A Left Economic Project Will Have to Include White Bigots

The sorry but real truth is that a lot of working class, poor, low income and middle class Whites who ought to get on board with a progressive economics are thrown out by Liberalism due to the insane PC nature of the Democratic Party.
Increasingly, it looks like the Democratic Party is just Republican economics, plus queers, illegal aliens, wymmin, woo-woo Indians, Black people, etc. Most of these groups still get screwed because even though they get stuff for not having not dicks, being White or liking the penis-vagina thing, the rightwing economics takes them out in a lot of other ways.
I got to Daily Kos and it’s full of PC crap about this or that. Every other diary is about race or the wymminz, or the fags, or whatever. When I read this stuff, honestly, it makes me want to vote Republican! How many Whites don’t stop like I do and head into the voting booth to vote R?
Anyway, I think we ought to let these White characters into an leftwing economic project. Their racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot is not optimal, but the truth is that I’m not one of the attacked groups, and it’s basically a character flaw on their part, like a neurosis. It’s between them, their conscience, their priest, rabbi, minister or therapist and also between them and the people who are targeted by their bigotry.
We need to gather up as big a movement for left economics as possible and we can’t throw all these Whites out for their Identity Politics transgressions on other stuff. Left economics comes first, then we deal with the bigotry stuff later on, or maybe we just forget about it. Besides, any left economic regime would be pretty nice to those abused groups anyway. It’s crazy that we are tossing all the bigots out.
All they do is march off and vote Republican. Nuts.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

27 thoughts on “A Left Economic Project Will Have to Include White Bigots”

  1. “A Left Economic Project Will Have to Include White Bigots”
    Why not? It already includes black bigots, jew bigots, asian bigots, mexican bigots, fag-bigots (faggots LOL), feminazis, and condescending upper class white assholes. Why not include lower class white bigots?

  2. Dear Robert
    The left proclaims the primacy of economics but it has always lost a lot of support because of its positions on non-economic issues. Today it is PC, and in the beginning it was hostility to religion, nationalism, traditions and all established authority. The left was quite right to oppose imperialism, but by its anti-nationalism, it gave away a lot of votes to the right.
    Scratch a leftist, and you will often find a self-righteous snob who actually likes rich more people more than working stiffs. Many leftist are willing to embrace policies that benefit low-income folks but would be horrified if those low-income people gave them a physical embrace.
    Regards. James

    1. Holy Shit James Schipper we agree on a hell of a lot more than I thought.
      “Today it is PC, and in the beginning it was hostility to religion, nationalism, traditions and all established authority”
      This is exactly what I think. I believe that the left has done a huge amount of cultural and social harm by promoting cultural marxism and other garbage. I often wonder about the origins of the neo-nazi movement in Russia. It seems that the left had debased a lot of Russians from their ancestral culture and they went to this becuase of the weakining of their identity. Garbage capitalism has continued that attack on the russian race, but since all tradition has been attacked as backwards people resort to this garbage as a means to defend themselves.
      “The left was quite right to oppose imperialism, but by its anti-nationalism, it gave away a lot of votes to the right.”
      A lot of truth here. It is especially annoying how to a lot of leftists (and neocons..wait..they’re leftists too) declare that every form of nationalism is nazism, which is totally ridiculous. Not even every form of fascism is nazism. I believe that some form of national populist movement (sound like a good name anybody?) would be the ideal political movement. It would be different in each country for reasons of history and culture. In certain countries it may even have to have a repatriation element.

  3. “Increasingly, it looks like the Democratic Party is just Republican economics, plus queers, illegal aliens, wymmin, woo-woo Indians, Black people, etc.”
    LOL Woo woo Indians. My friend distinguishes the two groups as the Hoya Indians (Native Americans) and the Botchka Indians because facebook is called Botchkabook in India. In the PC crowd Native Americans are referred to as American Indians and Indian expats living in the US are referred to as Indian Americans.

  4. Dear Wade
    I don’t have much faith in political labels because they are usually inacurate, but I define myself as a national social-democrat. The national part refers to my view that social-democracy should be established at the national level. Since the world is politically divided in sovereign states, very few of which are nation-states, this means in practice that social-democracy has to be implemented at the level of the sovereign states.
    Social democracy to me means essentially the following:
    1 – All adult citizens should have the right to vote.
    2 – All citizens should be equal before the law.
    3 – There should be public financing of political parties.
    4 – The state should provide free public education at the primary and secondary level to all the children of all legal residents. Private schools should be allowed but receive no public funding.
    5 – The state should play a big role in the provision of health care.
    6 – The state should provide basic economic security to the old, the chronically ill, the disabled, the handicapped and the unemployed.
    7 – One legitimate function of the state is to reduce poverty and moderate income inequality.
    8 – There should be some public broadcasting.
    9 – The belief that the market is not infallible and private property is not sacrosanct.
    10- There should be public ownership of natural monopolies such as roads, electricity and water distribution.
    11 – Since the market is inherently unstable, one function of the state is to stabilize the economy through its fiscal and monetary policies.
    13 – Foreign trade is important but free trade is not a holy grail.
    14 – Immigration should be severely restricted to protect domestic labor. Immigrants who will compete with low-income domestic labor should not be allowed in the country at all.
    15 – Foreign policy should respect the sovereignty of all states and avoid war whenever possible. Security, not power should be the supreme aim of our foreign policy.
    16 – The state should be secular, that is, it should not favor any religion, combat any religion or demand any religious test of political candidates or civil servants.
    17 – Since a healthy environment is necessay for healthy human life and since the market has no incentive to respect the environment, the state should seek to protect the environment.
    18- It is legitimate for the state to have a population policy which aims at avoiding further population growth or rapid population decline.
    People who can subsribe to the views above, or most of them, should be allowed entry in a social-democratic party regardless of what their views are on other questions. Social democracy should be open to religious believers and atheists, vegetarians and meat eaters, creationists and evolutionists, dogs lover and cat lovers, bird watchers and bird haters, artsies and philistines, bookworms and jocks, etc.
    Have a good day. James

    1. I agree with all of those points for the most part but I would modify some.
      “14 – Immigration should be severely restricted to protect domestic labor. ”
      I would modify this to also include protecting the culture or cultures within the state.
      “16 – The state should be secular, that is, it should not favor any religion, combat any religion or demand any religious test of political candidates or civil servants.”
      I agree with this in some cases. I don’t believe that the government should curtail the right to criticize religion or not be religous, but I don’t see a problem with some state recognition of a religion if most of the population wants it and the religion has been deeply embedded in the area by history. I certainly think the United States should remain totally secular. I also think that some religions are totally alien to a group and can only have hostile intent and should be combatted. Islam in Europe comes to mind. I also think that certain religious groups ( and ethnic groups) should be given extra scrutiny before being trusted in government. The jews are a prime example. It would take quite a lot for me to trust a jew on most things, especially if its anything involving the banking industry of Israel.

      1. I would modify this to also include protecting the culture or cultures within the state.
        I don’t know if English should be made the “official language” of the United State, but I don’t believe private businesses should be allowed to post public signs, etc, in a foreign language; nor do I believe governmental literature should be available in 25 different languages. This is surely not a popular mindset amongst my ethnic cohorts, but language is the first step towards preserving American culture. This should reign over all local demographics as well.

        1. I don’t think governmental institutions should hire people who are not fluent in English especially if they are interacting with people.

  5. Excellent post, Robert.
    I would be a total leftist if it would just drop all this identity politics crap. IOW, if they would stop sucking up to blacks, Hispanics, feminuts, homos, etc, I would be on board with their progressive economic policies.
    Sadly, the Demorats/liberals have moved increasingly to the right on economic issues, but increasingly left on racial/cultural issues, which is the worst possible combination.
    So they continue to agonize over “white privilege” and the lack of gay marriage, but still manage to hold on to the fattest part of their paychecks, while telling the white masses that they need to make sacrifices.
    Seriously, what straight white male in his right mind would support the left? Sure, I prefer their economics over that of Republicans, but I’m not about to get on board with an ideology that consistently demonizes me.
    Even when leftists DO denounce outsourcing or other economic vices, they only do so in order to lament the exploitation of 3rd worlders. Never mind that Americans are losing their jobs. And to the extent that they’re upset about illegal Hispanic immigration, it’s only because those oh-pressed Hispanics are exploited for their labor and lagging academically due to “racism.”
    I can’t help but think that leftists are a bunch of rootless cosmopolitans who care more about 3rd worlders than they do about the average white American.
    Which is why I’ll never support them.
    Well, who knows, Robert? Perhaps there are more leftists like you than I think. Maybe they’re not all insane. But sadly, Robert, leftists with your views (progressive economically but no on board with insane PC bullshit) are the exceptions that prove the rule.

  6. @ Wade
    Why not? It already includes black bigots, jew bigots, asian bigots, mexican bigots, fag-bigots (faggots LOL), feminazis, and condescending upper class white assholes
    LOL!
    The condescending SWPL yuppies are the WORST, in my opinion.
    Why? I expect this asshole leftist behavior from blacks and Jews. They do it out of their own self-interest.
    I just cannot understand for the life of me why such a sizable amount of whites are liberal. It’s like they have a death wish or something.

    1. Ishmael Reed is an old, ignorant black man.
      I even read that entire article of his in the NY Times.
      (Interesting, considering that despite Ishamel Reed’s claims that the “white media” is a Jim Crow media that excludes blacks, they let a black radical like himself write an editorial)
      To paraphrase James Edwards, in his mind, and in other black people’s minds, there are NEVER any poor or unemployed white people who experience adversity. And whites NEVER know what it’s like to not get it all.
      Nope, in the minds of black people, life goes absolutely perfect for white people.
      They honestly think that life for all white people is 90210 everyday.

      1. Yeah, when I read stuff like that I always think of that old SNL skit where Eddie Murphy goes on a bus disguised as a white person, and as soon as the last black person gets off the bus, the scared, uptight white folks break out champagne and cigars and start dancing.
        Reed is a crap writer, a misogynist and a homophobe. Guilty white liberals who publish him are patronizing in my opinion, because they think black people can’t write better than that!

      2. Ishamel Reed is actually not that progressive, when you look closely.
        He’s a black male masculinist, based on what I’ve read of his work.
        Do you have specific examples of his homophobia and misogyny?
        Not that I’m surprised that he is, but I think you should maybe raise the issue with counterpunch, since it considers itself a progressive publication.
        He isn’t a great writer, but he is a talented polemicist, which is why he gets so much press.

        1. I have read some of his articles on counterpunch, and I honestly don’t know why they continue to publish his crap.
          He’s purely a polemicist, nothing more.

        2. I don’t have time to dig them up, but if you Google his name and those terms, I bet you’ll find something.
          Cockburn himself can be rather sexist, and he’s becoming more of a crank in his old age. He seems to think women want to keep abortion legal because we get a kick out of killing fetuses.
          http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/alexander-cockburn-fetus-fetishist/
          Counterpunch still publishes good stuff, but it’s a bit of a crapshoot nowadays.

  7. Dear Wade
    14 – If immigration is reduced to a trickle, it can no longer be a threat to mainstram culture. For instance, if Germany and the NL had respectively taken in 100,000 and 400,000 Muslims instead of 10 times as many, they would not be plagued by Islamophobia today and wouldn’t have a lot of alienated Muslims.
    16 – Indeed. Favoring a particular religion is quite compatible with democracy. For example, if 90% of the population of a certain country is Catholic and if 90% of those Catholics want the state to protect the Catholic religion, then such protection would be quite democratic.
    Favoring one religion or several religions does not necessarily imply repression of other religions. To use an analogy, in Canada, French and English are state-protected languages, but it does not follow that other languages are forbidden, although they are obviously put at a disadvantage. Likewise, the existence of an official religion is compatible with religious freedom. The UK, Denmark and Norway have official religions, but would anyone argue that there is no religious freedom in these countries. In Sweden and Germany, the government collects church taxes.
    Still, I would oppose any legal or financial ties between the state and religion. Let religion be free from political interference and let it also be independent of state support.
    Cheers. James

    1. “14 – If immigration is reduced to a trickle, it can no longer be a threat to mainstram culture”
      True, but I believe the intent of a law is just as important as its result. Even if immigration is a trickle for a time, if you did not explicitly mention the cultural aspect then later on large businesses or other internationalists could support mass immigration if they could convince politicians that a large increase is needed for economic reasons (or pay the off). They would then go to the law and claim that it only had support for economic reasons and that multiculturalism was not forbidden by it. Look at what we have in this country. Despite that fact that it is well known that the founders were quite ‘racist’ by modern standards, there are still multiculturalists who claim that they wanted everyone to be able to move to america. It doesn;t really matter if you support immigration to the US or not, I think it is certainly clear that that idea is proposterous. However, when capitalists of modern socialists talk, things are only true by coincidence.

  8. This is great!
    This political and economic viewpoint could gain tons of traction within ethnic groups if played correctly. Most ethnics (definitely speaking for myself) have no problems accepting and intermingling with racists, as long as the racists have the same “cooperative” attitude. Obviously we can’t co-exist with some KKK freaks looking to lynch us, but most modern-day racists aren’t quite so extreme. Some of my best friends don’t like Mexicans.
    Once again, we are the victims of the shapers of mass opinion and holders of economic power…the elitists who lord over respective ethnic groups and purport to speak for everyone in that group. And most people are dumb and sheepish enough to follow along without questioning anything. The White elites are the most powerful of all and they are followed distantly by Black and Hispanic Identity elites. They are the ones to take “offense” at every slight and strictly fail to treat people as complex beings capable of many dimensions, of which racism might be one.
    Blacks and Hispanics, more than any group, would help their own cause the most for focusing on the economic issues of the day and fuck the ridiculous ethnic crap that is stagnating progress.

    1. Blacks and Hispanics, more than any group, would help their own cause the most for focusing on the economic issues of the day and fuck the ridiculous ethnic crap that is stagnating progress.
      Here, here! Every group is being played by its cultural left elites. (I refuse to call it cultural Marxism, because it’s a perversion of Marx.) The CRT people don’t even have an economic analysis to set aside. For example, since when can you support a social democracy with open borders? It’s 100% identity politics, period. This does nothing but create another academic cottage industry that exists only to perpetuate itself. Subjecting cube slaves to humiliation at mandatory corporate anti-racist seminars only distracts people from the depredations of capital.
      I’m convinced that the shift from economic to cultural leftism is connected to the whole COINTELPRO infiltration that destroyed the left from within. Right wingers assume cultural leftism is something that grew organically out of the left; I maintain it came from without, and well-meaning leftists have been suckered.
      Tim Wise flat out says that white people need to be purged of their racism before they can even begin to organize on a class basis. That’s insane. Look at Obama tearing into social security. How long can we keep fucking around?

      1. Tim Wise flat out says that white people need to be purged of their racism before they can even begin to organize on a class basis.
        He has it ass-backwards.
        If you actually STUDY the history of how racism came about (Read Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams for more perspective), you’ll notice that CAPITALISM was what was used to drive the Transatlantic slave trade, and only AFTER slavery became part of this Capitalist machine do you start to see racist ideologies develop.
        Therefore, even though I’m hardly an anti-racist myself, logically speaking, you cannot end racism without first ending the Capitalist mentality that spawned it in the first place .

      2. I’m convinced that the shift from economic to cultural leftism is connected to the whole COINTELPRO infiltration that destroyed the left from within. Right wingers assume cultural leftism is something that grew organically out of the left; I maintain it came from without, and well-meaning leftists have been suckered.
        Hmm, that is interesting. Do you have any evidence for this?
        COINTELPRO did indeed target leftist activists in a variety of manners, including planting informants, newspaper articles against them, false evidence, etc.
        But I don’t know if you can claim that people like Herbert Marcuse (mentor of black activists like Angela Davis, and basically the godfather of Cultural Marxism) were influenced by COINTELPRO.
        I think much this cultural leftism crap can be traced back to Marcuse and the Frankfurt School of critical theory, which moved to the U.S. following the rise of Hitler.
        (yeah, Hitler, thanks a lot, asshole)
        You look at much of what Tim Wise or Ank Mie has to say, and you’ll see a some Marcuse in there.
        (ie. the leftist idea that certain forms of free speech should be censored if they contribute to what Marcuse called “repression”)

        1. The CIA (not the FBI; they really were philistines) funded and supported much incomprehensible “modern” art. Who’s to say they didn’t give a nudge to the inane and divisive theories of the Frankfurt School? I have no proof, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

        2. I should amend that to say that not all of the cultural leftist crap came from within. I think it’s a combination of government/corporate infiltration and co-optation (often through universities) and opportunistic pork chop nationalists who seek mainly to benefit themselves.
          I’m still working out my theory. I can’t say I have solid proof. One thing I’m thinking of is the allegations the Redstockings made about Gloria Steinem’s early involvement with a liberal youth group that was funded by the CIA. Steinem’s wing of liberal feminism eventually purged the groups committed to class struggle, and reduced the women’s movement to an advocacy group for upper class white women within the Democratic Party. There is a YouTube clip of Steinem dismissing Marx wholesale because he received financial support for his work and maybe wasn’t the perfect sensitive new age guy. She doesn’t explain how women groveling for a few crumbs from the Dems is an improvement.
          It’s interesting to examine how the whole whiteness studies discipline was encouraged by Ivies like Harvard. Noel Ignatiev was accepted to Harvard’s masters program without having finished his bachelor’s degree. His whole Race Traitor thing, which keep people discussing bullshit like “abolishing whiteness” without ever articulating how that could be accomplished, benefits those who would prefer that the masses engage in abstract “consciousness raising” and not street-level organizing. Contrary to the claims of people like David Horowitz, the “tenured radicals” in the academic industrial complex are not completely disconnected from the corporatocracy.
          For another example, there is some interesting speculation that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are still involved in Chicago politics and the Bill Gates- sponsored charter school scam, as well as writing a book called “Race Course: Against White Supremacy,” were agents provocateurs:
          http://emperors-clothes.com/exhumed.htm
          It may sound a little tinfoily, but when you think of how little the left has accomplished in the last 40 years, the cultural politics stuff starts to look a bit like a red herring. All these people who are supposedly rebels and outcasts, like Ignatiev, Ayers, and Dohrn, seem to wind up collaborating with capitalists and being taken care of pretty well.

        3. Not to mention that the “leftist” politics of weatherman was completely psychotic. I could accept that if the people in that movement were themselves crazy and/or stupid, but they were not. Could such completely incoherent politics honestly make sense to freakin’ intellectual giants like Dohrn and Ayers, even with youthful hormones coursing through their blood? It’s possible, but not plausible. Most bright young people who go off the edge tend to believe ideas that are logical and consistent–possibly even blindingly so–but that bear only a passing relationship with reality. The Weatherman manifestos in particular are mind numbing in their sheer militant illogic.

        4. Yes. Rich, ultra-connected and educated people spouting that gibberish about white babies being pigs, the necessity of murdering the millions of people who’d refuse to go along with their plans and celebrating some kid who supposedly caused a horrible train wreck by putting a slab of concrete on the tracks. Then a sudden, smooth as silk transition into polite society.
          No, that doesn’t seem even a bit suspicious, does it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *