Latest anti-racist lunacy.
The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration. In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.” Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.
Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about. Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. - no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man! After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming.
A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement. Good luck with that.
With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:
1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course). It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,
2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.
3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory. Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.
White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement. They need to get more serious about it. As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.
Part V will continue this discussion.