdly self-correcting,

      This is a bizarre assertion. The institutional result – currently playing out in academia and media – is that these conflicts empower the extremes. Was it self-correcting when the Bolsheviks shot the Mensheviks? In fact it is radicalizing.

  22. The Left’s identity politics runs the country.

    The Right’s is so fringe that virtually nobody, including the Right, takes it seriously.

    1. Many on the left actually take it very seriously, even when the biggest possible gathering of white nationalists in the country only draw about 300 participants compared to 2,000 protestors.

      There’s nobody really clamoring for a Race War except the fringe whacko elements.

      1. Moldbug on the Brown Scare

        The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

        Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters.

        In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

  23. Identity politics, aka tribalism, is definitionally left-wing. “Right-wing identity politics” is a contradiction in terms.

    1. How do you figure?

      Seems to me that tribalism is really one of the most conservative human impulses.

      1. My suspicion is that it is difficult to be tribalist when your overriding principle is “leave me alone.”

        1. I agree with you there. But “right wing” isn’t synonymous with libertarian or individualist.

          Or whatever. I’m getting tired of pointless arguments about definitions of terms.

          1. Could you point to a right wing person who uses the words “systems of oppression” or “implicit bias” un-ironically?

            1. Jeff flake. Jeb bush.. oh wait.

  24. Is the Reason staff abandoning the concept of personal responsibility?

    There’s a lot of rhetoric all over the place yet most of us have some level of self control that prevents striking out and causing people to do harm. The problem is not rhetoric of either parties identity. But it plays well when you want to move blame from personal responsibility to blaming a society, or a subsection of.

    1. prevent us from causing us to harm people, is what I meant to say.

    2. Is the Reason staff abandoning the concept of personal responsibility?

      Let’s see… Monday. So… yep.

      1. I’ve always thought personal responsibility was a cornerstone to libertarianism. When you have freedom and liberty the individual takes responsibility for their own actions. Society made me do it is not a reason or excuse that any libertarian would accept.

        Am I wrong?

        1. The left’s ethos that some people owe others because of the color of their skins could not be more demotivating or divisive. This is so obvious it’s impossible not to conclude the people wanting it desire demotivation and divisiveness.

        2. Society made me do it is not a reason or excuse that any libertarian would accept.

          Am I wrong?

          No, you aren’t wrong. Like a drunkard searching for his keys under a street lamp, Reason consistently staggers back and forth across this line barely acknowledging, maybe even only dimly aware, that it’s there.

        3. Ask Nick Gillespie about reparations

  25. Shikha’s logic here would have accused the Jews in Germany in 1938 of being dangerously anti-German.

    1. Shikha’s logic

      Your oxymoron of the day.

  26. identity politics is ultimately a quest for dignity or satisfaction of what the Greeks called thymos?that aspect of the soul that craves recognition

    Or what Maslow saw as the need for love/belonging. I think Maslow has a better approach for how to deal with it. Identity politics itself gets played as a fearmongering element – selling the notion that a need lower on the pyramid is being threatened (ie security/safety) – because it creates an artificial superficial identity that purports to satisfy the love/belonging stage. Both combined just makes it very easy to manipulate people who remain willingly stunted.

    The solution is to substitute self-chosen real/personal identity groups for the artificial/external ones. Those can’t be threatened by the purveyors of fear cuz those purveyors can only sell to the ‘identities’ THEY can define. Over time it means we also become immune to whatever other crap the identity intermediaries want to peddle – and THEY are the ones who lose their ability to achieve the higher level (esteem, etc) stuff they are achieving by being a recognized identity intermediary.

    /end psychobabble

  27. Black Lives Matter might have its excesses, but it is hardly wrong when it demands body cameras on police officers to deter rampant harassment.

    This is revealing. 5 dead police officers are “excesses” but the white nationalist murders are taken as an outgrowth of ideology. It’s amazing how often you can reach your preferred conclusion if you just don’t specify the evidence against it.

    It may be true that white nationalists are more violent although I note the construct specifically omits 9-11 and other terrorist attacks to present the conclusion as inarguable. But it is simply not true the right is the bigger danger to our society. The left control our institutions and is pushing their racism at every opportunity. The left doesn’t feel it necessary to even hide it any longer because they believe they cannot be stopped because their institutional power makes them unassailable even if people understand their racist goals.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11980

    CUNY: ‘Whiteness continues to be a crucial problem in our English department’

    1. What about the daily aggressing against whites by blacks? The assaults, the batteries, the murders, the rapes, and the robberies?

      Black men are many more times likely to commit inter-racial violent crimes than white men.

      Black men are nearly 100 times more likely to rape a white woman than a cracker is to rape a negress.

      1. rape a negress.

        What the fuck is wrong with you?

        1. negress = exiting backwards through door

        2. A little trolling is fun.

          You got a problem with that, cracker?

          1. It’s not trolling for Libertymike. It’s just how he rolls.

              1. If so it’s a remarkably long standing and consistent one. LM’s been commenting here for longer than I have, I think.

        3. “What the fuck is wrong with you?”

          It’s one of screech’s sockpuppets. That’s what is wrong with him.

        4. It’s still all true!

          Why exactly is it that massively disproportionate black on white crime is completely ignored, yet every time a white guy might actually hurt a black person it is a HUGE deal?

          Did you know that blacks are actually more likely to be charged with HATE CRIMES in the USA on a per capita basis than whites? And I bet the ACTUAL rates are higher than they show in stats. I bet 100% of whites who are accused of having a “racial motive” get charged with hate crimes, and i bet in most cases where a black is accused of saying something racist during an attack it is hand waved away. So the fact that they’re still more likely even in actual stats just shows how common it is for their assaults to be racially motivated.

          1. Man bites dog = story.

            1. Meh. SOMETIMES.

              But mostly, it is the intentional prog bias attempting to distort the facts to make white people look evil, and everybody else look like saints. Why is it that the news goes out of its way to NOT mention the race most of the time when reporting crimes generically on the news? But they’ll mention it when it’s actually a white guy. Why not just mention every bodies as a matter of course? That would make sense. Or never mentioning anybodies. But that’s not what they tend to do.

              Which is what shows the bias IMO.

    2. This is revealing. 5 dead police officers are “excesses” but the white nationalist murders are taken as an outgrowth of ideology. It’s amazing how often you can reach your preferred conclusion if you just don’t specify the evidence against it.

      I agree. It’s a fun game to categorize violence based on your own biases.

      I guess the massacre in New Zealand is the logical conclusion of environmentalism.

    3. It’s not even accurate. BLM was all about body cameras until they realized that said cameras were leading to a greater number of convictions of black people, because the accused were being caught in lies about how they were arrested, and getting their lawsuits for police brutality tossed out. They started crying that using the cameras was an invasion of privacy not long after that.

  28. Continued…

    The extreme right resort to violence because they have no legitimate path to success. The left doesn’t need violence because their commitment to controlling our institutions gives them leverage to control society. So while the right may be more dangerous when [dangerous = violence] it is manifestly false when evaluating the total impact on people’s lives. Further bringing in more people who support racism and then training them to hate everyone who doesn’t agree is not a reasonable answer.

    So the left’s basic project is understandable.

    The drive to set up standards so that you and your cronies can control your enemies and force them to fund you has always been understood. It’s more than a little odd to see so called libertarians arguing it’s acceptable.

  29. Right wing identity politics IS left wing identity politics. It’s just another identity group within the milieu fighting for its turf. If the left is allowed to run its identity politics experiment to its logical end, you end up with so-called “right wing” identity politics. But sure, keep telling yourself that your constant categorization of everyone into racial and sexual subgroups for the purposes of handing out grievance goodies is just a harmless pastime.

    1. No “like” button, so this will have to do.

    2. Frankly, in a multi racial society there is NO OTHER OPTION. People naturally align with people that are more like them, so anybody who thinks identity politics can go away better stop deluding themselves. It is here to stay. In 20 years, if not FAR sooner, people will probably be openly talking about what is good for white people, etc in the political sphere, because you can’t have EVERY other team being openly racialist in their actions and ONLY disallowing a single group from playing as a team. That kind of double standard just won’t hold up for long.

      1. “People naturally align with people that are more like them”

        So, therefore, Identity politics, which tells people that skin color defines “who is more like me”, is a horrible evil that must be destroyed.

        FIFY

        1. Never said it is RIGHT… But it is the way it is. People subconsciously trust people of their own race more in every study ever done. Even infants prefer people of their own race. That is hard wired shit right there. Also NOTE every race but whites STILL almost 100% sticks to their tribal identity in most matters. Whites are the only ones who have had it beat out of them, and even then only superficially.

          It’s one of those quirks of human nature we just need to accept as being a thing, and not try to pretend it doesn’t exist… If you accept flaws in our nature, and then plan accordingly, you get better results than ignoring reality.

  30. What an awfully biased article.

    Certain diversity is better than others.
    Case in point, metoo. When your dinners causes you to throw out hundreds if not thousands of years of legal principles because your culture is too diverse to understand the benefits, that’s bad and dangerous.
    When the majority of you culture supports chopping off hands for stealing, that’s fine. When you get split 50-50 and no one knows what the law is, that’s bad. When you throw out evidence sometimes in favor of believe her no matter what (to support diversity of culture), that’s bad. And dangerous.
    Far worse than any tribalism on the right, which trends with skin color but is not exclusive (evidenced by the random black Trump supporter I chatted with on the exercise bike last week).

  31. Trump, Muller notes, has made many Americans see themselves as part of a white identity movement. Christian whites are the in-group. And who are members of the out-group? Hispanics, Muslims, portions of the media that don’t cheerlead for him, and immigrants?not just undocumented ones but even legal ones from “shithole”
    countries

    Journalists are the vilest of the races.

    Rope, Tree, Journalist: Some Assembly Required

  32. I love when you see a headline on Reason and you know who wrote it before even opening it.

    What a load of donkey twaddle this article is.

  33. Princeton Univeristy’s Jan-Werner Mueller has brilliantly pointed out that this sort of populism isn’t so much against elites as it is against pluralism.

    No it isn’t. No where in this piece mentions the cynical deployment of “diversity” by elites in, say, the tech world in an effort to reduce employment costs. Of course, any objection to this practice results in accusations of racism. It’s the perfect, social, Kafkaesque trial. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see an attempt to resurrect slavery by the elites while coloring it in diversity.

  34. This is what reason writers think.

    It is amazing that an authoritarian ideology that spews constant hate is somehow less dangerous than “nationalists” that mostly want to be left alone.

    Ultimately progressives like Shikha and the rest of the staff are angry because conservatives are pushing back against the violations of the rights. Conservatives who fight back are dangerous not because of violence, but because they have a chance of rolling back progressive policies.

    Dont worry, though, reason will post an article on some soft libertarian issue to make all of you idiots believe they are actually libertarians.

    Funny how authoritarian trolls like buttplug are always in agreement with reason, isnt it?

    1. According to the editors, if you don’t like open borders and you don’t think radical change within the most diverse, wealthy, and successful civilization in the history of the world is necessary, you’re a right wing authoritarian

  35. I wish for it to be noted in case they are confused, Reason: I did not read the first word of Dalmia’s twattle. I see no point in running headfirst into walls, either. Both are comparable activities.

  36. SD;DR

    But let me guess, crazy lone wolf Aussie murderer is lumped in with anyone in the US who isn’t 100% open borders.
    Meanwhile, don’t you dare jump to any remotely negative conclusions about batshit leftists or illegal immigrants, you racist Muslim murderer you.

  37. The fear is strong in this commentariat

    1. We’re not your therapist.

    2. Fear? Not so much.

      Rational concern because real world objective facts for how mass immigration is working out doesn’t align with the utopian theories promoted by open borders leftists and libertarians… Yeah. I have that, because I can read statistics, and they are not looking good for those that value freedom.

      1. Don’t confuse me for an open borders anything.

        The fear is about who you think is the problem with that – the elites who manipulate immigration for cronyist ends or the brown peasants who are mostly just looking to work hard for a better life and are usually very interested in assimilating into the American dream if that is an option.

        Even if you succeed in slamming the door on the latter, the former are still gonna manipulate the system to screw everyone already here.

        1. Personally, I think it’s BOTH. Selling out the country for cheap labor is BS, as is flooding your country with illiterate peasants in and of itself.

          As a learned person on a number of arcane subjects, there are funny little things that throw a wrench in the “well meaning brown peasants” theory.

          One, is that even if there are no racial level genetic IQ differences, it is a 110% fact that people inherit their IQ from their parents to the tune of perhaps 70-80%. This is to say, import low skill, low IQ people from ANY nation, and their kids will be equally so. The same problems would happen if we sent nothing but white trailer trash to another country, which frankly is the equivalent of what we get from places like Mexico/Central America.

          So even if they WANT to become middle class Americans, they mostly won’t be capable of it, OR their kids either… Because genes. NOW, if we let in nothing but Mexican Doctors and Indian programmers, that would be entirely different.

          Hence, I am for high skill immigration only. Believing in even the mainstream and accepted science of genetics actually brings up many unpleasant facts, but they are facts. Importing sub par genes WILL lower the genetic quality of a nation, no matter what ethnicities one is talking about.

  38. Shikha Dalmia isn’t even bothering to do a modicum of research anymore. If she had bothered to read the killer’s manifesto, she’d had learned that he was an eco-fascist who hated the higher rate at which immigrants procreated which he believes hurts the environment. He also is pro-minimum wage, pro-union, pro gun control, and anti-capitalist.

    This is just lazy reporting by a Reason contributor and pathetic for Reason itself.

    1. You know who else thought high birth rates were bad for the planet?

    2. Bullshit. He is a Trump conservative and Candace Owens fan – credited them both for his ideology.

      1. Why are you still here disrespecting Reason’s property rights after they asked you to stay out because you posted kiddie porn links?

      2. He was a nutcase with political views all over the place. Some “right” and some “left”. Did you see his “manifesto”?

      3. He went out and favorably cited everybody he wanted the media to blame his rampage on, and the media bit, because they were the same people the media hated.

      4. LOLOLOL

        I actually skimmed through a good portion of his babbling. He was trolling moron!

        A WHITE NATIONALIST would not cite Candace Owens as being his biggest influence, and certainly not say that some of her views were too extreme for him… LOL

        God you people are dumb.

        But yeah, he was otherwise a combo of left/right opinions, depending on the subject. But mostly he was concerned with preserving European civilization in the face of being made minorities in our own homelands… Which IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING if current trends don’t change dramatically within the next few years.

  39. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Chelsea Clinton aided and abetted that New Zealand maniac because she attacked Saint Omar for being so blatantly anti-Semitic (and implicitly, the media for not noticing same.)

    You know, if the bat shit crazy Dems in the legacy media and the streets aren’t careful, they are going to provoke Mama Bear Hillary into running again after all. They will so regret that.

  40. The right shouldn’t treat diversity as a dirty word just because the left has sullied it.

    The ‘Left’ hasn’t just sullied the word; they’ve fucked it into a coma.

    1. It is eminently reasonable to treat “diversity” as a dirty word when a Leftist says it, knowing what he means. The same is true of the word “progress.”

    2. haha, so fucking true

  41. Jesus has this site jumped the Shark

    1. Oh A Shikha article…

      At least Titania McGrath is an admitted parody account. When is Shikha going to admit she’s nothing but parody at this point

  42. Shrike musta got out of rehab again.

  43. There are no identity politics on the right.

    Identity politics are collectivist.

    There are identity politics among the international socialists, and among the national socialists, whom they oppose.

    But both of these groups are leftists.

    1. There are identitarians on both the left and the right. The ones on the left are much more problematic because they have more influence in the schools, universities, and media. To give Dalmia the benefit of the doubt, she may be thinking of India, not the U.S.

      1. Identity politics are definitionally left-wing.

        You don’t have a working definition of left vs right if you just decide that everything you don’t like is a trait of both sides.

        1. You are a complete tool and an unemployable moron if you just decide that everything you don’t like is, definitionally, on the other side.

          1. You just hate that he’s right about you.

        2. The only part of the article I agree with is that right identity politics is a reaction to left identity politics. The right would be happy to be left alone, but the grievance driven left pushes people into boxes, and eventually people get pissed off when their boxes are “problematic”. You’ve even got profressors at universities teaching kids that being white is a bad thing.

          Shikha is correct, if the left didn’t do this, the right would not be reacting at all. The left is so miserable and aggrieved they have to do their best to drag everyone else with them

          1. To practice identity politics is to not be right-wing. The people backlashing against the Left solve this conundrum with a new name: alt-right.

            The alt-right is not the Right, else the name would make no sense. It is simply anti-left; more specifically, the fighting of left-wing fire with fire.

            1. I don’t think so personally. I don’t think 100% individualism is an inherent quality of “the right” at all. It has been a feature in modern American right wing thinking, but historically many movements/governments that had most/all the other features associated with right wing politics were totally fine with accepting the concept of a group.

              Hell, I am too. Accepting that groups DO exist that have common interests is simply accepting reality for what it is. Statistical level things are SUPER useful for dealing with real world problems. If you ONLY look at individuals, you cannot get a proper assessment of many things in the real world. One needs to understand the proper place for thinking about group issues, and individual issues, as they both have their place.

              1. “historically many movements/governments that had most/all the other features associated with right wing politics”

                What are these “features”? Outcomes of left-wing policies that left-wing people don’t like?

              2. I don’t think so personally. I don’t think 100% individualism is an inherent quality of “the right” at all

                Oh, no, it is. It is the base from which the modern, American style right proceeds.

                It has been a feature in modern American right wing thinking,

                Exactly.

                but historically many movements/governments that had most/all the other features associated with right wing politics were totally fine with accepting the concept of a group.

                Not ‘accepting the concept of a group’. Groups are real, humans group themselves all the time. That isn’t the problem at all.

                It’s accepting that there are group rights that is the problem. Because that leads to thinking that group rights are more important than individual rights(where we are now) and THAT leads to the idea that the group, whatever it be called, is the important thing and the individual only a part of it, a cog in a vast societal machine.

                So no, vek, without individualism, and a commitment to it, one slides into the cesspool of collectivism–something you recognize even as you question it–

                but historically many movements/governments that had most/all the other features associated with right wing politics were totally fine with accepting the concept of a group.

                Had. Not ‘have’.

                1. Yeah, I mean individual freedom and such is important, because ultimately it leads to group freedom.

                  But some libertarians get too autistic about ignoring the concept of grouping people when it IS practical. As I mentioned above, ignoring groups leads to spending money on anti-gun violence campaigns in white, rural Montana… Which is a total waste of time… Instead of spending all the money in inner city neighborhoods where the actual groups with a problem are.

                  So, I don’t have a problem with making policy taking group dynamics into account… Because it is THE logical way to deal with many problems. But one must ALWAYS have individual rights in mind when doing this type of thing. Basically one just has to be sane and have some fucking common sense.

  44. I think that as a society (and a comment section), we have to come to an agreement as to what constitutes “Left vs Right” and then stick to that definition going forward. Until then, we’re all just shouting past each other using our own interpretations.

    1. The seating arrangement of parliament, obviously.

      Here are your broad categories of candidate definitions for Left vs Right:

      1. The Useful Definition: Positions on a 1D graph of respect for property rights, where the Right is full NAP and the Left is no individual rights at all. In other words, collectivism vs individualism.

      2. The “Progressive” Definition: The Left is everything I like and the Right is everything I hate. Both are moving targets.

      3. The Temporal Definition: The Right is “conservative”, meaning old things, and the Left is new things, though of course, historical ignorance leads people attempting to follow this definition to mislabel like crazy.

      4. The Libertarian Definition: Two sides of the same coin, identical in every way, flattering libertarians the same way that Leftists flatter themselves with their “progressive/regressive” nomenclature.

      1. I think you need the “reactionary” corollary to #2. There seem to be a lot of people trying to define the right as everything they like and the left as everything they don’t.

        And I think that the left/right distinction more generally has more to do with traditionalism vs. progressivism. It just happens that the tradition in the US respects property rights. That’s not the case everywhere.

        But I think eric is right. We are doing a lot of talking past each other because different people are using very different definitions for left/right.

        1. “traditionalism vs. progressivism” doesn’t work unless the tradition is free market. Even then, it’s just my #3.

    2. Yeah no. It wouldn’t work because it was a broken system even when originally used.

      1. You mean that the arrangement in the French parliament 200+ years ago isn’t applicable to all politics everywhere?

        People just love their nice binary ways to divide up the world.

        1. Almost as much as they love complaining about a binary that actually works better than any other paradigm.

    3. There is little appetite for clear definitions, Eric. Muddy waters allow for all kinds of scheduled misunderstandings.

  45. === Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation.

    Then I’m glad I cancelled my subscription to Reason.

  46. White identity politics is the inevitable reaction to all the other forms of identity politics. When everyone else is allowed to play that game, not to do so seems like a sucker’s play. If white identity politics is toxic, then all identity politics is toxic. You cannot reasonably expect to maintain a double standard on this.

    1. Backlash is an inevitable symptom of identity politics.

    2. Yup. And the double standard of telling whites they’re not allowed to do it isn’t going to hold up for long either… Because it can’t. You can’t have EVERY OTHER group playing as a team, and telling whites they all have to play solo, and expect them to not eventually call bullshit on that.

  47. “BLM might have some excesses…” she says.

    BLM activists that have attacked police:
    Officer Cameron Ponder killed by BLM activist Joseph Shanks in Kentucky. BLM protested his death, killed while shooting at police.
    Good friend of Michael Brown and BLM activist Tyrone Harris shot four police on the 1 year anniversary in Ferguson.
    Another Michael Brown friend and BLM celebrity Jeffery Williams shot one officer in the face and wounded another in Ferguson in 2015.
    Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by BLM activist Ismaaiyl Brinsley.
    Five police killed, 7 wounded, in Dallas by BLM activist Micah Johnson.
    Baton Rouge had three police killed and three more wounded by BLM activist and Nation of Islam member Gavin Long.
    Three Palm Springs police killed by (Hispanic) BLM activist and anti-cop Facebook group founder in 2016.

    1. Then the non-lethals:

      Tyler Gebhard, a BLM activist, who broke into a police officer’s house, after threatening to kill the officer’s wife. When he was killed, BLM turned out in his support.
      There was Keith Scott who pulled a gun on police and was killed, causing several days of violent riots and looting. More than a dozen police were injured in those riots.
      Dontre Hamilton was shot by an officer’s partner after he attacked the officer, knocked him down with the officer’s baton, trying to take the gun. Riots, and several wounded police, resulted as BLM ‘protested’.
      Of course, you can select the original – Michael Brown, who twice attacked the police officer that shot him. First trying to take his gun and then charging back towards him.

  48. The other disappointing point in this article is the complete reversal of Reason’s longstanding position on violence. When it comes to Muslim violence they claim the deaths are statistically insignificant outliers and should not drive policy. But when there’s a chance to pin those deaths on someone they truly hate that statistical analysis crap goes right out the window.

  49. If anything, BLM has set back the reform of police procedures by making it a race issue. The problem a procedural attitude that seems to see any suspicious move on a suspect’s part as a potentially life threatening action justifying lethal force. The stories we see here demonstrate that it does not really matter what the race of the suspects are, nor the race of the police officers, overkill is the order of the day.

  50. Diversity is a bad thing. Itge s is one of those anti concepts which Ayn Rand would rightfully condemn. And…YES! America should be a melting pot. The rhoiemites claim that Islam really leads to Ted Kennedy style Liberalism would be laughable if the stakes regarding western civilization were not so high. Incidentally, this attempt to shut down truth tellers exposing Islam could have unexpected consequences. Listen to David Wood’s remarks where he predicted incidents such as New Zealand

  51. When Dalmia writes “The underlying assumption is that the world can be divided neatly into persecutors and persecuted. But … Victims on one dimension can also be victimizers on another,” she thinks she’s making a point against left identity politics, when in fact this has been a central theme of left identity politics (viz. “intersectionality”). She’s pushing against an open door.

  52. The horrors of Potatonacht. So many of us ended up as pommes frittes for Pomeranian Fritz. Ze Chermans hacked us up for being enterprising and delicious.

  53. We must have identity politics.
    That way we can recognize the socialist cheerleading turds much more easily.

  54. I hold you welcome in the US, and I’m glad you came here in 1985. That was your start, but identity politics was the core of US politics already by that point, and it’s not a “current backlash”.

    The Southern Strategy (q.v.) redrew the electoral map permanently with conscious appeals to racist whites. See the famous Lee Atwater quote about how to be “abstract” when being racist, and Nixon’s advisor’s advice about securing the support of “Negro-phobic” voters.

    That began in the 60s and was institutionalized by the 70s.

    1. The south used to vote democrat all the time, even after the party moved on from their racist dixiecrat ways.

      The electorate map ensures that politicians can’t ignore smaller, more rural communities. In the days of yore kings, churches and nobility would raid the farming peasants, take all their food, and rule their nation from a capital so far away where ordinary people felt constantly ignored and alienated. There’s a reason why European history is marked by frequent rebellion and societal strife.

      The founding fathers and their vision of a representative government was ahead of its time and perfectly suited for a nation of this size. America had one civil war that lasted maybe 5 years. No rising family consolidated power for a several decades and ruled everyone else with an iron fist and purged anything opposition with a killing wave.

      The democrats have zero sense of civics, history, or a governance beyond their fetish for identity politics utopian egalitarianism. “Dur we got the most vote, we should win all the time”

      1. “No rising family consolidated power for a several decades and ruled everyone else with an iron fist and purged anything opposition with a killing wave.”

        You really think so? Because replace “no rising family” with “the Democratic Party” and you have the 1870s-1960s South. And when the white-supremacist thugs weren’t killing defiant blacks, they were killing white integrationists as well. Intimidation by lynching combined with one-party rule sounds pretty “iron fist” to me.

  55. The Right’s identity politics are a fringe, despite the media insistence that the Department of Homeland Security is sending secret coded messages to Nazis.

    The Left’s identity politics are central to their governing philosophy.

    1. The fringe alt-right guy is more likely to act though. Lefties want someone else to do their dirty work

      1. Not at all. There is far more left-wing political violence in the world than right-wing political violence.

        Unless you decide that the Muslims are right-wing, which would be odd given the sides’ relative affinity for them.

  56. Great article, Dalmia.

    On the national level, respect for the Constitution can unite Americans. When trying to reach a specific goal, such as the Women’s March, focusing on the goal makes it possible to overcome differences within a group. This is why sports were a route towards the acceptance of minorities in the 20th Century. People started accepting Black and Jewish athletes when they excelled in their sports. Intersectionality makes it difficult to unite any group, because highlighting differences burns the good will necessary to start a project. The current rise in White identity politics is simply the addition of one more group to the list of groups vying for intersectional status.

  57. On the global level, the UN is developing rules of thumb for handling international migration. The General Assembly meets in September. This will probably be on its agenda. By this time next year, we’ll have clearer guidelines regarding the fair treatment of immigrants and host countries.

    1. Do you really need to wait? I’ll save you the time.

      The UN will say

      1. House them
      2. Feed them
      3. Provide welfare checks
      4. Ignore their third world behaviors
      5. Any limitation to open migration will be condemned

      Give me a break… did you read what you posted?

      “And when countries open their door not
      only to refugees, as they must, but to desperate people seeking
      assistance, whether temporarily or more permanently, these states
      should be assisted and celebrated, as they make the world a better
      place for all of us.”

      Cough up your hard earned money or the UN will condemn you and call you racist

      1. Don’t forget Agenda-21 which forbids lumber houses and fire that emits CO2…. Ya, the UN is a global socialistic empire that should be limited just like the Federal if not entirely abolished. Trump has done a good job at letting other countries dictate ours by exiting a lot of “treaties” that were UN-Constitutional.

        1. ^”good job at STOPPING other countries from dictating ours”

      2. God the very fact that those gloablist, socialist shit heels even have the balls to write something like that in public makes my blood boil. Who the hell do they think they are DEMANDING that I should foot the bill for random foreigners to come to my country and steal my paycheck???

  58. My neighbor’s mother makes $64 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her payment was $15080 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

    Go to this web site and read more. ?????? http://www.TheproCoin.com

  59. Despite using ominous sounding words like “ethno nationalism”, it all goes back to immigration for Shikha.

    It’s fairly standard for the nations to require outsiders to go through proper protocols to becomes citizens, receive benefits, vote, etc. People are inherently loyal to their own culture. Immigrants in the USA assimilate faster because the laws of this land makes it easier for them to live in ethnic zones close to their own people.

    What makes a culture distinct in the first place, so it may form diversity? Because millions of people banded together to create their own tradition and language and fought off foreign invaders and subjugation – for centuries. Diversity is a product of liberty, not a prerequisite. No one EVER SAID “Hey I’ll go to America because that place is too white”

    The right wing in this country does not advocate for socially engineering every aspect of an immigrant’s life so they can think and act the way they do. The Trump fans I know don’t care that Marie Kondo and boba shops are becoming popular. Whereas mainstrean college campuses will drag a student to their kangaroo courts over nothing but rumors.

    It doesn’t matter if alt right wing trolls yell at the internet because they think immigrants steal all their jobs. Unlike the left, they don’t run social media, banks, Hollywood, government, etc. The left does. Shikha admits that HOW they address injustice is a problem, but that’s exactly why their brand of identity politics is so dangerous.

  60. I fail to see how the rejection of forced diversity and the yoking of whites with oppression-guilt constitutes a plan for “engineered homogeneity”. Enigneer homogeneity is the fevered-fantasy of the tiny cult of stormers – who represent a fraction of a fraction of those reacting to the left’s well established, well-entrenched and publicly proclaimed agenda.

  61. Beautifully presented argument.

  62. Only in the eyes of the committed progressive liberal like the author of this article, fascism and socialism are leftist ideologies, between the two of them, they killed more people then Ghegis Khan. Shikhia Dalmia should join CNN, her sloppy research and preordained conclusions would fit there prefectly.
    I thought that Reason required thinking from its contributors.

  63. The Rights identity politics allow for debate and disagreement. The lefts call for censorship and suppression of “wrong-think”.

    No comparing the two. The left is going for a Totalitarian future. The title of the article is simply wrong.

  64. The headline did not seem supported in the article. Why does she state as fact that the “right” wants homogeneity and conformity. This might have been true 60 years ago, but the right is currently the bastion of individualism and where most Libertarians ally to make a difference.
    Better than her usual drivel, but still she does not know America and should show more awareness in writing of things she has no knowledge or experience with.

    1. She gets her understanding of “the Right” from the Left.

      A lot of people do that, and these people are very bad for liberty as a result.

    2. She gets her understanding of “the Right” from the Left.

      A lot of people do that, and these people are very bad for liberty as a result.

  65. Look, if conservatives, especially their Nationalist wing, are not entitled to a world that does not change, then NOBODY is entitled to a world that does not change. That includes all the ethnic and cultural whiners everywhere through time.

    The message “we showed up and things changed, so deal with it” is either enough justification or not, and for winners and losers alike.

  66. So, let me get this straight: right wingers (who she doesn’t bother to define) are a solid, cohesive group but women (who truly are in the majority) aren’t. How is that? Oh, cause she wants it to be that way. Can’t beat that logic.

  67. Accidentally clicked on a Dalmia article after vowing to never do so again. A few paragraphs in I realised my mistake. Why is this idiot still employed? Learn to bag groceries.

  68. Sounds good, Shikha.As soon as the wall is built…

  69. Of course you are for Civic Nationalism Shikha! Real blood and soil nationalism might not include you. But the numbers were the issue. The numbers weren’t as high in the 80s. So I think you are incorrect to say that it will be better to add more immigrants. Unless you could do it fast enough as to neutralize Heritage Americans. You should totally double down.

    I’m glad you recognize the Left’s overreach, but it doesn’t mean much at this point. We already knew you were of the Left, so you would never say anything positive about the Right, would you?

    1. “Of course you are for Civic Nationalism Shikha!”

      No she’s not.

      She’s a Globalist, and that means tamping down the majority, dividing and conquering the whole, and serving the interests of the Global ruling class.

      A Civic Nationalist is a nationalist based on political allegiance. The Civic part is the they stress *assimilation* to and solidarity with a political creed within a polity, as *Americans* did, making for a harmonious polity. And it’s the people of that polity that the government is supposed to serve, not the global ruling class.

  70. I. Hate. Her. So. Much.

    PLEASE leave for Buzzfeed or The Nation or HuffPo already

  71. immigrant indian woman who is on top of the lefts intersectional hierachry and who benefits from her race in america tells a bunch of white guys who are on the bottom of it and are actively discriminated by state and federal governments for the color of their skin and have been shit on in media and academia for 30 years that it’s not big deal and to go sit in the back of the bus in the society they built from nothing, let’s see how they respond.

    1. Yup. And she doesn’t even see the irony/fuck-ed up-edness of it all either.

  72. The difference is really that the right’s identity politics are cultural. If you believe in the basic tents of Western civilization, speak English, then you’re accepted.

    The left is both cultural and racial. And it’s basically fundamentally antagonistic. People are always judged on their skin color, but only in the sense that it’s bad to be white and always good to be a “person of color”, no matter how white you actually look, or even if you pretend to be non-white (Beto or Liz Warren for instance).

    Similarly, the left judges people on how much they are opposed to Western culture. Islam for instance, is the greatest thing ever, never mind its inherent message of enslaving people and oppressing women, simply because it’s opposed to Western Civilization.

    The worst consequence of the right is that society would become homogeneous. The worst consequence of the left is death camps and endless tribal wars

    1. And that doesn’t even factor in the economics. The right mostly likes the idea of capitalism, while the left is now embracing socialism and decrying “neoliberalism” as if it’s the worst thing ever

    2. If you believe in the basic tents of Western civilization, speak English, then you’re accepted.

      Oh come on. How many times have conservatives here complained about “globalist elitists”. Tribal identity on the right is defined by far more than just speaking English and reading John Locke.

      I think it’s far more accurate to say that tribal identity on the right has to be defined in terms of placing America and American ideas above all other ideas, even ones that are also consistent with “Western civilization”.

      1. ‘ placing America and American ideas above all other ideas, even ones that are also consistent with “Western civilization”. ‘

        Americans place Americans and America First. Who would have suspected?

        If only there had been some hint of such prioritizing in the last election, like a slogan, more people might have caught on.

  73. Excellent article. I especially liked the Lord Acton quote about diversity. It’s true, it’s harder for a coercive entity to shove people to all go in one direction when there are a large multiplicity of diverse people from diverse backgrounds all resisting the shove from various different points of view.

    That is one reason why the Nordic countries are somewhat successful in their quasi-socialism. They are more homogeneous. So only a few ideas hold sway. There are fewer voices to bring outside arguments and outside experiences to bear on why socialism might be a bad thing. It’s also not a coincidence, I think, that socialist ideas – New Deal, Great Society – really got a hold in this country when immigration had been trending downward.

    1. The downside is that you have perpetual infighting, everybody at each others throats, and general distrust of everybody else in your society…

      I’m pretty sure that we can maintain a hyper libertarian society without having a perfectly orchestrated set of demographics like the left wants, which would presumably be what like exactly 15-20% from each major racial group on earth, all perfectly distributed throughout the income scale???

      America actually lurched to the left when we had the highest numbers of immigrants and 1st generation born here folks. And surprise surprise it is happening again.

      To be sure, I DO think there is SOME sway in the argument that group think is harder with tons of people at each others throats… But if you have GOOD group think, as in America in the 1800s when everybody was basically a libertarian, that is a culture worth maintaining versus diluting. Sad as it is, native born Americans are the most libertarian people on planet earth today, hence we won’t be making anything better by importing people unless there is an ideological litmus test for immigration… And that ain’t happenin’.

    2. It’s also not a coincidence, I think, that socialist ideas – New Deal, Great Society – really got a hold in this country when immigration had been trending downward.

      This is so ahistorically ignorant that I can’t even laugh at it.

  74. Individual Freedom = Liberty.
    There is no room for ‘Diversity’ when it comes to supporting the Constitution and it’s individual rights.

    As a sovereign nation we reserve the right to grant naturalization as stated in the Constitution. Stop using the ‘Diversity’ card in an attempt to waive that right in order to justify the criminal acts of national extortion and invasion to violate Individual Freedom in a Power=Wealth stance.

    1. It is somewhat amazing how you can write:

      Individual Freedom = Liberty.

      and then deliberately conflate immigration with naturalization, and consider peaceful migration to be a form of extortion.

      What you really mean is, Individual Freedom for Americans

      1. And then, only in a limited sense, because all of the attempts to stop migration leads to a reduction in freedom for Americans.

      2. Yes sire Bob, “The U.S. Constitution *for Americans*”.

        1. The Constitution is not synonymous with individual freedom.

          Freedom transcends America and transcends the Constitution.

          If you truly are going to be a champion *of freedom*, you can’t limit it to just Americans.

          And you certainly can’t be going around trying to limit Americans’ freedom of association.

          1. “The Constitution is not synonymous with individual freedom” — Yes! Actually it is!

            It was instated as a Supreme (above all others) Law that limits the governing *power* the right to ‘deprive’ *citizens* of Life, Liberty and Property without ‘due process’.

            It does not state anywhere it is a ‘global/universal’ Law. Thus it does not “transcend” out of America…. I’m not a champion of globalized *freedom* because I’m not a champion of globalized law which would require toppling and governing the entire world under the same government.

        2. But nowadays saying that one favors freedom for *all people*, marks one as one of those filthy globalist elitists that the Trump-humpers now routinely rail against.

          This is part of the problem with Trumpism. They beat their chests loudly about how much they proclaim they love freedom, but at the end of the day, they only love freedom right up to the nation’s border. The rest of the world can go to hell, it seems.

          1. Why is it MY responsibility to PAY with my hard earned money to lift up foreigners???

            Why can’t they fix their own shit? I certainly don’t need them coming here to leech off our welfare system at my expense, but I ALSO don’t want to pay to build up their country with aid, or by toppling their previous shitty government to replace it with one that will likely fail anyway.

            It is not the job of the US tax payer to bring freedom to the world. We can set and example for how to do shit right, but after that it is up to foreigners to handle their own shit.

        3. This is part of the narrative myth that the right has created for themselves. They proclaim:

          America = Freedom!

          and so promoting America is seen as promoting freedom, while criticizing America is seen as criticizing freedom. That isn’t true in either case. There is substantial overlap between America and Freedom, on most days, but there’s plenty of ways that America is anti-freedom and does a crapload of things wrong. Furthermore there is no harm in looking elsewhere to investigate solutions to problems. Maybe the Europeans or the Japanese or the Norwegians or (gasp) the Chinese do have some ideas for us to consider. It’s not treason or heresy to look globally for solutions to difficult problems.

          1. ^And when all else fails — Resort to character bashing.

            YES – America use to equal Freedom ( per the U.S. Constitution ). People who believe, “Its not treason or heresy to look globally for solutions to difficult problems” when their call for a ‘solution’ entails UN-Constitutional POWER to enforce them IS Treason.

            That is WHY – America = Freedom (Or it was planned that ways anyways; before POWER whack jobs thought they had to CONTROL [i.e. Force/Slave] their will [i.e. solution] upon others and ignore the Constitution.)

          2. Who says we shouldn’t steal good ideas from foreigners? Not me. I’m ALL ABOUT adopting Japan’s immigration policies! 🙂

            That doesn’t mean we MUST subvert our will to the ideas that a bunch of foreign nations have though. If something is a bad deal for America or American citizens, we don’t OWE it to Europe to bend to their will. Or to adopt policies THEY think we should have.

      3. and consider peaceful migration to be a form of extortion

        In the US, we consider it ‘peaceful migration’ when you come to the door, knock, and accept our decision as to whether or not you can come in.

        We don’t accept it as ‘peaceful migration’ when you break the windows and climb in through them.

      4. Invasion is not peaceful.
        Voting for big government is not peaceful.

        “What you really mean is, Individual Freedom for Americans”
        You say that like it’s a bad thing. At least he wants more freedom for Americans, unlike the invaders, who want less.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to … secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

        The Constitution: by Americans, for Americans and their posterity
        America First

        1. this is a libertarian website. libertarians believe in the freedom to contract and free movement of labor. The daily stormer would be a better choice for you, son.

          1. Libertarians believe in establishing and preserving liberty in their polities.

            International trade is foreign policy.
            Your desire to profit off of slavery in other countries is not libertarianism.
            Your desire to destroy liberty in America with an invasion of big government voters is not libertarianism either.

            And your verminous race baiting is societal cancer.
            “hayek > friedman” indeed. I don’t think Hayek would be impressed with your attempt to sow the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics.

  75. Nah, I don’t believe that, the opposite is true ’cause leftists are constantly committing all sorts of acts of violence, murder, bank robberies, assaults, thefts, home invasions. Those are part intrinsic of their disrespect for the property of others. Society has become so dull and numb by their daily actions that nobody notices any more.
    BTW; Want to CONTROL CRIMINAL Murderers?
    Execute them quickly. If at all possible right then and there on the spot while they’re committing their Crimes, or on the spot where they just did. If after the Trial are found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, then put them to sleep right away on that same day, or no later than the next. Execute them Publicly, make a spectacle of them, and put them to shame. Do it very Cheaply, with a Rope it’ll be done in a few seconds.

    1. The ‘lefts’ morality, compassion, and kindness only applies to Criminal Acts like Robbery, Assault, Theft, Invasion, Private Property, Extortion, Laziness, Irresponsibility and etc.. etc…

      The ‘left’ has no compassion or kindness (literally hates) when it comes to upholding Individual Justice and well deserved Success brought on by being responsible, law abiding, hard-working and adding VALUE to society.

      Socialism = The disconnecting of individual action from its natural consequences/rewards.

  76. Bet on economic libertarians. We accept everyone equally, and work to promote each individual.

  77. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

    >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.AproCoin.CoM

  78. So much dumb… The short version is that multiculturalism is a bunch of utopian BS just as much as communism is.

    You basically just pointed out all the reasons that multiculturalism is destined to fail. All those people that agree on some stuff, but elevate various other beliefs/parts of their identity above the things they agree about… THAT IS NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. It cannot be overcome by most people.

    Your argument is essentially “Well, if we can just re-engineer the perfect Soviet man, this communism thing will work great!” Which may well be true… But humans cannot be re-engineered like that.

    The reason people weren’t as angsty about this shit in 1985 is because we still had a coherent country, with a coherent culture that hadn’t been TOO flooded with recent immigrants yet. We were still a mostly homogenous nation then, and barely are now.

    I don’t think we need to have a 100% pure ethno-state, but at the very least we need to bring in immigrants in a slow and steady manner to force 90%+ assimilation in terms of habits, beliefs, social norms, etc.

    It’s fine and well if kids of Chinese immigrants still want to eat fried rice more often than white native born people, but if you end up with minimal assimilation, where they’re still acting Chinese in almost all ways, it will turn into an endless rivalry along ethnic lines. Even with cultural assimilation it will be somewhat problematic, but without cultural assimilation it will probably end up in outright bloodshed.

    1. It is INEVITABLE as it is inherent in our biology.

      As far as railing against the idea of any nation maintaining its culture and (GASP) genetic lineage… It’s fine and well to say that shit as an Indian. There are more ethnic Indians (counting all the ethnic groups in India, even though I know they have their differences too) alone than there are Europeans in THE ENTIRE WORLD. Same for Chinese. You guys literally CANNOT be overwhelmed and outnumbered in your own lands, not that you allow willy nilly immigration any fucking way.

      Somehow, this notion that you’re a horrible human being for wanting to perpetuate a future for your genetic stock is ONLY evil if white people do it… Funny that. Why doesn’t anybody start a major campaign against Japan or Korea for being really strict about their immigration? They should be getting endlessly called RACISTS!!!!!! For not letting in their fair share of illiterate Muslims right?

      The truth is there is nothing immoral about wanting to maintain your own culture and your own homeland. THAT is the normal human behavior, the self destructive people are the ones acting abnormally. I DO NOT support aggressive, expansionist, nationalism, but there is NOTHING morally wrong with simply wanting to peacefully maintain the existence of your people and nation, so long as you’re not harming outsiders.

      1. And who gets to decide what “the nation” wants?

        Fucking collectivists.

        1. LOLz for you calling me a collectivist.

          On the most basic level, I guess… Because I do accept the concept of groups actually existing, which some autistic libertarians try to deny.

          But there are levels of this shit… To accept that German people exist is FAR different from pushing for an outright German communist state for instance.

          But anyway, I suppose it would be the majority of the people… More or less, give or take. Some things should be limited by constitutional limitations, but immigration ain’t one of them.

          1. Counterpoint: the culture of the United States, perhaps to a greater degree than any other society on earth, is defined by a melting pot of immigrant cultures. White people hardly asked the natives for permission to destroy their culture, so it’s a bit rich of us to get worked up over a taco stand opening down the street.

            If there are vital aspects of our culture worth preserving, we’ll do it all on our own without government subsidy. Though I’m not opposed to subsidies for museums and opera and such.

            1. Counter-counterpoint: Absolutely nobody gives a wet shit about a taco stand opening down the street. What they’re pissed about is millions of impoverished third-worlders refusing to so much as sign the guest book on the way in, with the tacit approval of Democratic politicians (who see them as prospective welfare state clients/voters) and Chamber of Commerce types (who see them as a source of cheap labor).

            2. First, what the guy above said.

              Second, so because we shafted the Indians, that means we should ALSO do something stupid/immoral today?

              Not so much. I’m part native, like for reals not like Liz Warren, and it was a shitty thing. I don’t feel too bad about it, because it worked out better than the alternative IMO. But it was still morally wrong. So if it is morally wrong to forcibly destroy a culture, how do we NOT have the moral right to protect ours against utter destruction?

    2. Where is the immorality? Is it in the good will people have towards each other? The fact that people actually trust each other? That they all get along better and understand where each other are coming from? The clean streets? The lack of crime? Not having to have government services in 50 languages? Japan, and until recently Europe, had all that shit going for it, when America had a shit show on our hands in MANY ways they did not.

      Where is the horrible downside??? There isn’t one.

      How do you think the international community would respond if saaaay El Salvador started being flooded with white, Anglos from America who decided to move there for the tropical climate… Then started demanding that the natives learn English to accommodate them, offering schooling in English, legalized things the natives were against and made illegal things the natives were in favor of? HOW WOULD THAT GO OVER???

      People would freak. As they should. Because every nation should have the right to determine their own future. PERIOD. Nobody has the right to demand the self destruction of a people. A single Chinese or Indian city could move to Sweden and outnumber, and effectively annihilate, Swedish culture instantly. It’s BULLSHIT to say the Swedes don’t have the right to decline that possibility. The same as it would be for Israel, or Guatemala, or anywhere else.

    3. So, as per usual, this is all just leftist clap trap anti white bullshit. I will believe the sincerity when they start DEMANDING other, non white nations also open up their borders, and start calling them evil racists when they refuse to do it. Until then I don’t believe a word of it. It’s all white guilt nonsense either from non whites, or the ever present self loathing white progressive.

      Immigration is only a positive thing if it is done right, and with a clear understanding of the pros and cons. When you put on rose colored glasses and try to pretend that an illiterate Muslim from Syria is the same as a Chinese PHD, then the whole thing breaks down and falls apart. One person is NOT the same as another. Different categories of people will have different effects that are better/worse. All anybody is really asking for is returning some sanity and rationality to the immigration process before things ACTUALLY get proper bad, as they aren’t THAT bad yet.

      So, when this multicultural experiment completely collapses on itself, as it is doing now, I hope you’re happy that your naivety destroyed the greatest nation in the history of mankind. Morons.

  79. My views on issues cut across party lines but that doesn’t mean I’m not a partisan. What I notice about people on the right is they are generally more violent and more willing to consciously lie. The reason they become such liars is because so often reality cuts against what they want. Another generalization is their indifference to their fellow man. They don’t seem to have empathy. Wanting to do good means something.

    1. It’s one thing to believe throwing the kid in the deep end without floaties is the best way to teach him to swim but it’s something else when seeing him struggle against drowning makes you laugh.

    2. LOL

      What??? The right will actually have rational conversations using statistics on subjects… The leftists are the ones who will scream at you for questioning any of their conclusions.

      The left are the ones that believe there is NO biological difference between men and women, that raising the cost of labor won’t reduce employment, etc etc etc. Their views are the ones not supported by reality.

      1. “The right will actually have rational conversations using statistics on subjects… The leftists are the ones who will scream at you for questioning any of their conclusions.”

        …Until someone kneels or otherwise stays seated when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Then it’s “SHUT UP AND STAND UP, YOU SHOULD BE FIRED, YOU’RE PISSING ON OUR SOLDIERS’ GRAVES” and so on.

        And while the left claims there’s no biological difference between men and women, most of the righties that are going “there’s TWO distinct genders” are also going “there’s only One Approved Lifestyle because MUH BIBLE”.

        1. I’m not religious. I don’t care about The Gays or many other such things… But find a mainstream Dem who isn’t on board with pissing on everything that made America great and unique. They’ve pulled a 180 on everything they used to be good on, and have got even worse on the stuff they’ve always been awful on. Many line towing GOP types have their negative points… But at least they have SOME positives in there. And many right leaners are pretty much libertarians in practice.

    3. What violence are you talking about? The riots in the streets of portland? The shootings in Chicago etc? Where is all this violence from the right playing out?

    4. You should try observing reality instead of left-wing blogs.

    5. Ordinary Person…

      Hope you didn’t sprain your brain coming up with that….”Statement”. Next time just say this….

      My side is great cause it’s my side….Your side sucks cause it’s your side….

      (feel free to copy and paste) (You’re Welcome)

  80. Just dumb.

    So it’s OK to threaten violence against one group in this case cops and then say “1A”. Debatable since its a threat.

    Lets just clear it all up , if the Profff had made threats about blacks or gays or some other designated special group he would be fired in 10 seconds.

  81. Are we really in the Identity Politics Olympics now? The Left’s brand of identity politics is extremely toxic and harmful for society and humanity. Whether the Right’s is about as bad or slightly better or worse really doesn’t matter that much, unless just a fun mental exercise to try to figure out.

  82. This article is a load of fucking shit, it doesn’t surprise me coming from this author. I wish “Reason” would quit trying to appease the fucking left, they’ll never become libertarian because their control freaks, the only “racial politics” are coming from the shitard left. Your willingly blind if you don’t see that.

  83. Why is it that certain kinds of deadly violence is so commonplace that the media barely comment on it but then a white guy commits some atrocity and we get pieces like this warning of the coming race wars?

    1. One might as well ask, “Why are backlash movements like Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Brazil, etc” happening in so many places?

  84. Nope.

    The left are far worse. Always were throughout history.

    They won’t be reclaiming ‘liberalism’ because they murdered it a long time ago. They have no interest in restoring classical liberal tenets. Theirs is progressivism and all its roads lead to the state.

    Anything that removes personal agency and submits it to the collective (not the community) is pure evil and this is what the left want. Whether it’s through ignoring election results (Brexit or states signing on to the National Popular Vote nonsense), or attacking free speech (which is squarely a left-wing phenomena), the right to bear arms, and so on. Everything seen as a cherished Western value is constantly under attack by the left (and at this point I couldn’t care less if they’re socialist or Marxist or ‘democratic’ progressive or whatever term they choose). Don’t like that statue? Tear it down. Wearing a MAGA hat? Beat them up. Disagree with me? You’re a Nazi.

    Maybe, just maybe, what’s happening on the ‘right’ maybe strictly a reaction (and I’m not saying it’s a good thing either) to the insidiousness of 100 years of progressive dominance and control in media, entertainment and politics.

    Nice try though.

    1. It’s one of Dalmia’s better articles.

    2. calm down, deep breaths. take off the tin foil hat. this political outlook you have where you assume your opponents must have malicious motives is really childish. they just disagree with you on what’s right and wrong. it doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.

      this is a libertarian site. Your kind doesn’t belong here. daily stormer sounds like more your speed.

      1. Lol.

        ‘My kind’.

        You’re an idiot.

        1. wow. devastating rejoinder, trashley.

          1. Better than yours, Toby.

  85. cue a bunch of conservative, wannabe libertarians gnashing their teeth because this article didn’t sufficiently sh *t on the left. proving once again that half the people or more around here are just knuckle dragging conservatives who may be ok with marijuana, thinking that makes them libertarian.

    1. Dalmia argued the right are worse. I assert it’s the opposite. And history supports me.

      My position is to keep the power within the individual.

      Move along.

      1. “And history supports me.” – [citations missing]

        “My position is to keep the power within the individual.” – i’m sure you think that’s what you think. my guess is that plays out as typical vulgar libertarianism, i.e. paleo conservatism, with a special, irrational (but never nuanced) hatred of anything that sounds like socialism.

        “Move along.” – no?

        1. Then you’re an illiberal illiterate if you demand a citation.

          Do you always pretend to know how to judge people on the Internet?

          1. oh christ on a cracker. you’re not even good at trolling. my mistake for engaging a cletus.

  86. the right wants to restrict reproductive rights, sexual freedom, certain kinds of speech, free movement of labor, access to health care, accountability with police and other authorities. the right is now the party of war (albeit, the dems aren’t usually that much better), and the party that has no problem humiliating people non-WASP people for being different.

    the democrats want to create a more robust social safety net. To do this, they will need to raise taxes. boo hoo.

    The people saying that right and left in america today are equivalent evils are absolutely rtrded.

    1. The above is the minimum level of self-delusion necessary to vote Democrat in this day and age.

      1. [substantive argument missing]

        What is with this site and attracting all the dailystormer, trash types. You guys are like Red Sox fans: you hate your enemy more than you love anything else.

        Keep convincing yourself that the educated elite are somehow delusional, whereas uncle cletus learned you everything anyone needs to know in homeschool and pederasty school.

        1. Keep convincing yourself that the educated elite are somehow delusional, whereas uncle cletus learned you everything anyone needs to know in homeschool and pederasty school.

          The hicklib reveals his incest fetish again.

          1. pederasty and other forms of incest have long been an integral part of Southern/rural/less educated culture in the united states, i .e. where you grew up.

            Also, you say hicklib a lot. Like every time we interact. i’m sure you think you own the libs on the regular, but it just makes you sound more rtrded, and your handle already does a good job.

            Lesson for me: don’t feed the trolls, especially the white trash trolls who say “hicklib”

            1. pederasty and other forms of incest have long been an integral part of Southern/rural/less educated culture in the united states, i .e. where you grew up.

              Stop projecting your hicklib upbringing on others. It will make you look less insecure.

              Also, you say hicklib a lot.

              You say incest, pederasty, and Cletus a lot.

              Like every time we interact. i’m sure you think you own the libs on the regular, but it just makes you sound more rtrded, and your handle already does a good job.

              You couldn’t possibly sound more retarded than you already do.

              1. “Stop projecting your hicklib upbringing on others. It will make you look less insecure.” – aww, the adult equivalent of saying “i know you are but what am i?” – cute

                “You say incest, pederasty, and Cletus a lot.” – i do here. It’s because of the audience. see above.

                “You couldn’t possibly sound more retarded than you already do.” – uh oh. some white trash nothing i use to entertain myself on slow days at works thinks little of my intelligence. What ever shall i do?

                1. aww, the adult equivalent of saying “i know you are but what am i?” – cute

                  Hicklibs do tend to provide childish retorts to mask their ill-breeding.

                  i do here. It’s because of the audience. see above.

                  Nah, it’s because of your upbringing.

                  uh oh. some white trash nothing i use to entertain myself on slow days at works thinks little of my intelligence. What ever shall i do?

                  You could always stop projecting your incest fetish.

                  1. yawn. not entertained enough for a point by point response this time, trashley.

                    1. not entertained educated enough for a point by point response this time

                      Fixed that for you, Toby.

  87. Very dangerous indeed, just look at the millions of black and Latino Americans who support Trump in numbers not seen in decades for a Republican and who want to reduce immigration and build the wall. These are black and Latino white supremacists, very dangerous.

  88. “The trouble is its methods. In its eagerness to overcome these inherently intractable problems in one fell swoop, it has convinced itself that liberal democratic principles?free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, the rejection of all notions of collective guilt?are actually white patriarchal inventions that interfere with the quest for justice rather than aiding it.”

    Shikha, you’ve got it backwards. The purpose is to get rid of free speech, due process, etc. The “problems” are just the excuses to do what the left has always wanted to do – eliminate individual choice and individual liberty.

    1. is this motiveless malice, like Iago from Othello? christ on a bike. you grand conspiracy types are worthless. people that disagree with you usually don’t have some evil plan. As such, most lefties simply disagree with you on what is right and wrong. They don’t have some hidden agenda to screw you over just for S’s and G’s.

      Also, libertarianism, classical liberalism etc, started on the LEFT!!!

      There’s a lot of people here that i think would be better off on alt-right comment boards – like the daily stormer, or richard spencer’s blog. I would categorize your believes as espoused above as irrational hatred of educated elites. You’ll fit right in with the daily stormer Volk.

      1. Also, libertarianism, classical liberalism etc, started on the LEFT!!!

        Classical liberalism and libertarianism espouse minimum government interference in social and economic life. The left hasn’t espoused this since the French Revolution.

        1. umm, which side wanted to let everyone get married to whom they want? (freedom to contract). Reproductive freedom? Yup, lefties win there too. We’re generally the side that advocates more for the rights of accused, most recently with the ACLU’s support for ending Obama era guidance in sexual assault allegations on college campuses.

          Basically, libertarians who perform mental gymnastics to support the American right are a vulgar bunch who are willing to trade fundamental freedoms like – abortion access, marriage, etc, for lower taxes.

          1. umm, which side wants to fine people for using plastic straws? which side wants to fine and jail people for not making cakes for gay weddings? (freedom to contract, freedom of religion) which side wants to tax people for drinking soda? which side wants to impose a centralized command economy to stop climate change? which side wants to take away the capability of self-defense (right to keep and bear arms)? which side wants to reduce due process rights (red-flag laws)?

            Right-wingers are authoritarians; leftists are totalitarians. It’s been that way since Marat, Saint-Just, and Robespierre.

            1. omg, no straws! let’s start a revolution.

              “which side wants to fine and jail people for not making cakes for gay weddings?” – someone made them make a cake! crime against humanity right there.

              “which side wants to tax people for drinking soda?” – umm, Michael Bloomberg?

              ” which side wants to take away the capability of self-defense” – neither. gun regulation is not confiscation. again, you people are famously bad at nuance.

              ” which side wants to reduce due process rights” – the right – asset forfeiture laws. ACLU recently supported due process for the accused with student sexual assault cases on campus.

              “Right-wingers are authoritarians; leftists are totalitarians. It’s been that way since Marat, Saint-Just, and Robespierre.” – cute. which blogger did you steal that line from?

              1. someone made them make a cake! crime against humanity right there.

                Libertarians don’t want to force them to do so. You do.

                umm, Michael Bloomberg?

                Along with hyper-liberal urban municipalities.

                neither. gun regulation is not confiscation. again, you people are famously bad at nuance.

                Increasingly restrictive gun control regulations are left-wing policies, not libertarian ones.

                the right – asset forfeiture laws

                The left- red flag and terrorist watch list laws. The Obama administration which put in the rules that were recently overturned would also be surprised to hear that they aren’t on the left.

                cute. which blogger did you steal that line from?

                Same place you steal yours.

  89. “The ethno-nationalism?of the right; the right’s program of engineered homogeneity”??.

    What is Dalmia referring to? Trying to stop illegal immigration? Attempting to ban Muslims from 6 out of 50 Muslim nations? If not these, please enlighten me about how exactly this “engineered homogeneity is manifesting itself.

    Also ? Dalmia’s paragraph about the Women’s March has a major omission: pro-life women’s groups were not allowed to participate.

    My opinion of Reason just dropped a notch.

  90. “identity politics”
    “nationalism” vs. “tribalism”
    “mono-tribalism” vs. “multi-tribalism”
    “populism” vs. “pluralism”
    ? “ethno-nationalism”?
    “liberal democratic values”???

    ? Isn’t anyone else getting entirely sick & tired hearing seemingly endless “socio-political” terms which exemplify absolutely nothing practical whatsoever?

    “America needs to refocus on social cohesion instead of diversity”

    ? Yet, no suggestions given in the entire article offering practical ways of increasing social cohesion? other than potential this:

    “Anything that strengthens the possibility of a permanent majority, therefore, is bad news from the standpoint of our constitutional and economic liberties and anything that weakens it is arguably good news.”

    ? So weakening any permanent majority, regardless of its principles, should be adopted as a matter of routine protocol? ? is this logical or Reason-able?

    One commenter (msimmons) wisely questioned: “So it’s good news to weaken a majority that supports constitutional limits on size and scope of government?”

    FANTASTIC QUESTION!!!

  91. (… continued)

    Not once is there any mention in this article about the fact that Neo-Amerika’s Civil Law (at all levels) has over time almost completely dispensed with its primary if not sole purpose: to honor Natural Law via protecting the unalienable Natural Rights of ALL individuals.

    Consider: if our Civil Law was acting in this way and was adopted as intended by a permanent majority of Americans, both naturally born as well as assimilated immigrants, weakening this would only serve to minimize peace, prosperity, and liberty.

    Weakening this is precisely what destroyed “America”!!!

    Therefore, the author’s apparent remedy for increasing social cohesion is absolutely bunk. It would have been far more accurate stated accordingly:

    “Anything that strengthens the possibility of a permanent majority [which crafts Civil Law to benefit its own special interests while usurping and/or violating the Natural Rights of the individual], anything that weakens it is arguably good news.”

  92. (… continued)

    Most all of society’s struggles stem from dispensing with the true principles of Natural Rights and the philosophy of Individualism. Thus, people embrace Collectivist ideals and strive to impose their will upon the otherwise free will of the individual through the power of the STATE.

    While the article does somewhat accurately conclude that social cohesion should be focused on rather than social diversity, it fails to mention that the only means toward this goal is to embrace the philosophy of Individualism (which inspired the Declaration of Independence), while dispensing with that of Collectivism (which has destroyed “America” through the implementation of various Collectivist ideologies such as Socialism, Communism, and Fascism).

    Immigration works well to the degree that immigrants assimilate to a nation’s culture. The problem is that the American culture rooted in the principles of Natural Rights no longer exists, and free market Capitalism has been largely dead since at least 1913. So much for “American” culture.

    The only sociological-political culture available for assimilation to immigrants is established by the false political ideologies known as “liberalism” and “conservatism”, which have both exemplified time and again throughout history to embrace Collectivist political and economical ideals.

  93. (… continued)

    Thus, “America” remains dead and with little to no hope of returning to “greatness”. Ironically, most people supporting the “MAGA” mantra do not even understand that the only reason why “America” was ever “great” was because to a large degree its Civil Law was rooted in Natural Law, whose construct was designed toward the goal of protecting the Natural Rights of ALL individuals.

    http://www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com

  94. I simply don’t see this rightist majority consensus that the author speaks of in the realm of immigration, let alone engineered homogeneity. Trump’s base is far broader than just straight white men. I know many Latinos, homosexuals, women, and black people who support the man. Not only that, many on the right don’t support Trump or his policies to any marked degree. I am as straight, as white, and as male as it comes, and I tend to dislike the guy and most of what he does. And that is not even mentioning all the straight white people who lean left. I find the authors assertions that the straight white majority in American are attempting to eschew diversity and force an engineered homogeneity lacking in credence.

    Conversely, while the social justice left is still relatively small in number, they consists of individuals who hold prestigious positions in our institutions of higher education and the media. While the author may be correct, and such an approach may well cause a populist backlash, the inundation of the academy and the mainstream media with these caustic notions of identity being the end-all and the be-all of politics, will have far-lasting impact on our social fabric on the whole.

    Outside of “far-right” racist movements (which have far more in common with leftist socialist and identity movements than they do the broader right), identity politics simply does not exist to any marked degree on the right, and so I call nonsense on this assertion.

  95. Shikha appears to have grokked Ayn Rand as well as Ahnilt Schwartzenegger. LeftAndRight rhetofic identifies its exponents as clueless and unidimensional, seeking to shoehorn readers into an interstice between Stalin and Hitler. The LP is about minimizing coercion and aggression as a general propositition in law, as in Ayn’s NAP and proposed Atlas Amendment.

  96. Reason, where “It’s worse when the Right does it!” is the new “Both sides!”

    And for all the moaning about “majoritarian identity politics”, why don’t I see any criticism of the Han? The Japanese? Or the vast majority of countries for whom Us First! really does mean ethnonationalism?

    It’s almost as if “It’s only bad when Whitey does it!”

    “So the left’s identity-politics danger is limited because its self-destructiveness makes it weirdly self-correcting”

    Reason is beyond despicable these days.

    The corpses of Communism were stacked 100 million high before Marxism “self-corrected”, although my recollection is that they were corrected not by themselves, but by being defeated in their quest for global domination by all those evil right wing white majority countries of the West.

    1. Right on all fronts. Especially the “It’s worse when the right does it!” bit. That is Reasons new mantra now that the left has thrown the few good things they used to have going for them under the bus.

    2. yet types of socialism in other forms thrives in the US and Europe. Finland is the happiest country in the world.

      The continual inability of you vulgar libertarian types to distinguish between different types of socialism makes you sound rtrded to pretty much anyone who understands that there’s a huge difference between, say, the Soviet Union and Norway today. E.g. in the soviet union, the basically abolished the price system and the state owned all factors of production. In Norway, they still have capitalism, but with more welfare than you are used to in America.

      tl;dr – no one is advocating for Soviet style communism so just stfu when you’re talking about it.

      1. yet types of socialism in other forms thrives in the US and Europe. Finland is the happiest country in the world

        Yes, Scandinavian socialism works fantastic when its run by Scandanavian socialists.

        1. oh the old, “socialism only works in homogeneous countries” argument. not that again. Canada: about 20% immigrant population. An entire province speaks Joual, bans the primary language of the rest of the country etc. They have taxes more or less equal to the rates in the US depending on the year, and they have universal medicine. works really well. Canada was the only North American country to rank in the top ten in the latest world happiness report.

          1. ::cites a country that’s 80% non-immigrant and includes a mostly white ethno-nationalist province as evidence of diversity::

            1. higher relative population of immigrants than the United States. non-homogeneous society. I mean if you only look at skin color, which i know you people are wont to do when judging, i could see how you would conclude that Canada is more homogeneous, but fortunately skin color is only one minor factor. It’s a melting pot country like the US – is less homogeneous when you consider the francophone vs anglophone thing, and social democracy is kicking butt there.

              Sorry that it’s so nice.

              1. [citations missing]

          2. And now it’s the Canadians as the ideal.
            I wonder why not the Sudanese?

            The largest non-white ethnicity in Canada is the Chinese, at 5%. Total “visible minority” population is now at 22%, and was half that 2 decades ago.

            You really seem to love countries that are overwhelmingly White.

      2. “Finland is the happiest country in the world.”

        It’s amusing how nitwits who call others nazis for wanting a border invariably point to the whitest of white ethnostates are their ideal societies.

        The Projection is Strong with this one.

  97. I am making 80$ an hour? After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn’t be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month? Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else?

    Check it out for yourself ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  98. Why is this person writing for a libertarian magazine when he/she is clearly a left wing Marxist?

    1. stop talking.

    2. She calls herself a “progressive libertarian”
      Seriously

  99. Generally, the issue of immigration among conservatives is not about legal immigration but illegal immigration. Those who legally immigrate to this country come here with the intent of improving their lives and becoming US citizens. The majority who come here illegally do so for one reason, money. They do not wish to be US citizens and only come because this is were they can work and make money to send back to their native country. Many who come here illegally do tax social welfare systems because they come here with little or nothing. There were over six hundred people attempting to illegally enter the in country in El Paso last night within 10 minutes. I can understand how the author reached these conclusions but would argue many are short sighted and way off base. Identity politics is bad on both sides, and it is the left who continues to push this agenda with zeal.

    1. [multiple citations missing], would advise looking up empirical data on the issue before letting more inanities fall out of your face.

    2. Well, the conservatives haven’t been doing a good job of finding more Latino folks to speak out against the illegal immigration. You may not want to play the identity-politics card, but when you’re only seeing whites protesting against illegal immigration, and then you see the white supremacist types protesting ANY kind of immigration (or “the wrong people” immigrating), and you see videos and news stories of whitey grouches yelling “GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!” at POC’s who were born in the US (and whose parents were born in the US), somebody needs to tell Trump and the GOP brass that they have a serious image problem, and that playing up the minorities that are working to change the Republican Party for the better would be a good idea.

  100. Its amazing how many people are willfully blind to the dangers of white nationalist philosophy.

    1. idk what the comment boards around here were like pre-trump, but the majority of people here don’t seem to be very libertarian. Many of them seem to have this conspiratorial view of the world such that they assume their political opponents have malicious intent. They make stupid comparisons between communism and social democracy. Most of them seem to be suspicious of free movement of labor, which strikes me as pretty Statist.

      The writers at Reason seem to be pretty OK, but the folks commenting here are conservative, not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

      1. The writers at Reason are for Transnational Corporate Profits for the Globalist ruling class.

    2. It’s amazing how many people, like you, are such out and proud racists.

      “White” == “bad”. “Black” or “Hispanic” == “Good”

      You == racist

      Stop judging people by the color of their skin

      1. @greg – pipe down, cletus.

        1. “cletus”

          Sounds like more racism from the racebaiter.

  101. Thank you for creating this great forum I have learned a lot from this page of you
    candy crush soda

  102. Shikha Dalmia does not sound like an authentic American name when you say it. She is living proof that unfettered immigration has consequences.

    The female is so stupid that she knows nothing about the USA even though she lives in the Age of the Internet. Stupidly, she writes: “But even if that’s true, the minority identity politics of the left is not ultimately as dangerous as the majority identity politics?the ethno-nationalism?of the right.”

    The Americans (Englishmen born in the colonies) founded the USA for their posterity. They did not found the USA for millions of immigrants from the colored races.

    BEHOLD:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Who are the Posterity? Their sons are, not colored race immigrants, but their sons.

    And what did their laws say straight away? “that any alien being a free white person may be admitted to become a citizen” (March 20 1790 1 Stat 103 Section one).

    Notice, that law did not say anything about naturalizing people who worship a nine-arm elephant.

    Shikha Dalmia needs to return to her inferior race street-shitting people and make India great for the first time.

  103. It’s impossible to take the drivel Shikha Dalmia writes seriously. It’s also hard to understand why Reason continues to publish her shallow tripe.

  104. When the hell is white man’s history month? Screw identity politics, PC, social justice, wealth equalization, the Dems, the Repubs, the entire DC Swamp and while we’re at it Big Pharma and social anything.

  105. Another progressive apologist piece written by Reasons own Trojan horse. while she starts off throwing out names of Libertarian icons in order to persuade the reader she is the real deal in the end she winds up making the case in supporting BLM and the Metoo movement. Can’t Reason find someone else to write for them other than this progressive nitwit?

  106. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.