The Genocidal Implications of Race as a Social and Political Construct
A state policy which disseminates and enforces assertions that race (and sex) is a social and political construct also promotes a policy with implications which are not immediately obvious. For, if race and race differences are social and political constructs, there is no obvious reason why race and race differences cannot be deconstructed and then reconstructed. The social and political deconstruction of a race can easily and stealthily serve the purposes of population removal and replacement, since if the race in question has been declared to have been socially and politically deconstructed such that it no longer exists biologically as a race or collective whole, but its components still remain separate and isolated, then direct killing of these isolated component human parts or measures taken to promote suicide, psychological, cultural and physical collapse and dispossession among them can serve the purposes of genocide. Moreover, since those constituent parts (individuals) are no longer considered to be members of any recognised group — because that group or race has been permanently deconstructed — one of the key provisions defining genocide is not breached.
Systematic starvation, which was used by the Soviet regime to exterminate millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor, and the series of measures employed by the NS-regime culminating in the mass gassing in Vernichtungslager as in the Holocaust will not be necessary since if the will to survive can be weakened through hatred propaganda, inducing ‘deaths of despair’ (Angus Deaton), and other measures that will suffice. So-called ‘critical race theory’ and its openly declared and disseminated racial hatred of whites, as in ‘white skin privilege’, works alongside claims that race is a social and political construct in order to promote the extermination of whites. It is a variation on Soviet class war which declared whole categories of people who were deemed to be hostile to Soviet power not merely ‘enemies of the people’ (vragi naroda) but as ‘former people’ (byvshie liudi). These ‘former people’ were then arrested, deported to slave labour camps or shot, depending on the perceived level of threat they posed.
Declaring race to be a social and political construct is literally dehumanising since it removes any role for biology, genes and evolution from consideration of what it means to be human, so severing all modern humans from their deep evolutionary and genetic past, and denies, to borrow from Edward Wilson, ‘The Deep Origin of Societies’. Bearing in mind that to be human is to be a creature of biology and evolution, then the denial of biology and evolution not only denies the evidence of our being created and modified by these forces, but also dehumanises us by removing the ‘human’ component. Without biology, genes and evolution we are no longer ‘human beings’ we are just ‘non-human beings’, ‘former people’, comprising socially and politically constructed components. If, in order to become something we call a human being, this human-being thing and his ancestors had to be subjected to evolution and natural selection, but the entity that has replaced human beings is now no longer subject to those forces because, it is aggressively claimed or implied that biology has been displaced by culture, can people today be said to be alive in any biological meaning of the word? Have human beings undergone a metamorphosis, becoming biologically inert, non-human, mass produced, expendable and easily replaceable?
To begin with, as a way to sow confusion and chaos, it will be left to individuals to determine whether they are male, female, something in between, black or white (pronouns serve this purpose very well) but once the chaos has served its purposes, the definition and construction of a ‘non-human being’ and the constituent parts will not be a matter for us as mere ‘non-human beings’ but will become the sole prerogative of state power and its functionaries or computer programmes. The Nazis extended their racial doctrines to specific groups, declaring Slavs and Jews to be subhuman. Defining race as a social and political construct goes much further — like class war it has universal application — since this doctrine, promulgated as one of racial inclusivity and fraternal love, covertly and insidiously reduces all human beings to non-human beings.
For the time being, whites will remain the primary target of claims that race is a social and political construct, but any ideological construct that denies a place for biology, evolution and genes in the creation and understanding of human beings can just as easily be deployed against Africans and every other race. Race as a social and political construct undermines any possibility of reparations claims for slavery (see below) but also dehumanises blacks stripping them of their racial identity, something which has obviously not occurred to black racist radicals and demagogues who celebrate the fact that whites are endlessly told that they are mere social and political constructions whose time has passed. If the biological, evolutionary and genetic origins of black racial identity are denied, the suffering and horrors of slavery are also denied, since it was black human beings not socially and politically constructed non-human beings that were enslaved. An appeal to condemn slavery is based on blacks as ‘human beings’ not as ‘non-human beings’. Likewise, we condemn the genocides of the twentieth century not because those who were exterminated were non-human beings but because they were human beings.
The most explicit — so far at least — call for the physical liquidation of whites as a race comes with the slogan, the ‘abolition of whiteness’. When I first encountered this wording I immediately recalled Stalin’s order concerning ‘the liquidation of the kulaks as a class’. The liquidation of the kulaks as a class was not meant to be the mere dispossession of the peasantry and its being uprooted and deployed to other parts of the Soviet economy: it was an extermination decree. The same euphemistic language would later be used by Göring in his order to Heydrich in July 1941 to take all necessary measures to implement die Endlösung der Judenfrage (The Final Solution of the Jewish Question).
Naturally, the people who propagate the ‘abolition of whiteness’ will claim that this is not anything preparatory to genocide; they will claim that it is their intention to remove a state of mind, a sense of entitlement, which, they claim, is prevalent among whites, and, in any case, we will be assured, deconstruction of white racial identity is a social and political act. Indeed, but the extermination of Armenians, Ukrainian peasants and Jews started as a social and political process (acts) and ended in physical extermination. Aware of Turkish, Soviet, Nazi, Maoist, Cambodian and Rwandan genocidal precedents, assurances that the ‘abolition of whiteness’ does not represent anything sinister are utterly worthless. Slogans such as ‘white skin privilege’ and the ‘abolition of whiteness’ are the stepping stones to genocide, creating a long-term danger. Openly used and largely unchallenged, these slogans, along with the language of racial contempt and hatred, habituate a society over time to see a specific race (whites, especially white men) as not fully human, unworthy of being respected, to be abused in exactly the same way in which Soviet peasants were denounced and demonised as kulaks and Jews were portrayed as parasites in NS-Germany.
Genocide by stealth consists of at least three observable components. Firstly, the targeted race is deconstructed, dehumanised and subjected to relentless hatred propaganda. Secondly, overt claims that race is a social and political construct and has nothing to do with genes are accompanied by measures that covertly acknowledge that race is determined by genes and evolution. Interracial breeding (panmixia) and mixed-race marriages are promoted as a social good among whites, almost as a duty. Thirdly, violence against the targeted group is tacitly encouraged such that violence against it cannot be attributed to action or inaction on the part of any government agency. The freedom to loot and to destroy property enjoyed by Black Lives Matter in the US is an obvious example. Outside the US, the targeting of whites, specifically Boers in South Africa, and Uighurs in China, are also examples of genocide by stealth, though in South Africa the façade of any racial equality and brotherhood was torn down soon after 1994, giving way to murderous and genocidal hatred.
I point out that in German — liquidieren — and in Russian — likvidirovat — can mean to abolish or to exterminate, which provides convenient cover for the real motive. Once Jews had been deported to slave labour or executed in situ in mobile gassing vans or executed in mass shootings, Einsatzgruppen commanders submitted reports in which they declared that their particular operational area was now judenrein (literally ‘Jew clean’) or judenfrei (‘Jew free’). Malema and other black Nazis clearly look forward to the day when they can declare South Africa to be ‘white-free’ or ‘white-cleansed’.
The “cancelling” of white dissidents because of their views and opinions, is also a euphemism for measures which are evolving to something flagitious. To “cancel” a person is, for the time being, a non-lethal form of liquidation, but this itself is far from inconsequential. Being “cancelled” can lead to loss of employment, vilification, termination of publishing contracts, expulsion from professional associations, penury and family breakup. In the United Kingdom, where the police force is now thoroughly politicised and a willing and eager instrument of political persecution, dissenters from multicultural diversity cannot expect to be treated fairly and impartially, and in the UK, the state-funded media platform, the BBC, will use its propaganda power to vilify any dissenters as well.
Under certain conditions the use of the verb “to cancel” can initiate a process in which whites are subjected to preliminary dehumanisation and demonisation, verbal and propagandistic aggression before they are subjected to measures of physical hatred when the totalitarian left judges the time to be opportune. Here are two examples, I could cite many more. Interviewed on Turkish Radio and Television (11th June 2018), Julius Malema told the interviewer ‘we’ve not called for the killing of white people, at least for now. I can’t guarantee the future’. Critics of his comments were dismissed by Malema as ‘cry babies’. David Johns is the Director of the National Black Justice Coalition and this mystagogue urges blacks “to wage war with whiteness”. Are these words to be interpreted literally, as incitement to kill whites, or do they represent some obscure metaphorical code grasped only by blacks? And if the words “to wage war with whiteness” are not intended to be interpreted literally — that is, they are not to be interpreted as a call to rape and kill whites — what exactly do these words mean?
Eventually, large numbers of whites will resign themselves to accept, and even, perversely, to be grateful for, second-class status, submitting to specious altruistic pressure that the world would be a better place without them. The sheer crushing weight, ubiquity and relentlessness of hatred propaganda many times worse in the age of the Internet than anything available to the Soviet, NS and Maoist regimes will work — is already working — its poisonous magic. White children are especially vulnerable to this hatred and anti-white propaganda. Whites will either perish in mass slaughter, the stated genocidal aim of Julius Malema in South Africa, or they will lose the will to live, being reduced to a minority in their own lands: debased, despised, disenfranchised, dehumanized, dispossessed and disappearing.