In the last month we have seen the capture of a serial killer and a mass racial church shooting, both of which are events accustomed to lengthy headline media coverage. This accompanied by removal of the offender’s preferred symbols from public view, and abject disavowals by any politician with whom he may have once conceivably shared a position.
But the murderers in this case are black, with the victims white. And as Robert Frost once remarked, that has made all the difference. As a result of that difference, the well-established liturgy of prostrate racial atonement was promptly tossed out the window, african democrats remained virgins of disavowals, and the only people who can even recall the victims’ names are their own grieving family members. This is what we call white supremacy. Sometimes this even permeates into movie theaters, granting its recipients unearned facial fractures. Though whether its manifestations are flamboyant or mundane matters less than the imperative that the media bury them deeper than the Lost Dutchman gold mine.
Of course white supremacy is hardly worth the effort unless it is properly maintained. And that’s why we have immigrants, diversity, and ancient friends. This isn’t a part-time job. It requires continual labor.
For instance, an ISIS-sympathizer reinforced white supremacy in Edmonton, Canada last night by stabbing a police officer and running over four pedestrians. Not wanting to lag in comparison, two Frenchwomen today emphasized their supremacy by having their throats slit to the classical Gaullist strains of Allahu Akbar.
Given that whites are being butchered, denounced, demonized, and replaced in their own countries, you might be inclined to conclude this is surely the shittiest supremacy in world history. Though be assured we’ve just begun the ascent. The apex of white supremacy will only be reached when our children are huddled in hovels while a mob of POCs brays outside for their livers. That’s the unfair life of kings.
But what I am circuitously coming around to saying is that actually having societal supremacy is the surest means to not being broadly accused of it; and losing it is the most certain path to an indictment. Obviously some group is always going to be preeminent in any petri-dish society, and no one carves a country out of their own blood and sweat with the hope that their posterity will get no particular benefit.
So when you are being accused of supremacy, the subtext is always replacement rather than absence. The accusers are not saying “no supremacy.” They’re saying “supremacy for us.” This theory may be tested by asking how much you believe the left’s myriad tribalists respect your legitimate interests and seek an environment of reciprocal good-will. Or possibly we just don’t understand their means of expression.
In any event, I expect man’s nature will remain unmoved by our fallacies. That is to say, those who truly wield power will hardly permit unpunished allegations of it. While those whose grip has been relinquished will be denounced daily. This is how the human psyche operates. Someone we hate who can’t harm us: that’s who it’s safe to openly call supremacist.