There is now a ubiquituous notion across the western world, deployed in response to anyone with a shred of healthy ethnic identity or who voices entirely rational (by any global measure) concerns over being ethnically replaced, which is that “whites deserve to be replaced/ become minorities in their homelands. According to this punitive doctrine, white people destroyed/replaced so many other peoples time and time again that its righteous justice for them to experience some themselves. If they can dish it out, they should take it.
In response I could babble on about the fact that white people did nothing that anyone else didn’t, but no one thinks Mongolians should be replaced for their past empire (the inherent sins of empire which are only conceived of as such, and only brought to an end by white people), but that seems to be missing the point. It is worth pointing out that the argument that “white people deserve it” is suggesting that there is a replacement of and destruction of ethnic European nations, which flies in the face of other leftists and liberal arguments suggesting that it is a unique brand of white paranoia that makes it seem as though a healthy and natural migration pattern is something akin to a historical conquest. This is relevant as it demonstrates a case of leftwing gas-lighting. The left will vacillate from ‘ethnic Europeans are paranoid for thinking they are being conquered by peaceful immigration’ to, ‘non-whites will replace you and you deserve as payment for historical conquests’ with no recognition that one of these possibilities not only excludes the other, but implies that its respective counter-argument presented by concerned white people, is correct. Those making the latter argument could not possibly argue that there is some tit for tat conquest comeuppance occuring, since they contend that the unprecedented movement of non-Europeans into historically ethnic European countries is actually benign (or even beneficial), while those making the former argument would have to at least concede the "far-right" argument that it is pathological behaviour for ethic European people to let in so many non-Europeans. Yet, this guardian article literally argues both points at once. However, this is not the main issue I intend to engage with, as it misses the key absurdity of the “white people deserve to be replaced” argument.
The main issue is that those making the charge that white people have no right to complain about being replaced/conquered considering their history, are talking as they would to someone conquering Europe, who may be having doubts for ethical reasons about going through with it, and need to be convinced. Their argument would make sense if they were talking to a great Turkish, or Eritrean empire, that is about to conquer and, in the process, permanently replace or fundamentally alter ancient European peoples and their societies, and saying “you are enacting righteous justice. What right do they have to complain considering what they have done to so many other peoples throughout history? They are just getting a taste of their own medicine, go on and finish it!”. But there is no one conquering Europe. No external force anyway. There is no superior force that Europeans couldn’t protect themselves from with minimal effort. In fact, not only are they not, not doing anything about being replaced, but they are actively bringing in their replacers, with their own technology, systems and manpower. That is why the “white people deserve it argument” makes no sense whatsoever.
Those making the argument that “whites deserve it”, having established that mass non white immigration is indeed a type of conquest, and that replacement is occurring in an act of vengeance, are actually trying to convince the victims to destroy themselves. That is what is so absurd. Its all fine and well to be a conquered group with grievances, who is dreaming of vengeance, that is normal. But what people replaces itself in its homeland with those who have grievances against them? Europeans are importing their conquerors, and believing people who tell them that it is a punitive conquest, that they deserve it, and should do it faster. Even if Europeans did “deserve it”, what people in history has ever punished themselves and their descendants, turning them into despised minorities in their own homelands, because other groups have historical grievances against them? If that is not the definition of a pathological society, what could be? What healthy population acts this way?
Feedback awaiting moderation
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Form is loading...