"The arrogant guilt of the Western liberal mindset assumes that those who are not of European descent always need less criticism, more praise, more money, and generally an easier environment “in which to succeed” than their European descended peers."
So much of the liberal white western mindset, which completely dominates the Western gestalt, is based on the assumption that white westerners are invariably in a position of strength, and that they can only be perpetrators, and never victims. The terms “structural-racism”, “white-privilege”, white supremacy, etc. all assume this.
Even the term “minority”, which global American media influence has made synonymous with “non-white” people in the Western world, implies that white people, or those of ethnic European descent, are necessarily the “majority”, and thus must have the power they derive from being in this category more evenly distributed. In other words, the majority are the big (or smart) bully, and the minority are the small (or retarded) snively kid. Which of these two should get the bigger slice of pie? Which of them should get praise for getting a C in class, and which should be criticized for not getting an A?
The notion is that those of ethnic European descent are inextricable from some mysterious global power, that they always act on the world from some amorphous position of hegemonic dominance, and that this status could never be challenged or questioned. This mindset is evident in everything from the racism of low expectations applied to the third world and non-whites in the first world, to the double standards applied to what is expected of ethnic Europeans versus everyone else because “they can handle it”. Consider this. One of the most blood-thirsty, ethno-centric, empire builders in recorded sub-Saharan African history was Shaka Zulu. When a Zulu in South Africa, is proud of his “warrior culture” and its strong leadership, everyone celebrates. Hell, they even named an airport after Shaka.
If this Zulu goes to France, the UK, or the United States, and describes the pride he has in his proud warrior culture and the great victories of its strongest king, those he tells this too will invariably be very interested and celebrate all the diversity this Zulu brings to their societies with his beautiful culture. Comparably, one of the most blood-thirsty, ethno-centric, empire builders in recent European history was a chap called Adolf Hitler. Suppose an ethnic German, whether in South Africa, France, or anywhere, describes his pride in HIS warrior culture and the glorious victories of one of its most powerful leaders? Well, I don’t think I need to elaborate on what would happen.
The point here is that the “decent” liberal thing to do when anyone who is not of European descent is proud of their culture and defines themselves by it, is to celebrate that culture and this person's connection to it. If this person of non-European descent acts to “preserve” their, culture, ethnicity, and advance the interests of other members of that culture and/or ethnicity, the effort is praised and assisted. However, when a person of European ethnicity is proud of the achievements of their ancestors, and define themselves by the ethnic legacy with which they have been endowed, the only "decent" liberal reaction is to consider them terrible racists who need to attend a few more diversity seminars. Assuming they aren’t taken to jail for hate-speech first.
This astonishing double standard derives from the arrogant guilt of the Western liberal mindset which assumes that those who are not of European descent always need less criticism, more praise, more money, and generally an easier environment “in which to succeed” than their European descended peers. The idea is that those who are not of European descent always need some "descent" liberal Westerners to ensure that the deck is stacked in their favour, to make up for those of European descent always having the deck stacked in THEIR favour. Don’t believe me? Perhaps the Shaka Zulu example was a bit foreign to most. Let’s try some other examples.
If you are American think about this,
How often have you seen someone condemn America for the KKK, when more murderous, racially motivated groups continue to exist all over the world, yet are never mentioned? How many times do you see some media outlet excoriating Southern American states for their knuckle-dragging anti-scientific mindset toward anything from gender to climate change, yet you hear nothing about Saudi Arabia having a dedicated, well funded police task-force tasked with hunting down witches? How many news outlets do think would cover the inverse "America has a dedicated witch-craft task force".
To the Europeans reading this,
How often do you hear about the terrifying right-wing swing of European politics, but no one mentions that the most liberal middle eastern politicians you could think of would put your most right-wing politicians to shame? How often do you hear about the terrible Spanish Inquisition, versus the stricter and harsher religious purity groups that have been operating around the Islamic world for hundreds of years, and even continue to exist today?
Tell me Europeans, how often do you hear about the barbarity and injustice of the crusades versus the far more blood-thirsty expansion of Islam? What about the Islamic incursions INTO ITALY before the crusades even happened? Does your ideological elite wave these historical facts into the face of modern Muslims to force them to be more tolerant to Europeans? Have you even heard about these elements of Islamic history? If not, then why do you suppose this is the case?
Those Americans and Europeans who are nauseatingly familiar with half the examples I provided but not the other half, have witnessed the mindset of assumed ethnic European dominance. Indeed, every time the skyscrapers in only the richest parts of the third world are thrown in your face to argue that their societies are 100 percent as sophisticated and equal to Western societies, whereas the poorest parts of the United States and Europe are demonstrated as examples of these places being barbaric and terrible…well, I think I’ve made my point. All of this derives from the assumption that those of European extraction are always in a position of power. This is the mindset of assumed ethnic European dominance.
But how true is it that those of ethnic European extraction are invariably and unchangeably, in a global position of power? (hint: Not at all). Firstly, the notion that non-European descended groups count as “minorities” is absolutely absurd, considering that the smallest global minority of any continentally defined racial group is that group of European extraction, more commonly known as “White People”. Indeed, there are some bright anti-racist’ liberal commentators who try to hide this inconvenient truth, as it might lead to those of European descent acting in their own ethnic self interest…you know, like everyone else. After all, being part of a tiny and increasingly more demographically irrelevant group doesn’t seem like an ethnic group with the deck permanently stacked in its favour, now does it? Why should those of European descent be expect to surrender yet more of their power and representation in the social, legal, and economic institutions of their own nations, when it is clear THEY are in fact the global minority whose future in the world is threatened.
To solve this awkward problem, those clever liberal commentators I mentioned, just redefined what “majority” means, much like those SJW’s who redefined the word “racism” to require a power aspect. Rather than a "demographic minority", these people contend, “minority actually just means those who are in the minority of positions of power, wealth, or who those lack respect and are marginalized in society”. This being established, these noble liberal commentators are once again free to grant non-white people the position of “minority” in every case and consign white people to the category of "majority", in every case. Having done this, these liberal commentators are now free to apply double standards against that nasty power-grubbing group known as "White People", since, after all, aren't they always the powerful "majority" that should be cut down to size? White people are thus never allowed to act with their ethnic interests at heart, because to do so would be racist, as they would be acting against non-white people from positions of power.
Presumably, White people would remain the “majority”, even if the ethnic European share of the global population shrunk to below 1 percent, while the powerless, downtrodden 99 percent of non-European descended people would remain a helpless “minority”, requiring ever more assistance in the form of social justice.
It should be clear to those who don’t see things from a blinkered Eurocentric position that this “majority means that group who occupy the majority of positions of power” argument is completely absurd. This is because the argument could only actually apply to countries in which White people are actually a majority, and have been for thousands of years (with minor exceptions like Australia and New Zealand. The US is barely a "white" majority). Assuming what is true only in European countries to be true of the entire world, should by definition qualify as Eurocentriscm. In Uganda, for instance, you will find those of African descent are overwhelmingly represented in positions of power, and the same is true of Korea, China, India, Pakistan, you name it. In fact, the only time that it is considered completely unacceptable that the race who descend from the continent in which a particular country is located, are the overwhelming majority in positions of power in that country, is when you are talking about...you guessed it, ethnic Europeans.
The truth his that this double standard is yet another manifestation of the mindset of invariable ethnic European dominance. It is only considered offensive that Britain is governed primarily by “crusty, boring, angry old white men” because white people should know better. But when the exact same situation occurs in reverse in Uganda, Nigeria, or China…. Well, no one even notices. If those of European descent to not act in collective self interest, they will no longer have a collective identity in which to take an interest. Anyone who thinks the decline of the European descended peoples and cultures will now usher in a new cultureless, anti-racist, borderless world, is entirely deluded, since those ethnic groups and cultures growing faster than the people and cultures of the West show zero interest in such a world. These deluded people are not the ones who should be directing our collective fate and writing our histories. We must no longer let them.