In making that statement he has inadvertently conceded the moral validity of accusing other people of racism. To say “I hate racism” is to admit that there is something wrong with people who don’t want their own culture to overwhelmed by the mass importation of antagonistic foreigners. It opens the door for those who label opponents of immigration as “racists” or “xenophobes”.We must refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any arguments based on racism or xenophobia. All such arguments can only be conducted on the Left’s terms. By opposing mass immigration, we have automatically lost. There is no way we can win “racism”-based arguments unless we concede that mass immigration is acceptable. By engaging the multi-cultis on their own terms, we guarantee that we will lose, either by adopting the pro-immigration platform, or by being forced into the “racist” box.
It’s a lose-lose proposition.
Instead we must deny the validity of the underlying premises, and substitute our own. Our premise is that loyalty to one’s own kind is not just a moral good, it is a natural human instinct. It is as much a feature of our makeup as eating when we’re hungry or sleeping when we’re tired.
Arguments using “racism” employ invalid premises that are empirically untested and have no scientific backing. Therefore we refuse any discussions based on them.
Suppose our opponents believed that the world is flat. Every time we stated our case, we would then be accused of “roundism”.
So what would our response be?
“I’m not a roundist! I hate roundism! I think the world is just as flat as my opponent does!”
“Baron,” you say, “That’s an absurd analogy!”
Yes, I admit it sounds outlandish. But the premise behind the “racism” fetish is just as spurious. The only reason it doesn’t seem crazy is that hundreds of millions of people believe it — or at least accept it as received truth.
It wasn’t so many centuries ago that most people thought the world was flat, but that didn’t make their assumption valid.
The Multicultural Project similarly depends on a host of a priori assumptions, none of which has been established as fact, and some of which are contradicted by the evidence.
It has never been demonstrated that members of vastly different cultures can live together in peace and harmony. Yet that is an unquestionable premise of the Multicultural Project. To doubt it in public is to risk losing your livelihood if you work in government, the media, or academia.
Throughout history widely differing cultures have only been able to coexist peacefully for any length of time if one has remained dominant over the others. A prominent example is the “Golden Age of Islam” in al-Andalus, which was “golden” only because the Moors dominated the Christians and the Jews.
Yet we are required to believe that a multicultural utopia can be created. When a false premise of this sort becomes unquestionable, it has assumed the status of religious dogma. One may not question the religious tenets of the Church of Multiculturalism, which tolerates no heresy.
Another major premise of the Multicultural Project is that there is no inherent biological predisposition among humans to prefer their own race over others.
Recent studies indicate otherwise, however: very young children, the youngest whose behavior can be observed, show a measurable preference for their close genetic relatives among their age-mates, and an aversion to those of significantly different genetic background. This would at least seem to throw the multicultural premise into question.
Yet the social services community was adamant in its response to these findings: their conclusion was that parents begin indoctrinating their children with racist attitudes at an early age. The results simply underscore the necessity for outside intervention in the family as early as possible. Otherwise, infants may be taught to be “intolerant”, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
The possibility — the likelihood — that these observed behaviors are normal, healthy, and based on instinct is not considered. It cannot be considered. Anyone who entertains that notion is by definition a “racist”.
Just as anyone who suggests that the world is not flat is a “roundist” and must be shunned. Or perhaps arrested. Or sent to a rehabilitation facility, where he will undergo intensive “flatness training”.
To refuse to accept a central premise of our culture is a difficult task. When everyone around you holds a certain set of beliefs — or at least pretends to — it’s only natural to adhere to them yourself. It goes against human nature to resist that sort of social pressure.
The task becomes even more difficult when overt disbelief brings down intense societal disapproval and ostracism. That’s why so many people accept that resistance to Islamization is a sign of “racism” — it is all but socially impossible to believe otherwise.There is a silver lining to all this, however. Any regime that has to clamp down so hard on peaceful dissent is brittle, and cannot last much longer.
Multiculturalists are willing to hound, punish, and violently attack anyone who does not accept their faulty premises. This is a sign that the system they have built is about to collapse. The modern multicultural state is like the Soviet Union, circa 1988. Its ideological superstructure will soon come crashing down.
Which is all the more reason to deny the truth of its premises. It’s important to say:
“I do not acknowledge the validity of premises that involve ‘racism’. Therefore I will not discuss race.
“Your premises are faulty, so your conclusions have no meaning.
“I have nothing further to say on this topic.”
When you deny the Left the opportunity to harangue you with “racism”, they have no arguments left.
At that point, their only recourse is to spit on you, or hit you, or have you arrested.
It’s a good idea to be prepared for all three possibilities.
17 comments:
Sorry bubs...
You can be an anti racist without supporting mass immigration.
Two things Baron - first, people have known the Earth was round since the 4th Century, and the idea of Flat Earth never had popular support (just look at the geocentric maps of the solar system and tell me how that could construe a flat Earth). To the contrary, the flat Earth historicism gained credence during the Enlightenment in order to demonstrate how backwards the medieval Europeans were. That said, your analogy is still accurate.
Second, strictly speaking, opposition to Islam is not racism by definition, because Islam, being something that any ethnicity (ie race) can subscribe to, is not defined by race. Ergo, bringing this aspect up reveals the paucity of their arguments without making us sound like we're completely out of field. I understand the point - don't think of an elephant, as it were. But it's accurate to paint their terms as intellectually bunk and utter nonsense. By the very repetition of the proper definition of racism, we can make the Left's accusations end up subject to a variation of Godwin's Law.
In short, we delegitimise its use even more by actually knowing the definition of racism (as in it being a set of unfair prejudices against a particular ethnic group), and perhaps even applying the same standard to them as they leave Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Iranians, etc who are Christian to just die without a word uttered in protest.
There are myriad ways to turn this blade against the progressives, and I could not think of a sweeter thing than to hoist them by their own petard.
I am old enough to remember when the word was "racialism". In any case, it meant the same thing. I was taught in school (in Australia) about the evils of the colour bar in the southern states of the US. Racialism obviously meant mistreating people because of their race - the mistreatment, not the race, being the operative factor.
What more needs to be said? You might consider your country the best in the world, but can you really say it is mistreatment not to allow someone to settle there?
People have gone from the reasonable premise that it is wrong to mistreat people of another race, to the questionable view that making any distinction between races is wrong, to the absurd conclusion that everybody has a fundamental right to settle in your country.
Besides which, the best way to respond to an accusation of "racism" is to say, "Aren't you being politically correct?'
The enemy hates being called politically correct.
@EV--
There is a tertium quid here: you can refuse to discuss a situation using those terms bec. the terms themselves are tainted.
IOW, the question of racism is off the table.
It has no relevance to immigration either.
LAW Wells --
Two things backatcha:
1. The belief that the earth was flat was widespread among the peasants until fairly recently. Your account is accurate, but only for the educated classes. You are being aristocentric.
2. Your counter-arguments are cogent and correct. Unfortunately, modern media do not allow reasonable people people to make such complex arguments -- if one of us were to be interviewed, he would be interrupted, contradicted, and sneered at before he could get a sentence and a half into his exposition.
The deck is stacked against us. We must refuse to enter the playing field on the media's terms (=the Left's terms). They will not let us make reasonable, logical arguments.
Just last night I saw them trash a perfectly reasonable, intelligent Republican in a local TV news clip. He was talking about the American Law for American Courts act. I'm sure he would have done very well, but he was shouted over and not allowed to finish his sentences by the Democrat, and laughed at by the supposedly neutral host.
Those are the rules of the game, and it is the only game in town. Therefore we decline to enter the playing field. They can play by (or with) themselves.
True Baron, but if they speak over me, my response will be to speak even more loudly over them. Cannons weren't quiet, you know, but boy were they effective (the final argument of kings, I believe).
Thanks to the Baron for making clear what a mug's game the Left enmeshes us in with their holier than thou screams of racism. First, the Left should have NO credibility on this topic for anyone who knows American history or knows what disgust the Soviets had for the blacks they indoctrinated and used (It continues in Cuba today). It's idiotic that the Left is allowed to get up on a moral high horse to which they have the least claim, only to pass judgment they never apply to themselves. Secondly, the Left have ostracized and near criminalized a natural reticence toward "the other" that has been a survival mechanism. Clearly those who have been brainwashed out of this survival mechanism (whites) are at a disadvantage when confronted by people such as Muslims of any hue who are confident supremacists. The ludicrous leftist definition of racism that indicts anyone merely for being born white while denying the most vile acts by non whites can be racism should have been laughed out of existence, not given highly paid space on every college campus, spreading out from there the way all suicidal leftist ideas have infected the West. Lastly, the multiculturalists should have been skewered on their selectivity. The billion Chinese and East Indians have their home bases with no requirement that they take in other races. The few whites in Africa were too many and are being cleansed. The hispanics have South and Central America. Whites are not allowed a single country on the face of the planet unmolested. On a worldwide basis, the only race that is discriminated against on a massive scale is the white race. It is also the only race that has a large fifth column component working tirelessly at inculcating racial guilt. The Chinese, Japanese, North American Natives, Hispanics etc. have no guilt whatsoever about their myriad sins of slavery, bloody conquering, torture etc. and they have nothing comparable to the white race as far as gifts to mankind to put in the plus column. A world run by non-whites will be less kind and more difficult for all races.
LAW Wells/Baron -
To my knowledge, this flat earth myth is actually a US based product of a much more recent date, since the invention can be attributed to two Church-hating American authors: John B. Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Voltaire, nor Hume, Kant, Diderot or any other of these "enlightened rationalists" is known for having smeared the Middle Ages with this flat-earth nonsense.
Debates like these, about "racism" or "flat earth" (with a progressivist undercurrent) are held among the educated and chattering classes. I don't think it relevant what peasants troughout the ages would have held of the matter, though I'm curious to know where these flat earth opinion polls can be found. My guess: they wouldn't have concerned it worthy of their attention.
So the analogy stands: the "racism" stigma is a rhetorical device invented by progressives to smear opponents, just like the flat-earth argument was a myth invented by progressive US "opinion leaders" to smear the Church.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto --
My assertion about the belief in a flat earth was based on two things:
(1) Prior to the Greeks, all known cosmologies used a flat earth. The Hebrews and the Babylonians, among others, have left us records of their concepts.
(2) When the myth about “brave Columbus” confounding the flat-earthers was first propagated, it must have been drawing on a collective memory of such beliefs. It could not have been invented out of whole cloth — intellectual fads don’t work that way. Enough people must have believed in a flat earth in previous centuries to grant the hoax sufficient credibility that would allow it to gain traction among the literati.
In all ages, intelligent people with good eyesight could easily observe the sphericity of the moon, and some may have inferred that they were standing on a sphere themselves. Others, presumably the majority of those holding an opinion in pre-literate days, must have assumed the flatness of the earth as obvious. There must have also been many people who had no opinion on the matter at all.
"Another major premise of the Multicultural Project is that there is no inherent biological predisposition among humans to prefer their own race over others.
Recent studies indicate otherwise, however: very young children, the youngest whose behavior can be observed, show a measurable preference for their close genetic relatives among their age-mates, and an aversion to those of significantly different genetic background. This would at least seem to throw the multicultural premise into question."
Wouldn't it be possible to make this argument to people in the "anti-theist" camp by citing the works of their own "prophets"? I mean, those people have all read "The Selfish Gene", right?
They have all heard of "kin selection".
Baron -
The analogy you've drawn is relevant irrespective of the assumption that 2500 years ago, most peasants probably believed in a flat earth. Again, what is known about this myth is that it was invented by the two 19th century American authors, the ones I mentioned in my previous comment. Prior to the dissipation of their propaganda, say around 1870, no school in the US mentioned this so-called mistake that supposedly was so typical of the Middle Ages. Ten years later, all history books used in these classrooms contained this particular progressivist meme.
They used it as a rhetorical device in their attack on religion, just like today's progressivists use the "racism" stigma to attack those who don't buy their diversity speak.
An additional remark could be made about this propaganda for diversity being a rather poor disguise for the kind of "cultural sensitivity" that is on par with the kind-hearted racism of yesteryear's colonial administrators, equally progressive in their ambitions to prepare their "bon sauvages" for modernity. The racial essentialism preached by today's apostles of diversity is the actual racism here, in that it is a construct used for social engineering. And as is so often the case, the highly synthetic language of progressivists preys upon real life concepts that are prevalent among ordinary folk with more common sense. The "racism" construed by progressive intellectuals has been allowed to tarnish the inherent and commonly human love of one's own. So yes, it's high time to challenge their empty discourse.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
addition..
Like the "racist" slur can be used against progressives to expose them as the actual racists, so the "Islamophobia" meme can easily be turned against the progressivist demagogues themselves.
They are in fact the real and true Islamophobes because of their biggest secret fear, i.e. that with Islam comes a multitude of unmanageable problems. And nanny statist managers don't like that: a complete system of society and day to day behaviour that defies their "problem solving skills". They are Islamophobiacs in the very real sense that their anxiety for this exotic and violent ideology stems from the fact that they don't have the discourse (and plans) ready to cope with Islam.
So therefore, whenever there's serious trouble and Islam might be involved, all effort is made to connect the problem with well-known progressivist themes: poverty, Western dominance, lack of democracy, social exclusion, racism, martians, blue jeans and Britney Spears or whatever.. Anything but Islam as a causative factor, however far-fetched.
So Islamophobia exists all right, but it almost exclusively troubles the anxious mind of the planners and progressivist "managers" of our Western societies. We, the people, are getting fed up, both with Islam and the state sponsored planners making excuses for this anti-human ideology.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto,
Do not think the it is muscular liberal/progressive "Islamophobia" more a case of willful acquiescence of islam reinvigorating and intoxicating the British class system - maybe cast system would be more appropriate.
Maybe it is time to rescript and reshoot the class sketch with a Blair/Cameron muscular liberal character, a working class counter-jihad character and the addition of a Anjem Choudary character.
JR -
Thnx for your reply, though I must confess that I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps you misunderstood my point?
Feel free to elaborate and I will follow up in kind.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagaunto,
They are Islamophobiacs in the very real sense that their anxiety for this exotic and violent ideology stems from ...
The points I was trying to make is that muscular liberals/progressives by their own ideology have insulated themselves from the "Islamophobia" label by ring-fencing any deviance that maybe beyond their "problem solving skills" and associated with islam as being culturally relative.
The progressives cultural relativism blindfold and the strange quirks of Britain's class system have allowed the Mohammedans easier movement in British society than that of the indigenous working class. The progressives laws of cultural relativism do not extended to lifting the burden of the vulgar label from the indigenous working class.
The British class system and cultural relativism is a potent mix it liberates the Mohammedans and further displaces the indigenous working class. Hence the Mohammedans can burn the flag of their choice while indigenous working class counter-protesters are threatened with penalty.
JR -
Points well taken. The real islamophobes have several means at their disposal to redirect their anxiety. One of them is indeed the ring-fencing of deviance.
Take care,
Sag.
Post a Comment