Sage McLaughlin: "Hastening the Emergence of Virulent Hatreds"
This post is almost a year old, but extremely pertinent. It is from View from the Right, and the comment from Sage McLaughlin is here reproduced in nearly its entirety. The owners of View from the Right, and Mr. McLaughlin, rather than I, presumably have rights to the content -- I post it here for purposes of discussion.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007661.html
My fear is that the left will wind up hastening the very thing they claim to be preventing--the emergence of virulent hatreds, which will find expression through organized political movements. If the left continues to go on insisting that any politically effective preservation of one's own culture and civilization is tantamount to fascism, then many people might simply grant them the argument and become fascists. If "racist" now means "doesn't hate one's own kind" or "isn't interested in groveling before Muslim interlopers," then lots of otherwise decent people may simply conclude, "Very well then, God help me, I am racist."
That's correct. If you deny people any "respectable" means of survival, then they will take those means of survival which you deem "not respectable." And, in the process, their fear of violating standards of "respectability" will be eroded, and they will behave much worse than if one had never tried to use "respectablity" as a lash with which to control them.
Liberals never fail to miss this important point. By declaring practically all interest in the maintenance of ethnic integrity and social distinctiveness "fascistic," "racist," "hateful," "xenophobic," or what have you, they virtually guarantee that normal people will eventually become desensitized to these words and lose their ability to distinguish between love of one's own and hatred of the Other. If liberals can't see the difference, and if they are the self-appointed experts on these matters, who is the average man in the street to disagree? Since the average man on the street has no burning desire to be displaced by foreigners and forced to comply with their every demand, he might just conclude that violent hatred is the natural and indispensable companion of ordinary self respect.
Using terms of condemnation as weapons gradually erodes their meaning. Which is bad, because "fascism," "racism," "hate," and "xenophobia" describe true evils, the consequences of which will be suffered both by victims and victimizers, should they return. But by claiming that anyone who simply stands up for themselves or their culture practices these evils, one is eliminating the reluctance to practice these evils in truth.
In the end, I think things are going to get much, much worse before they get better, precisely because liberals refuse to accept the most common sense limitations on the principle of tolerance. They risk discrediting tolerance altogether by making it synonymous with self-extinction.
Precisely. The sad thing is that true tolerance, in the sense of prohibiting the use of force save in response to force, would be more than adequate to restrain Islamofascism without the need to resort to immoral violence. By attempting to appease the Islamofacscists in the name of tolerance, the European elites are only destroying tolerance itself.
An outpouring of hatred and violence is almost certain to erupt at some stage, since nowhere do people gladly suffer replacement of their own people civilization by that of others. A tipping point must eventually be reached, and when it does, the reaction could be spasmodic and bloody.
And the outcome far from certain. Though I suspect that the native Europeans will win, for they have both the numbers and the elite high-tech military forces.
This can easily be avoided, but liberals are determined to see this suicidal path through to the bitter end, such is their devotion to a program which I think even they suspect is daily darkening the future of mankind.
There is still hope that this can be avoided, but as the number of voting Islamofascist immigrants increases, the chance of dealing with this constitutionally drops. Past some point, massive unconstitutional violence will be the only native alternative to abject surrender.
The thing I don't fully understand is why the European elites are letting things go this far? Are they so afraid of admitting ideological error that they must run their society into the ground before releasing their death-grips?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007661.html
My fear is that the left will wind up hastening the very thing they claim to be preventing--the emergence of virulent hatreds, which will find expression through organized political movements. If the left continues to go on insisting that any politically effective preservation of one's own culture and civilization is tantamount to fascism, then many people might simply grant them the argument and become fascists. If "racist" now means "doesn't hate one's own kind" or "isn't interested in groveling before Muslim interlopers," then lots of otherwise decent people may simply conclude, "Very well then, God help me, I am racist."
That's correct. If you deny people any "respectable" means of survival, then they will take those means of survival which you deem "not respectable." And, in the process, their fear of violating standards of "respectability" will be eroded, and they will behave much worse than if one had never tried to use "respectablity" as a lash with which to control them.
Liberals never fail to miss this important point. By declaring practically all interest in the maintenance of ethnic integrity and social distinctiveness "fascistic," "racist," "hateful," "xenophobic," or what have you, they virtually guarantee that normal people will eventually become desensitized to these words and lose their ability to distinguish between love of one's own and hatred of the Other. If liberals can't see the difference, and if they are the self-appointed experts on these matters, who is the average man in the street to disagree? Since the average man on the street has no burning desire to be displaced by foreigners and forced to comply with their every demand, he might just conclude that violent hatred is the natural and indispensable companion of ordinary self respect.
Using terms of condemnation as weapons gradually erodes their meaning. Which is bad, because "fascism," "racism," "hate," and "xenophobia" describe true evils, the consequences of which will be suffered both by victims and victimizers, should they return. But by claiming that anyone who simply stands up for themselves or their culture practices these evils, one is eliminating the reluctance to practice these evils in truth.
In the end, I think things are going to get much, much worse before they get better, precisely because liberals refuse to accept the most common sense limitations on the principle of tolerance. They risk discrediting tolerance altogether by making it synonymous with self-extinction.
Precisely. The sad thing is that true tolerance, in the sense of prohibiting the use of force save in response to force, would be more than adequate to restrain Islamofascism without the need to resort to immoral violence. By attempting to appease the Islamofacscists in the name of tolerance, the European elites are only destroying tolerance itself.
An outpouring of hatred and violence is almost certain to erupt at some stage, since nowhere do people gladly suffer replacement of their own people civilization by that of others. A tipping point must eventually be reached, and when it does, the reaction could be spasmodic and bloody.
And the outcome far from certain. Though I suspect that the native Europeans will win, for they have both the numbers and the elite high-tech military forces.
This can easily be avoided, but liberals are determined to see this suicidal path through to the bitter end, such is their devotion to a program which I think even they suspect is daily darkening the future of mankind.
There is still hope that this can be avoided, but as the number of voting Islamofascist immigrants increases, the chance of dealing with this constitutionally drops. Past some point, massive unconstitutional violence will be the only native alternative to abject surrender.
The thing I don't fully understand is why the European elites are letting things go this far? Are they so afraid of admitting ideological error that they must run their society into the ground before releasing their death-grips?