White Westerners are often inclined to ask a particular, and rather idiosyncratic question when they finally accept, usually after an absurd amount of evidence excludes or their copout answers, the true scale of the demographic changes taking place in Europe and European derived nations. This question is “so what if whites do become a minority, what does it matter”. It is worth just considering how strange and unprecedented such a response is in a historical context. Think of asking any tribe of people throughout history, so what if you become outnumbered in your countries and on your home continent by different peoples from elsewhere”. You would be asking people whose brothers and friends would have laid down their lives to prevent such a thing happening, because the implications are literally the extinction of the ethnic group. They would likely not fully understand the question, or that such a question could be asked. It would be akin to asking “is darkness dark?”. Even in modernity, the deviance of needing a reason to justify why ones’ own ethnic group should continue existing becomes clear the moment one asks any non-Westerner why it would be an issue if they became outnumbered in their own countries. But, since it is Westerners one is dealing with, one needs to engage with them on their ridiculous Western terms.
In response to the “why should anyone be concerned about white people becoming a minority in their nations, or in Europe as a whole?”, one need do no more than ask the person asking the question to be consistent with their own view of the world with respect to any other grouping of humanity. need no more than to be consistent in their own reasoning to answer that question. The vast majority of the “open minded” “anti-racist” Western liberals blithely asking requiring that Europeans justify the existence of their ethnic group will have been exposed to, and which would have informed their world view, the “revolutionary” “subaltern” literature from the 1960’s onward. These include authors who until the present day decry the horrible “racism” and “oppression” of the white man, and, use their mastery of the written word to force the “privileged” white man to take off his white glasses and see things through another perspective. I speak of course of the pan-Africanist, “black consciousness” literature, and indeed any “academic” curricula with the words “critical”, “race”, “privilege”, or “intersectional” in their names.
The staples of this genre speak of all manner of horrors surrounding deracination, getting torn from ones “roots”, having ones history dictated by others, or being surrounded by “white” people and things that depict white people, whether doll phenotypes, television actors, magazine models, . The problem concerns the subconscious and unrelenting stresses of being a visible phenotypical minority, and in being exposed to any media that defaults to a phenotype other than their own. They also discuss how identity is not entirely a choice, but something one is born with and something one acquires through exposure to the social forces one experiences. They tend to make this case to oppose those privileged liberal whites who encourage them to ignore their racial identity, integrate with society as individual humans, and to generally get with the individualistic programme of liberal democracy.
This literature that demands racial awareness and permeates the leftist/liberal thought paradigms at all their junctures makes the case that even asking black people to just get with the liberal individualist programme is an affront. This is because to do such is to use ones’ privileged white position to force a disempowered group to integrate with “white” culture (which is all western liberal culture is), and subordinate black racial identity to the oppressive definitions and categories of systemically racist white social structures and societal institutions. It is also to marginalize the black experience by refusing to acknowledge the passive qualities of all aspects of white liberal society that reinforce white superiority and categorically privilege white norms, while “othering” and thus marginalizing and denigrating people of colour.
Whether it is being exposed to what white people like, or what white people do, or even being exposed to too many white people, this literature asserts that all of it is a relentless assault against the black psyche, and it is the moral duty of those in power to grant concessions in compensation. Notice, at no time does their desire to have their phenotype and identity catered for in the public and private sphere ever get questioned by white liberals, let alone the desire preserve the existence of ones’ race. The desire to ad just an assumed imperative, as is the case for any group of people who are not of European descent. The latter question would be treated as a hate crime.
Drawing attention to their own assumptions implicit to their “social justice” view of the world should demonstrate the pathological suicidality of white liberals, considering that such assumptions lead to a recognition a grotesque absurdity in asking a black person why they should have a right to a racial identity, or why they think their race has any right to exist. This would dispatch a chill of righteous outrage down the spine of a white Western liberal. And yet, when it comes to white people they are not only comfortable asking the question, but answering in the affirmative as a white person would likely be seen by these same liberals as deviant behaviour. To suggest a hint of dissatisfaction with being asked to justify why ones’ ethnic group has a right to continue existing as a majority in their homeland is seen as outright fascism and implies one must have an uncontrollable urge to don jack boots and kick “people of colour” and Jews in the face on their way to the extermination chambers. Of course, were someone to claim that a native American should not be bothered by having become a minority in their homeland, we all know who would be barging through your door with jackboots of their own.
So, to return to the initial argument of this post, to all who ask “well what is so wrong about white people becoming a minority in their countries”, “what is wrong with white people getting bred out”, refer them to their own literature. Their entire world-view is predicated on a nexus of theories all that recognize the existence of race, argue for races having control over their integrity, and describe a slew of psychological horrors that derive from a race being a minority in a country, and media and social institutions not defaulting to that races view of the world and that races wellbeing. You should then further extend their own logic by pointing out that, if it is so horrific for black Americans to be minorities in the United States, or black Brits to be minorities in Europe, consider how much of their racial security and identity they would lose if black people were becoming minorities in Africa too.
If it is so despicable for the “black” and “African” phenotype, cultures, norms, experiences, motifs and all other memes to be “marginalized” in majority white societies, think of how terrible it would be if such were the case in all societies. If a traumatized black American had no where to go to be a majority, and that no country existed that defaults to his “blackness”, and where he can go to get in touch with his “African heritage”. Then point out that this is not only happening for White people, which is to say they are losing their majority everywhere on Earth including their racial homeland, but efforts to resist this are actively repressed by leftists/liberals.
Another thing to point out is that because “social justice” arguments are extremely Eurocentric and fail to consider the world outside of the West, and often outside of the United States, they fail to recognize that the vast majority of the horrors faced by “people of colour” in a nation of “white privilege”, are in fact merely the standard experiences of people who form ethnic minorities in any nation. “white privilege” can more often than not just be called “majority privilege”, and all the “subtle”, “unspoken”, defaults of “racism”, are actually just living in a society not designed from ones’ own ethnic group but for another. They are designed for the ethnic group that forms the majority.
When whites become a minority not only in the world, as they already are, but on every nation on Earth, they will experience this minority disadvantage in their own homelands. While they will likely remain desensitized to it, since white people already live in majority black countries that do not accomodate them at all (how much racial “diversity” is there in Nigeria? Is there “white entertainment telivision” there to compensate for their minority status or lack of mainstream representation?).
As pathological as the white western double standard is concerning race, the great crime is not what they are doing to themselves, but their children. Boomers, and now genx are perfectly happy to accept the argments of people like ... ... and ..., that there is a great “racial trauma” to having the nation one lives in default in every way to another race/ethnic group, and that it is impossible to just change ones’ identity to integrate with a racial minority. However, they are then more than happy to actively create the conditions in which their children will not only be minorities on a global stage, but in every nation on Earth. Black people in the United States can go to Africa to avoid suffering the apparent horrors of living in a society that defaults to another racial group. Where will white people go?
Finally, it is also worth asking liberals who ask why it matters if white people become minorities everywhere on Earth, or cease to exist, if they think it is interesting or relevant that white people are the only ones who can be expected to reliably ask that question in any significant number. This is relevant because, even if race is imaginary, when billions of people imagine it, its effects become very real. One may say “well then we should just imagine it away”. Fair enough. But what happens when only your race, seen as different to all other self-defined racial groups by those groups, is the only one that decides to do this? What happens if race and its effects continue to mean something, but you as a minority are the only ones who refuse to believe they are a part of a race? Will this make the concept of race go away? Will members of the East Asian phenotype, or black African phenotype suddenly also decide that their races don’t exist. Will the Igbo Nigerian tribe suddenly be as comfortable with being outnumbered by White "new Igbos" as Swedes or Germans are with becoming outnumbered by black or Asian "new Swedes"? What is the implication if they do not? Well, we can deduce that being of the European phenotype will confer no identity, but it will still exclude those with the phenotype from the racial identities of races that continue to exist and be recognized by its membership as a legitimate source of identity and a useful way to organize and compete for resources. Being of the European phenotype would offer no protection, since its members would not organize around it, but it would exclude them from protection from other groups that compete for resources as groups.
It is imperative to point out to the liberals that by making their children a minority in every nation on Earth, and by removing from them the ability to protect themselves as minorities, they will not bring about a glorious post-racial utopia, since only white people desire such a thing in significant numbers. Rather, it would accomplish little more than making whites become seen by far larger, and more populous self-defined races, as the one race that does not believe it exists. One is not the only agent in defining ones' identity, no matter how much liberals may wish for the inverse to be true. By becoming minorities everywhere, and still being morally opposed to organizing around ethnicity and race, ethnic Europeans will find themselves unable to derive meaning in life from a larger European derived history by connecting with other ethnic Europeans on a racial level, while every other race continues to benefit from such connections to eachother and to a common history and future.
Worse still, since phenotype is an indicator of a common history, ethnic Europeans will also find themselves unable to partake in the communities other racial groups who maintain common identities and histories, since the European phenotype clearly designates a different group with a different history. Unless every race equally wishes race away, all that will occur if Europeans do so, is that white children will become powerless unconnected individuals in a world of powerful races that continue to organize around, find identity within, and compete for resources as different races. Can one imagine a greater sin to commit against ones’ children?
No feedback yet
Form is loading...