1/ Tl;dr of the progressive socialist’s anti-whiteism in the Trump era: “We’re not against poor whites, only rich whites. Therefore, we will create special hurtles for all whites, and opaque ceilings, such that fewer of them end up well-off.”
2/ “Then our line graphs of white income/wealth will come closer to converging with non-white income/wealth. We will not bother with data re: Asian income/wealth, because we seek to scapegoat and penalize whites and only whites.”
When I talk to more open-minded progressive socialists, who are often quick to echo my criticism of anti-white rhetoric and policies as problematic, there is still something they don’t quite get: Anti-whiteism, “antiracism”, fixes its eyes on prosperous white people as objects of envy and blame, either for themselves or for their clientele – whom they view as the Rawlsian “worst off” – and then seeks to remedy it by making it harder there to be so many successful white people. In essence, it’s impossible to be a champion of unprosperous whites by penalizing prosperous whites – and only prosperous whites. Then you are punishing white prosperity, and creating more unprosperous whites. This problem is doubly complex because prosperous whites are A-OKAY with seeing other whites from being prosperous in the name of “leveling the playing field for all”.
People need to try harder to coexist, and this involves periodic renegotiation of the consensus of what a fair society can or should be expected to look like. White exceptionalism – the idea that whites rule the world – must end, such that those with the most influence in society see criticism of whites as some kind of “royal We” self-criticism to which they are entitled. There must be identity politics for everybody or nobody; if Orthodox Jews are entitled to collective self-interest and ethnic exclusion, then so too should the white Trumpists down the street. If we are going to identify prosperous whites as a problem, we need to stop trying to address it by, in attempting to proper up certain groups, in effect seeking to limit the prosperity of whites; relatedly, if we want fair equality of opportunity, we need to think in universal terms – such as universal free higher education. “Historically colonized and enslaved peoples” need to stop being regarded as emblematic of what it means to be a true human uncorrupted by “whiteness” (modernity). With regards to human sameness versus human differentness, we need to seek an agnostic middle path – this means no scapegoating of “white privilege” and no scapegoating of “black stupdity”. With regards to both ethnic cleansing and the eradication of “white privilege and white intolerance”, we need to realize that people are entitled to the worlds that they have come to know – else they will never forgive you for theft or your impositions. Lastly (for now), the alt-right needs to realize that “us versus them” efforts to kick out “the globalist elite” and liberal humanists, who see all people as interchangeable and having equivalent entitlement to meaning and prosperity, are all doomed to fail, and that even if there is a civil war, the alt-right will lose. Ultimately, my grand concept is to start thinking really, really hard about how to make shit work.
SJWs, and they by no means limited to blue-haired overweight lesbians, see things in terms of entitlement. This is not an arbitrary value, but something which flows from a fundamental tenet of post-war humanist universalism and, relatedly, late capitalist ideology – “humans are ends rather than means, and the customer is always right!” Thus, those at the seats of global power – moral intellectuals – see all humans as customers. Like all such massive enterprises of globalism, such as how one or two global corporation will control 99% of the market, power is concentrated. To such globalists, all people are interchangeable, and are entitled to all the same things. However, this view of human prosperity – that it is “given” rather than created – is wrong on very crucial levels. Ultimately, a lot of these disputes rest on language – “equality” is obviously fraught. You mention that their logic leaves little room for differing opinions. This is exacerbated by how much of a bubble the elite live in (elite for me always means moral influencers), being fawned over by everybody with even the slightest influence or exposure to them. Their bubble is not merely due to the internal coherence of their worldview, but also this complacentness. They rationalize criticism of people who observe human difference by assuming that we are motivated by baseless hatred, and seek to justify our domination of (for example) “people of color”. That said, part of me as of late wonders if mankind is fated to be 99.9% people with, in the elites’ eyes, equal claims to stuff, of whom all are innately equal in “ability” and, thus, “entitlement”. Given the superstar effect in creating socioeconomic inequality – if Coca Cola tastes better than Pepsi, then it will dominate 99.9% of the global market – I wonder if all smart, influential people will end up seeing all humans as having equal entitlement over stuff, and we could all be doomed to live in VR honeycombs like in the Matrix. After all, the smartest and most morally sensitive to “all mankind” may well be as much a sucker for white suburbanites as they are to the proverbial starving Africans. If this is so, all we white reactionaries can hope for is to slightly adjust the manner by which human beings are catered to – realizing that some humans need more than just hedonic consumer shit, hip hop and free for all competition over sex, but delivering on this realization without stoking resentment between human “types”. If the smartest people get so concentrated at the top of the global power hierarchy, then the alt-right will lose in the long run even if it manages to cause an upset to the current power balance.
1/ The alt-right can’t take their eyes off the center of the chess board, but make no effort to figure out how the game looks from there.
2/ (Up on the mountaintop.)