Christopher Caldwell’s “Why Are We in Ukraine? A steep bill comes due for decades of democracy promotion.”

/36 Comments/in /by

Writing for the traditionally neocon-friendly Claremont Institute, Christopher Caldwell  (Summer, 2022) describes the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war—consequences that are indeed playing out now.

Caldwell starts out with Prof. John Mearsheimer’s view on the causes of the war:

[2014] was a hinge year. Ukrainian diplomats had been negotiating an “association agreement” with the European Union that would have created closer trade relations. Russia outbid the E.U. with its own deal, which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine. President Viktor Yanukovych signed it. Protests, backed by the United States, broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. By then the U.S. had spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics, according to a 2013 speech by State Department official Victoria Nuland. Russia now viewed this activity as having funded subversion and revolt. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovych’s government was corrupt. Unlike many of them it was legitimately elected. When shootings near the Maidan in Kiev left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovych fled the country, and the United States played a central role in setting up a successor government.

Meddling with vital Russian interests at Russia’s doorstep turned out to be more dangerous than orating about democracy. Rather than see the Russophone and pro-Russian region of Crimea transformed from a Russian naval stronghold into an American one, Russia invaded it. “Took over” might be a better verb, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. Whether the Russian takeover was a reaction to American crowding or an unprovoked invasion, one thing was clear: In Russia’s view, Ukraine’s potential delivery of Crimea to NATO was a more serious threat to its survival in 2014 than—to take an example—Islamic terrorism had been to America’s in 2001 or 2003. Understanding that Russia would respond accordingly to any attempt to wrest it back, Russia’s European and Black Sea neighbors tended thenceforth to treat Crimea as a de facto part of Russia. So, for the most part, did the United States. The Minsk accords, signed by Russia and Ukraine, were meant to guarantee a measure of linguistic and political autonomy in the culturally Russian Donbass. (Russia claims the violation of these accords as a casus belli.)

Contrast that with the neo-liberal position which is basically a moral crusade:

There is, of course, a different explanation, the moral/psychological explanation put forward by the Biden administration and its defenders. It differs from Mearsheimer’s account not so much in facts as in its apportionment of moral blame. In this account, the spur to war was not American encroachment but the erratic behavior of Russian president Vladimir Putin. …

Putin certainly had reasons to wish Ukraine kept in Russia’s sphere of influence. But in most Western accounts of what led to the invasion of Ukraine last February, these reasons are presented as psychopathological, not geostrategic. Putin comes off as Hitler. He wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Or the tsarist empire. …

Those who back a bigger role for the West in supporting Ukraine often put their position in the form of a question: once he gets control of Ukraine, why should Putin stop there? The question has a simple answer: because he knows something about history and he can count. He doesn’t have the guns. He doesn’t have the soldiers. Putin invaded Ukraine with 190,000 men. That is just slightly more than the 170,000 Soviet soldiers who died trying—and failing—to retake the city of Kharkov in 1942. There were four battles of Kharkov in World War II, and Kharkov was only one of the cities fought over.

What we’ve been saying all along. This is really about exporting globalism and leftist political orthodoxy to the rest of the world and it’s corollary of maintaining a unipolar world dominated by the United States. They even said so: “In March 24 [2022], a month after Russian tanks rolled across Ukraine’s borders, the Biden White House summoned America’s partners (as its allies are now called) to a civilizational crusade. The administration proclaimed its commitment to those affected by Russia’s recent invasion—“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.” Because of Western intervention since 2014, Ukraine has been completely transformed:

Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists. The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of political correctness. After 2014, according to Ishchenko, “a wide range of political positions supported by a large minority, sometimes even by the majority, of Ukrainians—sovereigntist, state-developmentalist, illiberal, left-wing—were blended together and labeled ‘pro-Russian narratives’ because they challenged the dominant pro-Western, neoliberal and nationalist discourses in Ukraine’s civil society.” Those who hold such views have often felt driven out of public life.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, today the symbol of resolute anti-Russian resistance, has himself undergone a transformation. An influential Ukrainian actor and TV producer, he won a landslide in 2019 on the promise he would render life tolerable for the Russia-friendly east. His popularity quickly eroded, according to Ishchenko, and shortly after the Biden inauguration, Zelensky began censoring Russophile channels, websites, and blogs.

Ukrainian democracy! This really comes down to the threat of World War III. Russia clearly sees the war as existential (see Putin’s February speech: “This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country”). And the West sees a loss as a mortal threat to their hegemony, their globalization project, and their exporting hardline political correctness to the rest of the world, as has already happened in Ukraine.

American immunity from danger may be illusory. The progress of technology has imperceptibly eroded a longstanding distinction between supporting a combatant and entering the fray as a combatant oneself. In June, the U.S. began providing Ukraine with M142 HIMARS computer-targeted rocket artillery systems, and these present the problem in an acute form: the role of technology in the lethality of a weapon has grown to the point where the role of the human warrior is, relatively speaking, rendered negligible. An encounter with a sword is an encounter with a swordsman. An encounter with an arrow is an encounter with an only slightly more distant bowman. But an encounter with an M31 rocket fired from a HIMARS launcher is an encounter with General Dynamics. And it is the human warrior who is the repository of all the longings-to-be-vindicated and the sacrifices-freely-undertaken that consecrate war as a cause. With advanced weaponry, the soldier operating it almost doesn’t need to be there. Which is to say that, in this proxy war between Russia and the United States, Ukraine doesn’t need to be there. In these HIMARS artillery strikes, in the assassinations by drone of Russian officers, in the sinking of naval ships with advanced missiles, it is the United States, not Ukraine, that has become the battlefield adversary of Russia.

The substitution of high-tech for competent soldiers is likely what the trans-friendly, diverse and inclusive, politically correct military military brass is counting on to retain fighting capability.

The U.S.’s extensive financial sanctions on Russia have had little, if any, cost to Russia (see Putin’s speech) while it has motivated Russia to abandon the U.S. dollar as a mechanism of international trade, which is also something that China doubtless views positively. Moreover, because of the sanctions, Russia is insulated from any repercussions of the current bank implosion occurring in the U.S.—a crisis that has happened in large part because of the rapid rise in interest rates (rendering older bonds with lower yield held by institutions like Silicon Valley Bank relatively worthless) because the Fed felt it necessary to use higher interest rates to combat inflation which was in turn caused at least in part by increases in energy prices caused by the Ukraine war and by sanctions on Russian energy in conjunction with the Biden administration’s opposition to the domestic drilling industry and its obsession with clean energy, and because Biden goosed the financial system with trillions of dollars in federal spending. As I write, it’s not possible to predict the effects of the banking crisis on markets.

Rather than beg its way back into the U.S.-led global financial order, the Russians are trying to build a new one with new partners [like China]. They have a chance of pulling it off. In a speech at a June [2022] economic forum in St. Petersburg, Putin complained that the roughly $10 trillion that any trading country must hold in dollar and Euro currency reserves is being devalued at 8% a year by U.S. inflation. “Moreover,” he said, “they can be confiscated or stolen any time if the United States dislikes something in the policy of the states involved” [which has already been done to $284 billion of Russian money in Western banks at the behest of the U.S.]. Putin called for a replacement for the SWIFT system. “The development of a convenient and independent payment infrastructure in national currencies is a solid and predictable basis for deepening international cooperation,” he said. Until recently such an appeal would have fallen on deaf ears. This time it did not.

The times are definitely changing, and the war against Russia has made countries like China aware that the U.S. can always do the same to them—like embark on another moral crusade against China’s oppression of the Uyghurs or the Indian caste system.

In part, the great story we see playing out is the fulfillment of a prediction that people have been making for a generation: power and influence are shifting away from the United States and Europe, and toward Asia. In the 1990s, when the United States was imposing its will on Iraq and Kosovo, the G7 made up 70% of the world economy. Today it makes up 43%. India and China are both giant export markets for Russian oil and gas. It is clear why Russia would want to sell to India and China. The more complicated question is why India (tacitly) and China (explicitly) would back Russia against what American progressives call the “rules-based international order.” …

Yes, the West “swiftly moved” against Russia, but six months in, these moves seemed surprisingly ineffective. The reason is that, no matter where you place the fulcrum and the lever, Russia, China, and India collectively are now too much for the United States to lift. Inducements can be offered to get one country to break solidarity with the other two. But cooperating would be foolish, on any terms. At the end of the day, a country that permits itself to be isolated by the United States this way is increasing the risk that it will itself be subjected to a media-and-boycott campaign of destruction like the one we are now witnessing with Russia. A few words about the condition of the Uyghurs, a few talking points on Hindu nationalism, and the U.S. can crank this whole machinery of economic destruction into operation against China or India. They know it, too. The Italian writer Marco D’Eramo reported that, after a March 18 phone call between Biden and Xi Jinping, one Chinese anchorman joked that Biden’s message had been: “Can you help me fight your friend so that I can concentrate on fighting you later?”

The attempt to isolate Russia from the American world system has had a striking unintended consequence—the possible founding of an alternative world system that would draw power away from the existing one. Twenty years ago, under George W. Bush, the United States removed the Iraqi deterrent from Iran’s neighborhood, transforming Iran overnight into a regional power. This year, under Joe Biden, the United States has made China a gift of Russia’s exportable food and mineral resources. We are displaying an outright genius for identifying our most dangerous military adversary and solving its most pressing strategic challenge. The attention of China is now engaged. Joe Biden argues that any wavering in the cause of obliterating Russia will be understood by China as a green light on Taiwan. He may have a point, but the U.S. management of the Ukraine situation over the past decade has constituted encouragement enough.

The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history (even under Bolshevism), Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs,  Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism to be “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West.

It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West. Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky  is paradigmatic. Ukraine’s transformation is clearly a top-down transformation like those that have occurred in all Western countries. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.

The SPLC:  A Threat to Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law

/36 Comments/in /by

“Glen, do you know an organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center and a woman named Heidi Beirich?  She called to tell me she’s about to publish an article about you, accusing you of neo-Nazi ties. I assume she has the wrong Glen Allen.”

Those words came through my phone on an August afternoon in 2016, spoken by the City Solicitor for Baltimore City.  He was a friend who had hired me to work for the Baltimore City law department after I retired from a large law firm. I’d been working quietly and competently for the Baltimore City law department for about six months following my retirement.

“Yes,” I responded, “I know about the Southern Poverty Law Center and Heidi Beirich.  And I  am that Glen Allen.”

The next two days were among the most difficult of my life.  Beirich published her article in the SPLC’s Intelligence Report and, using her vast network of media contacts, caused the article to become headline news in dozens of major newspapers from Britain to Los Angeles, including our local Baltimore Sun. Baltimore City promptly fired me. My law firm, for which I had worked diligently for 27 years before retiring and from which I had received numerous accolades that I published on my law practice website, called to demand I remove the accolades.  Dozens of calls came into my home phone from reporters wanting to talk to me. Television reporters with television cameras from Fox News came to my house.  I got profane and threatening calls from antifa types.  My quiet family life was severely disrupted (but my wife, God bless her, stayed loyal to me throughout the ordeal).  When I returned to my office at the law department to retrieve my personal belongings, one of the young lawyers I’d been mentoring closed his door on me as I walked by.  And the Mayor of Baltimore, amid much righteous fanfare and virtue signalling, fired the City Solicitor on the ground that he had hired me.

I felt under attack, defenseless, and almost totally isolated, and Heidi Beirich, who boasted to the media about her success in getting me fired, obviously knew what I was going through and loved it. (That awful experience was my motivation for later creating the Free Expression Foundation, Inc., a 501c3 nonprofit, www.FreeExpressionFoundation.org, to help others who have such ordeals).

What was objectionable about Beirich’s and the SPLC’s actions?  I could make a lengthy list, but I’ll mention just three things.

First, the documents Beirich used to link me to William Pierce’s National Alliance decades prior were stolen confidential documents she had obtained, as I alleged in the complaint I later filed, by bribing or otherwise corrupting a disgruntled National Alliance employee. Such actions violated applicable criminal statutes. In short, the SPLC committed crimes to obtain the documents. (I hasten to add I have never condoned or participated in unlawful conduct and the stolen documents did not indicate otherwise).

Second, Beirich’s actions were not isolated instances of the SPLC’s scofflaw behavior. To the contrary, as I detailed in my complaint, for decades the SPLC has essentially committed mail fraud with its bogus “Hate Group” tallies and  “Hate Map” mailings. Moreover, the SPLC manifestly violated applicable laws by its highly partisan attacks on Donald Trump in 2016.  Such conduct violates IRS requirements for tax-exempt organizations and constitutes grounds for revocation of that favored tax status.

Third, Beirich’s ostensible rationale for doxing me was blatantly pretextual.  She claimed she was doing it in the best interests of Baltimore because it is a predominantly Black city.  But I was an experienced and competent attorney quietly helping Baltimore defend against lawsuits seeking millions of dollars. In one case I was working on before I was fired, the plaintiffs subsequently obtained a $20 million verdict against the city. I could have helped prevent that.  Does anyone really think Beirich or the SPLC cared? The reality is Beirich orchestrated my termination because of what she thought was going on inside my head – plus the fact that I’m an attorney willing to represent the Dissident Right.

So I sued Beirich and the SPLC, seeking both redress for my personal losses and revocation of the SPLC’s 501c3 status. In investigating the factual and legal grounds for my complaint, I learned the sordid history of this corrupt organization – how, for example, in 1986 the SPLC’s entire legal staff (except for Morris Dees) resigned as the organization morphed from traditional civil rights work into a fraudulent, hard left fundraising machine; and how the SPLC’s aim became not merely to monitor but to destroy “hate groups” as the SPLC unfairly defined them. I learned also of its hypocrisy, double standards, and anti-Christian bias.  I detailed all these facts in my complaint.

The trial court judge, remarkably, dismissed my complaint before I could begin factual discovery (depositions, document production, etc.) to establish my claims.  She asserted that my complaint did not meet even minimal standards of plausibility – in other words, it was entirely irrational for me to allege that an SPLC employee such as Beirich would engage in unlawful conduct.  The appellate court, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed.

The painful memory of the court’s “implausible allegations” rationale popped up in my mind recently when I read about the SPLC staff attorney, Thomas Jurgens.  On March 5, 2023, Jurgens was among nearly two dozen criminals arrested on charges relating to domestic terrorism by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation following a coordinated attack on construction equipment and law enforcement officers  at the future site of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center.  According to the Atlanta Police Department, these “activists” “changed into black clothing and entered the construction area and began to throw large rocks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police officers  . .  the agitators destroyed multiple pieces of construction equipment by fire and vandalism.” So it was “implausible” that SPLC employees would engage in criminal activities, was it?  To the contrary, any fair-minded person would see the arrest of the SPLC attorney as confirmation that the courts in my case (and others in which the SPLC had been sued) were willfully blind to the SPLC’s corruption and criminal actions.

And what a lost opportunity to clean up some of the stench in the SPLC swamp! Had I been allowed the discovery to which I was entitled, I could have uncovered the SPLC’s ties with radical leftist groups, its bribery, its exploitation of vulnerable people, its misuse of donations, and many other misdeeds.  My confidence in this regard is bolstered by the fact that while my appeal was pending the sewage at the “Poverty Palace” got so rank the entire top echelon of the SPLC — Morris Dees, Richard Cohen, Heidi Beirich, and others — resigned or were terminated and an internal SPLC  report was prepared addressing the SPLC officers’ misconduct. That report would have been a key target of my discovery efforts. To this day the report has never been published, even though the public has a right to know how the SPLC, as a 501c3 tax favored nonprofit, has misused its many hundred millions of dollars of donations.

What is the future for the SPLC, in light of the revelation that one of its staff has been arrested for domestic terrorism?  The SPLC, for sure, has been damaged. I’d like to believe it is on the path to losing its 501c3 status. But I have my doubts. This latest incident is dramatic, but the SPLC has been thumbing its nose at tax exempt requirements with impunity for decades and continues, I’m sure, to rake in enormous sums of money from naïve and uninformed people. I nonetheless look forward to someone, armed with this latest damning evidence,  challenging the SPLC’s 501c3 status — as I did and, if no one else does, I may do again.

Reprinted with permission from the American Free Press.
Glen Allen is an attorney and founder of the FREE EXPRESSION FOUNDATION, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation dedicated to the defense of citizens denied their Constitutional right to free expression See more at Free Expression Foundation,org,  or write FEF, PO Box 65242, Baltimore, MD 21209-9998

Marxismo e multiculturalismo

/in /by

Frank Ellis

 

Nas funções da vida cotidiana, era necessário pensar antes de falar, pelo menos às vezes, sem dúvida, mas um membro do Partido chamado a proferir sentença jurídica ou ética devia disparar as opiniões corretas de forma automática, como se fosse uma metralhadora disparando munição.

(GEORGE ORWELL, 1984)

Nenhuma sociedade bem-sucedida mostra tendência espontânea para o multiculturalismo ou multirracialismo. Sociedades exitosas e estáveis revelam alto grau de homogeneidade. Aqueles que defendem o multiculturalismo não sabem disso ou, mais provavelmente, acreditam que para transformar as sociedades ocidentais em sociedades estritamente reguladas por burocracias rácico-feministas eles devam, primeiramente, solapar tais sociedades.

Essa transformação é tão radical e revolucionária quanto o projeto que estabeleceu o comunismo na União Soviética. Da mesma forma como todo aspecto da vida deveu ser colocado sob o controle dos comissários do povo para a aplicação do ideário comunista, os multiculturalistas buscam colocar sob sua vigilância e dominação todos os aspectos de nossas vidas. Ao contrário da dura tirania dos sovietes, o despotismo dos multiculturalistas dispõe de meios mais brandos, mas pelo resultado acabaremos trancafiados e fortemente atados como um prisioneiro no Gulague. A “correção política” de hoje representa uma etapa superior na evolução do terror e do menticídio comunistas.

Contrariamente ao comunismo, que foi óbvio implante alienígena, o multiculturalismo mostra-se particularmente pernicioso e de difícil erradicação pelo fato de haver sequestrado a infraestrutura moral e intelectual do Ocidente. Embora se coloque como campeão das mais caras convicções do Ocidente, ele é, na verdade, a perversão e o sistemático solapamento da própria ideia de Ocidente.

O que nós chamamos, atualmente, de “correção política” remonta à União Soviética dos anos vintes. Em russo, essa expressão se pronuncia como politicheskaya pravil’nost. Ela significou a extensão do poder político à educação, à psiquiatria, à ética e ao comportamento. Tratou-se de peça essencial do mecanismo para assegurar que todos os aspectos da vida estivessem de harmonia com a ortodoxia ideológica — o que é marca típica dos totalitarismos. No período depois de Stálin, o desrespeito à correção política era considerado sintoma de doença mental, e o “tratamento” era ministrado ao “paciente” no interior da prisão onde era internado.

Mao Tsé-Tung, o Grande Timoneiro, dizia que “Quem não tem a correta orientação política não tem espírito”. O pequeno livro vermelho de Mao é repleto de exortações à obediência ante os ditames do pensamento comunista e, por volta dos anos sessentas, a correção política maoísta estava bem estabelecida nas universidades americanas. A fase final de seu desenvolvimento, que agora presenciamos, resulta do cruzamento com todas as mais recentes doutrinas: o antirracismo, o feminismo, o estruturalismo e o pós-modernismo, que prevalecem nos currículos universitários. O resultado disso está na nova e virulenta ressurgência do totalitarismo, cujas semelhanças com o período comunista são óbvias. Os dogmas do presente exigem o controle rígido da linguagem, do pensamento, do comportamento, e seus transgressores são tratados como se fossem mentalmente desequilibrados. O mesmo acontecia com os dissidentes soviéticos.

Há quem tenha argumentado não ser justo descrever o regime de Stálin como “totalitário”, porquanto um só homem, mesmo exercendo o poder de forma muito bruta, não teria como controlar todas as funções do Estado. Pois é, mas isso não seria preciso. O totalitarismo foi muito mais um estado de terror, de censura e de campos de concentração; consistiu num estado mental no qual a própria ideia de um ponto de vista privado ou opinião foi eliminada. O propagandista totalitário impõe os conceitos de que escravidão é liberdade, miséria é abundância, ignorância é conhecimento e de que a sociedade mais rigidamente fechada é a mais aberta do mundo. Então, uma vez que certa parte de sua população passe a “pensar” assim, uma sociedade devém funcionalmente totalitária, mesmo quando um só ditador não possa pessoalmente controlar tudo.

Atualmente, sabemos muito bem disto, tentam fazer parecer verdade que diversidade é força, perversidade é virtude, sucesso é opressão e que a repetição incessante dessas ideias é forma de pregar “tolerância e diversidade”. Na verdade, a revolução multicultural suscita a subversão em toda parte, da mesma forma como fizeram as revoluções comunistas: o ativismo judicial mina a liberdade pública; a “tolerância” solapa as condições que fazem possível a verdadeira tolerância; as universidades, que deveriam ser santuários da pesquisa livre, oráculos da ciência, sofrem censura que se compara àquela dos sovietes. Ao mesmo tempo e de forma obsessiva, forçam a aceitação da igualdade como valor absoluto: a Bíblia, Shakespeare e a “música” repe são textos de “perspectivas igualmente válidas”; a desviância e a criminalidade são tomadas em conta de “estilos de vida alternativos”. Atualmente, Crime e castigo, o livro de Dostoiévsky, teria o título “Crime e aconselhamento”.

 

Na época do comunismo, o Estado totalitário tinha por base a violência. Os expurgos dos anos trintas e o Grande Terror (que serviu de modelo para a Revolução Cultural maoísta) valiam-se da violência contra os “inimigos de classe” para reduzi-los à obediência. Os membros do Partido assinavam sentenças de morte para os “inimigos do povo”, sabendo que eram inocentes, mas acreditavam na correção política das acusações. Na década desde 1930, a noção de culpa coletiva “justificou” o assassinato de milhões de camponeses russos. Como refere Robert Conquest em The Harvest of Sorrow (p. 143), a visão que o Estado tinha do campo se resumia na fórmula “Nenhum camponês é culpado de nada, mas a classe camponesa é culpada de tudo”. A criminalização de instituições e grupos inteiros torna muito mais fácil a transformação total e totalitária da sociedade.

Daí a maravilha que é o “racismo” e o “sexismo” para os profligadores da cultura — o pecado pode se estender para além dos indivíduos e macular também as instituições, a literatura, a linguagem, a história, as leis, os costumes, as civilizações. A acusação de “racismo institucional” não é diferente de declarar toda uma classe econômica como inimiga do povo. O “racismo”, o “sexismo” são armas de assalto do multiculturalismo, suas Grandes Ideias, assim como foi a guerra de classes para os comunistas, e os efeitos são os mesmos. Se um crime pode ser coletivizado, todos podem ser culpados por sua participação num grupo errado. Os jovens brancos preteridos nas escolhas oficiais do direito racial são a versão atualizada dos camponeses russos. Mesmo que nenhum dos jovens brancos nunca tenha oprimido ninguém, eles “pertencem a uma raça que é culpada de tudo”.

O propósito dessas campanhas multiculturais é destruir a autonomia consciencial, o ego de cada pessoa, no que estão tendo sucesso. A boca se move, os gestos corretos são feitos, mas é a boca e os gestos de um zumbi, de um novo homem soviético, tão manipulável como uma personagem de videojogo [no original: PC-man]. Quando, então, certa proporção de gente tiver sido condicionada dessa forma, a violência não será mais necessária. Um sólido Estado totalitário se estabelece, e a vasta maioria sabe o que dela se espera e cumpre os papéis que lhe são atribuídos.

O experimento russo com a revolução e a engenharia social totalitária foi bastante retratada por dois dos maiores escritores do país, Dostoiévsky e Soljenítsin. Eles dissecaram brilhantemente os métodos e a psicologia do controle totalitário. Os demônios, de Dostoiévsky, é a mais penetrante e perturbadora análise da mente revolucionária e utópica na literatura do mundo. Os “demônios” são os estudantes radicais das classes média e superior que flertam com alguma coisa que eles não compreendem. A classe dirigente tentou contentá-los. As universidades haviam declarado guerra à sociedade em geral. O clamor dos estudantes é por liberdade: queriam se livrar das normas sociais estabelecidas, dos costumes, da desigualdade, do passado.

A queda da Rússia no vício e na insanidade é um grande sinal de perigo dado a toda nação que declara guerra ao seu passado na esperança de construir o paraíso terrenal. Dostoiévsky não viveu para ver as abominações que previu, mas Soljenítsin as sofreu de forma pessoal e direta. O arquipélago Gulague e Agosto de 1914 podem ser vistos como história das ideias, como tentativas de explicar o transe por que passou a Rússia depois de 1917.

Soljenítsin atribui à educação e à visão dos professores sobre o seu trabalho as maiores causas não só da hostilidade às formas tradicionais da autoridade como também da sedução da juventude russa pelas ideias revolucionárias. No Ocidente, durante os anos sessentas e setentas — período que, generalizando, podemos chamar de “os sessentas” — nós ouvimos o que foi um poderoso eco da capitulação mental coletiva da Rússia desde 1870 e por todo o tempo da revolução.

Um dos ecos do marxismo que ainda ressoam hoje é a ideia de que a verdade reside na classe (ou no sexo, ou na raça, ou na orientação erótica). A verdade não é algo a ser buscado pela perquirição racional, mas depende da perspectiva de quem fala dela. No universo multicultural, a opinião de uma pessoa é “valorizada” (eles adoram essa palavra) conforme a classe a que pertença. As feministas, os pretos, os ambientalistas, os homossexuais alegam dizer a verdade porque são “oprimidos”. Afundados na miséria da “opressão”, eles podem divisar mais claramente a verdade do que os homens brancos e heterossexuais que os “oprimem”. Temos aqui o velho legado mítico da superioridade moral e intelectual do proletariado marxista sobre a burguesia passado aos novos agentes da revolução, que o recebem e renovam. Atualmente, a “opressão” confere uma “perspectiva privilegiada”, que na sua essência é infalível. Como disse Robert Bork em seu Slouching Towards Gomorrah, os pretos e as feministas são “ferrenhos contestadores da argumentação lógica” — assim como eram os crentes mais exemplares do comunismo.

De fato, ativistas do feminismo e do antirracismo rejeitam abertamente a verdade objetiva. Sentindo-se confiantes por terem intimidado a oposição, fazem todo tipo de demanda, partindo do pressuposto de que homens e mulheres são iguais quanto a tudo. Quando os resultados não correspondem às crenças, nisto encontram mais uma evidência da malvadeza do homem branco.

Uma coisa das mais deprimentes no Ocidente hoje, especialmente nas universidades e na mídia, é a aceitação do feminismo como importante contribuição dada à ciência e a submissão a todos os seus absurdos. Curiosamente, isto não requer violência física. O desejo de ser aceito é o que  dobra as pessoas diante desses pretensos revolucionários de classe média. Piotr Verkovensky, o assassino e agitador de Os demônios, diz com desdém sobre isso que “só preciso elevar a minha voz e dizer para eles que não são tão liberais quanto necessário”. Os mistificadores do antirracismo, obviamente, jogam o mesmo jogo: acusam liberais do final do século XX de “racismo” ou “sexismo” para depois vê-los num ritual de autoflagelação e de autocrítica maoísta como expiação de sua “culpa”. Até mesmo os “conservadores” dobram a cerviz ao ressoar dessas palavras.

Antigas liberdades e pressupostos de inocência não significam mais nada quando se trata de “racismo”: o réu é culpado até prova em contrário, prova quase impossível e, em todo caso, o suspeito será sempre um suspeito. Hoje em dia, uma acusação de “racismo” tem o mesmo efeito de uma acusação de bruxaria na Salém do século XVII.

Se não fossem as draconianas consequências que podem ter as acusações de “racismo”, a ideia de que todos devam “valorizar a diversidade” seria apenas ridícula. Se a “diversidade” produzisse benefícios reais, os brancos seriam os primeiros a desejar mais “diversidade” e, decerto, demandariam que mais cidades dos Estados Unidos e da Europa fossem entregues aos imigrantes. Ocorre que os nativos não têm nenhuma pressa de abraçar a “diversidade” e o multiculturalismo; na verdade, eles batem a linda plumagem, desabaladamente, na direção contrária. Valorizar a “diversidade” é distração de gente que não “goza” dos seus “benefícios”.

Uma sociedade multicultural tende naturalmente para o conflito, não para a harmonia. Isso explica o enorme crescimento das burocracias governamentais que lidam com a resolução de problemas relativos a disputas raciais e culturais. Estas disputas nunca poderão ser resolvidas, porque os burocratas não reconhecem uma de suas maiores causas: a raça. Todo a conversinha sobre o “multicultural” vem daí, mas seria mais exato falar do “multirracial”. Sempre mais leis e outras mudanças são introduzidas nas sociedades hospedeiras para fazê-las à imagem e semelhança das minorias raciais. Tal política só pode criar mais demandas e favorecer a guerra não declarada contra os brancos, sua civilização e a própria ideia do Ocidente.

Como uma coisa dessas é colocada em prática? A URSS tinha um sistema massivo de censura — os comunistas censuravam até mapas de rua — e cumpre notar que havia lá dois tipos de censura: a censura explícita das agências estatais e a outra mais sutil que era a autocensura, tão bem conhecida das populações das “democracias populares”.

A situação no Ocidente ainda não chegou a esse ponto. Não há nada que se compare à censura oficial de estilo soviético e, no entanto, dissidentes estão sendo deliberadamente cassados. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin e Glayde Whitney foram todos criminalizados em razão de seus pareceres sobre o problema racial. O caso do Prof. Rushton é especialmente preocupante, porque o seu trabalho acadêmico chegou a ser investigado pela polícia. Na tentativa do seu silenciamento, os censores apelaram a dispositivos legais da legislação canadense aplicada aos “discursos de ódio”. Este é um tipo de terror intelectual que não causaria surpresa na URSS. O fato de agora a repressão censorina existir num país que se orgulha de ser um pilar da democracia liberal no Ocidente é a mais perturbadora das consequências do multiculturalismo.

Uma modalidade de controle da opinião mais branda do que a censura direta tem a ver com os fictícios modelos sociais tão apregoados e de forma obsessiva. Atualmente, a temática do feminismo e do antirracismo é constantemente explorada no cinema e na televisão de harmonia com o princípio brechtiano de que o artista marxista não deve mostrar o mundo como ele é, mas sim como ele deve ser. Então, extraordinários homens e mulheres negros ganham vida nas telinhas e telonas como juízes salomônicos, policiais femininas quase santas, gênios da informática, altos comandantes militares, chefes políticos, brilhantes profissionais liberais… mas, claro, os bandidos e tarados são da mais pura raça branca. Essa produção cinematográfica é como que um plágio do realismo socialista de estilo soviético, com os idealizados proletários, tão vigorosos e enérgicos, que esmagavam a vermina capitalista.

O multiculturalismo tem as mesmas ambições que tinha o comunismo soviético. Ele é absolutista na execução de suas agendas, mas relativiza qualquer outra perspectiva quando se trata de atacar os seus inimigos. O multiculturalismo é uma ideologia para eliminar todas as outras ideologias. O estudo do totalitarismo multiculturalista leva a duas conclusões: primeira: o multiculturalismo tem por fim cancelar toda oposição em todo lugar e, na hipótese de sua vitória, não restará lugar seguro para os contrarrevolucionários no mundo; segunda: uma vez estabelecido o paraíso multicultural na Terra, ele será defendido por todos os meios e a qualquer custo, tarefa que ocupará todos os recursos do Estado e do capital associado, suas fundações, associações e grupos comunitários.

Uma sociedade sob tal poder estaria formada pelo totalitarismo para o totalitarismo. Ela pode não dispor de campos de extermínio, mas terá centros de reeducação e troca de consciência para a sensibilização e resgate daquelas pobres criaturas que ficaram de ouvido e acabaram aliciadas pelo “discurso hegemonista do homem branco”. Em vez do severo totalitarismo do Estado soviético, teríamos uma sua versão mais branda na sociedade multicultural, e as formas pensamentais de legitimação de sua burocracia seriam implantadas em nossas mentes, assim transformadas em sedes orgânicas da ideologia estatal. Nessa condição, o perigo do pensamento autônomo estaria esconjurado, e ninguém mais seria acometido da doença intelectual que é a heresia da incorreção política.

Se considerarmos o multiculturalismo como sendo, ainda, uma manifestação tardia do totalitarismo novecentista, poderíamos encontrar algum consolo no fato de a URSS ter acabado desabando? Será o multiculturalismo uma fase, uma crise passageira por que passa o Ocidente, ou ele representa alguma coisa estrutural e, talvez, irreversível?

Apesar dos esforços de elementos pró-soviéticos da quinta-coluna, o Ocidente reconhecia o império soviético como ameaça. Ao contrário do comunismo, o multiculturalismo não é reconhecido como ameaça da mesma gravidade. Por causa disto, muitos dos seus pressupostos e objetivos não sofrem contestação. Mesmo assim, ainda há motivos para algum otimismo, como o fato, por exemplo, da rápida vulgarização da conotação pejorativa da expressão “correção política”. Isso pegou os esquerdistas de surpresa, mas ainda é um pequeno avanço.

Em longo prazo, o mais importante campo de batalha contra o multiculturalismo estará nos Estados Unidos. A luta tende a ser de baixa intensidade, uma frustrante guerra de atrito. Se for perdida, a insanidade do multiculturalismo será parte da vida dos americanos. A paciência tem limite, porém. A certa altura, os americanos levantar-se-ão contra a punição que sofrem, como se fossem os culpados do fracasso dos negros. Deve ser considerada mais seriamente a advertência que fez o Prof. Michael Hart em seu livro The Real American Dilemma, ao apontar a possibilidade da desintegração dos Estados Unidos segundo linhas de clivagem racial. A história pode nos dar a lição de que os acontecimentos que se passaram na península Balcânica e estilhaçaram a antiga Iugoslávia não são peculiares àquela parte do mundo. A guerra racial não é alguma coisa buscada deliberadamente pelos abastados liberais de esquerda, mesmo porque eles não sabem o que fazem, mas sua política poderá ter essa consequência.

Até aqui, venho argumentando que as condições que engendraram a correção política e o multiculturalismo foram dadas pelo contexto histórico do catastrófico experimento utópico realizado na União Soviética. Não obstante, a mentalidade da subserviência multicultural é mais antiga. Em seu livro Reflexões sobre a revolução na França, Edmund Burke oferece uma descrição dos radicais franceses que continua relevante 200 anos depois de escrita:

Eles não têm nenhum respeito pelo saber dos outros; eles o dispensam pela demasiada confiança que têm neles mesmos. Eles acham que as coisas antigas devam ser destruídas por serem antigas. Quanto às novas, não se preocupam com a duração de um edifício construído às pressas; porque a duração não é levada em conta por aqueles para quem nada ou quase nada fora feito antes do seu tempo, e para quem todas as esperanças ainda estão por serem encontradas.

O multiculturalismo, evidentemente, está muito longe de ser a solução para o conflito racial ou cultural. Bem ao contrário! O multiculturalismo é uma estrada demandando o tipo de inferno que várias vezes ensanguentou o século XX. As chamas desse inferno o próprio homem acende, depois de abandonar a razão e se revoltar contra a ordem de Deus. O incendiário e suas vítimas queimam-se no fogo.

____________________

 

Fonte: American Renaissance. Autor: Frank Ellis. Título original: Marxism and Multiculturalism. Data de publicação: novembro de 1999. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

 

 

 

Multiculturalism, brainwashing and psychological abuse

/62 Comments/in /by

Introduction

It seems that in the 1990s, training in multiculturalism could involve brainwashing or psychological abuse. How true is this of today’s anti-racism training?

Cornell in the 1990s

Almost thirty years ago a student at Cornell wrote to its president about what he saw as the brainwashing techniques used to spread the ideology of multiculturalism, or anti-racism as it might be called today, at the university, which he compared to those used by cults.[1] His letter reminds us how peculiar are the ideas that have been being pressed on us all this time, it throws light on the behaviour of anti-racists on social media such as Twitter, and shows how thrilling it can be for White people to believe that they have behaved abominably. We might also wonder how common today is the student’s independent-mindedness.

According to Jonathan Bloedow’s letter, he first encountered multiculturalism when he attended an event arranged by a Resident Assistant that had been advertised as for Whites only.[2] She had brought in two professors to lead a discussion about race, stereotypes, prejudice, power and privilege. When the professors’ ideas were challenged from the floor, the discussion became quite tense.

Afterwards, Bloedow and a friend continued the discussion with some students who agreed with the professors and tried to persuade the two to accept ideas that seemed to get more and more bizarre. Their argument relied on defining racism as prejudice plus power, on which basis they said that all White Americans were racist regardless of their actions or beliefs. When the anti-racists realised that they could not effectively counter their opponents’ objections, something strange happened. In frustration two of them told Bloedow and his friend that their problem was that they were thinking too much from here, pointing to their heads, instead of from here, pointing to their hearts. Bloedow wondered why both young women used the same words and gestures, which he had never heard or seen before, and surmised that they had been affected by a common source. He later spoke to other student multiculturalists, one of whom even followed him in to dinner and sat down with him to explain his new-found belief system.

Cornell University

Bloedow noticed that all the discussions of multiculturalism in which he had taken part had several things in common. Most striking was the peculiarity of the beliefs themselves and the simplistic nature of the explanations of complex social problems that were offered. Secondly were the formulaic phrases used. Not only did every student multiculturalist express the same ideas, they usually expressed them in the same trite words. Again Bloedow thought that this belief system must have a single source. Thirdly the multiculturalists’ ideas were new to them. They had only acquired them at Cornell. Fourthly, they were all very excited about their new beliefs. Like religious fanatics they displayed an almost frenzied devotion to them, which Bloedow found odd given the simplistic nature of the beliefs. Finally, they gave no sign of thought, seeming to have accepted the ideas without putting them through their minds. Something seemed to have snapped in them psychologically, letting the ideas in and changing the students permanently. In one case, when a couple with whom Bloedow had been good friends learned that he edited The Cornell American, which had presumably questioned multiculturalism, they were outraged and refused ever to speak to him again. When he greeted them in the street they ignored him, thinking him too evil to acknowledge. Bloedow became all the more interested in what was happening—and disturbed by it.

Suddenly everything fell into place for Bloedow when he remembered hearing of this phenomenon before. He had once attended a lecture given by someone from the Council on Mind Abuse about cults, brainwashing and mind-control, where the speaker had said that a principal aim of brainwashing was to get people to stop using their minds and start thinking with their hearts. He had explained how mind-controllers try to get people to see their minds and rational thought as their enemies.

Bloedow talked to a fellow student who had recorded his experience of multicultural training, which matched Bloedow’s own. The other student said that at the start of one session, trainees were told no fewer than four times not to think about what they were about to hear but to feel it. When the student had countered the claim that “Whites walk down the glistening sidewalk of life with everything handed to them on a silver platter” by saying that he knew White people who had lived in poverty, the other students had turned on him and screamed that he was an evil racist.

Now seriously concerned, Bloedow set out to discover all he could about brainwashing and mind control, learning among other things that mind controllers train people to respond to dissenters with harassment and abuse but to accept them warmly if they recant. When he read out parts of a book about brainwashing to his fellow student, the latter was shocked to see how accurately the book described what he had experienced. Bloedow’s scepticism gave way to the conclusion to which everything was pointing, which he found quite frightening.

He noted that all the students he came across who were possessed by the new belief system had been converted in one of three situations, the main one being the course “Racism in American Society”, taught by the chair of the Africana Studies Department and another professor. He learned that the university was thinking of making this course mandatory for all first-year students, something true of no other course.

It was later suggested to him by the former director of the Cult Awareness Network that Cornell resorted to mind-control techniques because it had only a short time in which to change students’ minds.[3]

Jane Elliott in the 1990s

A famous “diversity trainer” active at the same time, who has won the National Mental Health Association Award for Excellence in Education, is Jane Elliott. She began her diversity training in 1968, appeared on the Johnny Carson show and has had several documentaries made about her. One from 1996 was recently shown online.[4] Apparently she relied on psychological abuse rather than brainwashing, although psychological abuse can be an element of the brainwashing process.

When signing trainees in to a workshop, she either placed or did not place a large yellow collar round their necks. Those with collars waited in one room, the others in another.

In the uncollared room, where most trainees were Black, she explained that she had separated trainees by the colour of their eyes, putting a collar on those with blue eyes. She was going to attribute to the blue-eyed trainees every negative trait that had been attributed to Black people so that they would learn how it felt to be non-White, she said. She told the brown-eyes that the blue-eyed waiting room contained just three chairs for seventeen people and laughed. She had had the heating turned way up there. A blue-eyed person must have come in to ask if it could be turned down, because she said: “It’s hot in there? Well, then it’s probably smelly, isn’t it, because White people smell a lot, don’t they?” She wanted the blue-eyed trainees to be uncomfortable, she explained to the brown-eyed ones.

Still in the brown-eyed waiting room, she suggested that IQ tests were biased against Black people because they tested “something that they know virtually nothing about”. But IQ tests don’t test knowledge; they test the ability to see and extrapolate patterns. Jane Elliott preferred to describe a question of aptitude in problem solving, such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (which is a non-verbal test of abstract reasoning) as a question of knowledge. She told the brown-eyes that they would be given a test that they would pass because the test itself gave them half the answers. This would resemble the way in which White people outperformed Blacks in IQ tests because White people are given the answers on a plate. Black trainees smiled, looking forward to outdoing the blue-eyes, who would presumably take a different test, which they would fail.

She seemed to think that the reason Black people did poorly in many ways was that White people expected little of them, a theory George W Bush alluded to when in 2009 he referred to “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, sometimes known as the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect something of someone and they will do it. If only life were that simple! Teachers could raise whole classes of dull children to the top of the academic league just by predicting that they would get there. People with no ear for music would start singing in tune if only someone prophesied that they would.

Another explanation suggested by Jane Elliott of the fact that Whites exceeded Blacks was that they were in power and had set things up so that they would remain in power. They won every game because they had invented the game and set the rules. What chance therefore did a Black person have? This was the Great Race Conspiracy Theory, which says that Whites connive to keep Blacks down. It is a classic conspiracy theory because no one has found any evidence of the conspiracy, which must therefore be going on in secret. Nor can the theory account for the abundant evidence of White people trying to help Black people in every possible way.

Jane Elliott saw “cultural bias” everywhere, sometimes where it was bound to exist, sometimes where it could not. “We use culturally biased text-books, we have culturally biased pictures on the wall”, she said, without explaining how a book or picture could fail to reflect a culture. According to her, our maps were also culturally biased, although what shape a continent might be on a culturally unbiased map she did not say.

But she made the purpose of the workshop clear to the brown-eyes: “For two and a half hours we are going to make these people look inferior and feel inferior”. Clearly this was a sadist who particularly hated White people.

In the workshop, where the blue-eyes sat on the floor while the others sat in chairs, she described White people as slow, unmotivated and lazy. How was this supposed to reflect reality? It must have been extraordinarily rare for a white person to describe a black person in this way to his face. Yet Jane Elliott relished doing this to white people. The Black trainees loved it.

The delighted Jane Elliott: Hating on White People

Posing with one of her delighted trainees

Some of her less of delighted trainees, with collars

She told those with collars that they would be treated “the way they have treated other people for a lifetime”. Even assuming that she meant White people in general rather than her White trainees in particular, how many White Americans had ever actually mistreated a Black person? The scenario was a product of Jane Elliott’s imagination, drawing on largely mythical but culture-wide dramatic categories.[5]

If Jane Elliott had really wanted the White trainees to know what it was like to be Black, she could have asked some Black trainees to stand up and tell them, in which case how many would have said that they were commonly abused? She was pushing the idea that Black people habitually suffered at the hands of Whites without a shred of evidence that it was true. The main purpose of the workshop seemed to be to gratify her love of insulting and humiliating White people.

She did at one point invite Black trainees to speak, not about being Black but specifically about their “stress”. One said that he had been unable to rent a house because, he was told, it was occupied, and he had later seen a White couple going into it: not a very persuasive example of persecution. A woman said that she was one of only two Black teachers at her school: hardly a major problem, one would have thought, let alone a case of mistreatment. The impression was reinforced that Jane Elliott’s idea of Black suffering inflicted by Whites was a fantasy.

This stubborn attachment of many White people to the idea of Black suffering recalls the time that in the Jim Crow era a journalist interviewed a Black man who had been refused admission to a hotel. “What did you do?” asked the journalist breathlessly, perhaps hoping to hear that the Black man had had to sleep on the street. “Went to another hotel”, he said.

Anti-racism training today

It would be interesting to know how the anti-racism training courses employees must undergo today compare to the brainwashing or psycho-torture sessions held in the 1990s. It would seem from the websites of companies offering such training that they might differ in three main ways.

First, whereas in the 1990s “multicultural” or “diversity” training aimed to get it across to White people that their society was riddled with racism, today this is taken for granted. For example, a prospectus from Equality and Diversity UK states that its course aims to “support delegates to understand the role of White privilege in racism” and help them “learn more about racism both the covert/overt [sic], including Subtle Acts of Exclusion”.[6] The existence of “racism”, “White privilege” and these “subtle acts” is presupposed rather than asserted. The course also aims to “support delegates to understand … White fragility and White saviourism”, thereby presupposing the existence of these things too. For anyone who might wonder what they are, the course will “give delegates the language … to tackle uncomfortable conversations”, as though without such jargon one would be unable to talk about race or whatever is supposed to be meant by “racism”. Yet it seems that some courses still find it necessary to inform trainees that all Whites are racist, as seen in the following picture.

All White people are racist, says this happy, edifying woman[7]

Secondly, today’s courses do not seem to advocate feeling rather than thinking but seem to be presented as almost academically respectable. Anti-racism now appears so confident of itself that it can pose as the product of rational thought and observation. Today’s courses also present themselves as caring. With White people’s interests at heart, they want to help them and support them in their efforts to overcome various afflictions of which they might have been unaware.

Thirdly, today’s courses modestly refrain from assuming that they will turn every White trainee into an anti-racist. Rather, they stress the concept of “allyship”, whereby those who do not become anti-racists will at least become their allies so that whatever anti-racists do, they will be behind them. Thus should it turn out that the thrust of anti-racism is to attack White people, their society and their culture, its new allies will also attack White people, their society and their culture.

Perhaps readers who have attended anti-racism training recently will tell us about it in the comments section below.

[1] The letter formed the main part of an article entitled “Does Cornell Use Brainwashing?” which I downloaded in 2001 and can now be accessed at: https://web.archive.org/web/20041221045833/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/education/Does_Cornell_Use_Brainwashing.html  Unfortunately it does now record the author’s name or the date of publication. I would guess that the letter, if not the article, was written in 1994. It cannot have been earlier since it mentions the Waco incident, which occurred in 1993, nor can it have been much later since it refers to multiculturalism as something new.

[2] Resident Assistants at Cornell, apparently called house advisors or junior counsellors at other American colleges, were senior students employed by the university to live among younger ones as “the extension of the administration into residential life”.

[3] The former director of the Cult Awareness Network was Ron Loomis.

[4] Blackpilled, March 5th 2023, “INSOMNIA STREAM: STUPID CUNT EDITION”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/GHgVh3TbbYD4/.

[5] Dramatic categories are mental devices for perceiving events, which can make it easier to believe in myths than facts. “Certain unverbalized assumptions about what must be the case can often defeat what actually is the case,” wrote the philosopher John Searle when discussing the student uprisings at Berkeley in the 1960s. He gave as an example of a dramatic category: “oppressed minority wins struggle for justice against reactionary authorities”. This contrasted with “oppressed minority engages in pointless battle with authorities for something they are prepared to give anyhow”, which was not a dramatic category and so no one could see events in those terms. See John Searle, 1972, The Campus War, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 73-77. The unverbalised dramatic category that Jane Elliott drew on and promulgated was basically that Whites were horrible to Blacks.

[6] Equality and Diversity UK, no date (downloaded March 2023), “Anti Racism Training Course”, https://www.equalityanddiversity.co.uk/anti-racism-training.html.

[7] Source: VICE TV, https://presearch.com/images?q=fat%20Black%20anti-racism%20trainer%20says%20all%20White%20people%20are%20racist#view.

Islam + Western Civilization = Islam: The Evil Equation that Delights Leftists and Dooms Libertarians

/47 Comments/in /by

Malignant tumors. In the modern West, there are two competing ways of responding to them. The first way is practised by leftists. It involves praising tumors, telling them what a vital and valued contribution they make to the body, and refusing to let tumors be criticized in any way. For example, if lung cancer or liver cancer causes problems, it’s clearly the fault of the lungs or liver. That’s why it’s so important to crush hate-speech about tumors. Can we not all agree that carcinophobia has no place in a decent society?

Words are all it will take

The second way of responding to tumors is practised by rightists and libertarians. They claim that, in fact, the real carcinophobes are those who don’t allow tumors to be criticized. Banning criticism of tumors implies that tumors aren’t grown up enough to accept criticism. But the very essence of tumors is that they grow up (and out and left and right and backward). We are actually respecting tumors if we speak sternly to them when they misbehave. And how else are we going to stop them misbehaving?

An enriching tumor surrounded by carcinophobic lung-tissue (from Wikipedia)

After all, words are the only way to respond to tumors. Either you praise them or you criticize them. Those are the only ways to respond. Certainly we can’t remove tumors from the body. What kind of bigot wants to do such a cruel and mean-spirited thing? All decent people agree that tumors enrich our lives and make a vital contribution to the body. Nor can we try to prevent tumors forming in the first place. That’s not just bigoted: it’s impossible. You cannot prevent tumors. As Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, once said: “Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for tumors. You have to be vigilant.” And Khan is certainly right about “great global cities” like London, Paris and Madrid. Sudden tumorous outbreaks have killed hundreds of people in those cities.

No Third-Worlders, no Third-Worlding

But Khan isn’t right about “great global cities” like Tokyo and Beijing. Tumors haven’t struck there at all. So what’s the difference? Well, Khan wasn’t really talking about tumors, of course. He was talking about Muslim terrorism. And Muslim terrorism doesn’t strike in Tokyo for the simple reason that Japan has not allowed mass migration by Muslims. In other words, you can easily prevent tumors like Muslim terrorism and other Third-World pathologies. Japan has done it by refusing to allow Third-World migration. If there are no Third-World folk in your nation, there are no Third-World pathologies. Enriched London doesn’t just suffer from terrorism but also from gang-rapes, acid-attacks, stabbings, female genital mutilation, and massive political corruption.

All of that is a consequence of Third-World migration and the Third-World pathologies it inevitably spawns in what is rapidly ceasing to be a First-World city. The same is true elsewhere in England. The small Yorkshire town of Rotherham has become infamous around the world for its Muslim rape-gangs, which have been raping, beating, prostituting and occasionally murdering underage White girls for decades.

Authentic Muslim menace

Despite its infamy, Rotherham is only a small part of sexual jihad being waged by Muslims in Britain. Worse things are still going on in bigger towns and cities. And no-one in mainstream politics is prepared to do anything about it. Politicians, journalists and academics don’t even speak the truth about it. And the truth is that the only way to end the pathologies caused by Muslims and other Third-World people is to expel them from your territory. Refusing to admit this, the mainstream left and mainstream right advocate the two competing policies I described above. Leftists believe in curing non-White pathologies by blaming them on Whites. Rightists believe in curing non-White pathologies by talking tough about them. And we’ve just seen excellent examples of these two failed policies in a story from another Islamically enriched Yorkshire town called Wakefield.

As part of a game with his friends, a 14-year-old autistic White boy purchased a Koran and took it to Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield, where it was accidentally dropped and slightly damaged. There was no malicious intent and the Koran does not appear to have been disrespected or vandalized in any way. But Usman Ali, a local councillor for the Labour party, immediately spotted another chance to intimidate the infidels and assert Muslim dominance. He tweeted the following, using smarmy left-speak to convey authentic Muslim menace:

After todays [sic] events at Kettlethorpe High School, where a Quran has been desecrated are [sic] a serious provocative action which needs to be dealt with urgently by all the authorities, namely, the police, the school and the local authority.

This terrible event could destroy all the good progress that has been made in Wakefield to highlight and combat Islamophobia.

I have been in contact with local leaders to ensure that swift and appropriate action is taken to deal with this grave situation. We all need to work together to make sure that this terrible provocation does not set back community relations for years to come. (Tweet by Usman Ali)

Councillor Ali later deleted the tweet, but it had had its desired effect. I’ve often written at the Occidental Observer about the goy grovel, that is, the sycophancy and submission of White gentiles to Jews. Now meet the kaffir krawl, the sycophancy and submission of White infidels to Muslims (kaffir is the Muslim term for a non-Muslim). The kaffir krawl was energetically performed in Wakefield by “all the authorities” and also by the mother of the autistic schoolboy, who has reportedly been “forced to flee his home and go into hiding, fearing for his life” because of death-threats.

Whites perform the kaffir krawl in Wakefield flanked by secretly laughing Muslims

Making death-threats is a crime in Britain. Slightly damaging a Koran without malicious intent is not. But the police in Wakefield acted as though it was the other way around. They performed the kaffir krawl to Muslims and confirmed once again that Britain has a new and unofficial blasphemy law. The old and official blasphemy law, which was abolished in 2008, protected only Christianity. The new and unofficial blasphemy law protects only Islam, because it has been created by Muslims and their readiness both to threaten and to commit violence in defense of their religion. Leftists, who hate free speech and love Islam, welcome this new law. Rightists and libertarians don’t welcome it, but they can’t be honest about why the new law exists or about their own inability to combat it. This is how the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, a cognitive clone of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, began his thunderous denunciation of the events in Wakefield:

Imagine living in a country so religiously uptight that even making a smudge on a copy of the Quran could turn into a police matter. A country so nervous of offending Islam that even kids could be punished for allegedly disrespecting that religion. A country so determined to ringfence certain religious beliefs from scrutiny or mockery that you might hear actual politicians denouncing as ‘provocative’ and ‘terrible’ any slight against those beliefs.

Well, if you’re in the UK then you live in that country. Forget Iran. Never mind Afghanistan. It’s right here in Blighty, a supposedly free, mostly secular nation, that all of the above recently happened. Let’s call it ‘Qurangate’. And let’s talk about just how messed up it is. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules, The Spectator, 25th February 2023)

Try and guess how Brendan continued his article. Did he point out that Britain now resembles the intolerant Muslim nations of Iran and Afghanistan because Britain has imported millions of intolerant Muslims? Did he issue a mea culpa for firmly supporting that influx of intolerant Muslims throughout his career? Of course he didn’t. Instead, he emitted hot air about “free speech” and condemned the way in which accusations of “Islamophobia” are used to justify censorship and blacklisting. He also plugged the useless and stupid line that protecting Islam from offence is “demeaning” and “infantilising” to Muslims.

Trotskyism and truth don’t mix

And to top it all off, he lied. Note the first adjective he used in this paragraph:

This strange and strict control of discussion of Islam can have dire consequences. Who can forget the case of the schoolteacher at Batley Grammar, also in West Yorkshire, who was hounded into hiding for the ‘crime’ of showing his pupils an image of Muhammad? Or the craven decision by UK cinema chains to pull the movie The Lady of Heaven last year after Islamist protesters kicked up a storm? In such a febrile and censorious climate it strikes me as incredibly reckless to treat four children as wicked defilers of Islam’s holy book. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules)

Brendan was lying when he used the word “strange” to describe the way Muslims are using intimidation and violence to control “discussion of Islam.” On the contrary, that control is completely normal and entirely predictable. Most of Britain’s vibrant Muslims come from Pakistan and, as I’ve pointed out again and again at the Occidental Observer, Pakistan has both harsh laws against blasphemy and a flourishing tradition of extra-judicial execution for alleged blasphemers. A Pakistani Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed brought that tradition to Britain in 2016, when he traveled from England to Scotland and stabbed to death another Pakistani Muslim called Asad Shah. Ahmed was an orthodox Sunni Muslim and Shah belonged to a Muslim sect called the Ahmadis, whom Sunnis regard as heretics and blasphemers. There was nothing “strange” about that murder, just as there was nothing strange about Brendan O’Neill’s refusal to discuss it at the time or later. Indeed, violence against Ahmadis is so routine in Pakistan that Asad Shah was granted asylum in Britain.

Absolute certainty of disaster

Unfortunately for him, Britain has been colonized by orthodox Muslim Pakistanis who, naturally enough, have brought their robust anti-blasphemy traditions with them. Not to mention their robust traditions of sexually enslaving infidel females and creating horrible genetic diseases by marrying close relatives. So would it be right to use another of Brendan O’Neill’s posturing phrases and say it was “incredibly reckless” to allow Pakistanis to colonize Britain? No, it wouldn’t be right to use that phrase. Doing so would imply that there was only a high probability of disastrous consequences, not an absolute certainty. But it was absolutely certain that allowing Pakistanis and other Third-Worlders to colonize Britain would have disastrous consequences.

Brendan O’Neill has supported that Third-World colonization every step of the way. Naturally enough, he’s also weaseled and lied about the disastrous consequences. Or has ignored them entirely. To the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned, let alone condemned, the murder of Asad Shah. He certainly didn’t mention it in his article about Qurangate in Wakefield. “Who can forget?” he asked in the article before listing examples of Muslim attacks on free speech. Well, you could, Brendan. And you did. But that silence wasn’t maintained by Tom Slater, another Trotskyist libertarian and cognitive clone of Frank Furedi. When Slater wrote about Qurangate, he said this:

We’ve seen how this story ends far too many times now. The threat to those deemed to be blasphemers is very real. Batley Grammar School, where in 2021 a teacher was forced into hiding after he showed a cartoon of Muhammad to his religious-studies class, is a 10-mile drive from Kettlethorpe High School. That teacher is still in hiding, no doubt fearing he will meet a similar fate to Samuel Paty — the French teacher beheaded in the suburbs of Paris in 2020 for almost identical ‘crimes’. Those who refuse to believe that such a thing could happen here should Google Asad Shah, the Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper from Glasgow who was stabbed to death in 2016 by a man who accused him of ‘disrespecting’ Islam. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about that awful case. (When a Wakefield boy brought a Koran to school, Spiked Online, 27th February 2023)

No, Tom: not everyone. I’m a knuckle-dragging far-rightard, but I’ve never forgotten about the “awful case” of Asad Shah’s murder. And please feel free to draw on any of my articles about it when you and your comrades begin your unrelenting campaign to put Asad Shah where he deserves to be, namely, at the heart of all future commentary about Islam and free speech in Britain:

But I have to be honest about why I’ve never forgotten the murder of Asad Shah. That “awful case” is not at all inconvenient for me, because it proves I’m right about the lunacy of allowing Muslims to colonize a Western nation. It is certainly inconvenient for self-proclaimed libertarians like Brendan O’Neill and Tom Slater, because it contradicts all their weaseling and lies about why Muslims attack free speech and how we can stop them doing it. Muslims will never stop doing it until they and other Third-World enrichers are expelled from Western nations.

Either way, the always idiotic and often evil ideology of libertarianism is doomed. If Third-World enrichers remain in the West, they will further assist the creation of a leftist tyranny in which sincere libertarians will be imprisoned (and insincere ones take their masks off to reveal their true leftism). But if Third-World enrichers are expelled, it will be because Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization have come to power. And Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization are not fooled by the thoroughly Jewish ideology of libertarianism, which warmly welcomes Muslim migration, then weasels and lies about the inevitable consequences.

O antirracismo é imoral

/in /by

Autor: Emmanuel Spraguer.

 

  O leitor já considerou que tudo o que leu e ouviu sobre a moral e a verdade pode ser mentira?       E é mesmo.

A palavra “Racismo” tem recebido muitas definições sem pé nem cabeça. Na verdade, aqueles dependentes da confusão sentem-se melhor com a própria mistificação na manipulação semântica dessa palavra. Isso corresponde a manter um cachorro de várias cabeças guardando, eternamente, o templo da diversidade. O termo, simples conceito da antropossociologia, passou a ser arma ideológica das guerras culturais. E, como arma, não serve para construir, mas para destruir. Trata-se, essencialmente, sempre e em todo lugar, de uma tentativa fraudulenta de encerrar o debate civil e declarar vitória. O “argumento” mantém a discussão num nível muito baixo, adequado às pessoas sem capacidade maior de raciocínio, sem cultura e senso crítico, pessoas que podem sofrer de dissonância cognitiva e abraçam os seus manipuladores.

A definição de racismo mais “consagrada” é a da academia e da mídia, por sua maior adequação à moldura politicamente correta, tão ao gosto do oficialismo, sobeja dizê-lo. Conforme o estabilismo, então, o conceito de racismo apresenta os quatro elementos seguintes bastante distintos na sua compreensão: elemento 1: a crença na diferença biológica das raças e na importância dessa diferença; elemento 2: o ódio entre membros de raças diferentes; elemento 3: o preconceito racial; e, elemento 4: a discriminação racial.

O elemento 1 consiste em simples ideia ou, mais exatamente, numa proposição de verdade, nome que a lógica dá à atribuição de um predicado a qualquer sujeito. Os grão-senhores e mestres de nossos mestres do marxismo cultural dizem-nos que acreditar nas desigualdades raciais é decorrência de maldade inerente ao crente, coisa de gente ruim. Isto não é verdade, porém, nem teria como ser verdade. Só os imbecis e os totalitaristas pensam que apontar as desigualdades dos tipos humanos revela pravidade. E mais: alegar que uma pessoa seja má por desacreditar a igualdade da espécie humana implica o que os filósofos de todo o mundo chamam de “erro categórico”. O leitor percebe, pois, que o elemento 1 da definição, ou seja, a desigualdade das raças e sua importância, não passa de mero postulado sobre as relações sociais dadas pela raça. Duvidar da igualdade não é um ato moral e, pois, não pode estar sujeito a julgamento moral. Por exemplo, se eu dissesse a alguém que o céu é verde, e a pessoa respondesse dizendo que eu sou uma pessoa má por acreditar na cor verde do céu, eu poderia treplicar, denunciando ao meu interlocutor a grande confusão de lógica categorial na cabeça dele. Eu posso estar enganado quanto à cor do céu, mas isso não faria de mim uma pessoa má. Afirmar o contrário só poderia ser o resultado de uma total falta de compreensão do objeto da discussão; equivaleria a introduzir questões de moralidade em questões de fato. O comportamento de quem discute a cor do céu ou a cor das raças não faz da pessoa o réu de nenhum julgamento moral (nem deveria fazê-la réu de julgamento nenhum). Com efeito, não há nisso nenhuma consideração de natureza moral, trata-se apenas da discussão de como as coisas são ou não são no mundo exterior. Aqueles que dizem que “racistas são perversos porque acham  que as raças difiram nisto ou naquilo” são pessoas estúpidas. Esses “julgadores” são, na maioria dos casos, incapazes de compreender o que eles mesmos dizem, eles não têm consciência do quão doido é o “veredicto” que pronunciam. Este é um tipo claro e inconfundível de erro categórico. Levantar, discutir hipóteses ou acreditar na verdade delas, em se tratando de pôr em causa aspectos da realidade objetiva do mundo físico, não implica ato moral (ou imoral). As qualidades básicas dos atos morais não estão presentes aí. Atos morais ou mesmo alegações morais pertencem a categorias conceituais bem diferentes.

O elemento 1 não passa de pueril insulto àqueles que rejeitam o igualitarismo racial. A igualdade racial é de uma falsidade evidente. Trata-se de escalafobética ficção digna de um Lysenko. E a fé raivosa dos esquerdistas totalitários que acreditam nela não a pode transformar em verdade. Dar crédito à crença na igualdade das raças equivale a nada menos do que declarar guerra a uma básica verdade antropológica. As populações de raças diversas não são iguais nas suas capacidades. Elas não são nem remotamente iguais. Com efeito, à medida que se vão acumulando os dados probatórios das diferenças genéticas entre as populações humanas, até mesmo conhecidos cientistas judeus como David Reich começam a admitir, relutantemente, que o igualitarismo racial é intelectualmente insustentável. Posto isso, mesmo se o igualitarismo racial fosse verdadeiro, e este, com certeza, não é o caso, acreditar no contrário, ou seja, na desigualdade racial, não faria de ninguém uma pessoa imoral ou malvadona.

Passemos ao elemento 2, aquele concernente ao ódio, muito cacarejado atualmente. O ódio, para início de conversa, é fenômeno extremamente raro, especialmente no Ocidente moderno. Ainda que existente, de qualquer forma, o ódio é sempre situacional e efêmero, pois as situações na origem dele mudam e mudam rapidamente ao longo da história. O ódio não é nenhuma entidade, é só um sentimento, e os sentimentos, afinal, não são de fácil observação ou mensuração. Então, “denunciar” o ódio aqui e ali, com tanta frequência e certeza, é alguma coisa de muita temeridade. Além disso, assim como os pensamentos ou as ideias, o “ódio” não é nenhuma coisa que possa ser moral ou imoral, porque não consiste num ato dirigido ao mundo exterior, tratando-se, antes, de algo inteiramente pessoal e interno ao indivíduo. Embora muito “denunciado” por aproveitadores de todo tipo, principalmente aqueles da militância negra e esquerdista, movidos por inconfessáveis interesses e “razões”, o ódio inter-racial não é algo de que os seus “denunciantes” tenham conhecimento e, também, por sua extrema raridade, é de mínima importância. O elemento 2 não é válido na definição de racismo, seu propósito é bem outro. Na verdade, ele serve, na forma de tipo criminal, como meio para caluniar e desacreditar oponentes políticos. Em outro plano, a história fala, e nela eu acredito, que o ódio pode ser útil e racional em certos contextos, mas não vale a pena tratar disso em relação ao conceito em tela, pelos motivos suso referidos.

Consabidamente, a discriminação racial, quando levada às últimas consequências, pode implicar coisas feias, como o conflito entre judeus e nativos na Alemanha. Por outro lado, o antirracismo, mesmo sem viés político, mesmo sem aplicação seletiva contra os brancos, se levado ao extremo, pode ser ainda pior. Aliás, o antirracismo “neutro” é o menos comum, embora assim o veja o homem comum. Na verdade, a aplicação dos princípios do antirracismo até o extremo de sua conclusão lógica resulta na destruição de povos e sociedades, automática ou voluntariamente. A recusa da distinção entre “nós” e “eles” no contexto de uma nação corresponde à abolição da própria nação. Da mesma forma, a recusa da distinção entre “nós” e “eles” no contexto de uma religião corresponde à abolição da própria religião. Se qualquer grupo deseja sobreviver, ele deve, forçosamente, tomar as medidas que protejam as características que o definem. Na ausência de medidas adequadas para esse fim, todo grupo terá determinado a própria extinção. A autoproteção coletiva faz-se ainda mais necessária no mundo moderno, submetido à forte pressão da migração para as áreas brancas e mais ricas, sem o que estas sucumbirão, rapidamente, em meio às invasões e ao parasitismo de grupos alógenos. Se as etnias bem-sucedidas não protegerem os seus próprios interesses, acabarão completamente tragadas pelas populações de crescimento demográfico explosivo, ávidas de gozar os benefícios do sucesso alheio, de que não são capazes e para o qual não contribuem.

O racismo extremamente discriminatório tem, pelo menos, mais a ver com as tendências naturais. Ele promove a competição aberta entre os grupos e consagra as formas de sucesso que a própria natureza recompensa desde sempre. Por outro lado, o antirracismo cifra-se, basicamente, no comunismo aplicado aos genes, às raças e às fronteiras. O antirracismo é anticompetitivo, inerentemente disgênico e, mais do que não progressivo, ele é antiprogressivo, e serve para que os povos mais vagabundos da Terra consumam o que ainda resta de belo, precioso e decente no planeta e na humanidade. O antirracismo é, também, basicamente antibiológico. O antirracismo quer que a evolução humana tenha terminado, como que por mágica e capricho, há 250 mil anos.  Compara-se a uma espécie de criacionismo para “esquerdiotas”, só que ao contrário. Os criacionistas acreditam que a Terra passou a existir 10 mil anos atrás. Os antirracistas, por sua vez, partem do pressuposto de que as forças evolucionárias que criaram o homem tenham deixado de existir há um quarto de milhão de anos, ou seja, quando a evolução afastou de nós os africanos subsaarianos.

O que os fanáticos acreditam em nome da ideologia ou religião é inacreditável. E pior ainda é o que fazem. Ocorre que o elemento 2 do conceito de racismo trata de um sentimento e, assim como o elemento 1, isto é, o desacreditar a igualdade, não pode, pois, estar sujeito a julgamento moral (ou de qualquer tipo). Como referido, o sentir não é objeto particularmente adequado a análises morais. Não obstante, aqueles intolerantes em nome da tolerância (G. Orwell explica) se arvoram em juízes da humanidade, literalmente. Os novos Lysenkos estão nos tribunais.

O critério dado pelo elemento 3, ou seja, o preconceito, o preconceito exogrupal, mais especificamente, não passa, na verdade, de um erro ou viés do pensamento. Trata-se, alternativamente, de uma falha estrutural ou sistêmica do raciocínio. Isto é algo mais ou menos inerente à psique humana e comum a todas as raças e povos (raça branca, inclusive). O preconceito de qualquer tipo, devo dizer, quando devidamente definido, não é alguma coisa que mereça comemoração. O problema é que os nossos supermestres antibrancos não o definem da forma apropriada. Como é típico deles, eles definem o preconceito como qualquer consideração politicamente incorreta a respeito de exogrupos (por exemplo, a conclusão de que os pretos sejam mais propensos à violência do que os brancos). Isto consiste numa extrema distorção do sentido adequado. O preconceito consiste num erro lógico. Chegar a conclusões imorais (o que não existe) ou inconvenientes não é o que caracteriza o preconceito. O verdadeiro preconceito significa o pretenso saber a que se chega por erro de raciocínio. Trata-se, pois, de uma falsa conclusão. Infelizmente, entretanto, os gênios do Judiciário não são capazes de proceder a essa distinção, decerto por preconceito. Na realidade, o “preconceito”, devidamente compreendido, não pode ser considerado erro moral, pois que se trata, isto sim, de um erro intelectual. Os erros intelectuais devem ser evitados, obviamente, mas nenhuma ponderação moral torna errada uma conclusão procedente de um raciocínio logicamente correto. Só a conclusão constante de um juízo de fato não correspondente à realidade pode estar errada. Nenhuma desaprovação moral pode falsear uma conclusão intelectualmente correta.

Em outras palavras, aquelas figuras influentes ou poderosas da mídia e do aparato do poder argumentando que “o preconceito é imoral” estão, simplesmente, equivocadas. Essas pessoas confundem as más ações que, algumas vezes, decorrem do preconceito com o próprio preconceito, como também confundem as más ações que, às vezes, decorrem dos pensamentos racistas com os próprios pensamentos. Entretanto, apenas os atos são susceptíveis de julgamento moral, os pensamentos ou processos de pensamento não o são. Além disso, certos pensamentos e ideologias não necessariamente acarretam ações determinadas, e quem diz o contrário revela ação desinformada e pensamento preconceituoso. E mais: os vieses e preconceitos, às vezes, levam a conclusões que os antirracistas defendem, como as conclusões em favor da falsa igualdade, e isto demonstra que o preconceito não está em nenhuma suposta qualidade moral da conclusão, mas sim na lógica do processo de cognição. Portanto, nenhuma censura deve ser aplicada a qualquer proposição de verdade em razão de sua simples correlação com certas ações ou ideologias políticas. Isto seria estúpido. A ideia de policiar ideias é ideia horrível, como também prática totalitária horrível.

Nós devemos, outrossim, diferençar o preconceito e o favoritismo de endogrupo. O favoritismo endogrupal consiste na atitude de maisquerer o endogrupo do que o exogrupo, pelo mais de proteção e conforto social no seu seio, em razão do compartir de vidas, valores e interesses e de tudo o mais que possa aproximar os seus membros a bem de maior coesão e harmonia do grupo. No caso de o próprio grupo ser mais produtivo, inteligente e ético, o endogrupismo terá base na realidade objetiva, ainda mais quando os grupos em competição tiverem garantida a sua liberdade para competir, caso em que a preferência social dada ao endogrupo dificilmente terá as suas raízes afundadas no preconceito, isto é, nalguma conclusão improcedente.

E, assim, chegamos ao elemento 4, o último que citamos na definição de racismo: a discriminação racial. A discriminação é o só fenômeno que pode, realmente, comportar julgamento moral. Desde logo, como decerto esperava o leitor, proponho que qualquer valor moral conducente à destruição dos grupos que o praticam — e o antirracismo conduz a essa catástrofe, não se possa reputar legítimo valor moral, pois se trata, antes, de manifestação de insanidade coletiva.

Uma das principais formas de discriminação racial é, por exemplo, a exclusão. Quais seriam, entretanto, as consequências da total falta de exclusão ou separação? As decorrências consistem na miscigenação, na desintegração cultural pelos empréstimos e ecletismos, na reescrita e releitura da própria história, na completa perda de identidade etc. Sem formas de controle e seleção de sua composição, um grupo não tem como proteger os seus membros, seus modos, costumes e genes, não pode nem mesmo sobreviver enquanto grupo distinto. Ele acabará assimilando o meio externo ou sendo assimilado nele. Segue daí que a política de combinar a abertura das fronteiras com as leis antidiscriminatórias de amplo alcance não se coloca apenas como má política, mas também como prática implícita e efetiva de genocídio. A discriminação racial na forma da exclusão é, pois, medida prática de defesa contra a penetração de elementos estranhos. O nível de gravidade da infecção étnica determinará a medida da desintegração dos traços que definem o grupo contaminado, que poderá, bem ou mal, sobreviver…  ou não.

No mundo moderno, a negligência na guarda dos limes em contexto nacional ou internacional atrai grandes populações que se deslocam das áreas pobres e miseráveis ou conflagradas para aqueloutras de paz e prosperidade. Afinal, por que povos bem-sucedidos emigrariam para países de merda? Por isso, no mundo atual, não assistimos apenas à transformação das melhores sociedades e populações, mas sim à sua destruição e substituição pelas piores sociedades e populações em termos morais, civilizacionais e genéticos. Por conseguinte, a luta sem fronteiras contra a discriminação, por sua própria natureza destrutiva, mostra-se ainda pior nas suas condições hodiernas, porque acarreta a degradação social, moral, cultural e racial no seio da “sociedade aberta” que a promove. Se um povo não permite a discriminação, esse povo se recusa a ser um povo. Se um povo adota tal valor moral como diretriz política e força-o contra si mesmo, estará buscando a extinção, o genocídio de que será a própria vítima. A proibição absoluta da discriminação de exogrupos é para o endogrupo o que o veneno é para o indivíduo.

Agora, uma pergunta ao leitor: você acha que transformar lugares prósperos, felizes e pacíficos do mundo em infernos é o correto, o maravilhoso, a coisa certa a fazer em nome da moral? Achamos que a resposta afirmativa indica forma de idiotia, mas não seria culpa do leitor, ninguém pede para ser idiota, e o idiota não sabe que é um idiota, como o louco não sabe de sua loucura. A loucura é triste e terrível forma de ilusão. O louco “pensa” que africanizar a Europa ou fazer do Brasil um gigantesco Haiti seja como que uma obrigação moral.

Na Alt-Right, dedicamo-nos a combater essa louca ilusão etnicamente suicidária. Em certos contextos, algum grau de discriminação racial não é apenas aceitável, mas também moralmente imperativo. A resistência ante exogrupos é o alimento que mantém vivos os povos e as civilizações e, ainda mais, fazem-nos prosperar. Qualquer grupo que rejeite a discriminação terá os seus dias contados neste mundo. O grupo “bonzinho” está fadado a ser substituído por outros que levarem mais seriamente em consideração os próprios interesses e que, de forma entusiasmada, discriminarem membros de exogrupos, como não brancos, esquerdistas antibrancos, mafomistas e quejandos. De fato, isto é o que, exatamente, está acontecendo no Ocidente hoje. Os maiorais-mores do marxismo cultural seguem indo sempre além e já negam aos brancos o direito à própria identidade. Mas, caro leitor, pense nisto, por favor: como um grupo pode sobreviver, quando nem os seus membros sabem que são os seus membros?

Então, dos quatro elementos referidos na definição institucionalizada e vulgar do racismo, apenas um é passível de julgamento moral (a discriminação). Vimos, entretanto, que a rejeição da discriminação não pode ser indiscriminada, a menos que se pense que os povos não se possam defender, mas a defesa do antirracismo absoluto é tarefa intelectual difícil e, politicamente, será ainda mais difícil, porque, em algum momento, a desterritorialização dos brancos irá trair as suas monstruosas consequências.

Portanto, podemos concluir, e o fazemos com segurança, que a proscrição completa da discriminação racial não se confunde com a moralidade, não lhe é nem consubstancial nem coextensiva. A Moralidade digna desse nome encontra-se em algum ponto entre a discriminação racial em todos os contextos e a discriminação racial em contexto nenhum.

_______________________

 

Fonte: Altright. Autor: Emmanuel Spraguer. Título original: Anti-racism is immoral. Data de publicação: [2018(?)]. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

 

Pajama Nation: Americans Have Morphed into the People of Walmart

/98 Comments/in /by

If one wants to see what a huge segment of the American people have morphed into, look no farther than the ‘People of Walmart’ website. It features the obscenely unbecoming clothes that people wear while shopping at Walmart. The site is both hysterical and depressing at the same time. Though it pokes fun at sloppy Walmart shoppers, the truth is that vast numbers of Americans dress like this at any place they patronize. It’s often difficult at times to distinguish between a sloppy but employed person and a homeless bum. Some have called it “hobo-chic.”

It has become common in America to see someone wearing a hoodie, backward baseball cap, torn jeans, a ‘wife-beater,’ or their baggy pajamas to the grocery store, the DMV, or to the movies. Most people probably don’t even notice it anymore because it has become a regular feature of what Americans wear. A large sign had to be posted at the local courthouse where I live to remind visitors to wear shoes and that tank-tops are not allowed. Americans, it seems, are quite content in attiring themselves like complete slobs. They can’t be bothered to wear appropriate and form-fitting clothes. Comedian Bill Mahr was right when he said on his Real Time show in 2013 that Americans won’t be happy until they can go shopping in a diaper!

Mind you, I’m not against wearing casual clothing. But there is a time and place for everything. Few Americans seem to understand this. Some have surmised that the origins of our sloppy dressing habits began when companies started implementing “casual Friday’s” which turned into casual Monday-thru-Friday.

Turning to our women, far too many of them are not just frumpy in appearance, but they often dress in the most unbecoming ways – such as spandex so tight you can see the entirety of their butt cracks, the shape of their labia majora, including jiggling cellulite for all to behold. Every basic rule of fashion and clothing coordination is violated.

Many of them dress this way even though they are morbidly obese. You’d think they would naturally want to conceal their girth and draw as little attention to their rolls of fat as possible. But no, they persist in wearing clothes that only serve to accentuate it. Many of them, in fact, are quite proud of their rotund bodies. They’d go ballistic if anyone dared to “fat shame” them. We’re expected to not notice and consider it perfectly acceptable.

Look also how much makeup is caked onto their faces, especially among our younger women. There seems to be little understanding that sometimes less is more. Makeup, as I understand it, is supposed to enhance a woman’s natural beauty rather than make her look like someone completely different when she takes it off. Those guys who have been shocked to see their girlfriend without makeup know exactly what I’m referring to. The current trend among young women to affix enormous fake eyelashes has reached absurd levels.

Have you noticed also how sexual and provocative our young women dress? They leave nothing to the imagination. They tattoo themselves like an old bar whore, pierce their noses and other bodily parts, and then complain when men look at them or act too forward toward them. They attire themselves in ways that narcissistically scream “Hey everyone, look at me!” — and then self-righteously condemn anyone who dares to notice. There is nothing modest or graceful about these gals either. They’re loud, abrasive, and seemingly possess just as much testosterone as the average male they look down upon. They have no self-awareness. They think the world of themselves, but they have little reason to do so.

Much of this, I suspect, is due to our national decline which is reflective in how people attire themselves. But some of it must be due to the fault of their own mothers who failed to teach and model before them on how to conduct themselves in public, especially how to dress appropriately for each occasion. Just as so many American fathers have abdicated their role as leaders in the family, so also mothers have failed to instruct and guide their daughters on what it means to be a woman. The days when our women were known for being feminine, soft-spoken, and polite are over. The entire notion of behaving “classy” and “dignified” seems to have been kicked to the curb.

Whites Have Succumbed to the Degrading Fashion Trends of Blacks

What I find to be especially disturbing is how many of our young White men and women follow the fashion trends of Blacks. White males wearing their hat backwards might seem like a petty thing to complain about. Perhaps, but even in something as seemingly insignificant as this, it shows the degree of influence that Black ‘culture’ has had on our way of life.

White males didn’t do this sort of thing until around the late 80s or early 90s when Black ‘rap’ music took hold of the nation. It’s been downhill ever since. The backwards baseball cap thing popular among Black males is, in my view, indicative of them as a people. Everything they do is backwards. They are largely unwilling to assimilate to the norms of White civilization, and it shows in their attitudes, including at times in the smallest of ways. These are subtle acts of defiance by Blacks, a sort of “Fuck you!” to the White man and a declaration that “we’re different than you!” And, indeed, they are, but not quite in the superior way they imagine.

White males who allow their pants to “sag” like ghetto thugs reveal just how much White Americans have come under the power and influence of Blacks as amplified and promoted by our liberal-left media. I expect young Black males to wear their pants “saggin” because it’s indicative of their lower intelligence levels. Black communities in America, in fact, must create public “anti-saggin” campaigns to urge their young Black males to stop wearing their pants so low. What other racial group on this planet other than Blacks must erect large billboards and public service announcements to tell its young men to pull up their pants?

Few Whites are aware that the pants “sagging” fashion originated in America’s prisons in which Black males receptive to anal sex from other prisoners would allow their pants to sag below their buttocks. It serves as just one more gauge revealing how utterly dysfunctional Blacks in America are. Thus, when young White males emulate the same gutter fashion as young Black males, it’s a clear indication of how far Whites in America have fallen.

Our young White women, likewise, mimic the tribal dancing of Blacks which is overtly sexual in nature (“twerking”). The current trend among ghetto-influenced White gals of trying to grow gargantuan-sized buttocks (ala Kim Kardashian) in order to attract young Black bucks shows just how low our people have sunk.

Prior Generations of Whites Had Greater Self-Dignity

What a stark contrast all of this is to prior generations of White Americans. Consider the 1950s when America, according to some observers, was at its pinnacle in terms of national unity, civility, and morality. People used to dress up when they went shopping or even to the grocery store as strange as that may sound to our ears. It wasn’t rare to see men in the stands at a professional baseball game wearing suits and women wearing dresses. These were public events, and they dressed accordingly.

This wasn’t because they were snobs and thought themselves better than others. Rather, it was because they had respect for themselves as well as those around them. They lived in a high-trust, homogeneous society. There was a common consensus among most Americans on right and wrong, a love for their country and countrymen, and they maintained this national unity in everything they did. They were far from perfect, no doubt, but they had a level of civility and self-respect largely missing from today’s generation.

Few Americans in our time seem able to relate to this. We are a deeply divided nation (if we can even be called a “nation”?) and there is almost no consensus on anything. We have become individualistic to the core and care only what is best for me and mine. The racial and cultural changes that emerged during the 1960s — orchestrated and funded in large part by revolutionary Jews who felt no attachment to heritage Americans — ensured that the next generation and those after would be marked by racial division, the decline of the family, total demoralization of the White majority, and increasing instability.

Making matters worse, Americans have been badly influenced by Nihilism and Cultural Marxism which attacks the very foundations of tradition and beauty. Is it any wonder why our young people who come under the spell of Leftist thought, including the more recent ‘woke’ movement, are soon transformed into the most visually repugnant persons? It’s a sickness of the mind and soul, and it manifests itself in how they outwardly present themselves to the world.

The Inanity of Tattoos

Consider also the popularity of tattoos among Americans which has reached epic proportions. In the name of “art,” huge numbers of Americans tattoo the entirety of their arms (“sleeves”), tattoo the entirety of their necks and faces, and any body part that’s exposed. All of it, we’re told, is an expression of one’s individuality and uniqueness. It sets them apart from others.

In reality, it only serves to show how all of these folks are compliant sheep with little real individuality among them. They’re enslaved to mind-numbing trends even though they like to think of themselves as standing apart from the crowd. Seriously, how original is a “Tribal band” tattoo when almost every other person has one? I’m sure if they thought that wearing a watermelon rind on the top of their heads was popular and would give them attention, they’d do that too.

It would be one thing if the tattoos were something earned as a result of bravery and survival. But most of the tattoos that Americans graffiti themselves with have little meaning or significance. They do it because it looks “cool” and will get them noticed by others which is really their underlying purpose.

Whenever you see a young woman fully “tatted” out, know well that she’s practically guaranteed to be the proverbial “attention whore.” No one intentionally does this sort of thing unless they want people to notice and gawk at them. Any man who has an ounce of intelligence is advised to turn and run from these kinds of women.

The following analogy may help us to see the utter mindlessness of our women tatting themselves like Bantu tribesmen. Have you even seen a Ferrari or Lamborghini sports car plastered with bumper stickers? Of course not! That’s because these finely tuned cars are by themselves beautiful works of art. Nothing more is needed to make them beautiful or to stand out more. To attach anything like a bumper sticker to them would cheapen them immensely. It would be completely inappropriate to do so.

On the other hand, one might not mind attaching bumper stickers to their Toyota Celica sedan or their Ram diesel truck because these are not works of art and the quality of these vehicles are not on par with a Ferrari or Lamborghini. This isn’t to say that Toyota and Ram vehicles aren’t good vehicles, but only that their quality is vastly inferior compared to such finely tuned and expensive sports cars as a Ferrari Testarossa, Porsche Carrera GT, or a Lamborghini Veneno.

It seems from this commonsense analogy that the greater number of our American women view themselves as merely Toyotas (or worse!) which explains why they are so eager to mark up and graffiti their bodies. In other words, the woman who tattoos herself in the ways I have described probably has very low self-esteem. Sure, she might make highfalutin claims about herself (they always do), but I suspect that most of these women have “daddy issues” and an array of psychological disorders.

What is so disturbing is that White women are seen by much of the world as the standard of beauty. Why, then, would so many of them go out of their way to intentionally make themselves much less attractive? I can only attribute it to one thing — they have come under the spell of a poisonous and self-hating Leftist ideology. When a woman intentionally cuts off most of her God-given long hair, colors that same hair in bright neon colors, defaces herself with multiple inane tattoos, pierces her nose, and attires herself in the trashiest manner one can imagine, it’s a clear indication that her mind and soul are not well.

Is it any wonder why so many American men are turning to the much more feminine, trim, and less abrasive Asian and Russian women? I don’t necessarily support this kind of thing because I want Whites to marry and create families among their own kind (Russians are fine). But I understand why it’s occurring. American women have slowly driven themselves from the dating marketplace by their attitudes, conduct, obesity, and caustic nature. They have allowed themselves to be so badly duped by ultra-feminist  and trans rhetoric that they’ve become insufferable.        

Humans Are Wired to Make Judgments

Some are offended at these kinds of personal judgments of others. We’re supposed to be a polite society that doesn’t judge, right? Wrong! All of us judge, and most of us make them quickly upon meeting other people for the first time. Anyone who tells you that they don’t judge others is a liar and is virtue signaling.

The truth is, we’ve been hard wired to judge others. It’s simply a matter of recognizing patterns, learning from past mistakes, and having reality-based discernment which we are supposed to get better at as we get older. Many people don’t, and they’re just as gullible at 72 years of age as they were at 22. This is the value of having many experiences, both good and bad, in life. It makes us wiser and more cautious in all that we do – or at least it’s supposed to.

How Understanding Criminal Profiling Helps Us to Read People

When I was cop, it was drilled into us to not “racially profile.” This is right because we really don’t want cops stopping people on the roadway for no other reason than the color of their skin. But this doesn’t necessarily prevent cops from recognizing and finding a legitimate vehicle code violation in order to stop criminal gangsters on the roadway. It shouldn’t stop the beat cop who recognizes suspicious activity even if the persons are minorities. Why is that? It’s because cops are engaging in criminal profiling which is perfectly legal. This is quite different than racial profiling. Most people don’t understand this, and they wrongly view criminal profiling as no different than racial profiling.

Criminal profiling is based on repeated and observable patterns. In other words, when gangsters or other criminal types wear certain kinds of clothing, particularly colors such as blue and red, it fits a certain criminal profile that alerts the officer. It conveys important information to the officer. Based on this, the officer may find probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and contact the driver. This often leads to apprehending criminals who have warrants issued for their arrest, including probation violations which sends them immediately to jail.

Criminal profiling is based upon the millions of contacts officers throughout the country have had with gang members and hardened criminal types over the past many decades. As many people know, this was originally developed by the FBI years prior. They provided a framework in which to better understand the criminal mind, including distinctive patterns that help us to identify them. Some of these indicators are seen in how criminals attire themselves.

Yet, more than that, the patterns I refer to are innate within humans. They are part of our internal defense system that helps us to survive. Many people, unfortunately, ignore the signals our body gives us or refuse to develop and sharpen their skills at pattern recognition.

Hispanic gang members (“cholos”) as well as Black gang members (“crips” and “bloods”) dress a certain way that stands out from the rest of society. These are clear markers or indicators that this person is more than likely a criminal thug that an officer would be wise to pay attention to or find probable cause that would justify a stop or even a consensual encounter. Again, it’s a matter of recognizing repeatable patterns, and then making a judgment about the gathered information.

Part of understanding all of this is recognizing that no one puts on their daily clothes without thinking about it. None of it is accidental. Yes, there are persons who give little thought as to what they wear, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t care if they dressed up like a clown or a disheveled hobo. Most of us attire ourselves a certain way because this is how we want to portray ourselves to others. Our clothes, then, serve as a reflection of ourselves and what we want others to think of us. Thus, when a gang member attires himself in a thuggish way or anyone else for that matter, they are sending a message. They are signaling to others. They are portraying themselves, as well as messaging their values and worldview (however slight it may be).

Most people don’t think about it much, but this is what is occurring. A corporate professional for a large city bank, for example, would not think of wearing cowboy boots and a cowboy hat to work. He wouldn’t wear pajamas to the office either. He knows he has an image he wants to project, one that comports with his vocation and the policies of his company.

Thus, when Americans dress like slobs it’s a peek inside their little world. It tells us something about them (though not everything, of course). It may only be suggestive, but it still provides some insight into the person. It may tell us that he or she is lazy or economically poor. It might also reflect the downward spiral of the society they are a part of. It may be an indicator of their narcissism. It might suggest there’s been an erosion of decency in that society, a national decline of sorts.

All of these are possible, although I am inclined toward the view that overall it’s indicative of America’s fall. Would you want these people in our military? Running a corporation? How—on such a large scale—can it be otherwise when one compares the current generation with prior generations? None of this happened in a vacuum. None of it was accidental. There is good reason to believe it was planned despite how conspiratorial it may sound to some people.

After decades of daily and intense liberal-left indoctrination from the media and almost every government entity, how could it not impact the way we dress and carry ourselves? Beginning in elementary school, American children are incrementally propagandized to think and act a certain way. Their entire worldview is manipulated to interpret the world around them in ways that agree with a Leftist and corrosive mindset. This continues when our children enter high school. The final process of indoctrination occurs when they enter college. Like the compliant and childish ‘Eloi’ in The Time Machine (1960), they naively drink from the poisonous well of liberal and Marxist rhetoric they’re taught by their professors. They’re quite content with it. They don’t challenge it in the least. It isn’t long before these same young White students begin to hate their race, their country, as well as mock all that’s good and beautiful. And this, in turn, expresses itself in how they dress and present themselves to others. Contemporary Leftism, then, destroys and makes ugly all that’s in its path. It can do no other because this is the nature of the Beast.

We can be certain, too, that the more depraved our society becomes, the more absurd and insane will be our fashion trends. What young White woman in the 1950s would want to dress the way our women do today? What young White man in the 1950s would want to emulate the lowest fashions and degrading practices of Blacks? I suspect there would have been very few, if any.

Times have changed, and that not for the better. We have been feeling for decades the effects of the disastrous social and political changes that occurred beginning in the 1960s. One can see the downward progression by simply observing the clothing standards of each new decade. Current trends, sadly, indicate that it will only get worse.

A visual of what America has become