Anti-White Hatred: Evil and Strategic Error | Daniel Evans


Let’s address this straight away. This is not about “progressives are the real racists”. Let’s try something more subtle and effective. Now, on with it.

Group-based thinking is inevitable. Done properly it’s a moral good. Compatriots, comrades, family. It’s practical too. Nuance and compromise, when it’s appropriate. Not all progressives are depraved groomers, but it does seem to happen again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Anyway, there is a point at which group-based thinking gets excessive or twisted. Then it becomes false, malevolent, capricious, and dehumanising. Evil.

Anti-white hatred is evil. It’s also a terrible strategic error, so cheer up. We all know what the Emperor said. “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. (Ah, does anyone doubt that if Corsica had been British, the Empire would never have ended and extended to Mars already?). Anyway, it’s now clichéd. Well, perhaps we should always interrupt evil, but would it be strategically good for us? That’s one for the philosophers. Let’s set aside the moral dilemma for now. Set aside some time for confession with your priest just in case.

Anti-white hatred is a strategic error. Maybe it makes strategic sense in America, though it’s doubtful. It makes even less sense in Britain.

What is the progressive message? It is that life as a minority means oppression, culturally, politically, economically, and violently. It means humiliation and erasure. The progressive message is that “Whiteness” is the source of all evil, irredeemably, and that it must be destroyed.

In the worst case scenario, what happens when white people hear your message? If you’re right, it sounds terrible to be a minority. Why wouldn’t they take every desperate step to avoid it? You say that you want to do terrible things to them. Why shouldn’t they take you at your word? Not all white people. It wouldn’t need all of them, Just the ones you’ve terrified.

Oh dear. In the best case scenario, the progressives don’t seem to understand that there’s a lot of white people in Britain. It is, in fact, one of the places that white people come from. They don’t have anywhere else to go. Telling most people in the country that you hate them seems like a bad idea.

Did extremists lose all their power in Britain? Was Jeremy Corbyn just one variant? Progressives are being asked to define what a woman is and they can’t, or include men. That seems pretty extreme. What if the next difficult questions were about race? What happens when they’re straight-up asked if they condemn anti-white racism and its proponents in their ranks? Are they going to splutter, and obscure, and wring their hands like they did with antisemitism or transsexuals? They don’t have any good answers. That’s good for the left’s enemies.

The right’s preparation is simple. There’s no need to panic.  The progressive worldview is theirs, not yours. Their ideological framework may be false, malevolent, capricious, and dehumanising. Evil. It’s also hysterical, delusional, spitting, pitiable, and impotent. You don’t have to be like that. Be something better.

This is not about “progressives being the real racists”. That’s their paradigm, remember, not yours. This is about making them reveal themselves as the hateful crazies they’re itching to be.

Bide your time, be patient. The questions about defining what a woman is seem to have found their timing in the UK. The questions about groomers seem to have found their timing in the US. Be on the lookout for the opportunity to force the progressives to take a position they can’t justify, which people won’t like, or from which they have to back down.

Either they stand by their slobbering rancour or they back down from it. Either way, you win.


Photo Credit.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *