 |
| Atomised morality |
In a video on YouTube, now deleted in order to avoid picking up a strike for "hate speech," Boomer nationalist RamZPaul says the following:
This was said in an attempt to shame some liberal/leftist commentator with regard to the situation in South Africa, where Whites are being methodically murdered by hate-driven Blacks and their proportion of the population is dropping fast.
The way in which RamZPaul talks about genocide, assumes that it is bad—indeed, very, very bad—and I think almost everyone today, except for a few nutcases and agents who want to discredit various movements, would agree with this. Just for the record, I would too.
But what I want to argue here is that this position—i.e. namely that all sane people believe that genocide is bad—is not a universal moral constant, but rather the effect of a temporary situation in human affairs and is dependent on conditions remaining the same.
Of course, you could argue for the existence of "universal moral constants"—moral values that always exist no matter what the socio-economic conditions—and, indeed, that is what the World's great religions—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Nordic Paganism—have endeavoured to do. But even here, we see that their "timeless" moral values are susceptible to socio-economic distortion, one obvious example being the way in which the Bible was used to justify slavery, whereas no clergyman would dare attempt that today.
The reality is that moral values do tend to be conditional on socio-economic factors.
When you can weaken the directness of that connection, you have what is called civilisation; when the connection becomes too direct, you have its opposite—anti-civilisation, which is essentially what Leftism and Liberalism aims for, something that is unwittingly followed by ever-increasing barbarity.
This might confuse some people because from our present day perspective it might seem that Leftists and Liberals would be against something like genocide more than people trying to operate according to timeless values. The Left certainly makes a lot of noise about how they are against "hate," "genocide," and even being aware of significant group differences. But, of course, evidence to the contrary is not hard to find: the Left's present day callous attitude to the plight of White South Africans being a case in point.
But never mind the Left. I am more interested in the general morality of the present age, and its fragile and temporary nature.
Anyone who has a wide-ranging knowledge of history, knows that genocide was not considered to be the sort of "supreme evil" that it now is. Genghis Khan gutted the whole of Central Eurasia, using genocide with the nonchalance of someone weeding his garden. While his successor even contemplated wiping out the entire Chinese race before having a cup of tea and changing his mind. Anyway, history is littered with extinct tribes, races, and peoples, most of whom had to be wiped out by others, who, in their turn, got wiped out by others.
What makes the co-called Holocaust so notable is that—at least according to the "official viewpoint"—it was an attempt to wipe out one of the past racio-ethnic-religious groups that had miraculously survived from the era of extinct racio-ethnic-religious groups. Again according to the "official viewpoint" (the details of which I don't want to discuss here), it was the last big attempt to wipe out a racio-ethnic-religious group before the present moral consensus was established.
For these two reasons, at least, the Holocaust stands out in our modern culture as being "a bit special." Another reason, of course, is because it was a particularly powerful group that was targeted.
But the Holocaust is a distorting emotional fog that stops us seeing the big picture. The real reason that "genocide" is considered so naughty is simply because we live in a rare bubble of human history where there are enough resources for most groups, especially the powerful groups. In fact there are too many resources! It is therefore an absolute certainty that if there weren't resources for all these powerful groups, then we would see "genocide" suddenly creeping back into the window of acceptability.
In those parts of the World where resources remain tight or are getting tighter—as in modern day South Africa, which is gradually being dragged down by corruption and overpopulation, or parts of the Middle East—then the acceptability of "genocide" is much higher than it is in the affluent West.
In short, the luxury of deploring genocide is the privilege of comfortable Western countries and their followers and hangers-on. Having spent the last 200 years destroying our own attempt at establishing universal moral constants, we can be sure that when conditions change again the temporary moral positions we hold today will flow through our fingers like dust.
"I would assume if you are a good person, no matter what someone's race is, you would not justify genocide, right?"
This was said in an attempt to shame some liberal/leftist commentator with regard to the situation in South Africa, where Whites are being methodically murdered by hate-driven Blacks and their proportion of the population is dropping fast.
The way in which RamZPaul talks about genocide, assumes that it is bad—indeed, very, very bad—and I think almost everyone today, except for a few nutcases and agents who want to discredit various movements, would agree with this. Just for the record, I would too.
But what I want to argue here is that this position—i.e. namely that all sane people believe that genocide is bad—is not a universal moral constant, but rather the effect of a temporary situation in human affairs and is dependent on conditions remaining the same.
Of course, you could argue for the existence of "universal moral constants"—moral values that always exist no matter what the socio-economic conditions—and, indeed, that is what the World's great religions—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Nordic Paganism—have endeavoured to do. But even here, we see that their "timeless" moral values are susceptible to socio-economic distortion, one obvious example being the way in which the Bible was used to justify slavery, whereas no clergyman would dare attempt that today.
The reality is that moral values do tend to be conditional on socio-economic factors.
When you can weaken the directness of that connection, you have what is called civilisation; when the connection becomes too direct, you have its opposite—anti-civilisation, which is essentially what Leftism and Liberalism aims for, something that is unwittingly followed by ever-increasing barbarity.
This might confuse some people because from our present day perspective it might seem that Leftists and Liberals would be against something like genocide more than people trying to operate according to timeless values. The Left certainly makes a lot of noise about how they are against "hate," "genocide," and even being aware of significant group differences. But, of course, evidence to the contrary is not hard to find: the Left's present day callous attitude to the plight of White South Africans being a case in point.
But never mind the Left. I am more interested in the general morality of the present age, and its fragile and temporary nature.
Anyone who has a wide-ranging knowledge of history, knows that genocide was not considered to be the sort of "supreme evil" that it now is. Genghis Khan gutted the whole of Central Eurasia, using genocide with the nonchalance of someone weeding his garden. While his successor even contemplated wiping out the entire Chinese race before having a cup of tea and changing his mind. Anyway, history is littered with extinct tribes, races, and peoples, most of whom had to be wiped out by others, who, in their turn, got wiped out by others.
 |
| The Mongols take Kaifeng. |
For these two reasons, at least, the Holocaust stands out in our modern culture as being "a bit special." Another reason, of course, is because it was a particularly powerful group that was targeted.
 |
| Early unsuccessful attempt at White genocide. |
In those parts of the World where resources remain tight or are getting tighter—as in modern day South Africa, which is gradually being dragged down by corruption and overpopulation, or parts of the Middle East—then the acceptability of "genocide" is much higher than it is in the affluent West.
In short, the luxury of deploring genocide is the privilege of comfortable Western countries and their followers and hangers-on. Having spent the last 200 years destroying our own attempt at establishing universal moral constants, we can be sure that when conditions change again the temporary moral positions we hold today will flow through our fingers like dust.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.