Main Edition
US
FR
May 31, 2023 - 10:00am
The New Yorker recently published an article by Geraldo Cadava titled, “The Rise of Latino White Supremacy.” It’s a frustrating piece that asks — or at least tries to ask — an interesting question: “Why are there non-white white supremacists?”
The question of “Latino white supremacy” is particularly fraught. The New Yorker piece follows on from several other stories in the liberal media about how “Latinos can be white supremacists” and the “rise of white nationalist Hispanics”. But something that’s oddly not explored in this article is that “Latino” is itself an artificial category that, ironically enough, whitewashes not only the diversity but the reality of race relations in Latin America. (See the practice of “blanqueamiento” for just one example.)
In today’s political climate in the US, a light-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Colombian-born immigrant is considered roughly equivalent to a dark-skinned, Honduran asylum seeker with indigenous heritage. These differences aren’t granular, but in the United States there is one “Latino” bucket, into which everyone from your Italian-Argentine grandmother to your first-gen Chicano neighbour is supposed to fit. So of course Americans find it weird when they hear a Spanish-sounding last name — like Fuentes — and find out that person is on the far Right. It’s not that Latinos have assimilated and “become white,” as the narrative goes, à la the Irish and the Italians. It’s that the category is plainly a flawed one.
The other issue with Cadava’s piece is that it assumes there’s a monolithic “white power” movement, instead of acknowledging that the far-Right is itself an ecosystem with hundreds of conflicting ideologies. Are these so-called “Latino white supremacists” white supremacists per se, or are they just on the far Right? What exactly are we talking about when we talk about Latino white supremacists?
These snags aside — unfortunately, not the only ones in that piece — it remains an interesting question, and not one totally without merit: dig into far-Right subcultures, including ones that are explicitly white supremacist, and you will find people of colour, though often under the veil of anonymity. Not just Latinos, but black people and Asian-Americans, too. Similarly, you’ll also find plenty of Jews in spaces that throw around terms like “Jewish power”. (And famously, their spouses, too.) In fact, it’s a running joke both in and about some far-Right circles: they’re nothing if not diverse. So, what gives?
There are myriad reasons why this happens, including all the usual suspects, with self-hatred being one of them. But there is more to it than meets the eye. Firstly, not all far-Right subcultures are built the same: some are white supremacist, but not all. There’s also another issue: many people who identify as “far-Right” are really no such thing — it’s the other side of the coin of external misidentification. Some employ the label ironically or strike a reactionary pose to differentiate themselves (e.g. Dimes Square), without real investment in any of the beliefs one might associate with far-Right ideologies.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIn my youth I was centre-Left and my views have remained largely unchanged. However, the Overton window has shifted so far left that anybody who isn’t also far left is automatically denounced as “Far Right”.
When anybody like me (pale, male and “stale” apparently) is automatically “Far Right” then anybody agreeing with what we say is also “Far Right” by association.
The really interesting consequence of so many people now being “Far Right” is the resulting openness to reading any literature that is also denounced as “Far Right” – including texts that actually would have been considered “Far Right” in my youth. It appears that when the Left loses the ability to discriminate, so do everyone else.
That’s a really good point
That’s a really good point
In my youth I was centre-Left and my views have remained largely unchanged. However, the Overton window has shifted so far left that anybody who isn’t also far left is automatically denounced as “Far Right”.
When anybody like me (pale, male and “stale” apparently) is automatically “Far Right” then anybody agreeing with what we say is also “Far Right” by association.
The really interesting consequence of so many people now being “Far Right” is the resulting openness to reading any literature that is also denounced as “Far Right” – including texts that actually would have been considered “Far Right” in my youth. It appears that when the Left loses the ability to discriminate, so do everyone else.
I think much of this comes down to cultures and communities that are more socially conservative than the left, so they are deemed right wing and as right wing is commonly seen as White supremacy (because how else can you successfully vilify a group), then anyone right wing ‘must’ also be White supremacist.
We saw this during the BLM/George Floyd riots, the left were permitted to call conservative Black people, Uncle Toms and c**ns, like they weren’t offensive racist terms. Only the right can be racist and those of differing shades of skin who side with the right are fair game for the left to abuse with impunity.
No, I think it’s more that – according to the left wing establishment media, anyone who doesn’t believe in defunding the police and abolishing whiteness and the concept of biological sex is on the far right, and anyone on the far right is a white supremacist.
No, I think it’s more that – according to the left wing establishment media, anyone who doesn’t believe in defunding the police and abolishing whiteness and the concept of biological sex is on the far right, and anyone on the far right is a white supremacist.
I think much of this comes down to cultures and communities that are more socially conservative than the left, so they are deemed right wing and as right wing is commonly seen as White supremacy (because how else can you successfully vilify a group), then anyone right wing ‘must’ also be White supremacist.
We saw this during the BLM/George Floyd riots, the left were permitted to call conservative Black people, Uncle Toms and c**ns, like they weren’t offensive racist terms. Only the right can be racist and those of differing shades of skin who side with the right are fair game for the left to abuse with impunity.
I think the author has ignored and/or overlooked what is probably really going on in the brown-skinned white-supremacist phenomenon.
It’s not because they hate the color of their own skin or themselves; it’s because they are able to read world history free of the political biases that have infected most historical instruction now. So they acknowledge that the collective weight of European history is a meaningful indicator about the relative benefits of various cultural norms. Something along the lines of: “Hey, we’ve got Christianity’s ‘the least of these’ values, and the Enlightenment, and an amazing body of artistic materpieces, and the Industrial Revolution, and universal suffrage, etc. What have you got?” Filter that realization through a political lens today, and you’ll find yourself on the ‘Right’ (even though obviously the ‘Left’ is a European invention as well!).
And this plain insistence on the historical truth of cultural development, gets them labeled ‘white supremacists’ – because we live in an age when it is simply impossible to acknowledge that (for example) aboriginals in Australia or Aztecs in Mexico or various tribes in Africa did *not* have good social forms and cultural norms before Europeans arrived. This does not require any belief in any genetic superiority associated with a skin color, though obviously some have made that connection (erroneously in my opinion).
In short, ‘white supremacy’ these days may or may not be associated with belief in genetic determinism. It may just be an acknowledgment that it was white cultures that pioneered modern medicine, technology, political norms, etc. All those “civilizing virtues” our ancestors used to talk about, were real.
Or maybe they are simply all the same people that are tired of seeing what’s really happening with their own eyes whilst being told the opposite by the media?
This writer shows a perfect example of the ignorance of the young who just have no idea of the real world – as they were raised in the education system of post-modernism and lives in a society where media and popular culture is all agenda driven lies.
She is a fish describing life in the Mohave Desert, she has not a clue.
You would love what is coming up soon here in Australia.
The First Inventors! Which is a show about Aboriginals inventing pretty much everything including aerodynamics and astrology. A description is as follows.
“The First Inventors is the story of how entire landscapes were transformed, how prehistoric events were recorded as far back as the last ice age, how people navigated over extraordinary distances, and how whole societies were organised.
From ancient superhighways for trade, long distance communication systems using secret languages engraved into message sticks, and unique social systems built to maintain genetic diversity, The First Inventors not only explores the past, but questions whether this ancient knowledge might hold answers to humanity’s most pressing modern challenges.”
When I was a kid it was 40,000 years, now it is 65,000 years. The DNA test on the oldest known remains have been discarded because they did not match Aboriginal DNA and the Aborigines were offended.
The Elite Aboriginals consider their culture to be equivalent to that of Marvel’s Wikanda. Anyone who dares say anything against this is a racist. There is no discussion!
Or maybe they are simply all the same people that are tired of seeing what’s really happening with their own eyes whilst being told the opposite by the media?
This writer shows a perfect example of the ignorance of the young who just have no idea of the real world – as they were raised in the education system of post-modernism and lives in a society where media and popular culture is all agenda driven lies.
She is a fish describing life in the Mohave Desert, she has not a clue.
You would love what is coming up soon here in Australia.
The First Inventors! Which is a show about Aboriginals inventing pretty much everything including aerodynamics and astrology. A description is as follows.
“The First Inventors is the story of how entire landscapes were transformed, how prehistoric events were recorded as far back as the last ice age, how people navigated over extraordinary distances, and how whole societies were organised.
From ancient superhighways for trade, long distance communication systems using secret languages engraved into message sticks, and unique social systems built to maintain genetic diversity, The First Inventors not only explores the past, but questions whether this ancient knowledge might hold answers to humanity’s most pressing modern challenges.”
When I was a kid it was 40,000 years, now it is 65,000 years. The DNA test on the oldest known remains have been discarded because they did not match Aboriginal DNA and the Aborigines were offended.
The Elite Aboriginals consider their culture to be equivalent to that of Marvel’s Wikanda. Anyone who dares say anything against this is a racist. There is no discussion!
I think the author has ignored and/or overlooked what is probably really going on in the brown-skinned white-supremacist phenomenon.
It’s not because they hate the color of their own skin or themselves; it’s because they are able to read world history free of the political biases that have infected most historical instruction now. So they acknowledge that the collective weight of European history is a meaningful indicator about the relative benefits of various cultural norms. Something along the lines of: “Hey, we’ve got Christianity’s ‘the least of these’ values, and the Enlightenment, and an amazing body of artistic materpieces, and the Industrial Revolution, and universal suffrage, etc. What have you got?” Filter that realization through a political lens today, and you’ll find yourself on the ‘Right’ (even though obviously the ‘Left’ is a European invention as well!).
And this plain insistence on the historical truth of cultural development, gets them labeled ‘white supremacists’ – because we live in an age when it is simply impossible to acknowledge that (for example) aboriginals in Australia or Aztecs in Mexico or various tribes in Africa did *not* have good social forms and cultural norms before Europeans arrived. This does not require any belief in any genetic superiority associated with a skin color, though obviously some have made that connection (erroneously in my opinion).
In short, ‘white supremacy’ these days may or may not be associated with belief in genetic determinism. It may just be an acknowledgment that it was white cultures that pioneered modern medicine, technology, political norms, etc. All those “civilizing virtues” our ancestors used to talk about, were real.
Of course Latinos is an artificial category.
Countries like Argentina and Uruguay have a higher European demographic than many Western European countries.
Of course Latinos is an artificial category.
Countries like Argentina and Uruguay have a higher European demographic than many Western European countries.
If one were to ask a hundred people what was the one thing that most distinguishes the “far-right” from merely being right-wing, I think there would be a substantial majority who would say: “racism” and “anti-immigrant”. Any of the hundred being a leftist, I would expect to hear that there is no difference.
In the US the Democrats are clearly trying to solidify the narrative that there is a rise in white supremacy equivalent to 1930’s Germany and, wouldn’t you just know it, the only way to ward of this evil is to vote Democrat. Just two weeks ago, Biden denounced white supremacy as the “most dangerous terrorist threat” to the USA,
The US MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, every opportunity is taken to reinforce the Democrats’ narrative. But how to deal with these awkward shootings by people traditionally regarded as non-white who declare an antipathy towards other non-white racial groups?
Of course, under leftist dogma non-white people cant be racist. Previously used leftist get outs for facts that dont fit dogma:: such as redefining ethinic groups as white (Jewish people), or “white adjacent” (successful Asians). aren’t going to cut it here. What’s needed is to assert that these inconvenient shootings are the result of the individuals imbibing white supremacist views; perhaps set on the path to radicalisation through watching FOX or visting Breitbart or watching Ben Shapiro videos.
The truth is that every ethnic group has a healthy contingent who hates one or more other ethnic groups. A “latino” who hates blacks is just a latino who hates blacks. It is the desperation to preserve the integrity of leftist dogma and the evil and cynical machinations of the Democrats and their MSM propagandists to scare blacks in voting Democrat that results in the absurd and falacious creation of the latino or black white supremacist.
Please wait for approval.
Same with my comment. What gives, Unherd?
They are protecting our ‘Purity of Essence‘ from your dirty thoughts.
And I must say; Thankyou Unherd, I feel much cleaner knowing you are there defending my purity.
They are protecting our ‘Purity of Essence‘ from your dirty thoughts.
And I must say; Thankyou Unherd, I feel much cleaner knowing you are there defending my purity.
Same with my comment. What gives, Unherd?
Good comment. As with others here, I’d like to know when I went from being merely conservative or right wing to one of the metaphysically evil “far right,” or “white supremacist.” Growing up in a very liberal San Francisco, I always thought of myself as merely right of center. But age, parenthood, and taking one’s faith more seriously among other things have made me more conservative, and I’m okay with that. And to the MSM and a growing number of lefties, that makes me “far right.”
But does believing in notions like rule of law, definable and defensible borders, and certain biological realities (genotype is genotype, males are males and females are females) really make one a racist or evil far righty? Do only racist white countries believe in rational immigration laws? If so, there are a whole lot of nonwhite white supremacist nations out there!
I very much agree with you. Mainstream media intentionally doesn’t shows photos of mass shooters when they’re minorities (and there have been a lot more of them than usual in the last couple years) to deflect attention from facts that inconveniently expose the untruthfulness of their narrative. I noticed with the last mass shooting in Texas, all the mainstream media sources led with the “white supremacist” angle and buried the name of the shooter, which was an obviously Latino name, toward the bottom of the article. I couldn’t find a single article that showed his face, and I would assume it’s because he was not what Americans consider white. Something else I noticed twice that was deeply disturbing to me was that a news source had led with a headline about the shooting possibly being related to white supremacist ideology next to a photo of a white shooting victim, making it appear that the white victim was the actually the white supremacist shooter to fool or bait anyone just scanning headlines.
Please wait for approval.
Good comment. As with others here, I’d like to know when I went from being merely conservative or right wing to one of the metaphysically evil “far right,” or “white supremacist.” Growing up in a very liberal San Francisco, I always thought of myself as merely right of center. But age, parenthood, and taking one’s faith more seriously among other things have made me more conservative, and I’m okay with that. And to the MSM and a growing number of lefties, that makes me “far right.”
But does believing in notions like rule of law, definable and defensible borders, and certain biological realities (genotype is genotype, males are males and females are females) really make one a racist or evil far righty? Do only racist white countries believe in rational immigration laws? If so, there are a whole lot of nonwhite white supremacist nations out there!
I very much agree with you. Mainstream media intentionally doesn’t shows photos of mass shooters when they’re minorities (and there have been a lot more of them than usual in the last couple years) to deflect attention from facts that inconveniently expose the untruthfulness of their narrative. I noticed with the last mass shooting in Texas, all the mainstream media sources led with the “white supremacist” angle and buried the name of the shooter, which was an obviously Latino name, toward the bottom of the article. I couldn’t find a single article that showed his face, and I would assume it’s because he was not what Americans consider white. Something else I noticed twice that was deeply disturbing to me was that a news source had led with a headline about the shooting possibly being related to white supremacist ideology next to a photo of a white shooting victim, making it appear that the white victim was the actually the white supremacist shooter to fool or bait anyone just scanning headlines.
If one were to ask a hundred people what was the one thing that most distinguishes the “far-right” from merely being right-wing, I think there would be a substantial majority who would say: “racism” and “anti-immigrant”. Any of the hundred being a leftist, I would expect to hear that there is no difference.
In the US the Democrats are clearly trying to solidify the narrative that there is a rise in white supremacy equivalent to 1930’s Germany and, wouldn’t you just know it, the only way to ward of this evil is to vote Democrat. Just two weeks ago, Biden denounced white supremacy as the “most dangerous terrorist threat” to the USA,
The US MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, every opportunity is taken to reinforce the Democrats’ narrative. But how to deal with these awkward shootings by people traditionally regarded as non-white who declare an antipathy towards other non-white racial groups?
Of course, under leftist dogma non-white people cant be racist. Previously used leftist get outs for facts that dont fit dogma:: such as redefining ethinic groups as white (Jewish people), or “white adjacent” (successful Asians). aren’t going to cut it here. What’s needed is to assert that these inconvenient shootings are the result of the individuals imbibing white supremacist views; perhaps set on the path to radicalisation through watching FOX or visting Breitbart or watching Ben Shapiro videos.
The truth is that every ethnic group has a healthy contingent who hates one or more other ethnic groups. A “latino” who hates blacks is just a latino who hates blacks. It is the desperation to preserve the integrity of leftist dogma and the evil and cynical machinations of the Democrats and their MSM propagandists to scare blacks in voting Democrat that results in the absurd and falacious creation of the latino or black white supremacist.
“I agree with them on X, and they’re the only group representing X accurately — might as well go all in.” The grooming gang scandal being a case in point – only the far right were willing to talk about it.
Both this piece and the New Yorker piece speak to a surprising truth. We tend to simplify absurd ideologies, but the whole point of systems of thought that can only be sustained by Olympic-level mental gymnastics is that they’re inherently complex. A non-white white supremacist is a ridiculous notion – but racial supremacy is ridiculous in the first place.
I went for a haircut yesterday and my barber said something that I’ve never heard before: he would only vote for a white English prime minister. But the barber wasn’t English, or white. He was from Iraq. It’s a strange world.
“..he would only vote for a white English prime minister”
He will then discover that English prime ministers ain’t what they used to be.
Perhaps your barber, having chosen British citizenship, wants only what he perceives as ‘the real thing’ as his PM.
What’s interesting is that while he’s chosen British citizenship, he hasn’t received it. But since he hasn’t heard back from them in 2 years, he’s not legally allowed to leave the country. Makes for a very unlikely nationalist, that’s for sure.
May be he is voting to protect his version of the country he thought he was moving to.
What’s interesting is that while he’s chosen British citizenship, he hasn’t received it. But since he hasn’t heard back from them in 2 years, he’s not legally allowed to leave the country. Makes for a very unlikely nationalist, that’s for sure.
May be he is voting to protect his version of the country he thought he was moving to.
You say your Iraqi barber is not white and yet I would be surprised if he were not in colour tone closer to Starmer than Rishi Sunak. I suspect he identifies as white even if you don’t.
He’s darker than Rishi
Interesting. I suppose I have tended to see lighter skin Iraqis in life and in most photos who I would regard as white but then I suppose the range of skin tone is likely to be a broad spectrum.
However, it does show how widespread the ridiculous notion that skin tone is any sort of reliable guide to character has permeated that your dark skinned barber regards whiteness of skin as a desirable quality in a PM. Particularly since Kemi Badenoch is in fact rather more reliable in terms of supporting a liberal English colour-blind approach than most lighter skinned politicians. The whole current skin colour fetish is simply weird and incomprehensible as far as I am concerned.
Interesting. I suppose I have tended to see lighter skin Iraqis in life and in most photos who I would regard as white but then I suppose the range of skin tone is likely to be a broad spectrum.
However, it does show how widespread the ridiculous notion that skin tone is any sort of reliable guide to character has permeated that your dark skinned barber regards whiteness of skin as a desirable quality in a PM. Particularly since Kemi Badenoch is in fact rather more reliable in terms of supporting a liberal English colour-blind approach than most lighter skinned politicians. The whole current skin colour fetish is simply weird and incomprehensible as far as I am concerned.
He’s darker than Rishi
“..he would only vote for a white English prime minister”
He will then discover that English prime ministers ain’t what they used to be.
Perhaps your barber, having chosen British citizenship, wants only what he perceives as ‘the real thing’ as his PM.
You say your Iraqi barber is not white and yet I would be surprised if he were not in colour tone closer to Starmer than Rishi Sunak. I suspect he identifies as white even if you don’t.
“I agree with them on X, and they’re the only group representing X accurately — might as well go all in.” The grooming gang scandal being a case in point – only the far right were willing to talk about it.
Both this piece and the New Yorker piece speak to a surprising truth. We tend to simplify absurd ideologies, but the whole point of systems of thought that can only be sustained by Olympic-level mental gymnastics is that they’re inherently complex. A non-white white supremacist is a ridiculous notion – but racial supremacy is ridiculous in the first place.
I went for a haircut yesterday and my barber said something that I’ve never heard before: he would only vote for a white English prime minister. But the barber wasn’t English, or white. He was from Iraq. It’s a strange world.
Anyone claiming to be surprised by the existence of colour-based prejudice amongst people born in Latin America clearly has no experience in those countries. The elites in most Latin American societies, and especially in the Andean region, have long been those with the clearest European ancestry (whitest skin colour). In the recent past, moreover, these prejudices were often very openly declared. This does not make those societies any more or less racist than most others, but it does reinforce the point that a ‘one size fits all’ Latino category is nonsense.
Well said. In my experience, this is particularly true in South American countries. No wonder when the sons and daughters of these elites go to the USA, and are labelled as “latinos” and put in the same bag as all other “latino” inmigrants, they feel outraged and may want to reassert their “whiteness” somehow.
Indeed “latino” is nonsensical.
Well said. In my experience, this is particularly true in South American countries. No wonder when the sons and daughters of these elites go to the USA, and are labelled as “latinos” and put in the same bag as all other “latino” inmigrants, they feel outraged and may want to reassert their “whiteness” somehow.
Indeed “latino” is nonsensical.
Anyone claiming to be surprised by the existence of colour-based prejudice amongst people born in Latin America clearly has no experience in those countries. The elites in most Latin American societies, and especially in the Andean region, have long been those with the clearest European ancestry (whitest skin colour). In the recent past, moreover, these prejudices were often very openly declared. This does not make those societies any more or less racist than most others, but it does reinforce the point that a ‘one size fits all’ Latino category is nonsense.
Just as an aside on the “Latino” vote in the US ….
Far too many pundits talk of Latinos (or Hispanics) as though they’re a single, homogenous voting bloc.
Most voters of Mexican heritage will be 180 degrees removed from the political outlook of voters of Cuban heritage.
The word “socialist” resonates with many of Mexican stock as to them it denotes welfare and immigrant-friendly policies. …..Yet describe any Democratic candidate (or policy) as Socialist in nature and you’ll have Cuban immigrants lining up around the block to vote Republican.
Those commentators who were surprised to see Florida’s “Latinos” voting for Trump, still don’t seem to have grasped that simple distinction.
Just as an aside on the “Latino” vote in the US ….
Far too many pundits talk of Latinos (or Hispanics) as though they’re a single, homogenous voting bloc.
Most voters of Mexican heritage will be 180 degrees removed from the political outlook of voters of Cuban heritage.
The word “socialist” resonates with many of Mexican stock as to them it denotes welfare and immigrant-friendly policies. …..Yet describe any Democratic candidate (or policy) as Socialist in nature and you’ll have Cuban immigrants lining up around the block to vote Republican.
Those commentators who were surprised to see Florida’s “Latinos” voting for Trump, still don’t seem to have grasped that simple distinction.
Whoever asks questions is a white supremacist these days. Inmigrants tend to be skeptical of government propaganda (at least I am) as we usually fled places where the government overreached constantly.
Whoever asks questions is a white supremacist these days. Inmigrants tend to be skeptical of government propaganda (at least I am) as we usually fled places where the government overreached constantly.
“But something that’s oddly not explored in this article…”
There’s nothing odd about a poorly-researched, far-left article containing incomplete or inaccurate information.
Your comment applies with equal force to any article suppurating for any doctrine prefixed with “far”. That’s the thing about the convinced – they stop reading anything conceptually new once they find a doctrine that allows them to feel self-righteous. Rinse and repeat for decades, in most cases.
Your comment applies with equal force to any article suppurating for any doctrine prefixed with “far”. That’s the thing about the convinced – they stop reading anything conceptually new once they find a doctrine that allows them to feel self-righteous. Rinse and repeat for decades, in most cases.
“But something that’s oddly not explored in this article…”
There’s nothing odd about a poorly-researched, far-left article containing incomplete or inaccurate information.
In https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/an-immigrants-plea-dont-turn-our-america-white/615646/ Johan Neem — a history professor of Indian ancestry who grew up in the USA — outlines how the American left has taken beliefs that used to be part of shared American culture — for instance a belief that one should work hard and study to prosper — and put a fence around them, and call them ‘White’.
In https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/an-immigrants-plea-dont-turn-our-america-white/615646/ Johan Neem — a history professor of Indian ancestry who grew up in the USA — outlines how the American left has taken beliefs that used to be part of shared American culture — for instance a belief that one should work hard and study to prosper — and put a fence around them, and call them ‘White’.
Mexicans doing the job Americans no longer want to do
Lol
Lol
Mexicans doing the job Americans no longer want to do
The author fails to mention that many latinos are simply refusing to put in the left-wing victim box that rich, white lefties want to put them.
Also that many latinos have escaped from basket case socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela and don’t want more of the same.
Also that many latinos have escaped from basket case socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela and don’t want more of the same.
The author fails to mention that many latinos are simply refusing to put in the left-wing victim box that rich, white lefties want to put them.
I propose three main categories of people:
1) The globalist plutocratic elite and their direct minions. The woke.
2) White People. Note White People can be any hue, their defining category is that they work, avoid crime, are not entitled (or chose not) to feel sorry for themselves, form stable families and pay taxes. Whatever may have happened to their ancestors, or themselves, they are expected to just get on with it.
3) Victims: POC, perverts, mentally ill people, parasites of all kinds. They are basically the ‘opposite’ of White so let’s call them Black. Category 1) pretend to care about category 3) and uses their Caring to basically enslave category 2) into paying for everything. Category 2) has a hard time resisting because Whitey is a sucker for anyone claiming Victimhood.
I propose three main categories of people:
1) The globalist plutocratic elite and their direct minions. The woke.
2) White People. Note White People can be any hue, their defining category is that they work, avoid crime, are not entitled (or chose not) to feel sorry for themselves, form stable families and pay taxes. Whatever may have happened to their ancestors, or themselves, they are expected to just get on with it.
3) Victims: POC, perverts, mentally ill people, parasites of all kinds. They are basically the ‘opposite’ of White so let’s call them Black. Category 1) pretend to care about category 3) and uses their Caring to basically enslave category 2) into paying for everything. Category 2) has a hard time resisting because Whitey is a sucker for anyone claiming Victimhood.
“White supremacist” has turned into a left wing blanket word for anybody that doesn’t conform to the orthodoxy “du jour”.
it’s become the qualitative equivalent of the “Commie” insult of the 90s. Not all lefties then were communists, but the term itself was enough to decredibilize them. Same today for “White supremacist” (Don’t listen to their arguments, they can’t be trusted, and should be fought back against at all cost).
It’s the new “deplorables” of clintonian fame. .
“White supremacist” has turned into a left wing blanket word for anybody that doesn’t conform to the orthodoxy “du jour”.
it’s become the qualitative equivalent of the “Commie” insult of the 90s. Not all lefties then were communists, but the term itself was enough to decredibilize them. Same today for “White supremacist” (Don’t listen to their arguments, they can’t be trusted, and should be fought back against at all cost).
It’s the new “deplorables” of clintonian fame. .
This is a good article, but it does miss the point that accusations of “white supremacist,” just like “far right extremist” and “ultra MAGA” and the prerennial favorite, “fascist,” are not made in good faith, they are simply slurring anyone who upsets the ruling class as a boogeyman. They have no real meaning beyond “bad person,” and the sorrow of it is that people who think themselves intelligent (e.g., readers of The New Yorker) are so out of touch with complex reality, they believe it.
Thus, when Larry Elder ran in the California Governor recall, it was not enough to say his policy positions were wrong, he was a “black white supremacist.”
This is a good article, but it does miss the point that accusations of “white supremacist,” just like “far right extremist” and “ultra MAGA” and the prerennial favorite, “fascist,” are not made in good faith, they are simply slurring anyone who upsets the ruling class as a boogeyman. They have no real meaning beyond “bad person,” and the sorrow of it is that people who think themselves intelligent (e.g., readers of The New Yorker) are so out of touch with complex reality, they believe it.
Thus, when Larry Elder ran in the California Governor recall, it was not enough to say his policy positions were wrong, he was a “black white supremacist.”
I can’t wait to tell my Latina wife that she is in an “artificial category”…..
I’m Italian-Irish, so white, and my husband is 100% Puerto Rican. He is actually the one who told me that the grouping of Hispanics or Latinos in America doesn’t make sense, because in Latin American countries, they don’t see themselves as one group. They can be of any race or may only identify by their ethnicity – for instance, just saying they’re Puerto Rican rather than black, white, bi-racial, etc. America has a very odd and aggravating relationship with race. I suppose the lumping of all Latinos into one group mirrors how all European ethnicities were lumped together and called “white.” For most of my life, I regarded myself and my fellow citizens simply as Americans, regardless of race. My husband was the same. He refuses to even write his race on documents, or if he’s forced to write something, he’ll put “other.” A few years ago, when our country was basically upended, it kind of blew my mind to see how race-obsessed our society still is as a whole. I guess my family lives in a weird little bubble of America that had largely moved on to a shared American identity over racial identities. I’m very sad to see things regressing from the influence of wokeness.
I’m Italian-Irish, so white, and my husband is 100% Puerto Rican. He is actually the one who told me that the grouping of Hispanics or Latinos in America doesn’t make sense, because in Latin American countries, they don’t see themselves as one group. They can be of any race or may only identify by their ethnicity – for instance, just saying they’re Puerto Rican rather than black, white, bi-racial, etc. America has a very odd and aggravating relationship with race. I suppose the lumping of all Latinos into one group mirrors how all European ethnicities were lumped together and called “white.” For most of my life, I regarded myself and my fellow citizens simply as Americans, regardless of race. My husband was the same. He refuses to even write his race on documents, or if he’s forced to write something, he’ll put “other.” A few years ago, when our country was basically upended, it kind of blew my mind to see how race-obsessed our society still is as a whole. I guess my family lives in a weird little bubble of America that had largely moved on to a shared American identity over racial identities. I’m very sad to see things regressing from the influence of wokeness.
I can’t wait to tell my Latina wife that she is in an “artificial category”…..