Prompted by the controversy over the foster children in Rotherham who were recently taken from their caregivers because the foster parents were members of UKIP, our English correspondent Seneca III weighs in with a few choice words for those who would destroy all meaningful communication with their anti-“racist” cant.
On Rotherham and Racism — Call me Racist if You Wish
by Seneca III
I am sick and tired of me and mine being beaten with the ‘Racist’ stick at every twist and turn of the way we choose to live our way of life. I am going to put the (non-)meaning of that word, Racism! into its proper perspective and damn the Thought Police. I have had enough.
Preamble
An inadequate or corrupted vocabulary can be pregnant with consequences.
Language ► noun 1 (mass noun) the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured or conventional way:
2 the system of communication used by a particular community or country. (OED)
Dialectic ► noun 1 (mass noun) the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions:
2 enquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions. (OED)
The word ‘right’ (wing), and the scurrilous labelling so beloved of the media and the chattering classes such as ‘far right’, ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’, are essentially meaningless terms. The dichotomy between the socio-political left and the socio-political right, whilst widely accepted as a given, simply has no definition. Only the ideas and political morality of the ‘left’, and hence the use of that word, can be defined, for they can be traced back to those who originally sat on the left side of the French National Assembly, the bicameral parliament established in 1791 following the French Revolution — which gave birth to the ‘Committee for Public Safety’ under Robespierre and the subsequent ‘Reign of Terror’ during 1793-94.
The term ‘right’, however, has no traceable origins; it is essentially a chimera, a creation of the left for the purpose of describing those, the fallen, who are not of themselves, who do not in whole or in part share their world view, their vision of how human affairs should be conducted.
Nor, as it would at first appear, is this relationship a linear one where one grouping is on one side or the other. The reality is that in their unbending certitude the left have come, by either omission or commission, to position themselves in what could best be described as a state of moral and intellectual stasis, virtually a Ptolemaic, heliocentric view of the political universe whereby they are the Sun at the centre of everything and the rest of us exist in various shades of ideological darkness somewhere in the void beyond their warm, central fire.
The left maintain, defend and expand this position by the use and misuse of language in order to cripple dialectic and demonise those who do not share their enlightenment, those who differ from the self-anointed. We may be Free Market Libertarians, Monarchists, Judeo-Christians, Secularists, Islamophobes, Identitarians or Statists of any persuasion. Indeed, we may be any and all who have not taken Communion at their recidivist, totalitarian altar — we are the benighted.
My (Angry) Position
Racism is a behavioural trait that evolution has hard-wired into our genes for good reason — the preservation of the territorial imperative, the continuation of the cultural determinants of a given socio-ideological group and the ownership and use of the physical resources generated by that group. ‘Racism’ per se has no moral foundation or meaning, for it is purely a modern definition of an ancient survival mechanism, in application a single-word oxymoron.
Hence when any ethno-cultural group unilaterally — and I do emphasise unilaterally — foregoes the intrinsic benefits of this mechanism, it is axiomatic that that group will cease to exist at the hands of others who have not foregone it.
For multiculturalism to work, everyone would have to want it and work towards it. At the moment it appears to be that it is only one particular group to whom the full force of the law, incessant moral flagellation and the bureaucratic fist is being applied in order to make that group accept its own ethnic cleansing, all in the interests of the deconstructionists’ faux utopian dream, their destitute ideology — which, if it flowers into reality, will be but a return to barbarism.
Unilateral non-racism is a form of self-righteous suicide, and multiculturalism imposed from without and without consensus is tyranny. Freedom of association and gradual, spontaneous assimilation, if it happens naturally, is the only rational and safe way forward. If the Cultural Marxists and their fellow travellers — who, incidentally, are but drones on a mating flight they will not survive whatever the outcome — persist and prevail in the short term there can only be one inevitable result: blood and tears, the ultimate determinants. If we are not all racists now then we damn well better become so if we wish to make it through the long, dark night we have been herded into.
Finally, I am of a mind that it is the ultimate evil to destroy a mind, and that for those who work to take mine and use it for their own ends by introducing and enabling the spread and eventual triumph of a primitive, seventh-century theocratic political system based on slavery and atrocity into this once green and pleasant land there can be no mercy. Now or ever — none.
But, I say this to them, do feel free to call me racist if you wish. I no longer care; the word has become meaningless, and I really have had enough of it. I am going to beat my ploughshare into a sword and that sword has your name on it (metaphorically speaking, of course).
— Seneca III, November 2012.
P.S. Perhaps if enough of we the benighted raised our voices and our pens time after time after time loud and in cadence and declared “Do feel free to call me racist if you wish, I no longer care, the word has become meaningless and I really have had enough of it” we could put an end to this fatal deconstructionist farce. Likewise your ploughshares, or whatever (metaphorically speaking, again, of course). S III.
Previous posts by Seneca III:
0 comments:
Post a Comment