The Emerging White American Plurality
Updated: Aug 31, 2019
I have sketched a new provisional model for thinking about the consequences of the diminishing Anglo-American majority, and the rapid emergence of an American civil society consisting only of ethnic pluralities, with no clear popular majority.
I believe that we are in danger of letting this debate fall into the hands of the ‘false-prophets of identity politics’, on both the cultural left and the alt-right. Moreover, that these movements and points-of-view have neither the resources nor the clarity we need for a rational, hopeful, prosperous, and harmonious future. Furthermore, that these movements will increasingly divide us in this social media age if things are permitted to continue on their current track.
Moreover, that we need to develop some institutions dedicated to fostering more American cultural unity and shared identity across ethnic and color lines. My inspiration here is found in the roots of Western Civilization, the ancient Roman Empire and the Roman Church. In the end, I believe in order to maintain some semblance of cultural unity and shared identity in this ‘American Imperial Republic’, we will have to go back to these ancestral institutions to learn what we can from their skill at assimilating disparate peoples into a cultural unity and a common identity. For all our scientific and technological advancements, ‘the ancients’ were more skilled than we are in this important aspect of empire building.
I am particularly interested here in the effective role that the Roman Church played in creating a unified culture and identity in Latin America. Anglo-Protestant Civilization has no one institution that could serve the function of the historical Roman Church in Latin America. It does have other institutions that do serve this function partially: the military, public schools, Universities, and ‘popular culture’. All-in-all, it has a very different cultural matrix than Latin America.
In the end, we will have to train a new type of ‘Defender of the Faith’, appropriate to an ethnically plural America.
The Emerging Menace of the White Identitarian Faction
Faction. That’s the key word here. A national white identitarian faction has emerged, which may increasingly become a public presence in American politics.
If a political party is organized around a set of principles and/or policies, then the white identitarian faction would organize into a party around the principle of the ‘restoration’ of the traditional Anglo-American color-caste system. But from a practical perspective, this faction will look to gain control of one of the well-established political parties. In our present case, the Republican Party.
The Democratic New Deal coalition (1932-1968) was a white majoritarian coalition that depended on the existence of both a de jure and de facto color-caste system to maintain its unity and stability. In 1968, those Democrats most politically driven by their white identity voted for George Wallace. Through enforcing the civil rights laws and mass black enfranchisement into the ranks of the Democratic Party, by 1972 President Richard Nixon’s election campaign was able bring the George Wallace Democrats into the Republican Party, thus giving the GOP a white majoritarian coalition that it retains today. This is the key inflection point for our current two party system.
The difference between today and 1972 (or 1984) is that even a 60% majority of the white vote is no longer enough to guarantee one a popular victory in a presidential election. In 2012, Romney received a comparable fraction of the white vote to Reagan in 1984, yet Obama won a resounding victory. A “white mandate”, so to speak, is no longer sufficient to win a presidential election. This is a big shift. The reality of this change and its logical political consequences has already seeped into the American public consciousness.
The ‘Republican establishment’ has tried to more or less marginalize the most assertive white identitarian elements in the modern GOP coalition, but for now, this ‘GOP establishment’ has been overthrown by the ‘Trump insurgency’. While many things are possible, I can only assume that this white identitarian faction will grow increasingly influential in the GOP, as the white majority fraction of the American populace and electorate decreases. Similarly, those on the lower rungs of the color-caste system will be increasingly encamped in the Democratic Party.
Let’s look into the not-so-distant future.
Can the American two party system function in a stable and effective manner, where the GOP is increasingly driven by white identitarian politics, while the Democratic Party is increasingly driven by its passion to dismantle the de facto color-caste system?
I don’t think so. Not with today’s demographics and the social capital possessed by American non-whites. I think this a disaster waiting to happen.
What is also interesting to note, is that within white identitarian ‘romance literature’ (Turner Diaries), there is a strong post-millennial element, in which ‘white salvation’ is achieved through a ‘great race war’, a civil war. We have seen white identitarian terrorist attacks since at least the 1990s, whose stated purpose was to trigger a civil war.
In my opinion, these Anglo-terrorists pose a greater threat to our national security than Muslims who have been ‘inspired’ by ISIL or Al Qaeda, etc. No country or external terrorist network could possibly pose of serious threat to American national sovereignty. In fact, our American ‘Maginot Line’ is our gigantic military. We spend trillions of dollars on ‘external threats’ that will probably never in reality emerge. The major threat to American national security is within, faction.
Russian attacks on the American way of life don’t take the form of bombing raids, but using our own ‘free press’, ‘voluntary associations’, and ‘social media’ to drive and cultivate faction within the American political system. During the Cold War, the Russians tried to use the American left for such purposes. Today, former KGB chief and current Russian President Vladimir Putin sees the American ‘alt-right’ as the major source of faction, particularly the white identitarian movement. It is to the ‘alt-right’ that Putin gives his support, both politically and perhaps financially.
This same ‘alt-right’ movement, apparently backed by Putin and the Russian oligarchs, seeks to take political power by taking control of the Republican Party.
‘The Coalition of the Past’ and ‘The Coalition of the Future’
Today, the GOP is not in any sense a ‘party of the future’. It is literally a dying coalition as currently constructed. Whatever plans or intentions that the ‘Republican establishment’ had to reform the GOP for the 21st century have failed. The modern GOP coalition has never been more divided in my lifetime, the fault lines never so visible. This was already happening at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, but the opposition to President Obama brought temporary unity of purpose to the GOP. But as soon as Obama was on his way out, the divisions reemerged even more violently in the form of the 2016 presidential campaign, personified by our current President, Donald J. Trump.
Trump’s emergence as the head of the Republican Party has made it more difficult for the ‘GOP establishment’ to make it a reasonable alternative to lead the USA into the 21st century. The center of gravity of the GOP establishment is in the past, Cold War America of the 1970s and 1980s. Its social policy prescriptions derive from an analysis of social conditions that existed several decades ago, and have changed substantially. The ‘Reagan Revolution’ has been spent. Its ideas have been already incorporated into the bipartisan ‘Washington Consensus’. President Ronald Reagan now is simply a romantic figure of a perceived brighter past, ‘morning in America’, contrasted sharply with the darkness of their current leader.
In contrast, the coalition of the Democratic Party is constructed as ‘the party of the future’, the American majority of the future. Because of the way the GOP coalition is designed, there is an inborn bias of this party to identify the ‘white majority’ with the ‘American majority’. This was in fact a key part of the political strength of the modern GOP coalition, particularly when the American electorate was approximately 80-90% white.
The modern Democratic coalition has no such illusions. In 1972, the Democratic Party did have illusions, illusions that it could consistently win Presidential elections with a coalition built around the black vote and a white minority. But this ‘McGovern coalition’ is and has been in fact the majority coalition of the American 21st century. It has won the popular vote in every presidential election since 2000, with the exception of 2004, when President George W. Bush received some 15% of the black vote, and close to 40% of the Hispanic vote.
These numbers are unlikely to be duplicated by Republican Presidential candidates in the near future, as white identitarian politics increasingly drive the GOP agenda.
But even if we admit that the Democratic Party is at this time the only reasonable alternative to lead the USA into the 21st century, we must still ask the question: “Does the Democratic Party have the right stuff to face the grave challenges that await us and to lead America into a rational, hopeful, prosperous, and harmonious future?”
The short answer is no.
What exactly is the problem with the Democratic Party? The problem is not so much their policy prescriptions as something more fundamental. Let’s start with the main slogan of Hillary Clinton’s 2106 Democratic Primary speech: “diversity is our strength”.
If one looks at the trends of American political history over the last fifty years, ethnic diversity has not proven to be a political strength for the Democratic Party, but instead it has been a real challenge. It has been a challenge that the Democratic Party leaders have not always been up to addressing in an effective way. Sure, Bill Clinton was a master, and Barack Obama also had the magic, but you can’t always have Bill Clinton or Barack Obama running at the top of the ticket. Often you have to win with mediocre political talent, relying on the principles and policies that constitute the party platform.
It is undeniable that the GOP’s relative ethnic homogeneity is an important political advantage in certain respects. It makes it easier to come to consensus and to market the political product. It is simply easier to organize a political party around one ethnicity. It is in fact a very common phenomenon in democratic politics around the world, particularly if the ethnicity is a minority or plurality, and feels the need to ‘stick-together’ for self-preservation. Not that being ‘white’ is an ethnicity in itself, more like a coalition of ethnicities.
No, ethnic diversity is not a political strength of the Democratic Party, but a challenge that brings its own peculiar set of difficulties. These difficulties cannot be glossed over and ignored, because the problems associated with them will fester and only get worse. These issues must be addressed and the associated difficulties kept in check through constant vigilance.
The ‘Fake Diversity’ of the Cultural Left
The diversity that the cultural left celebrates is a ‘fake diversity’. It’s the kind of diversity that one finds as a First-Year student at an Ivy League University. The students are of different colors, religions, races, and countries, but in a lot of ways they are really all the same. They come from the same prep schools or high profile public magnet schools. They really end up having more in common with each other, than they do with the average white, black, Hispanic, or Asian American.
The cultural left’s concepts of ‘diversity’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘the cultural politics of difference’, etc. have their roots in the sub-culture of the most wealthy and prestigious American Universities. It’s based on a delusion that one can export the Ivy League model of ‘enlightened diversity’ to the American public at large. But this is impossible.
One would have to live in a country where everyone has the same opportunities for career and monetary advancement as these same Ivy League students and professors, which is obviously impossible. Moreover, one would need to vigorously implement Ivy League campus social policies to govern the country, including speech and behavior codes, which would be tyrannical in nature and impossible to enforce. Not to mention, clearly in violation of the US Constitution.
This is the kind of ‘fake diversity’ that the Democratic Party celebrates. You see a vision on TV of a panoply of colors in their leadership, but really these people all went to the same schools, and have more or less the same opinions and interests. One consequence is that the homogeneity of opinions and interests of the multi-cultural Ivy League elite that runs the national Democratic Party, does not reflect the heterogeneity of opinions and interests in the Democratic electorate.
A good example here is the cultural issue issue that became so heated during President Barack Obama’s administration: same-sex marriage. Before SCOTUS found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, there were a number of constitutional ballot amendments in the western states, usually with the purpose of enshrining the definition of marriage as “one man and one woman”. Black voters, and especially black women, were by far the most likely to oppose same-sex marriage and vote for its prohibition of any demographic group. In the 2008 California election, black women were polled as voting in favor of the proposition to effectively ban same-sex marriage at a rate of 75%. Blacks, and particularly black women, effectively provided the margin of victory here.
These same black voters, and especially black women, are the most loyal Democratic voters, consistently voting at a 90-95% Democratic clip. Black women sometimes as high as 95-98%. Yet, these are the same black women who were by far the most opposed to same-sex marriage of any demographic in the nation. This is despite the fact that same-sex marriage was the cause célèbre of the Democratic Party during the administration of President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president. Ironically, without the Democratic ballots cast by these same black women, Democrats would have never been elected to appoint enough liberal SCOTUS Justices to find a constitutional amendment for same-sex marriage.
What this shows is that the black base of the Democratic Party disagrees strongly with the ideology and even the policies of the cultural left, yet this in no way compromises their loyalty to the Democratic Party, nor does it appear to threaten the cohesion of the Democratic coalition. Black Americans tend to be far more culturally conservative on average than white Americans. They are more ‘pro-life’ and greater proponents of ‘traditional marriage’ than white Americans on average. Yet they are comfortable in a political party whose cultural policies and philosophy is driven by the far left.
Why is this?
The primary reason is that the traditional color-caste system is the most powerful political dynamic in American politics. This ‘political fact’ is clearly recognized by black Americans, because they are at the bottom of this caste system. Since the American electorate has for most of its history been so overwhelming white in its composition, this fact sometimes slips out of the minds of many white Americans. The equation: “America = white America” had simply been assumed for so long that there was no need to even consider it. One important exception to this has always been white Southerners, owing to the history of African slavery, and the traditionally large concentration of black people in the Dixie states.
Anglo-American cultural conservatism is more than the question of opposition to the normalization of abortion, homosexuality, and perceived attacks on the ‘traditional family’, Christianity, etc. If these issues were the matters that primarily drove the political allegiances of Anglo-American cultural conservatives, then they would be in a political alliance with black American religious leaders to promote this agenda, and would undoubtedly be far more successful. They could actually ‘win the culture war’.
The reason why such a coalition has never arisen is that the most important issue that drives Anglo-American cultural conservatives is the preservation of Anglo-American culture, identity, and society. Traditionally, this has been believed to require a color-caste system, with the social separation of the black and white races, with formal and public “race-mixing” constituting a severe violation of moral or even legal norms. And while such beliefs are today no longer ‘politically correct’, they still hold a powerful moral force in both black and white America.
Consequently, what we see is a relatively poor and ‘culturally conservative’ black demos that forms its political alliances with ‘affluent white liberals’, the cultural left. Their concerns are far from identical, but they both oppose key policies and principles of Anglo-American cultural conservatives. Blacks main concern is the white identity politics of these Anglo-conservatives, while ‘affluent white liberals’ are more concerned with their particular ‘lifestyle preferences’: ‘planned parenthood’, normalization of homosexuality, and other Anglo-liberal cultural norms.
This yields a couple interesting conclusions.
One, that the political alliance between black Americans and ‘affluent white liberals’ is a mutually beneficial political compact. The black political leaders ally with white liberals to protect themselves from the detrimental effects of white identity politics. The white liberals ally themselves with blacks to gain political strength in fighting their ‘culture war’ for the ‘soul of white America’.
This has proven to be a very stable political alliance over time.
If we say that the Republican coalition represents the traditional white Christian majority of the American past, we can say that the Democratic Party represents those who are in some politically significant way alienated from the culture of this traditional white Christian majority. Consequently, the ‘cultural philosophy’ of the Democratic coalition is a ‘critical philosophy’. The cultural left in fact is a coalition ‘outcasts’ and ‘misfits’ from the traditional Anglo-Christian majority culture, who are critics of Anglo-Christian civilization, and Western Civilization more generally. The cultural left has no collective culture, moral norms, or worldview of its own that that could provide the basis for a civilization. This is at the core of the weakness of the Democratic coalition. The cultural left is deeply critical of Western Civilization, but doesn’t have anything to realistically replace it.
Two, that for Anglo-American cultural conservatives, the most important element of Anglo-American civilization is ‘white identity’. This is more important to them than the preservation of Christianity, or traditional Anglo-American manners, mores, or customs. The logic seems to be that without ‘whiteness’ and unchallenged ‘white sovereignty’, Anglo-American culture, society, and civilization cannot continue. Moreover, that Western Civilization cannot continue. That a mixed–race racially pluralistic country, à la Brazil, is in some sense not capable of carrying on these traditions and institutions in an effective manner.
Comparing Anglo and Latin American Racial Histories
This traditional Anglo-American belief is partially rooted in an historical reality. The Spanish and Portuguese Conquistadors who settled Latin America were primarily men, who frequently took African and native wives. Subsequently, the children of these mixed unions: the mulattoes, quadroons, octoroons, etc. became heirs to the estates of the white master class to an extent unknown in Anglo-America. They had to be given a legal status distinct from the common African slave, because they were given official governing responsibilities, and in some cases legal recognition as the children of the white master. Consequently, there developed a much more intricate and graduated de jure continuum of color caste, from blanco to negro, than exists in the traditional Anglo-American social model.
The traditional Anglo-American color-caste model is discontinuous: white and ‘colored’, and no in-between. Traditionally, the Anglo-American ruling majority has considered this to be a superior model to the Latin model. In contrast, to the Spanish and Portuguese, the English men did bring English wives with them to settle North America. Thus, they were able to a large extent transplant English ways and culture to North America. In contrast, the Latins, by routinely taking African and indigenous wives, did not transplant their native culture and customs to the same extent. Instead, an entirely new culture and civilization evolved, neither European, nor African, nor indigenous. If we look at traditional Anglo-American historians, the consensus is that the Anglo-American system was superior, and was more successful at least in part because it maintained ‘Anglo purity’.
It is important to note, that this is not just some ‘crackpot rightwing racist conspiracy theory’. The analysis I have provided comes directly from 1922’s History of the United States, written by Charles Beard, a famously progressive and brilliant American historian in his time. This point of view was for most of American history the traditional and consensus interpretation of the Anglo-American academic establishment, even of those sympathetic to the plight of black people.
Such arguments have been taboo in the respectable public sphere since the 1960s, but black and white liberal intellectuals are delusional if they think they will simply go away. This interpretation of history and society is deeply rooted in the Anglo-American tradition. As the white majority fraction diminishes and with increasing fervor seeks to preserve ‘white sovereignty’, they will inevitably turn to this tradition for ‘wisdom and solace’.
Sketching the White Identitarian Worldview
In this way, both the cultural left and the more extreme ‘white identitarians’ suffer from a flight from reality of the consequences of current demographic shifts. The cultural left is delusional because they do not recognize the grave challenge that this presents. They take it too lightly.
The more extreme ‘white identitarian’ is delusional in that he believes that the solution to these challenges to Western Civilization are best solved by an uncompromising dedication to ‘keeping America white’. But this is not possible. The die has been cast. He sees himself as the ‘last bastion of Western Civilization’, the true ‘Defender of the Faith’. Underlying this worldview is a dystopian vision of ‘white salvation’ achieved through a post-millennial ‘race war’. What we see is that as faith in Anglo-Christianity fades among the youth, the faith in the ‘mystical power of white blood’ remains.
Yet if we take the ‘white identitarians’ at their word, and then look at the reality, a 21st century American Civil War would likely collapse the global order, and bring with it a ‘third world war’. This would be more likely to bring an end to Western Civilization than to preserve it, in my opinion. The white identitarian movement is more likely to usher in the end of Western Civilization than to save it.
The white identitarian believes that Western Civilization and ‘whiteness’ are more or less identical. That the greatness, wealth, and power that Western Civilization has achieved is primarily a result of its ‘whiteness’, of its pure ‘Aryan’ or ‘Teutonic’ blood. This view is deeply embedded into the fabric of Anglo-American culture.
On the surface, such a belief would seem absurd. One need only briefly read from the contemporary histories on both the continent of Europe and on the island of Britain to know what barbarous naked savages the German speaking peoples were before they were converted to Christianity. The ancient histories are also clear: what we would today call ‘white people’, were the last of the so-called ‘races’ to achieve civilization. Moreover, the Germanic tribes from whom the Anglo-American is primarily descended were in fact the last of the European peoples to be civilized.
Yet this fiction of ‘mystical whiteness’ has been maintained through revisionist histories, particularly since the 19th century. These revisionist histories basically argue that all the great civilizations that the ancients claimed to be constructed by people of color, where actually surreptitiously founded by ‘the white race’, and that it was the ‘pollution of the darker races’ that destroyed these civilizations. Consequently, that the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, etc. all achieved greatness primarily owing to the ‘mystical white blood’ of their founders, and were later corrupted as they mixed with the darker races.
In this view, anybody who did anything important is white, or accomplished what they did primarily owing to their ‘white blood’. Moses is made white. The ancient Hebrews are made white. Jesus and his disciples and apostles are made white. White people are made the founders of Christianity. Saint Nicklaus is made white. White people are portrayed as having invented philosophy, science, math, and geometry. It is very much a comprehensive white supremacist worldview, which exists deep in the foundations of traditional Anglo-American culture and society. This notion of ‘mystical whiteness’ has played an important role in providing both theological and pseudo-scientific arguments to defend the Anglo-American color-caste system.
From this arises the strange notion of ‘the white man’s burden’, that it is the white man’s responsibility to ‘bring civilization’ to the darker races. Yet the historical reality is that it was in fact these ‘darker races’ who brought civilization to ‘the white man’. One could discuss such issues ad nauseam. We can see that such Anglo-revisionist history has a distorted view of the origins of its own civilization.
The Importance of the Latin American Model
If we focus on the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America, there is a far more common culture across color and ethnic lines than exists in Anglo-America. The de facto color and racial caste system still exists, but there is a greater shared identity. A simple example here is salsa music and dancing. In many of these countries, salsa music and dancing is enjoyed across races, colors, and generations. Consequently, whatever the differences, the people all dance to the same beat.
This common Latin culture undoubtedly has roots in what has traditionally been the shared Roman Catholic Church in these regions. While blacks in North America converted to Christianity, they did not belong to the same church as the Anglo-American. In contrast, in Latin America, almost all were under the common ‘spiritual dominion’ of the Roman Church for centuries, all sheep in the flock.
If we put aside disagreements on theology, we find that the Roman Church is a far superior corporate institution, when it comes to assimilating disparate peoples under a common cultural rubric and identity, than its Anglo-Protestant counterparts. This is especially true if we look at the Medieval Church and the Counter-Reformation period, when the Jesuits were at their zenith. At its most effective, the Roman Church was able to convert more or less any indigenous people to the belief that they were part of its universal empire of faith.
The Roman Church set up franchises all over the world. Like McDonalds, all these franchises have the same corporate logo, and more or less the same menu, but there are differences, that depend on the ancestral culture where the franchise resides. For example, if you got to McDonalds in Germany, you can buy a beer, but not in the US. If you go to McDonalds in Holland, they will give you mayonnaise for your French Fries instead of Ketchup, as in the US.
Undoubtedly, part of the effectiveness of the Roman Church is its ability to maintain more or less uniform doctrines and procedures in its global franchises, while at the same time being flexible about the ancestral cultural differences that distinguish the native peoples in different locations around the globe. The Roman Church was truly built to be a ‘universal church’.
In this way, there are important similarities between the Roman Church and the ancient Roman Empire. This Roman Empire was far more successful at assimilating peoples of different cultures, ethnicities, and colors under a common cultural rubric and identity than either the British or the Anglo-American Empires, which were and are far more technically advanced in other important respects.
Anglo-American Protestant institutions are very different in kind from the Latin Catholic. They have a very different corporate structure. They are not designed to be multi-national or even national corporations. They are not designed to bring people of different color-caste strata under a common cultural rubric and identity, and they don’t have the resources to do so. This is baked into the Anglo-American cultural matrix. Unlike Latin America, Anglo-America has never had such an institution. This is a major weakness of the Anglo-American Civilization, a design flaw.
This weakness or ‘design flaw’ of Anglo-American Civilization did not really pose a practical problem for the white majority until recently, and so it was never addressed. It was much easier to just table the whole issue for a later date.
But the Anglo-American chose to upgrade his republic into a global empire. He chose to bring Africans over to North America to do the heavy agricultural work. He chose to bring Chinese people to build the railroads. He chose to conquer half of Mexico. He chose to conquer various islands containing people of color all over the world, in order to put his military bases and trading ports.
He chose to invade countless countries and topple countless regimes filled with people of color. Now all these people are here in USA and they’re not going anywhere. In fact, their population is growing at a rate that far exceeds their white American counterparts. The white population will soon slip from a majority to a plurality. This is all a logical consequence of the historical actions and policies of the Anglo-American governing strata.
This is not a ‘Third World Invasion;. If the ‘Third World’ is here in the USA, it is only because the Anglo-American empire invaded their ancestral homes or brought them here to work for ‘slave wages’.
We are going to have to create some institutions that will enable the US to develop a more common identity across the color lines. Those American institutions that already exist for this purpose, such as the military, public schools, University, and ‘popular culture’ should also be more directed to this end. This will not be easy. But as a great man once said:
“We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.
The way I figure it, if we can put a man on the moon, with all the uncertainty, manpower, material resources, and genius that that required, I don’t know why we cannot make progress in this arena.
I believe in order to maintain some semblance of cultural unity and shared identity in this ‘American Imperial Republic’, we will have to go back to the roots of Western Civilization, the Roman Empire and the Roman Church. We will have to learn from our ancestral institutions what they knew about assimilating disparate peoples into a cultural unity and a common identity. For all our scientific and technological advancements, they were more skilled than we are in this important facet of empire building.
In the end, we will have to train a new type of ‘Defender of the Faith’, conducive to an ethnically plural America.