 |
| Wake me up when the shrieking stops. |
When it became OK to openly take drugs, screw around, and even be flagrantly gay (from around the 1960s to the 1980s), a new problem emerged. How were we to castigate other people for immorality, and to feel morally superior?
Luckily for those keen to look down on others, “racism” and its attendant vices of “sexism” and “homophobia” came along as convenient replacement sins for the old ones of sexual or toxicological depravity. Conveniently they also fitted in with the needs of globalism, such as mass immigration and getting women into the workplace.
But now, just a few decades after being instituted, this new "moral" system is on the point of collapse, because, as we are seeing with Trump's "Squad Wars" against the four Democratic Congresswomen, everyone and his dog is now basically a “racist.”
In theory the concept of “racism” had potential. But the only reasonable definition of the term was that it referred to an irrational hatred of a racial or ethnic group in a world where many fears and hatreds, including group fears and hatreds, may be entirely rational. That is at least how I tried to define it in this article: NEO-RACISM vs PALAEORACISM
Sadly, however, such an objectively unarguable definition of the term leads to some radical and—for ethnomasochist Whites—disturbing conclusions, namely that Whites, by and large, are seldom guilty of racism, while almost every other group is knee deep in it.
But it seems that many Whites don't even want their group to be in the right with regard to racism. This is because what they really use the concept for is not to define their relations with other racial groups, but instead to intraracially define their relations with other Whites.
Yes, in short, Whites mainly use racism to seek a moral authority and advantage over other Whites, with non-Whites playing what is mainly an auxiliary role.
But now it seems Trump is ruining this cosy little set-up by changing racism from a cosy intraracial, White-on-White thing, where one White person angrily denounces another for "racissssssm!" to one where everybody bandies the word around all the time to everyone else—White on White, White on Black, Black on White, Black on Black on Hispanic on Asian, Asian on Black and White on X, Y, and Z ethnicity or religion—until you create a virtual spider’s web of cross accusations.
For a long time White Conservatives and other Right-wingers laboured under the burden of being the term’s original targets. They resented the advantage that the R-word gave Leftist Whites over them, especially as this was an inversion of the moral superiority that right-wingers enjoyed over Left-wingers when moral inferiority was defined by sexual and toxicological incontinence.
But, as we have seen in the UK, with the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, and now in America with Trump’s war against "The (Shit?) Squad," parts of the right have found a way to play the Left at their own game by highlighting or even exaggerating the Left's increasing animosity to the state of Israel and, by extension, the Jews. As usual the actual facts of the case are not particularly important, as Corbyn can hardly be described as an “anti-Semitie,” but then the facts are never that important with the Left either.
The British Conservative Party—traditionally seen as the UK’s "nasty party" (i.e. the party with some standards and a degree of economic literacy)—found it wasn't just enough to cuck to Leftist charges of "racism" by fast-tracking their own slate of "oppressed" minorities into safe sears and government posts. They realised they also had to find a stick with which to beat their opponents using the same charges. Focusing on Jeremy Corbyn's anti-colonialist hatred of Israel and his relative tolerance of non-White animosity toward Jews proved ideal.
The importance of the Jews in all this has to be stressed. The Jews are unique among White ethnic groups for having been victims of extreme, ethnically-motivated violence comparatively recently. Even if you wish to quibble about the numbers killed and the causes of the oppression, the fact is that a lot of innocent Jews came to an unfortunate and often brutal end. That is the most significant fact—among several others—that allows them to be used as "moral cannon fodder" by a Conservative Party keen to score anti-racist points against its Labour opponent, or by a US President shielding himself from R-word backlash as he baits the Dems to push "The Squad" out front to weaken their electoral prospects.
Yes, the Dems are fighting the last war, while Trump is fighting the next one. But the end result of all this is that "racism," instead of becoming a meaningful concept, signifying an objectively determined irrational fear or dislike of a specific group instead of a rational one, is just becoming shrill, subjective hysteria, with everyone using it all the time.
It is hard to see how it won’t become jaded, devalued, and defunct in the process.
But what will we end up basing our next "moral" system? That is anybody’s guess, though it would help explain the rising hysteria of the Green movement in our societies.
Luckily for those keen to look down on others, “racism” and its attendant vices of “sexism” and “homophobia” came along as convenient replacement sins for the old ones of sexual or toxicological depravity. Conveniently they also fitted in with the needs of globalism, such as mass immigration and getting women into the workplace.
But now, just a few decades after being instituted, this new "moral" system is on the point of collapse, because, as we are seeing with Trump's "Squad Wars" against the four Democratic Congresswomen, everyone and his dog is now basically a “racist.”
In theory the concept of “racism” had potential. But the only reasonable definition of the term was that it referred to an irrational hatred of a racial or ethnic group in a world where many fears and hatreds, including group fears and hatreds, may be entirely rational. That is at least how I tried to define it in this article: NEO-RACISM vs PALAEORACISM
Sadly, however, such an objectively unarguable definition of the term leads to some radical and—for ethnomasochist Whites—disturbing conclusions, namely that Whites, by and large, are seldom guilty of racism, while almost every other group is knee deep in it.
But it seems that many Whites don't even want their group to be in the right with regard to racism. This is because what they really use the concept for is not to define their relations with other racial groups, but instead to intraracially define their relations with other Whites.
Yes, in short, Whites mainly use racism to seek a moral authority and advantage over other Whites, with non-Whites playing what is mainly an auxiliary role.
But now it seems Trump is ruining this cosy little set-up by changing racism from a cosy intraracial, White-on-White thing, where one White person angrily denounces another for "racissssssm!" to one where everybody bandies the word around all the time to everyone else—White on White, White on Black, Black on White, Black on Black on Hispanic on Asian, Asian on Black and White on X, Y, and Z ethnicity or religion—until you create a virtual spider’s web of cross accusations.
For a long time White Conservatives and other Right-wingers laboured under the burden of being the term’s original targets. They resented the advantage that the R-word gave Leftist Whites over them, especially as this was an inversion of the moral superiority that right-wingers enjoyed over Left-wingers when moral inferiority was defined by sexual and toxicological incontinence.
But, as we have seen in the UK, with the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, and now in America with Trump’s war against "The (Shit?) Squad," parts of the right have found a way to play the Left at their own game by highlighting or even exaggerating the Left's increasing animosity to the state of Israel and, by extension, the Jews. As usual the actual facts of the case are not particularly important, as Corbyn can hardly be described as an “anti-Semitie,” but then the facts are never that important with the Left either.
The British Conservative Party—traditionally seen as the UK’s "nasty party" (i.e. the party with some standards and a degree of economic literacy)—found it wasn't just enough to cuck to Leftist charges of "racism" by fast-tracking their own slate of "oppressed" minorities into safe sears and government posts. They realised they also had to find a stick with which to beat their opponents using the same charges. Focusing on Jeremy Corbyn's anti-colonialist hatred of Israel and his relative tolerance of non-White animosity toward Jews proved ideal.
The importance of the Jews in all this has to be stressed. The Jews are unique among White ethnic groups for having been victims of extreme, ethnically-motivated violence comparatively recently. Even if you wish to quibble about the numbers killed and the causes of the oppression, the fact is that a lot of innocent Jews came to an unfortunate and often brutal end. That is the most significant fact—among several others—that allows them to be used as "moral cannon fodder" by a Conservative Party keen to score anti-racist points against its Labour opponent, or by a US President shielding himself from R-word backlash as he baits the Dems to push "The Squad" out front to weaken their electoral prospects.
Yes, the Dems are fighting the last war, while Trump is fighting the next one. But the end result of all this is that "racism," instead of becoming a meaningful concept, signifying an objectively determined irrational fear or dislike of a specific group instead of a rational one, is just becoming shrill, subjective hysteria, with everyone using it all the time.
It is hard to see how it won’t become jaded, devalued, and defunct in the process.
But what will we end up basing our next "moral" system? That is anybody’s guess, though it would help explain the rising hysteria of the Green movement in our societies.
