One of Britain’s state-owned Fake News outlets, Channel 4, is screening a new “documentary” at 10pm today entitled Angry, White and American. By way of a preview – and, presumably, in order to set our expectations for honest journalism at an appropriately low level – we have been treated to a clip of an angry black man haranguing a perfectly calm and polite white man. With a forbearance that surely evokes the fiery halo of ‘Saint Mandela of Tyre’, Gary Younge manages to verbally spar with Richard Spencer for a few jump-cut-ridden minutes, before furiously storming off in the sudden conviction that his interviewee “is not even worth challenging”.
Despite the affirmative-action editing, and the fact that Younge won the debate according to Guardian rules, many internet commenters outside the Fake News citadel seem to think that Spencer came off quite well. I’m inclined to agree, although I would fault him on his attempts to justify the excesses of European colonialism. There should be no more need for Europeans to make excuses to blacks on this subject than there is to beg moral absolution from them, because blacks have never once in their history been tempted by a vast knowledge of the world and a huge disparity in power over it: the fact that the house-dog has never ravaged a herd of wildebeest does not make it morally superior to the lion. Moreover, the amoral cheap-labour expedients of colonialism have been succeeded in the present day by the globalist open-borders mania: the justification has merely shifted from ‘racism’ to ‘anti-racism’, which in practice is shorthand for ‘anti-white racism’.
But this is not the main point that I wish to make about this interview. Towards its end, Younge reaches into his inquisitor’s toolbox and strikes up a typical “point deer make horse” act, pretending not to know why anyone would consider him any less native to Britain than the next man. Spencer responds by telling him that he can “never be an Englishman”, which Younge uses as a pretext to quickly segue to I-can’t-even and terminate the interview (thus saving himself any further embarrassment). The reason why Younge should have pulled this move as a ‘trump card’ is obvious to anyone living outside the American free speech zone of the West: across Europe, such claims by protected classes are backed up by direct managerial violence, most absurdly in the case of a French blogger who was sentenced to prison for stating that there are no black Celts.
Now, it would be a waste of my valuable time to write an essay directly refuting the concept of a “black Englishman”. On the True Right, which believes in the independent existence of truth, there is no one stupid enough to require such a refutation. And for those on the Left, who believe in the creation of ‘truth’ by the human will, such a refutation would miss the point: it pertains only to the is and not to the ought, and thus fails to touch the underlying assumption that it is a good and virtuous thing to open national identities to all and sundry. The concept at which we must take aim is not “black Englishmen” or “black Celts”, but inclusiveness as a moral imperative.
My objection to inclusiveness is quite simple. It is merely another name, and a more subtle method, for what in pure leftist regimes would be called repression or abolition (although doubtless they had their own euphemisms for it as well). In the present context, the desired targets of erasure are the national identities of European peoples, and strident calls for “inclusiveness” represent a form of passive aggression aimed at breaking them down in the interests of managerial power.
This, of course, runs counter to the message constantly being squawked out of every official media and activist mouthpiece: that it is the “exclusivism” of social groupings like national identity that does the repressing and erasing, for which inclusiveness is the remedy. Here, as everywhere, the progressivist ruling ideology is projecting its own aggressive intent onto its targets, and it is only the gaslighted and browbeaten state of modern Westerners that prevents this from being widely understood. If, say, some counter-jihad group like the English Defence League were to start agitating for the right to eat bacon in a mosque, most people would easily deduce the underlying intent to defile the Islamic religion (and the consequences for such agitation in the nasty little satrapy that is modern Britain would surely be imprisonment or worse). But when progressives, not known for their love of Christianity or tradition, decide that homosexuals need to get married and Christians need to get on board with this, the senile conservative opposition cannot even mumble a few ineffectual remonstrances without first genuflecting before their “misguided good intentions”.
Inclusiveness works as a means to abolition because any concept, in order to have a distinct meaning, must of necessity exclude other concepts. Now, it is true that the empirical reality referred to by the concept might be in constant flux – a concept named ‘the people of Middle-on-the-Nowhere’ would come, after a few generations of birth, death and in-out migration, to refer to a wholly different set of people from those who originally populated Middle-on-the-Nowhere – but this is exactly why it is necessary to track the point of essential continuity by use of a sufficiently precise concept. In cases where a differentiated concept is opened up to be merged with the contents of a vastly wider concept – as the ideology of inclusiveness demands at every turn – the result is the plain and simple abolition of that concept.
If
you proclaim that all men are your brothers, you are really disowning
your brothers – for their biological relation to you no longer
differentiates them from strangers in your new meaningless concept of
“brotherhood”. Speak of someone becoming one with the trees, the
sky, all the people on the earth and so on, and you are rehearsing a
funeral eulogy. Redefine a church as a “building”, and it is no longer
necessary to treat it with any more respect than a public toilet. Make
an effort to think of animals as “meat”, or human beings as
“collateral damage”, and either can be slaughtered with a relative lack
of compunction. And for all Gary Younge’s hypocritical sputtering at
Richard Spencer’s “defence of slavery”, had Spencer been shameless
enough to employ Younge’s own definition of nationality, he might have
said that nothing happened as a result of the American Indian Wars except that people born in America continued to be born there.
As these examples suggest, the motives of those who play this sordid little game with concepts tend not to be very edifying. And it is no different in the case of those who presume, in open alliance with resentful non-whites like Younge, to redefine and abolish European nationalities today: a selfish, alienated and parasitic elite, which has a vested interest in reducing all humans under its control to interchangeable units for exploitation and manipulation. The use of terms like ‘English’ or ‘British’ in their original and true sense threatens to evoke a specific community, with its own particular rights and interests, which this vile ruling class is very far from respecting – no wonder, then, that they are so eager to reduce these terms to utter meaninglessness, and treat anyone who refuses to “point deer make horse” as a subversive enemy of the state.
However, for those of us who view concepts as secondary to empirical facts, the name of a people can only be secondary to its reality. So, even supposing that we were somehow compelled to give up the original names of our nations (something that we have no intention of doing, by the way), it would merely be a matter of finding some new name for the same concept – ‘Native English’, ‘True English’, or whatever – and continuing the fight for our differentiated existence. Ethnic cleansing by the pen is just lazy and uninspired, though I am sure that we will see our enemies resort to more traditional methods before this fight is over.
Despite the affirmative-action editing, and the fact that Younge won the debate according to Guardian rules, many internet commenters outside the Fake News citadel seem to think that Spencer came off quite well. I’m inclined to agree, although I would fault him on his attempts to justify the excesses of European colonialism. There should be no more need for Europeans to make excuses to blacks on this subject than there is to beg moral absolution from them, because blacks have never once in their history been tempted by a vast knowledge of the world and a huge disparity in power over it: the fact that the house-dog has never ravaged a herd of wildebeest does not make it morally superior to the lion. Moreover, the amoral cheap-labour expedients of colonialism have been succeeded in the present day by the globalist open-borders mania: the justification has merely shifted from ‘racism’ to ‘anti-racism’, which in practice is shorthand for ‘anti-white racism’.
But this is not the main point that I wish to make about this interview. Towards its end, Younge reaches into his inquisitor’s toolbox and strikes up a typical “point deer make horse” act, pretending not to know why anyone would consider him any less native to Britain than the next man. Spencer responds by telling him that he can “never be an Englishman”, which Younge uses as a pretext to quickly segue to I-can’t-even and terminate the interview (thus saving himself any further embarrassment). The reason why Younge should have pulled this move as a ‘trump card’ is obvious to anyone living outside the American free speech zone of the West: across Europe, such claims by protected classes are backed up by direct managerial violence, most absurdly in the case of a French blogger who was sentenced to prison for stating that there are no black Celts.
 |
| Apparently, most of his progressive readers are amazed that he resisted his urges to punch Mr. Spencer. Gary sure as hell didn’t get his good job in the editorial house of the Guardian by questioning that sort of “white racism”! |
Now, it would be a waste of my valuable time to write an essay directly refuting the concept of a “black Englishman”. On the True Right, which believes in the independent existence of truth, there is no one stupid enough to require such a refutation. And for those on the Left, who believe in the creation of ‘truth’ by the human will, such a refutation would miss the point: it pertains only to the is and not to the ought, and thus fails to touch the underlying assumption that it is a good and virtuous thing to open national identities to all and sundry. The concept at which we must take aim is not “black Englishmen” or “black Celts”, but inclusiveness as a moral imperative.
My objection to inclusiveness is quite simple. It is merely another name, and a more subtle method, for what in pure leftist regimes would be called repression or abolition (although doubtless they had their own euphemisms for it as well). In the present context, the desired targets of erasure are the national identities of European peoples, and strident calls for “inclusiveness” represent a form of passive aggression aimed at breaking them down in the interests of managerial power.
This, of course, runs counter to the message constantly being squawked out of every official media and activist mouthpiece: that it is the “exclusivism” of social groupings like national identity that does the repressing and erasing, for which inclusiveness is the remedy. Here, as everywhere, the progressivist ruling ideology is projecting its own aggressive intent onto its targets, and it is only the gaslighted and browbeaten state of modern Westerners that prevents this from being widely understood. If, say, some counter-jihad group like the English Defence League were to start agitating for the right to eat bacon in a mosque, most people would easily deduce the underlying intent to defile the Islamic religion (and the consequences for such agitation in the nasty little satrapy that is modern Britain would surely be imprisonment or worse). But when progressives, not known for their love of Christianity or tradition, decide that homosexuals need to get married and Christians need to get on board with this, the senile conservative opposition cannot even mumble a few ineffectual remonstrances without first genuflecting before their “misguided good intentions”.
Inclusiveness works as a means to abolition because any concept, in order to have a distinct meaning, must of necessity exclude other concepts. Now, it is true that the empirical reality referred to by the concept might be in constant flux – a concept named ‘the people of Middle-on-the-Nowhere’ would come, after a few generations of birth, death and in-out migration, to refer to a wholly different set of people from those who originally populated Middle-on-the-Nowhere – but this is exactly why it is necessary to track the point of essential continuity by use of a sufficiently precise concept. In cases where a differentiated concept is opened up to be merged with the contents of a vastly wider concept – as the ideology of inclusiveness demands at every turn – the result is the plain and simple abolition of that concept.
 |
| The destruction of a concept often goes hand in hand with the destruction of its empirical reality. |
As these examples suggest, the motives of those who play this sordid little game with concepts tend not to be very edifying. And it is no different in the case of those who presume, in open alliance with resentful non-whites like Younge, to redefine and abolish European nationalities today: a selfish, alienated and parasitic elite, which has a vested interest in reducing all humans under its control to interchangeable units for exploitation and manipulation. The use of terms like ‘English’ or ‘British’ in their original and true sense threatens to evoke a specific community, with its own particular rights and interests, which this vile ruling class is very far from respecting – no wonder, then, that they are so eager to reduce these terms to utter meaninglessness, and treat anyone who refuses to “point deer make horse” as a subversive enemy of the state.
However, for those of us who view concepts as secondary to empirical facts, the name of a people can only be secondary to its reality. So, even supposing that we were somehow compelled to give up the original names of our nations (something that we have no intention of doing, by the way), it would merely be a matter of finding some new name for the same concept – ‘Native English’, ‘True English’, or whatever – and continuing the fight for our differentiated existence. Ethnic cleansing by the pen is just lazy and uninspired, though I am sure that we will see our enemies resort to more traditional methods before this fight is over.
Inclusiveness is how a parasite invites himself to your party--- and stays permanently.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of association means freedom to not associate, it means separation.
And we must get that basic right back. Unequivocally.