In the wake of the mass shootings over the weekend, some conservatives have said now's the time to declare a war on violent white supremacy/nationalism. That raises several issues:
i) I'd note in passing that pundits use "white racist," "white nationalist," and "white supremacist" as synonyms. It's possible that there are some conceptual distinctions here. Since, however, I think they're all bad, I won't bother to parse the usage. For simplicity, I'll say "racist".
ii) Warfare metaphors are just that–metaphors. So what does it actually mean to wage war on this phenomenon?
iii) White racist terrorism, like domestic terrorism generally, is a crime, and ought to be treated as such.
iv) However, white racist ideology or rhetoric is a different matter. Both liberal and conservative pundits denounce it, which is fine at one level. It merits denunciation.
However, that's not a way to "win a war". Indeed, that may harden white racists. I suspect many of them feel like a righteous remnant. To be reviled and marginalized by the "establishment" reinforces their victimology, their persecution complex. So while denouncing white racism is valid on the merits, if our only response is to hurl epithets at them, that's counterproductive. They expect that. To be hated by the "establishment" is a badge of honor.
v) There's the old strategy of fighting bad ideas with good ideas. Instead of just denouncing them, an effort should be made to engage their arguments (such as they were). Although rational persuasion won't change the minds of hardcore racists, you can reach some people by listening to them. If they are show enough respect to be listened to, it creates an opening to change minds.
For instance, I once wrote
a critique of white nationalist Francis Nigel Lee.
I figured that he could make the best case for white nationalism, so he was a good foil.
vi) It's necessary to distinguish between perceived grievances and legitimate grievances. Likewise, it's necessary to distinguish between legitimate grievances and illegitimate outlets. Some are losers looking for an excuse–someone else to blame. Others may have real grievances, but if their grievances are demonized, that pushes them into fringe groups.
vii) Apropos (vi), how many white racists are primarily motivated by ideology? By contrast, how many white racists are motivated by something else, and the ideology is just a side-effect? Take a generation of alienated young men due to fatherlessness. That may put them at risk of falling into social media groups with young men who share the same experience, who look for scapegoats.
Take the crisis facing some rural or working-class communities, highlighted by Tucker Carlson. Likewise, I saw a presentation by Jordan Peterson about how, in a hitech society, there just aren't jobs for people below a certain IQ–whereas there used to be jobs for them.
viii) In addition, Democrats need to own up to the fact that the anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-straight, anti-rural, anti-working-class policies of the Obama administration made Trump a politically viable candidate.
ix) If the authorities crack down on white terrorism but turn a blind eye to other examples of domestic terrorism like Antifa, that will reinforce white racism. They will see that the authorities are singling out caucasians, which plays right into their narrative. And, indeed, it is racist to crack down on white terrorism while giving other domestic terrorist movements like Antifa a pass.
x) Moreover, the crackdown on violent white racism can easily provide cover for Democrats to go after their political opponents. In the wake of the shootings, we see
Elizabeth Warren call Fox News a "hate-for-profit" machine.
Likewise, the NYT runs back-to-back stories smearing all conservatives as agents of white domestic terrorism:
So this is just a pretext to use the police powers of gov't to shut down political dissent. A Hunger Games scenario.
I just saw a tweet by homosexual pollster Nate Silver obliterating the distinction between domestic and international terrorism:
But there's a crucial distinction. International terrorism properly falls under the laws of war. By contrast, domestic terrorism is a crime. The accused, especially citizens, enjoy full due process rights.
xi) Finally, there's the question of how seriously to take manifestos by contemporary domestic terrorists. As I recall, this custom goes back to the Unabomber. In the past you had domestic terrorists writing manifestoes to explain their intentions. These were like suicide notes.
But nowadays we need to be less credulous. It's possible for a domestic terrorist to cynically give reasons for his actions that are not his real reasons. From what I've read, some domestic terrorists want to spark a civil war. They bait the authorities into cracking down, in hopes that the oppressive measures will ignite a popular uprising.
They know how to push the buttons of the "news media" and the authorities. They are banking on the very predictable reaction of the establishment. So I don't think we can automatically take contemporary manifestos at face value. Some of them may be playing the establishment.
