When Whites are Minorities, By James Read

       Academic Peter Frost, author of Fair Women, Dark Men: The Forgotten Roots of Color Prejudice (2005), which is every thing woke one would expect and more, has as a piece on what happens when Whites are minorities in a few years' time, given the mass immigration invasion, which is just getting started. That is of interest since academics typically see what can only be a Great Replacement as a Right wing conspiracy, unless they celebrate it. The following piece from a liberal is worth reading because it shows that the post-White world is not going to be the paradise for Whites that the Left proclaim, but one where, as I put it, the great payback occurs. We could feel the vibes in the Voice campaign, and we see evidence of this aggressive attitude all over the internet, let alone in the antifa/BLM race/Leftist riots of 2020. The trust, and individualism of Whites will become totally dysfunctional in the world that the globalists have built for the Great Replacement.

It will be time to wake up or die.

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-white-man-has-no-friends

"Ten years ago I contributed to a book on the situation of "Whites" in France. How do they see themselves? How do they experience their increasingly multiracial society? What does it mean to be White? The book seemed to have the aim of giving the Français de souche a voice and bringing them into a dialogue.

That aim was not achieved. In the different chapters, Whites are presented as objects, rather than subjects. They are commented on, but not asked to comment. They are talked about, while having no chance to talk. Yes, that is how non-Whites used to appear in countless ethnographies and scholarly works. But instead of righting that wrong, this book, like so many others, goes to the other extreme.

The perspective is especially unbalanced when Whites are victimized as Whites. In one chapter, Sadri Khiari argues:

But if one envisages racism as a power relationship, one cannot place on the same level those who benefit from the entire power of the racial system and those who often have only their words to resist. Today, the notion of "anti-White racism" is being mobilized to delegitimize the anti-racist movement … (Khiari, 2013, pp. 45-46)

Yet anti-White racism is not just words. It is also actions. Today, interracial violence skews overwhelmingly in one direction. Why? If Whites are so powerful, why do they allow this?

The answer should be clear. Insofar as Whites have power, they normally use it as individuals to defend individual interests. One has to be naïve to think they use it collectively, the poor laborer being in league with the globetrotting businessman. That claim used to be made by racists about certain groups. It's now the stock in trade of anti-racists.

But let's accept the book's underlying premise: we need to reverse the longstanding perspective between Observer and Observed. Fine. How, then, do Whites appear to others? In what ways do they think and act strangely? And how did they become strange? Finally, how does their strangeness work against them in a post-White world?

Ten years ago I contributed to a book on the situation of "Whites" in France. How do they see themselves? How do they experience their increasingly multiracial society? What does it mean to be White? The book seemed to have the aim of giving the Français de souche a voice and bringing them into a dialogue.

That aim was not achieved. In the different chapters, Whites are presented as objects, rather than subjects. They are commented on, but not asked to comment. They are talked about, while having no chance to talk. Yes, that is how non-Whites used to appear in countless ethnographies and scholarly works. But instead of righting that wrong, this book, like so many others, goes to the other extreme.

The perspective is especially unbalanced when Whites are victimized as Whites. In one chapter, Sadri Khiari argues:

But if one envisages racism as a power relationship, one cannot place on the same level those who benefit from the entire power of the racial system and those who often have only their words to resist. Today, the notion of "anti-White racism" is being mobilized to delegitimize the anti-racist movement … (Khiari, 2013, pp. 45-46)

Yet anti-White racism is not just words. It is also actions. Today, interracial violence skews overwhelmingly in one direction. Why? If Whites are so powerful, why do they allow this?

The answer should be clear. Insofar as Whites have power, they normally use it as individuals to defend individual interests. One has to be naïve to think they use it collectively, the poor laborer being in league with the globetrotting businessman. That claim used to be made by racists about certain groups. It's now the stock in trade of anti-racists.

But let's accept the book's underlying premise: we need to reverse the longstanding perspective between Observer and Observed. Fine. How, then, do Whites appear to others? In what ways do they think and act strangely? And how did they become strange? Finally, how does their strangeness work against them in a post-White world?

Whites are too trusting

In one chapter, a contributor with Algerian parents is interviewed about his childhood in Toulouse:

In the neighborhood, we had a chum who was blond with blue eyes. He was the son of a working man, of modest background, like us, but he seemed perfect to us: beautiful, blond, white. We were subordinate to him. Until the moment when someone from our gang came and confronted him. When the blond got his first punch in the mouth, he was demystified. (Cherfi, 2013, p. 61)

North African boys like to act collectively, and such action supersedes individual ties of friendship. For French boys, individualism is the norm. No gang comes to their defense when trouble starts. This pattern has been noticed by other non-European observers, like the clinical psychiatrist Frantz Fanon when describing a case during the Algerian War of Independence:

Case no. 1 – Murder by two young Algerians 13 and 14 years old of their European playmate.

The 13-year-old:

- We weren't angry with him. Every Thursday we would go hunting together with slingshots, on the hill above the village. He was our good buddy. He no longer went to school because he wanted to become a mason like his father. One day we decided to kill him because the Europeans wanted to kill all the Arabs. We can't kill the "grownups." But him, as he was our age, we can. We didn't know how to kill him. We wanted to throw him into a ditch, but he might have been only injured. So we took a knife from home and we killed him.

- But why did you choose him?

- Because he played with us. No other person would've gone up with us, up there.

- Yet he was your buddy?

- What about them wanting to kill us? His father is a militiaman, and he says we should have our throats cut.

- But he [the boy] had said nothing to you?

- Him? No.

- You know he's dead now?

- Yes.

- What is death?

- It's when it's all over. We go to heaven.

- Did you kill him?

- Yes.

- Does that do anything to you to have killed someone?

- No, since they wanted to kill us, so …

- Does that bother you to be in prison?

- No. (Fanon, 1970, p. 195)

Over the past millennium, the French, like other Western Europeans, have lived in an environment where the State has a monopoly on violence. They are forbidden to act violently and cannot rely on their kinsmen to protect life and property. That's the government's job. In many other societies, however, the State is more recent, often foreign, and generally unreliable. Men are still expected to use violence to defend themselves and their loved ones, and such violence is often organized collectively by "brothers" – young men of the same clan or extended family.

In such societies, your real friends are your "brothers." Friendship isn't just about sharing the same recreational activities. It's also about risking your life for your kin.

Whites are too individualistic

In another chapter, an African discusses the individualism of White people:

Impatience, love of money, individualism, all of these traits define Westerners for Africans: "The Whites don't stop running, they want to stay ahead of us. We take our time … One day, surely, they will stop. After all, one cannot run endlessly for centuries. They will understand that two or three weeks of vacation are not enough for the kind of life they lead."

… According to Matip, African solidarity is under threat of giving way to the European's every-man-for-himself. In African novels, this counter-discourse is seen in remarks like "the White man has no friends" or "we aren't Whites who couldn't care less about the misfortunes of others." (Schipper, 2013, pp. 100-101)

Yet, in some strange way, individualism seems to explain the success of White people. But how? This is a recurrent theme of African literature: the desire to find out this secret, along with a feeling that Christianity is a false secret, an attempt to hide the real one:

One evening, Father Dumont observed that the Africans, who until then had been converting in great numbers, were now abandoning the faith. His cook Zacharia explained to him: "The first of us who came rushing to religion, they came as they would to a revelation… The revelation of your secret, the secret of your strength, the strength of your planes, new railways, how can I put it … The secret of your mystery! Instead of that, you began talking to them about God, about the soul, about eternal life, and so on. Don't you think they already knew all of that before, long before you came? Gracious me, they got the impression you were hiding something from them." (Schipper, 2013, p. 105)

Africans understand how individualism might be a source of strength. Because Whites have weaker kinship ties, they have fewer people to share their wealth with. They can invest it as they see fit. But this is not a realistic option in Africa. If you don't share your wealth with tons of "brothers" and "sisters," you'll still end up having to share it – but now with a lot of unfriendly non-relatives."