Seeing Things: Godwin’s Law and Smith’s Syndrome

Mr Smith, who blogs at Mr Smith’s Refusal, offers this excellent essay about a malady that has afflicted virtually all of us in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at one time or another.

This is the latest in his occasional Seeing Things series.


Seeing Things: Godwin’s Law and Smith’s Syndrome
by Mr Smith

Reading Baron Bodissey’s piece on the “ubiquity of white racism” back in November of ’07, I was struck by the persistence of Godwin’s Law. As can be seen by the Baron’s piece and all related issues and articles, even we who see more clearly the threat posed to ‘Western Civilisation’ are affected by Godwin’s Law to some degree. Despite the known enmity that Political Correctness poses to clarity of thought and free speech, many among our number who pursue and desire clear thought and free speech have a phobia of labels, to the extent that Godwin’s Law still applies even in this little vaguely right-wing, counter-jihad corner of the internet.

Before going further, I should clarify that this is properly a phobia, as it is an irrational fear, in excess proportion to the cause of the fear. The fear might be justified if accusations of ‘Nazi!’ or ‘Racist!’ or ‘Fascist!’ carried any meaning today, but it is increasingly the case that they do not. For example, I have yet to hear a working definition of fascism from a leftist which is not essentially what most people in the West thought on the subjects of Race and Nation prior to the end of WW2, while I am sure that many readers who have criticised Islam or mass, unchecked immigration will be familiar with the knee-jerk nature of the ‘racist!’ and ‘Nazi!’ accusations.

The main defence of leftist thought, of this massive paradigm shift in thought on the questions of race, nation, and culture, tends to be that it is due to ‘progress’ and ‘liberation’ of thought. But progress, as Chesterton noted, “is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative”. That is to say, we are told (frequently, and earnestly) that ‘progress’ is a great thing and to be desired, but we are never told what the destination is nor why we should desire it. ‘Progress’ is movement for movement’s sake, and brings us no closer to an aim any sane person would desire. As for ‘liberation’ of thought, I can only wonder how free the Welshman arrested and convicted of ‘racist abuse’ on the basis of no evidence and no victim would say this brave new world is.

This is no progress, then. No-one has been liberated by this mental apartheid of all peoples into designated victim groups and de jure ‘racist’ groups (as all whites are merely by merit of being white, so we’re repeatedly told), rather we are imprisoned in an asylum of the mind, both inmates and wardens, regressing (or ‘Progressively travelling’?) at a rate of knots to a thought control Stalin could only have imagined in his wildest dreams. And all for fear of a label. For fear of a vapid accusation thrown in to shut us up rather than contribute anything of value to anyone at all.
- - - - - - - - -
Which brings us in a roundabout way back to Godwin, whose law states that as a conversation goes on, the probability of one party calling the other a Nazi approaches 1. The corollary which is perhaps better known is that once this shot has been fired, the conversation ends. The identification of this law has allowed many to overcome the Nazi accusation and continue conversations like mature adults, which is quite right and proper as far as it goes. But does this go far enough? Recent events suggest not, and even excellent writers such as Fjordman the Great can be and have been accused of Nazi-ist sympathies (an accusation about as sensible as accusing turkeys of voting for Christmas) by people who were formerly thought to be on the same side as the rest of us. Some reaction against this inability for Western Whites to ever do right in the eyes of our detractors can be seen in the excellent Brussels Journal piece “Are we all Nazis now?”.

Those who have read Orwell’s excellent Nineteen Eighty-Four (and some who have not) will be well aware of the term “Thought Police” and all it implies, but a more relevant concept to our current circumstances would, I think, be the terms “goodthinkful” and “crimestop”. The former being the state of only thinking in State-approved ways, and the latter being the sudden shutdown of logical and rational faculties when a train of thought or syllogism approaches a conclusion which is in itself a thoughtcrime. In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, we see quite clearly that the State actively and explicitly enforces and perpetuates this. As a result we can see the monstrosity of the State and its machinations against the humanity of its populace. But how can one explain the existence of goodthinkfullness and crimestop here, in the most free part of what remains of the Free West, the anti-jihadi spectrum of the conservative blogosphere?

In considering this, the only explanation I can think of which even begins to make sense is somewhat… odd. The explanation is that this behaviour is the result of a mental illness, but one which is not spread by conventional means. This is no organic brain disorder brought on by eating aluminium-tainted meals or drinking bad water, nor a neurosis learnt from aberrant environments in the home or the behaviour of loved ones. Nor is it a psychosis brought about by substance abuse or abusive environments. This disorder, which I will term “Smith’s Syndrome” for the sake of convenience (and because calling it “Godwin’s Disorder” might annoy Mr Godwin), is all and none of the above. Smith’s Syndrome is contracted by the ingestion not of biological substances, but of ideological toxins. It is learnt not from aberrant home environments, but from obscene and unnatural societal environments (which, of course, are much harder to escape), and brought about not by substance abuse but by the abuse of the processes involved in learning. Smith’s Syndrome is, in fact, a memetic infection in the sense that the beliefs involved are spread by various forms of viral marketing and ideological infection.

So what are the symptoms of Smith’s Syndrome? Let’s have a look at a few, and remember that without Godwin’s Law it would be much harder to identify these:

1.		A firm belief that to believe in the superiority and/or right of existence of one’s own culture is a pleasing and ‘enriching’ experience in the case of all cultures save for those created by white nations. This surface belief typically covers a belief that all whites who believe in the superiority and/or right to exist of cultures created by white nations are de facto National Socialists/ Fascists/ Racists or all of the above.
2.		A fanatical belief that to believe in the superiority and/or right of existence of one’s own race is a ludicrous and mildly amusing eccentricity of non-whites, but that in whites it is proof positive of that ultimate evil, ‘racism’. Those experiencing Smith’s Syndrome will usually vehemently accuse whites who do not wish for the extinction of the white race of ‘xenophobia’, ‘nazism’, or if they have an expanded vocabulary ‘white separatism/nationalism /supremacy’.
3.		A belief that the questions of culture and race are completely independent and that culture X can and will exist entirely without the presence of the race which formed and created it. The object lessons of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and all formerly white, now ghettoised ‘minority’ areas in the West will not occur to them independently and will always be attributed to ‘oppression’, ‘white privilege/ racism’, or ‘socially injust cultural discourse’ should a non-sufferer make the point to them.
4.		A belief that, although ‘race does not exist’ and ‘there is only one race, the human race’, all whites should now and for evermore feel disproportionately guilty for the alleged crimes of their forebears. If possible, this guilt should manifest in a financial reward for the injured parties in the form of a jizya reparations payout or other financial incentive.
5.		An entirely contradictory opinion that whilst one in everyday life should be permitted (as an entitlement) to enjoy all the benefits and luxuries of ‘Western Civilisation’, that Western Civilisation and the people who created it are vastly inferior (not least morally) to the ‘enriching’ masses outside of the West. This usually goes hand-in-hand with the belief that borders should be opened further still to invite yet more of those outside to come into the West to change the nature of its culture. [Note the contradiction with belief 3.]
6.		That Western Civilisation and all of its (grudgingly admitted) benefits has nothing to do with the toil and triumphs of the white race (which does not exist) and simply fell from the sky one sunny day in 1945. Its history and origin thus neutralised, Western Civilisation is considered the property and claim of all people from any location, background, and current belief, regardless of compatibility.

At base, Smith’s Syndrome is a pathology which removes the birthright of all white westerners in a systematic and thorough mental, psychological, and emotional approach. The success of the infection can be seen in many places, from the reaction of talking heads (noted by the Fulham Reactionary) to a Church of England bishop’s warning that Islamic extremists are creating no-go areas in the UK, to the approaching arrest of a British blogger on suspicion of ‘stirring up racial hatred’. And let’s not even start on the reaction of the British police (otherwise known as the Citizen Control unit of the Labour government) to those who wished to protest against Islamic paedophilia, as noted by Dangerously Subversive Dad back in ’05, when the police spent resources and taxpayers’ money enforcing a ban on the protest march rather than imprisoning the paedophiles.

Given the strength of the influence of Smith’s Syndrome and the length of exposure we westerners (of all colours) have all had to it, it is hard to know if anyone in the West would be able to come up with an antidote to it. Without actually becoming a white nationalist, that is. And would anybody outside the West care enough to think something up? And if so, could they think up something that worked? I honestly don’t know.

I think, in the end, the only hope we (white westerners) have of breaking free is to simply give up on worrying about how others see the thought processes and questions we pose, and just follow the logic and reason of the issues. Rather than focusing on ignoring the distractions and impediments, focusing on the questions themselves could work.

So let’s stop caring about accusations of ‘Nazi’, or ‘Fascist’, or even ‘Racist’, and just take each question on its own merits, without regard for the controversy or social stigma involved in the subject area. Clarity of thought alone will save us, and we must settle for nothing less.