White liberals as a race apart

I'm uncomfortable with the thought of these White Germans

If you think about it, white liberals today talk about Whites in general the same way Whites in general once talked about Blacks, Jews, Middle Easterners, Indians, Native Americans, Polynesians, and a host of dark and brown skinned swarthy types from around the 18th century through the 20th.

Why?  How do white liberals talk about Whites as if, by their very skin color, you can tell they are racist, stupid, bigots, sexists, evil, bad, selfish, xenophobic, and a host of negative qualifiers?  How do they do it and yet you get the impression they never mean themselves?  I don't know.  I know one thing though.  They do it as if to say it's not them they mean when they talk of 'Whites' derogatorily.  Or at least they mean somehow they've been cleansed of the sin of Whiteness that so mercilessly infects all others of the same skin color, whether those whites believe in Jesus or not.  It's as if something other than Just Jesus is needed to cleanse the sin of 'Whiteness.'

In the Catholic world of apologetics, nobody does it better than Mark Shea, who has perfected the use of the term "White" in a way that would make Goebbels green with envy, if only it could be switched back to 'Jew'.

A sampling from the last five days at CAEI.  Note how the description of 'White' isn't really needed (since non-whites also hold some of these views), but is continually added as a negative modifier.  

But in fairness he's hardly alone.  From 1994, when the US Media blamed the Democrat's midterm defeat on the now infamous Angry White Male, we knew we had turned a corner.  With no evidence other than skin color (and gender), the reasons for their voting were declared and guilt was proclaimed.  Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party ditched its anti-Black positions and replaced them with anti-WASP positions.  By the 90s, clearly using 'White' where once Jew or Black would have worked was the new socially acceptable bigotry.

Take this from a year or so ago.   Kipling was more inclusive in his appraisal of the white man's burden.  If you were to scratch out 'White' and replace it with 'Arab' or 'Black', it would be nothing less than what I've read in a thousand pieces from the 19th century Europe or American literature.  On one hand it tries to be understanding, even compassionate.  On the other it's like an article observing a class of backward tribesmen in the Amazon only recently discovered.

Again, what throws everyone off is that this new 'anti-Whiteness' is primarily done by Whites.  White liberals, white leftists and increasingly white post-Conservatives.  When Russel Moore said that Southern Christians were, in many cases, just racists worshiping Jim Crow rather than Jesus, I get the strong impression he meant "Other" Christians.  Not him.  And that's the point with this new racism.  I really believe that for white liberals and the growing number of post-conservative whites, they see 'White' as some other race, a separate demographic.  Sort of a genetic mutation on the bottom end of the ethnic chain, if that.

Perhaps they see it like the characters of Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Twins.  The liberal white people are Schwarzenegger's character.  They are the ones who embody all that is best in their gene pool.  They are the smart, spiritual, caring, loving, open, tolerant, penitent, and intellectual ones.  But 'Whites', on the other hand, are DeVito - the genetic refuse pile.  They have everything that is bad.  Sure, they're technically the same group, the same ethnicity, the same heritage.  But the liberals are the good ones embodying all that is best in humanity, unlike those 'Whites', by which they really mean 'them over there.'

I could be wrong, but I think I'm onto something.  There's just no way white Americans can speak of Whites in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazis trashing Jews in the 30s and think they mean themselves.  Perhaps they do.  Maybe it's their form of confession.  Maybe it's projecting on everyone else what they, themselves, really are.  But I don't think so.  At best it's some perverse mockery of confession gone horribly wrong.  Sort of cleansing oneself by insisting everyone else in the demographic is more of a sinner than you are.  At worst, it's literally throwing their own demographic under the bus in the hopes that if the barbed wire fences ever go up, they'll have laid a claim on property outside the fences looking in.

Whatever the reason,  I think they have divided their own demographic into two groups, and firmly believe that they are the ones who have stars on their bellies.  It's those other starless ones who are the 'Whites' they are talking about.  And by White, they increasingly mean what was once meant by Black, Jew, Mexican, Arab and so on, but certainly not them.

Same attitude, different demographic