White genocide is a curious horror. If it were happening or possible within our lifetimes, it would be as atrocious as any mass murder. But with the world as it is, it comes to us only as a fanciful nightmare nourished by overwrought White supremacist imaginations. I recall a comedy routine by Louis C.K. concerning the benefits of Whiteness:
“Here’s how great it is to be white: I can get in a time machine and go to any time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can’t fuck with time machines! A black guy in a time machine’s like, “Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you. I don’t want to go.”
But I can go to any time! The year 2. I don’t even know what’s happening then, but I know when I get there…
“Welcome, we have a table right here for you, sir.”
“Thank you. Oh, it’s lovely here in the year 2.”
I can go to any time–in the past.I don’t want to go to the future and find out what happens to white people because we’re gonna pay hard for this shit, you got to know that. We’re not going to just fall from number one to two. They’re gonna hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever. And we totally deserve it. But for now, wheeeeeeee!”
One fact check, Whites didn’t exist in either of the years 2. The ancestors of the people we now consider White did exist, but they were far from ruling the world. Sartorial choice and strange customs of two millennia ago notwithstanding, outside of Europe, Louis would have been a stranger. It is only through the rampaging charge of Western imperialism that White skin became global power’s calling card. And here we get to the anguished conscience at the heart of Whiteness. It is awfully hard not to see the last 500 years as a litany of horrors, provided one hews to the moral ideas which allow us to go outside and reasonably expect that we will not be murdered and eaten. That these horrors are foundational to the rise of Western/White dominance is frequently a source of embarrassment, even for those who claim to feel no embarrassment. To see this, simply attempt to discuss reparations or the notion of collective responsibility in an analytical, non-personally recriminatory way with any White person. Simply contest the notion that the rise of the imperial Nordic has been anything but an unbridling of all the good that was latent in the human spirit and you’ll find that you’ve roughly thrown your hands onto something precious and tender to their spirits. That it’s a uniquely humongous myth is a technicality not to be bothered with. White fragility is the right flank of White guilt.
Anyone with a conscience knows how troublesome they are to escape. And since we all rely every day of our lives on the idea that there is a right and a wrong way to treat human beings, the problem of the last 500 years is the blood-gorged viper which wraps itself around Homo Occidentalis’s gaudy cross of gold. There are ways to flee this beast, there must be, Whiteness depends on it. Ready to hand is the common idea that the entire nonwhite majority of the human race is made up of abject morons who waited patiently and filthily in their wretched huts, for the great and powerful demigods of the north to swoop down and deliver unto them something mighty, something beautiful, something true, something known under the superficially humble name “civilization,” something, most assuredly, White. Of course that this mighty deliverance also entailed the systematic extraction of massive amounts of wealth from the world of savages is not to be discussed. The chief problem with the dogma that the human race is numerically dominated by its inferior portions is that as unsupported as it ever was, it is even less supportable now. Those of us who live in the West can know vastly more about the history of the world, and of those intellectual habits which we must cultivate if we are in fact to know something of it beyond childish prejudice, than we could during the era of colonialism. The problem of facts is partially addressed by a more polite and palatable form of white supremacy, one which can be unwittingly held even by those who would never don the white hood. It does not require immutable superiority for the White and inferiority for the non-White, only that one sees European culture as superior. The chief difference between the polite form of White supremacy and the impolite one is that the polite bigot believes that it is simply an accident of history that European culture is superior. Why European culture should have been done such a favor by providence, that it would be the only and highest worthwhile organizing principle for the human race need not be addressed by the polite White supremacist, it suffices that it is. For here, White supremacists, polite and impolite, hold common cause. They both understand the potential “fall of the West” to be disastrous for all of mankind. Behind the notion of Western universalism is a notion of Western monism. Namely, that everyone else should recognize that Western bourgeois democracy is the only way that the dusky portion of mankind can extricate itself from the doldrums of nonwhite history.
White genocide is in truth part of a very ancient discourse. It is at its roots the very discourse which gave rise to racism itself, to the idea of the West, of Europe, of Whiteness. White genocide is designed to fulfill a very basic need of those who construct themselves as White in a White supremacist order. Anybody who has ever attempted to discuss racism or slavery with such a person should be aware of this. Your average white American looks around and notices that they have never seen a city where the poor side of town is White while the wealthy side of town is Black. Even if they do not notice, they cannot help but see, hence why “sketchy” can function as a synonym for Black. They watch the news and notice that they’ve never seen, nor can they imagine, a poor White country juxtaposed to a rich country where non-Whites predominate. The belief that certain hues of people are immutably inferior to others is the most direct way to explain this. Connected with this rationalization, is the need to mobilize people in the maintenance of White supremacy. To find the roots of this we can go back to the Crusades. Though, at the time of the European crusades there was no such thing as White supremacy outside of the plethora of small, rather uncelebrated polities of varying strength which made up the Western world. When Pope Urban II issued his call to arms in 1095 on behalf of the Byzantine empire as it struggled to defend itself against increasingly aggressive invaders from the east, he nominally did so in order to protect Christian access to sacred sites in the Levant. Though the pope, who at the time controlled the Papal States and its army, spoke in response to a formal request for military assistance made by the Byzantine emperor, he chose to cloak his request in Christian duty. Why? Because though he was the ruler of a temporal realm, Urban held vastly more convening power as the porter to paradise. Had the pontiff simply stood at his pulpit and called on Europeans to help defend the Eastern edge of the continent as fellow Europeans, the fact that there was no true European “idea” would’ve caused his call to be scarcely heard. In the 10th century your average English baron felt no common cause with Italian or Spanish aristocrats, Europe was a land of intrigue and war. What bound them together at all was the Catholic church. From The Song of Roland to tales of the crusades and Prester John, we find Christendom, not Europe, referenced when constituting the people we now consider White as against the threatening, external other. This fear of being overwhelmed by a menacing, heathen world just beyond Gibraltar is a defining feature of Whiteness and is the defining fear behind the myth of “White genocide.”
In the present, we find the claim that “diversity = White genocide.” This claim is rooted in the old fear of “miscegenation,” the fear of “mongrelization,” which makes sense because Whiteness is defined by “purity,” and therefore exclusion. The flagship of those who claim White genocide in the present is the notion that diversity is only imposed on “White” nations, the United States, the nations of Europe, Australia etc, while no one seeks to “diversify” Uganda or India. They claim that this one sided push is ipso facto evidence of a White genocidal impulse. This casually ignores that non-Whites are not flocking to Western nations because they have some implicit desire to spoil the cream, but because, as George Berkeley famously said: “Westward the course of empire takes its way.” Namely, the earth’s resources over the past 500 years have developed a striking tendency to flow away from their points of origin into the Occident and the hands of those constructed as White. Seeing their resources flee, carried off by neocolonial machinations, the peoples of the non-White world find themselves with little choice but to follow them. In the case of the settler colonies, Australia, New Zealand, The United States of America, the existence of significant non-White populations going back centuries means that their pluralist ideology is the result of hard fought battles for equal rights by the members of said populations. This pluralist impulse lead to the discrediting of immigration policies rooted in notions of racial engineering. Namely, the “White Australia policy” and every American immigration act passed pre-1965.
For the European mother countries, particularly those which maintained expansive empires after the conclusion of the world wars, France and Britain chief among them, evolving international norms forced them to restructure the ideology of empire. After World War I, national determination came to be seen as a basic right of historical peoples, as enshrined in Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen point plan for peace in the post-war era. Of course, Wilson was a bigot, so his view of national self-determination was restricted to the only people he saw as mattering, Whites. Nonetheless, colonized people all over the world began to clamor for this new doctrine which on paper at least presented itself as a governing principle for the entire human race. After the second world war, notions of racial hierarchy and racial destiny came to smack of Hitlerism, especially as the horrors of the Holocaust began to unfold into the international consciousness and so it became more difficult to merely dismiss this clamoring, especially as it begin to manifest itself in large mass movements. In addition, as after the first world war, the colonized, having been called upon to help “make the world safe for democracy” came increasingly to wonder why they should not enjoy the democracy they had bled for. In response to these twin phenomena, the colonized growing increasingly impatient with the colonial order and the failure of the old racist rationalizations, the metropoles attempted to convert imperial subjects into imperial citizens. In 1914, Blaise Diagne was appointed to the French chamber of deputies as a representative of Senegal, in 1946, the French empire was formally abolished, to be replaced by the French Union, nominally a transnational state encompassing metropolitan France on equal footing with its former colonies. Britain did not go this far, but, the notion of the commonwealth was and is rooted in a notion of unity among English speaking peoples which purports to justify their union under the crown.
Here we find within the Western mind a deep tension between universalism and fear. On the one hand, there is the sense that the West as the moral pioneer of mankind has a duty to extend itself over the world, if not politically then at least intellectually and culturally. The mirror image of this is the fear that “the other” will soil the miracle. Straddling this we find “the other” as constitutive of the West’s view of itself. In “Islam in Liberalism,” Joseph Massad argues that liberalism concretized itself at its birth by emphasizing itself against a stereotypical “Islam.” Liberalism was conceptualized as the West’s noble calling away from “Eastern despotism,” towards its great heritage and destiny. Massad further argues, that Westerners routinely projected their cultural flaws onto Islam. This operation is by no means restricted to Islam It may be considered the defining feature of imperializing Western thought that whatever is considered undesirable in the culture becomes the property of the colonized. Slave holders called their slaves lazy, both as a way to justify and explain the cruelty which was required to make them labor without requite and as a psychological trick which allowed them to avoid grappling with the fact that they were committing a massive crime to avoid honest toil. “I can’t be lazy, niggers are lazy and I am no nigger.” When laziness was found among Whites which could not be denied, it was easy to blame some nigger-likeness once the sweating African had been made the cultural totem of sloth. The Jew becomes the symbol of greed itself, in order that Christian plutocrats might more effectively hide acquisitiveness behind ostentatious piety while those who don’t can be chastised as Jew-like and therefore not representative of a Christian order.
The destructive necessities of White power are projected onto their victims both in order to justify this destruction and to obscure some very disturbing dispositions at the heart of the West. “What cruelties we have pale in comparison to theirs, yes, we enslave and lynch, but the negroes in Africa practice human sacrifice!” “Yes, we bomb women and children, but radical Islamists don’t allow women to go outside and keep girls from getting an education!” To say that these are “projections” is not to deny the presence of atrocity outside the West, it is the essentialization which is the projection. To define the West by its best aspects while identifying the rest of humanity with what are seen as its worst aspects is to place the West in a place of fundamental moral impunity by depriving the non-Western world of moral justification. As to White genocide, the desire to destroy the majority of the human race, whether physically or culturally, is made palatable by creating a fundamental divide between “us” and “them.” If “they” want to destroy us, because of some combination of jealousy and natural depravity, what can I possibly not be justified in doing against them? “My” will to power and destruction becomes “their” will to power and destruction and the moral loop of global White supremacy is closed.
I began this essay with a quote by Louis C.K. wherein he posited that justice would come to the White world in a brutal and enduring way. C.K. doesn’t address the fundamental problem, what then are White people to do? If they protect White supremacy, they are doing what he must consider a morally reprehensible thing. If they allow it to fall or even seek to undermine it, are they not damning their descendants to endless torment? These are the only two options he leaves and one should not be surprised if a sizeable number of his listeners choose to defend the status quo, the alternative, as presented, seems too horrible. A certain brand of unthinking liberalism is here seen to turn on itself. I tend to think there are more options than this. But of course, in the face of mass hysteria and arrogant stupidity I make no promises and I have every intention of attempting to undermine global White supremacy no matter what monstrosities the Western mind can conjure. I am not here offering comfort but the truth as near as I can find it. The point of the human story must not be vengeance, but redemption. (Which is not to say that vengeance has no place, it simply cannot be the governing principle of humanity.) I would not if had all the power in the world, impose upon my people the spiritual necrosis which festers at the heart of Western chauvinism, therefore, to spend the next few centuries brutalizing Westerners is of no interest to me. Brutality expressed is brutality internalized. I am, however, firmly convinced that it is possible for the West to cut itself down from its cross of gold and join the rest of the human species if it has the courage, this is an essential key to the happiness of coming generations the world over. All mankind is on a collective journey to a promised land of our own creation. We must first, however, descend from the Golgotha of illusion into the valley of radical reality. Mankind can never achieve its ultimate vocation if provincialism and narcissism are treated as the great truths of life.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”