I am aware of the troubling issues surrounding the ongoing White dispossession in the USA and EU. I also understand Bob Whitaker’s concern about my/AFP suggestion to drop the expression “White genocide” and replace it with “White dispossession” instead. I am also saddened at Mr. Whitaker’s disapproval with our current support of Donald Trump’s campaign.
I did indicate to HuffPo that the expression “White genocide” sounds too strong. This is because for many people ‘genocide’ connotes an organized campaign of murder rather than the gradual replacement and disempowerment which is actually occurring. It is unquestionably true that the current process will indeed result in White genocide in the long run as Whites become an ever decreasing percentage of the population. This genocidal process is being facilitated by the fact that Whites are persecuted if they publicize any sense of White identity and interests. It is also true that miscegenation rates have risen in recent decades, and these trends will likely increase in the future if current trends continue and as Whites become an embattled, hated minority. This is genocide by any reasonable definition.
The prospect of White genocide is staring us in the face and motivates our actions, and this vision also motivates our enemies for whom a dwindling, disempowered White population holds infinite appeal. But as a political party, we have to sell our ideas to the public, and this is a non-starter for most people. They look around and see White politicians with great power (e.g., all of the current presidential candidates and very large majorities in both Houses of Congress), and they see that there are many Whites among corporate and professional leaders. Whites are still very much part of the establishment. We don’t see White people being marched off to concentration camps.
The term ‘genocide’ is therefore problematic in the current cultural context. I also note that in all European languages, the word “genocide” is a verbal construct that first appeared in the wake of World War II. It was coined by the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and subsequently became an important pivot in UN legislation. As a result of its origins in Jewish ethnic activism, the word ‘genocide’ often has strong, subjective, ethnocentric and frequently self-serving goals. Over the last 70 years it has given birth to an array of numerous, often mutually competing (often exaggerated) victimhoods and commemorations.
Given these competing ethnic interests, it is not surprising that there is often little agreement on what genocide is. Legal quarrelling about the definition of ‘genocide’ seems endless. This can be seen in the decades-long Hague proceedings on the events following the break-up of ex-Yugoslavia in 1991 — the investigations into mass murder and the many trials and acquittals. The Hague Tribunal has had hard time defining/labeling as “genocide” a single large-scale mass murder that took place in Bosnia in 1993 — as the prosecution often demands — without however sounding partial in the eyes and the ears of the defence or the warring party that carried out a specific mass murder.
At this stage, I think it is more appropriate for the AFP, including friendly, patriotic- minded Americans of European heritage to use the locutions “White advocates” to describe ourselves and “White dispossession” to describe the process we are fighting against.