Is it time for traditionalists to stand up in the workplace?

Ralph P. writes:

In your item about James Wolcott, Rachael S. said that when in a liberal setting, surrounded by the faithful, she feels somewhat cowed (if she would permit me that characterization) if she is obligated to discuss subjects that would reveal the true nature of her beliefs about her own heritage, as it were.

This, of course is very dicey. People have lost their livelihoods, been passed over for promotion, harassed out of their jobs or not been hired at all for doing just that. For parents and other such primary caretakers it can be even worse. An ugly fact of this age is that the environment saps the fight out of even courageous people, who because of such obligations are forced into double-think against their impulse.

With that caveat out of the way, so that you understand that I don’t counsel burning bridges wantonly, I am nevertheless going to take a hard line on this. A traditionalist one, if you will.

Rachel’s viewpoint is typically that of a middle to upper class white woman. Although I agree with an earlier reply of yours to another correspondent that feminism is not the sole problem of our age, nevertheless the need to accommodate others despite disagreements and to even question one’s own self-worth in the face of more aggressive beliefs is typically a woman’s natural reaction to such circumstances.

We can no longer afford that. It is far too late to continue to be anything less than outwardly vocal about what we know to be true. What we need above all is male leadership. Women like Rachel S. would have a much easier time of it if she had the natural support that only a man who is sure of himself, his perceptions and the conclusions he derives from them can give. This used to be the case in our society but is no longer.

Such behavior is punished by the highly leveraged arbiters of our society.

So how does the tail wag the dog? By taking advantage of the fact that few persons, man or woman, are willing to step outside the crowd. This gives the more vocal and charismatic a chance to get control of any given situation. In other words most people want leadership. You see it in the schoolyard all the time.

The bully acts tough and the rest of the kids believe his act. But he needs them to bolster what is basically his own cowardly spirit. It’s a funny kind of dance where sometimes nobody really wants to jump over the cliff but each thinks the other is braver, so they accommodate one another, and over they go.

I believe that this is the nature of the leftist social environment these days. Rachel may find that there are many more who believe as she does, in varying stages of emergence. Psychologically liberalism does seem to be a house of cards, running on philosophical inertia. I think the real drive is with the traditionalists, even in Europe.

The dam may yet break. But it requires male leadership.

Speaking directly to her womanly sensibilities, I would ask Rachel how she would feel if in one of those typical office banter situations a male coworker who had until then been silent suddenly averred his support for the traditionalist point of view, on any topic. Would she then feel more at ease? And if another woman then began to step forward as well? That’s how it starts. The guy may get fired but if it happens often enough leftist support will crumble.

Your advice to her, to live interiorly as a traditionalist, ultimately has diminishing returns. In fact I believe it has pretty much begun to exhaust its usefulness. It is a prisoner’s mindset and completely understandable under the circumstances, but it isn’t a winning mindset.

I do speak from experience on this. I’ve lost friends over it, especially about immigration. I also know that people can be brought around. The key is what’s already happening on the internet and other venues: social support. There is a low level but very intense insurgency happening in our societies right now, much like the kind of thing that took place just before communism would take a over a country. The authorities were always surprised when the popular support they thought they had suddenly evaporated overnight. I believe the left is ripe for such a shock. But we need strong men to help it along. We cannot continue to allow Rachel to stand alone any longer.

LA replies:

On Ralph’s main point about the need to speak up, I agree 100 percent. However, he unnecessarily weakens his point by emphasizing the “women’s angle.” The problem Ralph is describing is not a problem that Rachael or any traditionalist woman has as a woman, it’s a problem that all traditionalists have. Yes, the kind of initiative and leadership Ralph speaks of is more likely to come from a man, but it can come from a woman too, as Ralph himself indicates when he says, “And if another woman then began to step forward as well?” Well, the woman who steps forward could be Rachael. In which case Ralph’s emphasis on female weakness undermines his appeal to traditionalists to be courageous.

But on his main point, this is also what I was thinking about in a recent thread when I said that we shouldn’t just be “disobeying” the liberal orthodoxy. If we’re in the role of “disobeying” it, then we’re still granting it the authority. No, we need to assert a different authority against the prevailing liberal authority. For example, let’s say in a traditionalist’s place of work or in a social situation he says something un-PC about immigration or women or gun rights, and others are shocked that he would say this. Now comes the crucial moment. Instead of acting like someone who has done something bad and is now either guilty about it or trying to get away with it, the traditionalist needs to justify what he said and show why it’s morally right to say it, and why the PC view which would suppress that view is morally wrong. That’s what the victims of PC never do. They do the first step, the step of disobeying PC, but not the second step, of standing their ground and justifying their disobedience by pointing to a different standard and saying that PC is wrong.

Since, as Ralph says, liberals are essentially weak and people look to authority, our assertion of a new authority will change the dynamics of the situation. That doesn’t necessarily mean we will win everyone over, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we won’t be socially rejected or damaged in our job, but we will no longer be seen simply as disobedient malefactors to be put down. We will have introduced a new “view” into the situation, and people will say, “Ralph has got this conservative view,” instead of simply “Ralph’s a racist.”

What makes modern liberal people and especially Americans tick is the idea of morality. Liberalism dominates the Western world because people think that liberal positions are moral and non-liberal positions are immoral. As long as we non-liberals operate within this script, we remain helpless before PC. But if we seize the moral ground, if we argue cogently that our position is moral and that it’s the liberal position that is immoral, the liberals will be thrown by that. It doesn’t mean we will win the debate, but it does mean that the liberals would no longer be able to dismiss us automatically as bigots and reactionaries.

Ralph replies:

Thanks for the reply. I only stressed the man/woman thing because it really seemed that that was where Rachel was coming from. Part of what I believe is that we need to reassert the traditional gender roles, albeit in a new context. All of us are faced with this, but a man will likely just clam up and then gripe to his buddies about it.

It’s women who will try to go the extra mile and seek an emotional reconciliation. This can’t work with the ruthless.

As far as changing the dynamics of a situation I’ve found a way that has worked for me in the past. You’re right, we don’t need to justify and it is unproductive at this point to engage in apologetics (in the original and the modern sense of the word). What I do is state my thoughts without any frills whatsoever. I answer criticisms directly without any qualifications or mollifications. I never lose my cool, use profanity, engage in sarcasm or attack the other person in any way.

And yes, I have been called a racist. But I’ve also noted that sometimes the person is receptive. When this happens I switch tactics a bit. I will allow myself to expand on my answers to questions a bit, something I never do when I am confronted with opposition. This is all right out of the old school. We’re going to be targets anyway so just present them with the most solid immovable mass you can. I tell people directly that they live in the comfort that white men (never ‘males’) have built and that they wouldn’t last two minutes in the third world. This is what gets them steamed.

I must admit though that it’s been a while since I’ve gotten into these verbal jousts, and my livelihood was never threatened.

Some might not get away with it that way and if they have kids they need to put their welfare first, regardless about how they feel. But if enough of us do go out on a limb it will give others like Rachael a lot more wiggle room. After all, wasn’t the original item about how James Wolcott trashed you in public? You seem to be still there, so I guess the stuff works after all.

Ralph continues:

To clarify a minor point. In the second paragraph of my reply the italicized word justify is not the right one. Of course we should justify our positions morally and logically. What I meant is we shouldn’t backpeddle into trying to justify our existence as solidly Western men and women. Your point is correct, and I believe that is part of what you meant when you spoke to Rachael about interiorizing our culture. Bingo! Our identity as white Westerners should be axiomatic. Yet whole swathes of our population have somehow been talked out of it. Nuts.

LA replies:

A nasty blog entry about me by James Wolcott at the Vanity Fair website is not in the same league as being considered a “racist” at one’s place of work.

Rachael S. writes:

In response to Ralph P., I would like to clarify my position. When I said:

If I am presented with an opportunity to affirm liberal principles (at work, in a casual setting, in my daily choices) I have a few options. I can remain silent so as not to affirm; I can parse my language so that my response can be taken two different ways, or I can lie and say something liberal. The division that sometimes lies between my true self and the one I present to people creates the doubt that I mentioned above.

…I meant those particular opportunities to affirm liberal principles that represent going far outside the “acceptable sphere” of conservative speech allowed in the particular situation one finds oneself in. I do regularly make traditional arguments to people who don’t agree with me, but I don’t give myself that much credit for doing that, because to make a real difference, one must travel not just outside that sphere but outside its orbit, and in so doing face the consequences. I have noticed that when I do thoughtfully argue a traditional point with a liberal, they often act as if what I am saying is completely true BUT… as if there is an unfortunate reality we must acknowledge, and the better reality towards which we should want to progress: heaven on Earth and fairness to all. An occasional argument with someone like that really does nothing because they immediately submerge themselves in the warm kiddie-pool of liberalism again.

To answer Ralph when he says:

Speaking directly to her womanly sensibilities, I would ask Rachael how she would feel if in one of those typical office banter situations a male coworker who had until then been silent suddenly averred his support for the traditionalist point of view, on any topic. Would she then feel more at ease? And if another woman then began to step forward as well? That’s how it starts. The guy may get fired but if it happens often enough leftist support will crumble.

I would probably affirm the male coworker in his stance, but it would not make me feel more at ease. The bureaucracy that reigns in offices (like the one in which I work) would swat him like a fly if he said anything that truly struck at the heart of liberalism, and I doubt anyone would stand up in his place to wave the banner. I do think that my belief in traditional principles is sometimes dominated by emotion, and that a traditional movement must have the steady, dispassionate leadership of men to achieve long-term success.

LA replies:

I’m a little confused. I thought we were talking about the dangers to a conservative of going outside the acceptable sphere of liberal speech, but now Rachael is talking about the risks to a conservative of going outside the acceptable sphere of conservative speech.

Rachael replies:

I guess I need to be more clear. Liberal speech is the default “atmosphere” in which we live, but one is allowed to express conservative and traditional opinions (I have found) to a certain level or amount. Liberalism allows many unprincipled exceptions, one of them being this idea that you should be allowed to express yourself, and this can include allowing the token conservative to speak. It is when conservatives go “over-the-line” and step outside what is allowed for a conservative to say, that there are penalties. I distinguish between liberal ideas, conservative ideas that do not threaten—but are simply tolerated—conservative ideas that begin to approach the pale, and the ones that are truly verboten. Does that make sense?

For instance, I have argued against feminism, but only to a point. I would consider what I have said to be within the sphere of what a conservative (and it obvious to most that I am) to be allowed to say. A liberal would never make the same argument, but would tolerate it coming from me because he is a person of diversity and open-mindedness. But I am only allowed to say so much.

LA replies:

Thanks for the clarification; that makes complete sense.

Mark Jaws (a name he uses to distinguish himself from commenter Mark J.) writes:

I am a traditionalist who has successfully neutralized PC within my work environment. What is my secret for success? Luck and unadulterated chutzpah.

I am lucky in three regards.

First, as a defense contractor, I am fortunate enough to work with a rather large number of impressive and conservative men, some of whom have been decorated in combat. So, when the going gets tough, I know I am never alone. In a way, we are a band of brothers when it comes to fighting lefties.

Second, as a retired intelligence officer I have spent much of my career in front of hostile or, at best, unsympathetic audiences. I know how to handle barbs and what it takes to regain control. As a 1st Lieutenant at Fort Bragg, I had to brief to XVIII Airborne Corps Commanding General 14 times, always with his staff around, and always with many probing—and often hostile—questions. To counter this, I developed a stage presence and persona that have served me well to this very day.

Third, I grew up in NYC and lived mostly with blacks and Hispanics. My first three bosses/coaches were black, all of my nieces and nephews have Hispanic ethnicity, and as a half-Jew I can criticize the tribe whenever necessary—which is often. I was the victim of Puerto Rican anti-Semitism and racism, and I can look a leftie of any color or persuasion dead straight in the eye and tell him that the fecal matter of his group does indeed emanate an odor.

This leads me into the second reason why I can neutralize the Left— chutzpah. Let’s go back to the Puerto Ricans. When I was 20 years old and still living in the Vladek Housing Project on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, my father, brother, and I, armed with baseball bats, confronted a gang of six Puerto Ricans who had been showering our apartment door with eggs. I looked at the leader right in the eye and told him, that before his buddies could ever get to me, I was going to bash his head in with my aluminum baseball bat, and that he would die before I would. Guess what? No more problems with racist PR’s.

In basic training I challenged one of the racist black soldiers who had been pestering me for over a month to a fist fight. Surprise! He backed down. Later in the Army, after I had become an officer, I was able to take over two race relations classes from the instructors (who were always black), and put the premise that only whites can be racist on its head by citing experiences from my past. Before I retired from the military ten years ago I organized a European-American day at the Norfolk Naval Base and guess what? It went off without a hitch. All of the events were well attended and many blacks were in the audience.

At work, whenever the issues of civil rights, affirmative action or quotas come up, I go on the offensive. I tell everyone that I have a profound statement that is going to knock them for a loop, so I ask them to sit down. With just the right amount of hyperbole, histrionics, and chutzpah, I pretend to struggle to regain my composure, take a deep breath, look the audience straight in the eye and simply say, “Whites have civil rights too.”

Immigration is even simpler to handle with all of the dirt on Aztlan and MECha that is available on the Internet, plus the actions of the Mexican government. To me arguing with a guilt-ridden, open-borders, pathetic white person or a Razista is like shooting fish in a barrel. Ralph, it just takes nerve and practice. These people fold like a house of cards every time, and whenever profanity has been used, it has come from their quarter. Maybe I ought to market a seminar for you gun-shy traditionalists and call it “Chasing the Eloi Away.”

LA replies:

People do not need Mark’s unique life experience to do what he is talking about. His point is that anyone can do this. And I think he’s absolutely correct. The retreat of the white race before liberals and nonwhites has been 100 percent a function of white fear—of unnecessary white fear.

To take one example, I have always been astounded at the way whites are afraid of the racism charge—there really is some sick, contemptible weakness inside whites that makes them fold whenever the charge is directed at them. At best, they defend themselves from the charge, saying, “It’s not true, I’m not racist.” But this only gives the charge legitimacy, since the person is saying that the charge is generally true and legitimate, only that it’s not true in his case. That’s not the way. The way is to attack the racism charge itself, with high moral indignation that your interlocutor would dare try to silence anyone who (say) opposes affirmative action or multiculturalism or bilingual education or the spread of Islam or whatever the issue may be, and thus abolish all debate on those issues.

This is an example of what I was talking about earlier; liberals can be won over or at least pushed back by someone who plausibly claims the moral high ground in a discussion. Liberals (AND conservatives!) have simply assumed that liberalism has a monopoly on morality. If that assumption is successfully and persistently challenged, liberal rule will start to crumble.

Mark Jaws writes:

So true, Mr. A. One does not need my unique life experience which I described yesterday, to seize the initiative. One only needs chutzpah, or to the general population, audacity.

There is a multitude of avenues out there just waiting for the plucking. For example, if the talk turns to “racist conservatives,” simply ask your detractors, “What would you call the Congressional Black Caucaus, which excludes on the basis of race?” The silence will be deafening.

Or if your office chums begin do discuss how Republicans “pander to the intolerant religious right,” simply bring up the long rap sheet of the Most Reverend Al Sharpton and ask the Head Leftie what he or she thinks about both Hillary’s and Obama’s pandering to this racial provacateur? But before you do that, do some research. Wikipedia has done an excellent job of depicting Sharpton’s racist vitriol. And make sure you include his escapades during the Crown Heights race riots and his participation in the Fast Freddie Fire Fiasco, in which eight people were killed. Al Sharpton is the Holy Grail of Albatrosses. It is shame that the GOP lacks the brains and backbone to neutralize him or any of his supporters. Make sure you don’t.

Emily B. writes:

My husband works with a small group of guys, always has. He has always worked with mostly conservative men, so far out people have never been an issue (except for this new guy, and my husband doesn’t back down).

He and another guy, a Mormon, stick out from all the rest because of our traditional families. My husband’s is, by far, the most traditional of all. He’s 28 and has 4 children, whom I homeschool.

So the homeschooling and four children invite the questions first. He’s honest and answers we don’t believe in birth control. This leads to more questions about why, etc. He answers them unabashedly. My husband just happens to be the most productive worker and has risen the fastest, the other guy is a close second. This is no surprise because of their morals and large families provide the incentive. Further, I dress myself and the children very attractively and well (in my high school yearbook, I was chosen as a style “trend setter”), so they see we’re attractive and admirable. They also see that I rarely hound him via the phone and he’s always anxious to get home.

My husband’s traditionalism has served him well in work and life. He answers questions forthrightly. Sometimes he gets comments out of jealousy, cracks about being a wife beater, but he lets those slide off his back.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2007 01:28 PM | Send