DemoMult Redux

Democratic multiculturalism.

Let’s consider Salter’s democratic multiculturalism (here reference to the Australia case, but applicable everywhere):

A promising strategy is to advocate “democratic multiculturalism”, in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises. That time is now because the dysfunctions of diversity are already impacting the majority. In the large cities the Anglo middle class is under pressure. Crime increasingly comes from immigrant and indigenous minorities. Whole neighbourhoods have been alienated from the nation. The professional class is rapidly diversifying. At the same time affirmative discrimination targets white males. The traditional working class is abandoned by a Labor Party in thrall to organised ethnic and lifestyle minorities, and the largely Anglo regional areas have been abandoned by a hopelessly liberalised National Party.

Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance. The effect of the strategy would be to lay the groundwork for the democratic repossession of the state (federal and state governments). State power can do good and bad. Instead of pulling down the nation and suppressing free speech, government can be used to reverse the destruction and protect civil liberties. Government can consolidate majority support by reforming school curricula and defunding corrupt universities, withdrawing state support from hostile elements of multiculturalism, promoting positive multiculturalism – ethnocentric affirmation of identities instead of vilification of Anglo Australia – and reforming public broadcasting to replace leftist and multicultural bias with high journalistic and cultural standards.

The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.

Unfortunately, Der Movement perceives demographic conflict through a dramatic Turner Diaries-style lens of Der Tag warfare; for example, from a StoneToss comments thread:

Holyphonic  Jadan 

If there is no one in the military on your side, then you need to accept you've lost and either live under communism or kys because you're not going to stand a chance against a military.

OccidentalThoughts  Holyphonic 

As a lone person, no, but look at the plight of Ireland in the 19th century. A secession movement would likely succeed at the very least. A protracted "non-violent" resistance could take back the entire country.

Holyphonic  OccidentalThoughts 

These kind of comparisons fail because it fails to consider that we are presently being genocided by an enemy who has made it clear anything or anywhere for whites to have to ourselves is not something they'll ever tolerate.

Alistair Grove  Holyphonic 

The military is still outnumbered by the populace. An armed population

In contrast, what these people should be looking at as a model is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Rather than pitched battles, people should think more about the spread of cynicism, anger, bitterness, and despair, as well as the White population’s withdrawal of consent to be governed. Think: Passive aggression rather than aggression. The military? One possibility: Low morale, mystery meat incompetents, transgenders, pregnant women, etc. in the ranks; in addition, consider the possibilities of political division, and possibly being humbled in a foreign military conflict. America as a whole: Economic decline, inter-group hatred, leading to chaos and balkanization. What’s required is the long and hard work of legal and peaceful politics and metapolitics to heighten the contradictions, so as to make the house of cards more and more and more unstable, and democratic multiculturalism can be part of this approach.

Thus, the techniques of democratic multiculturalism are relevant here; democratic multiculturalism can work. It has an advantage not cited by Salter – Suvorov’s Law, which notes that in history revolutions (of whatever kind) typically do not happen during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Thus, ultimately, worse is not better; worse is worse and better is better. By pressuring the System to make concessions, democratic multiculturalism can start the process of relaxing the repression. Now, it is true that today things do not look very propitious for this; the System is hell-bent on more and more and more repression, and doesn’t seem ready for any concessions whatsoever. The System seems to have a conscious or subconscious understanding of Suvorov’s Law and avoids concession and doubles down on repression. 

But there is still room to maneuver here. Small victories at the start perhaps, but still, something is better than nothing, and that’s from patiently applying low level pressure via, e.g., multiculturalist methods of discrimination complaints, identity politics, heightening contradictions, etc. Of course, it may come with some personal cost – being labeled a “troublemaker” (just like with Der Movement, eh?) and being targeted for petty retaliation. Let’s consider what’s happening at Smith College:

Shaw is soft-spoken, thoughtful and modest. She’s the opposite of the emotional screamers who post videos of themselves having meltdowns about Trump, or the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She also has serious hipster-woke credentials, having gone to Smith herself in the early Nineties, and lived in Portland and in Brooklyn, both hotbeds of self-loathing white people trying to atone for their race. She laughs at the irony of a person like herself becoming a poster child for speaking out about racism against white people. As a young woman, she was an actual card-carrying member of the Socialist Worker’s Party. At Smith, she called out people who used the word lame. ‘That kind of language policing, I participated in it,’ she told me.

Also see this. Here we have a woman who has come out of the hardcore Left who is doing more “for speaking out about racism against white people” than all of our beloved right-wing "leaders" scrambling for "D’Nations" and, in some cases, six-figure compensations.

Shaw is doing the hard work of democratic multiculturalism, which seems to me more important than gibbering about Kali Yuga or promoting articles about Arctic Alliances or PISA scores. Yes, she is against "White supremacy" (sic). Didn't I just say she comes from the hardcore Left? Think of it this way - do you believe you speak the truth? Do you believe that your views, and other views similar to yours, are being suppressed by the System? If yes, then a major objective must be loosening that repression so as to allow your truth to be heard. Ad hominem against those who fight for free speech, free expression, and freedom of conscience doesn't do anyone any good. When it comes to the fight for free expression, "purity tests" are, frankly, stupid.

If I had to decide where $180,000 should go, I’d say it should go to support Shaw – who has had to resign from her position – rather than go to folks who “maintain an online publication.” That’s my opinion. You decide.