How whites become traitors to whites

Mark Richardson writes about the liberal two-step that turns whites against whites (and also men against men). Here’s how it works. Whites accept the leftist claim that whites are oppressive as a race. But once this declaration of collective guilt has been issued, individual whites who aspire to prominence in society find themselves deprived of moral status, since they are part of this oppressive white race. How does an individual white win back his moral status and resume his rightful role as a leader of society? He does it by breaking ranks with other whites and announcing that he is not like those other whites. He is not oppressive, exploitative, bigoted, exclusionary, and narrow-minded. To the contrary, he is egalitarian, supportive, compassionate, and inclusive, and nothing human is alien to him. Once he has made this leap to liberal virtuecrat, his social and career advancement henceforth depends on his being an enemy and a judge of his fellow whites.

Richardson’s analysis complements my idea of the liberal script by which liberal society operates. According to the liberal script, there are two types of whites: the liberal whites, and the non-liberal whites. (In most cases the non-liberal whites are not actually non-liberal; they are just assigned that role in the liberal script.). The third character in the script is the nonwhites. The liberal whites embody the virtue of liberal society, which is non-discrimination toward nonwhites, while the non-liberal whites represent the evil principle of discrimination which must be put down. Once the articulation of the white population into liberals and non-liberals has occurred, the action of the liberal whites in exposing, deriding, condemning, expressing contempt for, and marginalizing the non-liberal whites becomes the central moral drama of the society.

Richardson’s scenario adds the etiological or time dimension to the liberal script. It shows how the liberal whites became liberals. They did it in the act of accepting the leftist claim that whites are guilty, and then in separating themselves morally from other whites by declaring that they are not like them, and by committing themselves to the cause of extirpating white discrimination from society.

Remember, at different times the same whites can be assigned to the “liberal” or the “non-liberal” role in the script. The script has nothing to do with reality, but with symbolism. Notice, for example, how Republicans, instead of reacting indignantly when they are absurdly accused of excluding blacks from the Republican Party, accept the charge, and commit themselves anew to doing much more to attract blacks to the party. In effect the Republicans, who in reality are liberal and non-racist, accept their assigned role in the liberal script as non-liberal, racist whites. The liberal script, by which liberalism dominates the society, cannot continue to function unless the “non-liberal” whites voluntarily accept, or at least fail to protest energetically, their assigned role as racists.

Richardson’s scenario also sheds light on the perennial issue of whether liberals are guilty or not. Whenever the subject of liberal guilt comes up, someone will invariably point out that liberals are not really guilty, but the opposite: they’re wildly enamored of themselves. This is true, but, if so, what then becomes of liberal guilt? And how did this situation come about? The answer is that it came about by whites (1) accepting a collective white guilt, then (2) individually asserting their own individual virtue as compared with the general run of guilty whites. In the liberal script, the mass of non-liberal whites are guilty, while the select liberal white is not guilty but infinitely worthy and self-congratulatory. However, even though the white liberal, the protagonist in the liberal script, is not himself guilty, white guilt is what the script is about, namely the constant ascription of guilt to the generality of whites by the good whites.

I have argued that Steve Sailer’s status theory of liberalism is simplistic and reductive and leads to no useful way to fight liberalism. But Richardson’s theory brings status into the picture in a way that makes more sense to me.

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

Have to disagree with you on this one. It seems to me that most liberals merely lie about how they really feel about America’s most serious problem—the Negro.

That explains their support for affirmative action (what’s 10 percent lightweights when the other 90 percent has to pass muster with the admissions committee?); black-on-white violence (who cares? you have to be stupid to allow yourself or your children to live among savages); etc.

Just think of your favorite lying white liberal—say Soros. Check out where he lives, where his friends live, who his friends are, etc and you’ll see that he keeps his distance from blacks.

So, how did whites become race traitors? They haven’t; they are just acting, pretending—whatever you want to call it. Let’s just wait to see whom Angelina Jolie when she develops a brain tumor—or whom she’d consult if Brad was accused of murder.

All these liars—it makes me want to puke.

LA replies:

You’re missing the salient point of Richardson’s post and my further expansion on it: the many whites who join in the condemnation of “racist” whites at every opportunity.

James N. writes:

I don’t think Jim C. is missing your point.

He’s making ANOTHER point—that “antiracist” whites avoid Negroes at every turn, that they move as far away from them as possible, that they send their children to all-white schools when possible, and that their goals for race mixing pertain only to those OTHER whites, who are bad.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 05, 2009 02:19 PM | Send