Written By “A Classical Liberal”
~~oo~~
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others.
(Cristina Beltran)
As the above quotation demonstrates, ‘multiracial whiteness’ is the latest exercise in intellectually incoherent cultural Marxist doublethink. In a recent op-ed piece in The Washington Post – ‘Opinion: To understand Trump’s support, we must think in terms of multiracial Whiteness’, 15 January 2021 – Cristina Beltran popularised the term ‘multiracial whiteness’ to describe why many non-whites voted for Donald Trump in the recent US Presidential election.
Beltran is a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University. The title of her most recent book – Cruelty as Citizenship: How Migrant Suffering Sustains White Democracy – tells us that she is a fully paid up member of the PC Brigade!
The vast majority of Latinos and an overwhelming majority of African American voters supported Biden in the election, as cultural Marxism predicts. However, exit-polls show that a quarter to a third of Latino voters voted to re-elect Trump, which is clearly a cause of concern to cultural Marxists; as it challenges their presumption that ethnic minorities belong to them.
This led Beltran to ask, what are we to make of Latino voters ‘inspired by Trump’? Her answer is a phenomenon that she calls ‘multiracial whiteness’ – the promise that non-whites can also ‘lay claim’ to the Republican values held by the majority of white Americans. Thereby, according to Beltran, whiteness is no longer simply a ‘racial identity’; it is also a ‘political colour’.
Quite clearly, the concept of ‘multiracial whiteness’ makes absolutely no sense at all. Surely, a political movement either embraces one race or multiple races, but cannot do both. It’s like claiming that polar opposites, such as inclusivity and segregation, can exist together. ‘Multiracial whiteness’ is actually diversity – and the PC Brigade is always berating us that we need more diversity. It also tells us what we’ve known all along, namely that politics is not just about race. We are all individuals – therefore both whites and non-whites can choose to vote for Trump or against him.
While trying to convince us that ‘multiracial whiteness’ is a bad thing, Beltran actually offers the best possible argument in its favour:
Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA [Make America Great Again] movement ….
A movement that believes in ‘colour-blind individualism’ and welcomes ‘anyone’ to join sounds great to me. Beltran continues to promote the benefits of ‘multiracial whiteness’ by emphasising that the politics of ‘multiracial whiteness’ are ‘available to all’:
If you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceañera in your family, go ahead. If you want to be a Proud Boy, be a Proud Boy. Trump doesn’t care. As long as you love him, he’ll love you.
This also sounds very inclusive indeed – and isn’t ‘inclusivity’ one of the PC lexicon’s most hallowed buzzwords.
Beltran notes approvingly that before Trump, Republicans seeking to appeal to Latino voters usually espoused ‘conservative multiculturalism’: emphasising conservative approaches to faith, patriotism and the traditional family in order to connect Latino culture to Republican values. Whereas, she criticises Trump for not finding ‘value in Latinos’ distinct identities’; instead offering them ‘multiracial whiteness’. I would argue that Beltran has completely missed the point here. Before Trump, Republicans tended to patronise Latino voters and pigeonhole them because of their ethnicity. Whereas, Trump gained more Latino votes precisely because he showed them the respect of treating them like Americans and didn’t make them feel like outsiders. After all, many Latinos fled Communist Cuba and came to America precisely because they wanted to embrace capitalism and the fabled ‘American dream’.
Beltran concludes her unhinged rant by opining that the ‘challenge’ of the post-Trump era will be ‘to prevent the politics of whiteness from becoming an increasingly multiracial affair’. I actually took heart from Beltran’s conclusion. It tells me that a leading cultural Marxist is worried that the coalition of victim groups that they have so painstakingly assembled is actually starting to unravel. Economic Marxism failed because the working-class saw through it. Perhaps cultural Marxism will also shrivel and die on the vine, because politics is not determined solely by race – or gender, or sexuality – and more and more members of so-called ‘oppressed’ groups refuse to be held back by the politics of victimhood.
The level of patronage of the cultural Marxist movement directly and possibly more commonly via donations to universities from charities, corporations, foundations and the wealthy will possibly sustain their output, adaptability and zealous activism for some time to come.
Yes, the professor’s phrase “multi-racial whiteness” is internally contradictory. As a true anti-racist Professor Cristina Beltran sees white racism everywhere and in everything. Especially in the US Republican Party’s attempts to defend the values of the founding fathers who first wrote the US Constitution. She sees the values of the US founding fathers as Whiteness. Everything must be sorted into a racial pigeonhole.
Latinos who vote for the values of the USA’s founding fathers therefor alarm her. Because she sees them as deserters from the anti-racist war on white people.
Or to put it more simply, the Cultural Marxists have to keep inventing ever more ludicrous theories to keep blindsiding the very people they claim to represent. As a leftie, but with no real knowledge of the theories behind it, I gave up the “cause” of socialism because of one simple observation, the people (working class in my case) did not want it. Fair enough I thought, but maybe some time they will change their minds.
Others of whom I had no knowledge (I guess I was not that committed) such as Alinsky and Gramsci as I have found out much later, took a different view and decided basically that the people they claim to represent must be deceived into following their dream of socialism and communism, the bedfellows of fascism, hence the mess of Cultural Marxism we are in although that is their plan and has been working well given the capitulation of certain politicians, supine MSM and of course the luvvies.
But when you decide on deception and lies you have to be very good at it else it unravels and becomes transparently, a load of…They also continually need a common enemy real or imagined, white at present but transitioning to multiracial whiteness according to this article, who next? Running out of options I would suggest, they’ll be eyeing each before long (hopefully).
Wherever you look the evidence is that there is only one plan on the cultural Marxists agenda….. obliterate the whites! Even if the Marxists are white themselves!!!! Regardless of whether we whites were to agree that ‘whiteness’ is now bad and ‘blackness’ is now good, the agenda would still be the same….. obliterate the whites!
So why on Earth aren’t we fighting back?
One of the nice things about immigration in countries with British roots, is that within twenty minutes of getting legal, they used to be British. They are not 100% sure what it means, but obviously you need money. So they set about it. In so doing they join the first rung of the ladder. An un-.recognised ladder of opportunity and the class system, and how to move up or down This ladder is more important than most others.Britains private schools have many foreign dignatories children. It’s a definite rung. Going to a Grammer school and A profession is three steps up . If your father is a carpenter, then you will learn the trade by the age of 8 so, thats a step on the ladder. If your father is a lawyer thats another step. It,s not an accident. His or her mother or father says something which the left hates. The left is seriously destructive in all sorts of ways and we need to understand. Because can become Prime minister or any one of his EQUALS, Archbishop, Mandarin, Army chief , Chief Lawyer etc If you are an elite, or a son of a wealthy vicar ( Newton, Darwin, Build a railway or bridge ) Yes you have a start but it’s is not just a virtual necessity but also freedom.
The ladder of opportunity.
I think the point is Elites are an asset, The left would destroy the ladders or monopalise them and thus destroy ( Like professions that are brittle and moribund ).The ladders must be maintained, not restricted. Usually once on the ladder nobody really cares about your colour unless you care. Mostly it is about profficiency. and value.
TG spokes……..dear oh lord I cannot make head or tail of any of this. I am sure you most know what you’re on about, but I’ve read it through a few times, and er…….I’ve no idea. I can’t think of too many people who have learnt carpentry by the age of 8, but I’m sure there must be someone somewhere who has, just like some musicians who are virtuoso’s on their chosen instrument at a young age like Stephane Grapelli on the violin and Harry James on the trumpet
Colin, You are quite interesting. I may betotally wrong but there are concepts which I hadn’t grasped immediately, or ideas that I didn’t know, or just an unfamiliar viewpoint. These may or may not be familiar to others, but if they aren’t I think they could be worth spreading ( Like pearls ).So, I’m sorry if you are already too familiar with any. But maybe others aren’t. But to me they were new.
Are you familiar with the idea that music appreciation is merely recognition of a familiar sequence of frequencies unconsciously linked to some even more primitive emotion. This is why people like to listen to your mates Steffany and H.
Keep going Colin, you are important to us.
This Beltran woman seems to be living in the South, before the American Civil War!
SOME Latinos fled Castro’s Marxism. Not that many Classical Liberal but you are probably right that Trump’s ‘America First’ was a very good inclusive slogan.
(Not surprising is it that Nigel Farage liked Donald Trump.)
Classical Liberal is probably also right that classical marxism will also shrivel and die. Wonder what flyer would say.
Ohh, it’s now tomorrow and flyer hasn’t spoken.