In recent weeks, the hot topic of discussion in the dissident right has been the merits of meritocracy. More specifically, debate has centered around the question of whether supporting a “colourblind meritocracy” in Western, multiracial societies may be a good way to restore the dominance of White people over their homelands and curtail the radical left. This would involve supporting more establishment rightists and centrists in their quest to fight wokeism, and restoring some of the principles of classical liberalism which these people believe were responsible for the West’s success.
Let me preface this by saying this is a discussion that applies to multicultural societies that are more racially, and less ethnically constructed than European nations. In Europe, I generally do not agree with politically identifying with White over the individual ethnic identity of the nation in question, and I do not think this question is even very relevant since the priority for these nations should be preventing their transition into multiracial societies. Asserting the sovereignty of native European ethnic groups over their ancestral homelands is argument enough in any country in Europe, and getting dragged into discussions of racial differences is unnecessary, except to demonstrate things like disproportionate rates of crime and delinquency for non-European immigrants and bolster arguments against continuing immigration from outside Europe. For Whites in the United States, Canada, and Australia though, questions of race and White identity are far more relevant.
What sparked this debate was reaction to Harvard’s firing of Claudine Gay, its first black president, over allegations of plagiarism. This followed a months-long campaign by elites – spearheaded by hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and comprising mostly Jews – to have Gay fired over her supposed failure to tackle antisemitism at Harvard. As I wrote about recently, October 7th was a big wakeup call for many Jews in the West, especially progressives who realised the wokeism they had supported could lead to a situation where a majority of educated young people view Zionist Jews like them as oppressors.
In his quest to oust Ms. Gay, Ackman and his fellow Zionist power-brokers were aided by “anti-woke” activists like Christopher Rufo, who helped to compile over 50 instances of alleged plagiarism in Gay’s academic works. While Harvard initially stood by her, she eventually resigned. Most of the online right celebrated this as an obvious win. Here was a clear instance of someone who had benefited from an anti-White system being exposed as a fraud; an apparent example of a major success story of diversity becoming a very public embarrassment for the champions of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
For some on the right, this represented not just a brief opportunity for gloating over the left, but the first signpost of a promising path forward. Cynical as we may be about the rhetoric of a James Lindsay or Christopher Rufo, they had delivered a real blow to the establishment, and with the help of backers like Ackman, were now making the intellectual challenge to wokeism more mainstream than it had ever been. At the same time, there is an apparent trend of rich, White elites becoming concerned that wokeism will lead to a “competency crisis” due to DEI hiring policies selecting for things other than merit. Elon Musk has been broadcasting this concern to his millions of followers on X, and likely represents a growing number of capitalist innovators who now perceive a realistic threat to their projects from the left’s social agenda.
On the day of Gay’s resignation, Twitter personality Bronze Age Pervert affirmed this strategy of embracing colourblind meritocracy as the way forward, given that truths about race differences are unpalatable to anyone but a small subsection of the online right. BAP argues:
While for the sake of truth I think facts about racial disparities should be discussed, it’s not good at all politically. In fact it’s impossible in the present circumstances. Only a myth of race blindness is workable…The only solution in [the] short run is race blindness, stopping and reversing all racialization of politics and society…The “HBD position” is an impossibility politically and culturally today.
Many of BAP’s followers rushed to defend this argument, urging the right to embrace a spirit of pragmatism and build on the wins offered by the growing fatigue over wokeism and DEI policies. Others have expressed great optimism about the prospect of elite Jews, who exercise great influence over the direction of politics in the United States, turning on DEI policies and empowering the anti-woke crusaders. The argument put forward by nationalists arguing for this strategy is this:
Although race realism contains facts which undermine egalitarianism, such facts will be rejected by most conservatives who oppose wokeism.
Because of the reality of racial differences, we know that in a colourblind meritocratic order White people would naturally dominate institutions again.
Opposing wokeism with meritocratic ideals is popular with a majority of people, and has growing support from elites.
Therefore, the most feasible way to achieve White dominance over our homelands is to support colourblind meritocracy.
Further supporting their case, it does seem like the American Conservative movement is increasingly finding the courage to strike at the root of DEI policies. Taking their cue from right-wing intellectuals who have traced wokeism to Civil Rights law. “Repeal the Civil Rights Act” is an increasingly common demand among centre-right influencers, as is the willingness to challenge the legacy of figures like Martin Luther King. Relative to where political discourse was a decade ago, this is quite radical. If there was one thing Republicans and Democrats agreed on, it was living up to the ideals of Martin Luther King. So the right is more willing than ever to throw out the entire legacy of civil rights law, affirmative action, forced integration… what’s not to love?
The need for an honest approach
Much of the optimism around this assumes elite Jews like Ackman are really turning on DEI policies in a way that will benefit White people. Ackman has supported these DEI policies for years, but perhaps his eyes have been opened since October 7th. Even if elite Jews are pushing back primarily because of their concern about antisemitism, White people will still benefit from this, and perhaps even make alliances with these elites. This is similar to nationalists seeing promise in Western states talking about deporting Hamas sympathisers since October 7th, an apparent opportunity to normalise repatriation – a policy that would benefit the White majority – through outrage over antisemitism.
Months on from the events of October 7th, what is there to show for this? Claudine Gay resigned, and her role was filled by Alan Garber, someone who has expressed equal support for DEI policies, but is presumably more sensitive to antisemitism as someone who is himself Jewish. Then, Bill Ackman announced his intention to donate a million dollars to a Jewish Democrat candidate who has a long history of sponsoring and supporting bills forcing DEI policies on the corporate world. Clearly, Ackman has not had a great change of heart on anti-White DEI policies, he simply wants to correct them to better protect Jews. Leading campaigns to fire people for not properly policing antisemitism is an extension, not a rolling back of wokeism. It is also demoralising for White people to be told they must constantly put themselves in a subordinate position to other groups – in this case elite Jews – to be allowed to get their issue in the back door. Eventually, White people will have to begin to assert their interests, as Whites, in multiracial societies. The search for “clever” ways to advocate for these interests without being seen to advocate for them is an admission that it is either morally wrong or practically unfeasible to expect the interests of White people to be represented – both of these admissions are unacceptable.