Identity politics

White Identity Politics, Not Trump's Racist Tweets, Is National Conservatism's Real Problem

The debate over Donald Trump's "go back" tweets regarding four minority Democratic members of Congress has centered on the unmistakably bigoted words that he wrote, but has missed the deeper point.


The debate over Donald Trump's "go back" tweets regarding four minority Democratic members of Congress has centered on the unmistakably bigoted words that he wrote, but has missed the deeper point. The fundamental nature of the Middle American Revolution the president is leading is mired in white-identity politics and closely tracks the blueprint of a little-known writer, Sam Francis, who espoused disturbing racially tinged views.

As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about the late Washington Times columnist, "There's very little Donald Trump has done or said that Francis didn't champion a quarter century ago." Many other writers of various political stripes have noted the connection, although not in the context of the latest tweet storm.

Francis despised the Republican leadership, which isn't unusual or necessarily unwarranted. But his main argument was that GOP elites were selling out the white working class, refusing to fight back against multiculturalism and putting globalism above the needs of Americans. He not only loathed big business, which he accused of putting profits above national identity, but capitalism itself, which he described as the "enemy."

His main bugaboo was mass immigration—legal and illegal. Does that sound familiar? Francis' thought "was infected by the same cancer that may destroy Trumpism," Brooks presciently noted in that 2017 column. Francis kept heading into the racial fever swamp because "people like that always go there, sooner or later." That's exactly what we're seeing now, as the national political conversation has taken a decidedly race-tainted tone.

Despite efforts by some of the new nationalists to banish the alt-righters and avowed white nationalists, this movement always ends up fixated on birthrights and genetics. Many of these folks can't help from going there. There's a likely reason that former KKK leader David Duke touts the president's agenda or why the far right is attracted to this movement like white on rice.

The GOP establishment has long embraced the idea of America as universal magnet, based on lofty ideas that resonate with people from all races and backgrounds. Nationalists mostly reject that concept. To them, America is the product of a time, place and people. They can't talk about their views for long before fretting about third-world immigrant rapists and yammering about cosmopolitans. Nationality—not liberty—is at the core of their philosophy.

"A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European and North American man has been launched," Francis said at a 1994 conference sponsored by a group that's focused on racial issues. "The war against white civilization…invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples."

The president doesn't describe his views with precision, but his tweets tap into low-road sentiment. It doesn't take many discussions with hard-core MAGA folks to end up hearing about "Mexican invaders" or "black crime." That appears to be by design. "Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites," he suggested. Isn't that what Trumpism is at least partially about?

Francis sometimes focused on popular culture. He described the 1988 movie, "Mississippi Burning," about the murders of three civil-rights workers in 1964, as an "anti-white film" that "manages to smear every white man and woman in the state." Apparently, those of us who found it to be a noteworthy movie about a terrible injustice are not racially conscious enough to feel slighted.

Francis was likewise incensed at an advertisement on "Monday Night Football" showing a white woman "smooching up" to a black football star. "Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family," he complained. Ronald Reagan espoused a "city on the hill" where people from any country could become American. The far right worries about proper breeding.

Today's Trump movement is about many other issues, of course, but it's easy to hear Francis' echoes in its fixation on culture-war folderol, such as African-American flag kneelers, culturally subversive tech companies and drag-queen reading hours.

The president and his supporters can't be held accountable for the words of a deceased columnist, even though it's worth examining the worldview of one of this movement's visionaries. But the "cancer is spreading," as Jonathan V. Last argued recently in The Bulwark. That's not only because an impulsive president pops off racially charged comments, but because his whole nationalist enterprise desperately needs chemotherapy.

Author's note: I linked to some offensive web sites that publish Francis' columns. It's not my intent to give them page views, but believe it's important to read these pieces in context. They are the only sites I can find that post them.

NEXT: Review: Once Upon a Hollywood

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Send white nationalists back to where they came from!

    1. Whites are only 10% of the world's population and the only race in population decline (creating only 7% of the world's babies), yet are the most industrious and innovative race the world has known. Whites unlocked the secrets of DNA and relativity, launched satellites, created automation, discovered electricity and nuclear energy, invented automobiles, aircraft, submarines, radio, television, computers, medicine, telephones, light bulbs, photography, and countless other technological miracles. Whites were the first to circumnavigate the planet by ship, orbit it by spacecraft, walk on the moon, probe beyond the solar system, climb the highest peaks, reach both poles, exceed the sound barrier, descend to the oceans depths... Blacks cannot even feed themselves.

      Whites created nations for Blacks, but now have to provide food, medical, financial, and engineering aid to every Black nation. Blacks cannot survive without White charity.

      No pre-contact Black society ever created a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or drilled a well, or irrigated, or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device.

      Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago.

      Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced — but they never advanced at all. Sub-Saharan Africans never made any contribution to the world. Everything they have was given to them by Whites. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years so they cannot blame slavery, racism, colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures.

      Simply, life is an IQ test.

      1. Well sure there is all that but....ummm...but .... well ....yeah I think I see your point.
        Also of interest. Sub Saharan Africans have zero Neanderthal DNA. Europeans have roughly 2% and Asian twice that. More evidence that all Humans are the same species but not the same breed just as all dogs are the same species but not the same breed.

      2. good job appropriating all the things that have nothing to do with you. no points for reading social studies bullshit

      3. wrong about domesticating animals, forging metals, agriculture, digging wells and everything else you still can't do.

    2. Watch the videos of Tyler Wingate getting beaten to death in Detroit or the guy getting beaten by a dozen "youths" outside the Connecticut Ave Hilton in DC. Both occurred in the past week. Imagine the media firestorm blaming racism if the races had been reversed in either of those cases.

      The concept of White Privilege is taught in schools and reinforced by the news and entertainment media. This concept demonizes white people. What is the purpose of that? Is it not foreseeable that sucn demonization would foment impromptu beatings like those that we saw this week in Detroit and DC.

      It is absurd to blame identity politics on the right while ignoring concepts like White Privilege being mainstreamed from the left.

  2. MAGA
    Republican = Make America Great Again
    Democrat = Make America Go Away

    1. So return it to the days of FDR, Eisenhower, Roosevelt? What point in the past are you referring to?

      1. This is among the dumber progressive talking points

        1. It's not a talking point. It's just a question.

          1. A dumb question. Still makes you dumb.

            1. So what does Make America Great Again mean to you?

              1. Don't expect a serious answer from Censor Jesse. He is too busy licking Hawley's boots and sniffing Trump's ass.

                1. God you're a fucking child Jeff.

                  1. Are you implying that Jeff wants to molest himself?

                2. It doesnt shock me that you're too fucking stupid too actually read Hawleys bill. I know it's long at just a couple of pages so youd rather read a Vox headline to analyze it...

                  1. No, please Censor Jesse, don't let me stop you trying to shill for state censorship on a libertarian forum. Please, continue.

                    1. Hey baby jeffrey. The Hawley bill doesnt censor anyone fucktard. Companies are free to censor away. Try reading it. I know you struggle with anything above Harry Potter, but the bill is pretty timid. The only risk to a company is losing extra benefits dumbass. There is no censorship. Companies are free to be the assholes they already are.

                      It is amazing watching you defend your own stupidity.

                    2. "losing extra benefits" lol. That is part of your side's dishonest framing of the issue. Section 230 represents "crony capitalist protections", "special privileges", etc. In reality, Section 230 codifies into law an immunity from prosecution that they ought to have anyway: that they are not liable for content on their forums that they had no role in creating. It is not a "special privilege" for a person to be held harmless for a crime that the person did not commit. But the censorship wing of Team Red has realized that "censor the Internet" isn't exactly a winning campaign message, so they try to dishonestly frame the issue in terms of "revoking special privileges". It is just narrative pushing and propaganda, nothing more. Go lick Hawley's boots some more, you deserve it.

                    3. Chemjeff's talking about dishonesty? Well he's certainly and avid practitioner.

                3. Go die in a fire, fucking idiot.

              2. It means tear down regulations, allow free competition, personal work ethic, and allow people to fail again. Government needs to be reduced immensely.

                Not everybody thinks through racial lenses dumbass.

              3. So what does Make America Great Again mean to you?

                Personally, I'd remove the "again". We can work on making America great, and by great, I mean more free.

                1. Freedom can only be had if you are free to fail. As long as Daddy Government is standing by with his checkbook to bail you out of every whole you don't have freedom.

      2. ""So return it to the days of FDR""

        Back when a race was imprisoned without trial because of their race?

        1. Yes, back to the fascistic era of FDR. Anyone remember the NRA? It doesn’t get more fascistic than that.

  3. "White nationalism is on the rise!! Orange man bad!!" - Uses a picture of like 20 guys with tiki torches and some articles from a decade ago.

    Well, you tried. At least you can back up your words with some experience living in a third-world country, being from California and all.

    1. Reason is almost done with their rebranding to become Woke.

      1. I'd wager they're about to rocket past "woke" and go straight to "broke."

      2. Perusing the headlines here the past few days it looks as if from now until the 2020 elections Reason will feature nothing but "Orange Man Bad", "White People Are Racist", "Illegal Immigration Is Wonderful", and "Isn't Justin Amash Dreamy?" screeds, interspersed with a few "To Be Sure" articles about campus PC follies from Robby.

        They're trying to pass off Leftist conventional wisdom as a limited government ideology. This place is a joke.

        1. Agreed. Must have new management or something

    2. Note how they're openly alluding that conservatism is fascist now in all these "National Conservative" articles their new Buzzfeed-reject hires are spamming.
      Reason has finally fully signed up with the establishment smear machine.

      1. Yeah, I kinda stopped caring at the subhead - "unmistakably bigoted words ".

        Those words don't mean what you think they mean, o headline writer.

        (Disclosure: I didn't vote for the President, ain't gonna in 2020 [I live in a Blue state, so it ain't gonna matter WHO I vote for], and think he's basically a godawful crapsack.

        But I prefer my criticisms of him to be intellectually honest and defensible, and "but that's indisputably bigoted" is not that.

        The alleged bigotry is very much disputable, and FFS I'm tempted to dispute it right now.

        Because, hint, Reason authors - the target ain't "race", it's "self-declared other-than-American-ness and also socialist incompetence".

        Especially since the always-elided end of his blather about this was, after "go back where you came from", to "fix that place and then come back here and show us how it's done".

        I guess "fix your home and then come show us you're competent" is pretty goddamn obviously "bigoted", though.

        At this point, Reason ain't the magazine I actually paid for most of two decades ago; it's far inferior.

        Reason delenda essam.)

  4. “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.”
    "He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.”
    -Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Hero-

    1. Hilarious, I guess you didn't realize Trump put a bust of Roosevelt in his oval office?

      1. He also has a bust of Lincoln and a portrait of Thomas Jefferson. He's just all over the place with his decor.

        1. Do you think Trump really knows who those people are?

          1. Don't get the point of constantly referring to somebody handing his foes' their ass as being "dumb"

        2. And MLK and Churchill.

          1. So you're saying Trump is an alcoholic womanizer?

            1. Well, a womanizer.

              Isn't he a teetotaler, I seem to recall hearing?

    2. Are societies more safe and prosperous if they are more White or more Black?

  5. Nice to see Reason addressing Thoughtcrime.

    Now do La Raza.

    1. Or, was this all just "stripped of context?"

    2. Libertarianism is the tranny of politics. It started out as a right wing ideology, and over the years it's been getting a series of gender reassignment surgeries to become left wing ideology.

      Unfortunately, it's ended up looking a lot like those transformations usually do.

      1. I think your comment went through a few too many transformations in your head before it ever got typed in.

      2. Libertarianism has always been Centrist.

        reason just does not have Libertarians on staff and speak from a Lefty and Anarchist point of view.

      3. Libertarianism started as an ideology that was explicitly of neither the right nor the left, and that is what it should remain.

        1. A club for people who hate clubs?

          1. A club for people who won't join any club that would have them as a member?

            1. i'm out.

          2. Not exactly. Gary Johnson was basically right when he said libertarians were "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". But it's not that we set out to divide our views that way. Rather, it's conservatives who are "socially authoritarian and fiscally libertarian", while liberals are (or until recently were) "socially libertarian and fiscally authoritarian". Why the larger social groupings aligned as they did, I don't really understand. (Plus, some of the more recent "liberal" or progressive positions seem to be authoritarian all around, and not at all deserving of the name "liberal".)

        2. Libertarians are usually identifiable as left or right which seems largely dependent on whether they focus on social (left) or economic/structural (right) issues.

          1. The problem is that the idea of the left supporting freedom on social issues is largely out of date.

            There's this vision out there of leftist freedom-lovers confronting Anthony Comstock, defending the rights of communists, rallying against the Meese Commission, etc. Whatever you think of that historical vision, if it ever described reality it does so no longer. All they got left of the social liberties is marijuana, and in California they're messing even that up. The "leftist" causes of freedom to dissent, artistic expression...all gone.

            1. So, basically, progs liked to defend free speech....for fellow progs. Not so big on ever doing so for people they disliked.

              Progressivism tends to do that. A lot of "we need these freedoms" until they get control. Then those freedoms become far less needed.

              Who is more anti-free speech --- SJW or the most extreme Christian religious sect in the country? Let's be real.

              1. ”A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.”
                —Adlai Stevenson

        3. Being a duplicitous prick doesn't necessarily mean you're unique.

      4. What does "libertarianism" have to do with Reason?

        Y'all do know that Reason doesn't own or control the very broad group of political/economic philosophies around that name, right?

        (Hayek's still a libertarian. So is Rothbard, and lots of people in between.

        What does "right wing" even mean in a usage that can apply to Hayek, anyway?

        I mean, is it literally the Soviet usage of "anything opposed to Socialism"?)

  6. The sheer ignorance on display in this piece is absolutely stunning.

    Greenhut has no idea what ANY part of the right thinks and merely parrots leftist tropes as if they bear some relation to reality.

    The repeated examples of lack of attendance when they try to hold rallies should be a clue. 9 in Dayton, 15 in in one of the Carolinas. They only managed 200 at their post inauguration 'gala'. And Charlotesville--the one that started as something else, that got taken over, only managed to get 600.

    Against thousands.

    The reason the racial collectivists are a 'problem' for any part of the right is that asshats like Greenhut keep attaching them to the right as loudly and as often as they can--because they know that the barest look at these people will reveal that their actual beliefs--of state control and collective justice, economics, and guilt are firm left-wing tenets.

    1. You cant hand waive the insanity of the left without magnifying the small issues on the right.

    2. By the way...

      I wonder of Greenhut realizes that the left is the one saturated in identity politics including the measure of segregation amongst races. The KKK actually finally got its wish in the Democratic party. They just used politics instead of violence. The long game of the left is complete.

      1. Yeah, now blacks want black-only spaces to protect them from evil whitey. Their grandparents fought to end that segregation, and now they want them back.

        1. How many blacks said they want black-only spaces? Only a small number which you are blowing out of proportion.

          1. How many blacks said they want black-only spaces?

            Seen any of the whining about "gentrification"? It's not just black neighborhoods, there's plenty of Hispanics crying the blues about whitey moving in and breaking up the glorious cultural homogeneity of their barrios, which are supposed to be forever preserved in amber (but the reverse not being accepted is racist, of course).

            1. Seen any of the whining about “gentrification”? It’s not just black neighborhoods, there’s plenty of Hispanics crying the blues about whitey moving in and breaking up the glorious cultural homogeneity of their barrios, which are supposed to be forever preserved in amber (but the reverse not being accepted is racist, of course).

              This has been genius on the part of the Party of Slavery--not only are the more idiotic minorities screeching to be segregated, they're demanding that the segregated areas be left shitty and slumlike. I wonder how long it will be before the left has them demanding to be allowed to pick cotton?

              1. Everybody who does the labor the state assigns them will be entitled to their Universal Basic Income - not enough to live well or make your own decisions, just enough to survive while living in government housing...

          2. the irony of one is enough.

          3. How many blacks said they want black-only spaces? Only a small number which you are blowing out of proportion.

            Only a small number of radicals wanted Title IX Inquisitions but now we all have to live with them. Institutional control matters, the number of believers isn't relevant.

            1. Spot on.

          4. "How many blacks said they want black-only spaces? Only a small number which you are blowing out of proportion."

            Compared to white supremacists? A lot.

        2. Blacks cannot survive without Whites.

          Blacks are the only race never to have civilized. They were removed from the jungle just 250 years ago.

          Name a civilization (or even a written language) ever created by Blacks.

          Name a single contribution from sub-Saharan Africans to the world. The simple fact is, everything Blacks have was given to them by Whites.

          Where have Blacks ever been successful?

          The fact is, Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.

    3. wait... Greenhut was trying to hold rallies? Because that's what you're saying.

    4. Remember, the Left called McCain voters Nazis as well.

      1. And they tried to make one of the most decent men in politics, Mitt Romney, into a monster. (I disagree with Romney on many things but I wouldn't question his character.) So they slimed a decent billionaire and got Trump instead. Serves the bastards right.

    5. "Greenhut has no idea what ANY part of the right thinks and merely parrots leftist tropes as if they bear some relation to reality."

      He takes such tiny gatherings as proof of a growing movement on the Right...but if you mention the significantly larger Antifa or BLM "protests" and he'd say you're making an invalid critique.

  7. Hitler was himself, at least nominally, a Roman Catholic. Did this make all Catholics Nazis?
    There will always be someone supporting your group that you wish would go away. What do the main Democrat candidates say about Antifa?

    1. You beat me to it by a few seconds!

    2. Guilt by association is all the rage by people who don't think it applies to them.

      Are you a Michael Jackson fan? Then you are a pedophile.

    3. Hitler liked dogs too. Just sayin'

      1. And water color painting.

        Note to self: next time I encounter some mild-looking plein air painter, accost them with shouts about Hitler.

  8. This is just another version of "Hitler loved dogs. Therefore, any dog lover is a Nazi."

    1. Damn. Beat me to it.

    2. Hitler loved dogs. All dogs are Nazis.

      1. Dogs loved Hitler. Hitler was a Nazi.

        You can't dispute my conclusion!

  9. Interesting that everyone quotes the "go back" part, but no one quotes the bit about improving government were you go back to, and coming back here to share your process.

    1. They were born in America. The racism is seeing dark skin and assuming they come from some other place as you just did.

      1. Ummmm, Ilhan Omar wasn't born here. She was a refugee.

        1. Hmm, the other three freshmen congresswomen orange-peel man alluded two were born here. So, again, what country should they go back to, you racist asshole Trumpista?

          1. They were born in Mexico?

          2. who suggested they go back to countries?

          3. He didn't single them out, he named no one. The "allusion" to the squad is a strawman.

            1. He didn't mention names. For any Democrat, it'd be proof that they weren't referring to a conservative.

      2. Hey fucktard.... trump has used the same language towards various liberal mayors such as deblasio. Since you're too dense to understand what trump is saying...

        Go back and prove your failed policies work there before trying them on the federal level of america.

        1. I don't think that's what he meant, but their home districts aren't exactly shining examples of what the rest of the country should be doing.

  10. "Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites," he suggested. Isn't that what Trumpism is at least partially about?

    Meh. Seems more like backlash against what every other race is doing these days. This script is used by every color/nationality of people now.

  11. Stop trying to make "white supremacy" a thing.

    Only one side of the political spectrum is obsessed with race.

    1. We had white supremacy ignored to the point of irrelevancy. But then the media thought it would be a good idea to give them a lot of air time.

      1. Racism - the demand far exceeds the supply, so those who rely on it for their self-worth have to manufacture some or magnify what little there is.

        1. "There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

          -- Booker T. Washington, 1912

      2. It's bad business for monster hunters to successfully slay all the monsters. They have to keep a few around and make sure people know about them so they'll keep paying the monster hunter.

  12. ---"Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites," [Francis] suggested.---

    And, of course, do so while eschewing capital accumulation, self interest and free markets.

    Nationalist. And, clearly, Socialist. Hmm. National-Socialist. Yes, that describes this Trumpian right to a T.

    1. Seems you finally achieved full retard.

    2. When has Trump ever supported socialism? If it fits Trumpians to a T you should be able to find copious amounts. We'll wait.

  13. Cherry picking one example of an asshole and then quoting David brooks invalidates this thesis.

    1. Well, unfortunately for *your* thesis, that asshole sounds too much like the other millions of assholes who voted for orange-peel man because he promised them a wall to keep off those 'odious and scary brown people' who pick up their tomatoes.

      1. They're not racist. They just don't want to think about the existence of brown people and want the law to make that happen for them. See?

        1. Socks validating each others bigotry. How precious.

          1. How quaint! A Tu Quoque coming from a bigot!

            1. Self awareness lacking, it is.

        2. You're more than welcome to live in a typhus-ridden favela, shitlib.

      2. When has anyone states they want the wall to keep brown people out?
        Straw man much?

      3. If you're the only one hearing the "racist dogwhistle", that just means that YOU are the racist, fucko.

    2. this. reference fail.

  14. I don't think it's about white identity politics per se. I think it is more about "Real Murican" Identity Politics. It's about dividing up the country into two tribes:

    The "Real Murican" Tribe, those who hold right-wing views, broadly, and are therefore considered patriotic.

    The Anti-American Tribe, anyone who doesn't hold right-wing views, and are therefore considered traitors.

    Now it just so happens that the "Real Murican Tribe" is overwhelmingly white, and the "Anti-American Tribe" has a lot of non-white people who are very strident and vocal in their views. I don't think it is a mere coincidence per se, but I also think it misses the larger point: the right wing's weaponization of patriotism, to conflate "love of country" with "holding specific ideological views". IMO that is worse than focusing strictly on the racial aspect of the whole thing.

    1. Eh, it's been going on since at least the 50's. "America-Love it or leave it," isn't anything new. Hard-hats and Hells Angels were beating up hippies back in the 1960's for being un-American.

      1. Look at what happened to Tory families after the Revolution.

    2. You love both sideism, so let's play progressives. How many have accused Trump supporters of being treasonous? Some ideas truly are non-American, at least those that destroy liberty, take away personal choice and free markets. Yes, we can disagree to what extent these apply to non-Americans entering the country. And we can disagree as to what destroys liberty. But some ideas are undoubtedly opposed to the principles of this country.

  15. Was out on a date with my very prog woke, Trump-hating, wife the other night when we had to stop at the store, there was a group of young black people behind us in line and as I was reaching into my wallet to pay cash, she whispered to me to hide it so we don’t get mugged. I was going to call her out on racial profiling but didn’t...

    1. I wonder if she saw that exact scenario on TV is she would call the woman racist for whispering that.

    2. Ha, my Democrat-voting wife always made comments about keeping the windows rolled up so we wouldn't get robbed or shot every time we drove down Federal Boulevard in Denver, which is a Hispanic-dominated drag.

      Even white liberals know that "diverse" neighborhoods tend to be shitty neighborhoods.

      1. “When I’m pullin my money out da ATM, it ain’t the white guy behind me I’m worried about. It’s the....... “ Chris Rock.

        Haha. You know the rest.

  16. And I also think it is giving Trump too much credit to claim that he is following any individual's particular ideology, let alone this Sam Francis person.

  17. ---"[Sam] Francis wrote a wickedly brilliant 1996 essay on Buchanan, 'From Household to Nation': “The ‘culture war’ for Buchanan is not Republican swaggering about family values and dirty movies but a battle over whether the nation itself can continue to exist under the onslaught of the militant secularism, acquisitive egoism, economic and political globalism, demographic inundation, and unchecked state centralism supported by the ruling class.'"---

    While orange-peel man could be considered a quintessential egotist, what Francis railed against goes deeper: he is clearly an ardent anti-individualist. The white nationalist right that Trump's election is priming up is virulently anti-individualist, anti-markets. No libertarian should look at this with no worry, but then again, these comment pages have been infected by anti-libertarian Fascists who miss no opportunity to showcase their racism and economic incompetence with glee, so I don't know how many fellow libertarians are still left.

    1. Railing against anti-individualism and identity politics then going on to label people who you disagree with fascist. Do you see the hypocrisy?

      1. Self awareness is not OldMex’s strong suit.

    2. Rolling over and showing your belly to progressives is hardly libertarian.

  18. The thing is, Mr. Greenhut (and I haven't waited to see if this point has been made already), people who espouse "universalist principles of democracy, freedom, and government-by-law-not-men" have been accused of racism for YEARS before it was even remotely an element of such views. At this point, it's a given that pointing out the pathologies of black urban culture or questioning the importation of millions of uneducated, low-skilled people from south of the US will be called racist.

    So when we can see what are clearly race-based attacks on white males, and are prevented from even mentioning them, it should not be surprising that a lot of people are pushed into considering racial animus in the nation, who otherwise would not.

    Maybe if we could reduce the amount of race-based rent-seeking, open expressions of hatred for white people, and the incessant promotion of race as the sole characteristic of people we see in our media, the resentment you decry could be rolled back to where it was years ago. Be honest: the promotion of racial identity benefits a lot more people than just the white race identitarians you point out.

    It's not realistic to think you can have half the country glorying in their racial identity and the other half barred entirely from so much as mentioning theirs. Me, I'd rather not give a shit about such things, as I was raised. But that's not 2019.

    1. Amen.

      The GOP establishment has long embraced the idea of America as universal magnet, based on lofty ideas that resonate with people from all races and backgrounds. Nationalists mostly reject that concept.

      Guess which nationalist said the following: " If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice."

      See, when you start judging people by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character, don't be surprised when nobody gives a fuck about character any more.

    2. "you made me go full Nazi"

      1. You are a full Nazi, shithead.

  19. Since he didn't mention any names assuming he was talking about the Squad is racist. Also AOC and Tlaib are white .

    1. White-ish.... slightly brown. And with very large teeth.

  20. White supremacy is a cancer, but it is not at the heart of Trumps conservative revival. People who called himself Trumper‘s are vastly in the majority and we would just love to get results of white racists.

    1. I used to think that the leftist hysterics about Trump’s association with white nationalists was overblown, but I am not so sure anymore. I think he is happy to have their support, since many of them probably never voted before and helped him carry certain key states in 2016.

      1. How many white nationalists could their even be in this entire country? 100,000? 200,000? Of those how many even pay attention to politics or are politically aware of the day today? 50%/60%? Of those how many vote? Of those how many agree on anything politicalwise beyond a white ethnostate? Of those how many are single issue voters? It's totally irrelevant to even court.

      2. Sure, the support of both white supremacists was what pushed Trump over the top.

        What dumbass excuse are you going to come up with when Trump wins more states in 2020 than he won in 2016?

        1. Would it be wrong to note that Obama was FAR more supportive of paramilitary racist groups like the Black Panthers than Trump has been of white supremacists. Odd that Trump wasn't racist at all...until the moment he ran for President.

          1. Wouldn't it make him a realpolitik idiot to NOT want their votes? Even Obama didnt come out and ask black nationalists to not vote for him... he took the votes and went on. I bet there has been a candidate in every election that recieved votes from distasteful groups and people and some won, some lost. In a country with as many votes as we have and as divided as we are, you take what you can get, say thanks, and move on. It doesn't mean you support all their causes. If it did, everyone I've voted for MUST be an ancap.

  21. The GOP establishment has long embraced the idea of America as universal magnet, based on lofty ideas that resonate with people from all races and backgrounds. Nationalists mostly reject that concept. To them, America is the product of a time, place and people.

    I don't think this is right. Most people don't see a conflict in these statements. You and some racists do but I suspect that combination is a small minority.

    1. Yes, it’s 100% projection.

  22. I see this white identify politics as a piddling backlash to the decades-long Democratic pandering to non-whites at the expense of white. Affirmative action was when it took off. Government created slavery. Government wasted a million dead to replace slavery with Jim Crow. One hundred years later, government replaced government-mandated anti-black bigotry with government-mandated pro-black bigotry.

    We've had 50 years of government-mandated anti-white bigotry. Pro-black, pro-women, pro-gay, pro-tranny, pro-everything-but-straight-white-male. Have we got another 50 to go before government mandates some other variant of official bigotry?

    There's a common thread in all that. It all started with LBJ trying to divert attention from his Vietnam boondoggle. If the Dems had simply abandoned government-mandated pro-white bigotry at the federal level and enforced the same at state and local levels, society would have sorted itself out long since and be far better adjusted by now. Instead the wound just gets deeper and nastier, and the Dems keep pouring salt in,and wonder why the patient reacts angrily.

  23. closely tracks the blueprint of a little-known writer

    Such obscurity closely tracks the blueprint of conspiracy mongers like Alex Jones.

    1. since the left tell me Trump never reads anything then he couldn't be following in anyone elses ideas, they are all his, he is the originator of ideas, the lone racist,

  24. The actual number of people stupid and sad enough to get hooked in to this particular "reactionary" niche of identity politics bullshit, is actually infinitesimally small but is never far away or quiet due to their online presence (basement dwellers), or attention seeking "vigils" or whatever is actually going on. Look at most people smeared as "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" and they don't really seem to fit the bill. The MSM/SPLC grifters/Socialist Democrats/"antifascists"/etc absolutely NEED to exaggerate the threat not only to justify their existence and behaviour but also to make sure they keep the reactionary flame alive among those stupid enough to get drawn in so they can perpetuate the existence of their opposition, for the afformentioned reason that each warring faction is only given meaning by the other. All the bad faith identity politics authoritarian shitbags are defined by what they are against, and they can only see the rest of the world from that jaded perspective. If someone says something positive about western culture it must be because they "hate" some marginalized identity, and that continues reductio ad absurdum into complete hell.

  25. White identity politics is a reaction to the avalanche of anti-white identity politics.

    How many "The Problem of Whiteness" articles and college courses do you need to see before you start to realize that there is movement to eliminate whitey? How many no-whites on campus days do you need to see before you realize that the left is full-on racist and you, whitey, are the target? How many speech laws do you need to see before you realize that you WILL think and speak the way you are told, or die?

    Socialism, and communism has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. What is wrong with rejecting these ideologies?

    1. In this case, "white identity politics" is a baseless smear being used to try to bully people into opposing Donald Trump.

      1. Yep, I know that.

        "All I want for Christmas is white genocide".

    2. Reason has rejected Socialism/Communism since it's inception half a century ago. While you think White identity politics is a reaction to anti-white identity politics, it is not a solution.The solution is the rejection of both, as Reason has been saying since Day 1.

      1. The solution is the rejection of both, as Reason has been saying since Day 1."

        what I'm taking from Reason is shut up Whitey.

      2. Along with Ron, to me, it sounds an awful lot like shut up, whitey.

      3. "Reason has rejected Socialism/Communism since it’s inception half a century ago."

        If you can find an article claiming that we should cut Medicaid, specifically, from over the last 15 years, I'll give you a gold star.

        This ain't your dad's Reason anymore.

      4. You are right in that the solution is to reject both. But people are, sadly, emotional. And visceral. When a person is beat down long enough, reason begins to look impotent. Mirroring the person victimizing you appears to be the solution. And there is good reason to think that way if you look at other situations. If someone is being violent against you, violence back is efficacious. Passivity leaves you beaten up. It is wrong to demonize the victim for lashing out, even if under other circumstance that particular action is undesirable. It is also dangerous to let them exercise that violence unchecked, but you cant really ask them to just sit there and take it either. The person beating you is the problem that has to be addressed first, before you can ever consider being peaceful again.

  26. National Conservatism's real problem is it's obvious and grotesque authoritarian streak-- just like national progressivism, or liberalism, or pickanism.

    It's ALL identity politics, geared toward suggesting to our people that their people need to be made to behave. And they can all just fuck off.

  27. There seems to be no end to Reasons hate for Trump. Just goes to show what happens when you make a religion out of your politics. Much like the Democrats have done. Most of my life I have lived in majority white areas. You would get laughed at if you said anything about white nationalism.

  28. Here's the actual tweet in question:

    "So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how .it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"


    Until Greenhut points out the "unmistakably bigoted" part, he's full of shit.

    1. innocuous.

      1. I suspect the reason I've never seen the tweet printed in an article about it is because it's nowhere near as bad as advertised.

        I've often said that Twitter is a useless medium and that the people who participate in it are among the internet's most horrible people. That being said, can you imagine if we had to depend on the media to tell us the content of this tweet? Thank goodness the president can speak over the heads of the journalists. I will do my best not to react to a story about any tweet again without reading the tweet for myself. I haven't seen things get this delusional since I don't know when.

        It's like something out of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It's like journalists everywhere falling for the Great Clown Panic of 2016. Greenhut is delusional at best, and he's no worse on this than the average journalist. It isn't even alarming. It's just pathetic. This story will be online forever. The ridiculous things these journalists write will never be completely forgotten by the internet. I certainly won't forget it.

        1. I doubt any journalist wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "Today, I think I'll make myself a laughing stock", and then proceeds to do so. Sometimes, maybe that's just what ends up happening, but it's hard to tell whether they're making fools of themselves on purpose.

          1. lol. i feel bad for the authors sometimes ... they need better friends to bounce the ideas off ... "no dude, don't post that"

    2. Then come back and show us how .it is done.

      I'm shocked Reason omits this important context. Why would they overstate Omar's exonerating context while excising Trump's? If you want to influence the left they have to first listen, and they won't listen unless you support their hatreds.

  29. Turns out that the problem with half of college curriculum being dedicated to teaching 'seeing race' and preaching identitarianism is some white folks go to college too. It's not "white identity politics" that's the problem; it's "identity politics" that's the problem.

  30. >>>his main argument was that GOP elites were selling out the white working class, refusing to fight back against multiculturalism and putting globalism above the needs of Americans.

    so this Francis asshole nobody's heard of was basically a Democrat?

  31. pic is hysterical those guys can't expect to be taken more seriously than "tiki-level"

  32. So let's see, we've been warning our entire adult lives that identity politics is an ugly path and will always turned dangerous. The left told us to fuck straight off and plowed deeper and harder into identity politics than ever before.

    Hell, I remember a podcast with Reason's own Matt Welch (before Trump was elected) where he complained about Slate being all identity politics all the time.

    Sorry folks, this IS the logical conclusion of identity politics. We can no longer cordon off certain kinds of identity politics and say, "Well, this group is marginalized so a little bit of Black Nationalism is a good thing."

    So now everyone's looking around and wondering how ever did we get here?

    Fuck off. We're reaping what we've sown...

    1. Is the guy here complaining about "anti-white" participating in identity politics or no?

  33. Our HEROIC AND NOBLE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP has never posted a "racist" Tweet.
    The bigoted, hateful, misandrist and racist "Squad," on the other hand...

  34. the unmistakably bigoted words that he wrote

    Which were those?

  35. Why is it that advocating for your race, ethnicity and culture are only 'racist' if whites do it?

  36. "the unmistakably bigoted words"
    Immediate fail. They weren't and having to say so, just demonstrates that at some level you know they weren't bigoted. He said come back and show us how it's done. Looking for solutions is what adults do.

  37. Anyone who reads "racism" into Trump's comment is under 40 years old and has not the slightest notion of what "racism" is. The author of this piece in the first sentence declares stupidity and ignorance and I declared I have no time to waste on you wastrels.

  38. WTF is up with Greenhut? Does he have a new lefty mistress or something? Oh, and Nemo, don't worry, we got it. Excellent points, thanks!

  39. So it seems that Reason has gone full on Anti-white lately. Who needs reason. I can get full on anti-white just by reading any newspaper. See ya later Reason. I don't need to be told how racist I am just because I am white.

  40. Francis had a problem with the T.O. skit? That was hilarious!

    It was also memorable, unlike the actual game.

  41. What's the point with this whiny article? That we aren't allowed to prefer the European values behind the founding of the US to the current anything-but European values. Original European values, not the weird and destructive multi-culturalism running amuck in the EU where no behavior by non-Europeans can be "judged" against any objective standard. Rubbish article.

    1. Things would be easier if you used fewer euphemisms.

      1. And if you used more cyanide.

  42. >unmistakably racist...
    You have a source for that claim? The man never mentioned race. If all you hear are dog whistles, perhaps you're the dog.

  43. In a situation where EVERY other group is organizing along ethnic lines, whites MUST organize along ethnic lines if they hope to continue to maintain power and not be oppressed and destroyed by the other groups. This is inevitable. It's also literally the most natural human activity ever. We're pack animals.

    Example: A group of 100 white people is standing there. 10 black guys walk up and start beating one of them to death. If no other white person steps in to help the guy being beat to death, he will die. They have more power than the black people, yet if they all think of themselves as atomized individuals the 10 blacks have effectively taken over control of the entire group that is 10 times their size. They could also kill all 100 of the whites one by one if they felt so inclined.

    What would obviously happen in reality is 20 of the white guys would kick the shit out of the blacks, perhaps killing them instead. This is a natural behavior, and in fact a good behavior in terms of survival. This is how reality functions.

    Right now the entire left is gang beating the majority group in the country, and telling whites they're supposed to sit there and watch themselves get beat to death one by one... Because of the insane levels of propaganda white Americans have had over the last few decades, most are still just watching their fellow Americans get gang beat... But that will only last so long before people say "This is bullshit!" and start asserting their power at a group level.

    All I have to say is lord help anybody who dares to fuck with Europeans! We're a nasty lot when we get pushed too hard, and we will unleash a world of hurt on anybody that challenges us once we take action.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.