How Identitarian Political Ideologies Are Exacerbating Racial Tension

In orthodox Marxism, the proletariat (the workers) were the central figure – the revolutionary agent. This would change during the civil rights movement of the ’60s, when the cultural elite took control of the institutions, called into question the traditional structure, and advocated for a total reversal of values.

This new left promoted a libertarian emancipation against a society perceived as being too conservative. Progressively, tensions emerged between this elite and the white proletariat whose pragmatic interests (wages, employment security, statutory rights etc) differed greatly from the postmodern utopian dream of apex egalitarianism born in the universities.

Subsequently, the image of the white working class progressively deteriorated. The proletariat was accused of being corrupted by capitalism and renounced its role as a revolutionary agent. Simultaneously, the new left increasingly abandoned the social (economic consideration) for the societal (sex, race, sexuality etc).

During the ’70s, deindustrialization forced many workers to find office jobs in big cities in the tertiary sector. The declining white middle and low classes, mostly located in the peri-urban and countryside, the first victims of the neoliberal system, were further demonized and mocked with stereotypes painting them as racists, sexists, and narrow-minded (the redneck in the USA).

In the 80s and 90s, the cultural institution, and vessels of progressive philosophy, diffused the image of the uneducated country bumpkin, the traitor who prevented the revolution from happening. Concomitantly, the promotion of minorities as new revolutionary agents sealed the abandonment of the social and the affiliation of the postmodern left to neoliberal policies, specifically the free movement of capital and people.

In summary, ironically at a time when economic issues such as unemployment and industrial relocation were on the rise in Western countries, the new left replaced communism with anti-racism as its core ideology. 

In a twisted turn of events, immigrationism, the strategy of the neoliberal capitalist companies engaging in social dumping (the “reserve army for capitalism” for Marx), became a progressive value, and any criticisms against it were deemed xenophobic.

In short, while the metropolitan bourgeoisie benefit from immigration (cheap labor cooking their food, driving their cars, cleaning their houses etc), the white proletariat expelled to peri-urban areas, the productive classes in competition with this imported workforce, were accused of being racist if daring to raise legitimate concerns. The term “right-wing” originally associated with economic privileges came to be associated with the working classes who refused to comply with a certain moral code. 

Furthermore, the demonization of white proletarian individuals – too attached to their nation, church, and family – allowed another level of distinction to the globalist bourgeoisie. After securing control of the financial capital by virtue of their economic status, monopoly of the cultural capital with the abandonment of the legitimate culture in schools and universities, and preeminence of sexual capital by means of transgressive consumption, for the upper classes, embracing progressive and woke values became a method to accumulate societal capital.

And so, with the societal capital, the financial elite found a way to absolve themselves from the guilt related to their economic privileges as well as a means to signal their superiority of class with the promotion of specific dogmas.

Societal capital is a strategy of distinction, an “extension of the domain of struggle” applied to ideology, a tactic to rise socially thanks to the spectacle of righteousness that necessarily involves the demonization of Caucasian masses. In order to demonstrate a certain class membership, one must legitimate the societal violence against white working classes via the unconditional defense of the minorities.

Consequently, the postmodern anti-racism promoted by the new left has made white people responsible for all the evils of the world. Whites became the receptacle of all the accumulated resentment, the unique timeless oppressors justifying the enmity towards them. As such, anti-racism is not about fighting racism anymore, it has been redefined as the normative hatred against Caucasians. Henceforth, the prejudices held against them turned out to be morally accepted and understood as reparation or emancipation from oppression.

Supposedly, white people do not suffer from discriminations such as racism because they are not systemic. Indeed, according to this ideology, the source of the privileges, instead of being related to economic status, results from the identity i.e. color of skin. Therefore, Caucasians by essence are privileged compared to any other group regardless of any other consideration. 

Moreover, scholars, sociologists, and so-called intellectuals, such as Robin DiAngelo, author of “white fragility”, a diversity consultant who would, for instance, start a sentence with “the problem with white people”, explain that anti-white racism is impossible as Caucasians have created and maintain white supremacy in western societies.

Notwithstanding, while minorities suffer from individual prejudices (e.g. refusal to rent an apartment) or governmental-led “positive discrimination”, academic and cultural institutions (media) only promote the rationalization of the resentment against white people. Therefore, the only institutional/systemic racism in Western societies is the anti-white racism.

Furthermore, the essentialization of white people as the sole oppressors resulted in their disqualification as human beings in certain circles, and the elimination of their culture and history. As an example, Afrocentrist movements claim that black people occupied Europe before the whites and that all modern technologies were present in Africa before the colonization, looting, and ransacking by Europeans, Arabs and Macedonians.

According to Elijah Muhammad, a black separatist who headed the “Nation of Islam” from 1934, an evil Black scientist named Yakub artificially created the white race thousands of years ago through a form of selective breeding and taught them a science of deception (tricknology) to subjugate black people.

After being made aware of the danger, blacks supposedly locked up whites in the European continent where they lived like beasts until they finally escaped at the beginning of the modern era and enslaved Africans.

In addition, Elijah Muhammad asserted that apes come from the biological degeneration of whites. In short, he turned the Darwinist theory around: from “monkeys and humans must have a common ancestor” (humans are descended from monkeys) to “apes have evolved from whites”. In his assumption, Caucasians are viewed as an anomaly to the order of the world and nature.

Subsequently, the demonization and dehumanization of white people have legitimized the discrimination against them, the use of offensive racial slurs (Yt, Wypipo) and derogatory terms such as “Caucacity” defined as “behaviors perceived to be stereotypically white or which arises from white privileges”.

The postmodern anti-racist ideology has excluded a race from humanity. It promotes the idea that a world without white people would be a better world. Conclusively, everything is permitted against white people (you can’t oppress the oppressor), to the extent of physical violence, never interpreted as being racially motivated, but justified as being an emancipation from oppression.

The members of the bourgeoisie adhere to this philosophy in order to increase their societal capital. Their economic status protects them from collateral damages (e.g. they live in secured gated communities) while the proletariat pay the cost of a hostile dogma that validates racial hatred against whites.

Instead of appeasing racial tension, the demonization of white people has resulted in a surge of identitarian political ideologies that could likely bring civil war sooner than later into Western societies.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.