In the wake of Kanye West declaring his love of Donald Trump and his support for Candace Owens, a black conservative commentator, civic nationalists of the Republican Party are yet again cheering that diversity will have conservatives "win[ning] states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, and Virginia," as Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA put it, if they can "win just 20% of the black vote." There is no shortage of civic nationalists hoping that Kanye West represents blacks leaving the "Democrat plantation," declaring that the "Democrats never lost their KKK mindset," and other variations on the "Dems are the real racists" talking point. "CivNats" want nothing more than to be able to co-opt the Democrats' ideology regarding "diversity," to hold their heads up high as they declare, "We are the Party of Lincoln. We freed the slaves while the Democrats founded the KKK."

The problem is that the black vote is their Moby Dick, their great white, or rather black, whale that they obsess over and chase endlessly to the point of self-destruction. They tell themselves that the next election will be the time when an army of Africans and Asians storm the polls and elect Republicans from San Francisco to New York City. Anyone who pays even a little attention to politics will, of course, know that this never happens. It does not matter how many times the civic nationalists say they are on the verge of tapping into the non-white vote. The results are always the same. In fact, the GOP could spend campaign funds buying mixtapes from every would-be rapper in America, and they still would not have a real chance of winning 20% of the black vote.

To understand this, we can look at the exit polls for the last several elections. In 2000 and 2004, Bush won 9% and 11% of the black vote, respectively. McCain won just 4% in 2008, Romney won 6% in 2012, and Trump won 8% in 2016. This translates into an average of 7.6% over those five elections, and yet Charlie Kirk and other civic nationalists think that they are on the verge of nearly tripling that performance. While Republicans do tend to do better among Asians and Latinos, they still only averaged 21.5% of the total non-white vote from 2000-2016. Basic math and common sense tells us that losing nearly 80% of the non-white vote every election means civic nationalism is, to put it mildly, suicidal. As the non-white population grows, the Democrats know that they will gain new voters over Republicans at a 4:1 ratio, which helps to explain why they support open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Another thing overlooked by the CivNats is that even winning a larger share of the black vote would not do much to help further their policies in the long-term. For example, Candace Owens, who is at the center of the Kanye West controversy, has trotted out a bogus Harriet Tubman quote about freeing slaves to discuss the situation ("Dems are the real racists") and has implied that Tomi Lahren, a white conservative commentator, must be racist because she has not jumped on to the Kanye West bandwagon. When referred to as "far right" by Twitter as part of a news "moment," Owens responded,

Far right? Allow me to clarify: I believe the black community can do it without hand-outs. I believe the Democrats have strapped us to our past to prevent us from our futures. And I won’t stop fighting until all black Americans see that. I’m not far right—I’m free.

This sounds more like black nationalism than it does standard right-wing politics, and, while self-determination can be seen as a worthy goal, the Republicans need to realize that blacks "freed from the plantation" are not going to further Republican interests. For example, civic nationalists may celebrate that a slight majority of blacks support gun ownership, but blacks are far more likely to support stricter gun laws including stricter regulations of ammunition, waiting periods, bans on "high capacity" magazines, and bans on semiautomatic rifles. The same is also largely true of Hispanics. Similarly, a majority of blacks and Hispanics also agree that "racists" do not deserve free speech and that hate speech is an act of violence. It is fitting then that 9 in 10 blacks also say that the US has not "achieved all the goals of the civil rights movement." They are also more likely to support the legalization of marijuana, and 83% support giving citizenship to illegal "dreamers" while 95% say we should continue importing foreigners.

In short, even if the civic nationalists were able to use Kanye West to increase their support among blacks, those new voters would still most likely support gun control, amnesty for illegals, legalization of drugs, affirmative action, and so on. Even those blacks who are supposedly already on the Republicans' side still use the language of black liberation, which means they do not have the same colorblind ideology. Thus, the inevitable outcome of such a multiracial alliance is the same as if the Marxists had won, albeit the outcome would perhaps be delayed a bit. What then is the point of even resisting the inevitable? If their ideology leads to the same Third World outcome as outright liberalism, what actually motivates the civic nationalists?

While they would surely say that they are motivated by core American principles such as "all men are created equal" and "all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," they take those words from white men who founded a new nation and then limited citizenship to whites to preserve it for their posterity. To even begin to reconcile civic nationalism with something from America's past, you would quickly find yourself jumping from 1790 to 1870 for the 15th Amendment to 1943 for the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Modern "colorblind" immigration would not be adopted until 1965, the same year as the Voting Rights Act and a year after the Civil Rights Act.

Thus, we can say that civic nationalism is defined by mid-2oth century progressivism, not the Constitution or the Founders, and this helps to explain why they so often can be described as "progressives from a few years ago." They have already accepted the basic premise that the past was flawed and that "progress" is being made towards something better. The key difference between them and liberals being that they still have a gag reflex... naturally choking on the poison of modernity, at least until they become accustomed to it, a bit at a time.

Civic nationalists—whether they identify as conservative or libertarian—are an example of suicidal altruism. They have their own interests, but everything takes a backseat to proving they are good people according to the ideals of their avowed enemy. The civic nationalist is an odd creature who claims to care about many things deeply, but he will sacrifice all of it to have even one minority stand by his side or one leftist to praise his virtue. He will say things like, "Principles matter, not skin color," but he is confused as to whose principles define his worldview. In theory, he disagrees with the Left on much, but he is helpless to do anything about it since he has been tricked into letting his enemies define the terms of battle. Therein we find the puzzle that the far-right needs to solve: namely, how to convince the civic nationalists that they are living in a bubble of their enemy's making. How do you wake them up to reality?

While Kanye West and Candace Owens are not likely to lead white civic nationalists to some sort of multiracial-yet-not-Marxist promised land, the rush to embrace them does perhaps provide a model for breaking the programming. In effect, what may be needed is a black Trojan horse, someone that the civic nationalists cannot easily ignore yet holds views they would usually dismiss as "racist" or "white supremacist." Take, for example, James Manning of the All The Land Anointed Holy Missionary Church in Harlem. While he is no fan of President Trump, Manning regularly calls out Afrocentrist myths peddled in the black community, as seen in the video above, and he also argues against blaming whites for colonialism, has spoken against "the neutering of the white male," says that the problem with cities is not a lack of funding but is rather "niggerism," and has even said that the "black man" is the "greatest problem in America today." If a white man said any of those things, civic nationalists would rush to crucify him just as quickly as the Left. But James Manning subverts that in every way possible, and he does so in a way that is not defined by the anti-white "black liberation" mentality so often seen today.

At the end of the day, neither Kanye West nor James Manning is going to lead millions of black voters to the Right, but there may be an opportunity to shake some sense into the millions of white people who cower at the mere possibility of being called "racist." If James Manning can declare that European colonialism was no different from the Israelites defeating Jericho, then why can white men not do the same? If he can highlight that the problem with cities is demographic, why can Paul Joseph Watson not understand the same? The Right needs to stop chasing the great black whale and instead focus on rebuilding white America. Non-Hispanic whites are still a majority in the United States, and they still wield the political power needed to right this sinking ship. Sadly, however, civic nationalists are in such poor shape today that the only way to get them to focus on white interests is to have the message delivered via social media by a black man.