Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 31, 208
The New York Times, has become the home for spiteful attacks on whites. On August 2, the paper defended elevating Sarah Jeong to its editorial board despite her tweets about “dumbass fu**ing white people” and looking forward to their extinction. Today, not even one month later, the Times has published yet another Asian who warns that whiteness is “a suicide cult” and a horrifying threat to world peace.
Miss Jeong’s appointment memorialized the double standard: Disrespect for protected classes is vile but contempt for whites is fine. Today’s article, by a sub-continental Indian named Pankaj Mishra, sets forth another Times-approved principle: Any measure whites take to preserve their nations or their traditions menaces the entire world.
Mr. Mishra’s article, called “The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult,” pours particular scorn on the whites who live in what he calls “the Anglosphere:” Britain, Canada, Australia, and the United States. This is an ungrateful choice: Mr. Mishra is a novelist and essayist in the language of the Anglosphere, and is a recipient of the Windham-Campbell Literature Prize from Yale, worth $150,000 and perhaps the richest prize of its kind in the world.
Mr. Mishra begins by attacking the softest possible target: an 18th century Australian no one has heard of named Charles Henry Pearson who wrote about the need to make sure “the higher races” defend against dispossession by the “black and yellow races.” Today it’s easy to spit on men like Pearson and their racial hierarchies, but how could they possibly have been egalitarians? Europeans invented and ruled the modern world, with no rival in sight. Would the Chinese or Mr. Mishra’s own Indians have been more modest if they had achieved half of what whites did?
But Charles Pearson just sets the stage for today’s “white supremacist,” Donald Trump. Mr. Mishra claims that the “Anglosphere” went on to “jointly forge an identity geopolitics of the ‘higher races,’ ” and that: “today it has reached its final and most desperate phase, with existential fears about endangered white power feverishly circulating . . . .” And what is the evidence of this fevered state? President Trump was not uniformly reviled when he said in a speech, “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” Merely to ask whether the West can survive—not to rule or dominate, merely to survive—is to rekindle white supremacy and imperialist arrogance.
Mr. Mishra warns of “the rapid mainstreaming of white supremacism in English-speaking liberal democracies today,” and that the “Anglosphere” is “scrambling to rebuild political communities around . . . the new religion of whiteness.” Mr. Mishra offers two sets of examples of this menace. One is Donald Trump’s “border walls, deportations, [and] denaturalizations” that are, in his view, nothing more than an attempt to hold on to lands whites have stolen.
Has Mr. Mishra not noticed that Canada, the US, Australia, and Britain are now home to millions upon millions of immigrants? But since, aside from Britain, these countries are what he contemptuously calls “settler colonies,” everything in them must have been stolen from natives; therefore, anyone from anywhere seems to have the right to come and take the land from the “settlers.” Mr. Mishra trots out this threadbare argument as if it were a dramatic insight.
But he does make a more unusual point: that the war on terror is just recycled empire-building, in which America and Britain took the lead and “Australia and Canada also eagerly helped with the torture, rendition and extermination of black and brown brutes.” There are many, many reasons to oppose the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when Mr. Mishra tells us their purpose was to indulge an ancient, imperial taste for “extermination of black and brown brutes,” either he’s stupid or he thinks we’re stupid.
None of this really matters, though. Mr. Mishra’s main purpose is to promote the now orthodox view that it is evil for a white-majority nation to defend borders, deport illegals, control immigration, or maintain its way of life. This we expect from the New York Times. Where Mr. Mishra advances the argument is by saying that this “religion of whiteness increasingly resembles a suicide cult.” Yes, he is actually saying that for the West to try, as Donald Trump put it, to muster the will to survive is a “suicide cult.”
Of course, it is the historically unprecedented failure to defend the borders of the West that is a suicide cult. It is a failure that Mr. Mishra would certainly never countenance in his own country, India. If the United States should open its border with Mexico, shouldn’t India open its border with Pakistan? I suspect Mr. Mishra would deny territorial sovereignty only to white-majority nations.
But how can it be “suicide” for the “Anglosphere” to try to defend the West? Mr. Mishra would actually have us believe that if Canada, the US, Australia, and Britain controlled their borders and deported illegal immigrants, it could easily “bring about a racial war such as the world has never seen.”
What? Who’s going to fight this race war? Will American Hispanics rise up and murder us if President Trump builds the wall? Will British Muslims bomb police stations if Theresa May stops further immigration? Will Chinese dentists and accountants put the city of Sidney to the sack? First, these things would not happen, and if they did, it would be the clearest possible proof that those groups don’t belong in the West, and we are right to keep them out.
Finally, why is Mr. Mishra so hysterical about the crimes of the “Anglosphere”? Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern European countries are actually doing what he falsely accuses us English-speakers of doing: keeping aliens out in order to preserve historic majorities. Is that leading to race war? If not, why not? Why attack the very countries that are doing the least to defend the West?
Mr. Mishra is like a petulant child—the more his parents give him, the more he screams at them. Britain gave him the language he speaks, writes, and in which he wins prizes; Britain gave his country a modern infrastructure, invented and passed on the institutions by which India governs itself, and has welcomed over a million of his fellow citizens into a desirable society Indians themselves cannot create. Let him cry and pout and beat his fists against the bars of his playpen. We are all too familiar with the resentments of those who seek the advantages of our societies while hating us for the qualities it took to build those societies.
The real question is why the New York Times publishes an anti-white hysteric such as Pankaj Mishra.