Table of Contents
If you don’t have a Silver level membership yet you are missing out on our Insight Politics articles.
Why Do the White Guys Do It?
Thank the straight white men for their service
It’s become quite the thing in recent times to ferret any and every minor achievement by minority individuals and shamelessly hype it as some sort of proof of the undeniable, magical wonderfulness of any and every minority group.
Think Hidden Figures, for example: “Without these amazing black women, men wouldn’t have gone to the Moon!” Perhaps, but they wouldn’t have either without the people who did everything from packing the astronauts’ lunches to sweeping the floors at NASA. They certainly wouldn’t have done it without the ex-Nazi, slave-labour exploiting German, either. Funny how Hollywood tends to get strategic amnesia.
Still, at least Hidden Figures, for all that it fudged the truth shamelessly (facilities at NASA were not segregated, for one thing, Dorothy Vaughan did not single-handedly teach herself to use the IBM 7090 computer, and Katherine Johnson was a lot less black than the actress who played her), is a model of rigorous truth-telling compared to such pseudo-academic garbage like A Short Scan of Maori Journeys to Antarctica.
If it were truthful, it would be an exceedingly short scan: something along the lines of “It didn’t happen”.
Another facet of this, let’s call it ‘Woke Revisionism’, is to hype the contribution of minorities, especially blacks, to the defining conflicts of the modern Western culture, the World Wars. The ABC in Australia is particularly addicted to this stuff: The Hidden War Stories of First Nations Veterans, and so on. Like the Magic Maori ‘science’, the determination of media and academics is to treat these folk as singularly wonderful, solely because of their race.
Rather than treat them, as did their fellow veterans, as just another digger doing their bit, the Wokerati demand they be especially and separately honoured. Thus, in a strange, new form of segregation, we now have war memorials for all the other soldiers and the indigenous ones. At least they’re not labelling the memorials as “Whites” and “Coloureds”. Yet.
Often this weird separatism is at obvious odds with what the people themselves clearly thought. Academics demand a separate memorial for Aboriginal diggers who fought in the Boer War, even though the men often did not even identify as such.
Similarly, the ABC ran a piece on WWI nurse Marion Leane Smith, which not only dubbed her with the Aboriginal “Aunty”, but described her as “a proud Dharug woman”. The only problem is that Smith never in her life would have used such terms: she not only had but a single Aboriginal grandparent, she lived from the age of two in Canada, in whose war effort, not Australia’s, she served. She lived nearly her entire life in Canada, or as a missionary in Trinidad, and she died in Canada.
The other way the modern media and academia try to appropriate the stories of minority servicemen is as hobby horses for their own racial obsessions. “Indigenous soldiers went to war for a country that would not let them drink with their mates,” shrieks the ABC. In America, the same focus is on black soldiers who fought for a country where segregation extended to the military. New Zealand historians, too, harp on about “discrimination” and “racism”, as if they are almost mystified that Maori would have chosen to fight for such a country.
Why, indeed, would they fight for a country that hated them?
We might ask that question today, too – but we’d be asking it of white men.
Why, after all, do young white men in Australia, New Zealand and the United States sign up in such overwhelming numbers to fight for a country which hates them?
Anyone who doubts that their countries – “country”, as in the political establishment, academic, media, celebrities and every other class of elites – really do hate white men just isn’t paying attention.
Marama Davidson can spout the most obvious racist tripe about white men, and it passes without comment among the elite. Senior editors at such august organs as the New York Times freely spew forth near-constant invective against white men, again without comment (tellingly, though, when Candace Owens repeated the tweets, with “white” substituted with other ethnic groups, she was instantly banned).
The problem of America today is the problem of white men. Hey, Cis White Men! We’re the Worst. The Soullessness of “Straight White Men”. Finding anything admirable or worthy about straight, white men is outright verboten in the mainstream media or academia. Even such lukewarm sentiments as “It’s OK to be white” (white is always small-w, unlike Black, Maori, or Aboriginal) send the media and academia into frenzied denunciations.
The woke modern West hates straight, white men – so why do straight, white men volunteer in such overwhelming numbers to fight and die for it?
Because they are. Far more young white American men died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan than did other groups. It wasn’t just a function of numbers: relative to their percentage of population, straight white men made an outsize contribution. Just as other groups do with slightly less admirable contributions: crime, for instance, young whites contributed between 75–100% more than their raw numbers would suggest.
Talk about real hidden figures: all through the twenty years of Forever War, the American media wrote, according to Google, just two articles about the oversized patriotic zeal of young, white Americans.
Yet, the numbers are stark and undeniable.
The US military, for instance, has some interesting statistics. The poorer southern states, so despised by the American elite, are overrepresented in the military, while the affluent, Democrat-voting east and west coasts are underrepresented – and Washington D.C. makes the lowest contribution of all.
In terms of personnel, whites and blacks both punch above their raw numbers in the US military, blacks somewhat more so – but it’s the whites who tend to end up at the wrong end of the enemy’s sights. Contrary to the elites’ obsession with attributing other such inequalities, when they disfavour non-whites, to “systemic racism”, the outsize propensity of white American men to take a bullet for their country is almost never remarked on.
In the Australian Defence Force, the patriotic zeal of straight, white men is even more remarkable.
Of serving personnel in the 2019 military census, 80% were male, despite females making up 50.7% of the general population. This means that males are four times more prepared to serve their country than females.
The ADF, like most Australian institutions these days, doesn’t collect such data by race or ethnicity any more, but the fact that 90% of serving personnel spoke only English indicates a heavy bias towards Anglo-Saxons (the most commonly spoken non-English languages were Cantonese, French, German, Hindi, Mandarin and Spanish).
Despite the ADF command’s obsession with promoting and valorising fashionably minority religions, 56% of personnel were Christian, 40% non-religious, making Christians more likely to serve than the non-religious. No specific numbers were given for other religions, but collectively they accounted for less than 4% of personnel.
The other great monomania of the ADF brass is rainbow activism: yet the rainbow community is notably reluctant to put their boots where their demands are. If we’re to believe activists’ claims, some 10% of Australians are lesbian, gay or bisexual: just 6% identify as same-sex, or both-sex, attracted. Trannies make up just 0.1% of serving personnel. Aboriginal Australians are about half as apt to serve than their population numbers would suggest.
What’s the point of all this? Are white men intrinsically better than others? Should minority contributions to military service be ignored?
The answer to both is, of course not.
But, on the first: it’s long past time to cut straight, white men a break, elites. Nearly everything you have, nearly every freedom you’re so busily trampling on, you owe to straight, white men. Nobody’s asking you to acknowledge white men, past, present and emerging, as you so nauseatingly demand in regard to other groups – but it might behove you to stop shitting on them at every turn.
As to the second: no group’s contribution to the defence of their country deserves to be enthroned above any others’. That is, after all, the whole point of the Unknown Soldier whose remains are venerated in War Memorials in Western countries. By not being identifiable as anyone in particular, he stands for everyone.
And therein lies the answer to the question the hand-wringing elites ask, brows furrowed in puzzlement, about minority soldiers in the World Wars: why did they fight for a nation which disdains them? For the same reason young white men overwhelmingly fight for nations which now despise them: because it’s their country, too.
In spite of what its ruling elites might think.
If you enjoyed that FREE taste why not subscribe to a SILVER level membership today?
**If you already have a Basic or Bronze Membership upgrade your subscription here.
You will not only get access to Insight Politics articles like the one above but you will also gain access to all our puzzles, SonovaMin and BoomSlang’s fantastic cartoons, and our private members’ forum MyBFD as well as enjoying ad-free viewing.
$25 a month ($6.25 a week) (89c a day)
$300 a year
