Beyond Genocide

bad cell zone

As some of you may’ve noticed, I’ve been on a very strong AmNat vibe for the past few months. This hypochondriac psy-op we’re living through has given me a greater appreciation than ever for the American Revolution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. But as Evola said, “What really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions.” America was founded by mercantile elites, and mercantile elites are always aspirational. But “the poetic fancy of gentlemen” (as Mencken phrased it) is not for everyone.

In my last post I decried the Chinese persecution of the Uyghur people. In alt-right circles (and certainly in liberal ones, though liberals aren’t free to say it) this issue is seen as a tu quoque predilection of feckless conservatives, and certainly that is how I came off because that is exactly how I framed the argument, i.e., “AOC says #MeToo, but she doesn’t care about muh females because Xinjiang.” Very sloppy stuff, I admit. But my heart genuinely goes out to the Uyghurs, as does the part of me that prefers the ancient and mysterious to the modern and irreverent. Their destruction is emblematic of something larger than Great Game geopolitics and lowbrow domestic jingoism.

In any case, because I compared the U.S. government favorably to its Chinese counterpart with regard to genocide, James Lawrence took me to task in the comments by pointing out that genocide is not the special province of the Chinese. He was referring specifically not to Yemen or to Syria but to white genocide (though he didn’t quite use the term.) Obviously, I’m not afraid of associating with marginalized ideas, and I have no problem with the proposition that whites, as a race, are under serious attack from organized, clandestine forces. Yet something about this idea feels unavoidably silly, and it isn’t just the fact that Yemenis are being starved to death while Whole Foods is full of white people.

An old Marxist cliché has it that the Jews are canaries in the coal mine, i.e., that any sudden uptick in anti-semitism is a harbinger of war and wider persecution. Regardless of how true this is, the vulnerability of Jews as a group is not difficult to comprehend. The same cannot be said about white people. This certainly isn’t because white people aren’t vulnerable to non-white aggression and criminality. Rather, it’s because white supremacy is an objective fact that is viscerally understood by everyone at an evolutionary level. The preference for whiteness is a human universal, evidenced by the most ancient and diverse societies. If it wasn’t, there’d be no need for the strained and dishonest discourse around this topic that we are perennially subject to in modern life. The long arc of history does not bend toward a mocha-hued utopia or a colorblind meritocracy, because the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. So what would it mean for humanity as a whole if white people were ever in serious danger of being neutered and marginalized? God help the coal mine where Aryans are the canary!

My defensive response to James Lawrence was essentially to point out that, unlike anything being done to European peoples, the bluntness of China’s assault on the Uyghurs resembles a classic genocide, with the boot of a highly centralized and expansionist ethnostate stamping on the face of a hapless national minority—box cars, prison camps and all. But that doesn’t really capture the whole of the difference, does it? Because the question must be asked whether, in the face of a precipitous and universal moral decay abetted by rapidly advancing technology, the word “genocide” still means anything. In the 20th century, Camus asked whether it was possible to live without committing murder; in the 21st, we must ask whether it is possible to live without murdering nature.

Viewed in that context, Rotherham, Mitrovica, Kashgar, Desmond is Amazing and the Great Pacific Garbage Vortex are all just dots on a map. As a species, our capacity for memory is deteriorating, on an evolutionary scale, at a rate that is observable in real time. Where public discourse is not the purest, most tenebrous premonition of apocalypse and dread of shadows and clandestine sicarii, it is vacuous to the point of dementia or characterized by the darkest and most demoralizing absurdism. These are not just the lights of Rome flickering out, but the onset of the utmost conceivable perdition, everywhere. I won’t belabor the comparatively miniscule point that based China is no more standing in the way of this than the Bill of Rights is.

I have some solutions to suggest, but I’ll save them for a subsequent post.

15 thoughts on “Beyond Genocide

  1. Guy says:

    I hate the white genocide trope, it is rhetorically weak and hurts our larger efforts. What’s happening against whites could be described as war, but it’s mostly waged against us by other whites ….

    There has to actually be real world efforts in place to completely eliminate white people before the word genocide can be used, not just long shot fantasies or speech.

    The biggest problem I see at the moment is the fact that all civilian networks have been completely dismantled if they aren’t in service to the beast. it’s gone to the point where they won’t even let a knitting club get big enough before they take it down in an addition to making things suck, it also eliminates any oppositional institutions from forming.


    • Redbeard says:

      I prefer to think about it as a White on White class war, as described by Moldbug.


    • I think it’s rhetorically weak too, but I also think a very strong case could be made for it if the homework was done right. I hate to plug a straight-up Nazi publishing imprint, but John Q. Publius’s “Maine: The Way Life Should Be?” from Ostara Publications may be a good example of this (I have yet to read it, but I hear good things). The problem is, if we were to trace the money and the networks all the way to the top, we’d find that whatever designs are in play against whites, it’s all a part of something much larger, and to me that’s what’s ultimately silly about the white genocide trope.

      And you’re right, there isn’t a corner of institutional life on this planet that isn’t controlled by… whoever it is at the top of the pyramid. What you’ll find if you try to get anywhere in a white collar profession is that anyone who sits at a real chokepoint of power, even just locally, is plugged into the network. It’s extremely demoralizing.


  2. JLawrence says:

    To clarify, I despise the ‘white genocide’ trope. And not just for its optics, but much more so for its substance. So no, I don’t really think whites are being genocided, and I don’t take seriously the arguments to the contrary by histrionic white nationalists.

    That said, I wouldn’t use the word genocide for what is happening to the Uighurs either. It’s hard to separate truth from fiction when it comes to the reeducation camps, but I heard from someone in the diss-right who travelled around Xinjiang a few years ago. He said the cities were full of police, who were known to “take people away” for discussing “politics and ethnic stuff”, but the locals were otherwise unmolested and going about their business. Undoubtedly, that’s a *lot* worse than anything whites are suffering at the moment, but it’s not a racial extermination policy.

    The point I was making – perhaps clumsily! – is that the Western regime stigmatises all heated discussion of its own misdeeds (as “incitement”, “conspiracy theory”, etc.), but loves to spit the most inflammatory moralist fire and brimstone at foreign nations. And, that dissidents should not follow them in this uncritically, but should make a point of holding the regime to its own professed moral standards.

    Western media, activism etc. has been crying “cultural genocide” over the Uighurs long before the present repression started. The reason being, of course, that the Chinese government promotes Han immigration into Xinjiang so as to better control it politically, and represses any nativist dissent. Well, what has the Western regime (in my conception, the ‘demos’, including media and bureaucracy as well as elected governments) been doing to ordinary whites since the ’60s? Inviting Third World immigrants into their cities, riling them up with anti-white ideology, withdrawing the effective protection of the law (so that the whites flee and the cities become leftist bastions), and witch-hunting any organised white dissent.

    Neither policy deserves to be called genocide, and one is enforced by state jackboot while the other works by managed anarchy, but both share the goal of breaking down an ‘undesirable’ culture for reasons of political control.


    • Okay, now I see where the wires got crossed here…. What I’d gathered was that you were pointing out the worst effects of western governance on white people and suggesting that those are worse than Chinese policies in Xinjiang. Assuming for the sake of argument that things are quite bad in Xinjiang even if we control for the jaundiced motives of western media, I would agree that (generally speaking) neither situation is morally worse than the other. But like I said in this post, whether we call either (or both) genocide is largely irrelevant. It’s STIHIE, where we’re inured to all these insane horrors.


  3. Guy says:

    Also, nothing wrong with your pointing out what’s going on in China. It’s very relevant to us whether we can/should/will do anything about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. AsheDina says:

    I dont get the person who is saying he does not care for the ‘white genocide’ tag…. WHAT is it then!?


    • I think that the more thoughtful people in WN/NRx/Radcon circles who see the anti-white agenda just don’t want to be too overt about using that terminology, for fear that doing so may associate us with more low-brow precincts of radicalism and dissidence. It puts you very far out on a limb to say “genocide” when the thing you’re referring to in no way resembles old reel-to-reel footage of the liberation of Dachau.


      • AsheDina says:

        Honestly…I think in the end, it will be worse than all of the ‘cleansing’ put together.


      • Guy says:

        White people in the upper classes advocating for lower population numbers and using their position to achieve them, while also using immigration as a weapon against them, isn’t genocide from my understanding. Genocide would be purposeful action with the intention of exterminating a race, right? I don’t think they actually want to kill all the whites, and aren’t attempting to do so. They’re attempting to lower population levels of poor’s and fighting a war against their political and cultural enemies.

        It’s like when blacks call police violence genocide, like, how long is that genocide going to take?

        My point wasn’t, “it’s cool”, or even, “it’s not that big of a deal and won’t succeed”. My point was it’s just a misuse of the word.


      • I linked an old Red Ice podcast in the body of this post where Tim Murdock gives the best breakdown I’ve ever heard for why the term ought to apply. I tend to agree with your take, but I think that there are definitions of genocide under international law that may apply to the kind of mass social engineering we’re seeing today. It’s just that today’s social engineering is so broad that “genocide” doesn’t even begin to cover it. Thus the title, “Beyond Genocide.” Here’s that Red Ice podcast with Tim Murdock:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: