As always I make a *statement of purpose* at the beginning so my position is clear: I want to
understand what is going on today and I do not necessarily enter these discussions as an activist, defending one position against another. Every single discussion on this forum results in bickering and this seems like such a waste of time. Why does this happen? It seems to happen because everyone is defending some partisan position about what is right and what is wrong. All of this seems to me tied to those categories of the politically correct. Politically correct thinking is not free thinking and it certainly is not philosophical thinking.
With that said I am going to examine what Wizard wrote:
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 11:56 am
I don't think Racism will change until people, who are Racist without knowing it, are shown the error of their ways. This is very difficult, and many times, might not be worth the effort. Some individuals can become "not racist" of their own accord and decision, but those with Self-Consciousness and a deeper sense of Morality, are too rare to expect in life. They will, usually, come to the 'Right' point of view of their own accord, and without much help.
First, I think we have to understand that you seem to have accepted the moral argument that *racism is bad*. Right there you show yourself, at the most basic level, as having absorbed a quite new *doctrine*. Put simply it has been established that to see or think in racialist terms is one of the deepest and darkest moral evils that can afflict a person. There is no one, except on the very fringes of society and culture, who can freely define a racialist position without being morally condemned.
The word *racist* itself does all the work. Anyone accused of racism collapses in an impotent puddle before it, and the one who wields the term always has the power in the conversation because his opponent will not come out and say directly "I believe it moral, ethical and good to see people and culture in racialist terms". To be described as a racist, to be labeled as such, is to receive instantly exclusion from decent civil society. The associations that people make have been established, mostly in the Postwar years, through extensive social engineering projects. I could list a number of influential films such as
A Raisin In The Sun or
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.
Here is a list of *racism-related films* that trace a progression from the early teens (
Birth of a Nation) and into the 21st century. It is a very incomplete list but you get the picture.
Those who are critics of *social engineering* in America -- here I speak of those who are openly on a fringe (and they are generally placed on the far-right spectrum) take issue with this process of social engineering. And they attempt to seek out and locate the *activists* who stood behind the social movement. Generally speaking always Progressive and Left activists who seek to *remodel* America according to newer, more progressive ideology.
Wizard seems to take the position that racism and racialism (seeing things in terms of race, or having concerns about it) is *bad*. But those who defend a racialist perspective do indeed have their *coherent arguments* that are (in my experience having researched and read them) always more nuanced than mere simplistic focus on race alone. If one wanted to be honest about the matter modern racialists (like Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson) have views that are far more nuanced than the depictions of *classic racists*. They are interested in preserving their own culture and social-racial composition, and they do have notable but openly stated racial
prejudices, but at the same time they do not condemn any other race or culture for having the same concerns. Their positions are far more nuanced than are allowed to be presented and thought about.
So this leaves the majority of people, who are Racist without knowing it, and are resistant against any exposure of their own (Confirmation) biases. You can prove these types wrong in arguments, debates, and publicly, but it doesn't do much good, because they Regress, and eventually return with their Racism unchanged. Because they likely have no intention to change their beliefs on a deep level.
Since to be *racist* or to have a social ideology that allows for racialist and culturalist concerns has been made to seem *bad* and *evil* what happens is that people must mask their *natural* reactions and concerns. Here the power of *politically correct attitudes* can, at least, be recognized and thought about. If everywhere around you any such *defense* of one's own cultural homogeneity is condemned as evil, and one is exposed to this when young and impressionable, one has then been primed for an array of further social engineering.
You could consider as an example Sweden -- one of the most *progressive* nations on the planet. The entire country was the focus of an anti-racialist and extremely Progressive social outlook and over the last 20-30 years they deliberately altered the social, cultural and demographic composition of the country, and as a result created deep divisions that divide the nation. Those who attempt, now, to turn back the tide are condemned as *racist* and made to seem evil, but in fact their concerns are not incoherent and they are not *racist* in any previous sense of the word.
What the Far-Left proposes, is Deception. Hide their own Racism, accuse their political opposition of it first (against Conservatives), and then let them suffer the cost of the other side's moral failings. This is how Neolibiberalism has risen to prominence now in the West, and is currently the de facto manner of "Morality" as "Social Justice". Accuse others what you are guilty of, and let them suffer the costs of the accusation. A constant 'Offensive' politicking mentality.
I think the entire premise here is false. First, you are actually defending and explaining a racialist perspective but you seem to have difficulty stating it openly. Instead, you want to paint the Left-Progressives as being the real racists, but that means that you have accepted their terms and agree with them: racist and racialist perspectives are *bad* and *evil* and must be reengineered and eliminated.
Until the
racialist and a *racist* can defend their actual views with coherent arguments they will be stuck in an indefensible loop. Race-composition or skin color cannot be the sole consideration. There are a range of elements that must be defined and then defended. Again, the people who create these defenses (say for example Greg Johnson in
The White Nationalist Manifesto) for these *forbidden outlooks* are completely pushed to the fringes and their ideas are made absolute pariahs. However, and here is the odd part, their reach only seems to increase. For example Counter-Currents is very influential all over Europe, and people who are inclined to ideas related to national sovereignty read this sort of material.
Again, you simply have to understand what actually is going on in the world today, and the only way to do that is by looking at it squarely.
The ultimate problem of this method, is that it exacts no actual social, cultural, or moral changes in society, but tends to make things worse in the long run. And they don't care...as long as they aren't paying the cost. But eventually the cost becomes too much to bear for the overall society.
I cannot tell what you are advocating. In fact I would say that your message is confused.
What is the result? Civil Disorder, BLM-Antifa Riots, French Riots, Kyle Rittenhouse, Street Killings, eventually leading to societal Calamity, and the rise of Fascists required to re-impose Order, Law, and Civility. Civility by means of Threat of Violence...Tyranny.
The
cause of the things you mention is the forced integration of the homogenous cultures and nations that you refer to. These policies and ideologies were championed by specific sectors and these ideologies were spread through those processes of 'social engineering'. Always these are top-down efforts and they are always directed by *elites* and those with access to the cultural machinery. The so-called *march through the institutions* that Gramsci wrote about states openly that Left-Progressive (or Communist and Socialist) interests work to gain power within the institutions. And once situated there they get the power to influence all of culture.
The phrase (Andrew Breitbart) that "politics is downstream from culture", and that to change politics one must first change culture, is actually a
Gramscian idea.
What amazes me about this forum is that it is peopled by acute ideologues on one hand, but total cultural ignoramuses on the other. Every perspective offered is highly politicized
a priori. Every conversation is between someone trying to defend one factional position against some other. Every *conversation* and outcome is established before any conversation begins!
This is because of the immense power of *politically correct thought*. It permeates everything. The first order of business is to dismantle politically correct thought. For the lunatics who write here that is
nearly impossible. Their very
self-definition is wedded to politically correct ideas.
