Who would ever think that a Republican politician would coin a potent phrase for political action?
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks managed to do just that in an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham:
This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true. Okay?
And if you look at the polling data, every demographic group in America agrees with the rule of law, enforcing and securing our borders. And every one of them understands that illegal immigration hurts every single demographic group. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re a white American, a black American, Hispanic American, an Asian American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs.
And so the Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big. And they understand that and as they get more desperate, they are going to argue race and things like that to a much heightened emotional state. . . .
Ignoring the fact that this is coming from the asinine “colorblind” perspective on race and it is only directed at the Democrat Party, the term “war on whites” might have some serious potential.
A sign of its potential was Ingraham’s response to the phrase:
[C]ongressman, don’t you think . . . that characterization is a little out there…
They’re playing the ‘race’ card just like they’re playing the ‘war on women’ card. This is what the left does. But I just think that phraseology might not be the best choice.
You know a term has power when conservatives shy away from it for it hitting too close to the truth. And the left, predictably, had a field day with this and demanded a retraction from Brooks. He hasn’t backed down from his comments and only reinforced his “war on whites” line.
This is another sign, along with immigration protests and the growing contempt for the federal government, that many Middle American Whites are growing weary of the country they love. They’re not likely to ditch the American idea, but it is showing strain within their psyche with it that could augur for future generations rejecting the idea of America completely.
In my opinion, this term could easily become a popular phrase in the political sphere–something the grassroots would say but the conservative leadership would frown upon. It is more easily understood than the term “White Genocide” and also better conveys the message that the system is actively attacking White interests. In addition, it doesn’t carry the accidental implication that Whites are doing the genocide and is more appealing to the general public.
With that in mind, we should definitely adopt “war on Whites” to spread our message to conservative-leaning folk to explain how the system is working against their interests and hates them more than any other group. If they ever wonder why they’re kids get hurt by affirmative action, why they have to watch what they say around work, why the media is full of anti-White prejudice (latest example is this bizarre Boston Globe cartoon), and why our ruling class wants to bring more non-White immigrants to this country–you simply say the system is waging a war on Whites and there’s a better chance you will connect with that person.
In short, the war on Whites could be the first worthy idea created by conservatives in generations–if we take advantage of it.
UPDADTE: Mo Brooks explained more of what he meant by the war on whites comment today:
“[I]f you look at current federal law, there is only one skin color that you can lawfully discriminate against. That’s Caucasians — whites.”
This looks to be heading in the right direction.