It is a fairly commonplace assertion on the Right that political correctness, which is the closest
thing to a moral code in Western progressivism, seeks to make “injustices,” “hatreds,” and “phobias” out of things that were previously considered perfectly normal and natural. We do not need to look far afield for the victims of this tendency: they include ethnic consciousness in Europeans, the polarity of the sexes, and – increasingly – the assumption that the sex of an individual cannot be altered by genital surgery or hormone therapy.
Less well understood is the tendency of political correctness to take up real injustices, pathologies, and hatreds, and redefine them as shining examples of “social justice."
The main obstacle to understanding is, of course, the highly encoded language that achieves an almost ludicrous level of development in the politically-correct ‘morality of verbalisation’: this language invariably presents its own aims in terms of “liberation,” “inclusion,” and various other forms of affirmation, which has led many a naïve conservative to speak of progressivists’ “misguided good intentions.”
Such conservatives can only restrict themselves to reversing the negative re-evaluation of the values and assumptions they hold dear; but the ‘Dissident Right’ (or rather the true Right, which is forced in current circumstances to refer to itself as such) should go on the offensive and begin the work of re-evaluating the positive terms used by progressivists to expose their cultural revolution. However, in this we must guard against all arbitrariness and linguistic histrionics: for nothing is more easily achieved, nor more swiftly forgotten, than a crude and emotional reworking of language in accordance with one’s own political prejudices.
Thus, we propose a simple methodology for ‘decoding progressivism’: wherever politically-correct language speaks of affirmation of a particular group or tendency, turn instead to the consideration of the groups and tendencies that are to suffer negation thereby. For example: where progressivists speak in their coded language of “marriage equality” for homosexuals, we should consider instead the inevitable negative result of this positive value, which is of course the further dissolution of traditional marriage.
In this we do not need to deny that the progressivist agitating for “marriage equality” truly experiences some feeling of benevolence for the organised homosexual community which he seeks to mobilise; we simply aim to give proper consideration to the nasty, aggressive thrill simultaneously experienced by such a person at the thought of spitting upon the religious sensibilities of people he despises.
Because progressivism shifts its positive allegiance between all sorts of groups (loosely cobbled together as “oppressed” or “subaltern”) with ever-increasing rapidity, whereas its negative antipathy to Tradition alone remains more or less static and constant, we have reason to believe that it is negativity, phobia, and hatred – and not the affirmation, security, and so-called “good intentions” floating like a mirage on the surface of politically-correct language – that are at the heart of the progressivist mentality.
Here are a few examples of the politically-correct terms of affirmation that might be re-evaluated
according to the methodology outlined above:
This example is, in a sense, the key to most of the others; and it is vitally important to understand that in a society which still draws its legitimacy from its pretence to ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, an indiscriminate and pernicious inclusiveness is the most effective tool of abolition that a corrupt and evil authority has at its disposal.
The basic concept might be grasped by means of a parable: a school possesses a well-kept football field, which is beloved of the student body, but seen as a liability by the school authorities who wish to turn the field into a car park. Rather than risk a revolt by the entire student body by imposing this plan by fiat, the school authorities mobilise smaller interest groups among the students so as to “open up” the use of the field: first to the rugby players, then to the basketball players, then to the players of card and board games, employing moralist arguments to exhort the majority of football players to share their field with others. Once the field is so cluttered, litter-strewn and badly-kept to be of no use for playing football or anything else, the school authorities finally mobilise the interests of the parents to have the field turned into a car park – thus, by a parody of ‘fairness’ and ‘democracy,’ they achieve the original plan of abolition.
It is easy to apply this logic to real-world examples. A Catholic church opened to inclusiveness of Protestantism would no longer be Catholic; a traditional concept of marriage redefined to include same-sex unions is no longer the same concept at all; and a male gang opened up to allow the participation of women effectively ceases to exist as such, which incidentally is a plus from the perspective of any authority that feels threatened by independent groups of men.
Inclusiveness of this type can be used to abolish not only institutions, but also entire peoples: for if terms like English or French are opened up to include anyone who shows up at the borders of England or France and claims them, the original ethnic definition of these peoples effectively ceases to exist, just as a house ceases to exist as such when it is “redefined” within the more inclusive term of debris. (This again finds a driving force in the self-interest of evil men: for as certain young female members of the abolished peoples of Europe know only too well, those who say “All men are my brothers” can rarely be found treating strangers as they should treat their own family, but find every excuse to treat their flesh and blood as callously as they would a stranger!)
Little comment is needed here, because the correct redefinition of these terms follows more or less directly from what has been said about inclusiveness: all we need do is turn our consideration from the “rights” of immigrants that are being affirmed to the greater rights of native peoples that can only be negated thereby, principally the right of a people to have a homeland.
In accordance with what has already been said, we refuse to pretend that this is merely the unintentional by-product of “misguided good intentions”: for if this were the case, the impeccably logical arguments of conservatives exposing the injustices done in the name of these progressivist shibboleths would have long ago struck the consciences of those responsible, whereas we know well that this is very far from being the case. Rather, it is hatred and hostility towards the native peoples of Europe – such as can be seen oozing from the rhetoric of the globalist ruling class – which composes the dark and ugly iceberg of which all moralistic talk of immigrant “rights” in the West represents only the very tip.
Again, this redefinition is fairly self-explanatory. However, in accordance with the methodology used here, we do not wish to dwell unduly on the self-interest of the powerful which no doubt plays a large part in their promoting a ‘liberation’ consisting of economic servitude; rather, we aim to focus our attention on the spirit of hostility and negation fuelling the superficially positive rhetoric of ‘women’s liberation,’ which in this case amounts to a literal negation of all subsequent generations. Inseparable from this is a deeper negation of Tradition, which is used in the above sentence as a verb in accordance with its original meaning of ‘handing down’: it is obvious that if there is no subsequent generation to which anything can be ‘handed down’, the traditional values of an entire people can be destroyed outright; and this is why the “liberation” of women into the sterile world of the office cubicle and the shopping mall occupies a special place alongside the comparable barbarisms mentioned above.
For this redefinition we are indebted to Dr. Kerry Bolton, who in his enlightening work Revolution From Above describes the use of the phrase open society by globalist, plutocratic interests
promoting progressivist outcomes in other countries by means of cultural subversion, military
intervention and – increasingly – rent-a-mob ‘colour revolutions.’
Again, we do not wish to dwell here on the questions of self-interest and cui bono, but rather to confine our discussion to the question of what is being negated by the positive phrase open society: and the answer can only be the independence of a particular nation or society from globalist power, which is also the necessary prerequisite for any effective defence against the destructions of progressivism.
Here we see the fear and hatred of progressivism not for Tradition as such, but for that which might conceivably allow it to defend and regroup itself anywhere in the world. As the progressivists and globalists have made all too clear in recent years, no price in blood – whether it be that of soldiers on the battlefield, civilians killed in terrorist retaliations, or the future millions who may yet die in unnecessary wars provoked by globalist-American subversion of other countries – can be considered too high to assuage this fear and hatred.
Once the basic patterns at work in these examples have been correctly discerned, the methodology can be ‘worked backwards’ as it were, and applied to politically-correct terms of negation and contempt in order to yield to our understanding the true positive content of these terms:
It is expected that this particular redefinition will meet with surprise from the reader, although a moment’s reflection may be enough to confirm that there is more truth in it than meets the eye. To make the case in full, we must make use of comparisons with other, cruder racial epithets, principally so as to clear up certain common misconceptions as to the limits of their use.
Our first piece of evidence, ‘negative evidence’ though it may be, is the surprising paucity of other racial epithets for white Europeans in English.
Given that brutal racial epithets exist for most other races of man, and that white Europeans are in general subject to no small degree of resentment from others, the likes of honkey and white boy hardly seem to do justice to the strength of the anti-white feelings expressed in phenomena like the "knockout game." However, this does not appear so strange when we remember that "racist" is a strong enough put-down to render most other anti-white epithets unnecessary, and has the advantage of being as devastating to most white Europeans as it is singularly ineffective against everyone else.
Moreover, the modern provenance of the word racist is well known: it is steeped in an anti-white progressivist dogma which maintains, by all sorts of tedious sophistry, that all that can be legitimately described by the term is more or less the exclusive preserve of white Europeans.
Even when the possibility of applying the term to non-whites is (grudgingly) admitted, it is qualified in terms such as 'reverse racist,' as if the state described by the word can only have been learned or inherited from the white Europeans with which it is supposed to have originated; such qualified terms can be compared to the likes of ‘wigger’ or ‘wegro’ in both their odd semantics and their rhetorical feebleness. Examples of the word racist being directly hurled at non-whites, usually by conservatives, merely represent incorrect usage of the term; those who are fluent in the coded language of political correctness not only almost never use the term out of place, but also frequently see fit to reassert the proper limits of its use.
Of course, it is beyond doubt that many white Europeans also use the term racist to describe certain members of their own race; and if we are to come to a satisfactory explanation of this, we must understand that racial epithets can also be used within a racial group by those who wish to differentiate themselves from the perceived undesirable characteristics of that group. Now, it is true that we are to a certain extent dealing with something unique to white Europeans here, as the sheer number of whites afflicted with the delusion of “transcending their own race” is far higher than in any other racial group (ironically enough, as we have discussed before, this attitude stems directly from a particular type of white European racial arrogance. However, the rest of humanity does not entirely fail to furnish us with comparable examples.
One famous instance would be Chris Rock’s notorious comedy skit on the subject of “black people vs. niggers”: here we see nigger used as a catch-all term for the perceived low-class and undesirable cultural traits of black people, which might give us a clue as to what well-off and privileged white progressivists are thinking when they castigate the majority of Europeans as racist.
A less well-known example would be the widespread use of the strongly anti-Chinese racial epithet zhīnà among the inhabitants of Hong Kong and Taiwan: although the people using the slur are ethnically Chinese, they are compelled by political reasons to dissociate themselves from mainland China, and use this epithet in a way that evokes perceived undesirable Chinese characteristics such as cultural backwardness and rude behaviour in public.
What all of this suggests – and we already know – is that a white European would have to go through as much cultural self-annihilation, despicable begging-of-pardon, and disavowal of his own people to escape the epithet of racist, as a black man among his enemies would have to go through in order to escape the comparable epithet of nigger; and we may pronounce our follies cured when the former learns to regard the prospect with as much contempt as would the latter.
The true implications of an epithet stigmatising “discrimination of gender” have long been hidden behind a wall of sound and fury, mainly as a result of progressivists’ successfully identifying their subversion of gender with the particular interests of women.
However, this is rapidly becoming no less old-fashioned than the idea that progressivism defends the interests of the working class: for as we already have touched upon, progressivism has failed both to protect and to liberate women, and there is evidence that the potential of the so-called “women’s movement” as a tool of cultural revolution is close to being exhausted. In its more recent efforts to mobilise the “transgender community” to achieve a deeper attack on traditional values, which is now given priority over an increasingly outdated ‘feminism’, progressivism is beginning to show more and more clearly that its critique of sexist “discrimination” entails not the promotion of one sex over another but the simple negation of both.
What should also be stressed here is that progressivists have no justification for conflating their defence of feminism with the idea of defending women; or, for example, using epithets like anti-woman or misogynist in place of anti-feminist. Why on earth should they possess the right to these terms – when not only have they negated the ancient dignity of women in favour of a parody of economically-enslaved masculinity, but are now daring to go so far as to make woman literally synonymous with eunuch?
We on the true Right should take pains to draw a sharp distinction between women and feminists, between the differentiated female sex and those who seek to negate it, and take up the defence of the former even as we utterly reject the latter.
Given the constantly-multiplying repertoire of politically-correct terms, what has been discussed
above can only be a modest beginning to a much larger work of ‘decoding’ – which, once
completed, would probably be sufficient to fill the pages of a short dictionary. Thus, readers who
have grasped the basic methodology used here are invited to post their own attempts at decoding
progressivist terms in the comments section below this article. A virus cannot be combated without
vaccination – and we cannot even begin to oppose progressivism, unless we devise methods for
dealing with the lies and hypocrisies encoded in its very language.
Less well understood is the tendency of political correctness to take up real injustices, pathologies, and hatreds, and redefine them as shining examples of “social justice."
The main obstacle to understanding is, of course, the highly encoded language that achieves an almost ludicrous level of development in the politically-correct ‘morality of verbalisation’: this language invariably presents its own aims in terms of “liberation,” “inclusion,” and various other forms of affirmation, which has led many a naïve conservative to speak of progressivists’ “misguided good intentions.”
Such conservatives can only restrict themselves to reversing the negative re-evaluation of the values and assumptions they hold dear; but the ‘Dissident Right’ (or rather the true Right, which is forced in current circumstances to refer to itself as such) should go on the offensive and begin the work of re-evaluating the positive terms used by progressivists to expose their cultural revolution. However, in this we must guard against all arbitrariness and linguistic histrionics: for nothing is more easily achieved, nor more swiftly forgotten, than a crude and emotional reworking of language in accordance with one’s own political prejudices.
Thus, we propose a simple methodology for ‘decoding progressivism’: wherever politically-correct language speaks of affirmation of a particular group or tendency, turn instead to the consideration of the groups and tendencies that are to suffer negation thereby. For example: where progressivists speak in their coded language of “marriage equality” for homosexuals, we should consider instead the inevitable negative result of this positive value, which is of course the further dissolution of traditional marriage.
In this we do not need to deny that the progressivist agitating for “marriage equality” truly experiences some feeling of benevolence for the organised homosexual community which he seeks to mobilise; we simply aim to give proper consideration to the nasty, aggressive thrill simultaneously experienced by such a person at the thought of spitting upon the religious sensibilities of people he despises.
Because progressivism shifts its positive allegiance between all sorts of groups (loosely cobbled together as “oppressed” or “subaltern”) with ever-increasing rapidity, whereas its negative antipathy to Tradition alone remains more or less static and constant, we have reason to believe that it is negativity, phobia, and hatred – and not the affirmation, security, and so-called “good intentions” floating like a mirage on the surface of politically-correct language – that are at the heart of the progressivist mentality.
DECODING PROGRESSIVIST TERMS OF AFFIRMATION
‘Inclusiveness’: abolition.
This example is, in a sense, the key to most of the others; and it is vitally important to understand that in a society which still draws its legitimacy from its pretence to ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, an indiscriminate and pernicious inclusiveness is the most effective tool of abolition that a corrupt and evil authority has at its disposal.
The basic concept might be grasped by means of a parable: a school possesses a well-kept football field, which is beloved of the student body, but seen as a liability by the school authorities who wish to turn the field into a car park. Rather than risk a revolt by the entire student body by imposing this plan by fiat, the school authorities mobilise smaller interest groups among the students so as to “open up” the use of the field: first to the rugby players, then to the basketball players, then to the players of card and board games, employing moralist arguments to exhort the majority of football players to share their field with others. Once the field is so cluttered, litter-strewn and badly-kept to be of no use for playing football or anything else, the school authorities finally mobilise the interests of the parents to have the field turned into a car park – thus, by a parody of ‘fairness’ and ‘democracy,’ they achieve the original plan of abolition.
It is easy to apply this logic to real-world examples. A Catholic church opened to inclusiveness of Protestantism would no longer be Catholic; a traditional concept of marriage redefined to include same-sex unions is no longer the same concept at all; and a male gang opened up to allow the participation of women effectively ceases to exist as such, which incidentally is a plus from the perspective of any authority that feels threatened by independent groups of men.
Inclusiveness of this type can be used to abolish not only institutions, but also entire peoples: for if terms like English or French are opened up to include anyone who shows up at the borders of England or France and claims them, the original ethnic definition of these peoples effectively ceases to exist, just as a house ceases to exist as such when it is “redefined” within the more inclusive term of debris. (This again finds a driving force in the self-interest of evil men: for as certain young female members of the abolished peoples of Europe know only too well, those who say “All men are my brothers” can rarely be found treating strangers as they should treat their own family, but find every excuse to treat their flesh and blood as callously as they would a stranger!)
‘Diversity,’ ‘multiculturalism,’ ‘right of free immigration’ etc.: negation of the national rights of native peoples; ethnic replacement of these peoples.
Little comment is needed here, because the correct redefinition of these terms follows more or less directly from what has been said about inclusiveness: all we need do is turn our consideration from the “rights” of immigrants that are being affirmed to the greater rights of native peoples that can only be negated thereby, principally the right of a people to have a homeland.
In accordance with what has already been said, we refuse to pretend that this is merely the unintentional by-product of “misguided good intentions”: for if this were the case, the impeccably logical arguments of conservatives exposing the injustices done in the name of these progressivist shibboleths would have long ago struck the consciences of those responsible, whereas we know well that this is very far from being the case. Rather, it is hatred and hostility towards the native peoples of Europe – such as can be seen oozing from the rhetoric of the globalist ruling class – which composes the dark and ugly iceberg of which all moralistic talk of immigrant “rights” in the West represents only the very tip.
‘Women’s liberation’: replacement of procreation and ‘tradition’ by economic production, consumerism, and taxpaying.
Again, this redefinition is fairly self-explanatory. However, in accordance with the methodology used here, we do not wish to dwell unduly on the self-interest of the powerful which no doubt plays a large part in their promoting a ‘liberation’ consisting of economic servitude; rather, we aim to focus our attention on the spirit of hostility and negation fuelling the superficially positive rhetoric of ‘women’s liberation,’ which in this case amounts to a literal negation of all subsequent generations. Inseparable from this is a deeper negation of Tradition, which is used in the above sentence as a verb in accordance with its original meaning of ‘handing down’: it is obvious that if there is no subsequent generation to which anything can be ‘handed down’, the traditional values of an entire people can be destroyed outright; and this is why the “liberation” of women into the sterile world of the office cubicle and the shopping mall occupies a special place alongside the comparable barbarisms mentioned above.
‘Open society’: a society open to globalist control and exploitation.
 |
| Shut up, they explain. |
Again, we do not wish to dwell here on the questions of self-interest and cui bono, but rather to confine our discussion to the question of what is being negated by the positive phrase open society: and the answer can only be the independence of a particular nation or society from globalist power, which is also the necessary prerequisite for any effective defence against the destructions of progressivism.
Here we see the fear and hatred of progressivism not for Tradition as such, but for that which might conceivably allow it to defend and regroup itself anywhere in the world. As the progressivists and globalists have made all too clear in recent years, no price in blood – whether it be that of soldiers on the battlefield, civilians killed in terrorist retaliations, or the future millions who may yet die in unnecessary wars provoked by globalist-American subversion of other countries – can be considered too high to assuage this fear and hatred.
DECODING NEGATIVE PROGRESSIVIST TERMS
‘Racist’: a racial epithet for a person of white European culture and descent.
It is expected that this particular redefinition will meet with surprise from the reader, although a moment’s reflection may be enough to confirm that there is more truth in it than meets the eye. To make the case in full, we must make use of comparisons with other, cruder racial epithets, principally so as to clear up certain common misconceptions as to the limits of their use.
Our first piece of evidence, ‘negative evidence’ though it may be, is the surprising paucity of other racial epithets for white Europeans in English.
Given that brutal racial epithets exist for most other races of man, and that white Europeans are in general subject to no small degree of resentment from others, the likes of honkey and white boy hardly seem to do justice to the strength of the anti-white feelings expressed in phenomena like the "knockout game." However, this does not appear so strange when we remember that "racist" is a strong enough put-down to render most other anti-white epithets unnecessary, and has the advantage of being as devastating to most white Europeans as it is singularly ineffective against everyone else.
Moreover, the modern provenance of the word racist is well known: it is steeped in an anti-white progressivist dogma which maintains, by all sorts of tedious sophistry, that all that can be legitimately described by the term is more or less the exclusive preserve of white Europeans.
Even when the possibility of applying the term to non-whites is (grudgingly) admitted, it is qualified in terms such as 'reverse racist,' as if the state described by the word can only have been learned or inherited from the white Europeans with which it is supposed to have originated; such qualified terms can be compared to the likes of ‘wigger’ or ‘wegro’ in both their odd semantics and their rhetorical feebleness. Examples of the word racist being directly hurled at non-whites, usually by conservatives, merely represent incorrect usage of the term; those who are fluent in the coded language of political correctness not only almost never use the term out of place, but also frequently see fit to reassert the proper limits of its use.
Of course, it is beyond doubt that many white Europeans also use the term racist to describe certain members of their own race; and if we are to come to a satisfactory explanation of this, we must understand that racial epithets can also be used within a racial group by those who wish to differentiate themselves from the perceived undesirable characteristics of that group. Now, it is true that we are to a certain extent dealing with something unique to white Europeans here, as the sheer number of whites afflicted with the delusion of “transcending their own race” is far higher than in any other racial group (ironically enough, as we have discussed before, this attitude stems directly from a particular type of white European racial arrogance. However, the rest of humanity does not entirely fail to furnish us with comparable examples.
A less well-known example would be the widespread use of the strongly anti-Chinese racial epithet zhīnà among the inhabitants of Hong Kong and Taiwan: although the people using the slur are ethnically Chinese, they are compelled by political reasons to dissociate themselves from mainland China, and use this epithet in a way that evokes perceived undesirable Chinese characteristics such as cultural backwardness and rude behaviour in public.
What all of this suggests – and we already know – is that a white European would have to go through as much cultural self-annihilation, despicable begging-of-pardon, and disavowal of his own people to escape the epithet of racist, as a black man among his enemies would have to go through in order to escape the comparable epithet of nigger; and we may pronounce our follies cured when the former learns to regard the prospect with as much contempt as would the latter.
‘Sexist’: a term of contempt for normal men and women.
The true implications of an epithet stigmatising “discrimination of gender” have long been hidden behind a wall of sound and fury, mainly as a result of progressivists’ successfully identifying their subversion of gender with the particular interests of women.
However, this is rapidly becoming no less old-fashioned than the idea that progressivism defends the interests of the working class: for as we already have touched upon, progressivism has failed both to protect and to liberate women, and there is evidence that the potential of the so-called “women’s movement” as a tool of cultural revolution is close to being exhausted. In its more recent efforts to mobilise the “transgender community” to achieve a deeper attack on traditional values, which is now given priority over an increasingly outdated ‘feminism’, progressivism is beginning to show more and more clearly that its critique of sexist “discrimination” entails not the promotion of one sex over another but the simple negation of both.
What should also be stressed here is that progressivists have no justification for conflating their defence of feminism with the idea of defending women; or, for example, using epithets like anti-woman or misogynist in place of anti-feminist. Why on earth should they possess the right to these terms – when not only have they negated the ancient dignity of women in favour of a parody of economically-enslaved masculinity, but are now daring to go so far as to make woman literally synonymous with eunuch?
We on the true Right should take pains to draw a sharp distinction between women and feminists, between the differentiated female sex and those who seek to negate it, and take up the defence of the former even as we utterly reject the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.