The political hostility of the United States today is directed at no one more than America’s European-descended whites—the group whose ancestors are largely responsible for settling, building, and defending this country.

That is not to say others contributed nothing, but that the largest contributions and, indeed, the central elements of America’s political and cultural institutions are largely derived from the beliefs, practices, tastes, and traditions of European settlers. Presently, however, this group is public enemy number one. Recent events amid the left’s latest political putsch and the COVID-19 outbreak illustrate what is essentially a genocidal enmity toward whites and its practical intensification.

According to the United Nations’ definition, there are “two main elements” of genocide in practice, and they can occur either “in the context of an armed conflict” or in “a peaceful situation.” The first element is “mental,” defined as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The second is the “physical” element, which is broken into five different acts, ranging from the outright killing of group members to “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

It is a strange and unfortunate thing that this framework is increasingly useful for understanding the plight of whites in America as a group targeted for deliberate cultural dispossession and physical discrimination. Of course, a rebuttal here is that we have not yet reached the point where whites are being persecuted enough to warrant such an assertion. But then it would seem we must hold our tongues until that awful fate befalls whites.

Last November, the Tenement Museum in Manhattan’s Lower East Side replaced its exhibit telling the story of an Irish family who lived in the building at 103 Orchard Street during the late 19th and early 20th centuries with that of a black man who worked nearby, even though he actually lived in New Jersey for much of his life. In fact, there no historical evidence of any black people living in the building during that time, the Daily Mail reported. However, while researching the life of an Irishman named Joseph Moore, the museum stumbled upon a black man of the same name, as mentioned above, who, since he worked nearby, at least might have seen the building that is now the museum. In a move that added to the long train of abuses against the Irish, the curators decided to quietly erase a white family from history in order to cater to the tastes of liberal whites and ethno-narcissistic blacks.

Writing in The Spectator, Peter van Buren, a former State Department employee who also worked as museum educator, claims that “the museum will do away with its current Irish family tour in lieu of a hybrid to emphasize black suffering and deemphasize the actual life experiences of discrimination imposed on the Irish by ‘whiter’ New Yorkers.”

Van Buren notes that previously the museum had a long-standing “keep it in the room” policy, which meant focusing on specific individuals who lived in the building, in the very room the tour was in. But that has been abandoned for what could be called the Martin Luther King, Jr., doctrine. If, as King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” it seems now that a lack of representation anywhere is a threat to representation everywhere, history be damned. “They will build a ‘typical’ apartment of the time on the fifth floor for the black family,” Van Buren adds, “an ahistorical space they never occupied, an affront to those whose real-life stories once did. It would make as much sense to build a space that tells Spiderman’s story.”

In another attack on European ancestry, British broadcaster Channel 5 recently selected a black actress for the titular role of “Anne Boleyn” in an eponymous miniseries. Yet the real Anne Boleyn, an actual historical figure, was white as a lily. Could this be why a black woman was chosen for the role? In a June 2021 interview with Radio Times, the creators of the series say that it was an example of “identity-conscious casting,” which they define ambiguously as an opportunity by which minority actors can bring their “personal identities” to a character.

This filmic race replacement is not new. In 2018, for example, BBC One chose a black actor for the role of Achilles in Troy: Fall of a City, a miniseries. Jimi Famurewa, a black journalist, defends the decision in a February 2018 Digital Spy article that opens with a puerile attack on supposed white racists, including a Greek critic offended by what he considered cultural appropriation. Famurewa dismisses every criticism, including artistic ones, as veiled bigotry. Any attempt to cast historical characters based on what they either did look like or are said to have looked like is, according to Famurewa, a “stealthy way to lock out non-white actors.”

Famurewa writes that blacks replacing whites in the portrayal of European history is a sign of progress and concludes that making whites feel psychically uncomfortable and indignant is actually the point. Such provocative admissions are eerily consistent with the mental element of genocide: cultural destruction of a group even in a time of so-called peace.

The physical element of genocide, on the other hand, has manifested mostly amid the pandemic, during which the American healthcare system has emerged as a vehicle for antiwhite discrimination.

In March of 2021, Boston Review published “An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine.” In that article, authors Bram Wispelwey and Michelle Morse herald the retooling of hospitals into racially conscious triage centers through the application of critical race theory (CRT). They write that in response to supposed racial inequities in medical care, “public health scholars Chandra Ford and Collins Airhihenbuwa brought CRT’s legal approach to the public health realm in 2010 with their landmark proposal of a Public Health Critical Race Framework.” The plan, advanced in the name of “equity,” is coming to a hospital near you. Wispelwey and Morse write:

Together with a coalition of fellow practitioners and hospital leaders, we have developed what we hope will be a replicable pilot program for direct redress of many racial health care inequities—one that takes seriously the limitations of colorblind solutions and empowers institutions in variety [sic] of contexts to take decisive action to achieve racial equity.

Wispelwey and Morse explain that “decisive action” means actively discriminating against white patients by offering “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions.” It also entails a “reparations framework” focusing on “Black and Latinx patients and community members” eligible for “federally paid reparations.” They concede that such a program would likely “elicit legal challenges from our system” but that their “approach is corrective and therefore mandated.”

But the very basis of that mandate is fiction. An April 2021 report in the World Socialist Website notes that a study cited by the duo to justify discriminating against whites actually failed to identify statistically significant evidence of racial differences in treatment.

A racial treatment framework is nevertheless being implemented at the state level in some places. In November 2021, BizPac Review reported on an exchange between a caller and the Texas Health and Human Services’ “State Infusion Hotline.” An operator told the caller that the reason his friend was not prioritized for a monoclonal antibody treatment had to do with race.

The monoclonal treatment is designed to prevent those already infected by COVID-19 from getting gravely ill, making it potentially lifesaving for people with preexisting comorbidities. Certain factors, like age and obesity, qualify patients as high-risk. Texas, like other states, appears to have added ethnicity to that list. “African American and Hispanic [sic] are high-risk ethnicity groups, so that would be a qualifier,” the hotline operator said.

In other words, the caller’s friend got bumped to the back of the bus for being white. After the video went viral, USA Today’s “fact-checkers” quickly descended to refute the claim that Texas “denies white people monoclonal antibody treatment.” However, that’s misleading: the issue isn’t that they’re being denied but deprioritized, and therefore discriminated against, based on race. Some races, in and of themselves, serve to qualify a person for monoclonal antibody treatment. The white race is not one of those.

According to a recent article in the New York Post, New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has also revealed that it will consider a patient’s race when distributing potentially lifesaving COVID treatments. The city will “consider race and ethnicity when assessing individual risk,” according to the department’s treatment guidance documents, which add that “longstanding systemic health and social inequities” can contribute to an increased risk of dying from COVID-19.

Minnesota has followed New York’s lead. In a document titled, Ethical Framework for Allocation of Monoclonal Antibodies during the COVID-19 Pandemic, the state announced that, per the FDA’s guidelines, “race and ethnicity alone, apart from other underlying health conditions, may be considered in determining eligibility for [monoclonal antibodies]” for “treatment of COVID-19-positive patients during conditions of both sufficient supply and scarcity.” In other words, the FDA is abetting antiwhite discrimination.

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, which sponsored the document, not only is it ethically appropriate to consider race and ethnicity for treatment eligibility, but these things should trump all else because “risk cannot be adequately addressed by determining eligibility based on underlying health conditions.” This is because institutional racism may have resulted in “underdiagnosis” in “people of color.”

As of Jan. 27, the Minnesota Department of Health changed its CRT-based medical proposal in reaction to public protest and pulled the document off the internet.

The implications of deprioritizing whites for medical treatment amid a nationwide monoclonal antibody shortage are dire, and they amount to deliberately inflicting physical harm on the basis of group membership.

The United States, like other Western countries, has effectively initiated against its core population a cold war that seems always to be heating up. It is a historically unprecedented self-destruction made even more perplexing because many whites are either consciously participating or indifferent to what is going on. But their fate affects the whole, and what is happening to them now is arguably congruent with the formal elements of genocide.

(Updated from the print version: The 21st paragraph adds that the Minnesota Department of Health changed the proposed CRT guidelines on Jan. 27.)

*****

This article was published in Chronicles and is reproduced with permission.