• Racial collectivism is always racism

    Take the following few lines, roll them around your mouth a little before spitting them out:

    Spring is here, and the Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) finds inspiration in the glorious cultural heritage of the European peoples: the white race. […] This issue of Radish, unlike the ones on lynching and colonialism, won’t include examples from around the ‘net of what progressives think the topic means, because in this case it would basically amount to a loathsome horde of bastard ingrates determined at all costs to stamp out glorious achievement and replace it with the sick and sordid spectacle of collective racial guilt.

    Loathsome, no?  Don’t disagree, but can you put in words why it is loathsome?  This is a battle of ideas, and winning means winning by ideas.  So, what is the key word in this that contains all the evil?  Answer: the word ‘collective’.

    I could write long about this, but a far greater thinker than me has already done so.  Please watch:

    Key lines:

    A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race — and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.  It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as an inferior because his race has “produced” some brutes”, or the claim of a German brute to the status of a superior because his race has “produced” Goethe, Schiller and Brahms.

    Bullseye.

    I could be here all day listing the achievements that the authors of this obscenity have forgotten – seriously, do they know anything about the Vedas, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the development of Hindu numerals – okay, going to have to stop there before I explode.  But seriously, are they even aware of Goethe’s intense research into the Vedas which allowed him to write Faust?  And do – okay, stop!

    I could do this all day long, but what I would like to say to the authors of this thing is: “It does not matter that you are wrong about individual instances.  It would not matter if you were 100% right that there were no non-white geniuses.  You would still be pathetic mediocrities who cannot build or contribute anything and your attempt to claim the glories of those men is something an atheist can honestly describe as blasphemy.”

    This is the key to the wretched mind that thinks like this.  Devoid of any personal value, it seeks to steal the value of humanity’s greatest through the crude trick of claiming that because they share a similar skin colour they have a share in that achievement.  Could anything be more contemptible?

    Well, yes.  Question: if the common racist is contemptible for trying to steal the achievement of the best by loudly talking them up, what should we make of those who try to steal that achievement by defiling it? 

    Go back and read that passage again.  The authors set their creed of collective racial pride against that of collective racial guilt.  There’s a lot of that about.  Here we have Susan Sontag, who has long since reverted to being physical fertiliser:

    “Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.”

    Or what about PZ Myers:

    Seriously, every one of us is racist as fuck. We can’t help it

    Speak for yourself, brother!

    This mindset, that of Myers and Sontag, is the morality of the flea and the mosquito: they sicken and poison their host even as they feed on him.  In a recent discussion in my comments section, I referred to this as a triple obscenity, a triple theft.  First, they try to steal value by denigrating the greatest, as though the evil of King Leopold could somehow denigrate the glory of Beethoven, as though that could somehow redound to the thief’s credit.  Second, they, who have not achieved anything or fought any point of principle, try to acquire the mantle of the heroes who fought the evil of racism, from men like Burke and Paine who attacked slavery, down to the modern triumphs of Dr King and Nelson Mandela.  Third, they try to cash in on the sufferings of the innocent.  By loudly wailing their guilt over crimes they did not commit, and their ’empathy’ for sufferings they do nothing to heal, they try to gain some measure of credit.  Like all parasites, they are drawn to wounds.

    And all this at the price of spitting in their own faces, of defiling what little stock of value they might have!

    But wait, you might say.  Have there not been hideous crimes in the past?  Am I not just waving them aside or ignoring them?  Do I truly, say, feel no guilt of the crimes of the Third Reich?

    Answers: Yes, no and definitely no.

    I am a proud son of the Fatherland, and I feel no guilt over the crimes of the Third Reich.  How could I?  Were I guilty of one ten-thousandth part of what that abomination did, I would have to kill myself today.  No healthy mind could endure that.

    I feel no guilt.  What I do feel is a powerful sense of responsibility.  That responsibility is in the form of an imperative to grant the rabble of the Nazis no part of the German legacy and to do what I can to eradicate their wretched offspring.  That responsibility will only be discharged when these vermin are not just beaten but so thoroughly erased from history that even their memory is gone, the way the Comprachios were once eradicated.

    Incidentally, I stress the word responsibility here.  Writing about this mentality in another context, the Hitch remarked:

     In the therapy generation, which scripts even its own lenient satires, you are by all means allowed, if not encouraged, to feel guilty. Just as long as you don’t feel responsible.

    In closing, I should like to address a warning to the authors of the article at the top.  You may think you’re going to have it easy.  The Myers and Sontags of this world have kicked open the door to you by popularising racial collectivism and you think that they cannot put up any serious fight – and you’d be right.  However, there are others.  There are the true heirs of Nietzsche and of lost Prussia, and many others, and we do not fall easily. You have been warned.

    Category: Race and racism

    Article by: The Prussian

    • im-skeptical

      Excellent piece. I agree completely.

      • ThePrussian

        Why thank you. Welcome back! :-)

    • sezit

      I think one must be uninformed and/or unskeptical to say that we are NOT all prejudiced (whether it’s racist, ageist, sexist etc.). That’s why statistical evaluation is so important. Even if we don’t want to be biased, we are. Testing shows that the percentage of testees without any bias is so low as to be statistically zero. I don’t want to be biased, but the test shows that I am. So I have to continually pay attention, and take seriously any feedback.
      By example, Bernice Sandler (sex discrimination scholar) said that men in her meetings were interrupting women far more than the other men (and she counted to get data) until she challenged them on that fact. They all denied that it was true, but IMMEDIATELY after her challenge, the interruptions became more gender equal. So, by her feedback, she was helping them be what they wanted to be.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981012074004.htm
      take some tests yourself!
      http://www.yale.edu/implicit/

      • ThePrussian

        As I say, this is not even trying people for thoughtcrimes, it’s unthoughtcrimes. Also there is a giveaway in your piece, namely the term “ageist”. Someone who didn’t discriminate drastically between a 6 year old and a 26 year old would be insane in all circumstances and jailed in some.

        A certain amount of unconscious bias does exist – but to try to convict people on that basis is monstrous. It is also not what the FTB hivemind does; it reduces people to their physical characteristics. In race, for example, it treats being white or black or whatever more important than the points made and the arguments and evidence produced. I will not be told that I am against the civil rights movement for refusing to put up with this nonsense.

        Look at the flipping Atheism-Plus crap. They explicitly said they didn’t want any “old white men”. They exalted body-structure over mind-structure.
        That is why I condemn them.

        As regards the rest – well, run along and fix the problems of interruptions and whatnot. I’ll be over in this corner trying to deal with things like the rape epidemic in the US military, sex slavery across the world, honour killings, FGM… And, no, don’t even try: the sort of “feminist” who gets upset about meeting interruptions is never to be found when we try to address the other stuff. _That_ is why I treat them with such short shrift.

        • sezit

          Yes, one can be the type of feminist to address both small and large injustices. I am such a feminist and activist.
          About ageism – it’s silliness to compare differences between 6 yo and 26 yo’s. Ageism is more about stuff like employment discrimination of those older than 50.
          So…. your bit on the “hivemind” – I can’t take that seriously. You refer to a loose collection of writers as “it”, then go to “they” say this, “they” say that. I don’t need to investigate at all to doubt your conclusions, because people mostly don’t march in lockstep without significant fear. There are always differing opinions. What would be their method for shutting down internal dissent? And, BTW, this “hivemind” bit – right here in your post against collectivism! – shows that you employ collectivist thinking yourself… especially after admitting previously that one of the FTB bloggers doesn’t fit your cookie-cutter. Pot, meet kettle.
          But, I do laud you for fighting whatever injustices that you do fight. We always need more fighters against injustice.

          • ThePrussian

            “Yes, one can be the type of feminist to address both small and large injustices.”

            Leaving aside your terms, I have yet to find a “feminist” who gets upset about, I-don’t-know, the ratio of who gets interrupted how much in meetings and is worth a damn when it comes to the real fight. That has been my experience and I have not seen anything to contradict it.

            Why do you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is with the American Enterprise institute and not any feminist movement like NOW? Because organisations like NOW are little more than social clubs.

            And discrimination in employment against those over fifty is perfectly rational in many cases, given that age brings with it declining physical and mental prowess.

            To this: “And, BTW, this “hivemind” bit – right here in your post against collectivism! – shows that you employ collectivist thinking yourself”

            By this logic writing against racism would be racism. Could you please learn what collectivism is? It is entirely reasonable to intellectually group people together based on their intellectual values and it is not at all reasonable to intellectually group people together based on their physical characteristics. Which has been evidenced by the fact that Namazie felt it necessary to write a dissent from that. You don’t dissent from what’s not there.

    • Karl F. Boetel

      “… the achievements that the authors of this obscenity have forgotten… that there were no non-white geniuses…”

      whoa, strawman town, population… you!

      next time, read the article before you decide to write about it.

      • ThePrussian

        Which census of strawman town are you using? Better get it updated.

    • Callmedadude

      Heck yeah

    • foo

      You’re making an obvious strawman argument against radish.