Why Do Whites Choose White Genocide?
You’ve surely encountered it: white people are increasingly idealising the notion of Europeans becoming extinct. It doesn’t matter where in the West they come from; gender isn’t a major factor; nor is one’s positioning on the left/right paradigm of the modern, liberal political spectrum. Previously, I have written of university professors who have called for white genocide; note it well, professors have not only called for whites to be subjugated, not only called for us to commit mass suicide, but from Harvard and the top universities, no less, the call has gone forth for the destruction of the white race:
‘We’ll keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.’ – Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Professor.
It should go without saying that the agendas of the political classes across the West have been complicit where the preservation of the character of Western nations is concerned. The MSM too has played no small part in maintaining the volume of the message and ostracised any voices discordant to it. But how could this have happened? It seems unthinkable that this could have happened to any of the other people of the world, who would be far too proud to tolerate such a destructive cultural trend. What’s so unique about white psychology that such a thing could occur?
At least, it seems to me that the root cause is a psychological one. There is something peculiar to white folks which has resulted in about half of us kowtowing to the negative image portrayed of us by the status quo; something which results in us being so apologetic that absolute white genocide seems like a promising prospect for the human species, every species, indeed the whole planet! Let’s answer a few questions to get a clearer picture.
What prompts the liberal desire to further white genocide?
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene is an astoundingly intuitive book, displaying the gene-centred view of all life, which seems to put all social interactions into sound perspective. Dawkins correctly identifies humans as ‘survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.’ What is the moral of Dawkins’ philosophy?
‘Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.’ – Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
To the white man, riddled with desires to transcend oneself and possessing the hopelessly repetitive habit of universalising every principle he encounters, this is kryptonite! White men need just the opposite teaching – they need to be taught to look after their own; they need more Nietzsche and less Dawkins. White men have famously burdened themselves with ending slavery and promoting liberal values across the world, even to the cost of their own nations. No, it wasn’t all evil colonialism; whites wanted to teach the world to read and even had dreams of saving the eternal souls of the whole world. Whites tend to presuppose every single culture does or could or should think the same way, especially for their own good. Today’s liberals, especially the Neocons, do the same as colonials past by forcibly ‘making the world safe for democracy.’ But, at home, the desire for selfless, transcendent goals is entirely related to aspiring above the desire to reproduce one’s ‘selfish’ (and therefore ‘evil’) genes.
But, why not desire to transcend one’s genes through transhumanism or similar?
Why is it that liberals don’t simply wish to transcend one’s genes through some sort of eugenics or through technological advance? If they truly cared about society, they could, as the great eugenicist, Lothrop Stoddard, said, ‘relieve nature of her office of discriminating between the fit and the unfit’, in order to properly ‘undertake the protection of the weaker members of the community…[and] assume a corporate responsibility for the existence of all sorts and conditions of men’. There needn’t be anything involuntary or sinister about this – neo-eugenics proposes using similar methods to IVF screening to choose healthier, more intelligent etc. offspring. So, what are they really objecting to?
To answer that question, you need to understand the rise of cultural Marxism in the West. Since the nihilism of the 1960s, this movement took off when it became apparent to leftist thinkers that the socialist experiments of the 20th century were failures and that, for leftist ideology to survive, the West would have to be subverted. Much ink has been spent on the Frankfurt school etc. and just how the left came to dominate the media, academia and the political institutions in the West but suffice it to say that the doctrine of dividing the haves from the have-nots didn’t take hold. The real divisive factor which has caused massive division between every conceivable group in the West has been the doctrine of the oppressed and the oppressor.
So, why are white selfish genes worse than the selfish genes of other humans?
Because whites created modern capitalism, developed successful natural orders with hierarchies and have come to dominate the world culturally and otherwise. By completely subverting everything, and I mean everything, about European civilization, worldwide, then a leftist social order can rise from the ashes. But, how can you have an overwhelming group of ‘the oppressed’ if policies and the social dynamic are geared to improving every man from every walk of life? Naturally, the obstacle to the end goal is majority groups of white people and the kinds of cultures and civilizations they have historically produced, which are inhospitable to the weed of communism, even in its softer form of liberal democracy, as they do not appeal to lowest common dominator.
Therefore, the long game has been the deconstruction and now even the apparent abolition of the very identity of white people, nationally or otherwise. No pride in one’s heritage, strengthening of one’s people for the future or any such heresy is permissible. Only absolute and hyper-individualism is permitted for the white man; until he is an absolute minority, he can identify as an economic unit and no more.
How can so many whites be so stupid?
Ricardo Duchesne, myself and others have written of the Faustian spirit of the European psychology – how something has evolved which has caused white people to attempt to accomplish deeds which seem bizarre and pointless to most others. Just as the white man has sought to be the first to reach the poles, mountaintops and even the moon, so too I believe that the white man is endeavouring to be the first to show they have no care at all for their own genes. The white man would show the world that he is so unconcerned with the will of his genetic programming that he can flout it altogether and be so transcendentally altruistic that he will put the wellbeing of all others before his own people until he has seen to it that they have gone extinct. Sadly, this fearless quest for glory, inherited from our psychopathic Indo-European ancestors, isn’t accompanied with intelligence or, rather, any long-term thinking. Our ancestors disregarded their lives and did great deeds to be remembered and to have immortal fame, but they did so to be remembered by their people!
If we are the first to neglect our genetic predispositions towards our own, we will be a proverb of stupidity to the rest of the world, who will not remember us with fondness. Other peoples wish to recall the great deeds of their ancestors and heroes, not those of another. Once again, we universalise to our great undoing, but this time we will have no children to mourn our mistakes.