The Trickster and Racialist Nationalism

Racial-theory, by its nature, is non-interpretive and anti-hermeneutic. And this is, as a stratagem, how it should be presented by its leaders to the public, that it isn’t first hijacked by disinformation managers who are trained to present racialism in an impossible post-structuralist light. Because racialist nationalism is sufficiently marginal (Appendix B), it is easily co-opted and disrupted. Theorists who venture into this area are vulnerable to manipulation; they cannot pursue this school of thought in a manner typical of, say, biodiversity as it relates to fanged frogs.

Racialism, and white racialism specifically, is widely perceived as a subculture — a subculture awash with and shaped by disinformation. In poker parlance, that white racialism isn’t inimical to disinformation is a ‘tell’: There is clearly something special about the white race, specifically when it manages to cohere broadly.

Major race-critical texts of the 19th and 20th centuries are rarely promoted by leading racialist nationalists, to the detriment of white racialism as a whole. And those racialists who do cite Ludovici, Rosenberg, Simpson, et. al., are soon marginalized or go conveniently unnoticed: this is the Trickster at work. Powerful institutions, on the behalf of which the trickster works, have vested interests in racial heterogeneity: it promotes soft, general order of an hegemonic type.

Racial-theory, by its nature, is non-interpretive and anti-hermeneutic. And this is, as a stratagem, how it should be presented by its leaders to the public, that it isn’t first hijacked by disinformation managers who are trained to present racialism in an impossible post-structuralist light. The emphasis, then, is upon ambiguity (e.g., no such thing as ‘race’), wherein the ethnography of race is perceived as ‘text’ open to interpretation.

Race is not text.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *