Anti-Racism is the unilateral nuclear disarmament of today

by Colin Liddell

In recent months, thanks to the migrant crisis, it has become increasingly apparent that Racism is not some sort of elemental and supreme evil, as the Left would have us believe, but rather a defence system that encompasses many options from the mild to the extreme.

Those countries that wisely deploy Racism – from Japan with its almost zero intake of refugees to Switzerland where voters recently strengthened the power of the anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party – stand a better chance of preserving their ethnic and racial characters (and cultures), while those that don’t are doomed to be colonized, genocided, or divided in racial conflict, as their earlier ethnomasochism inevitably switches to defensive racism.

The idea, still dominant in the West, that Racism is simply and always evil, and that anti-Racism is the only true moral position is essentially a category error. A category error is "a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category." In the case of Racism, something that is a valid part of group survival is erroneously judged as if it were merely an issue of individual taste.

Most racially aware White people I know wish to apply their Racism at the group macro level in political decisions effecting issues like immigration policy and cultural continuity, rather than the personal level, where they are quite willing to judge individuals (Whites or non-Whites) as individuals. Others, however, do wish to apply their Racism on a personal level as well, but even there it is no more discriminatory than the political correctness of Liberals and Leftists who defriend or shun those without the "correct views."

The idea of anti-Racism may have had a certain, tenuous validity, back when White survival was not an issue and there were cases of decent non-Whites being attacked, insulted, or turned down for jobs. But even then Racism cut both ways. At the height of the so-called “racist” 1950s, just as many, if not more, Whites were unfairly discriminated against than non-Whites. How else do you think Whites, with their superior talents, were pushed out of positions of power in Wall Street, academia, and the media? Our racial naivety, it seems, has deep roots.

The nasty, evil racist party behind this poster
did rather well in recent Swiss elections.
But even where Racism has had unpleasant rough edges, at which decent non-Whites have suffered, it is hard to denounce such Racism categorically, because it is essentially a defence mechanism in the same way that armies, minefields, and borders are. This inevitably means that, in application, there will be innocent victims and collateral damage. Not everyone killed in a war deserves to die either, but only an unrealistic idealist would argue in favour of the abolition of armies and weapons. If Racism started making too many exceptions, it wouldn’t be Racism anymore, nor would it be effective at doing what it’s supposed to do – protect the identity, security, and future of an ethnic group that is under demographic attack.

But even though a degree of Racism is essential to group survival, and increasingly so in the West, it continues to be held in great contempt by those populations that need it the most. As an inverse to this, Racism is enthusiastically and unashamedly practiced by those populations that need it the least, namely those inhabiting vile Third World hell holes that few people would want to colonize. Haiti or Detroit, for example, could easily maintain their racial character without any of the Racism that inevitably descends on any non-Black foolish enough to walk around unguarded. Dysfunction also has defensive properties, so it seems.

But what of those Whites who reject Racism as an nonnegotiable evil. How should we view such people? The correct way to view them is as a kind of Pacifist.

Many of them, despite their rigorously maintained myths of denial, realize that race exists and that most races have serious conflicts of interest with each other. They may even be dimly aware that we are already living in a low-grade state of perpetual race war. But rather than accepting that grim reality and preparing accordingly for the inevitable struggle, they entertain instead the Utopian hope that racial peace can somehow "break out" by a miraculous act of collective will. In this way, they are identical to the nuclear disarmament protesters and sympathizers who were prominent in European countries during the Cold War.

In the UK, for example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a powerful force that was supported by many of the great and the good in the land, including prominent writers, TV personalities, and churchmen. Other hands were also noted: Rabbi Saul Amias, the co-chairman of the Jewish Group of CND boasted that “there is hardly a single group of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament...which does not have a strong Jewish nucleus.” (The New Unhappy Lords, p. 157)

Communism only killed 100 million people. Let's try to be nice to them.
CND saw two waves of popularity, one from 1957 to 1963, and one from 1980 to 1989. It is interesting to reflect on what factors may have determined the movement’s rises and falls. The first wave was sparked by Britain’s development and testing of its own hydrogen bomb, after which CND marches were part of a pre-sixties, proto-hippie, counter-culture of beatnik poetry, campfires, singalongs, and open-toed sandals (with a big of shagging thrown in, as the world was going to be destroyed anyway, luv.).

The movement died out in the wake of the Cuba Missile Crisis, when the notion of unilateral disarmament was discredited by the positive spin put on President Kennedy’s uncompromising stance in that affair. Another significant factor might have been the arrival, after 1963, of the real 1960s pop culture of music, drugs, and sexual liberation, spearheaded by bands like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, which gave alternative expression to society’s rebellious animus.

The second wave started around 1980, and saw CND grow again to a mass movement, with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of sympathizers. This was in reaction to the late intense period of the Cold War, which saw Soviet Bloc expansion into Afghanistan and an arms race between Red Army SS20 missiles and NATO cruise missiles. The movement may also have got added impetus from the collapse of the Labour Party, which was unelectable for all of the 1980s, making CND a surrogate political opposition to the deeply polarizing figure of Mrs Thatcher. The movement collapsed again with the ending of the Cold War.

My face painting trumps your nuclear missiles.
But while the details of the movement are interesting, of greater significance is the attitude behind the belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament, which closely resembles the mindset of today's White anti-racist.

The typical CND activist believed in the naive and dangerous notion that if one side laid down its weapons then the other would follow. They had an unsubstantiated belief that all people were essentially good and the same as them, and that conflicts simply arose out of misunderstandings and counter-threats to perceived dangers, therefore all that was needed to eradicate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth was to start a virtuous cycle by making the first positive move.

The CND activist of the 1980s not only had a smug certainty that she was morally superior to other people, but also a conviction that she was more courageous because she was not afraid to let her guard down and give up her country's weapons of mass destruction first.

This attitude is exactly identical to that of today’s anti-racists. They think that the way to end the threat and hostility to Whites is to not defend White interests and abandon White security. Only by lowering our guard and taking great pains to demonstrate how unracist we are, can we reassure non-Whites and get them to reciprocate. The anti-racist believes that once Whites lower their guard enough and apologize enough then non-Whites will discard their own feelings of racial animosity, and we will all live together in perfect harmony (see picture below).

The anti-Racist future?
Of course, even if that were true, it would just mean the extinction of Whites through race-mixing and the higher birthrates of non-Whites. But also, nothing is better guaranteed to stoke non-White Racism than White anti-Racism – the opposite of its intended effect.

Faced with White racial disarmament and the chance to exploit Whites in various ways – whether it be through rape or rent-seeking – non-Whites will seek to justify their Racism against us. Although in many cases they don't even feel the need to bother: our weakness being justification enough.

But where there is any kind of moral debate – usually SJW-assisted – the absence of present oppression by Whites will be countered by casting up past oppressions. With perfect equality of opportunity granted, non-Whites and their White enablers will simply cavil about inequality of outcome and the legacy of past White Racism. This is the pattern we have seen develop in our supposedly post-Racial West through concepts like "White privilege" and "micro-aggressions."

The less Racism that Whites show, the weaker we become vis-à-vis other competing groups. This weakness then impels our racial foes to be even more Racist in order to exploit the opportunities of our racial disarmament. It should be remembered that Racism is not just a method of justifiable defence. In the wrong hands, it can also be an effective tool of attack and conquest, and Whites are now clearly under such attack.

Just as pacifism and unilateral disarmament were not effective ways to deal with the totalitarian threat posed by a Communist Russia responsible for tens of millions of peacetime deaths, so today anti-Racism is not the way to deal with the race war that is unfolding all around us. Peace and respect among the races can only be achieved when Whites reassert the natural order in their own countries and their hegemony in the wider World. Only through racial rearmament will peace be achieved.

Connected Article:
Racism and Sexism Viewed as Aristotelian Virtues

No comments:

Post a Comment