Some time ago – as most readers will remember – the white people of progressive America hung their sinful heads in reverence as a low-tone, monotonous jangle (such as might be made by a large hollow object falling to the ground), accompanied by a hot, angry gust of wind (such as might be let out of an artificially-inflated receptacle), reverberated with the dull sepulchral echo of state-sanctified mediocrity across their troubled land. The hollow object was Maya Angelou and her so-called “poetry”; the hot bag of air was Ta-Nehisi Coates and his so-called “case for slavery reparations”; and given that these two had been puffed up to such giant proportions by the ethos of affirmative action, none in the establishment media dared to question that the cacophony emanating from them was anything other than an oracle of Social Justice.
That wasn’t the case with John Derbyshire of VDARE, however – who apparently declined to notice the inflated stature of these two figures, and was rude enough to describe their banging and huffing in more objective terms as “the whining of pampered pets.” I thought at the time that this was a perceptive remark, perhaps far more perceptive than its conservative author might suspect; and although the din of both Angelou’s godawful verse and Coates’ hustling act has long since subsided, now is as good a time as any to see how far this label can be extended to the whole noisy discourse of anti-white minority activism. Here we shall follow the people involved in such activism by using their self-descriptive term of ‘PoC’ (‘Person of Colour’); and this term should be taken as referring only to those who use it, rather than all those it claims to describe.
The reality is that ‘PoCs’ – for all of their scribbling and twittering against “privilege” – indeed act as pets of the modern Western power structure; and the main reason for this judgement is that they are fed by the hand of the very “white racism” they supposedly wish to eradicate.
Understanding this point requires reference to another article of mine, whose argument can be summarised as follows. What are taken at face value to be expressions of racial pride by non-white activists – for example, the phrase “Black is Beautiful” – are in fact reactions to deep feelings of racial insecurity, these feelings being based more on perceptions of prestige than on any actual “oppression” in the present day. Conversely, the attitudes of “colour-blindness”, “anti-racism” and so-called “self-abasement” seen in educated and privileged whites are in reality the fruit of an overweening sense of racial superiority: these whites can tolerate the shrieking of angry minorities, and even utilise them in their own power struggles against traditionalist and lower-class whites, because they have far too much psychological security to see minorities as any sort of threat. (Kneeling before a black means nothing; kneeling before a “redneck,” “chav,” or “bigot” would be far more humiliating.) In this sense, the ‘PoCs’ are perfectly correct to insist that white racial arrogance has survived intact from the age of colonialism up to the present day; but far from being confined to unfortunate lapses and marginalised ideas, this racial arrogance is found at the very vanguard of the “anti-racist” moral code that dominates the higher end of white society.
The problem for the integrity of the ‘PoCs’ is that they, along with these hypocrites of whites, are in the same “anti-racist” vanguard with a similar hypocrisy: they want to knock whites from their pedestal of deluded grandeur and reduce them to one culture among many, when to do so in fact would create the same nationalistic self-interest – and intolerance for whinging foreigners – that are seen in almost every non-white country from Mexico to China. Thus the ‘PoC’ activists have perfected, whether consciously or otherwise, the craven arts of the pet: biting the hand of the master hard enough to excite him but never long enough to draw blood; playing to the smug middle-class gallery with a stand-up routine full of insults and obscenities without ever going as far as to, say, draw a gun and start shooting from the stage.
This is why ‘PoCs’ can give full rhetorical rein to their hysterical fulminations against whites, but must simultaneously hold out the prospect of “white allyship”; this category can be guarded against easy entry by all sorts of exacting standards (how else could it serve as a mark of social and moral status for educated and privileged whites?), but it can never be withdrawn entirely, such as might be achieved by declaring all whites to be scum merely because they are white. This is also why Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his rambling “case for reparations” based on the historical sufferings of blacks, feels the need to make constant reference to how much “we [Americans as a country]” – a concept that is utterly inapplicable to the balkanised mess that is America, and which hardly shines through Coates’ stories of exploitation and indifference – stand to benefit from the cultural healing power of paying large sums of money to his ethnic group. Even while recounting the sufferings of his people, he is obliged to make a sales pitch to the watching gallery at the same time – degrading himself to the role of a beggar with a clenched fist.
Once we have understood this central point, it is easy to perceive the other ways in which the ‘pets’ are dependent on the ‘master’ they claim to oppose. For instance, let us take a second look at the identity chosen by the people we are discussing: ‘PoC’ or ‘Person of Colour’. It is easy to see that this self-identification is entirely dependent on not being white, which is another way of saying that it is entirely dependent on whites. The multitude of disparate ethnic groups embraced by the word ‘PoC’ have nothing whatsoever in common except – and this in itself is highly dubious – their negative experiences of being “subaltern” or non-white; and the “anti-racist” ideology and cult of victimhood that truly supply them with a common worldview are themselves the conventions of white Western culture, which as John Murray Cuddihy has observed derives its high premium on “victim status” from the influence of its Christian religion. That even the ‘PoC’ experience of “oppression” is conditioned by the expectations of the white gallery should be shown by the behaviour of the high-achieving Asian minority in America – which, after a lurch in white elite opinion toward progressivist “anti-racism”, hastily cobbled together a case for oppression from such motley odds and ends as “ching-chong” rhymes, “media stereotypes,” white males’ being attracted to Asian women, and white females’ not being attracted to Asian men.
Moreover: while there is much talk in ‘PoC’ circles of rejecting Eurocentrism and embracing one’s own cultural identity, this again seems to be motivated primarily by a spirit of negative opposition to white culture, with the value of foreign cultures seen primarily in terms of self-differentiation from whites and even occasionally invented from scratch to achieve this; and this should not surprise us in the least, for a man who truly yearns for his cultural roots goes to find them in the land of his ancestors. The historical critique of Eurocentrism that esteems non-white cultures so highly while negating the culture of whites is – as Ricardo Duchesne devotes the first chapter of The Uniqueness of Western Civilisation to pointing out – almost entirely the product of Western academics funded by Western governments, who (we might add) express in moralistic terms the interests of Western globalism and one-worldism. The angry and no less moralistic ‘PoC’ discourse, which attacks the “privilege” of the people rather than the ruling parasites, fits snugly into this drive towards world domination by money and managerialism: having had their traditional cultures devastated in the name of profit, the uprooted masses of the non-Western world are now being set against the surviving redoubts of tradition in the West in the name of the same thing, doing the work of the powerful in return for worthless acts of ritual vengeance against ordinary whites.
We are now in a position to contemplate the true nature of the self-described ‘PoC’ or ‘Person of Colour’: he is no longer a Mexican, a Chinese, or a Kikuyu, but merely a cultural negative of white people, his entire identity being based upon his politically useful resentment of whites. His shrieks of moralistic anger against all things European are merely a distorted echo of his ancestors’ fully justified struggle against colonial domination, which now finds itself divested of its proper context and perverted into a tool of new injustice in the hands of the anti-European ruling class of the West. From the perspective of this ruling class, a more fitting name for this tragic figure would be ‘PoC: Pet of Convenience’.
Of course, this little screed will have to be addressed to those whites who still have the sanity and integrity to reject the fetishes of progressivism; for I do not hold out much hope that any anti-white ‘PoC’ readers would react to it with anything more coherent than that well-worn trope of the angry and deluded dependent, “you just don’t understand.” Thus, to any such readers, I can only say: TRIGGER WARNING – you just read the words of a white European who has no interest whatsoever in keeping you as a pet.
That wasn’t the case with John Derbyshire of VDARE, however – who apparently declined to notice the inflated stature of these two figures, and was rude enough to describe their banging and huffing in more objective terms as “the whining of pampered pets.” I thought at the time that this was a perceptive remark, perhaps far more perceptive than its conservative author might suspect; and although the din of both Angelou’s godawful verse and Coates’ hustling act has long since subsided, now is as good a time as any to see how far this label can be extended to the whole noisy discourse of anti-white minority activism. Here we shall follow the people involved in such activism by using their self-descriptive term of ‘PoC’ (‘Person of Colour’); and this term should be taken as referring only to those who use it, rather than all those it claims to describe.
The reality is that ‘PoCs’ – for all of their scribbling and twittering against “privilege” – indeed act as pets of the modern Western power structure; and the main reason for this judgement is that they are fed by the hand of the very “white racism” they supposedly wish to eradicate.
*****************************
Understanding this point requires reference to another article of mine, whose argument can be summarised as follows. What are taken at face value to be expressions of racial pride by non-white activists – for example, the phrase “Black is Beautiful” – are in fact reactions to deep feelings of racial insecurity, these feelings being based more on perceptions of prestige than on any actual “oppression” in the present day. Conversely, the attitudes of “colour-blindness”, “anti-racism” and so-called “self-abasement” seen in educated and privileged whites are in reality the fruit of an overweening sense of racial superiority: these whites can tolerate the shrieking of angry minorities, and even utilise them in their own power struggles against traditionalist and lower-class whites, because they have far too much psychological security to see minorities as any sort of threat. (Kneeling before a black means nothing; kneeling before a “redneck,” “chav,” or “bigot” would be far more humiliating.) In this sense, the ‘PoCs’ are perfectly correct to insist that white racial arrogance has survived intact from the age of colonialism up to the present day; but far from being confined to unfortunate lapses and marginalised ideas, this racial arrogance is found at the very vanguard of the “anti-racist” moral code that dominates the higher end of white society.
The problem for the integrity of the ‘PoCs’ is that they, along with these hypocrites of whites, are in the same “anti-racist” vanguard with a similar hypocrisy: they want to knock whites from their pedestal of deluded grandeur and reduce them to one culture among many, when to do so in fact would create the same nationalistic self-interest – and intolerance for whinging foreigners – that are seen in almost every non-white country from Mexico to China. Thus the ‘PoC’ activists have perfected, whether consciously or otherwise, the craven arts of the pet: biting the hand of the master hard enough to excite him but never long enough to draw blood; playing to the smug middle-class gallery with a stand-up routine full of insults and obscenities without ever going as far as to, say, draw a gun and start shooting from the stage.
This is why ‘PoCs’ can give full rhetorical rein to their hysterical fulminations against whites, but must simultaneously hold out the prospect of “white allyship”; this category can be guarded against easy entry by all sorts of exacting standards (how else could it serve as a mark of social and moral status for educated and privileged whites?), but it can never be withdrawn entirely, such as might be achieved by declaring all whites to be scum merely because they are white. This is also why Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his rambling “case for reparations” based on the historical sufferings of blacks, feels the need to make constant reference to how much “we [Americans as a country]” – a concept that is utterly inapplicable to the balkanised mess that is America, and which hardly shines through Coates’ stories of exploitation and indifference – stand to benefit from the cultural healing power of paying large sums of money to his ethnic group. Even while recounting the sufferings of his people, he is obliged to make a sales pitch to the watching gallery at the same time – degrading himself to the role of a beggar with a clenched fist.
Once we have understood this central point, it is easy to perceive the other ways in which the ‘pets’ are dependent on the ‘master’ they claim to oppose. For instance, let us take a second look at the identity chosen by the people we are discussing: ‘PoC’ or ‘Person of Colour’. It is easy to see that this self-identification is entirely dependent on not being white, which is another way of saying that it is entirely dependent on whites. The multitude of disparate ethnic groups embraced by the word ‘PoC’ have nothing whatsoever in common except – and this in itself is highly dubious – their negative experiences of being “subaltern” or non-white; and the “anti-racist” ideology and cult of victimhood that truly supply them with a common worldview are themselves the conventions of white Western culture, which as John Murray Cuddihy has observed derives its high premium on “victim status” from the influence of its Christian religion. That even the ‘PoC’ experience of “oppression” is conditioned by the expectations of the white gallery should be shown by the behaviour of the high-achieving Asian minority in America – which, after a lurch in white elite opinion toward progressivist “anti-racism”, hastily cobbled together a case for oppression from such motley odds and ends as “ching-chong” rhymes, “media stereotypes,” white males’ being attracted to Asian women, and white females’ not being attracted to Asian men.
*****************************
Moreover: while there is much talk in ‘PoC’ circles of rejecting Eurocentrism and embracing one’s own cultural identity, this again seems to be motivated primarily by a spirit of negative opposition to white culture, with the value of foreign cultures seen primarily in terms of self-differentiation from whites and even occasionally invented from scratch to achieve this; and this should not surprise us in the least, for a man who truly yearns for his cultural roots goes to find them in the land of his ancestors. The historical critique of Eurocentrism that esteems non-white cultures so highly while negating the culture of whites is – as Ricardo Duchesne devotes the first chapter of The Uniqueness of Western Civilisation to pointing out – almost entirely the product of Western academics funded by Western governments, who (we might add) express in moralistic terms the interests of Western globalism and one-worldism. The angry and no less moralistic ‘PoC’ discourse, which attacks the “privilege” of the people rather than the ruling parasites, fits snugly into this drive towards world domination by money and managerialism: having had their traditional cultures devastated in the name of profit, the uprooted masses of the non-Western world are now being set against the surviving redoubts of tradition in the West in the name of the same thing, doing the work of the powerful in return for worthless acts of ritual vengeance against ordinary whites.
We are now in a position to contemplate the true nature of the self-described ‘PoC’ or ‘Person of Colour’: he is no longer a Mexican, a Chinese, or a Kikuyu, but merely a cultural negative of white people, his entire identity being based upon his politically useful resentment of whites. His shrieks of moralistic anger against all things European are merely a distorted echo of his ancestors’ fully justified struggle against colonial domination, which now finds itself divested of its proper context and perverted into a tool of new injustice in the hands of the anti-European ruling class of the West. From the perspective of this ruling class, a more fitting name for this tragic figure would be ‘PoC: Pet of Convenience’.
Of course, this little screed will have to be addressed to those whites who still have the sanity and integrity to reject the fetishes of progressivism; for I do not hold out much hope that any anti-white ‘PoC’ readers would react to it with anything more coherent than that well-worn trope of the angry and deluded dependent, “you just don’t understand.” Thus, to any such readers, I can only say: TRIGGER WARNING – you just read the words of a white European who has no interest whatsoever in keeping you as a pet.
 |
| Dogs, not PoCs, for pets. |
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
ReplyDeletepets