Comments to and from anthropologist Peter Frost:
* To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it.
* The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies are just straight up blunt about their cruel intentions.
* As an anthropologist, my job is to give voice to those who are voiceless, either because they are socially marginal or because they have been deliberately silenced. This was the case with black slaves and colonial peoples, and it’s still the case with the native peoples of the Americas and Australia. Increasingly, it’s now the case with Europeans and European-descended peoples.
I detect indignation when you say that antiracism “was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists.” Well, it — emphatically — was. Take the NAACP. Its leadership was WASP and then Jewish for the first half-century of its existence. Read the Wiki page:
“In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American.”
The same was true for the earlier abolitionist movement. It was overwhelmingly WASP, with a few token blacks. It couldn’t have been otherwise.
I don’t see things from a “white” perspective, let alone a “rich white” perspective. The dominant view among white people is that we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals in a global marketplace. This view is as dominant on the right as it is on the left. And it’s very dominant among rich whites.
A libertarian society cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a certain behavioral foundation. Otherwise, it will liquidate itself; it will revert to a kind of society where kinship and physical force are the main organizing principles.
No human society has ever been fully libertarian, but Northwest Europeans have come the closest to that ideal. They have a long history of weaker kinship and, conversely, greater individualism that goes back to at least the 12th century and probably earlier. As a result, they have been able to create larger, freer, and more open societies, which in turn have made possible the market economy. Markets, in themselves, are nothing new. People have known them since prehistory, but the market mechanism could produce its benefits only within small points of space and time, i.e., marketplaces. It was only with the creation of freer, more open societies that markets could expand beyond the confines of the marketplace and eventually encompass most economic transactions.
But freer, more open societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They require certain behavioral adaptions. For one thing, kin-based morality is no longer sufficient to enforce social rules, since the threat of kin retaliation is no longer sufficient. There has thus been a shift from kin-based morality to universal morality, and this shift has been accompanied by a greater willingness to identify and enforce the rules of universal morality. A related adaptation is a greater capacity for feelings of guilt and empathy. Finally, there is a greater willingness to exclude, punish, and even kill people who break social rules and are judged to be morally worthless….
But now things are trending in the opposite direction. I saw this when I was a student in Russia. There, libertarianism meant that much of the population was free to engage in self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, sexual amorality, and a disastrously low fertility rate. Today, Russians are moving away from the libertarian model. They have no choice. It’s either that or collective suicide. The same trend is starting to happen elsewhere. Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.
Europe lost one third of its population during the Black Death. It’s possible to recover from population decline, but population replacement is something else entirely. The central issue is population replacement. No other issue comes close in terms of importance.
* Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?
A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.
Anti-whites demand No-White-Anything-Anywhere. Racial/cultural elimination is the white “privilege”.
Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?
A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White
* In 2001, Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, made the following statement:
‘I think the BBC is hideously white. I think the BBC is a predominantly white organisation. The figures we have at the moment suggest that quite a lot of people from different ethnic backgrounds that we do attract to the BBC leave. Maybe they don’t feel at home, maybe they don’t feel welcome.’
He added that by 2003, 10 per cent of the BBC’s UK workforce and 4 per cent of management would be from ethnic minority backgrounds.
“Hideously white” – well, since then there have been enormous changes. In its reporting the BBC now tries to maintain a massive African content – so much so that almost every program on World Service Radio MUST contain an African perspective: whether it is about arts, sciences, history, industry, economics, healthcare – you name it, sure as eggs, an African slant will get worked in. Also, a considerable number of African presenters has been hired – one of them in particular with an accent so strong that he is barely intelligible (though very fluent!).
* Who is it that demands massive non-white immigration into the US & Europe while preventing any non-Jew immigration into Israel?
* White males were the first group to see slower job growth and lower labor force participation in the early 1980s, right at the beginning of the shift away from an egalitarian society. This is because affirmative action started to be implemented in a meaningful way right at that time.
Pushing women into the workplace was also a result of affirmative action, and that had a negative effect on marital stability for non-elite whites. Affirmative action has been a net negative for whites, and liberals often gloat over our reduced status, saying things like “white men are enraged because they are no longer ‘privileged’” (as though the white working class ever was).
Affirmative action has had real, negative effects on non-elite white males, and that was by design. You may deny this, but it is universally unpopular with these non-elite whites. Is this because they are all stupid, ignorant, inbred rednecks as the anti-racist left would have us believe? Are they suffering from mass delusion? Were they fooled by aliens? Or the Republicans (who simply exploited white resentment of Democrats who sold them out)? No, they aren’t really that stupid. They know that affirmative action is against their interests.
Sure, elite whites supported it from the beginning. Republicans wanted women in the workforce during the Eisenhower administration. Democrats fought that hard for a while, and women mainly voted Republican until the 1970s (today’s gender gap is a reversal from those times). Saturating the labor market has always been capitalists’ goal, and women and minorities were seen as convenient tools for that.
Sure, it sucks for minorities that white men opposed immigration and didn’t want their jobs opened to others circa 1960, but they were looking after their and their families’ interests, and they comprised about 90% of the population. Maybe you think that’s evil. I think it’s pragmatic, just as Cesar Chavez thought it was pragmatic to keep immigrants from taking farm workers’ jobs in California back in the day.
And frankly speaking, blacks as a group are incapable of creating the kind of society that can support the industry and lifestyle whites built in the US, and that was and continues to be a widely known (although seldom admitted) fact. Contemporary Detroit is a sad testament to this inadequacy. So white workers felt that they deserved to share in the wealth created by a white society without the threat of replacement by cheaper labor, and rightly so. Is it fair that blacks should benefit from the society that made white industry possible while the whites who formed its bedrock are cast aside and forced to pay the bills for the problems created by black failure to conform to it? Maybe you think so, but for the white working class it was an enormous betrayal, yet a triumph for thieving elites. Remember: white industry was stifled in the slave society of the American South, and that’s what motivated most people to vote for Abe Lincoln — not Harriet Beecher Stowe and her quaint little fantasy.
As long as the white majority was steadily accumulating wealth this situation could be tolerated, but all that has changed, so white priorities will change as well. It’s as sure as the sun setting in the west. Maybe there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’re destined to live a lifestyle approximating that in Jalisco or – heaven forbid – Port au Prince, but that isn’t what we want, and we have every right to try to prevent it.
