Why 'They' Hate 'Us' ('White' Peoples) With a Vengeance: Towards a Theory of Anti-'White' Sentiment

Believe it or not, but the reason may be simple: 'Europeans' and 'Americans' provide(d) the blueprint for Gov't of, by, and for the People, hence the oligarchs' visceral hatred

Editorial prelim: penned in 2023, I thought re-posting this piece on the heels of yesterday’s reporting about the court cases of an alleged rapist going free might be appropriate. I’ve added a post-script with a few updated thoughts at the bottom.

---

This is a first foray into arriving at a ‘meta’ understanding of ‘anti-white’ sentiment. As many of you know, ‘anti-white’ sentiment has become one of the main pastime of the juste milieu of our Western societies, and while there’s a lot of ‘this can’t be real’ passed around, I haven’t seen a coherent attempt of explaining this phenomenon that is a tad ‘deeper’ than ‘systemic racism’, ‘BLM’, or calls for ‘reparations’.

This brief essay sets out to change this.

In short, I shall attempt, in as little as a few hundred words, to provide an answer as to why ‘they’ hate ‘us’ (‘white’ peoples) with such ferocity.

The Roots of the Predicament

After WW2 came to a close, ‘democracy’—or what passed for it—was ‘restored’ among West European societies. Whatever its exact definition, its real-world manifestation was wrought with what Marx would have called ‘contradictions’, yet most of these—meddling in elections, assassinations, régime change—were really about a hegemonic power (typically the US) asserting its interests in other places, including, specifically, its Western European vassals.

So far, nothing has changed; what has changed, though, is what may be called the ‘decorum’: until recently, such [c]overt means were applied outside the (semi) periphery of the US empire, perhaps because it was perceived by the powers-that-be as ‘unworthy’ among ‘ourselves’.

This feature has apparently changed to a certain extent: what used to be alright for ‘vassals’ in what used to be called ‘the Third World’—is now alright in the heart of Western Europe: a US defence secretary (Austin) who ‘invites’ European heads-of-state and the like to a fortified, extraterritorial, and para-legal place called Ramstein to discuss ‘aid to Kyiv’ (look up ‘SOFA agreements’).

The gloves are off, for sure.

To the Ukraine mess we shall further add the current Covid-related mania and the ‘mostly peaceful’ (CNN) protests associated with Black Lives Matter™.

Their combination is an extra-toxic, self-hating cocktail of racialised ‘privilege’ (technically: one ‘race’ in the US sense of the term gets what amounts to a ‘get out of jail free’ pass on many things other ‘races’ would pay a steep price for), anti-Western sentiment, and an incredible loss of character, i.e., there’s few people who are willing to hold up what, arguably, made ‘the West’ worthy of imitation.

‘They’ Hate ‘We, The Peoples’ of ‘the West’

With a vengeance.

Everyday, one can see this; everyday, one gets the impression that, for whatever spurious reason given, there’s always ‘the White Euro-American’ to blame.

The consequences are as obvious as they are dire: no more Shakespeare when studying English Literature at universities; the all-out assault on ‘traditional family values’—which, to me, signify a role for both father and mother in child-rearing—, including abominations, such as ‘drag queen story hour’ (typically done with crappy books); the ‘normalisation’ of clearly problematic, anti-social, and anti-human behaviour that, more often than not, borders on narcissism and betrays any amount of psychopathologies. This listing could go on, sadly, almost indefinitely.

Basically, what we’re observing are attempts to change known concepts and terms—esp. egregious with respect to ‘mother’ or ‘woman’—but this is not the first time this happened in human history.

There occurred another ’great leap forward’ from around 1750 onward. It is commonly referred to as ‘the Enlightenment’, almost unquestioningly associated with ‘positive’ change (with the exception of a few years of soul-searching in the wake of WW2), and typically, if without any examples cited, held up as the foundation of Western Modernity together with our purportedly ‘Judeo-Christian Values’.

German historian Reinhart Koselleck once considered the Enlightenment a kind of ‘clearing house’ in that it functioned to re-define key terms (see his Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, a massive, multi-vol. historical dictionary of key terms and how they changed).

In this regard, it is well worth remembering one other notion held by Koselleck:

Within the frames of the national church, theology was subordinated the state and the absolute ruler recognised no other authority over himself than God, whose attributes he appropriated in the political and historical field he appropriated. (‘Kritik und Krise’, p. 23)

As a thought experiment, replace the term ‘theology’ with anything else currently ‘en vogue’.

Why Do ‘They’ Hate ‘Us’ (‘White’ Peoples)?

We all know that, to paraphrase Warren Buffet, that there is a class war raging and that, according to his comment, ‘they’ are winning.

We all know that, as far as this is possible to say: ‘globalisation’ as it came about, historically, was about the destruction of organised labour.

Yet, to understand the current Globalist-fuelled anti-’white’ hysteria, there is yet another ingredient (and, no, ‘Postmodernism’ is a tactic in this, not a key component).

Westerners are currently experiencing an almost perfect storm at the intersections of race, class, and gender, which has been weaponised by spineless critters in politics and their camp followers (‘allies’) and other lowlives in academia, legacy media, and many mainstream institutions, incl., sadly, many Christian-in-name-only denominations. In short: it is hard to avoid the impression that there is a broad alignment of malign interests across most Western institutions.

Yet, why do ‘they’ hate ‘us’ Westerners so much?

One of the surest ways to discredit any kind of (free) thinking is to label it ‘off limits’ for whatever reason. Illustrative examples incl. the many lies we keep repeating about WW2, such as that the USSR ‘liberated’ half of Europe from ‘Nazi tyranny’, if only to subject said half of Europe to a terror régime of a different kind of persuasion. It is beyond me as to why Western elites continue to subscribe to that kind of Big Lie.

Sure, this and many other issues before us are both complicated and ‘complex’ (as in differentiations of organisation and structure), yet one of the charges that is typically—conveniently—levelled at any dissenting voice goes a bit like this:

You’re offering a simple solution to a complicated problem.

And my response is: ‘sure, I’m not saying it’ll be a walk in the park or easy, but I am saying that, more often than not, Occam’s Razor applies.

We can clearly see that logic play out in the present moment:

‘They’ hate the Western—that is, Euro-American ‘White’—peoples with a vengeance for historical reasons: however imperfect, unaccomplished in the long-term, tainted by a myriad of crimes, foreign and domestic, there is one outstanding accomplishment of Western Man:

Historically, Western Civilisation brought forth a system of governance that, however imperfect and limited in time and scope, managed to curtail the power of, in Madison’s time-honoured words, the ‘opulent minority’.

The apogee of this moment occurred in the aftermath of WW2 in the US and in Western Europe:

Source. Note the correlation between US unionisation and the distribution of national income between ‘labour’ vs. ‘capital’

We know quite a bit about ‘their’ intentions, be it the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the WEF, the ‘deep state’, and their ilk. ‘They’ were never very shy about that.

Hence, the imperative to damage, re-invent, or destroy everyone and anything that has the power to ‘remind’ Euro-Americans of that particular period of rising prosperity for the masses.

Hence the all-out assault on ‘traditional' family values’.

Hence the corporate- and state-sponsored rise in mass immigration, mainly to dislocate the hitherto ethnically, linguistically, and socially quite homogenous populations of Western countries.

Hence the current favouritism in terms of ‘LGBTIQ’ support.

Hence the assault on established institutions, such as public broadcasters, churches, sporting associations, etc.

Hence the inevitable outcome of 40+ years of ‘Neoliberalism’: the massive uptick in distrust of gov’t (which is well-placed) and institutions

Nowhere is this more visible in the field of education, widely understood, because the history of the West’s ‘true’ accomplishments of relative prosperity for the masses and the curtailment of the power of the ‘opulent minority’ is no longer taught.

Look no further for explanations, I’d argue.

Western national states and societies are under attack because they were the only vehicles in recent memory, if not history, that managed to curtail the oligarchic forces seeking to dominate us.

Once one sees it this way, many other things start making ‘sense’, at least in an analytical way: what looks like concerted attacks on one or the other issue can be identified as being part and parcel of the attempted destruction of the only set of institutions that offers the possibility of credible resistance to the Globalist designs.

This is why the destruction of the West and its ‘White’ peoples must come first, as our societies are well-established; so long, we do have the nominal options of ‘democratic’ change in more or less well-ordered ways via elections.

This isn’t to say that Europeans should saddle up and save the world.

This isn’t to say that it is ‘our’ destiny to do so.

But I am saying that, given the relative weaknesses of extra-European societies, states, and institutions, there is only one halfway credible resistance. It is the Western Peoples—and the Globalists know it.

Hence ‘their’ undying hatred of ‘the West’.

I know it’s an ‘easy’ explanation for very complicated and complex issues, but I fail to see any other possibility to explain what is happening.

What do you think?

Post-Script

I found myself participating in a nice conference (on postal history) in Italy and, upon being asked by a friend of mine who teaches at a fancy-name place in the US Ivy League, I presented my above-’theory’.

I shall add he’s a ‘super-liberal, church-going Anglican’. He’s as far from being a ‘far right-winger™’ as anyone, and he totally bought my ‘theory’.

We had a very nice conversation coming out of this proposition, which also revolved around what to do about this—closing borders, trying to make people move back while integrating many of those who are already here (based on the consideration that they won’t leave anyways), and the like.

There are no quick and easy solutions, but I suppose that consideration of the rule of holes is warranted: stop digging (letting more foreigners in in an uncontrolled fashion) seems a good starting point.