The politics of colorblind equality

Christopher F. Rufo writes:

As a practical matter, too, the politics of colorblind equality is vastly superior to the politics of “white identity.” Whatever one’s judgment on mass immigration, America is now a mixed, multiracial republic, and any successful political movement will need to build a coalition beyond any single racial group. The good news for conservatives — and a point against arguments for demographic determination — is that many racial minorities, most notably Latinos and Asians, oppose critical race theory-style discrimination, support the principle of colorblind equality, and have begun to shift politically to the right. By contrast, the advocates of “white racial consciousness” have a track record with the opposite results: from the late author Sam Francis to the website VDARE, such efforts have failed to garner an audience, much less a political coalition, beyond the fringes. Such a politics is perceived, rightly, as victim-oriented and antithetical to deeply held American principles.

The vision of racialists, whether on the left or right, is pessimistic: the first is driven by a spirit of vengeance, the second by a sense of inferiority. They are two sides of the same coin.

I think Rufo is right that it is much better for political movements to be colorblind, but I do not think he is being fair to Francis and VDARE.

We have an immigration policy that is systematically replacing Whites with non-whites. Some say that it is good, and some say that it is bad. Some pretend that it is not happening, but it is obvious from Census figures, or by just looking around.

Some say that it is racist to even have an opinion on the subject.

Most of the people at Vdare are not White nationalists. They merely disagree with the demographic changes. Discussing the subject necessarily draws attention to racial differences.

Colorblind politics is no longer possible. Whites are blamed for a great many things, and scheduled for extermination. I do not want a victim-oriented politics. I just want to defend good policies with facts.

Here is an example of an opinion from someone labeled a White nationalist:

There is a sense that we’ve said everything there is to say particularly on race. I want to quote something Rep. Cori Bush, a black Congressman, said a few days ago about Michael Brown. Brown died nine years ago, and it was his death that started the Black Lives Matter movement. Cori Bush said, “He would be alive today if the institutions of racism and white supremacy were eradicated.” Set aside whatever it would mean to eradicate the “institutions” of white supremacy. We all know “hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie. We all know Brown tried to take away an officer’s weapon and was charging him when he was killed.

Yet none of this matters. We can’t even say it was covered up by the media. The media reported it all accurately. It was Eric Holder’s Justice Department that found out the truth. However, people still believe nonsense, and even if the truth comes from an unimpeachably liberal source, they will keep believing it. BLM rhetoric hasn’t changed in nine years, and the movement has ever more support from the Great and the Good.

He is right, and Cori Bush is wrong. Brown would be dead if he were White. No racism or white supremacy was involved. If it takes white racial consciousness to tell the truth, then someone has to do it. The Brown hoax caused riots, destruction, and deaths. According to this study, 3000 murders.