|
|
Your Choice of
Treatment
Alex
Kurtagic
October
13, 2009
Sometime ago
I visited my local surgery. At the reception desk, I was confronted with a
poster, bearing Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) logo. The poster was
produced by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA), which is a spawn of
the British government’s Department of Health. Across the top of the poster, in
large white letters set against a black background, it read, “YOUR CHOICE OF
TREATMENT.” Below followed eight captioned photographs, depicting eight models
in different attires. The four on the left, under the captions “pharmacy,”
“optician,” “dentist,” and “doctor,” sported smiling faces and a friendly
manner; they were also ethnically diverse, with 50%–75% of the physiognomies
bearing partly or wholly non-European features. The four on the right, under the
captions “security,” “police,” “court,” and “prison,” sported serious faces and
an unfriendly manner; they were ethnically homogeneous, with 100% of the
physiognomies bearing Northern European features. Further down, in large white
letters against a bright red background, the poster demanded “STOP ABUSE OF NHS
STAFF,” and warned, “Verbal or physical abuse of our staff could result in
prosecution.”
I am sure I
am not the only here who has found the distribution of models rather odd. As it
stands, the poster carries with it an obnoxious subtext: friendly help comes
from the ethically diverse camp, while unfriendly punishment comes from the
indigenous, White Britons. None of the three possible explanations for this
subtext are flattering to the NHSBSA.
The first possible explanation is that the IQ distribution among members of the NHSBSA management is restricted to points along the far left end of the Bell Curve. And as the mean IQ is obviously very low, we must assume that some of the points on that curve will be found at such distance from the Caucasoid mean that supplying sufficient paper to print the full graph would necessitate clearing out the Amazon forest twice over. Were this not the case, the management at the NHSBSA would have quickly detected and harshly rebuked the knavish attempt to infuse the agency’s anti-white bigotry into their commission.
Unfortunately,
they did not, thus suggesting either that the NHSBSA’s professed zeal for
inclusiveness has motivated them to maintain lax cognitive requirements for
employment within their organisation; or that their human resources department
has been forced to lower their expectations from the available pool of labour in
modern Britain, due to the accumulated dysgenic effects of Tory and Labour
government policies.
The second
possible explanation is that the NHSBSA is imperfectly committed to
multiculturalism: They think it is OK to multiculturalize the NHS, but are happy
to advocate institutional racism when it comes to extending the process of
multiculturalization to private security agencies and the criminal justice
system. A perfect commitment to multiculturalism would have demanded that either
the Asian pharmacist or the African dentist be swapped with one of the scowling
Englishmen on the right hand side for the sake of balance. Or, even better, that
two of the Englishmen on the right hand side abandon their posts, to Asian and
African replacements (preferably sporting scowls). That way the NHSBSA would
make it unequivocally clear that they abhor institutional racism and that they
believe it ought not to be tolerated it in any way, shape, or form, on any
occasion and under any circumstances, in any area or stratum of society
whatsoever.
The third
possible explanation is that the NHSBSA is staffed by one, some, or all of the
following: hate-filled, anti-White bigots; pathologically masochistic,
apoplectically self-hating White liberals; or well-meaning individuals of any
description afflicted by subterranean or undiagnosed forms of anti-White racism.
Upon examination of the NHSBSA website, I found that the board of directors of
that organisation is not ethnically diverse: It is, in fact, uniformly White.
Therefore, we may safely assume that ultimate responsibility for the obnoxious
NHS poster falls upon members of one of the two latter
groups.
This is most
unfortunate, for if the board of the NHSBSA had been staffed by non-White
directors in its entirety, we would at least have known where we stood with
them, and have had reason to rejoice at their restraint: After all, the once
“wretched of the Earth” have been agitated by radical Marxists for decades now,
and the poster still allows one White doctor and an optician with
ambiguous but at least partly Northern European features.
The fact
that anti-White messages are being sponsored by Whites within the NHS by an
organisation created by a government department with White tax payer’s money can
only be indicative of a mental disorder. A human with a healthy mind does not
take money from the wallets of his own family members in order to fund a slander
campaign that targets them as well as himself. When an individual is victim of a
slander campaign, his life chances are reduced: Unless the slander is
conclusively exposed as what it is and everybody learns of it, the destruction
of reputation that ensues depresses economic performance, diminishes mating
chances, lowers potential mate quality, and curtails longevity. If
self-inflicted, such behaviour can be described as a form of inwardly directed
violence or self-mutilation — as suicidal.
Therefore,
if the cause of such disordered behavior is exposure to political correctness,
and if political correctness is a by-product of cultural Marxism, it is correct
— and no mere metaphor to —
describe the later as a pathogen, and to diagnose those infected by it as
suffering from a psychiatric disorder.
Unfortunately,
the condition is so widespread among those who shape modern discourse that we
cannot realistically demand that the members of the NHSBSA board step down so
that they may undergo psychiatric treatment. Another problem is that we have yet
to find the cure for their condition.
The
Egalitarian Personality
What are we
to do, if those running our government and institutions are afflicted by an
undiagnosed psychiatric disorder? And how is a diagnosis to be accepted when
making the disorder diagnosable in the first place depends on its acceptance by
psychiatrically disordered bureaucrats — bureaucrats who will, of course,
vehemently resist being declared unfit for duty? Indeed, they are far more
likely to diagnose us with the condition of disagreeing with them.
The
situation is akin to that which existed in the former U.S.S.R., where the power
hierarchy was infected from top to bottom with the virus of Marxism, and where,
because they were the masters of discourse, those who objected to Marxism were,
accordingly, declared insane and locked up in psychiatric wards. Our government
officials are, perhaps, not as vulgar in their methods, but there is little
doubt that any kind of racial awareness, identification, or sentiment of loyalty
among Whites has, by virtue of a continuous wave of government declarations,
campaigns, policies, and legislation, come to be regarded as a psychopathology.
Talk of the White race one day becoming extinct as a result of egalitarian
government policies is likely to be regarded by mentally disordered White
liberals as delusional paranoia. Modern education has been designed to prevent
the development of this “psychopathology” of White racial awareness, and “cure”
it among those afflicted with it.
This
suggests that our task in reversing this process — making people understand that
the culture of White suicide is the psychopathology — is indeed a daunting one.
Yet it is
one that must be undertaken, for the consequences of defeatism are much worse
than any social discomfort arising from a dissident opinion: The loss of
economic power, political representation, cultural influence, social status, and
demographic presence among Whites will inevitably lead to oppression by a more
powerful majority. Certain professions may be barred to us; we may not be
allowed to hold positions of power; we may not be allowed to vote or participate
in referenda; we may be restricted to living in certain areas; we may be
subjected to abuse and violence in the streets; we may be forbidden from
organizing meetings, or from forming political parties, or from having advocacy
groups.
As our
economic conditions deteriorate, and we become less exploitable by tax farmers,
access to education, training, or whatever professions are not already forbidden
to us will recede into the outer realms of unaffordability. We may become
collectively known by the pejorative name given to us by our oppressors, and
they may finally decide that we represent a social pest that needs radical
measures.
Sound
familiar? Some of it is already happening today; some of it looks sure to come.
Certainly, we have done it to others, and those others, agitated by the advocacy
groups that our governments are funding with our tax money, are desperate for
finally having a bite at the cherry.
This is far
from paranoia: History shows that this is a persistent pattern all over the
world, liberal utopians notwithstanding.
Perhaps in
40,000 years, the descendants of modern South East Asians — if they still exist
— will be examining fossil records in the seabed and theorising about the
various factors that led to the extinction of Homo Europaeus, exactly as
we are doing today with Neanderthal Man.
For the time
being, however, we may take comfort from the fact that in addressing this issue
we would not be the only ones who, faced with the possibility of extinction or
extermination, have sought to change the cultural, political, and even the
scientific bases of society in order to avert a
catastrophe.
In 1950
Theodor Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sandford,
working at the University of California, Berkeley, had a book published, The
Authoritarian Personality, which Kevin MacDonald discusses at some length in
The Culture of Critique. The book was part of the “Studies in Prejudice”
series sponsored by the American Jewish Committee’s Department of Scientific
Research. Its aim was to examine the psychological bases for “fascism” (e.g.,
anti-Jewish attitudes) at the individual level. Ultimately, it was
methodologically flawed, politically motivated, and possibly fraudulent; it also
led to startling conclusions, which cast dysfunctional behavior as functional
and functional behavior as the opposite. But it was, nevertheless extremely
influential, inspiring wide-ranging research in the social sciences during the
1950s and 1960s, and even today.
There can be
little doubt that the discrediting of National Socialism following Germany’s
defeat in 1945 enabled Jewish researchers like Adorno and the Frankfurt School
of Social Research to present their work as credible and important. For them,
the atrocity was behind them and they were writing as survivors; for us it is
still ahead and we are writing as prognosticators – a breed whom events often
prove wrong. Though a handicap in the culture war, this ought to give us a sense
of urgency, because may not be allowed to survive and theorise about our enemies
afterwards.
Certainly,
a (methodologically sound) counterpart to The Authoritarian
Personality could prove useful. How about a 700-page tome entitled The
Egalitarian Personality, as part of a “Studies in Liberal Prejudice” series
sponsored by the Department of Social Science of a prominent, lavishly funded
White advocacy group? How about it if it was loudly promoted in the intellectual
media and praised to the skies by White-advocate
professors in elite universities and at academic
conferences?
I jest, of
course, but I am here to make a serious point.
If
self-hating White liberals are to be removed from positions where their views do
harm, the basis for their legitimacy and prestige ought to be steadily
undermined. Certainly, we cannot continue to regard views that lead inexorably
to the dispossession and destruction of our entire race as simply a difference
of opinion — as normal and well adjusted. An egalitarian turn of mind may be a
harmless condition — may be even desirable — in homogeneous societies, but it is
lethally insane in a context of multi-ethnic duplicity and competition.
Majesty or
servitude — that is your choice of treatment.
Alex Kurtagic
(
Permanent link:http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-Treatment.html
