Vox Popoli: Now that whites are learning to play the game properly, the Fake American Left suddenly wants to change the rules again

Too late to worry about it now

Now that whites are learning to play the game properly, the Fake American Left is suddenly wants to change the rules again and give up on identity politics.

Identity politics was conceived and executed from the beginning as a movement of depoliticization. Feminism has become severed from class considerations, so that for the most part it has become a reflection of what liberal identitarians themselves like to call “white privilege.” Feminism, like the other identity politics of the moment, is cut off from solidarity with the rest of the world, or if it deals with the rest of the world can only do so on terms that must not invalidate the American version of identity politics.

For example, because all identities are equally sacrosanct, we must not critique other cultures from an Enlightenment perspective; to each his own, and race is destiny, etc. (Which certainly validates the “alt-right,” doesn’t it?) This failure was noted by neoconservatives some decades ago, a breach into which they stepped with a vigorous assertion of nationalism that should have had no place in our polity after the reconsiderations brought about by Vietnam and Watergate. But it happened, just as a perverted form of white patriotism arose to fulfill the vacuum left by liberal rationality because of the constraints of identity politics.

To conclude, identity politics — in all the forms it has shown up, from various localized nationalisms to more ambitious fascism — desires its adherents to present themselves in the most regressive, atavistic, primitive form possible. The kind of political communication identity politics thrives on is based on maximizing emotionalism and minimizing rationality. Therefore, the idea of law that arises when identity politics engenders a reaction is one that severs the natural bonds of community across differences (which is the most ironic yet predictable result of identity politics) and makes of the law an inhuman abstraction.

This depoliticization has gone on so long now, about 30 years, that breaking out of it is inconceivable, since the discourse to do so is no longer accessible. For anyone trained to think outside the confines of identity politics, those who operate within its principles — which manifests, for example, in call-out culture (or at least it did before Trump) — seem incomprehensible, and vice versa. We are different generations divided by unfathomable gaps, and there is no way to bridge them. The situation is like the indoctrination in Soviet Russia in the 1930s, so that only an economic catastrophe that lays waste to everything, resulting from imperial misadventures, can possibly break the logjam. Short of that, we are committed to the dire nihilism of identity politics for the duration of the imperial game.

The irony of someone called "Anis Shivani" worrying about identity politics in America is downright amusing. Identity politics are the rules of the game in all sufficiently multiracial and multireligious societies. Sort out your identity, build your alliances, pass laws that favor your identity, and screw everyone else.

Shivani uses the word "depoliticization" improperly. What he really means is "deideologicization".

In any event, identity politics have been baked in the cake since 1965. And it is why the #AltRight is inevitable, regardless of whatever name of the identity is eventually established for white American nationalists.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/09/too-late-to-worry-about-it-now.html?m=1

Vox Popoli: Existential threat or ineluctable reality - Identity Politics

Peter Grant addresses identity politics in the USA:

I've been watching the growing rift in American society for years.  It's particularly evident in larger cities, but it's also happening in smaller towns and rural areas.  It's a growing intolerance with those who hold different views, a refusal to admit that the "other side" might be right at least sometimes, a dogmatic insistence that it's "our way or the highway" when it comes to politics, law enforcement, immigration, economics, whatever.  There's less and less willingness to compromise.  Many commentators have begun to speak openly of the possibility of a new civil war....

The biggest problem I see is that very few of those on either side of our societal divide have any conception of just how bitter, vitriolic and savage internecine conflict can become.  I have all too much personal experience of it in Africa.  Don't think that things will be better here.  They won't.  It's part of the human condition, and race has nothing to do with it.  It's all about one's "tribe" - and that can be cultural, or social, or whatever, but it's the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance.  It's those for whom one is willing to kill, and those for whom one is willing to die.

The modern name for tribalism is "identity politics".  Beware anyone trying to make you think, and act, and live in terms of "identity politics".  They're trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook.  They're trying to divide and rule.  Division is their strength.  By exploiting divisions between groups, they come to power - and then they rule until someone else does a better job of identity politics, and takes over from them.

Tribe can drive good things - unity, working together, a sense of community.  But there are also negatives.  Tribe drives hatred.  Tribe drives war.  Tribe drives atrocity.  It's been that way since the dawn of the human race, and it's unlikely to change.

Peter and I have talked about this, and here is where we tend to disagree, to the extent that we do.  The core problem, as I see it, is that when Peter says to beware of those "trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook", he contradicts his statement that one's tribe is "the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance."

By his own definition, and by the very etymology of the word, the nation is the tribe. The problem is not sub-national identity politics, but rather, the conflict that is structurally intrinsic to multinational political entities that masquerade as "nations". The USA functioned very well when it was a loose confederation of different nations rather confusingly called "Sovereign States", it no longer functions at all well as a pseudo-democratic centralized imperial financial satrapy ruling over a multitude of nations wearing the skinsuit of the former political entity.

What was the American Revolution if not the division of one English tribe into two? To claim that America is a superset that includes the Anglo-American nation rather than a subset of the English nation simply doesn't withstand historical scrutiny.

All "identity politics" means is "inter-tribal competition for power". The African-Americans are not going to stop putting their own self-perceived interests first. The Jews certainly are not. The Hispanics are not; neither are the newly self-discovered trans-Asian alliance. All of these identity groups and more are consciously working together in opposition to white American and heritage Anglo-American interests, so white Americans can either embrace identity politics and pursue their own interests or they can reject identity politics, and in doing so, submit to the various groups willing to do so.

Those are the only two options. The option to not play the identity politics game was made when the 1965 Naturalization Act passed Congress and was signed into law by the President. Identity politics are an existential threat to the USA, but they are also an unavoidable reality.

Peter rightly warns of the perils of a post-Apartheid multinational society, but in my opinion, that form of breakdown is to be vastly preferred to the perils of a post-Tito multinational society. As a general rule, the more interwoven and integrated the various nations are, the uglier the inevitable transition to homogeneous nation-states will necessarily be.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/existential-threat-or-ineluctable.html

Vox Popoli - A failure to understand identity (And the Alt Right)

A failure to understand identity

John Wright attempts to criticize identity politics and the Alt-Right, and in doing so, demonstrates that he does not correctly grasp what identity is, or how identity politics tend to function in modern multiracial societies:

Some say that the success of identity politics trumped up by the Left proves that a man will always side with his inborn tribal group, grievance group, and identity politics group rather than with any political doctrine or party or nation into which education, experience, or personal decision might lead him.

No, literally no one says that. First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful. Second, while men can, and do, surmount their racial, grievance, and religious identities in favor of other identities and ideologies, the salient point is that the vast majority will not. One habitual weakness of John's arguments I have observed is that he tends to be inclined towards binary thinking, and binary thinkers are particularly prone to the Ricardian Vice, which Joseph Schumpeter described in the History of Economic Analysis:

He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies.... The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.

John continues with an drive-by implied defense of the fictional concept of the so-called "proposition nation".

Nations are never built on a proposition that all men are created equal and never have been: they are only build on tribes and clans. So runs the theory.

No, that is not the theory, that is the literal historical definition of "nation". The concept is defined as: "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages." 1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt (us) (past participle of nāscī to be born).

The "proposition nation" concept is entirely false. Neither concurring with any proposition nor contradicting one will cause one to be part of the American nation, or cause one to be separated from it. It is simply incorrect to claim that the United States is fundamentally built on the principle of equality or any other idea; one need only read the entire Declaration of Independence to know that Jefferson's flight of rhetoric was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. "All men are created equal" is not the founding principle of the United States of America nor the basis for any nation.

The irony, of course, is that one might as just as meaningfully cite the statement as grounds for claiming that anyone can become Chinese or Polish.

Those who believe this say that the way to defeat Leftwing Anti-White identity politics is by adopting Pro-White identity politics. They are seduced into making a simple error. It is an error so simple that even a highly intelligent partisan of that movement might not see it. The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

The only people who ever side with their tribal group and identity politics group are people who have been indoctrinated by the Left. They are Leftists. Identity politics is their stock in trade. It is the only product remaining on their intellectually bankrupt shelves.

First, it is true that for some, their Leftism is their dominant identity. Second, it is apparent that a number of identity groups have concluded that Leftism is in their tribal interest, which may be a source of the causal confusion. Third, it is absolutely and observably absurd to claim that the only people who ever side with their tribal group have been indoctrinated by the Left. Tribalism and identity long precede Leftism, moreover, it is very, very easy to provide examples of those on the Right who practice identity politics. Identity consistently provides a much more accurate predictive model for one's positions and behavior than one's nominal place on the political spectrum. But again, it must be understood that there are multiple kinds of identities; ethnicity merely tends to be the strongest and most powerful form.

Tribalism says that the loyalties one has toward genetically similar groups will eventually overwhelm all other loyalties of religion, culture, language community, political philosophy, and self interest, and that therefore one must abandon loyalty to religion and culture and state but adhere instead to one’s tribe. A more naive reading of history is difficult to imagine: as if civil wars never happened, and nothing but race wars did.

It is strange to see John claim that identity politics and tribalism is a naive reading of history when he is simultaneously denying one of the primary engines of history. Again, he relies on simplistic binary thinking in order to reach a false conclusion. People have multiple loyalties, many of which are not related to their genetic inheritance; the homosexual is loyal to the gay community and hostile to the religious communities for reasons of sexual orientation, the Christian Zionist is loyal to the Jewish community for theological reasons, and so forth. But none of this changes the observable fact that Somalis in Minnesota reliably vote for Somalis, Indians in Quebec reliably vote for Indians, and African-Americans reliably vote for blacks.

John also fails to understand the Alt-Right. Because he seeks compromise and is willing to let the Left live, he implies the Alt-Right it is of the Left. This is a confusion of etiquette with objectives.

The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be. The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil. The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical.

The Alt-Right thinks the Left is both foolish and evil. The Alt-Right thinks the Left is a collection of rabid, feral, incoherent, irrational barbarians who are observably incapable of participating in any civilized society without destroying it. We're not religious zealots, we are simply educated observers of the entire history of the Left, from the French Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, who have reached certain logical conclusions on the basis of those observations.

The Alt-Right is most certainly not willing to compromise with the Left. We have witnessed the conservative Right live and let live, and compromise, to the point that Western civilization itself is at risk. And we are not willing to allow conservatives to meekly permit the destruction of Western civilization simply so they can go down to noble defeat in the sacred names of equality and not being racist.

I note in passing that every time, every single time, the roots of the Democrat Party are mentioned, the Alt-Right goes into a tizzy of sneers and scorn, scoffing that one should never say that Democrats are the real racists. Why one should never say it, they never say.  But it does undermine their whole race-is-politics theory, because the race of the Dems did not change their race before and after Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs, but only changed their political tactics. The utility of accusing the Party of Lincoln and Nixon of racism only started then, and so the Democrats only because the advocates of anti-racism then.

This is simply absurd. Again, John is stating something observably false, then using his false statement as the basis of reaching an incorrect conclusion. It's trivially easy to show that what he's saying is not true. On this blog, and in Cuckservative, I have explained why one should not bother saying that Democrats are the real racists: it is ineffective and toothless dialectic that has no effect on a group of rhetorical speakers. I have also pointed out that it is ineffective rhetoric for the Right because no one but cucks and cons fears being called racist.

And the race of the Democrats has most certainly changed since LBJ instituted the Great Society. That's why the Atlantic asks if the Democratic Party even has room for what it calls "less-educated white voters" anymore.

So in asking the Right to accept pro-White tribalism into its political platform, the advocate of race-based politics is attempting to fight a religion with a lobbyist group. This is the same mistake the mainstream Right has been making for decades, if not centuries.

No, we're not asking. We are predicting it will happen as a natural result of the USA becoming a multiracial, multicultural, multinational state. And it will be easy to determine who is correct. If the Alt-Right is correct, whites will continue to gravitate right across the West. The likes of Jack Murphy, who voted for Obama, will vote for Trump in 2020. And the Democratic Party will continue to move Left, as the various non-white immigrants fill its ranks being depleted by the exiting whites.

We're not making the same mistake the mainstream Right has made; quite the opposite. And it is the fact that we refuse to continue making their mistake of holding to the sacred, nonsensical symbolism that has led to their defeat that makes them uncomfortable.

Now, all that being said, John is correct to say that federalism is one solution to tribalism. But it is a solution that accepts and utilizes the reality of tribalism and identity politics, not one that rejects them. In any event, read the whole thing there, including the comments.

I close with a pair of quotes, and leave it to you to decide whether it is identity politics or proposition politics that are more firmly rooted in truth and historical reality:

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
- Lee Kuan Yew

"America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.... Every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American."
- George W. Bush

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-failure-to-understand-identity.html?m=1

Vox Popoli: Alt-Right or surrender - (This article clearly shows the reality of today's politics.)

Alt-Right or surrender

This is a trenchant observation that explains the emptiness of civic nationalism and why there is no actual alternative to the Alt-Right anymore. Identity politics are no more a choice than war is a choice once the enemy is marching. It is demographics, and awareness of demographics, that distinguish between identity and ideology, and the post-1965 US demographics no longer permit one to ignore the reality of identity politics:

This is, in the realm of practical politics, why the Buckley crowd is circling the drain as a political force. Way back in the 60’s, they could not bring themselves to challenge the implausible claims by the Left with regards to civil rights. Instead, they picked the losing hand of state’s rights, hoping to avoid facing the Left over the “negro question.” As a result, they ceded the moral high ground to the Left with regards to race and identity. No amount of legal precedent could stand in the way of social justice!

Ever since, the Buckley-ites have had to fight the Left while acknowledging that the Left is their moral superior and the arbiter of civil morality. That’s a battle that can never be won as the other side will simply declare your latest position to be heresy and out of bounds. No matter how logical and right your position, it can never withstand the moral authorities saying it is wrong. That’s why the Left has won every battle in the culture war. They can thunder, “you may have facts, but we have righteousness!”

There’s another problem with what Milo and Sam Harris are saying. Let’s stipulate that identity politics are a bad thing. Is playing that card better or worse than losing to the Left as they relentlessly play the identity politics game? Unless you have a serious mental illness, you have to see that the Left is nothing but identity politics now and they are winning. Just turn on the TV. Just look at the best seller list. The people of the New Religion hate white people, particularly white men and they will not be talked out of it.

The question that faces every man is not “what sort of society do I want for myself and my children?” That’s a lie and it has always been a lie. The question is “What are my choices and how do I achieve my preferred option?” The choice pushed by our betters is a world run by Black Lives Matters and women dressed as vaginas. If the other option is white pride, white nationalism and white supremacy, it is not hard to see how this is going to go.

All of the howling and complaining from the Official Right about the rise of the so-called alt-right is due to the unanswered question from the Milo piece. If the identity politics of the alt-right are bad, what’s the other option? If the answer is submission, which has been the case for the last three decades, at least, then the response is not just going to be “no” it is going to be “hell no!” No amount of moral preening is going to work because that is the thing people are rebelling against. What’s left is what is always what’s left and that’s force.

And that is why I have been saying that the Alt-Right Revolution is inevitable. I'm not trying to talk anyone into it. I'm not proselytizing or preaching. I am observing the historical trends playing out the way they reliably do.

Civic nationalism was stricken and fatally wounded in 1965. It has been bleeding out ever since, and both the conservatives and the New Right are fighting a hopeless battle to prevent not only the people of the Right, but the white nations, from abandoning ideology for identity because that is what they have to do if they, and the Western civilization they created, are going to survive.

There is no real conflict between the Alt-Right and the Alt-Lite. The latter are going to join us in time. It's actually testimony to their human decency that they struggle with accepting the dark reality that the post-1965 demographics have thrust upon us. They are like the nice white people in Iowa who can't understand why people in Texas or California might have any problem with those hard-working Mexicans with their exotic food coming to America in search of a better life. Once a few thousand metaphorical Somalis and Nigerians move into their conceptual neighborhood, they'll not only understand, they'll become even more militant than we are.

Look, merely encountering Somalis at the mall convinced hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans to vote for a Republican presidential candidate that the media called racist. Unless you've grown up in Lutheran Scandihoovia, you can't possibly understand the significance of that. That is the power of identity politics.

"The reality is, if you force everyone to play identity politics, if you insist in pitting whites against blacks, women against men, straights against gays, the reality is you guys are gonna win."
- Milo Yiannopoulos

Precisely. In fact, the only flaw in Milo's analysis is the idea that we have a choice. We don't. This isn't a recent observation on my part, as I specifically warned everyone four years ago that identity politics were, not only inevitable, but already the dominant form of US politics.

US politics are now an identity game.  Democrats have already established that they are the brown, black, and yellow party, so unless Republicans realize that they are, whether they like it or not, the white party, and begin to plan their strategy accordingly, they not only cannot win intentionally, they aren't really even in the game.  It's like watching a rugby team trying to play football without bothering to learn what the rules are. It is long past time for conservatives to realize that one cannot continue to play by centuries-old Anglo-Saxon rules after one permits a large quantity of non-Anglos who neither know nor care about those rules to invade the playing field.  The great irony is that the Republicans of the sort one finds on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, who cling to the outdated notion of a creedal United States, genuinely consider themselves to be pragmatists.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/alt-right-or-surrender.html?m=1

The full text is at: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=9487#comments

The Right Needs To Stop Ignoring Race When Talking To Voters - By Prajwal Kulkarni

Conservatives have become bystanders in racial discourse because we have consciously chosen that path. We don’t have to make the same mistake going forward.

By Prajwal Kulkarni

Jamelle Bouie believes Donald Trump’s victory ended the ‘racial détente’ that has presided over American politics for decades. In an insightful response, David Marcus agrees with Bouie, and blames “minorities and progressives” for embracing privilege theory and systemic racism:

As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have? Many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening.

While this analysis contains much truth, it doesn’t explain why so many minorities embraced an idea that the data suggest they don’t even believe in. Many probably liked the détente, and disagree with the current regime. But their views were, and are, not accounted for.

Conservatives Ignore Race to Their Detriment

Conservatives deserve some of the blame for this outcome. Because we rarely address racial issues, we allow the extreme left to monopolize the debate. Note Marcus’s argument: racial discourse in America has suffered because of liberal theories promoted by liberals. Conservatives played no meaningful role as these changes occurred.

This framing is sad but true. But it’s important to note that conservatives have become bystanders in racial dialogues because we have consciously chosen that path. We don’t have to make the same mistake going forward.

As a minority and a conservative, I partly understand our stance. We like to think of ourselves as a coalition built on principles: small government, religious freedom, the right to bear arms, the rule of law, and so on. We like to think that these principles apply to everyone, that America’s history of racism corrupted these universal ideals, and that the best way to correct for our history is to downplay the importance of race.

We are especially reluctant to engage on race because doing so tends to lead to identity politics, the antithesis of an ideas-based movement. Jonah Goldberg articulated the conservative position in a recent interview: “I’m against identity politics full stop, which means I’m against white identity politics at least as much as I’m against minority identity politics.” 

We Can’t Avoid Racial Identity Politics In America

While this sentiment might make sense in the abstract, in practice it is delusional. You simply cannot avoid racial identity politics in America. It is too ingrained in our history and will occur whether we like it or not. Conservatives should assume that everything in American politics will become racialized.

Conservative rhetoric and policies that ignore this tendency are as inert as liberal rhetoric and policies that ignore supply and demand. Conservatives who get upset when our allegedly universal beliefs become racialized are like liberals who get upset when rent controls fail. I would say to both groups: Why would you expect anything else?

Perhaps it would be nice if we could make arguments without addressing race. But that’s not the country we live in. By refusing to engage proactively, we make identity politics worse than it otherwise would have been, and many minorities tragically end up believing conservative ideas aren’t for them.

My Childhood Shaped My Understanding Of Guns

 Here’s a personal story to illustrate this point. I was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and lived there until I was 12. Outside of tourist areas, and especially in Kingston, Jamaica is a high-crime country. My family was robbed at gunpoint twice. The first time I was just over three years old and I don’t remember what happened. But my parents do: my mom was afraid of getting raped, and my dad will never forget the feeling of a gun against his temple. 

I vividly remember the second incident, when I was around six years old. My parents were hosting a small party with friends from the Jamaican-Indian community. As I played inside with the kids, my mom and her friend burst into the room, started removing and then hiding their jewelry: an armed man had entered our house and demanded money. I can still picture the look of terror on their faces. My mom told us to get under the bed, and we squeezed together in the back corner. That night, my brother, my parents and I slept in one bed because we were too scared to be alone. 

Less than one month later, my father bought a gun. One of his good friends at the time, a black Jamaican police officer, pushed him to get one, recommended the Colt 38 Police Special, and helped him with the paperwork. My father had a gun of some form for the next 23 years, almost until the day he left Jamaica in August 2010. In fact, he technically still owns one and will probably reclaim it if he ever returns. 

We Can’t Ignore America’s Messy Racial History

So when I think of gun ownership, I think of my family. I think of other Jamaican-Indians who owned guns. I think of the time I accompanied my dad as he practiced shooting his. I get why so many Americans treasure their Second Amendment rights. As far as I’m concerned, the desire to protect yourself and your family, and to procure a weapon to do so, is universal. I suspect that people in all cultures can relate to this idea. To this Jamindican (Jamaican-Indian-American) at least, there is nothing intrinsically racial about wanting to own a gun.

But some South Asian-Americans I know believe otherwise. They think guns are just white people. I beg, beseech, and plead with my fellow conservatives to recognize that their attitude isn’t crazy or unreasonable. Rather, it’s a symptom of America’s toxic racial history. In America, unlike many other countries, beliefs that should not be cast in racial terms will be. Conservative ideas are not as widely adopted as they should be because we ignore this fact.

Heck, even I can see where my friends are coming from. In my mind, I picture NRA rallies and their leaders. And despite what I intellectually believe, I viscerally feel I wouldn’t be welcome. And if a minority like me—who supports the 2nd Amendment and whose father owned a gun—is wary, you’ll have no chance convincing some of my friends. You can say that I’m being irrational and unfair. But you can also say that gun rights groups should anticipate this reaction and spend more effort on minority outreach.

We Should Diversify the Conservative Movement

Which brings us to one way conservatives can make progress on race: conservative institutions can take the lead in diversifying the conservative movement. While the left undoubtedly race baits, conservative institutions have made it easier by abandoning the topic altogether. America’s liberals do not control the diversity budget for the NRA, National Review, AEI, the Acton Institute and The Federalist. If we claim to value civic institutions and lament their decline, we must embrace them as both a cause of and solution to conservatives’ problems with minorities.

Our national inclination to split along racial lines will continue unless we fight it.

I know conservatives get uncomfortable around questions of minority outreach and diversity. But that’s the problem. Our national inclination to split along racial lines will continue unless we fight it.

When it comes to racial diversity, conservative institutions should embrace the same mindset and attitude we have towards the media and ideological diversity. Conservatives often make three points: first, that the uniform liberalness of the mainstream media undermines its credibility, even if it is unintentional and not driven by conscious malice. Second, the media themselves must work to correct the imbalance—it’s their job. And third, as so much in life, the first step is admitting they have a problem. Few things frustrate us more than the media’s pretending otherwise.

These arguments apply to conservative institutions and race: their uniform whiteness weakens them and undermines their credibility. It’s their job to address it. And they must first admit that their lack of racial diversity is a problem.

We Need to Include More Minority Voices

After we agree on these points, then we can discuss the best ways to achieve our goal. The specific approach will necessarily vary from case to case. Some institutions may want to hold events in minority venues. Others might decide to select minority spokespersons. But these tactical decisions are less important than accepting they have a problem.

Conservative institutions have no choice but to consciously and deliberately engage with minorities.

Imagine conservative institutions had adopted this mindset years ago. Perhaps then the face of anti-illegal immigration would have included the 52 percent of Hispanics, the 57 percent of Asian-Americans, and the 50 percent of African-Americans who support enforcement rather legalization. Consider how these debates would have played out if everyone knew that 35% of Hispanics want to decrease immigration, and that both working-class blacks and whites oppose illegal immigration.

What if white evangelicals had worked harder to racially diversify, and could count among their supporters the 52% of African-Americans who are worried about religious liberty? In this world, liberals would have found it much harder to carelessly analogize Jim Crow to religious freedom laws. And American evangelism probably would not seem so white. You could argue that such efforts are what God wants Christians to do.

This Doesn’t Just Hurt Republicans—It Hurts Minorities

Last April, T.P. Carney described Republicans’ continued inability to win African-Americans voters. As happens so often in such analyses, Carney described it as a Republican problem: it’s so sad that Republicans can’t win the votes of people who already agree with them.

Yes, it is sad for Republicans. But it’s even more sad for the African-Americans who are neglected by both parties. It’s sad for pro-life Hispanics. It’s sad for my mom, whose social conservatism and disdain for illegal immigration will also be neglected. It’s sad for me. It’s sad for our country.

American conservatism will not become more racially diverse just with heroic exhortations about our principles.  In a country fraught with racial strife, conservative institutions have no choice but to consciously and deliberately engage with minorities. This approach would show that we accept responsibility for our predicament, that we recognize we can’t simply blame others for it, and that we believe we have the power to change it. If nothing else, it would be the conservative way to respond.

Prajwal Kulkarni works at software company and lives in Denver, Colorado. He blogs and tweets about science and religion.

The Right Needs To Stop Ignoring Race When Talking To Voters

Immigration and the rise of white identity

Given the long track record of left-liberal policies producing the exact opposite of the result expected, it should come as no surprise that social scientists are discovering that, far from eliminating racism, an increasingly diverse society is creating a cohesive trans-ethnic white identity in the United States:

In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics”—an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.

We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.

When we talk about white identity, we’re not referring to the alt-right fringe, the white nationalist movement or others who espouse racist beliefs. Rather, we’re talking about everyday white Americans who, perhaps for the first time, are racially conscious.

The concept of “garden variety” white racial identity stands in contrast to conventional wisdom. In the last three decades of scholarship on whiteness as a race, the prevailing view has been that most whites fail to notice their own whiteness. In a society dominated by white people, whiteness simply fades into the background. Just as fish fail to notice the water around them, whites are unlikely to think about how they are members of a distinct group.

Our research shows that the era of “white invisibility” is coming to a close.Endorsement of white identity politics was highest in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods and was strongly correlated with white racial identity. These results suggest that America’s growing ethnic diversity is creating a politicized form of white identity that has clear repercussions for future elections....

Why does it matter that whites’ politics are driven by concerns about the interests of their racial group? It suggests that racial bias increasingly reflects attention to the welfare of one’s own group rather than animus toward other groups. These collective concerns are only going to become more pronounced as the nation becomes more diverse.

Recent research in social psychology suggests that when whites engage in discrimination based on their perceived collective interests, it’s hard to convince them that such discrimination is wrong. After all, doesn’t every group have a right to prioritize its own members? We believe our results portend increasing difficulty in achieving the democratic aim of getting race out of American politics.

Once more, we see that the Alt-Right perspective is supported by science, logic, and history. It's conceptual models are predictive. The conservative perspective is not, and its conceptual models reliably fail to correctly predict future events, except occasionally disaster for the left-liberal models, which is rather like trying to take credit for predicting that gravity will still be operative tomorrow.

That is why Point 8 was included in the 16 Points of the Alt-Right.

The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

Any movement that aligns itself with science, history, and correctly applied logic is much more likely to take positions that will eventually prove popular, even if they are initially despised, because events are always going to move in ways that favor their interpretations. This is why the Alt-Right is on the rise along with the development of white political identity in the USA. The only way to get race out of American politics is to deny the other races the ability to participate in the political process.

Also notice that it shows my interpretation of white identity as an American phenomenon appears to be correct, as Europeans are not facing anywhere near the same level of racial pressure, particularly not in a political sense. Here in Europe, the pressure is cultural and religious in nature, so I expect a cultural Christian identity to gradually arise in the lands that were once collectively known as Christendom.

Vox Popoli: Immigration and the rise of white identity

Full text article at: https://newrepublic.com/article/138230/rise-white-identity-politics

Vox Popoli: Vote Right, Vote White

Heartiste and John Derbyshire sum up US politics in 2018:

Personally, I don’t relish a society structured solely around identity politics. It’s gauche, claustrophobic, miserably stressful, and a mockery of the transcendent. But damned if I’m gonna idly sit by as every other group looks out for themselves at my group’s expense. That’s a suicide pact. But the only way out of this inevitability is to restore Whites to demographic primacy in their homelands, from which perch Whites can safely and confidently eschew identity politics without risk of parasitic infection. My idea of a great country to live in: One that’s so explicitly homogeneous that these implicit identity conundrums never need addressing.
- Heartiste

While the Democratic Party is committed to anti-white positions, that swelling number of anti-anti-white whites is electoral gold for the Republican Party. Whether the Republican Party—also commonly known, let me remind you, as the Stupid Party—has enough sense and skill to mine that gold, is an open question. There are some hopeful signs from the White House, although that is of course not the same thing as the Republican Party.
- John Derbyshire

The civic nationalists, the neocons, the neoliberals, and the self-professed colorblind are all totally irrelevant now. Some of them don't quite realize it yet, although even the most stubborn civic nationalists can clearly sense the ground shifting under their feet given their increasingly desperate rhetoric.

This isn't Italy, where a new party can explode onto the scene and into government in two election cycles. The US has a strict two-party system, and one party is the Diversity Party which is resolutely and relentlessly anti-White. To oppose them is to be objectively pro-White, and no amount of self-deception or attempting to avoid the inescapable is going to conceal that.

Because Diversity always favors the Left, in the US context, there is no difference between voting Right and voting White. While they are not conceptually the same thing, they are functionally, practically, and materially the same thing in the current US political context. Accepting this political reality will be vital to constructing a winning electoral strategy in 2020.

There are no identity politics in Japan because Japan is Japanese. There are no identity politics in China because China is Chinese. Identity politics are the unavoidable reality in any polity that is foolish enough to allow demographic diversity and the only solution to them is to reduce the diversity to statistically insignificant levels.

These ideas aren't even remotely new. Both Steve Sailer and I have been writing about it for a long time. It's just that reality has finally caught up to the situation that we saw developing and what was inevitable is now the obvious, and is rapidly becoming the undeniable.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/vote-right-vote-white.html

The end of Jewish rule - Vox Day comments on Minnesota election

Identity politics finally catches up to a 44-year practitioner of it.

A Somali activist has unseated one of the Minnesota Legislature's longest-serving members in a Democratic primary.

Ilhan Omar defeated 22-term Rep. Phyllis Kahn in Tuesday's DFL nominating contest. Omar's victory in the heavily Democratic Minneapolis district makes it likely she'll be the first Somali-American lawmaker in the nation after the November election.

The district spans the University of Minnesota and is home to a large population of immigrants from Somalia and other East African countries. Omar argued the district needs a fresher face that better represents the diversity and needs of the area.

Omar is a political activist and former aide to the Minneapolis City Council.

Kahn has spent 44 years in the Legislature.

This is a microcosm of what is gradually taking shape in the United States. It's also why the Learned Elders of Wye have been actively trying to figure out where to jump ship next, as their ability to influence US politics rapidly wanes. Apparently Jewish strategists never thought through the obvious long-term consequences of their 60's-era "diversity is good for the Jews" strategy in the United States, most likely because it was originally formulated in highly altruistic, highly homogeneous Europe, where it was an effective strategy right up until it really wasn't.

However, now that low-altruism minorities are approaching 50 percent of the US electorate, identity politics are permanently replacing ideological politics, and a Jew like Khan is never going to be elected in any district where Somalis, or Arabs, or Indians, or Chinese are the majority. And they're also increasingly unlikely to be elected in black-, white-, or Hispanic-dominated districts.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the rise of Donald Trump and American nationalism means the "hello, fellow white people" schtick is not to work much longer, particularly now that the inordinately Jewish "conservative media" has unmasked itself as globalist rather than pro-American, and viciously opposed to any America First nationalist ideology.

So, setting up Pedro, Peng, Pasha and Prodosh to fight Paul for the benefit of Peter has, over time, put Peter in a no-win situation. If Pedro and company win, Peter is permanently excluded from power and may even be actively persecuted by the rainbow coalition he helped build. And if a newly self-interested Paul wins, he's no longer likely to listen to Peter or pay any attention to Peter's interests.

This leaves Peter with three options. Try to shut down democracy, accept the gradual decline of power, wealth, and influence, or leave.

This isn't a matter for debate, nor will crying Holocaust or engaging in philo-semitic virtue-signaling make any difference here here. It's simple demographic math combined with an observation of historical group voting patterns. US whites are willing to vote outside their identity. US non-whites strongly prefer to do as the Jews do and vote their identity.

It's interesting, is it not, that the vaunted Askenazi IQ advantage appears to be failing them even as the average US IQ declines significantly. It tends to strongly suggest that whatever the historical basis of Jewish success in the United States was, it was not superior average intelligence.

To return to the Minnesota district, it would be fascinating if Omar unexpectedly loses the election, as a defeat would indicate that even hard-core liberal whites are starting to prefer identity politics to ideology.

UPDATE: Further evidence that identity politics are on the rise; the Asians are beginning to flex their political muscle.

24-year-old Fue Lee, who was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and currently works in the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon. He defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis. Both upsets came in heavily DFL districts, which means they are virtually assured of victory in November. Their victories illustrated the ascendance of minority populations in the DFL, as new immigrants and African-Americans demand a higher profile and a seat at the table of the party they call home.

As I've said before, Republicans must become the White Party - or if you prefer, the American Party - if they are to survive. White Democrats and Jews are all but finished, outside of the places where they are the majority.

Vox Popoli: The end of Jewish rule

http://www.kare11.com/news/politics/elections/somali-activist-omar-unseats-long-serving-kahn/292563079

The Great Con: Political Correctness Has Marginalized the Working Class - by Charles Hugh Smith

So when the protected class of well-paid institutional "progressives" speak darkly of "reversing 40 years of social progress," what they're really saying is we're terrified that the bottom 95% might be waking up to our Great Con of identity politics and political correctness.

To understand the Great Con of political correctness, we must first grasp the decline of the working class (self-described as "the middle class"), i.e. those who must sell their labor to earn their livelihood.

Labor's share of the national economy has been declining for 46 years:

So where has the wealth that's been generated ended up? In the hands of the .1%:

And where did the wages gains end up? In the top 5% technocrat/ managerial class:

And what is the technocrat/ managerial class response to this staggering decline in wealth and wages suffered by the bottom 95%? Political correctness.

Let's look at political correctness and identity politics through the lens of class warfare and class consciousness. Those enjoying enormous gains in wealth and income have a problem: they must fragment and distract the bottom 95% who have lost income and wealth to the top 5%, lest the bottom 95% realize:

1. We have lost the undeclared economic war

2. We have more in common economically with others in the bottom 95% than we do with our neofeudal technocrat/ managerial overlords.

This unifying class consciousness would threaten the wealth, power and perquisites of the neofeudal technocrat/ managerial class, so they had to undermine an economic awareness of class.

They found the perfect weapon in identity politics and political correctness.What better way to fragment the working class than to carve it into cultural subclasses that could be manipulated into declaring war on each other?

What better way to mask the collapse of working class political agency than to distract the bottom 95% with fake-Progressive double-speak about "empowerment," "safe spaces" and "micro-aggression"?

The heart of the Great Con of identity politics and political correctness is a tragic irony: the more wealth, income and power that slip through the fingers of the bottom 95%, the more their overlords rely on social "empowerment," as if a "safe space" on campus is a substitute for real political and economic agency.

That's the Great Con of political correctness: using worthless speech acts about empowerment to distract the working class from its disempowerment in the real world. No amount of "safe space" and happy talk about empowerment can replace meaningful opportunities for economic security and advancement--precisely what is abundant for the protected technocrat/ managerial class and scarce for the unprotected 95% that's been sold down the river.

The propaganda beauty of class-consciousness-destroying political correctness is its deceptive claim of "progressive." If you set out to design the perfect tool to enforced neofeudalism (the political and economic dominannce of the protected few at the expense of the exploited many), you'd choose an Orwellian fake-Progressive agenda of cultural fragmentation and conflict that undermines any class consciousness of shared economic disempowerment.

This is why the protected technocrat/ managerial class is freaking out about Trump's victory: the inchoate sense that the few have profited at the expense of the many is an expression of an emergent class consciousness that has the potential to threaten the neofeudal dominance of the New Nobility and its self-serving technocrat/ managerial class.

So when the protected class of well-paid institutional "progressives" speak darkly of "reversing 40 years of social progress," what they're really saying iswe're terrified that the bottom 95% might be waking up to our Great Con of identity politics and political correctness. 

Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

My new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website.

Jewish Politics in America – A Post Political View, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review

In 1994 I enrolled in a postgraduate course in philosophy at a British University. On my first day at the University I had to complete a few routine administrative duties such as registering my name with the philosophy department and meeting my supervisors. I was also told that I had to join the student union. Being a subservient type, I walked over to the Student Union hall where I soon realized that the task was slightly more complicated than I had expected. There were a plethora of student unions to choose from: The Black Student Union, The Asian Student Association, The Socialist Students, The Gay Student Society and more. Confused, I asked for assistance. They asked where I was from. When I told them “Israel,” I was told that the “Jewish Student Union” was my home.

It was then, at the Student Union Hall, that I first encountered the identity split between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. It would take some time before I was able to define this binary tension in philosophical or post political terms and before I understood the Jewish dilemma in terms of Nationalist/Identitarian dialectics. Two decades later, the political battle now going on in America is basically an extension of that internal Jewish debate.

Back in 1994 I didn’t see any reason to join the Jewish Student Union. I had never identified ‘as a Jew’ and Judaism meant little to me. Israel was my place of birth. My ‘identity’ as I then saw it was geographically oriented. Fortunately, I managed to complete my postgraduate course without becoming a ‘union member.’ But my thoughts about that morning at the student union hall have evolved into a few controversial books and hundreds of papers on ID politics and the current Identitarian dystopia.

In 2011 I wrote The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. The premise of the book was that if Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ then we have to dissect the meaning of the J-Word. We have to grasp how Judaism (the religion), Jews (the people) and Jewishness (the spirit, ideology and culture) relate to each other and how these terms influence Israeli politics and the activities of the Jewish Lobby around the world. Instead of studying ‘Zionism,’ an archaic term that is not relevant to most Israelis, my book focused on Jewish identifications. I did not address the problematic question of ‘who and what Jews are,’ I tried instead to find out what those who call themselves Jews identify with.

While this question is certainly germane to an understanding of Israel and the Middle East conflict, it is also crucial to an understanding of the current American dystopia. Instead of asking ‘who Americans are’ let us explore what Americans identify with.

In the post-political era, America is divided into two camps, let’s call them Americans and Identitarians. Americans see themselves primarily as American patriots. They often subscribe to a nationalist populist ideology and, like the Israelis, identify with a piece of geography. On the other hand, Identitarians are primarily liberals and progressives. They identify themselves in biological and sociological terms, and they see themselves first as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, Jewish, feminist etc. Their bond with the American nationalist ethos is at most secondary and often non-existent.

This division in America between ‘nationalism’ and ‘identitarianism’ is similar to the dichotomy I observed at the student union hall in 1994. In fact, Israel has become a prime model for American nationalists. Similarly, it is Jewish progressive ideology that inspires Identitarians globally and in America in particular. It is the pervasiveness of Jewish ideologies within both nationalist and Identitarian discourses that sustains the dominance of Jewish and Israeli political institutions in American politics.

The Israeli Lobby’s hegemony over American foreign policy and its force in advocating policies that favor Israel has been widely recognized. Numerous studies on the topic have been published, such as: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Polic^y (Prof John Mearsheimer and Prof Stephen Walt), The Power of Israel in The United State (Professor James Petras). Alison Weir’s website, If Americans Knew routinely presents a devastating chronicle of Israeli intervention in American politics. The Washington Report on the Middle East Affairs has been producing outstanding work as well. The crucial question is, why have Americans let this happen?

My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that America isn’t just influenced by one Jewish lobby or another. The entire American political-cultural-spiritual spectrum has been transformed into a internal Jewish exchange. Most American do not see the true nature of the battle they participate in and, for the obvious reasons, their media and their academics do not help. It is more convenient to keep Americans in the dark.

America is rapidly moving towards a civil war. The divide isn’t only ideological or political. The split is geographical, spiritual, educational and demographical. In a Voxarticle titled, “The Midterm Elections Revealed that America is in a Cold Civil War,” Zack Beauchamp writes, “This is a country fundamentally split in two, with no real room for compromise.” Of the midterm election Beauchamp reports that “American politics is polarized not on the basis of class or even ideology, but on identity… One side open to mass immigration and changes to the country’s traditional racial hierarchy, the other is deeply hostile to it.” He correctly observes that “Republicans and Democrats see themselves as part of cultural groups that are fundamentally distinct: They consume different media and attend different churches; live in distinct kinds of places and rarely interact with people who disagree with them.”

Despite this American schism, Israel and its Lobby are somehow able to influence both sides, managing to finding pathways to the secluded corridors of both parties. Although Democrats and Republicans can no longer talk to each other, it seems that both are happy to talk to Israel and the Lobby. And it is at AIPAC’s annual conference that these political foes compete in their eagerness to appease a foreign state. This anomaly in American politics demands attention.

As a former Israeli, I had not observed the effects of the Israel/ Jewish Diaspora dilemma until I had my experience at the Student Union Hall in Britain. Israel was born with the Zionist desire to eradicate the identity of Jews as cosmopolitans. Zionism promised to bond the Jew with the soil, with a territory, with borders. Thus, it is consistent with the Zionist paradigm that Israel is notorious for its appalling treatment ofasylum seekers, immigrants and, of course, the indigenous people of the land. Israel has surrounded itself with separation walls. Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a ‘caravan’ of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel’s politics is a wet dream. Maybe Trump should consider tweaking his motto in 2020 into ‘Let’s make America Israel.’ This would encompass building separation walls, bullying America’s neighbors, the potential to cleanseAmerica of the ‘enemy within,’ and so on. It is not surprising that in 2016 Trump beat Clinton in an Israeli absentee exit poll. The Israelis do love Trump. To them, he is a vindication of their hawkish ideological path. Although during the election Trump was castigated as a vile anti-Semite and a Hitler figure by the Jewish progressive press, once elected, Fox News was quick to point out that Trump was actually the ‘First Jewish President.’

We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti immigration policies , they love ‘walls,’ they hate Muslims and they believe in borders. When alt right icon Richard Spencer described himself on Israeli TV as “a White Zionist” he was actually telling the truth. Israel puts into practice the ideas that Spencer and Trump can so far only entertain. But the parallels between Israel and the Trump administration’s Republican voters is just one side of the story.

In my recent book, Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, I point out that while the old, good Left tried to unite us by insisting that it was not important whether one was Black, a Woman, a Muslim, a Jew or Gay; in the class war, we were all united against capitalism. It was the new Left that taught us to speak ‘as a’: as a Jew, as a Gay, as a Black and so on. Instead of being one people united in the struggle for justice and equality, within the post political realm we are pulled into endless identity battles.

Seemingly, this Identitarian revolution has been inspired by a few Jewish ideological and philosophical schools including, most importantly, the Frankfurt School. Truth must be said, when it comes to ID politics, Diaspora Jewish ideologists are often slightly more advanced than others, not because Jews are more clever than anyone else but simply because Jews have engaged in identity politics far longer than anyone else. While Gay identity politics is about four decades old and Feminism is maybe a century old, Jewish identity politics started in Babylon two and a half millennia ago. In fact, Judaism can be realised as an exilic Identitarian project. It deliberately and carefully sustains Jewish cultural, spiritual and physical segregation.

Although Jews often drop their religion and dispose of God, many cling to Jewishness. For one reason or another, Jews often choose to operate within Jews- only political cells such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish Voice for Labour and so on. These Jewish bodies tend to preach inclusiveness while practicing exclusivity.

So it is hardly surprising that Jewish Identitarian philosophy and Jewish Identitarian success provides the model that inspires most, if not all, Identitarian politics within the New Left milieu in general and the current Democratic Party in particular. This isn’t the place to discuss at length or in depth the reasons behind Jewish identitarian success, however, it should be mentioned that while most Identitarians are taught to celebrate victimhood, to blame others for their misfortune, Jewish Identitarianism has a subtle dynamic balance between victimhood and entitlement.

Naturally, Jewish ideologists are at the helm of the Identitarian revolution. Maybe more well known is the fact that a chief funder of that revolution is financier George Soros and his Open Society Institute. Soros may genuinely believe in the Identitarian future: It is cosmopolitan, it is global, it defies borders and states but far more significantly, it also serves to divert attention from Wall Street and capitalist crimes: as long as Identitarians fight each other, no one bothers to fight Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and corporate tyranny. Soros didn’t invent this strategy, it has long been called ‘divide and conquer.’

The abovesheds light on the depth of influence of Jewish politics in America. While Israel is an exemplar of contemporary Republican goals, Democrats are emulating Jewish Diaspora identitarianism. The two contradictory Jewish ideologies are each well- ensconced within the two rival ideologies that are tearing America apart. The red Republican counties want America to be Israel Again. Thelarge metropolitan areas near America’s coasts have adopted the twelve tribes of Israel model – a loose Identitarian coalition threatened by Samaritans, Canaanites, Amalekites or as Hillary Clinton calls them the ‘basket of deplorables.’

The story of Jewish political strength in America doesn’t end there. A New York Jew can easily metamorphosize from an hard-core Identitarian into rabid Zionist settler and vice versa, but such a manoeuvre is not available to ordinary Americans. White nationalist Richard Spencer can not make the political shift that would turn him into a progressive or a liberal just as it is unlikely that a NY transsexual icon would find it possible to become a ‘redneck.’ While Jewish political identity is inherently elastic and can morph endlessly, the American political divide is fairly rigid. Jewish ideologists frequently change positions and camps, they shift from left to right, from Clinton to Trump (Dershowitz), they support immigration in their host counties yet oppose it in their own Jewish State, they are against rigid borders and even states in general, yet support the two state solution in Palestine (Chomsky). Gentiles are less flexible. They are expected to be coherent and consistent.

It was this manoeuvrability that made PM Netanyahu’s 2015 speech in front of a joint session of Congress a ‘success,’ although it might well have been considered a humiliation for any American with an ounce of patriotic pride. As we wellknow, Bibi can communicate easily with both Republicans and Democrats just as he cansimultaneously befriend Trump and Putin. He deploys snipers at the Gaza border with orders to kill while considerately peppering his statements with LGBTQ human rights advocacy. Not many Americans have dared to address this topic, but I believe that there are some who, by now, can see the situation clearly.

It was the Israeli in me who saw the disparity between ‘Israeli’ and ‘Jew’ at the Student Union Hall because I was raised as an Israeli patriot. I was trained to love and even die for the soil I mistakenly believed to be mine. As an Israeli, I was also trained to think tribal but speak universal, and I learned how to whine as a victim yet exercise oppression. But at a certain point in my life, around my thirties, I started to find all of it too exhausting. I wanted to simplify things. I demoted myself into an ordinary human being.

http://www.unz.com/article/jewish-politics-in-america-a-post-political-view/