Last December, Nigerian-born John Abraham Godson became Poland’s first Black Member of Parliament. As is to be expected, the BBC reported this development with obvious jubilation, using the phrase “hailed as a landmark”. No mention was made in the BBC report of exactly how or why this is good for Godson’s constituency, what policies he advocates, or whether he is a man of outstanding character. Instead, the focus was on the man’s race and on White Poles’ racism in a country with “only” 4,000 Blacks.
Over the past decades, it has become habitual for the press in European countries to celebrate the advent of a “first Black” public official, framing such reports in terms of landmarks, and, implicitly but never subtly, of triumphs over racism. For all the professions of anti-racism, the anti-racist press remains obsessed with race.
(We are too, I suppose, but we are not pretending to be anti-racists and we would probably think less about race were it not because the anti-racists made it such a pressing issue in light of their anti-White bias.)
Godson is a Black man of some accomplishment: a former Pentecostal preacher, he holds a bachelor’s degree from Abia State University in Nigeria; a Master’s degree in International Relations from the Lodz Academy of International Studies; and is currently working on two doctorates, one in Political Science at the University of Warsaw and another in Management at the University of Lodz. He is also atypical in that he is not aligned with the Marxist Left, but with free-market conservatism. It is perhaps not surprising, then, to find that Godson, who spent half his life in Poland, is a Polish citizen, and has a Polish wife, and sees himself as being “from Lodz”, his native Nigeria something he appears grateful to have left behind. And who can blame him?
If I am writing these lines it is not because I wish to bash Godson, but because I wish to bash the Whites who regard specifically the Blackness of an elected official as something that needs celebrating, who view this as good for them as opposed to good for the Black man, and who do so only because of the man’s race, rather than because of his possessing unique talents, qualifications, and strength of character. Perhaps he does not mind being seen as “the Polish Obama”, even though that is hardly a commendation; but I wonder if he also wishes, even if he understands their fascination, that his fellow Polish citizens focused less on his race than on his accomplishments and areas of excellence.
Celebrations of Black accomplishment among Whites are always implicitly racist. A non-racist would take no notice of a person’s race; and an anti-racist would be irate at the sight of Whites taking notice. The truth is that a significant proportion of Whites who profess non- or anti-racism secretly believe in Black intellectual inferiority. Noel Ignatiev, vile as he may be, is correct to doubt the sincerity of professions of White attitudes of racial egalitarianism. When a White anti-racist expresses joy at the sight of Black accomplishment in arenas where success is measured against European standards (that in turn reflect European values), he is not only signaling to others that he is up-to-date with the intellectual fashion, and that he is intellectually pure and spiritually virtuous; he is not only obliquely broadcasting inculcated feelings of historical guilt; he is, also, betraying (and simultaneously masking) his feelings of personal guilt, because he knows from experience that the Black man is on average his intellectually inferior. Among all the other things, the joy contains an element of surprise and is a sign of relief in the face of an exception that sustains the egalitarian faith.
If you need proof, notice how the same surprised/relieved joy is not expressed by White anti-racists when faced with Southeast Asian accomplishment. If you need further proof, notice how there is always an underlying assumption in Third World aid and development programmes that the Black man in Sub-Saharan Africa cannot be judged by the same standards as Europeans. When the United States gained independence from the British Empire, it did not become Haiti (see Wermod and Wermod’s forthcoming new editions of Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo and Hesketh Prichard’s Where Black Rules White). Were you to ask, at least in relation to countries where there is still a functioning bureaucracy, “Don’t they have a government there to take care of their problems?” you would be regarded—correctly—as disingenuous.
Whatever Godson’s accomplishments, the fact is that Poland needs a Black MP like a fish needs a bicycle. In a country with 38 million people, you cannot convince me that there is not one among them who is equally or more qualified to warm that seat in parliament; even Godson realises that he has benefited from an “Obama bump”—in all likelihood a desire by a large enough number of Poles to prove to themselves that they are not racist, a desire no one except other Whites seem to have.
What vexes whenever I see a jubilant news item reporting the advent of a “first Black” something or other is what the jubilant tone augurs: a gradual displacement, dilution, and eventual replacement or extinction, of Whites in their own traditional homelands. As correct as other commentators are to point out the negative practical consequences of displacement, dilution, replacement, and extinction, to me, first and foremost, there is a fundamental question of principle: why are we to be denied a our own vital space?—a space we can call home, and where we can feel at home, safe, secure, and surrounded by family, friends, and neighbours, who are like us and in whom we recognise ourselves. This is a basic human necessity. It is so at the individual level as it is so at the collective level. Yet, Whites are the only one ones being asked to open their homes to all comers, open their cupboards, open their files, open their bathrooms, open their safes, their drawers, their photo albums, their attics, their basements, everything, and let all new comers, irrespective of who they are or what they are like, to eat our food, use our showers, wear our jewelry, access our bank accounts, and even copulate with our spouses, have children, and ask us to pay for it all, while they are also complaining about our furniture, our attitudes, our gods, our vocabulary, our household traditions, calling us all sorts of names, and maligning us with all sorts of twisted psychoanalysis and postmodernist deconstruction.
There was a time when farmers greeted even far-away trespassers with a firing gunshot.
What is most galling is that this has come about not despite, but thanks to, a not insignificant subset of Whites who were supposed to be protecting the interests of their—let’s call it—extended family; who were entrusted with positions of power and responsibility; and who sold us out down the river out of greed, short-term opportunism, and moral cowardice. It would be merely tragic if this had come about due to a sincere belief in egalitarian doctrines, but it is obvious, given the divergence between an anti-racist’s statements and his behaviour (Bill Clinton comes to mind, what with him locating his home well away from diversity), that we cannot simply forgive the culprits on account of their having been philosophically misguided. Utterly genuine and sincere anti-racists probably do exist, but they are very small in number: humans are by nature tribal, and the bulk of humanity is overtly ethnocentric.
Those who are either in denial or uneducated on matters of race relations in the West will puzzle at the apparently astonishing leap from the election of a single Black official in Poland to the extinction of European man. However, we have seen this before in Southern Africa, where the process ran its course over less than twenty years, and we are seeing it right now in the United States, where the process will take longer but is well advanced. It begins with giving outsiders equal rights, but from this change in status necessarily follow access to the job market, access to public office, and access to the indigenous gene pool. The egalitarian logic is inescapable in this way. The pioneering outsider is usually followed by others: initially friends and family, later strangers looking for wealth and security. Humans being tribal, this leads to the formation of ethnic enclaves, networks, and organisations—in their host society and within the latter’s government bureaucracies. Differential fertility rates and miscegenation eventually set the conditions for the enactment of laws and policies friendly to the incoming majority and unfriendly towards the outgoing minority—the minority that altruistically made it all possible when it was in the majority. Anti-racist egalitarianism in a diverse world where the majority of humans are far more numerous and far more ethnocentric than we are is a singularly destructive force.
On an individualist level, I wish Godson well: I hope he serves his constituents with distinction, and that they are better off by the end of his tenure. On a collectivist level, I wish him failure—nothing personal, of course, but it is clear that a successful career will invite others like him (and probably less capable than him) to try their luck, and that the currency of an egalitarian ideology, bolstered by inculcated feelings of racial guilt, will leave Poles ill-equipped to resist the always accelerating incursion of the wealth- and security-seekers of the Third World.
This is why it is necessary to begin by discrediting egalitarianism, which, because of the way humans personalise such abstract notions, begins by discrediting the apostles of egalitarianism—a tiny clique of individuals with recognisable names and faces, rather than its many hapless or opportunistic beneficiaries. In some ways the entire discussion of race differences in IQ, or in propensity to violent crime, or in economic performance, while scientifically and sociologically legitimate, is misguided politically. Opposition to the multiracialisation of traditional White homelands is not about IQ, crime, or economics, even if these are important too, but about a homeland being a basic human necessity that European-descended peoples, like the other peoples of the Earth, also need and must enjoy for their own collective security, continuity, and peace of mind.