Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

You can get a sense of this in the response to Tulsi Gabbard’s decision to run for the Democrat nomination in 2020. Civic nationalists are programmed to think she is bad, because she makes unapproved noises about economics. They will no doubt says she is a socialist. That’s the result of being trapped in a forgotten era. None of that will matter to the people in charge, particularly those involved in Democrat politics. They see her as a threat to their conception of the new global citizen. Here’s an example.

“But Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling. It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”

You’ll note two things that turn up in the Progressive criticism of Gabbard. One is her roots are inauthentic, as far as they are concerned. She does not have the appropriate struggle narrative. An essential element of the left-wing mindset is the assertion that only the oppressed have authenticity. Therefore, to assume a leadership position in the forever revolution of the oppressed, the leaders must have overcome oppression. Gabbard has lived the standard American middle-class life, so she can never be trusted.

The salient issue lies in that highlighted section. Gabbard’s opposition to fighting wars in the Middle East is pretty much the civic nationalist view. Those wars are not good for America or Americans. They may have some benefit to the ruling elite of the empire, but they have no benefit to Americans. Further, the people being sent to fight these wars are suffering for a cause that has no benefit to them. In other words, to sacrifice for your people is noble and heroic. To suffer for strangers is pointless.

To the ideological core of the ruling elite, this is an abnegation of who they are, which is why you will hear lots of “this is not who we are” in response to her over the coming months. Just as the Left refused to defend Sanders against attacks from the Buckley conservatives in 2016, the Left will stand silent as the warmongers of neoconservatism hint that Gabbard is an alt-right anti-semite. Her assumption that citizenship is a real thing implies that nations are real things and that’s unacceptable in a post-nationalist world.

This is why civic nationalism is a dead end movement. It’s trying to reanimate an Enlightenment concept that was killed off by the post-war cultural revolution of the last fifty years. Reviving the old notions of civic identity is about as promising as reviving the monarchy in Germany. Thinking about it is a nice escape for those struggling to face the reality of identity politics, but that’s all it is, a fantasy. The world created by the Left is a post-nationalist world and therefore a post-citizen world.

In fairness to the cosmopolitanism globalists, they are not wrong about citizenship having no place in the future West. It can continue on in the Visegrad countries that have escaped the migrant invasion, but even there it is more of a tribal response, an identity politics of an ethno-state, than civic nationalism. Otherwise, citizenship makes no sense in multicultural, multi-racial societies. Tribalism is not just part of the human condition, it is part of our biological reality, and therefore the future is some form of tribal politics.

Another glimpse of this will come from the alt-right, who will be enthusiastic supporters of Gabbard this year. They see her anti-war rhetoric as a sanitized version of their own opposition to Israel. In other words, there remains a great shallowness to the alt-right in these matters, but that shallowness is a glimpse of future politics. That is, who you are will be as much about who you oppose as who you support. Anyone familiar with the politics of Lebanon has a sense of what comes next for the multicultural democratic empire.

The most significant revelation in a new Pew Research Center analysis of partisan identification is the extent to which Democrats and Republicans no longer resemble one another demographically. Nearly 4 in 10 Democrats are nonwhite, while 83 percent of Republicans are white. Six in 10 Republicans are whites without a college degree; only a third of Democrats are. A third of Republicans are white evangelical Christians; a third of Democrats are religiously unaffiliated.

Pew’s data highlighted two consistent trends: Women are much more likely to identify as Democrats than Republicans, while men are more split. White Americans (as was probably obvious from the paragraph above) are more likely to identify as Republican, and nonwhite Americans as Democrats — no group more so than black Americans.
[...]
And then there are millennials.
[...]
One reason millennials lean more Democratic is that the group is also more racially diverse than older Americans. But the Democratic advantage among millennials exists even within groups that, overall, tend to identify as Republicans: men and whites.

But that’s a little misleading. Millennial men includes nonwhite men; white millennials includes women. If we isolate white, male millennials, the picture changes.

Young white men identify as Republican.

We’ve seen this evidenced elsewhere. In January, PRRI and MTV released a report looking at the political views of young Americans. That focused on the post-millennial generation, which is yet to be named.
[...]
Many of the findings center on race:

• More than half of white men (and white women) in this age group believe that discrimination against whites is as significant as discrimination against other groups.

• Fewer than half of young white men say black people face a lot of discrimination.

• A quarter of young white men say white men face a lot of discrimination.

• Opinions of Barack Obama were much lower among young white men. More than half of white men in this group expressed a favorable opinion of President Trump.

• Half of young white men favor building the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

There’s an existing question of the extent to which the increasing racial divide between the parties overlaps with increasing partisan animosity. Trump’s election was clearly dependent to a large extent on issues that intersected with race. (In nearly every state, voters most worried about the economy preferred Hillary Clinton in 2016 while those most worried about immigration or terrorism backed Trump.)
[...]
The PRRI data suggests that this is not simply a function of older white Americans worried about the shifting demographics of the United States. The Pew data suggests that younger white men are more likely to support Trump’s party than any other part of their generation.

This survey still presents a worrisome future for the GOP as the nation grows less white and as millennials increasingly make up more of the electorate. (Per Pew’s definitions, millennials and Gen Xers cast more votes in 2016 than older generations.) But the party’s appeal to white men, a group that makes up a plurality of its membership, continues.