Resisting the anti-Resistance

Countering the Left.

There exist various articles and published papers concerning techniques that can be used by the diversity-mongers to counter the resistance of Whites, particularly White men, to “diversity, equity, and inclusion." Rather than directly answer these leftist screeds, here I will simply answer several of their arguments, and, perhaps, later posts on this topic will extend this discussion and address specific articles and papers, if I come across any of interest.

One common approach is to state that these initiatives will help enhance the well-being of the company, school, nation state, or whatever entity is being considered. One could argue against that directly, outlining how and why the initiatives would not help, and would likely harm, the entity in question. Of course, one can point out all of the ways in which diversity is a devastating weakness; I believe that the readers of this essay are familiar with those arguments, so I need not repeat them here. But there is a more fundamental response – you can point out that these entities (including "nation state" if we are talking about a multiracial state like the USA) are all artificial, abstract entities. So, even if the initiatives in question would help the entity, that really doesn’t address the main issue. We, as humans, care (or should care) about humans. All of the entities in question are composed of people and ultimately exist (or should exist) to serve the interests of people. If this is so, we can then ask - which people?  Any people?  No, we should be concerned with our people – White people.  Why should we care if some entity prospers if it benefits others at our expense?  Would Coloreds sacrifice their group interests for an abstract and/or artificial entity that benefits Whites? No, they would not. We should behave the same. Ourselves alone. Our own interests come first.

Then there is the childish “we’re all Americans” trope that for some reason is never invoked to support, or promote sympathy and empathy for, Whites, particularly rightist Whites. Amusingly, I once had a Black panhandler using this trope on me years ago, which suggests to you the underlying "gimme" sentiment behind it. A useful riposte would be to ask – what is an American?  If a pregnant illegal alien crosses the border into the United States and gives birth, then that offspring is an “American.” Are we supposed to feel some sort of kinship, commonality, and comity for that “American?” It is all a fictive, “paper” relationship. This is yet another abstract concept divorced from real people and real people’s interests.

One interesting, and very telling, argument goes like this – “It is in the interest of White men (or Whites in general) to support diversity initiatives at work, because if they don’t they will be replaced by someone else who will" (or some other threat centered on social pricing). So, here, the argument is based on threats and coercion; leftists no longer attempt to argue that the diversity initiatives, on their own, by their innate nature, will benefit you. No, it is simply that someone higher than you has decided that this policy will be pursued, and you will be punished if you don’t go along, even if you believe that the policy is destructive and (aside from threats of punishment) not in your interests. A flip side of this approach is giving specific rewards (raises, bonuses, promotions, time off, etc.) for going along with the program – the carrot to go with the coercive stick.

Besides being willing and able to endure the stick, and to refuse the carrot, the best way to answer the coercive approach is to simply point out its reality as I have just done above. The coercive argument is a tacit admission that the policy or policies in question need to be enforced, not being, on their own, by their innate nature, beneficial to those being forced, or bribed, into going along. Indeed, the policy or policies may indeed be harmful. If the counter-argument is that the initiatives are actually helpful to those being forced or bribed, but they do not understand this and thus need to be forced – well, doesn’t that imply that the targets are either being called too stupid or stubborn to understand, or that the alleged “benefits” are so esoteric, and so poorly explained, that they are not obvious to all involved?  And since we know that any actual innate benefits are non-existent – quite the opposite! – forcing the Left to explain these “benefits” without resorting to carrot or stick will be a useful exercise.

The Left also likes to invoke White guilt, which is particularly effective against High Trusters. For example, we will hear about “the legacy of slavery” – typically in reference to American Black slavery imposed by founding stock Americans. Putting aside the invalidity of inherited guilt, you can reply that many of the Colored recipients of the diversity bonanza have no historical tie to American slavery, that many Europeans were enslaved by Afro-Asiatics, and one can also state that Whites can have empathy about slavery given today's reality of White net tax donors and Black net tax recipients, with the former being de facto slaves of the latter. Can we end the legacy of White slavery?

Invoking White Privilege to promote guilt is another leftist approach, although it runs the danger of provoking a negative reaction from Whites who are upset at the claim that what Whites have in life is unearned and unfair. Of course, this alleged privilege does not exist – Whites are being dispossessed demographically around the globe, they are discriminated against by law and in popular culture, and have virtually every institution of the System arrayed against them. Then there is the fact, which the HBDers never tired or reminding us, that Jews and Asians are doing better in America, are more successful, than are European-Americans. Is that “White Privilege?” Is high White suicide and drug use rates “White Privilege?” If “White Privilege” really existed, no one would be talking about it, much less openly opposing it.  And even if “White Privilege" did exist, it would be justified – America was founded and built by White people; why shouldn’t they enjoy its benefits? Does anyone say that the Chinese have “Yellow Privilege” in China?

Calling out the racial envy aspect of Colored complaints can be useful here. As well, to point out the rent-seeking self-interest of Coloreds pushing this narrative. One could also point out that "diversity" inevitably conflates to "fewer Whites" - for example, there is no drive to diversify Black-dominated sports leagues by bringing in more White players. The race ratchet (by definition) only moves in one direction.

Claims that “race does not exist” can be answered by citing the science and logic against those claims, and, of course, if "race does not exist" then why are Whites being punished, and Colored rewarded, based on race?

Of course, a la “no justice no peace,” there is the tacit threat of trouble if "diversity" demands are not met. Of course, the opposite is much truer – the more the Left and the Coloreds are given, the more that they want. The more concessions, the more demands. “Justice” ultimately provides no peace, but inevitably leads to more shrill and unreasonable demands for “justice.”  And the White jellyfish do not realize this, or are simply too afraid of “biting the bullet” and putting up with short-term unpleasantness to purchase real peace by defying and denying the endless Leftist/Colored demands.

Other leftist approaches attempt to placate and "buy off" Whites by adding them to the multicultural framework - Whites as just another part of multiculturalism, albeit a “privileged” part that needs to sacrifice for others. This is a double-edged sword for the Left, however; it can be leveraged by invoking Salter’s Democratic Multiculturalism, leading to Suvorov’s Law. That is all discussed on my blog in other posts; no need to get into it in great detail again now. I’ll just say here that having White identity accepted can be a wedge to push for White interests in the multicultural framework, as long as you reject the “White Privilege” narrative and instead destabilize the multicultural system by demanding the same rights and mobilized self-interested activism for Whites as for other groups. Multiculturalism is based on minority mobilization and majority passivity; it is not tenable it the majority becomes mobilized on behalf of its own interests. Salter states that the only thing worse for a majority being dispossessed than a multiculturalism that doesn’t work is one that does. It’s time to “monkey wrench” the System.