Another day, another 'leftists are the real racists' article by a Republican.
The writer asks the well-worn old question of why the left does not embrace the 'diversity' they gleefully inflict on everybody. The usual 'conservative' explanation of this disconnect is that liberals are the world's biggest hypocrites; they flee from diversity to 'Whitopias' like Vermont or Maine.
Republicans usually complain about this liberal White flight, and some of the article's comments bitterly suggest that liberals should be forced to live in, say, Detroit, or that they should import some diversity to enrich their lily-White communities.
Wait a minute: don't conservatives pretend to believe in freedom of association? It sounds as though they are advocating the exact thing the Labour government (and the rest of the anti-White pols) did in Britain: import millions of immigrants to 'rub the right-wing's noses in diversity.' That'll learn 'em.
Certainly it is hypocrisy if someone promotes multiculturalism, multiracialism and social mixing of disparate races, religions, and ethnicities, and yet shuns the fruits of those things. But how is it 'fair' to accelerate the demographic changes just to punish or perhaps 'educate' the naïve liberals -- or the 'disingenuous' liberals, if you adopt Paul Kersey's lingo?
Do good 'conservative' Republicans propose Babelizing small-town Vermont or other such majority White areas? If so, this is unfair to the many people who find such places congenial or even essential to their peace of mind and their safety. These kinds of communities usually have better schools and less crime, along with a more agreeable way of life, a sense of community. Yet I truly believe the 'colorblind conservatives' would fly in more Somalis to 'enrich' New England, as has already been done in Lewiston, Maine and other such formerly-White bastions. Would these conservatives want the children in those areas deprived of good schools, or exposed to more crime?
And do the 'liberal' residents of those places become more 'conservative' following an infusion of 'diversity'? Maybe, sometimes, as witness the controversy in Lewiston over the numbers of Somalis who arrived. Yet I think their presence is gradually being accepted; they have established a colony there, and it seems as though their presence will evoke resignation if not a hearty welcome. It seems to work that way in most places.
Another point: are the liberals in Vermont or Maine or Utah all people who are fleeing diversity? I do understand that most such areas are the recipients of 'White flight' from other more multiculturalized cities and communities -- but more often, these places are liberal precisely because the people who have always lived there have little or no experience of the 'joys of diversity.' They can believe in the Huxtable Family or the Wise Black Man they see in the commercials because their real life education has been lacking. Lack of diversity often leads to lack of common sense on such matters.
And do the transplanted Californians in Colorado or Texas bring a more informed view to their new home because of their previous education in 'diversity'? No' most often, their liberal, supinely-tolerant views remain intact despite their experiences with racial displacement and anomie. They just want to turn the clock back by going to an area that resembles the past as they knew it, and continue with the liberal presumptions that led to the destruction of their home state or town. This is stupidity and cussedness more than hypocrisy, I think.
So it seems that the 'conservatives' just want to shift the blame for the 'racism' which they accept exists, just as the leftists believe it exists. They just want to put the shoe on the other foot, the liberal foot, rather than rejecting the whole race-baiting, White guilt scenario.
They themselves are being hypocritical in not admitting that they and we need areas that are refuges from encroaching 'diversity' and all the woes that follow in its train. They would prefer, though, to punish liberals for voting with their feet, and compel them to live in a Detroit or a barrio in the Southwest. Misery loves company. The conservative idea is to make everybody suffer equally, rather than to defend freedom of association, and the right to live among one's own. That would require taking a politically incorrect stand, and the hypocritical conservative wants no part of that.
The subject of the linked AT article is the 'Origins of leftist racial orthodoxy', and what I'm concerned with now is the ''origins of 'rightist' racial orthodoxy''. We get a clue in an article like this one, relating Al Sharpton's latest allegations that Republicans are like Hitler, and plan to eliminate blacks.
Read the comments by conservatives and you get the picture. Colorblind conservatives are, more than ever, running scared from the unhinged rantings of Sharpton et al. Rather than just rejecting his prattle for the hysterical and ignorant nonsense that it is, they continue to treat these charges as serious, and try to protest their innocence. The result is that we have two, count 'em, two parties that try to outdo each other in political correctness and squabbling over who is the real 'racist' and who is the best friend of blacks.
What seems obvious to me is that the origin of right-wing 'racial orthodoxy' is -- leftist racial orthodoxy. Both parties are caught up in this nonsense, and the 'right wing', who pride themselves on being commonsensical and realistic, can't even see the absurdity and the futility of their position.
More proof, if needed, that the majority of Whites will never ''get it'', no matter how much things deteriorate. As the country goes up in smoke, they will still be squabbling over who is the real racist, and who is blacks' best friend.
Worse, it would appear, is definitely not better. Best not hold your breath for the majority to 'get it' or 'wake up.'