Anti-(White) Racism

Exposing the racial hierarchy of democratism

Last month I read quite a few takes from Dissident Substack on the UK underclass riots. None were wholly without insight, but all shared a strange inability to explain why the British state is doing what it is doing (colonizing the country with hordes of migrants, housing many at public expense, and stamping down on popular anger). All pointed to various parts of the problem – Bureaucracy, Revolution, Globalism, and so on – but none could bring themselves to say what the elephant in the room actually is.

A representative example, Millennial Woes, begins his essay on a promising note:

We don’t need to pin the blame on Starmer, Labour, the British Establishment or Davos; they are all one and the same miasma. Yes, the Conservative Party might have reacted differently to the riots, so to some extent we can blame Labour’s ideology or Starmer’s personality, but the pendulum is kept swinging for a reason. One empty suit is shifted out, another is shifted in. Each one might be enthusiastically on-board with the agenda or compelled to go along with it, this being the only variance. And thus the Establishment abides, always getting what it wants against the wishes of the natives, and always degrading and dispossessing them.

So here we have a vision of what we might call the Broad State – the permanent government of political, media and bureaucratic institutions that keep a death grip on power regardless of electoral ceremonies. But what is the ‘agenda’ of this Broad State, what does it ‘want’, and why are its people and institutions so eerily lockstepped on the migrant colonization policy? He continues:

None of it was accidental. If an untrained, uneducated and unworldly ordinary person could accurately predict how it would play out - and many did - then the trained, educated and worldly people at “the top” of British society certainly could. The idea that they acted out of naivety has been a comfort for many of us, but must be discarded. If there is incompetence, it is at least equalled by malice. The inescapable fact is, Britain was destroyed from the top, with clear appreciation of the very end from the very start. It cannot have been any other way, for the simple reason that men at that level are not morons.

The question, then, is why they went along with it. Here it is important to bear in mind the wider context. What happened in Britain happened also in Sweden, in France, in America, in Italy, in Denmark, in Australia and Canada and New Zealand and Belgium. Therefore it would be foolish to look for specific causes within Britain itself. Within each country, what we will find is defeated obstacles to the programme, not successful causes of it. The thing itself originates nowhere and everywhere.

This being the case, it should be easy to pin down the name and nature of this ‘programme’, as nothing like it could possibly have swept through all Western bloc countries at the same time without announcing itself to public view. But Mr. Woes instead chooses to present it as a shadowy conspiracy to annihilate the European race, which somehow manages to coordinate the actions of civil servants and politicians while remaining out of everyone else’s sight. After much fumbling in the dark, he puts the very name of the elephant to his lips, only to flub it:

But as the world grows grimmer, one thing that becomes clear is that democracy is a mirage, and politics has - since the fall of aristocracy - been ever more subordinated to global finance.

Woes then wraps up his essay without even trying to explain how and why ‘global finance’ decided that whitey must die. Of course, it could be – note the word ‘could’, and the italics on the word, which is ‘could’ – that he is actually referring to a) the entire modern economic system or b) the Jews. But I expect he would find it no easier to explain which economic interests demand that asylum-seekers be housed in expensive hotels at taxpayer expense, or which Jewish interests demand a neverending influx of Muslim anti-Zionists into Britain.

So let’s take another look at this so-called mirage, democratism¹, which just happens to have reigned as the unchallenged state ideology of the Western bloc throughout the advance of this mysterious anti-white conspiracy. Woes gives no reason for disqualifying democratism as a causative factor, but unless he has some sui generis theory on it I would imagine that his view is consistent with that of other right-wing populists and nationalists. This can be summarized as follows:

1. Democratist governments must act in accordance with the will of the majority.

2. The current British government rides roughshod over the will of the majority, by refusing to heed it on immigration and coddling minorities at majority expense.

3. Ergo, the modern British government is democratist in name only.

Against this common train of thought I shall lay two immovable facts.

First – for all its pious hypocrisy about defending the rights of minorities, the Broad State is obviously engaged in a political strategy to build a majority coalition against a scapegoated minority. That minority can be defined by words like white, male, productive, conservative-minded, etc., and the constant mobilization of ‘oppressed’ groups against it serves to isolate it as a target and prevent it from leading the rest of the people against the Broad State. Ethnic minorities are one of the most important groups in this majority coalition (the other is women), as their ranks are easily swelled by lax border security.

Second – although white people may form majorities in Western bloc states like Britain, these states are part of a worldwide American-led empire in which whites constitute a small and wealthy minority. Since the official ideology of that empire is democratism, it should come as no surprise to find that minority framed in its propaganda as some sort of world nobility – parasitic, oppressive, illegitimate, and somehow neither ‘indigenous’ to its own homelands nor subject to ‘colonization’ by the immigrant populations that it is forced to support. Of course, it is the Broad State that more closely fits the bill of a (largely) white ruling minority with a parasitic lifestyle, artificial culture and global imperial agenda. But that is all the more reason for it to scapegoat the majority of whites for its own negative qualities, relying on the inability of majority opinion to tell the difference.

Thus, democratism in theory and practice leads to anti-white racism – an idea that proceeds from this ideology as inevitably as rot follows death, yet cannot announce itself openly and must go under the Orwellian name of ‘anti-racism’.²

This is the ultimate reason why the UK governing class insists on migrant colonization and ‘two-tier’ policing and sentencing, and why the legalistic thug in nominal charge of it sees fit to kneel before black rioters while locking up white ones. The problem is that democratism is not a mirage but a sacred idol, and that those who have bent the knee to it take its commandments very seriously.

Two Tier Keir kneels before the Tier Ones

The real question, then, is why so many enemies of anti-white racism defer to this idol as well, and why so many dissidents would rather speculate about shadowy agendas and global money spiders³ than make a case against the obvious culprit.

Here, as everywhere, the fount of errors is the rightoid power fantasy and the unprincipled attempt to compromise with nombies and conservatives. When you are in a desperate hurry to mobilize the heavily propagandized masses, it makes sense not to contradict the prevailing ideological worldview or forsake the official political system. But all this strategy of compromise achieves in the long run is to keep the idolatry unchallenged in the minds of the people, while relegating all dissent to inherently weak positions – minoritarian democratist heresies that elevate the letter and ritual of the doctrine over its spirit.

In some cases (you know who you are) this ends up in a fatal combination of affirmation or neutrality on democratism, plus extreme racial animus against non-whites and paranoid antipathy against all influence from and contact with them. This is a bit like contracting HIV, refusing to cure it, and instead trying to quarantine yourself for life so that no-one can infect you with anything else.⁴ Broad-staters and their partisans have reason to laugh at having forced some of their enemies into this position by their mass racial abuse of whites.

In any case, as these riots have shown, the white underclass did not need the leadership of rightoid mob-whisperers in order to react against the colonization policy. Nor did the regime have any trouble repressing them by brute force. The altar of democratism cannot be turned an inch by the heaving and hoing of the masses, not least because all of their efforts merely cancel each other out. But it might be toppled altogether once the best people in the state no longer believe in the idol, and have had enough of the endless sacrifices that it demands.

1. Of course, he uses the form democracy, a word that literally means ‘people power’ and is traditionally associated with ancient Greek city-states. But to call a democratist regime a democracy is as propagandistic as calling a communist one a community, or a national socialist one a national society. These are not synonyms; for example, the internet democratizes information, but this is the very reason why democratists view it as a threat.

2. This is best translated into honest speech as something like ‘pro-democratist racism’ or ‘racism in the name of democracy’ (just as pro-democratist violence is direct action, war in a democratist cause is humanitarian intervention, etc. etc.) In truth it consists simply of the racial thought inherited from older European empires, refracted through a new ideological framework. Thus whites are still seen as the global racial nobility, which now marks them out as a target; the rest of humanity is still homogenized into a ‘global majority’ of also-rans, defined solely by not-whiteness; East Asians are still selected out as ‘white-adjacents’ (i.e. dishonorary whites) and must share some of the disprivileges meted out to whites; and despite the rationalizations that always surround a taboo, Africans are still seen as the basest and most primitive form of humanity, which in the democratist framework leads to the absurd veneration of them as sacred oracles of the lowest common denominator.

3. It is of course fair enough to approach the question from the opposite angle, and blame anti-white racism on the temptations of world empire, of which the global financial system is one vital organ. And doubtless there are many vested interests that have battened on anti-white policies, just as the bite of a shark attracts other fishes to the blood. But these can very well be discussed without obsessing over them or exonerating democratist ideology.

4. We might understand this point through a different analogy. Imagine that you belong to some minority ethnic group in the imperium of a communist state. Having been indoctrinated early in life, you devote yourself to the state ideology, but one day the leading ideologues decide that your group is inherently disloyal and should be gradually deported from its homeland. They have the gall to put out some hypocritical propaganda as they do so, all about purging your people of ‘bourgeois parochialism’ and sending them into foreign adventures to broaden their minds.

In this scenario, the normal reaction would be to turn against communism and become a dissident against it. You might easily convince other members of your group to take the same step, until you become a nation of dissidents ready to lead the peoples around you out of ideological idolatry. But let’s say you have too much black-eyed devotion to communism; or you think communism would work just fine were it not being distorted by this or that; or, most likely, you are so bent on redressing your unjust persecution through the communist system that you fail to use it as a starting-point for rejecting that system on principle.

In this case, you would hail communism all the louder, and instead fixate upon the mere euphemisms about ‘parochialism’ and ‘foreign adventure’. You would become convinced that you could stop the deportations if you could just convince every other communist that parochialism is good proletarian behaviour, and foreign travel and adventuring are inherently bourgeois and mercenary. Perhaps you would end up turning upon the cultural tradition of your own group, trying to expunge every old story and saw that disparages parochialism and extols foreign adventuring. And the communists would laugh, happy to see their victims debating such intractable questions instead of agreeing that they live under a vile and unjust ideology. And so it goes with the attempt of some nationalists to convert white people to an excessive preoccupation with race.