Unfortunately, the state of affairs in the “free world” is such that the only way to have any hope of spreading ideas that dissent from sacred Western norms is to package them as an attack on white people. Only if polite society can be convinced that you are insulting European derived culture or condemning people of European descent for being uniquely arrogant, ignorant, violent, cruel, or stupid, will your ideas be listened to.
For instance, consider this statement:
Expecting particular wartime events that took place in Europe between 1935 and 1945 to serve as the absolute archetype of all evil, as the single standard against which all events decisions and ideas around the world must be judged, is a Eurocentric bias.
I think any honest reflection on the history and philosophy of scientific practice and scientific knowledge necessarily leads to a recognition that:
- There are categories and degrees off reality that are fundamentally unknowable to the human mind.
- There is a profoundly “irrational” religious zealotry at work in the assumption that the human mind is both reducible to the brain and that the brain is the kind of object that can know every category and order of everything that could possibly exist.
- Apparent scientific truths and conditions of truth are often conventions and conventions often reveal deeper truths.
In a world in which complete objective knowledge of all things at all times is impossible, the most important question becomes how to best act on incomplete knowledge. This is the question taken up by Nassim Taleb which is the primary reason I have such deep admiration for him.
“White Privilege” notes that people of European descent intuitively set white standards as norms. What they don’t mention is that these norms are the norms in societies founded by white people. Japanese standards prevail in Japan like black African standards prevail in Nigeria. Zulu standards prevailed in the Zulu Empire and Chinese standards in China. It is as strange to find makeup for pale skin tones in Uganda as it is to find makeup for dark skin tones in Poland.
What this demonstrates is that if one takes a non-Eurocentric perspective, “white privilege” is not a universal and timeless “privilege” benefiting people of European descent. Rather, looking outside the context of white societies indicates that the examples of “white privilege” are simply examples which indicate that white people have historically behaved like all other groups, rather than as a “privileged” population.
What is strange is not that white people think their own perspective is normal as all groups do. What is strange is that they are expected to believe that their own perspective is not normal, even in their home homelands, and that so many white people live up to this expectation. It is a liability rather than a privilege to be the only group that is tricked into viewing it as a universal offence to have any context in which their own norms and standards prevail by default. To have such a context in a state founded by a European population is not a case of whites thinking themselves to be exceptional or supreme, but a case of them behaving like any other human group. Holding only themselves to standards above other human groups is the truest case of whites believing themselves to be exceptional and superior. This is the perspective of those who use white norms as evidence of “white privilege”.
The best response to the discourse of white privilege, then, is to inform the accuser that nations founded by people are not the only ones that exist, have ever existed, or will ever exist. Having norms that suit the founding stock is neither strange nor inappropriate. What is both strange and inappropriate is denying a particular group any place where their norms implicitly prevail and do so without condemnation. It is to deny them a place to call home.
Here we have the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa doing victory laps in celebration of his people claiming power over Afrikaners. It is typical for a conquered people to be humiliated by being forced to accept their own history being retold to them from the conquerors point of view. Cyril Ramaphosa’s depiction of Afrikaners as the historical enemy prompts a question that should have been taken seriously decades ago.
If Afrikaners are a historical enemy, who are they an enemy of? To be an enemy, they must be an enemy of another people, and Ramaphosa is clearly speaking on behalf of that people and not on behalf of Afrikaners. If Ramaphosa represents a people who define their history against that of Afrikaners, what legitimacy does he have in claiming to represent Afrikaners? What reciprocal relationship could Afrikaners possibly have with him?
Some Afrikaners asserted decades ago that if global institutions of liberal democracy forced Afrikaners to live in a “rainbow nation” they would actually be forcing them to live under the control of a far larger population who view Afrikaners as an enemy and who define their historical interests against the interests of Afrikaners.
Ramaphosa’s statement is a prime example of why nationalists like myself support national sovereignty before universalist ideals. There is no getting rid of “nations” there is only freeing smaller nations from being ruled by larger ones who naturally rule against the interests of the smaller ones. Universalist principles are meaningless outside the parochial cultural context of certain European and European derived nations. In an international context, the discourse of universalism is simply used by those nations who don’t believe it as rhetorical warfare against those who do. In the case of Afrikaners, universalist principles were used by a black population that never accepted those principles against a nation that was forced to.
It is absolutely irrational to expect Afrikaners, and white South Africans in general, to view the South African government as their government when the representatives of that government don’t view themselves as such and never will. Afrikaners have every right to teach their children their own narrative of their own history and to not be forced to teach them the narrative of those who view Afrikaners as an enemy. They have every right to be ruled by a state that shares their own view of their own history and of their own future. Only then will Afrikaners be legitimately represented and only then should they be expected to have any allegiance to their government.
The globo-media complex insists on placing visibly non European individuals in historical depictions of European peoples because the accurate historical image leads to awkward questions. For instance, preserving the history of what England was in modern depictions of that history would always reveal what has changed. It would always remind people that the English were a recognizably European people that had been replaced. It is imperative for the left to meme the image of a history in which the English people never existed, since a people that never existed cannot be replaced. The meme is designed to make the current residents of London think it always looked as it does. Destroying white peoples requires displacing them from their own history as much as it requires displacing them in the present.
Otherwise the large minority of white European peoples that would emerge at the middle stage of the effort to dissolve their nations out of existence might be able to get a clear image of what has happened. That way a large minority of white Englishmen would never be able ask why their white ancestors controlled their country and why they don’t now. The imperative for the left is to ensure that such populations must not be allowed to recognize that a change has taken place so that they can’t ask why it happened, if it helped them or if it was ultimately a good thing or not. For those who wish to dissolve European peoples out of recognizable existence to succeed, the past must be continuously changed to look like the present. An accurate public record of history would simply accumulate too many questions over time for which they have no legitimate answers.
The majority of mankind is lazy-minded, incurious, absorbed in vanities, and tepid in emotion, and is therefore incapable of either much doubt or much faith; and when the ordinary man calls himself a sceptic or an unbeliever, that is ordinarily a simple pose, cloaking a disinclination to think anything out to a conclusion.
‘The Pensées of Pascal’ (pp. 411–412)
This is a fantastic account of many who claim to have lost belief in God. C.S. Lewis described a mode of argument that reveals this sort of person when he stated that:
“People put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round, and that it is all too complicated, and that if there really were a god they are sure he would have made religion simple…these people…will change their ground every minute and will only waste your time”
The absurdity here, of course, is that an explicit “non-believer” will tend to claim that “Christianity” or “religion” is a worldview that is childish and simple. However, if you then proceed to discuss the metaphysical justification for divinity, or the theology of a particular religion, they will claim that you what you are saying is just too complicated or “pedantic” and that they just don’t have the time to think about that sort of thing all the time. Often accusations of “sophistry” or that one has created a “word salad” conceal a refusal (or inability) to actually apply thought to the question of divinity.
Those who go out of their way to tell you that God “doesn’t exist” tend to claim that they lost their faith because it is not rational. They insist that people believe in religion out of feeling rather than fact or thought. Yet it is clear from their aversion to a serious philosophical discussion of the question as being “silly” or “pedantic”, that it is not “thought” that sustains their atheism. Rather, their atheism simply “feels” right.
One does not need to be religious, or believe in god, to note the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of lazy assertions that “god doesn’t exist because that’s stupid and childish” when made by those who refuse to spend a moment thinking about what is true or false.
The most effective way to destroy something non-material is to show how it “changes”. Something with no permanence through time cannot reasonably be desired to be sustained through time.
Whatever lens is used as the explanandum for describing and explaining the changing object is automatically framed as the permanent unchanging object, because it is relied on as the patform from which to observe changes taking place through time. Whatever is presumed to be permanent is the lens for framing what is presumed to be temporary.
The leftist modernity frames its morality and sacred objects as eternal and unchanging every time they describes and explains how objects of value they deem heretical “irrational”. Whenever one is convinced of the impermanence of the heretical objects one implicitly accepts the leftist frame of what is permanent, unchanging and thus “true”.
Few things could be more important than those with non-leftist values creating dialectical and rhetorical structures for “analysing” the change of leftist morality and sacred objects through time. It will not only attack their frames (which they cannot defend without engaging in genuine philosophy and dialectic), but implicitly frame one’s own as unchanging, and permanent and thus true.