Milo says “white identity politics” isn’t the right place, and I can see why a half Jewish gay man with a Greek family name might feel that way. It strikes me as no terribly political heresy that he would be uncomfortable with a world where, as gay man who enjoys the private company of black men, he might not be allowed to engage in the kind of activities he’s become accustomed to. I bear him no ill will for his feelings on the topic.
But “white identity politics” covers a lot of ground. I’m sure there is a great deal of the things described by that journalistic shorthand that Milo would have no problem with.
For example, there is black advocacy, Latin advocacy, Muslim advocacy, woman advocacy, gay advocacy and every single imaginable type of advocacy group for every single splinter of American society with only one solitary exception. I see absolutely no reason white heterosexual men should not be allowed to form advocacy groups, and I’m certain Milo would agree.
I would also argue that all Americans of every group should be entitled under our laws regarding free association, to exclude from their company anyone they desire, and for any reason they desire it.
Black groups should be entitled to exclude whites and vice versa. Businesses should be allowed to do the same if they’re willing to pay the price for it. If a black owned business wants to exclude whites and cater to just 11% of the population with their business, I believe that is their right. White groups and businesses should be allowed to do the same.
The only exception to this rule should be government, which should be required to provide the same service to all citizens regardless of what groups they belong to. But government should not be required to provide equal service to non-citizens. They didn’t legally buy it; they shouldn’t get to use it. If you want to go crazy and offer government service to legal residents, I’ll probably quibble on which services, but I’m open to discussion on it.
“White Identity Politics” shouldn’t be required to bring about these perfectly reasonable and lawful changes. But in a society where the people responsible for the overwhelming majority of the creativity, organization, and industriousness that built the modern world are universally vilified for their contributions and treated as pariahs, I think it’s necessary.
So who does “white identity politics” include? Does it include Jews? Does it include Catholics? Does it include Asians, Turks or Russians? Does it include gays or light skinned Latinos? My world would. But I think it should be left to society to naturally form up in groups and decide for themselves. The more restrictive the group - a group that includes only Anglo-Saxon, or only Aryans for example – will by definition be smaller and less influential than a more inclusive group. So I’m not so worried about it. How and where they draw the line between “us” and “them” is of no real consequence to me.
Unlike Graucho Marx, I would never want to belong to a group that wouldn’t have me as a member. And I think Milo is just saying the same thing.
Nature is the tide, and the tide can’t be held back. People WILL form groups of their own free will, either legally or illegally. And illegal groups will be harder for civil society to control. Preventing white heterosexuals from legally forming groups now that they’ve become aware of their need for them as an identity group, will only result in militias and the klan – all formed under ground.
This can either be settled with talk and politics or with violence. Talk is better. And if you exclude this one group from the talk, then you open the door to them acting outside the law. And you don’t want a group this careful, industrious, creative and organized going down that road. Out of self preservation, the enemies of white identity politics should be doing all they can to encourage it.
The eventual alternative will be a radicalized movement uninterested in politics. And that will lead to blood, which no rational person wants.