A quote from a Twitter user: “The epistemology of white replacement is quite tasty if you like epistemology puzzles. Whites are currently only 5-6% of the prime reproductive population of the planet, and that's decreasing year-on-year. The other 95% are nonwhites. And yet...” He goes on to talk about “white extinction”. I have taken issue with “the Great Replacement” and here we see a similar lament: the problem is that the writer is too intelligent and educated to self-affirm. He cannot say, like some uneducated prole, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” That is too crude, would have him branded a “white supremacist”—worse, as a stupid person.
Since he cannot affirm himself, even in a more intellectualised way (“Western civilisation, underpinned by the Europeans races, must survive”), he falls back into speaking as if he is a conservationist who deals with giant pandas—“white extinction”, cause-and-effect inevitable. Yet Europeans are not purely biological entities—although it sounds more clever to speak that way, more Darwinian. Similarly, the intellectual is too clever to say, like the prole, “I don’t know if there’s a God, but there’s definitely something”. Perhaps he would, like a latter-day Pascal, throw it open to probabilities—can this be judged stochastically? (Insert Twitter poll here).
As an intellectual, he has been taught it is high status to play the victim—“Help! We’re going extinct! Just like the giant panda!” I am not a giant panda, though (or am I? Did I teach myself to type, here in Beijing Zoo No. 12? These Chinese will eat anything, I see them eyeing me hungrily through the security glass—they have only spared me because you round-eyes would be upset). Europeans are not victims, even now—although they have enough luxury to pretend they are victims. Do not play the victim—they only reward progressive victimhood; no points for concern about “white extinction”. Now, if you will excuse me, I have bamboo to chew.