Saturday, 16 June 2012
The more I reflect on the concept of racism and the bizarre hold it has on our society, the more absurd it seems to me. What’s striking, though, is that the idea has such power that almost everyone defines themselves in terms of it. Groups and people in the Counterjihad movement fall over themselves to emphasise how “non-racist” they are. Some bold dissenters from the establishment line even openly proclaim themselves to be racist.

But it seems to me that anyone who even accepts racist/non-racist as a valid conceptual framework has walked right into the trap that has been set for them. The notion is absurd. For example, let’s say we saw someone going around saying things like, “Look, I’m not a heretic, but I honestly think gays should be allowed to get married...” or something along those lines. What would our reaction be? We’d think, “Wow, not a heretic? Someone has really psyched out this guy.” We would probably surmise that he had been brainwashed as a child in some wacko religious school and now spent the rest of his life tormented by ludicrous notions like “heresy”. And even when he tries to reject the indoctrination, he still defines his new position around the mental pillar of “heresy”. He cannot expunge it from his mind and look at the world with fresh eyes.

Something similar is going on with the idea of racism. Whenever the public discussion turns to Enoch Powell, for example, the theme of whether he was or was not a racist always comes up. As if opposition to the colonisation of your country by alien peoples becomes morally valid or invalid depending on your exact reason for opposing it. And as if there was some set of ethereal scales that could weigh up the ethical purity of a person’s intentions. These are absurd concepts. Rather than accepting this conceptual framework, defining ourselves in terms of it, and opting only for a slightly unorthodox strategic positioning within it, we need to reject it in its entirety.

The absurdity of the notion is, I think, best illustrated with a parable.
Once upon a time there was a society where not everyone was equal. Some were rich and some were poor. The rich ate well while the poor often went hungry. Some even starved to death within sight of the palaces and mansions where the rich people feasted inside. The rich seemed mostly indifferent to the fate of their fellow beings. They felt the privileged position they enjoyed was the result of their own natural superiority over the poor. Although the poor people were much more numerous, the well-armed soldiers of the rich held them in awe. For a while. Eventually, however, the poor people realised that if they all attacked the soldiers at once, they would be irresistible. And so they did. And they were. Victory was theirs. A new era in the history of the world began.

Without their soldiers, the rich were defenceless. In a spirit of revenge, the poor people tore them to shreds. Never again must a small minority be able to lord it over the mass of the people, they said. Never again shall greedism prevail.

Greedism, they said, was the ideology of the now humbled rich. According to this supposed ideology, the quantity and quality of a person’s food should be proportionate to their moral worth. The few rich people left alive were not aware of having had an ideology. It had seemed to them that they were acting on instinct. But no, said the revolutionaries: the vile ideology of greedism dominated your corrupt society, even if you were unaware of it. The purpose of food, said the new paladins of the revolution, was to supply the body’s energy needs, not to give pleasure. For that reason, the state would now provide each citizen with a tasteless vitamin paste to be consumed three times each day. This would satisfy all the body’s requirement for energy. No other food would be allowed.

Those who called for the return of the old, natural-style food were accused of greedism and persecuted as enemies of the state. The revolutionary government turned the education system into an instrument of indoctrination. Children were taught about the evils of greedism. Anti-greedist propaganda pervaded society. “There is no place for greedism in the modern world,” proclaimed the politicians. Public entertainments conveyed approved messages about the perils of greedism. All of history was rewritten, framed as a parable in which malignant ideology of greedism grew and blighted the world, until it was eventually overcome in the Great Revolution.

Very, very rarely, a dissident voice was heard. Someone would argue for the return of natural food. “This vitamin paste is awful. I don’t see the harm in having a nice steak once in a while. It doesn’t mean you’re evil!” These people were ruthlessly persecuted, insulted as greedists, deprived of their livelihoods, expelled from polite society and often imprisoned. With a nod and a wink from the authorities, thuggish vigilante bands would physically attack anyone suspected of greedist tendencies. Occasionally debate would swirl about whether they really were greedists. “I’m not a greedist. I’m just a foodist,” they would insist, desperately. “I honestly don’t see the harm in satisfying the body’s energy needs by eating a pleasant-tasting burger. It doesn’t mean I consider myself superior or want to oppress anyone!”.

This is the kind of absurd position in which we now find ourselves. Most counterjihadists are like people apologetically calling for the return of some natural food but not all: “Only organic stuff, and no sauces, salt or other condiments. Everyone should get the same amount and quality”. Golden Dawn equivalents are like people standing up proudly saying, “Yes, I’m a greedist. If wanting to eat moussaka once in a while means I’m a greedist, then call me a greedist!” Meanwhile the anti-greedist propagandafest rolls on, endorsed by every pillar of the establishment.
But the way out of this madness is to recognise that the concept of greedism, like the equivalent concepts of racism or heresy, is absurd. If we let the Establishment define our conceptual framework for us, its victory is already half won.


2 comments:

DP111 said...

CZ

I have been thinking along similar lines.

One of the oldest apologies before stating your mind arose in the context of critical comments on Israel. Before one set out, one had to state that you were not anti-semitic, and "some of your best friends were Jews etc". This apology was mandatory, as memories of the Holocaust were fresh. Now its a different matter- Israel is deemed not only racist, but a Zionist/Nazi nation, and no preamble or apology is deemed necessary.

Where do we go from here? Criticising Multiculturalism, Islam in general, or the dysfunction of the Black community, should no longer require a preamble or an apology afterwards.

Responses that accused the commenter of racism or Islamophobia, should be regarded a totalitarian of the worst sort, ie one who would shut down free speech and free thought. They should have no place in a free society.

Anonymous said...

Ask yourself:

in public discourse,

can you say anything against Jews? No

Can you say anything against blacks? No

can you say anything against muslims? No

can you say anything against gays? No

can you say anything against women? No

but, can you say anything against rich people? YES

That shows which is the ideology that dominates the West: cultural Marxism. We have to break the framework created by Marxism in order to liberate our brains, our lands then.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews