Is The Regime Threatening Us?
If so, then the Regime must be serious about going to war with its own people.
I came across a curious thread on Twitter the other day:
Inskeep is describing the role partisan Rwandan media played in stirring up ethnic hatreds, which boiled over into a 1994 genocide that shocked the world. There’s no disputing this historical fact, but, as usual, what Inskeep is saying is part of a broader narrative:
Steven Inskeep is a journalist at taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR). Nominally, a taxpayer-funded media outlet, in a republic, ought to be non-partisan, and NPR manages to largely maintain this veneer.
But, non-ideological? NPR is no stranger to accusations of bias, but, in the last several years, programming seems to have turned bluntly ideological and towards leftism, the Regime’s ideology. The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher, once an avid NPR listener, explains this change:
It feels like every time I get in the car and turn on the radio, I don’t have to wait long before I hear a story that highlights in some new way what a racist country America is, or how hard illegal immigrants have it in America, or how put-upon sexual minorities are, and so forth. I don’t know if NPR’s liberalism has always been like this, or if it has gotten worse — or if I have simply become thin-skinned about these issues. I have always known NPR was liberal, but that didn’t stop me from being a big fan, and even a contributing member. I feel that my NPR — the NPR that I cherished, even though it was liberal and I am conservative — has gone away, and I don’t know why. I used to love listening to it in the car, and not conservative talk radio, because I don’t want to have a voice on the radio rubbing my nose into some political narrative. NPR used to stand out because it proposed new ways of seeing the world, or at least ways that seemed new to me as a conservative. Now listening to NPR is giving oneself over to hosts who seek to impose a worldview that constantly says, about people who don’t fit the progressive narrative, that you aren’t worthy of our consideration or attention. That you are what’s wrong with America.
Like the media as a whole, NPR isn’t an impartial actor. Inskeep’s thread and the article send a very clear message: if a genocide as horrific as that of Rwanda occurs in the United States, the American Right, the Republican Party, and right-leaning media outlets will play the role of the Hutu. It’s quite the accusation, but, when you possess the ability to control what people think, you can get away with it.
Here’s NPR blaming Tucker Carlson of Fox News for the Buffalo mass shooting, while conceding that Carlson wasn’t even referenced in the shooter’s 180-page manifesto:
MARY LOUISE KELLY: David, you start. And let's start there with Tucker Carlson, who - just to be clear, he is not mentioned in this 180-page screed that authorities say the alleged gunman posted online. Right?
DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Yeah. He's not anywhere in there, not at all. Instead, he cites the influences of 4chan and invokes what's called the so-called "great replacement theory," this idea that these amorphous forces are trying to replace whites - started a century ago in France, moved around, different targets in different places.
KELLY: So in this century, why is why is Tucker Carlson part of this conversation? What's his role here?
FOLKENFLIK: Because he's made it acceptable to talk about it. If you look at what leading white supremacists have said, a number of them really hail him for popularizing their views, and particularly on this. I think there are two ways to think about Carlson being part of this. One is through the sheer volume of his coverage. And the other is the influence he has in the Trump wing of the Republican Party on and off the air. He's one of Fox's most popular shows. And if you think about him as a political force, people have even - talking about him as a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2024 should Trump not run.
If you can’t figure out what’s happening, the media is creating a narrative where people like Tucker Carlson and the entire Right, literally, are the Hutus, stoking themselves to commit genocide against kind, loving, multicultural, progressive, Democratic America. This isn’t some big mystery - you either agree with NPR, or you’re either a murderer or someone who abets murderers.
But, hold on a minute - Inskeep notes the Hutus constituted the “ruling party.” Who in America, today, constitutes the ruling party? Obviously, the Democratic Party and the Left control the Executive and Legislative Branches, but, regardless of which party’s in power in Washington, what really matters is who controls our major institutions academia, the media (especially), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and all the others which shape our culture and inform our politics. All these institutions are controlled by the Left and even institutions previously Right-friendly - Big Business and the military - have seen a dramatic left-turn in recent times. Only someone not paying attention would think it’s the Right that dominates the ruling class in America, but Inskeep and others seem to genuinely believe the country is under the thumb of a right-wing dictatorship, even as the Left controls the airwaves!
I’m afraid I’m not educated enough to identify the proper term for describing the pathology where the side that possesses total control still sees itself as the oppressed rebels, fighting to bring freedom and render justice. What I do know is that only with control of the airwaves can you say something like this without nary a pushback:
The Republican Party consists of well over 35 million Americans. Does this make 10% of the population domestic terrorists? If so, do we apply this logic to supporters of actual terrorist parties throughout the world, like Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon? There are serious implications associated with branding America’s second-largest political party a domestic terror organization, all of which I’m sure Erroll Southers, an academic, thought through.
It all sounds like a threat. If so, then the Regime must be serious about going to war with its own people. More important, it’s not Fox News, the Republican Party, or Tucker Carlson who are the Hutus, but MSNBC, NPR, and, maybe, President Joe Biden himself. But, that’s not a conversation this country’s ready to have yet, not with the people currently in power.
Another conversation this country isn’t ready to have yet, at least not in mainstream circles, is that the “Great Replacement” “conspiracy theory” isn’t one. Not if the Left also believes it, anyway. If the Left believes it, it must be true, right? They are the Party of Science, after all. Here’s a montage of people associated with the Left and the Regime talking about how Whites are becoming a minority in the country, mostly in a positive light:
Perhaps “replacement” is the wrong term and “displacement” is more appropriate. But, this is a matter of semantics because the conclusion is the same. It’s also no secret that the Left has spent over a generation banking their future political prospects on Whites becoming a minority in this country and winning the votes of the eventual majority of non-Whites. This is a quote from a Democratic strategist in 1998:
“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”
Do you really need more proof the Left not only believes in the Great Re… Displacement, but sees it as a benefit to them? Here’s a story from the early 2010s:
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.
Beneath the philosophical debates about amnesty and border security, there are brass-tacks partisan calculations driving the thinking of lawmakers in both parties over comprehensive immigration reform, which in its current form offers a pathway to citizenship — and full voting rights — for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.
If these people had been on the voting rolls in 2012 and voted along the same lines as other Hispanic voters did last fall, President Barack Obama’s relatively narrow victory last fall would have been considerably wider, a POLITICO analysis showed.
It’s not a conspiracy theory: the Left saw illegal immigration as a means of winning elections. Call it calculated, call it cynical. Don’t call it a conspiracy theory. That’s a lie.
The thing about demographic displacement is that it’s neither good nor bad. It just is. The Regime’s position, however, is that it’s unequivocally a good thing and to suggest otherwise is a total betrayal of our values (e.g., White supremacy) and the thinking of murderous maniacs, like the perpetrator of the mass shooting in Buffalo over the weekend. As such, the outrage over the Great Displacement isn’t so much rooted in whether it’s happening, but that there exist those who dare question it.
One person questioning it is Eric Kaufmann. He’s a Canadian academic who studies, among other things, demography, and is hardly a right-wing nativist. However, he, unlike many of his colleagues in the industry, doesn’t believe that Whites becoming a minority in this country or the broader West is a cost-free, all-benefits prospect for society. Like it or not, we would be talking about losing the country as we’ve known it and not necessarily for the better.
The loss of white ethno-cultural confidence manifests itself in other ways. Among the most important is a growing unwillingness to indulge the anti-white ideology of the cultural left. When whites were an over-whelming majority, empirically unsupported generalizations about whites could be brushed off as amusing and mischievous but ultimately harmless. As whites decline, fewer are willing to abide such attacks. At the same time, white decline emboldens the cultural left, with its dream of radical social transformation. The last time this blend of ethnic change and cultural contestation occurred, in fin-de-siècle America, the anti-WASP adversary culture was confined to a small circle of bohemian intellectuals. Today, the anti-majority adversary culture operates on a much larger scale, permeates major institutions and is transmitted to conservatives through social and right-wing media. This produces a growing culture-war polarization between increasingly insecure white conservatives and energized white liberals.
More:
It’s important to have people criticizing their own group: What Daniel Bell termed the “adversary culture” spurs reform and creativity when it collides with the majority tradition. But what happens when the critics become dominant? In softer form, left-modernist ideology penetrated widely within the high culture and political institutions of Western society after the 1960s. This produced norms that prevented democratic discussion of questions of national identity and immigration. The deviantization of these issues in the name of anti-racism introduced a blockage in the democratic process, preventing the normal adjustment of political supply to political demand. Instead of reasonable trade-offs between those who, for example, wanted higher or lower levels of immigration, the subject was forced underground, building up pressure from those whose grievances were ignored by the main parties. This created a market opportunity which populist right entrepreneurs rushed in to fill.
Ethno-cultural change is occurring at a rapid rate at precisely the time the dominant ideology celebrates a multicultural vision of ever-increasing diversity. To hanker after homogeneity and stability is perceived as narrow-minded and racist by liberals. Yet diversity falls flat for many because we’re not all wired the same way. Right-wing populism, which champions the cultural interests of group-oriented whites, has halted and reversed the multicultural consensus which held sway between the 1960s and late 1990s. This is leading to a polarization between those who accept, and those who reject, the ideology of diversity. What’s needed is a new vision that gives conservative members of white majorities hope for their group’s future while permitting cosmopolitans the freedom to celebrate diversity.
More:
We are entering a period of cultural instability in the West attendant on our passage between two relatively stable equilibria. The first equilibrium was based on white ethnic homogeneity, the second on what the prescient centrist writer Michael Lind calls “beige” ethnicity, i.e. a racially mixed majority group. In the middle lies a turbulent multicultural interregnum. We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan. But to get there, we’ll be passing through a phase where we’ll move closer to multicultural Guyana or Mauritius. The challenge is to enable conservative whites to see a future for themselves in whiteshift—the mixture of many non-whites into the white group through voluntary assimilation. (Unmixed whiteness is not about to disappear and may return in the long run, but this is getting ahead of the story, so I hope you’ll read on.)
Cosmopolitan-minded readers may look at this and scoff. “Whites have had their turn. They can step aside!” If life were so simple. Demographic change always comes with a certain measure of turbulence, but, in the U.S., the desire among some seems to be to create as much turbulence as possible. Take a look at what famed chef Padma Lakshmi had to say in response to the Buffalo shooting:
It’s a fair question, though not one Lakshmi asks in good faith. Minorities are treated differently, yes, but the result isn’t “oppression” and “subjugation,” as Lakshmi claims. As Kaufmann notes, contemporary culture has become anti-majority and we are, culturally, highly sensitive to accusations of discrimination and prejudice. This isn’t to say life as a minority is easy - life as a minority anywhere tends to come with its challenges, also. But, it’s nowhere near as awful as frequently portrayed by the Regime.
As I pointed out in my last post, Whites are the least racialized group in the country. In fact, Whites are often criticized by the Left for not being racially conscious, making them blind to the pain and suffering of People of Color in America. But, the inconvenient truth is that a lack of racial consciousness among Whites is one of the reasons why the U.S. has become arguably the most successful example of a racially pluralist society and why, despite the media’s machinations, we’ve achieved a level of racial harmony found in few places throughout the world.
Does the Left really want to awaken racial consciousness in Whites, again? It’s one thing for a minority group to be racially conscious, another for a majority group to be so. Throw in a culture of anti-majoritarianism and the ruling party stoking fear and loathing, you’ve got a formula for destabilization. If it’s not the stuff of civil wars, it’s certainly the stuff of internal conflict.
In this interview, Kaufmann, like me, rules out high-intensity civil war as an outcome of demographic turbulence in the U.S., though he also points out violence cannot be ruled out and, in some form, is probably likely:
It’s quite a future to look forward to, made all the more troubling that academics, the media, and even politicians are turning up the temperature, equating their ideological opponents with those who committed genocide. We can only hope such hysterics are falling on deaf ears. For now, we can revel in the fact the Biden administration’s attempt at establishing its own Ministry of Propaganda has come to an ignominious end:
It’s a small victory, but it’s always good to see when the Regime is made aware Americans aren’t having any of their shenanigans.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!