Tuesday 9 June 2015

What can beat antiracism as the primary moral imperative? For sure, not anti-antiracism. (Clue: The only answer is Religion)

Decades of secular conservative, libertarian, reactionary, reasonable, humane responses to the insane evil of primary antiracism have been utterly futile.

Logical analysis, humane reason, appeals to decency and moderation, appeals to national or personal self-interest, satire and mockery, attempts to usurp antiracism with other secular Left ideals such as compassion, alleviation of suffering, equality... all utterly ineffectual.

After all this, antiracist witch-hunts are more frequent and more severe than ever before.


'Racism' remains undefined to a point way beyond absurdity, anyone is vulnerable, the consequences of antiracist mania very obviously extremely harmful...

But it makes no difference.

The scale, organization, duration and public/ police/ official visibility of child and other sexual slavery abuse 'scandals' unveiled after 'Rotherham' is off-the-map for Britain in known history - and these are a direct product of antiracism.

But nothing has changed after 'Rotherham' etc, things continue to get worse. 'Rotherham' is merely the tip of an iceberg of suffering, and fundamental national and personal damage from antiracism which will only cease with utter societal destruction unless it is defeated.


Why does antiracism rule supreme and invulnerable to consequences?

In a nutshell because for the modern secular (which is Leftist) mind - in other words for the mainstream mass of people with power, influence, education, and authority - nothing is worse than racism. Thus, antiracism is the highest human value.

Antiracism trumps all. This is the situation.


What can be done about this situation?

Well NOT trying to attack the moral primacy of antiracism - that will not work, this has not worked - it has indeed been if anything counter-productive.

(We have to assume that everything done so far is likely to be counter-productive.)


So what is strong enough to beat antiracism?

Religion, obviously.

Not any religion - but some religions: a few traditional, patriarchal, monotheistic religions or particular groups (or sects) within those religions.

So that is it. Matters are very clear. Antiracism cannot be defeated as a primary goal but only as a secondary by-product of  higher goals: religious goals.

Therefore, if you believe it is vital to defeat antiracism as the primary moral value of The West, then you must accept that we must have Religion.


Matters are not just simple but clear: there is a choice of possible Religions.

All you have to do is make your choice, and then live by it (as best you can).

Therefore, unless you are already an adherent of one of these religions; your moral priority (merely from the perspective of the necessity to defeat antiracism) must be to investigate these religions.

Socio-politically, nothing could be more important.


(This is not the best reason to investigate and choose your religion; but it is one reason - and it is a sufficient reason.)



JP said...

I can't think of a single religion that hasn't been coopted in the fight against racism. Being patriarchal and traditionalist is certainly no obstacle to being "anti-racist" - the Mormons being but one example. So when we investigate and choose, how will we even know that they are anti-anti-racist?

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - Since you are wrong about Mormonism, it is likely you are wrong about other religions too; and other types of Christianity...

Seriously; if you imagine that devout/ active Mormons are primarily motivated by antiracism, that it is for them the bottom line, then you must be uninformed or nuts!

In real life, being religions is the *only* obstacle to antiractism. Nothing else motivates. Secular anti-antiracists are on the Left, all of them - but they have proven themselves useless over a long timespan, whatever label they have.

On paper, people can concoct all kinds of blueprint 'politics' - in the real world as it is now - the choice is religion or antiracism (or atomistic abstract impotence).

Nathaniel said...

I don't think that JP said the Mormons are primarily anti-racist, but that they are in part anti-racist. This is probably affected by the church's marketing which might appear similar to popular multi-cultural advertising techniques.

The cliche "paradigm shift" might help in appreciating the different viewpoint necessary for someone on the secular right for understanding the dramatic difference in perspectives. The church is hierarchical, not egalitarian, and promotes a Universal truth, not a relativist viewpoint.

Put another way, "anti-racism" primarily works by tearing things down. The church primarily works by trying to raise things up. "Anti-racism" tries to subvert culture and undermine families. The church helps protect and elevate families, and promote a healthy culture.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Nathaniel - We have to stick to the point - this post is not about rehashing other issues. As you presumably know, half of Mormons are outside the US, especially in South America, and percentage growth is strongest in third world areas - so the educational (and advertising material) quite reasonable tries to present a world church.

Having said that, all of us have been affected (to a greater or lesser extent) by decades of antiracism mania and witch hunting. That isn't the same thing *at all* as what I am talking about - the mainstream, Leftist secular bottom-line moral imperative of antiracism - which has been empirically shown (in the UK) to trump mass terrorism; mass rioting with arson, looting and battery; the reintroduction of approx ten thousand slaves to the UK (for the first time in about 500 years); and torture, forced prostitution, multiple rape, beatings and threatened murder.

That is what I am talking about.

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - Valued commenter tho' you are! I can't let you hijack the comments by printing, then having to refute your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. You are falling into the trap set by the abstractly purist secular anti-antiracists of judging religions by anti-antiracist categories. Religions are religions, and their priority is not and should not be to satisfy secular anti-antiracists!

Simply by having religious priorities, and actually/ effectively motivating their adherents to put religion as the primary priority, the problem of primary antiracism is *solved*.

Anonymous said...

I was going to say the answer was obvious- racism!

But then it occurred to me, why does it have to be one or the other? So for me it's racist religion.

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Nathaniel :

Sorry, I'm not good at expressing the thought. I was trying to come from JP's perspective (where I've been), but meant what you summarized:

"Simply by having religious priorities, and actually/ effectively motivating their adherents to put religion as the primary priority, the problem of primary antiracism is *solved*."


For example, for the left the Christian-type missionary work appears somehow "racist" ... while from the secular right they imagine it is somehow "anti-racist."

Yet our perspective must be different from those two worldviews. The claims of a true religion are necessarily universal, just as the Gospel expands God's message to the entire world.

Bruce B. said...

Hope I’m not talking past you here.
All sorts of people have picked a traditional Christian religion and they’re still anti-racist. Traditional Catholics are. Traditional Orthodox are. Continuuing Anglicans are. Confessional Lutherans are. Fundamentalist Baptists are. I would assume Mormons are too. If everyone joined one of these denominations today, contemporary Christianity would still be overwhelmingly anti-racist.
Try asserting a racist position with a member of one of the above denominations. Something like “I want my children to marry within their race” or “I want to live in a society that is demographically overwhelmingly white.” They’ll certainly disagree with you and they’ll probably imply if not outright state that you’re being sinful, that they’ll “pray for you” (presumably to take the evil out of your heart), etc.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Bruce B - Your *are* talking past me - you haven't at all got the main point I made in the post and repeated in the comments. I don't know what more to say to make myself clear.

Bruce B. said...

Yes, I think I was really replying to some of the discussion in the comments not the point of the post.

Bruce B. said...

I agree with you that anti-racism is a god-principle to the modern left and that without religion it won’t be beaten simply because modern people are hedonistic nihilists and can’t be brought to care about anything except their belly and their loins. So the people who are in charge, whose religion is anti-racism win by default.
But I think it will take more than just a return to traditional religion. I think it will take a return to traditional religion followed by a conscious, explicit rejection of anti-racism. Using DL’s words from the above comment, it will take religion + ”racism.”

Bruce Charlton said...

@Bruce B - No serious/ real Christian society would have a problem with antiracism - none ever had in the past.

Antiracism is a product of Christian apostasy/ corruption/ weakness.

Real Christians/ real Christian societies do not need to worry about antiracism. The problem with antiracism is its monomania, its lack of balance, proportion, prudence, its enlistment of hatred and other vices.

Our task is clear and simple. Take care of the Christianity and antiracism will take care of itself.

Bruce Charlton said...

@ThD - I've given my arguments often and at length - no point in going over them again.