White culture exists — and America is losing it



Jeremy Carl, Trump-appointee and author of “The Unprotected Class,” faced a grilling at the United States Senate when Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tore into his beliefs on “white identity.”

“You’re now retreating to ethnic identity. You don’t speak about ethnic identity. You speak about white identity. So tell me the values that stitch together white identity and that make it different than black identity,” Murphy asked.

“I would say that the white church is very different than the black church in terms of its tone and style on average. Foodways could often be different. Music could be different, if you look at the Super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English this year,” Carl explained.

Murphy responded, “So our ability to access white churches or white food or white music is being erased?”


“I am concerned with the majority common American culture that we had for some time, that through particularly mass immigration, I think has become much more balkanized, and I think that weakens us,” Carl said.

BlazeTV host Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman is of the mind that Carl is right.

“On second viewing, I mean, I watched this live, and by the way, in the context of this hour-long Senate hearing, he was just getting grilled from all directions ... he was being accused of anti-feminism, he was being accused by [Sen.] John Curtis of Utah [R] for not being, like, sufficiently loyal to Israel. And then there was this white thing,” Lomez tells BlazeTV co-host Christopher Rufo on “Rufo & Lomez.”

“And I think what we saw there was him a little bit stumbling through the answer, but it’s actually the right answer. I mean, he gives the right answer, the specific details,” Lomez continues.

Lomez points out that there are different parts of American culture, and different races have their own piece.

“I’m not saying this, by the way, just to please a liberal listener. It’s all true, OK? This is all deeply embedded in our culture and the common culture as well, but it is predominantly what we might call 'white,'” he explains.

“When you turn on Netflix or something, or like Hulu, or just turn on the TV, there’s BET. There’s Black Entertainment Channel, and there’s black stories to enjoy with your family on Hulu, and then there’s Asian stories, and you know, you get the whole diaspora of all these different groups,” he continues.

“There’s no white channel, there’s no white story section ... because ... that is the baseline culture that these other things are kind of orbiting around and existing within. And what Jeremy is suggesting here is that we are losing that common culture. We are losing that common white culture,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

My court fight over DEI at Arizona State isn’t culture-war noise



“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?”

Arizona State University hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will. I’m confident that my case against required diversity, equity, and inclusion training raises issues far larger than one professor or one ideological program. Fundamental questions about employee rights, public accountability, and the rule of law hang in the balance.

If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program.

Why would the largest state university in the country defend mandatory DEI training in court? Why would it spend thousands — likely tens of thousands — defending its “inclusive communities” training, a program that teaches employees about the alleged moral and social failures of “whiteness” and “heteronormativity”?

The answer defies common sense. Yet ASU presses forward. In doing so, it has turned what many dismiss as a culture-war skirmish into an employment-rights case with statewide consequences.

Most people hear “DEI” and instantly map the political lines. This case deserves a different reaction. Required ideological training should make any employee — left, right, or indifferent — pay attention.

First, the training relies on racial essentialism. It instructs ASU employees to view themselves and others primarily through skin color, then assigns moral weight and collective guilt on that basis.

Second, it attacks traditional Christian moral teaching, especially marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Either flaw should have pushed administrators to retire the program long before I raised formal objections.

A third issue should unite every employee, regardless of where they stand on DEI: ASU treated this as an employment matter. The university did not admit error, revise the program, and move on. It hired Perkins Coie to defend racial essentialism. Yes, Perkins Coie — the firm widely associated with the Hillary Clinton-era Steele dossier controversy. ASU employs a full team of in-house attorneys. Why pay a nationally prominent and politically charged firm to defend a training program many already viewed as controversial — and, I argue, unlawful?

ASU’s posture gets stranger. The university has since taken down the required training, yet it continues paying lawyers to defend it in court. When this ends, Arizona lawmakers and taxpayers will want a number: How much did ASU spend on legal fees, and which administrators approved the contracts?

RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?

Just_Super via iStock/Getty Images

ASU’s legal strategy aims at dismissal. The university claims I lack standing. Put plainly, ASU argues that an employee cannot hold his public employer accountable for violating state law. At that point, the dispute stops being about DEI and becomes about every employee in Arizona. If ASU wins at the Arizona Supreme Court, employees across the state lose a crucial tool for legal accountability.

Professors to my political left may sneer at my critique of DEI. They should still worry about the precedent.

Imagine a scenario pulled from their nightmares: A future administration takes over ASU and imposes mandatory ideological training from the opposite end of the political spectrum — required ICE-themed training, or MAGA-themed training. If that training violated Arizona law, those same professors would demand the right to sue. ASU’s argument would bar them. This case concerns enforceable employee rights, not just contemporary politics.

ASU’s first bid to dismiss the case failed. A lower court rejected the university’s argument. ASU appealed, and the appellate court sided with the university. That posture put the case on a path to the Arizona Supreme Court.

RELATED: A gay whistleblower just punked Colorado’s DEI machine

AndreyPopov via iStock/Getty Images

Two facts matter here. The Arizona Senate and the state representative who authored the law I claim ASU violated have filed an amicus brief supporting my position. Their message is simple: A public employee has standing to hold a public employer accountable for breaking the law. The statute prohibits the kind of racial blame and collective guilt that ASU’s training promoted. The principle should not require explanation: Don’t assign moral fault to entire groups based on skin color.

So why does ASU defend this?

Because ASU does not view this fight as one training module that can be swapped out and forgotten. Race-based blame sits near the center of the contemporary left’s approach to education. If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program. ASU’s initiatives aimed at combatting “whiteness” would come under scrutiny. Its embedded social justice goals face legal challenge and public examination. Students could follow with suits over race blame in a “decolonized curriculum.”

“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?” ASU really hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will.

Every employee in Arizona should watch what happens next. The outcome will determine whether public institutions answer to the law — or whether employees must comply silently, no matter what ideology administrators impose from above.

University of Minnesota faces backlash over project that seeks to cure the 'Whiteness Pandemic'



The Trump administration has worked with great success over the past year to dismantle racist DEI initiatives in government and public education across the country. Nevertheless leftist identity politics continue to linger in various taxpayer-funded institutions.

The parental advocacy group Defending Education recently highlighted that the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, which received $628 million in federal research awards in the 2024 fiscal year, is harboring an anti-white research project that claims America is suffering from a "Whiteness Pandemic."

'Family socialization into the centuries-old culture of Whiteness — involving colorblindness, passivity, and fragility — perpetrates and perpetuates US racism.'

Rhyen Staley, research director at Defending Education, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "This far-left programming at a major public university is another example of how ingrained DEI is in higher education and is not going away any time soon."

The UMTC's Culture and Family Lab, which is part of the school's Institute of Child Development, has a page titled, "Whiteness Pandemic Resources for Parents, Educators and other Caregivers."

The website:

  • characterizes the white family as a threat, stating, "At birth, young children growing up in White families begin to be socialized into the culture of Whiteness, making the family system one of the most powerful systems involved in systemic racism";
  • tells white adults that it is their "responsibility to self-reflect, re-educate [themselves], and act" and that they need to engage "in courageous antiracist parenting/caregiving";
  • recommends white adults begin "listening to, taking seriously, and following the stories and recommendations" of the scandal-plagued Black Lives Matter organization and "humanizing victims of police brutality and racism — such as Mr. George Floyd"; and
  • links to various works of agitprop for parents to "read and watch with children as part of a discussion about race, racism, white privilege, and antiracism."

While the website references content from various radical sources, it largely focuses on a 2021 paper by the lab's director, Gail Ferguson, titled "The Whiteness pandemic behind the racism pandemic: Familial Whiteness socialization in Minneapolis following #GeorgeFloyd’s murder."

RELATED: Woke lecturer cries 'white supremacy' after MAGA-racist smear doesn't go as planned

Photo by KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images

The paper, which was published in the journal American Psychologist and dedicated to repeat offender George Floyd, claims that "family socialization into the centuries-old culture of Whiteness — involving colorblindness, passivity, and fragility — perpetrates and perpetuates U.S. racism, reflecting an insidious Whiteness pandemic."

While generally implying that "Whiteness" is a disease, the UMTC professor suggested that "color-evasion and power-evasion" specifically are "pathogens of the Whiteness pandemic" that "are inexorably transmitted within families, with White parents serving as carriers to their children unless they take active preventive measures rooted in antiracism and equity-promotion."

According to Ferguson, who is black, and the paper's other authors, one litmus test for whether a white mother is helping spread the supposed "Whiteness" disease comes down to how that mother responded to George Floyd's death.

A mother's apathy over the criminal's death and her unwillingness to discuss so-called "systemic racism" with her children were treated as indicators that she approves of or is at the very least indifferent to imagined racism. Alternatively the willingness of mothers to express grief and concern over Floyd's death and to discuss it "and Black Lives Matter with their children using color- and power-conscious parenting" were regarded as signs of a desired "antiracist" mentality.

The authors stressed that to dismantle "colorblind racial ideology," white students should be subjected to "racism and antiracism education," especially at a young age, and that "it will be important to go beyond how White women learn to say the right things to also consider how they learn to do the right things and actually 'show up' for racial justice."

The basis for the conclusions in the paper was a survey of 392 white mothers, 51% of whom were "somewhat or very liberal," 18% of whom were "somewhat or very conservative," and over 91% of whom had a bachelor's degree or higher.

The racist initiative was made possible with the help of federal funds provided by the National Institute of Mental Health during former President Joe Biden's tenure.

When asked about the anti-white project, the UMTC told the National Review that it remains "steadfast in its commitment to the principles of academic freedom." The NIMH reportedly did not respond to the Review's request for comment.

"It is not only concerning that these programs appear to still be up and running, but that absurd ideas like 'whiteness' also gain legitimacy through dubious activist-academic 'scholarship,'" said Staley. "Universities must end this nonsense yesterday."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Race is not righteousness — Jesus died for our sin, not our skin



For as often as the phrase “Christ is King” trends on social media, it seems like a growing number of self-professing Christians have forgotten that it was sin — not skin — that kept Jesus on the cross.

Millions of Americans gathered this past Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apart from that ultimate sign of self-sacrifice, we would still be in bondage to sin and face the penalty for indulging it — spiritual death and eternal separation from God. That’s because, according to the Bible, we are all born in sin and remain spiritually dead unless we turn from our sin and place our hope and trust in Christ.

No argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Messages circulating on X often sound wildly different, but many follow the same script. On any given day, you’ll find someone — often claiming to be Christian — warning that a specific group poses a unique threat to the American way of life.

Some wrap their claims in the pseudo-academic language of “race realism” and genetic determinism. Others frame it as cultural criticism. But the message stays the same: Those people over there are the real problem.

Years ago, I noticed this pattern in how some black progressives invoked slavery and Jim Crow to argue that “whiteness” itself is an inherently evil force driving racism.

Today, a growing number of white conservatives fire back with crime statistics, claiming black Americans are inherently violent.

Meanwhile, a rainbow coalition of agitators — including Hispanics and Asians — spends its time urging followers to “notice” Jewish control of everything from pornography to U.S. foreign policy.

Different faces, same poison.

Ethnic and political tribalism has convinced many Americans that moral decay is always someone else’s fault. It’s not our problem. It’s their problem.

They chase any story or video that reinforces their worldview and dismiss anything that challenges it. A white police officer involved in a fatal shooting of a black man becomes proof that policing itself is systemically racist. A black teenager who commits a crime becomes a symbol of supposed racial dysfunction — not an individual but a statistic.

Many in this mindset obsess over IQ scores and genetic theories. But no argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Christ’s death on the cross should convict every one of us to examine our own hearts. The moment you start measuring your worth by someone else’s failure, you’re already losing the moral battle. Comparative righteousness is a foolish and dangerous game.

The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 illustrates the danger of self-righteousness. Pharisees prided themselves on strict adherence to the law, so it’s no surprise that the one in Jesus’ story thanked God for his supposed moral superiority. He fasted, tithed, and avoided obvious sins. He was especially grateful not to be like the tax collector — a judgment that, on the surface, seemed justified.

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

Jesus shocked the crowd with the conclusion: It was the tax collector — not the outwardly religious Pharisee — who went home justified. He drove the point home with a final line that still cuts: “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The world would look very different — better, even — if more people, especially Christians, followed the example of the tax collector instead of the Pharisee.

Every person, family, and community carries its own burdens. Certain sins may show up more often in some groups than others, but that only looks like moral deficiency when we stop measuring ourselves against God and start judging others as the standard.

That’s why I advocate an “inside-out” approach to social commentary. I focus first on the issues that are common, pressing, and personal. Telling hard truths is difficult enough. It’s even harder when the messenger comes off as an outsider taking shots rather than someone who cares enough to speak from within.

Conservatives have every right to criticize America’s cultural collapse — but they should think twice before using China’s Xi Jinping to deliver the message. And if even Vivek Ramaswamy can’t offer light criticism without backlash, maybe it’s not just the left that has a problem hearing the truth.

The inside-out approach beats the alternative. It forces us to confront our own flaws instead of obsessing over everyone else’s. The outside-in method puts the sins of others under a microscope, while hiding the mirror that would show our own.

That’s why I don’t understand black pastors in neighborhoods torn apart by gang violence who spend their sermons denouncing “white supremacy” or DEI. Those things may be worth discussing — but they’re not why kids are dying in their streets.

Likewise, a white pastor in Wyoming would do much more good addressing his state’s sky-high suicide rate — often involving firearms — than speculating on how rap music and absent fathers are ruining black teenagers in Chicago.

Nothing’s wrong with offering honest insights about what plagues other communities. Tribalism shouldn’t stop us from grieving or rejoicing with people who don’t look like us. But the problem comes when we frame both vice and virtue in ethnic terms.

The apostle Paul didn’t tailor his warnings about idolatry, greed, lust, or murder based on ethnicity. His message was universal because the human condition is universal.

That’s why Christians must always remember: Jesus died for our sin, not our skin.

After Trump Executive Orders, Smithsonian Page Pushing Racist Propaganda Disappears

'If you identify as white, acknowledging your white racial identity and its privileges is a crucial step to help end racism.'

Progressive church boots woke pastor after parishioners complained they were lectured on 'whiteness,' LGBT causes, immigrants



A progressive pastor in North Carolina was recently removed from his very liberal church after parishioners complained that they were being lectured about "whiteness," LGBT causes, and illegal immigrants.

Ben Boswell had been a pastor at Myers Park Baptist Church, a progressive church in Charlotte. The church is located in the affluent neighborhood of Myers Park, which has a median household income of $193,672, and where nearly 91% of the population is white.

'I am tired of being indicted because I am white.'

The Myers Park Baptist Church is "opposed to all forms of injustice and oppression, and we are unafraid to plainly say who and what we are."

The church's website states that it has a mission to "welcome and affirm all persons without regard to race, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation or attraction, biological sex, age, economic status, physical or mental capacity."

The Sunday after Donald Trump won the 2024 election, Boswell delivered a sermon warning of the doom and gloom of Trump being elected.

According to NPR, Boswell likened the election of Trump to a "gathering dark of Hitler's rule."He claimed that Trump being president would lead to the "crucifixion" of immigrant families as well as transgender and nonbinary people.

"But our faith also teaches us … that every crucifixion needs a witness," Boswell told the congregation. "The fight is not over; it's just beginning."

However, Boswell was booted from the progressive church a few weeks later. The board of the Myers Park Baptist Church voted 17-3 to ask Boswell to resign.

During the board meeting, then-Deacon Allen Davis warned that removing Boswell would make it difficult to portray a progressive agenda.

"What will come out is that we've snatched the keys from the … minister who had been pushing us to confront whiteness, to challenge racial justice in our community," Davis said.

Davis and two other deacons resigned in protest of Boswell's removal.

Marcy McClanahan — then head of the church's board — said the main reason why Boswell needed to be removed was plunging attendance. Myers Park Baptist Church went from an average weekly attendance of around 350 when Boswell arrived in 2016 to about 150 last year.

McClanahan said, "Ben has been given every chance to change his words and actions to appeal to a broader audience but has not been successful in doing so."

Fellow DeaconRobert Dulin added, "We have got to put more butts in the seats, butts in the seats."

Some parishioners at the church complained that Boswell was always lecturing them about racial justice, transgender issues, and other progressive causes.

Dulin paraphrased what he had heard from those who quit the parish: "I am tired of being indicted because I am white. I am tired of being banged over the head every week about immigrants and LGBTQ, and I just want to come to church and be encouraged."

Church members compared Boswell's sermons to a "guilt trip."

Boswell admits that he pushed his congregation to confront its "whiteness." During an anti-racism seminar, the pastor called for a "whiteness audit" to "decolonize" the church's interior space. Boswell said the congregants demanded that he take down the Black Lives Matter signs at the church, but he refused.

One parishioner felt "betrayed" by the church over Boswell's dismissal. Bob Thomason, a former chairman of the board of deacons, noted that most, if not all, of the congregation supports social justice.

"But for some people, being able to focus on social justice … would be a welcome luxury because they have alcoholic spouses," Thomason said."They have children that are addicted. They have cancer. They have these personal needs."

NPR reported, "Boswell says the conflict at Myers Park is part of a much bigger national trend to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs."

Boswell proclaimed, "My feeling is that as a progressive congregation, as a progressive pastor, our job right now is not to back away, but to double down."

When asked if the church will continue to advance racial and social justice, McClanahan asserted, "One person's leaving does not change that path at all."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Voters reject elitist narratives, embrace Trump’s economic vision



Journalists continue to struggle with Donald Trump’s decisive election victory — and they are failing miserably. They have constructed a caustic narrative around his win, relying on tired tropes. The Huffington Post, for instance, published the headline, “Trump Just Ran the Most Racist Campaign in Modern History — and Won.” NPR reporter Margaret Low declared, “Donald Trump has won the presidential election ... the first time a convicted felon has been elected president after a campaign of hateful rhetoric to Latinos.”

This coverage mirrors the tone used by outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico throughout the year leading up to the election, highlighting two significant problems.

The tactics that once effectively silenced opposition are losing their impact, signaling a major shift in the political landscape.

First, the media refuse to adapt. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory, achieved despite nine years of media attacks, two impeachments, ongoing legal battles, disputed convictions, and even assassination attempts, underscores a new reality: Political insults are losing their effectiveness in shaping public opinion.

Historically, self-identified progressives have labeled adversaries as “racist” to rally public support, a tactic endorsed by senior communist organizer Eric Mann in his 2011 book, “Playbook for Progressives.” This strategy often succeeded because those accused would comply with demands to avoid association with such a charged term, even when their original position was reasonable or justified.

Trump, however, has consistently withstood these accusations and remained steadfast in pursuing his agenda. His resilience has encouraged others to stand by their principles, even as media critics brand them as bigoted or outdated.

The media should have realized this strategy’s declining effectiveness after Trump easily defeated 12 Republican challengers in the 2024 primaries and won 31 states in the general election. Yet they continue to rely on the race card, ignoring its diminishing influence.

Jimmy Kimmel’s tears

Second, they are out of touch. The chasm between media narratives and public sentiment became glaringly evident during and after the election. For example, former President Barack Obama faced backlash after attempting to chastise young black men for their lack of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris, attributing it to sexism. This viral moment sparked widespread criticism across the political spectrum, exposing a fundamental misreading of voters’ priorities, which extend far beyond identity politics.

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s emotional reaction on election night — “It was a terrible night for women, children, the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who make this country go [...] and everyone who voted for him; you just don’t realize it yet” — highlighted the growing disconnect between some media figures and a large segment of the American public.

Journalists and pundits who continue to frame Trump’s victory as driven by racism and sexism often draw from critical race theory concepts taught in academia. These ideas include the notion of “whiteness” and the belief that American standards predominantly benefit those who align with “white culture.” This perspective enabled them to label Trump’s campaign as “the most racist in modern history” despite exit polls showing Trump gained support among black men, Latinos, Asians, women, and young voters between 2020 and 2024.

Instead of acknowledging that shifting demographics challenge their established narrative, some commentators intensified their rhetoric. A guest on Roland Martin’s show, for example, claimed, “These people are trying to fight their way into whiteness, and they are willing to sacrifice everything, including members of their own family, if they can grasp the ring.”

Statements like this, along with similar remarks from figures such as Jimmy Kimmel and Sunny Hostin — who accused women and minorities of voting against their own interests — reveal a troubling paternalism. These commentators fail to consider that individuals may be perfectly capable of determining their own best interests without input from media personalities.

Trust in media plummets

This disconnect highlights how many reporters and pundits see themselves as intellectuals with little to learn from the people they critique. They amplify voices that align with their narratives and criticize those that don’t, all while ignoring pressing concerns such as inflation, border security, and tax relief.

One major consequence of the media’s divisive rhetoric and reliance on identity politics has been a sharp decline in public trust in journalism. A 2023 Gallup poll revealed that only 34% of Americans had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in mass media — a historic low.

This erosion of credibility has serious implications for our republican form of government, which depends on an informed citizenry. The 2024 election cycle worsened the issue, as many outlets doubled down on narratives disconnected from the realities of average Americans.

This growing credibility gap has fueled the rise of alternative media sources, some of which lack the rigorous fact-checking standards of traditional journalism. As a result, the media landscape has become more fragmented and polarized, making it harder for citizens to access objective, reliable information for their political decisions.

While much of the post-election analysis centered on identity politics and cultural issues, Trump’s economic messaging deserves closer attention. The years leading up to the 2024 election were marked by significant economic challenges, including persistent inflation, supply chain disruptions, and widespread concerns about job security due to automation and artificial intelligence.

Trump’s campaign successfully addressed these anxieties, particularly in Rust Belt states and rural areas that felt abandoned by globalization and technological advances. His promises of protectionist trade policies, infrastructure investment, and revitalized traditional manufacturing struck a chord with voters who believed the political establishment had prioritized coastal elites and multinational corporations over their needs.

This economic focus transcended racial and ethnic lines, boosting Trump’s support among minority voters. Meanwhile, many media outlets overlooked these concerns, choosing instead to focus on identity-based narratives. This oversight underscores the growing disconnect between coastal newsrooms and the economic realities experienced by much of the country.

Looking ahead, any serious analysis of American politics must confront these economic tensions and their role in reshaping traditional political alignments.

Will progressives wake up?

Trump’s political journey reflects the fable of "The Emperor’s New Clothes." Much like the child who dared to expose the emperor’s nakedness, Trump has laid bare the hollow rhetoric of elitist media and celebrity figures, who have long postured as moral and intellectual authorities.

Over the past nine years, Trump has consistently disproved claims that he threatens nonwhite Americans, a point underscored by his growing support from diverse demographics. Conservative leaders can learn from this by embracing and promoting American values instead of retreating in response to criticism.

As Democrats and progressives analyze their 2024 defeat and question their strategies, they often ignore a critical issue: the dismissive attitude many of their thought leaders display toward the middle class and self-made individuals. These groups form the backbone of America. By advocating for a vision that conflicts with the values and traditions of hardworking citizens, these leaders have relied on accusatory rhetoric to stifle dissent.

In the age of Trump, social media, and widespread access to information, Americans increasingly feel empowered to challenge these narratives. The tactics that once effectively silenced opposition are losing their impact, signaling a major shift in the political landscape.

Moving forward, the media and political leaders must adapt to this change. Instead of relying on tired accusations and divisive rhetoric, they must engage with the genuine concerns and values of the American people. Only by bridging this divide can they hope to regain relevance and rebuild trust in a rapidly evolving political environment.

Race merchants think ‘whiteness’ explains their beatdown at the polls



Judging by the analysis on cable news since the election, Democrats seem determined to lose every presidential race for years to come.

The party should be reflecting deeply after Kamala Harris spent more than $1 billion and secured endorsements from celebrities and billionaires, only to lose to Donald Trump. Democrats should be asking how a man they’ve called a fascist, racist Nazi sympathizer managed to win support from such a diverse group of voters.

If progressives had any sense, they would learn to listen to what people say instead of projecting their own biases onto millions of Americans they do not know and do not understand.

Instead of addressing their mistakes, Democrats and their cable news allies continue to focus on the identity politics that voters rejected. Several analysts have claimed they know why Trump won, but their explanation ignores issues like economics, inflation, crime, or immigration.

No, they say the reason comes down to one word: whiteness.

MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude made this claim during a recent election postmortem. With intense passion and conviction, the Princeton professor insisted he could not see any other explanation. Though he never defined “whiteness,” he was certain it’s what motivated the masses.

I shared his video on social media, telling him he sounded more like a religious cleric than a political analyst. He’s not alone in this rhetoric. While progressives have become more secular over the past few decades, they still exhibit religious impulses. Their discourse on “whiteness” reflects their view of original sin. They have major and minor “prophets” of race and are eager to evangelize unbelievers on topics like “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” and “white supremacy.” They view dissenters with contempt, as seen in their criticism of Latino voters who hopped on the Trump train.

They see nonbelievers not as people to persuade but as sinners to redeem.

This fixation on “whiteness” is not only simplistic but also fuels racial conflict that the left is ill-equipped to handle. A year ago, a black Christian woman sparked controversy in the evangelical community when she told a room full of white women that they must “divest from whiteness,” which she described as rooted in plunder, theft, slavery, and genocide. I’m no minister, but I know my Bible well enough to understand that no group — regardless of race, ethnicity, or nationality — holds a monopoly on sin.

I remember thinking then, as I do now, that the public would have a fit if a white commentator blamed “blackness” for voters’ choices in this election. Conservatives who claimed “blackness” is rooted in self-destruction and broken families would be shunned and shamed, not celebrated as prophetic truth-tellers.

This is why impartiality is a crucial ingredient for healthy discourse in the public square. An honest person should apply the same standards to friends and opponents alike. Moreover, the way we speak about other groups is how we should expect others to speak about us.

This principle is nonpartisan and non-ideological. If you need an extra therapy session because a white conservative criticizes a black liberal on legitimate grounds, you shouldn’t write headlines labeling angry white men as the most frightening people in America.

People pushing identity politics are a cancerous tumor on our body politic. Not only do they reduce Americans to their immutable traits, but they also create the perfect breeding ground for extremist views. Put simply, when you “sow” Robin DiAngelo, you will “reap” David Duke.

This is not unique to white people. Rejection of moderation almost always leads to radicalism.

Imagine a 17-year-old black kid in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1964 watching his parents going out to a civil rights march to protest segregation. Having learned about the First Amendment in school, he assumes law enforcement officials will respect his parents and that their grievances will be heard by their elected officials.

But when he turns on TV that night, he sees them being sprayed with water hoses, attacked by dogs, and beaten over the head with clubs by police. When that teen sees how the white people in power treated his parents — Christians dressed in their Sunday best — no one should be surprised if he is drawn to the more militant posture of the Black Panthers.

The same principle applies today. Young white men have been told that they are the cause of all the country’s problems and are constantly painted as racists only concerned about maintaining power. They see how every white conservative, from George W. Bush to Mitt Romney, is called racist or compared to a Nazi at some point.

They see how perfectly mediocre academics get rich by pushing seminars on “white fragility” and “white rage.” Most are not nearly as race-obsessed as the liberals on television, but some are ripe for the picking by white identitarians who will affirm both their race and sex and won’t attack them for how they were born.

The left does not want to hear that analysis, but that doesn’t make it any less true. When you open the door to the demons of identity, you have no idea what’s coming through that portal. If progressives had any sense, they would learn to listen to what people say instead of projecting their own biases onto millions of Americans they do not know, have never met, and do not understand.

Democrats have a choice. They can either accept the fact that their radicalism on race, sex, and identity has driven away voters or continue to blame “whiteness” and bigotry for their defeat.

This may be one of the last elections in which their silly theories will be taken seriously. Donald Trump earned about 55% of the Latino male vote, roughly 20 percentage points more than in 2020. While he didn’t make significant gains with black men nationwide, there were regional differences in the support he received. For example, about 25% of black men in Pennsylvania voted for Trump. If Democrats don’t do some honest self-reflection, the “white supremacists” they criticize on the right will be more diverse than their own party.

Elite colleges are anti-white; here's what to do about it



In my first month of college, I was banned from a debate tournament because I’m white.

The club president was an Indian kid who had interned at Goldman Sachs over the summer. He somberly told the entire room that white kids were winning too much and that it was unfair to minorities.

If the Democrats pander to young black people, then the Republicans must pander to young, gifted white males — themselves a minority whose potential is increasingly wasted.

I had two thoughts at the time:

1. How dare you treat white people like this, Devesh. (His name was actually Devesh.) You live in America. The only reason your family left India is because white people made the United States an infinitely better country. Show some respect to them.

2. Is there any group hated more than young, gifted white men?

No room for debate

College debate now requires trigger warnings before each round. If you don’t provide them, you automatically lose. Tournaments now revolve around topics like “queerness in 'Wuthering Heights'" and “How do we eliminate whiteness?”

Leftist ideology has ruined an activity that once served as an opportunity for intelligent white kids to demonstrate excellence, become recognized, and enter the elite.

How can young, gifted white men demonstrate excellence these days? The system has completely abandoned them. If they manage to get into an elite university, they quickly realize how unwelcome they are.

Return to risk

In my freshman year, I attended an information session for law school. Everything I heard for 45 minutes was about “women in law” and “Black Students Association.” It dawned on me how everything has become feminized and anti-white, from something as subtle as the cutesy and intentionally unintimidating design of the PowerPoints to the explicit and unapologetic discrimination against white men.

Young white men have subconsciously recognized that originality and risk-taking are strictly frowned upon. They can climb the ladder if they always obey directions, but they will never be great. They’ll merely be another cog in the machine, eternally replaceable and subject to ridicule.

This realization has done profound damage to the psyche of white men, and I think it’s one of the greatest crises of our time. All of this presents a unique opportunity for the Republican Party. Currently, there is a severe shortage of young Republican leaders.

Geriatric Old Party

You watched the Republican National Convention. How many of the headline speakers were under the age of 40? Compare that to the Democratic National Convention. Say what you want about the Democrats, but they have the future in their grasp. When the Boomers are gone, what will the Republicans do? Do they even know?

If the Democrats pander to young black people, then the Republicans must pander to young, gifted white males — themselves a minority whose potential is increasingly wasted. Many of these men don’t care about politics because they feel it’s fake and doesn’t help them. They see Democrats as the party of non-whites and Republicans as the party of corporations, and they zone out.

But if the Republicans were to tap into the yearning among these men for greatness by providing them opportunities for achievement, an entirely new party could emerge. There are many ways to accomplish this, and they need not and should not be explicitly political.

Reform college debating

For example, why not reform college debating? An organization called APDA (American Parliamentary Debate Association) currently has a monopoly on college debating at elite universities. This is the organization that bans white students and requires trigger warnings. It’s also the organization that hosts all the tournaments.

The Republican Party — or, more realistically, a nonprofit loosely connected to Republicans — could establish a competing association that doesn’t discriminate against white people or mandate trigger warnings. Keep the debate topics nonpartisan to ensure a diversity of beliefs.

There you go. You now have an organization that would establish the right as the side for high-achieving young people and provide a way for the GOP to identify promising talent.

Create a better LinkedIn

Here’s another idea: Why not create a competitor to LinkedIn that doesn’t have all the corporate phoniness — and instead rewards risk-taking and authenticity? Get all the tech bros who support Trump to work on this.

Importantly, this platform should not be explicitly conservative or only for political jobs. It should be promoted as an elite service, requiring an extensive application process — like those highly exclusive dating apps — to find the brightest and boldest students and match them with companies in all industries seeking that talent.

It would also serve as a rare outlet for these students to network with each other without worrying about being “canceled.”

Recruit promising young talent

Another idea: Why not create an organization that identifies gifted high-schoolers in Middle America, mentors them to get into the best college possible, and pays for their entire college tuition?

The Republican Party regularly bemoans how out of touch our elite are. The solution, then, is to form a new elite. Require the students to write a pro-America essay, interview them to ensure they have right-wing sensibilities, and you’re good to go. With the GOP’s budget, this could help hundreds of brilliant kids each year.

Yes, these universities are hostile toward white men. But they also provide unmatched resources and connections. I have benefited from them myself! You get the point. There is an untapped pool of genius that the right could benefit from if it cared enough. Young, gifted white men want to seek greatness — they just need the opportunity to do so. If you help them, they will help you.

Minnesota school district seeking an asst. superintendent who can investigate the role of 'Whiteness in systems and structures'



A school district in Minnesota is reportedly seeking an assistant superintendent who will "actively listen for both spoken and unspoken racial concerns" and investigate the "role of 'Whiteness' in systems and structures," according to College Fix.

The job listing was posted by the St. Louis Park Public School District, where the assistant superintendent earns between $134,141–$201,212 per year. The posting said the position "oversees the districtwide efforts related to student management/discipline."

The job posting continued, saying that the position "participates in legislation and rulemaking at [the] state and federal level to ensure that the District has representation regarding the impact of proposed laws and rules in the areas impacting teaching and learning for each student," per Fox News Digital.

The one who fills the position must also be "open to feedback regarding their own racial blind spots" and "seek multiple racial perspectives." The applicant is also expected to "foster joy" and "cultivate a culture of accountability for system racial equity transformation."

Under the knowledge, skills, and abilities section on the listing, the district reportedly seeks an applicant who will "actively listen for both spoken and unspoken racial concerns, seek multiple racial perspectives, examine the presence and role of ‘Whiteness’ in systems and structures, and are open to feedback regarding their own racial blind spots. Fosters joy and cultivates a culture of accountability for systemic racial equity transformation."

The applicant must be someone who "proactively supports the Superintendent to create and communicate anti-racist structures and systems, works to interrupt systems of oppression, and serves as a role model for culturally relevant pedagogy."

The district recently hired a new superintendent, announcing last month that Dr. Carla Hines will fill the position.

Following Hines' hiring, the school board chair said: "Her educational leadership, dedication to student academic success, and vision for racial equity transformation is impressive and I'm confident she'll lead our district with integrity and passion, advancing our strategic plan."

"I am humbled and elated by the opportunity to serve as the next Superintendent of St. Louis Park Public Schools," Hines said in response to the pending hire.

"With a steadfast commitment to see, empower, and inspire each student, I look forward to collaboratively shaping a future where every student's brilliance is realized and celebrated."

The district made Hines' interview for the position public by posting a video to YouTube.

Fox News Digital reached out to the school district for comment but did not receive an immediate reply.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!