Which is worse - racism, or antiracism?
Not a difficult question really - although almost everybody gets it wrong.
Racism isn't a sin - not as such; although when a concept has become so wide, vague, incoherent and expediently-applied as 'racism' in 2021 - naturally it includes some attitudes and behaviours that would be sinful.
But of itself - as the concept is actually used, here-and now* - obviously racism is not a sin.
And indeed 'racism' is often (in real life - usually; in the media - always) descriptive of virtuous behaviour such as truthfulness. Or of net-good institutions - such as real Christianity or historical Christendom.
What then of antiracism? Well clearly this is a sin.
For a start it is an unnatural vice - adopted deliberately - therefore blameworthy.
Antiracism is an act of affiliation; and what it affiliates-with is the global totalitarian establishment; which is atheist, materialist, anti-Christian, and anti-God: being an advocate and implementer of value-inversion by which (in terms of the transcendent values of truth, beauty and virtue) good is regarded as evil, evil is advocated as good.
Antiracism is a major instance of value-inversion.
Inversion is the most extreme form of evil - the type of evil which is most prone to cause eternal damnation of souls - because inversion leads Men to fear and hate Heaven, and to desire Hell.
That antiracism is an evil is confirmed in practice by the fact that no extremity of antiracism is proscribed - antiracism is routinely applied without limit, regardless of context, void of balance. This is a hallmark of sin; because true specific virtues can (and must) be contextually-balanced with other virtues.
Antiracism is, indeed, an evil so extreme as to have been almost incomprehensible in ancient times; or indeed until a few generations ago. That this value-inversion is now blandly accepted as normal and compulsory, is a measure of the breadth and depth of corruption we have now reached.
So there is asymmetry between racism and antiracism.
Racism (as the term is used) usually describes virtuous and natural behaviour, or a minor wrongness that is not a sin...
While antiracism is indicative of a person or institution having made the choice to ally with The System/ The Matrix/ the Virtual Reality; the choice to join one's efforts with the agents of Satan in this world.
That is, in the spiritual war of this world; to have taken the side working against God, divine creation and the Good.
In 2021, to be called a racist by Power is usually indicative of some degree of virtue, and perhaps high virtue and courage.
(Leaving-aside that many 'racists' have turned-out to be employees of the Establishment - agents provocateurs or false flags; deliberate liars of evil intent.)
At worst 'racist' is indicative of an existentially-trivial misdemeanor.
But to adopt the stance of anti-racism is to declare ones allegiance to strategic evil.
Antiracism is a spiritually-lethal sin.
This is why antiracism, but not racism, is a litmus test for these times; and why antiracist 'Christian churches' are anti-Christian - are indeed active manifestations of the Antichrist spirit in these End Times.
Antiracism is serious stuff; as serious as your fate in eternity.
*What you personally think ought to be the correct definition of racism; or how the concept used-to-be used, is irrelevant.
I remember as a child feeling so lucky that firstly I was born a boy and secondly I was an Englishman and not some ghastly foreigner and that god was obviously an Englishman due to the great things England had achieved, as a child this seemed a very natural feeling to me but obviously I was a racist.
@MB - Yes, it is natural - although perhaps most natural is to feel such about one's family and place. To invert the natural is only good when it is for over-riding Christian reasons to do with salvation and the next world.
Like Tolkien, I am an English patriot; and thus have strong reservations about the Empire. In an ultimate way, this was a materialist diversion from the spiritual task articulated for us as a nation by the early (Christian) romantics such as Blake and Coleridge.
I am also, and increasingly, anti-Norman!
Empire also damaged Englishness, by subordinating it in the 'British' identity - earlier and more than it damaged Scottish- or Welsh-ness ...although these have since been *utterly* corrupted by Leftism and victim-thinking resentment.
In the end, as demonstrated by the Brexit vote and recent 'freedom' protests inter alia; Englishness ('tho feeble) is Now more robust and motivated than Scottish- or Welsh-ness.
I agree completely with your main point, but I don’t think it’s fully honest to say, “At worst 'racist' is indicative of an existentially-trivial misdemeanor.” Racism covers a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, some of which (e.g. ethnic cleansing by mass murder) really are extremely evil. This is why it’s so easy to convince people that racism is evil and that antiracism must therefore be good.
@Mike - Yes - although I'd not like to say which is the most Anglo Saxon county. I agree it doesn't seem to be affected by the Danelaw era - which included Yorkshire; probably because the Norse were 'more of the same'.
Your main point is true. *They* do have a special hatred for the Anglo Saxons worldwide (rather like Sauron and the Numenorean Men, perhaps) - which I think is related to some special, and not completed, task.
If you don't already know it, you would probably be interested by the old 'Albion Awakening blog' https://albionawakening.blogspot.com/ from myself, William Wildblood, and (originally) John Fitzgerald - William and John also made a book of that name from their contributions.
@Wm "Racism covers a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, some of which (e.g. ethnic cleansing by mass murder) really are extremely evil. "
Well, 'ethnic cleansing' is a very recent concept (dating - as I recall - from the early 1990s, and the breakup of Yugoslavia; and retrospectively applied to Rwanda); which suggests that it is probably a modern-leftist deliberate mis-conceptualization (like 'heterosexual', 'education', 'social justice' or 'the environment'), and not a real natural category As Such.
The phenomenon of killing indiscriminately (men, women, children etc.) large numbers of people according to their group identity has at least several causes I can think of; but I am hard-pressed to think of historical examples which would properly be classified as 'racist' in motivation, by the usage of this word from the middle 1960s.
As Thomas Sowell documented over several books, almost-all (maybe all) of the instances when an attempt was made to oppress, expel or exterminate *whole populations* are directed at *successful* middle-class, 'middle-men' classes of merchants, traders and the like (Jews, Armenians, Chinese, South Asians, Tamils etc) - and this does not conform to 'racism' as being a prime motivator (when racism is supposed to be about an assertion of inferiority).
So I am saying that the 'racism' of the National Socialists is mis-described and misrepresented grossly when it is conflated with US attitudes to Africans in the post-1960s concept of racism - although it was a triumph of Leftism to equate the two at the level of motivation.
The actual extermination of whole groups - like the c. one million white slaves in North Africa, who have apparently left little or no genetic trace - often seems to have been more about the expedience working them to death, rather than racism. Or else is about seeking a final solution to some long standing feud or war.
So I don't really accept your point; because I think it entails an actual misrepresentation of causation in order for the phenomena to be regarded as a sinful act. Of course, sinful acts go on at an *individual* level whenever innocents are killed - and indeed all the time in all of everyday human life.
But I think you are talking about these group-mass-killing phenomena in a categorical way to do with (inferred) group-motivations- and there I think the argument breaks-down.
Thanks Bruce I shall have a look at albionawakening with the point of ethnic cleansing this seems to happen in regions that have become too ethnically diverse and then collapse into some sort of purge with the various ethnic groups fighting it out for dominance, also the more ethnically diverse a region is the more it needs to be ruled with an Iron fist to hold it together which would explain why the UK has become more like a Gulag since the time of Blair and his open borders.
This is an interesting post, and makes me realise that I don't even know what the word "racism" really means.
I can understand the concept, for example, of hatred/disgust based solely on another person's ethnic group, or whatever (as an English boy growing up in Argentina, I have experienced this in the flesh many times! Even though it never went beyond a bloody nose and swearing).
And I would say that *this* sort of thing can in certain cases be sinful, or lead easily to sin - but not necessarily so (it's highly context-dependent). And furthermore, I think the sin is not the "racism" per se, but rather, the attitudes which may underpin it (pride, fear, greed, foolishness, etc.)
But... the way the word is actually used in practice today makes it clear that it is used as a "weaponised word" which is designed to cause damage, not "heal" or "help", any of the parties involved.
Furthermore, we can tell, by the way the issue is framed and faced, that "antiracism" (as is usually understood today), is indeed evil, because it is the positive force (given that there is no clearly defined usage of "racism").
"Racism" is anything the "Antiracists" don't agree with, whenever there are people of more than one ethnic group involved in any sort of transaction (be it adversarial, competitive, or cooperative!). And considering that antiracists almost always (i.e. always) also support a slew of other anti-God causes, that tells us all we need to know.
To conclude, the most natural attitude, I think, is to favour that which is known as good (precisely because it is known), to be at the very least mildly suspicious (but not scared) of that which is unknown, and to emphasise the positive traits of whatever group you belong to, without that meaning you have any particular sense of superiority or inferiority with regards to other groups.
Yes, I suppose you are right, and that "racism" has never really been a coherent motivation for anything. One can easily oppose murder and slavery and such without reference to the concept.
@Wm - That's what I meant. Grouping these various bad things under the pseudo-concept of racism (=necessarily evil) was/is as stalking horse for open-ended/ terminal leftism.
Complex issue. Not much to add. Probably in agreement with 99% of what you’ve written. Perhaps more.
Two questions arise. Does it mean that something doesn’t actually exist due to the fact it either cannot be defined or because it lacks a coherent definition? I sat by a lake the other day and the question came into my head. “ what is a tree”? Couldn’t come up with anything even approaching an adequate answer.
The second question is one of anti-whiteness. It seems to be the brain child of one Noel ignatiev, who came out with some outrageous statements and ideas n the 70’s and have now become mainstream policy in the west. Anti-whiteness appears to be everywhere. Of course they skirt around the issue of genocide and racism by claiming that the white race is a social construct and that whiteness is systematically racist so it deserves everything it gets.
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists………. Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."
I wonder if the anti-whiteness movement isn’t actually a manifestation of the most extreme racism in the true sense of the word? Masquerading as something else of course.
@SF "Does it mean that something doesn’t actually exist due to the fact it either cannot be defined or because it lacks a coherent definition?"
I would distinguish between a coherent concept and a coherent definition. Real things are conceptually coherent, but no definitions of complex phenomena that are terse enough to be useful are fully coherent (i.e. all rely on many assumptions).
The nature of leftism, and the nature of evil, is oppositional; and oppositional to God/ creation and the Good.
Thus, leftism is Not shaped by famous or obscure scholars, but by its intrinsic motivation which opposes. That is why it continually evolves, and why it does not need to be coherent.
Post a Comment