Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The Reciprocity of Cultural Genocide

A reader who calls himself “Run-on Ranter” sent us the following email in response to Nicolai Sennels’ recent post about the psychological reasons for political correctness:

Nicolai Sennels’ take on psychological issues has a seminal importance that deserves recognition. I’m speaking not just of his most recent article, but also his other work in which he approaches analysis of group psychological patterns in Islamic culture and the characteristic group psychology of Western societies that receive Muslim immigrants and other groups — and his attempts to articulate these interactions using these same terms of group psychology. For his efforts, I wish to communicate my support and admiration for his continuing intellectual fortitude.

You may want to take an Advil now in advance. I have a penchant for run-on sentences that is truly terminal, and beyond any mortal man’s ability to correct (myself included).

There may be something worth exploring and articulating further in the concept of “coping mechanisms” in relation to Western societies and their apparent “vaginal” response to Islamic immigration. Perhaps in comparison to what we would see manifested psychologically in a rape victim. The denial, the disassociation, etc.

I also see wisdom in working the term “cultural genocide” into GoV vernacular.

The phrase “cultural genocide” provides an important conceptual handle for people who are struggling to articulate and relate to what’s happening now in Western societies concerning conflicts caused by the policy of mass immigration. Trends such as the “war on Christmas”, for example, may be used to introduce, with some dark humor, the of the notion of “cultural genocide” into public discourse as a kind of faux satire. Broach the notion in a diffuse manner initially, and then proceed from there under the assumption that there is currently observed at GoV a sensitivity to the counterproductive nature of alarmism, and how most people would react to the term “cultural genocide” when presented in this context — a context I believe is the most appropriate and correct one.

The Left is selective to the point of rank denial in their application of the term “cultural genocide”, as they apparently refuse to apply it reciprocally and equally to Western societies. There seems to be some deliberation on their collective part, whether conscious or not, in denying that the term does reciprocally apply. The same reluctance can also be seen in their typical responses bordering on hysteria that are asserted in defense of their own denial, in which they commence to shame and attempt to illegitimately discredit those who assert the term’s more appropriate application to Western societies and not only to their immigrants. This should be characterized as an intellectually inferior practice — a highly suspect and questionable type of alternate, secondary, even artistic approach, rather than scientific application of the term.

Not only does the term “cultural genocide” apply to the current situation in the West, but the inertia of current social trends suggests its applicability will increase at an exponential rate.

“Cultural genocide” is a term that more appropriately applies to Western societies because they are to date in a perpetual state of cultural “receivership” that has no corollary in non-Western societies. There is no precedent in history to indicate that mass immigration is a path that leads to something good in the end.

In the Left’s view, “cultural genocide” is only in operation when Western societies commit it against immigrant enclaves. In their often warped estimations — fueled by anti-intellectual emotionalism — the situation is never the other way around. There is then a staunch cultural resistance in the population of the host country that places a taboo on exploring the idea in public discourse. The term “cultural genocide” can and should be applied in a reciprocal, equal, culturally unbiased manner that allows for open examination of its application to the antithetical reactions of immigrant groups against the Western societies that act as their receivers. Especially where there is evidence that steps are being taken from within or without Western host societies to empower these immigrant groups in making such hostile assertions.

The selective manner in which the Left applies the term “cultural genocide” is analogous to the proverbial shaming of the rape victim — that is, the Western “receiver” society. Poignantly, in this analogy the Left actively shames itself as well as others, because obviously they are also part of this “receiver” society.

An aspect of this shaming is to project onto the victims the notion that they are not to view themselves as the victims. To ignore legitimacy of the concept of “cultural genocide” as applied conversely to Western “receiver” societies seems similar to the denial and disassociation that is sometimes manifested in a rape victim who rationalizes that the rape was somehow her fault. Since she caused it, she must allow it to continue happening to atone for herself.

How one would say all this in psychological terms, I’d have to leave to adepts like Nicolai Sennels. I’m not trained or certified in psychology.

Thank you for everything you do. Your intellectual resilience has been an inspiration to me as well.

— Run-on Ranter

17 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Very well said and posted

Anonymous said...

It is the basic battering ram. The double standard. To hit the Left with. Of course, they are fully awaare of it, and defend the double standard. They aren't interested in European Christians well being, butrather seek the deconstruction of their civilization and power.

EV

Nemesis said...

An excellent analysis! I hope we read more from this person.

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

Hi R-o-R,

[2nd, improved version]

I also applaud the attempts by Sennels to explore the applicability (and limitations) of psychological constructs to the problem of Muslim mass immigration. One could argue that clinical experience with Muslim delinquents doesn't in and of itself merit the extension of social psychological categories to a problem that is as wide-ranging as the term indicates, but that's another matter.

What I'd like to point out to other readers, with regard to the Run-on-Ranter comment, is that it signals a return to the comforting notion that it is "the Left" we're dealing with here.

If only that were the case, the problem of Western cultural suicide would have been enormous, yet much more manageable in decades past.

For one, many in the Anti Islam Movement are still leftists themselves. Old left, in the sense that they defend a welfare state without the US import Cult of Diversity(TM). They are, in a sense, "conservative" leftists when it comes to defending a welfare state without multiculturalism (which is perfectly logical and defensible). In my own country, the PVV (scolded as "right-wing extremists") is a welfare statist party which proposes leftist and progressivist policies with regard to social and economical issues. In varying degrees "freedom party" AIM'ers might support traditional institutions, like the family, but that's not a given, certainly not with the secular "enlightenment" supporters of the activist variety.

Secondly, we see PC/MC defended and supported by a vast majority on "the right", say the US neo-cons, European "liberals" (not the US type, but the alleged capitalist libs) and like-minded groups in society*. And to complete the picture, there was - and we still see - widespread support among many in the Western public for PC/MC, not just those who voted for leftist parties.

So therefore, I think it's important to emphasize that progressivism, which is a far more widespread phenomenon than leftism, might be the more proper term here to cover the political and public support for PC/MC. And if cultural genocide is used, it should i.m.o. be accompanied by it's mirror image, which is cultural suicide, a term that implicates Western society way beyond the problem of Muslim mass immigration.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

* personally, I think this is all progressivist infighting, i.e. new left vs old left, with right-wing left neo-conservatism (old Progressive Party), thrown in for good measure. But for clarity's sake, I follow the standard 'left' vs 'right' myth and discourse.

Hebes Chasma said...

BTW, anybody knows what it means in Italian
Salam Alekum
Alekum Salam

?

It means "lick my salami", either way. We'd better diffuse this greeting.

Anonymous said...

The shills for sharia at the European Muslim Research Centre (the most politically biased "research" establishment of any UK university) have already been trying to claim that British muslims have for years been the victims of "cultural" terrorism: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100066569/islamic-extremism-is-this-the-years-most-embarrassing-academic-report/

Those who will swear "black is white" for their islamic paymasters pretend that the cultural terrorism has not been going the other way. It was unheard of for their to be a political assassination in the Netherlands until the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. No muslim in europe lives under the kind of state protection that Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie lived under -- and which Geert Wilders still lives under. This recent article by the BBC fails to even mention that Wilders has been living under 24x7 police protection for the last 5 to 10 years.

The liberal-left are deliberately blind to the massive cultural changes that islamic bombing terrorism and islamic assassination terrorism have brought to our countries.

A mosque having bacon left in front of it is "a hate crime". A politician being allowed no family life and living with the daily, realistic threat of murder is not worth mentioning.

In the 1950s or 1960s, if you had been told that anyone who dared to criticise a religious group would have to have 24x7 police protection for years and maybe for the rest of their life, you would have laughed at such a preposterous scenario. At best, it would appear in a dystopic sci-fi film. But within a generation it was fact not fantasy. That is cultural genocide.

Muslims like Tariq Ramadan are proud that now, after 20 years of cultural terrorism by muslims, someone like Salman Rushdie would not dare to write The Satantic Verses. Undoubtedly, such muslims are also proud that any western politician who dares to criticise islam, will spend the rest of his life living in fear of assassination.

Anonymous said...

There is already the term "ethnocide" that means the same thing. What is really needed is an extension of the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to apply to fleeing an area in the face of a large influx of another ethnic group in order to retain ethnic homeostasis.

Anonymous said...

"This should be characterized as an intellectually inferior practice — a highly suspect and questionable type of alternate, secondary, even artistic approach, rather than scientific application of the term."

Very interesting way to put it.

Chiu said...

"And who is my neighbour?"

Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him....

"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"

"And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

Who is our neighbor? None other than those that shew mercy on us. None other. Fellow-countrymen or even leaders of our community do not qualify as our neighbors if they do not shew mercy upon us. Nor may the stranger qualify except because of his mercy towards us.

The modern dogma of PC MC teaches us to hate and despise our neighbors, those who have produced all that we enjoy. It teaches us that we should "love" enemies by confirming and enabling them in their self-destruction...and the murder and rape of our neighbors.

How has this strange inversion of morality become accepted throughout most of the Western world? Why?

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

nicolai sennels must know there are people in power positions who are on pills/drugs...

Egghead said...

Chiu: Yes! Yes! Yes!

The importance of your point here (and in similar and also related comments) is that those who BLAME God and Christianity for causing this PC MC mess are WRONG.

PC MC is a strictly HUMAN invention fully intended to subvert God and God's goals for humanity by purposely redefining love to be indulgence.

Lately, the West calls indulgence by another name which is tolerance - but, as we all see before our very eyes, neither indulgence nor tolerance are love.

God intends for humans to love God, themselves, their nuclear family, their extended family, their country, and their world - in that specific order.

Notice how PC MC subverts God's plan to the detriment of all.

Anonymous said...

RoR here. In ref to usage of the phrase "the left" or leftists, etc. -- I would encourage people not to be literal in every single circumstance that "the left" is used conceptually where it implies personification. I acknowledge that where it gives that impression that this is not always accurate and if you're literal it's misleading. Sometimes it's a set of behaviors not necessarily a personified "they". I leave it to you to apply some flexibility in interpretation where there are other points being made. It's a good point though. Worthy of articulation in a book I don't have the time to write. :)

Chiu said...

"We love him, because he first loved us."
1 John 4:19

I would slightly refine Egghead's statement, "God intends for humans to love God, themselves, their nuclear family, their extended family, their country, and their world - in that specific order." What is the common factor that defines this hierarchy? It is a list of those that love us, in order from those that love us most to those that love us little.

Love is essentially reciprocal. When we see someone that "loves" someone or something that does not or cannot love back, we see it as a kind of illness or delusion rather than a normal and healthy expression of feeling. It may still be thought beautiful in a way, the same way that a lovely countenance may be "beautiful in death". But it is not the proper and desirable form, and it is impossible to convince any sane person otherwise. This is why abolition of the Christian ideal of love is so essential to the program of PC and MC.

Of course, it is not only Christianity that teaches us that love is most fitting when it is returned in full measure. Every human instinct towards those we love declares it. But not every ideology has a high regard for love (Buddhism regards it as a barrier to enlightenment, for example, while Taoism is largely indifferent about its value). But the robust and passionate defense of individualism must be based in love. Those that do not rate love highly will be cold and indifferent defenders of individualism, ready to entertain totalitarian impulses when it suits them.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Hi R-o-R,

I assume you addressed yours truly, since I indeed made a point about the meaning of "Left" that these days covers about all of the political spectrum in Western society. This is not about alleged "literalism", at all, and I really think it doesn't serve the discussion to use such a label.

This is simply about words having certain specific meanings and connotations. The use of "left" implies that there's another party, perhaps even opposite and on "the right" (say, "us, conservatives"). Or think of how you would describe your own, non-left political leanings. How would you catch them in one word?

If "left" still has any meaning, one uses it to denote a certain set of political beliefs. If you extend its meaning to cover about all of what's usually called "right", then another term is in order, or "left" looses its meaning. Of course there really is a genuine and sharp distinction possible between Left and Right standing in opposition, which used to be about the ideology of interventionism versus free market philosophy.
Regrettably, in politics today, there is no genuine free market party, not in any European country, since all established parties support the monetary fascism of central banking and nanny state interventionism in nearly every sphere of our lives.

So we're left with this political play of left/right, and confusion sets in when these interventionists (old/new/neo-cons) start their habitual factional infighting and call themselves left- or right-wing (or "conservative", as these neo-cons in the USA). So I accept your assertion that you meant "left" to have a meaning that goes beyond mere Marxism in all its varieties. But you did leave out any mention of "the right" who are also complicit in PC/MC and the sorry state of the West as a compromised host to Islamic parasites.

So therefore, and since the focus is on PC/MC and its part in our cultural genocide, I proposed to capture this broad "leftist" infighting with the term "progressivists", to include denominations usually thought of as "right-wing" in the standard political discourse. So there it is, no book yet, though I was in danger of being well on my way here ;)

Anyway, cheers and thnx for the exchange,
Sag

Egghead said...

Chiu: I often edit my comments extensively, and I had included the concept of reciprocality as being definitional of love - and then removed it.

The reason that I took it out was that God loves all - and yet that love is often unrequited by evil, ignorant, and confused entities.

In perfect knowledge, God is aware that eventually all will love and be reconciled to God.

Do you have any thoughts about God loving humans despite lack of past and present reciprocality? Future reciprocality is, of course, God's goal and achievement.

Chiu said...

Sag & RR,

More specifically, "left" and "right" in political terms refers to the seating arrangements in some legislative body at some point in history, where the members of one political organization sat on one side and members of the other sat on the other side. This was in the interests of facilitating easy cooperation and non-floor discussion of procedural tactics to be employed during a session.

Which is to say, in their political usage, the terms "left" and "right" do not refer to merely abstract collections of policy goals but to actual organized entities that exist for the sake of progressing those policies. Thus it is not "personification" to refer to them that way. The "left" is not a person but it is a real entity that has goals, intentions, and activity.

Chiu Chun-Ling.