Send this article to a friend:

January
17
2018

Identity Politics Vs. White People: Who Will Win?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Identity Politics is the ideology of the liberal/progressive/left and the Democratic Party. Identity Politics teaches hatred of white people, all white people. An article last November in the student newspaper at Texas State University declared that white DNA is an abomination. 

Americans, assuming that they are aware of this hostile statement toward white people, dismiss it as student silliness. They do not understand that it is the logical conclusion of the reigning ideology in America today. Naomi Klein, for example, writing in the current issue of Sierra, takes for granted the explanations of Identity Politics when she writes that the stakes in the 2016 election were enormously high for “those targeted by racist attacks as Trump fanned the flames of rising white nationalism . . . to the prospect of women losing the right to decide whether or not to become mothers, to the reality of sexual assault being normalized and trivialized at the highest reaches of power.”

Formerly, the liberal/progressive/left and the Democratic Party stood for the working class. In those days societal conflict was understood in class terms, and the capitalist was seen as the exploiter. Today the conflict is identity driven, with the white heterosexual male placed in the role as the exploiter of blacks, homosexuals and women. 

The idea that power resides in the white heterosexual male is obviously erroneous. Imagine if the Texas college student had written that black DNA is an abomination or homosexual DNA is an abomination. The article would not have been published. But it is perfectly OK to denigrate whites. Indeed, white males have no protection against abuse, because they are not protected by quotas, political correctness, and hate speech prohibitions. 

Whites are easily discriminated against, as the recent firing of James Damore by Google illustrates. Damore simply stated a scientific fact that males and females have different traits that suit them to different jobs. But this is a fact that is inconsistent with Identity Politics. Just as Trofim Lysenko managed to destroy Soviet genetics by denying facts, Identity Politics is destroying American society by denying facts.  http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture Ideologies are only interested in facts that confirm the ideology. When no such facts exist, ideologues make up the facts. 

Americans, especially white people who are the target of the deadly ideology of Identity Politics and are placed by the ideology in the same position as Jews in Nazi Germany and capitalists in Soviet Russia, are unaware of the extent to which Identity Politics is now the dominant force in American culture. For example, as James Damore’s lawsuit against Google proves, Google’s corporate culture is 100 percent Identity Politics. Damore was fired because he challenged Identity Politics. Read here https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-14/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-about-googles-office-environment examples of the raw hatred that Google employees expressed against Damore. None were fired for hateful and threatening language that went far beyond Damore’s mild statement that males and females have different traits. Google actually rewards employees for beating up on white heterosexual males and conservatives and holds diversity training sessions, the purpose of which is to put whites on the defensive. The whites who survive at Google are the ones who deplore their whiteness.

Clearly, Identity Politics has turned Google into a totalitarian organization, one that cooperates with police state agencies in restricting access to non-approved information. We must hope that a blockchain Internet soon replaces Google and that Google’s stock declines in value to zero. https://hackernoon.com/decentralized-internet-on-blockchain-6b78684358a 

As few people understand the role played by Identity Politics in the attack on President Trump and the American working class that elected him and the role of Identity Politics in falsifying American history, it is beneficial to revisit the Charlottesville, Virginia, staged show of last August and the way the presstitutes cast an Identity Politics explanation over the show. 

As the liberal/progressive/left, the Democratic Party, major corporate cultures, and the print and TV media have no compunction about attacking white people in the most threatening and hurtful ways, Amnesty International’s Margaret Huang is clearly wrong when she declares whites, with gags in their mouths, to be the “emboldened and empowered violent segments of our society.” https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/15/amnesty-international-barking-wrong-tree/ 

Listening to NPR last August confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin. NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville. The several “interviews” with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault. It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan “America first.”

Of course, what Trump means by “America first,” is precisely what the voters understood him to mean—the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other countries and the narrow profit interests of global corporations. However, the NPR propagandists put words in Trump’s mouth and twisted the meaning of the slogan to be “White America Comes First.”

In other words, “America first” according to NPR is code language to white supremacists to take advantage of the electoral college and elect a leader over the popular vote of the heavy population densities in the narrow geographical areas that comprise the northeast and west coasts, the centers of moral rot. Thus, Trump was the candidate of white supremacists and, thereby, illegitimate.

NPR next conveyed the message that Trump proved he was the Nazis’ candidate when he criticized both sides for the trouble in Charlottesville. NPR used its orchestrated interviews to place all blame for violence on the group that had a permit for their rally. According to NPR, the group that had no permit and formed in order to protest the rally consisted entirely of white hats defending America from free speech by alleged Nazis and racists.

There is no doubt that a rally of what is called the “alt-right” will pull into itself all sorts of extremists and that the cause of the rally, apparently defending a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition or perhaps simply gaining attention for the organizers, was done harm by the young, apparently unbalanced, man who drove a car into counter-marchers, after the permitted rally had ended. The nonsensical element of this act has convinced some Americans that the entire scene was an orchestration by the deep state as a weapon against Trump and civil liberty.

Charlottesville has many aspects that are ignored by NPR and the rest of the presstitutes. For example, how does the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative assertion that Americans are the “exceptional people” whose country is the “indispensable country” differ from Trump’s proclamation of “America first”? No one among the liberal/progressive/left was disturbed when America’s first black president proclaimed to the world that Americans are the exceptional, indispensable people. Doesn’t Obama use much clearer language that puts America first? If Americans are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. If Americans are indispensable, everyone else is dispensable.

What is the difference? One difference is that Obama was elected by the good people, the non-racist, non-misogynist, non-white-supremacist people, and Trump was elected by “the deplorables,” to use Hillary’s term. Little wonder she lost, having dismissed everyone between the two coasts as “deplorables.” But she didn’t lose, right? Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election from her. Trump is illegitimate and therefore must be driven out of office. He is doubly illegitimate because white heterosexual males elected him. This bogus charge despite the fact that Hillary got 2 million less votes from women than did Obama. Either the 2 million women didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.

The other difference is that Trump’s use of “America first” refers to the loss of millions of American middle class jobs and tax base for former manufacturing cities and states, whereas the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative use of “exceptional, indispensable America” refers to Washington’s right to bomb other peoples into the stone age for not complying with Washington’s orders.

The campaign to drive Trump out of office has been going on 24/7 since Trump confounded the pundits and won the election. For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is the enemy against whom they are conducting war, and as in war, truth is crowded out by propaganda. The liberal/progressive/left gets away with this abuse of news reporting because Trump’s intent to reduce tensions with Russia is seen as threats to the income and power of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives. Powerful material interests, ideology, and media together comprise a very strong force against which a mere president hasn’t a chance.

Few Americans understand the fundamental transformation of their politics and society since the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was stood on its head by EEOC compliance chief Alfred W. Bloomrosen. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibited racial and gender quotas as methods to combat “discrimination,” which was mainly a product of history rather than of the motivations of white males. But it is difficult to make history a villain, and social engineering benefits from having a villain to overcome. Thus was the foundation of Identity Politics laid.

The initial stage of the new politics was that quotas established privilege for “preferred minorities,” and preference began prevailing over merit. Over the decades white males have slowly but surely experienced discrimination in university admissions, hiring, promotions, university appointments, and in their ability to exercise free speech. Remember, a senior male engineer at Google was recently fired because he expressed a truthful fact—men and women have different traits—that is unacceptable to Identity Politics.

It is common parlance that white heterosexual males are racists, sexists, and homophobic. To use comparable language to denigrate blacks, homosexuals, and transgendered is impermissible.

The liberal/progressive/left along with the media has abandoned the working class for Identity Politics. Identity Politics teaches that women, blacks, and homosexuals are all victims of white heterosexual males who are characterized as the victimizer class, that is, those who victimize others.  The doctrine delegitimizes white heterosexual males in the same way that Nazi doctrine delegitimizes Jews and communist doctrine delegitimizes capitalists. There is no difference.

Initially, white males, such as the University of Virginia history professor on NPR who obligingly demonized the white males who do not accept their second class status, survive by mouthing Identity Politics and crawling on their knees. But this is a temporary respite. For Identity Politics the only acceptable white heterosexual males are those who admit their gender and sexual preference guilt and accept their punishment for being the victimizers of women, blacks, and homosexuals.

In 1995 in our book, The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, Larry Stratton and I describe how one EEOC bureaucrat by ignoring the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act, legislation the intent of which was to enforce equality before the law, reintroduced legalized discrimination into US law, thus beginning the process of delegitimizing the white male. Today some would turn their backs on this fact, not because it is invalid but because it is politically incorrect. When our book was published 22 years ago, the major media endorsed our argument:

“A forceful and convincing case . . . vividly dramatic.” — New York Times Book Review

“There are important lessons to learn . . . not least how good intentions can go badly awry.” — The Wall Street Journal

“Roberts and Stratton make a strong case that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s has been distorted beyond recognition.” — The Washington Post

The consequence of quotas wasn’t obvious at first, and there were claims that the quotas were temporary, but today the consequence is obvious. Heterosexual white males are deplorables. On NPR one male said that the views of white males who defend both themselves and dead white males from attacks should not be allowed a voice in American politics. Clearly, if The New Color Linewere published today, the same publications that praised the book in 1995 would denounce it today.

The liberal/progressive/left asserts that everyone knows that Robert E. Lee was an evil racist who fought for slavery and everyone who wants to protect his statue is obviously the same. Such people deserve no voice, no vote. They must be excluded from public discussion.

Imagine saying this about any other group, especially women, blacks, and homosexuals. How is it possible for the liberal/progressive/left to really believe that they are oppressed by powerful white male heterosexuals when they can demonize white males at will and prevent any backtalk?

If white males are so powerful, how can they be so easily fired by feminist thought control czars for “expressing harmful gender stereotypes.” Harmful to who? How harmful is getting fired?
As Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux predict http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-12-best-explanation-yet-of-what-happened-in-charlottesville-stefan-molyneux-and-faith-goldy-report-the-truth-you-wont-hear-in-the-media.html, white males have had enough of their demonization and the demonization of our country’s heroes. They see the writing on the wall and are organizing to defend themselves.

As anti-white male propaganda is apparently the only mental activity of which the liberal/progressive/left is capable, Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux are probably correct that America, broken into pieces by Identity Politics, is heading into civil war. I wonder which side will control the nukes and bio-chemical weapons.

If the white heterosexual males lose, I wonder who will protect the white women. Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?

Of course, this is an impermissible question.

The liberal/progressive/left are incapable of understanding that by demonizing white heterosexual males they are demonizing all whites and, thereby, themselves.

They should go ask the liberal whites in Rhodesia how well they are faring in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. They should ask South African whites how secure they believe themselves to be now that they have turned over power and a second black political party has risen, forcing political competition between black politicians into which black party hates whites the most.

These also are impermissible questions.

Identity Politics always leads to violence, and Americans will not be spared.

What the liberal/progressive/left tried to do with Charlottesville is to associate Trump supporters with White Supremacists and in this way demonize Trump supporters so that they will not have a voice when Trump is overthrown in a coup. Or it can be put in a different way: Charlottesville is being used by someone to discredit Trump and the people who elected him in order to pave the way for a coup, and the liberal/progressive/left is enabling the plot.

Upon reflection, I think that for most of the liberal/progressive/left the denunciations and one-sided interpretation of Charlottesville are just the ingrained knee-jerk reaction of people brought up in Identity Politics. In Identity Politics, everyone is a White Hat except racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-nut white males. The only tolerable white males are those who accept this characterization of themselves. All others are “white supremacists” or “nazis.”

From what I read on progressive websites, those imbued with Identity Politics are letting the emotionalism of the politics run away with them. My friend, Rob Kall, who is fair and open-minded and posts my columns on OpEdNews, including those to which he takes exception, writes: “Trump is Now the Leader of White Supremacists and Nazis.” Rob reaches this conclusion because Trump held both sides responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. By seeing equivalence between the two sides, Trump “made it clear that he was siding with the White Supremacists, giving them aid, support and encouragement.” https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-is-Now-the-Leader-of-by-Rob-Kall-Donald-Trump_Hate-Groups-Neo-Nazis_White-Supremacist-170816-650.html (You might remember Jean Kirkpatrick who denounced liberals for seeing moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the US.) I doubt this is the way Trump saw his statement. From the news videos I saw, there seemed to be plenty of hate on both sides. Certainly, there is plenty of hate for Trump among progressives.

In the Washington Post, Alexandra Petri finds Trump’s words condemning the violence on both aides to be “despicable words.” Petri apparently thinks that, counter to what the news coverage shows, the counter protesters did not engage in any violence, or else she thinks that violence from this side was justified but not violence from the other side. She condemns Trump for his statement: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” In her opinion, the last three words, “on many sides” shows that Trump is partial to White Supremacists. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/15/donald-trumps-despicable-words/

Richard Eskow joins the chorus. He links together deaths in Charlottesville, New York, Portland, Charleston, under “white nationalist terror” and hands them to Trump. https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-Won-t-Say-It-But-We-by-Richard-Eskow-Hatred_Terrorism_Trump-Mental-State_White-Male-Effect-170814-424.html

The Daily Kos also equates Trump’s blaming both sides for the violence, which is what the media reports show to be the case, with a defense of “white supremacist/neo-Nazi violence.” https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-defends-white-suprem-by-Daily-Kos-Protest_Trump-Insults_Violence_White-Male-Privilege-170815-734.html

Joe Macare at Truthout tells us that “Truthout will continue to report on the threat of neo-Nazis in the street — as well as those in the White House who are in lockstep with their agenda. We’ll talk to the people organizing against fascism on all fronts. We won’t equivocate or condemn ‘both sides.’ We won’t blame the Nazis’ targets for the hate they receive. But we know that these are not the only faces of racism. Whether it manifests itself in education policy, in gentrification, in economic inequality, in racist policing or in the United States’ immigration and ‘defense’ policies, Truthout will continue exposing white supremacy in all its forms.”

Truthout’s Anna Sutton expresses her “Heartbreak, Anger.” She doesn’t know where to begin. But she sees a fundraising opportunity. Make a donation and Truthout will “tell it like it is” against the “corporate and right-wing media” that are “bending over backwards to normalize Trump and the violence and xenophobia displayed by his rabid followers.” One wonders what corporate right-wing media she is talking about, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, all of which denounce Trump 24/7?

How do we avoid the question: who is over the top, the “alt-right” at Charlottesville or their progressive critics?

Over at CounterPunch, a remnant of America’s left-wing, John Eskow tells us that he has walked among white supremacists “since I first learned to walk. They surrounded me in blue-collar Utica, New York—an early capital of Rust Belt America, back in the 1950s.”

Here is Identity Politics’ association of the working class with White Supremacy. The all-powerful, all-threatening White Supremacists could do nothing to prevent—who?—from offshoring their jobs to Asia. But these people, who are so powerless that they could not even save their own jobs, are a great threat to us good people, who sat sucking our thumbs in unconcern while their economic lives were snuffed out. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/16/among-the-racists/

CounterPuncher John Wight, prior to affirming the dogma that from the very beginning America has been “synonymous with white supremacy,” first unleashes both barrels on the liberal/progressives: “Strident declamations against fascism in Charlottesville from those who supported fascists in Kiev, calls for action to be taken against extremists in America by those who’ve been supporting them in Syria. What is this if not rank hypocrisy?”

Ah, so, why did the liberal/progressives align with the military/security complex and the neoconservatives against Donald Trump who declared, to his undoing, his intention to normalize relations with Russia, thus removing the enemy needed to justify the $1 trillion annual budget of the military/security complex? These vast monies could have gone into health care for the unprovided, into public assistance for the unprovided, but the liberal/progressive/left would not have it. If the liberal/progressives are so against violence and hate, why do they support the hate campaign against Trump and Russia?

Has Identity Politics made the liberal/progressive/left deaf, dumb, and blind such that their reality is limited to the emotions that Identity Politics produces? This is a valid question. It is not meant to be derogatory. It is meant to lead to an understanding of our plight as a country. How does a country in which blacks are taught to hate whites, women are taught to hate men, and whose history is explained as white oppression successfully deal with the defining issues of our time?

Indeed, such a country is incapable of even recognizing the real issues. It seems clear enough that our doom is certain.

Identity Politics has such a firm hold on universities, media, all sorts of subject areas in public schools such as black studies, women studies, race studies, native American studies, and in Democratic Party politics that reality is absent from the picture. 

Most of what is deplored by Identity Politics are simply products of history, not of the evil intentions of white males. It once was the case that the function of liberal progressivism was to reform what was inherited from the past and had been morally outgrown. But this progressive agenda has been abandoned to hate that is just as wrong and deadly as the hate to which the liberal progressives object. So we are left with what: hate against hate. This is not promising.

We have to come back to the question, why is the liberal/progressive/left comfortable with being aligned with the warmonger neoconservatives and the military/security complex against President Donald Trump who intended, until he was blocked, to reduce the extremely dangerous to all of mankind tensions between the US and Russia created over 24 years by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes? If you are really against violence, why oppose the only president we have had since Reagan who wants to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict?

I have asked this question a number of times. I have never had an answer from the liberal/progressive/left.

Are we to conclude that they are unaware, lost as they are in their hatred of white, heterosexual males, that they don’t care, that they want Trump destroyed even if Pence, the replacement, leads us into unwinnable war with Russia and China?

Why do the environmental and wildlife preservation organizations jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon. Are they unaware of the consequences to all life of nuclear war?

What explains the total unreality in which Americans exist? We are supposed to be the leaders of the world. How can we lead when we are so utterly, hopelessly blind and stupid and consumed by hate?

Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor's Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.

He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Dr. Roberts' latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions - The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as "a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead." Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.

Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper's, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

He is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Please Donate

I listen to my readers. In March 2010, I terminated my syndicated column. Thousands of you protested. So persuasive were your emails asking me to reconsider and to continue writing that, two months later, I began writing again.

In order to create a coherent uncensored and unedited archive of my writings, The Institute For Political Economy, a non-profit organization that supports research, writing and books, has established this site, thus gratifying readers' demands that I continue to provide analyses of events in our time.

In order to stay up, this site needs to pay for itself.

www.paulcraigroberts.org