The Virtuous And The Villainous: How Leftist Logic Implicitly Mandates The Slaughter And Subjugation Of Whites – Tobias Langdon

It’s a clever little rule based on a curious linguistic coincidence: “You should eat oysters only in months whose name contains an ‘r.’” The linguistic coincidence is that, in the northern hemisphere, the names with an “r” cover all the cool and cold months when oysters were safest to eat in pre-refrigeration days. A similarly simple rule now governs politics and culture throughout the West. It runs like this: “Whites are full citizens with complete legal and social rights. Except in months whose name contains a vowel.”

Labour betrays its own

That has been the rule operating in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and many other British towns and cities as, decade after after decade, Muslim rape-gangs have preyed on White women and girls with not just the complicity of the authorities but sometimes the active assistance: “Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively. Police left, leaving three men at the house with two more girls.”

The police were applying the simple rule of “No rights for Whites in months with a vowel.” Yes, under normal circumstances they would have done their duty by rescuing the White girls and arresting the non-White men. But the month had a vowel in it, so they couldn’t. After all, that happened in Rotherham and nobody in the Labour council was going to criticize them for not doing their job. The Labour party was founded to champion the White working-class and claims to be staunchly feminist, but it long ago abandoned its founding principles and adapted its feminism to the modern age. Yes, Pakistani males were — and are — committing horrendous abuse against working-class females, but the males are non-White and the females are White, so a new leftist rule applies. It runs like this: “Preach equality, practise hierarchy.”

The mysticism of minority worship

The Labour party and other mainstream leftists claim to believe in the full equality of all human beings, but in fact they operate a hierarchy where non-Whites are at the top and Whites at the bottom. In the past leftists have justified that hierarchy by claiming that non-Whites are virtuous minorities oppressed by the villainous majority of Whites. However, in future they’ll justify the racial hierarchy by portraying non-Whites as the virtuous majority and Whites as a villainous minority. That’s why leftists now increasingly use the term “global majority” to refer to non-Whites, as I pointed out in my article “Globo-Mojo.” But one thing will not change: the superstition and pseudo-mysticism that are central to the leftist worship of non-Whites. Take a recent article in the Guardian, which treats a minor detail of British history as though it were of huge significance and importance:

Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub

It’s a discovery that changes our understanding of British history — and it arises from just one word. Until now, the first black voter in Britain was thought to be the composer Charles Ignatius Sancho, the British abolitionist who, as the owner of property in Mayfair, voted in the 1774 Westminster election.

But a chance discovery at the British Library by Dr Gillian Williamson, a historian researching lodgers in Georgian London, reveals a black man voted in an election 25 years earlier. The revelation that John London, landlord of a pub in the capital, cast a vote in 1749, sheds new light on an era when the black population of London is believed to have been 10,000 strong, and the democratic process was limited but lively. (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Wow! Blacks lived in London in the sixteenth century! And one of them ran a pub! And voted! Well, my reaction to those earth-shaking revelations can be summed up in two words: “So what?” Did Britain depend in any way on those Blacks? Did Isaac Newton plagiarize the work of an unrecognized Black genius for the Principia Mathematica? Did Christopher Wren rely on the work of unpaid Black architects and engineers to design and build St Paul’s cathedral? Did Robert Hooke steal the Black invention of the microscope to write his revolutionary book Micrographia? Did William Herschel steal the Black invention of the telescope to discover a new planet? In every case the answer is no. Britain did not depend on its Black residents in any way and great White achievers like Newton, Wren, Hooke and Herschel owed nothing to the much less powerful intelligence of Blacks.

The White genius Isaac Newton magically turns racially ambiguous for leftist TV
The White genius Isaac Newton magically turns racially ambiguous for leftist TV

In other words, that breathless article in the Guardian is as ludicrous as it’s anti-historical. But it contains a very interesting and revealing statement by the leftist female historian who made that unimportant discovery. Gillian Williamson gushes about the Black pub-owner John London like this:

“I think it’s interesting that he’s the first-known black voter — in some ways unexceptional, in some ways exceptional. It shows that black people don’t just serve in low-level gig economy work, that it’s not extraordinary to be black in Georgian London. You can see black people as always there. If you are a pub landlord, people know who you are. Keeping good order, stopping fights, you have to do all these things in Georgian London. [This discovery] helps us see someone in a more rounded way, as someone with status.” (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Leftists are celebrating a “status” for John London that depended on sexism and classism. No woman could vote in those days and neither could most men. If the Black John London was fully and authentically British, does this mean that he bore some responsibility for that sexism and classism? And for the even more appalling and abominable sins of slavery and colonialism enacted by Britain in those days? Of course not. John London was Black and therefore virtuous, not villainous. Blacks and other non-Whites have the same ontological status within leftism as the Son of God does within Christianity. According to Christians, Jesus was fully and authentically human, yet remained spotless of the sins committed by all other humans. According to leftists, non-Whites can be fully and authentically British or American or French or German, yet remain spotless of the sins committed by Whites who belong to those nations.

Righteous reversal of repulsive rule

Note further how Williamson claims that John London being a “pub landlord” in Georgian Britain means that “You can see black people as always there.” This is a pseudo-mystical claim that grants magical status to Black existence. The bounty of Blackness overturns the tyranny of time. The presence of any Black at any time means that Blacks must be seen as “always there” in British history. It’s a righteous reversal of a repulsive rule: the “one-drop rule” of racist White America, which stated that even the smallest trace of Black ancestry meant that someone was Black rather than White. Leftism now applies a one-second rule, which states that any time spent by Blacks in a Western nation, no matter how fleeting and unimportant, turns Western history into Black history.

As for me, I don’t care about the first Black to vote in Britain. What I’d like leftists to give me is something they’d be very reluctant to supply: the name of the first Black to commit murder in Britain. I’d also like them to give me the name of the first Black to commit rape in Britain. But perhaps it was the same Black. Although all races are capable of committing rape and murder, some races commit — and combine — those crimes at much higher rates. Blacks are at the top of the real-world moral hierarchy of villainy just as they’re at the top of the fake leftist hierarchy of virtue. In other words, leftism inverts the truth and turns reality on its head. In stark reality, Blacks commit crime and suffer from psychosis at much higher rates than Whites. In leftist fantasy, Blacks are victims, not villains, and psychosis is characteristic of Whites, not Blacks. That’s why the Black academic Kehinde Andrews is a woke hero in Britain for his book The Psychosis of Whiteness (2023), which implicitly argues for the slaughter and subjugation of Whites. After all, Kehinde believes that rational argument is useless against the wickedness of Whiteness, as he explains here:

Critical Whiteness studies has emerged as an academic discipline that has produced a lot of work and garnered attention in the last two decades. Central to this project is the idea that if the processes of Whiteness can be uncovered, then they can be reasoned with and overcome, through rationale dialogue. This article will argue, however, that Whiteness is a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis framed by its irrationality, which is beyond any rational engagement. (“The Psychosis of Whiteness: The Celluloid Hallucinations of Amazing Grace and Belle,” Journal of Black Studies, Volume 47, Issue 5, July 2016)

What do wokesters like Kehinde really mean by “Whiteness”? In the final analysis, they can only mean “white existence” and “white autonomy.” According to Kehinde’s logic, those things lead ineluctably to “psychosis” and are “beyond any rational engagement” that might mitigate the horrors they visit on virtuous Blacks such as himself. This being so, there can be only two solutions to the “Psychosis of Whiteness”: Whites must be either exterminated or enslaved. If Whites are exterminated, their psychosis will never manifest itself again. If Whites are enslaved, their psychosis will still manifest itself, but it will no longer be able to harm the virtuous global majority of non-Whites.

Leftist logic in action: Whites can never feel pride, only shame
Leftist logic in action: Whites can never feel pride, only shame

For obvious reasons, wokesters like Kehinde don’t mention slaughter and subjugation in their critiques of “Whiteness.” They don’t want to warn Whites of what they’re secretly or subconsciously planning. But the leftist logic is clear: if Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites innately virtuous, the only way to rescue the virtuous from the villainous is to strip the villainous either of existence or of autonomy. Dead Whites won’t bite and enslaved Whites won’t blight. That’s the lethal logic of lunatic leftism.

By Tobias Langdon

Read More

Leave a Reply