In my previous article at MercatorNet I was labelled more insidious than a Southern Baptist preacher. I don’t know much about Southern Baptist preachers, so in all honesty I’m not sure if that makes me very insidious, or just a little. But given the tone of the debate, it seemed about time to reflect a little more deeply on the nature of our intellectual disagreements:
many people believe that a hidden or clandestine animosity or prejudice is the underlying motive of people who oppose or dissent from various aspects of the LGB agenda.
In my case it means that although I state I am sceptical of how the concepts of sexual orientation and sexual identity are constructed, and I am therefore sceptical of derivative phenomena like same-sex marriage, some people will nonetheless argue that I am secretly motivated by animosity and prejudice toward homosexuality – that I am in fact homophobic…
Dispassionate thinkers should be able to see both sides and understand the nature of the disagreement. But most of us are not dispassionate thinkers, and the public debate is littered with activists on both sides. Non-activists, like pacifists in the middle of a war-zone, are liable to take fire regardless of their motives and intentions.
Disavowals of homophobia will not satisfy activists who lack the capacity or the will to understand the real points of contention. But if those of us who disagree with the LGBT movement are to remain dispassionate thinkers, then we can’t blame them for this failing either.
Dtcwee responds to the Sydney Siege with his characteristic yearning for the bigger picture:
Consider that threatening or causing injury (i.e. terrorism) is a crime likely punishable by imprisonment.
81% of Australia’s prisoner population is Australian born.
Although this reflects in part the greater proportion of Australia’s population born locally (72.3%), the Australian born imprisonment rate – prisoners per 100,000 population – is comparatively high compared with those from other countries.
I always knew the locals were a bit suss. But surely this only reflects good old fashioned true blue Aussie varieties of crime? What could be more Australian than ‘acts intended to cause injury’ and ‘dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons’? Might as well criminalise binge-drinking and morbid obesity.
So when I wrote an article basically mocking the idea of ‘white genocide’ and the people who subscribe to it, I didn’t think I’d get many hostile comments. Perhaps the moderators were already working overtime, but even the stuff that got through surprised me.
It turns out that some people really do believe multiculturalism is a genocidal plot aimed at white people! I was kinda hoping the whole thing would turn out to be elaborate satire. Alas, no.
In comments we’ve had LOTS OF CAPS to emphasise the seriousness of the threat, we’ve had what looks like an attempt to pin ‘white genocide’ on ‘The Jews’, and we’ve also had the slowly dawning realisation that this is apparently the first (alleged) genocide ever to be carried out by means of voluntary intermarriage between consenting adults.
The essence of the ‘White Genocide’ argument is elusive. I’m not sure we ever got to the level of actual evidence; but evidence isn’t really required in this kind of argument, not when it’s all so obvious and everyone knows it’s happening, right? I mean, to have to meaningfully compare alleged genocidal acts against precedent would detract from the spirit of the debate. To have to explain how this ‘genocide’ is supposedly happening, the expected time-frame, and the interventions required to stop it BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE is asking a bit much of people who are already demonstrating such courage in speaking out against the conspiracy. Ultimately, in language any true White Australian will understand, when it comes to ‘white genocide’: “it’s the vibe of the thing.”
Embed from Getty Images
My recent article on “white genocide” brought some interesting individuals out of the woodwork.
At this point, it appears that “white genocide” is basically a way of spinning standard white supremacist, anti-immigration, ‘anti-miscegenation’ conspiracist themes into a victim narrative. Using the incredibly emotive term ‘genocide’ implies that we, the poor helpless white majority, are facing an existential threat.
Never mind that the ‘white race’ concept is devoid of historical, genealogical, anthropological, biological, or philosophical integrity.
Never mind that claims of ‘genocide’ appear to boil down, in practice, to interracial marriage.
That’s right, the crux of the ‘problem’ is not really migration, because migration alone cannot eliminate the base population. No, the real threat is that migration will lead to white people marrying non-white people and – brace yourselves – reproducing!
In other words, this newly identified conspiracy of ‘white genocide’ hinges on mixed-ethnicity couples having children, as well as ‘white’ couples failing to have enough good wholesome white children. It’s not a problem in other multi-ethnic nations such as Malaysia and Singapore where the different ethnic groups tend not to intermarry. It’s only a problem in nations where white people have somehow lost their overriding loyalty to the glorious white race, and now face the impossibly exaggerated threat of total extinction.
Using terms like ‘genocide’ and ‘extinction’ allow people with white-supremacist sympathies to pretend they are acting out of humanitarian or conservationist impulses. It’s white-supremacy in 21st century garb.
Comments on my latest MercatorNet piece have been surprisingly supportive of the whole ‘white genocide’ idea.
For example, a reader calling itself “Time to think” writes:
Africa is still for the Africans and Asia is still for the Asians, but white countries are for everybody. Only white countries are going it, only white children are affected by it, it is indeed genocide. WHITE GENOCIDE. Go and look up the laws for the definition of genocide and you will see that this is true.
Even if the idea of white privilege were true, how does it justify genocide? And this is not only happening in Australia. It is happening in UK, France, Germany, USA and all other white countries. Just research Sweden. Every multicultural position places us in a world with no white people in it. In your opinion white identity is racist, you are only say that to whites, anti racist is code word for anti white.
To which I replied:
“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2”
Okay, I looked up the definition, still not impressed.
You say it’s happening in “all other white countries”. Is Finland not ‘white’? As of 2013 it was still 89.33% Finnish. What about Lithuania: it’s 84.2% Lithuanian as of 2011. Is that enough? How about Estonia: oh wait, it’s only 69.7% Estonian! Genocide! No, wait, 25.2% are Russians…
Maybe they complain about Estonian Genocide in Estonia? I wish I knew, but I don’t know how to say ‘genocide’ in Estonian, because despite being members of the one glorious white race, we are completely different ethnic and linguistic groups.
Perhaps you could come up with a new slogan other than ‘white genocide’ which on the one hand includes all the nations where you think white genocide is happening, but at the same time excludes those nations where it isn’t happening? Then it might be an accurate label rather than an incendiary polemic tool.
It is indeed time to think. Whenever you’re ready….
Head over and enjoy the careful and reasoned debate in its full glory:
My latest piece on Mercatornet.com examines the bizarre claim that we are living through a period of ‘white genocide’ under the guise of multiculturalism and diversity. If I may paraphrase Pastor Niemöller “First they came for the entitled Anglo-Irish majority, and I did not speak out- Because they were clearly overreacting…”
White Australians are generally in the privileged position of being able only to imagine the kind of persecution, suffering, and violence that a select few religious and ethnic groups have endured for real. It’s as though they’ve looked around at the steady stream of migrants and wondered ‘maybe this is that genocide thing we’ve heard so much about?’ What these ‘pro-White’ activists lack in moral seriousness, they make up for with a bizarre, depressingly sincere global persecution complex, an anthropologically untenable racial category of ‘White’, and a seemingly limitless sympathy for their own imagined plight.