Something strange is happening. Democrats are forming white support groups for Kamala Harris. In a campaign designed for fundraising aimed at every imaginable identity group, white people are surprisingly not left out. Two different affinity groups have emerged to support the presumptive Democratic nominee: “White Dudes for Harris” and “White Dudes for Harris.” This is a strange sight in American politics. White people should not be organized based on their race in our society. To do this for a candidate hostile to their interests is downright strange.
These developments aroused much interest. Some liberals thought it was great. Conservatives thought it was ridiculous, with some figures even arguing that it showed that leftists were the real racists. Some remains of the High Law he thought it was a great development, claiming that it paved the way for white identity politics.
If that's true, it's not the kind of white identity the Alt Right wants. It is a negative white identity imposed on the historical American people by DEI. Corporate training and school indoctrination encourage white people to have this self-loathing identity. Many on the right have predicted that this would lead to a reaction among whites where they later claim a positive white identity But Kamala's whites show the opposite. It indicates that whites could accept this negative identity and organize under this rubric. It's a terrible prospect.
The highly respected political scientist Richard Hanania claims that Kamala's white camp says, “It's okay to be white. That is, as long as you're a good person, that means supporting reproductive freedom, not being 'weird,' and voting Democrat. He argues that this is a sign it is clear that the Democrats are moving away from the awakening and that the Democrats no longer see white people as a problem.
This is not true. White people are still a big problem in the liberal worldview. White affinity groups are actually proof of how embedded DEI thinking is in their minds. A group of white people for any Democrat would have been too strange in the past. But the setting of DEI by affinity groups, mainly for minorities, has made this possible. DEI sessions require schools and businesses to divide students and workers into racial groups. Non-white groups foster a positive identity that emphasizes the greatness and achievements of their respective bloc. The sessions also teach them to see whites as the source of all evil and to remember the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Caucasians.
When these sessions occur, the whites have to go somewhere. They usually have their own affinity groupbut they learn a very different lesson from their non-white peers. They are taught how bad white people are, how privileged they are, and how they must work to atone for these sins by doing more for minorities. They learn that it is terrible to be white and that the only way to make up for it is to use their whiteness for good, which means they accept race communism.
This was very clear in white for Kamala's zoom calls.
Arielle Fodor, social media influencer he stated the purpose for the White Women for Harris call: “The women of BIPOC have used us as white women to step up, listen and get involved this election season. This is a very important time and we all need to use the our voices and influence for a greater good.” Note that the only reason the call came up is because they got permission from “BIPOC women.” White people need to know their place, first and foremost.
White women must devote themselves to non-whites and never talk about them. They must also recognize their privilege. “As white women, we need to use our privilege to make positive changes,” Fodor said. “If you find yourself speaking up or speaking for BIPOC people or, God forbid, correcting them, just give it a shot and we can put our listening ears on instead.”
The White Dudes for Harris call provided a similar message. Organizer Ross Morales Rocketto underlined that this group was not like the bad white “Throughout American history, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that when white men organize, it's often in pointy hats and it doesn't end well,” he said. But this group would be an opportunity for white boys to test their racial and gender privilege. In addition to acknowledging their white privilege, the speakers tried to emphasize that real men defer to women and never dare to criticize a lady.
To drive home the humiliating aspect of zoom calls, the speakers made sure to disparage themselves as a racial group. Actress Connie Britton named her group “Karens for Kamala,” letting the audience know that participants think it's lame to be white. None of the other affinity groups used an insult to denigrate themselves. They talked about how great their group is. Only white groups talked about how much they sucked and are not worthy of a powerful woman of color.
The acts invited a lot of ridicule. Part of this mockery was inspired by how ridiculous it was. No one wants to see rich and famous people bemoan their privilege and talk about how they mourned the loss of Hillary Clinton. But another part is how society trains us to see anything explicitly white-coded as lame. For years, sitcoms portrayed white people as rigid idiots who lack the coolness of blacks and other non-whites. Doing anything “white” would seem to people like a boring outing at a country club. Whiteness is lame, non-whiteness is rad. Conservatives claim this sentiment as much as liberals. When they get the chance, they will criticize the Democrats for being too white.
These white affinity groups aren't saying it's okay to be white. They still say it's a bad thing, but maybe not all that bad. As long as the white individual denigrates their whiteness, promises to support non-white interests, and votes blue, they can join a White Dudes call for Harris. But that's the extent of the group's identity. It's still a shame to be, but they have to organize around it anyway.
Think of them more like Alcoholics Anonymous than the Black Panthers. Alcoholics also have a shared group identity, but they are not proud of it. They meet with other alcoholics so as not to promote alcoholism. They do this to work against the addiction they suffer from and to maintain their determination in the face of the problem.
DEI teaches that whites should organize in the same way. Individual white people suffer from the evil of whiteness, and they need group therapy to deal with it.
Some liberals worry that there should not be any explicitly white group because, even if it defends left-wing ideology, it weakens the taboo against these formations. This will lead to white identitarians who assert an aggressive whiteness as a reaction against awakening. Many on the right also think this will be the outcome, but see it in more positive terms.
I'm more skeptical.
DEI white affinity groups are more likely to be accepted by those forced to participate. They will come to see whiteness as negative because that is what authority tells them. They want to fit in with the herd, so they follow it. If it doesn't negatively affect your life (as in denied job opportunities), then they will check your white privilege. If they see it as their ticket to social respectability and career advancement, they'll happily bemoan their whiteness on a Zoom call.
The real problem with DEI is not that it can cause a white reaction. It's just that this insidious ideology will sink in among whites and make them adopt a negative white identity. Many white people will succumb to it as long as it is not accompanied by direct adverse effects on their lives. If a negative white identity forced them to move into a bleak ghetto, you'd see a backlash. But if white people can keep the suburban house, don't expect an uprising.
This is why it is critical to eliminate DEI from all facets of life. Betting on an eventual reaction from a radicalized white population is not a good strategy. Instead, we may end up with a permanently neutered white population.
English 
Español de Venezuela 