|
|
|
An exercise in guilt by association Did you, perhaps, dream as a youngster of becoming a professional sportsman? It would only be natural. Well, I would like you to imagine that the dream came true … at least, if the dream was to be play soccer. I want you to imagine yourself as a regular team guy in a professional squad - not a star perhaps and not in the top flight. But you are out there in front of the fans every Saturday afternoon of the season, fighting for another win. But … wins are becoming harder to come by just lately. There have been mistakes … mis-hit back passes, poor positioning, a bad penalty-giveaway. Just dumb stuff, but none of it, as it happens, yours. Still, points have been lost. The expected good finish in the table … the possibility of promotion, is slipping away. Worse, your win bonuses have suffered. There is pressure on everyone – a lot of it - and especially on the boss. Then, say, in match preparation at the ground one cold, wet Saturday morning he – let’s call him Stan - sends three of the guys to the gym to do some light weight work. It doesn’t make sense. He’s never done that before. The rest of the players he calls together. “OK, guys,” Stan says, ”now I want you to listen carefully to me. Don’t any of you interrupt. This is important. “You want to know why we’re losing games, right? You think it’s because you just got sloppy and made some dumb mistakes at the wrong time? You think luck has deserted you, maybe. Some of you may even have started to think you’re not good enough. “Well, how would you feel if I told you that you’re not unlucky and you are good enough? You could have won those games … should have won them. But you were cheated. Not just let-down by a bit of carelessness. Cheated. “Because that’s what’s been going on, boys. Three of your own team-mates - people you look upon as friends, good guys – have been throwing games. They’re taking pay-outs to make sure we lose. They’re crapping on you – and me. They’re crapping on everything we sweat and live for, and doing very nicely out of it. I’m sorry to have to say it. But it’s true. I’ve got the evidence and, trust me, there’s no room for doubt. None at all. “Now, you know me. I’m an uncomplicated sort of guy. Right now I’m thinking that outside of just us and these three bastards nobody knows about this. If I go to the owner he’ll have to take it to the governing body, and they’ll have to take it to the police. Then we’ll have them and the press crawling all over us. The club will be damaged. But these bastards have already damaged the club enough. We can deal with them ourselves … keep it in the family. And that’s what we’re going to do just as soon as our friends get back here. Understand?
OK … so what, you may be asking, has this to do with majority rights? Well, this little story has one strange and interesting thing about it. It’s this:- He told The Times: “Without saying a word, they began to beat us up. The other players just stood there watching.” Nobody intervened. Not even when a member of the punishment squad produced a riot gun from the depths of his long black overcoat. Nobody cried, “Jesus Christ, what are you doing? Put that fucking thing away!” Nobody had the nobility of soul to declare “I won’t let you do this. You’ll have to get past me first.” Whether vengeance or cowardice stood for self-interest and trumped moral scruple we cannot be sure. But whatever rationale Stanislav Bernikov employed to herd his players into submission – and I suppose he might have terrorised them – it worked wonderfully well. He obtained their full and unquestioning consent to an act of criminal violence. He made them accessories – certainly not what they had in mind when they swallowed the last mouthful of breakfast that Saturday, kissed the wife and headed for the ground. The question, then, is how do we assess the guilt of the bystanders? To what moral standard can we reasonably hold them? It is a question that has been played out within living memory on the largest of scales. It haunts the liberal mind to an absurd degree, bringing down upon all Western European peoples a vile contagion of guilt by an association that can be measured only in nanometers. Thus, just for being an Englishman I am continually reminded of the moral burden I carry today for the involvement of somebody else’s distant forebears in Empire. As an Anglo-Saxon I am loaded with the burden of the slave trade. As a European they get me with the “Holocaust”. Most fatuous of all, as a white man they find upon my person the permanent stain of racism - and upon that of my kind elsewhere, the KKK, Jim Crow, Die Broederbond et al. And, of course, it will not end with my generation. No, on down the years the racial shame must pass … from me to my daughter and, some day, from her to the children she will bear. But, then, why would it ever end? The advantages it bestows - moral presumption upon the ruling class, sanctity upon the victim class, political impotence upon us – are the legitimising pillars of modern power. And that’s what it is really all about. The notion that Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons or Europeans or white people are under an extraordinary moral obligation to the denizens of Empire, to West Africans, to Jews and Third World immigrants is merely good for business in the liberal zeitgeist. Now, we have spent a fair time here lately on altruism and the theoretics of the slippery slope. But the not unrelated slippery slope of guilt by historical association is unquestionably a more pressing and rewarding study for majoritarians. Perhaps one should fear for the children and grand-children of the footballers of Lipetsk! Certainly, one fears for the footballers themselves. Let’s go back, if only in imagination, to that Saturday morning at the ground. You didn’t see it coming, of course. No one did. No one guessed, even when the boss said, “We can deal with it ourselves …” Well, how could you know? And then, when it happened, nobody moved. All of you were so shocked, you were rooted to the spot. And it didn’t last very long … two, maybe three minutes. And it was clear that the guys actually doing the business … those types of guys you don’t mess around with. At least, that’s what you told the police. But that wasn’t the whole story. You know perfectly well that at first, when it started, you were as mad as hell. Those three had been your friends and they had betrayed the club, the fans, the boss … and they had betrayed you. But nothing is that simple, and when the riot gun appeared you looked for the first time to see what your team-mates beside you were doing. Most, but not all, were frozen in uncertainty. You could sense it in them as clearly as you could feel it in yourself. Some of them, though, were enjoying this. And suddenly the first rubber bullet was fired and there was that really meaty thwack. One of your former pals hit the ground as if he had been pole-axed. Then, at last, you hoped this would end soon, and in that hope you tasted your own pathetic insignificance and powerlessness. Guilt by association, however attenuated, never ends – in large part because the significance and power of the guilt-associated is so over-estimated. In its wider meaning, this isn’t accidental. The story goes back to July 1944 when the U.S. Office of the Chief of Staff appointed one Lt. Colonel Murray C. Bernays to head up the investigation on Nazi war crimes against U.S. servicemen. Bernays wasn’t really a Lt. Colonel, of course. He was a naturalized American Jew of Lithuanian origin practising law in New York at the time of his appointment. But they gave him a rank and put him in a uniform and, very soon after, he decided that it would be a travesty of justice to try individual Nazis, as intended, while the Nazi movement as a whole went unpunished. When the National Socialist Party came to power membership was 2,500,000. So one cannot accuse him of thinking small. But he had a problem. There was no legal precedent for such a wide-ranging prosecution remit. Bernays began searching for some basis on which he could justify it. He found part of his answer in Raphael Lemkin’s Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, which argued that the actions of the SS amounted to a criminal conspiracy by the Nazi government. Taking this as proven, he applied the same logic to the Nazi movement as a whole and at the same time stretched the offence to a criminal conspiracy against all humanity. The most useful concept that the pursuit of racial purity in Europe was a conspiracy against everyone was established, and Bernays was halfway there. He then re-interpreted the corpus of existing International Law as the embodiment of the conscience of humanity. Now he could argue that the criminal conspiracy which was Nazism violated International Law. Furthermore, if Nazism as a whole was found guilty as charged, that conviction must extend to its members. Drop a stone into this pool and the rings never cease to expand. To my mind, without Bernays’ handiwork and the Nuremberg Trials as they unfolded under his influence (and that of Colonel David Marcus, another American Jew who hand-picked almost all the judges, prosecutors and lawyers) it is doubtful whether liberalism alone would have developed the ridiculously tendentious notions of guilt by historical association under which we all labour today. People would be able to see quite clearly that the ascription of guilt to later generations is extraordinarily prejudicial. It implies that criminality and wrongdoing once done, whether proven or simply assumed, can be ascribed to the English, Anglo-Saxon, European or white subject in all aspects of his self and for all time. It denies us the right to be ourselves with all the complexity and contradiction that make us human, and it is wrong. It is up to the individual footballers of Lipetsk to deal with their actions, or lack of actions, according to their own consciences. Perhaps some will do that. Others won’t even care. But that’s their privilege. It is not the business of perfect strangers to demand penitence from them or to apologise on their behalf. And neither is it their business to point in the street at children for things their fathers have or have not done. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:15 | # But, <strike>Bo</strike> Abe, you can’t hit back at the slew of celluloid from Holowood, or the ubiquitous shiny, new holomuseums or the national holodays or the endless references to the holy of political holies in school textbooks. It is an industry, godammit, and it’s only one of three or four of its kind - albeit the most sanctimonious and best financed. What, in any case, I am saying here is that the moral issue stays firmly in the historical time-frame and with the actors concerned. Any attempt to spread the war to later generations is always political, and deserves to be challenged as such. 3
Posted by Top on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:12 | # “Thus, just for being an Englishman I am continually reminded of the moral burden I carry today for the involvement of somebody else’s distant forebears in Empire. As an Anglo-Saxon I am loaded with the burden of the slave trade. As a European they get me with the “Holocaust”. Most fatuous of all, as a white man they find upon my person the permanent stain of racism - and upon that of my kind elsewhere, the KKK, Jim Crow, Die Broederbond et al. “ Excellent quote Guessworker, and article as a whole. The funny part is that your guilt-by-association example does not even go far enough. An equivalent example for our generation would be for the innocent teammate players not to even be there when the attack happens, then go to the hospital and use their money and energy to take care of their cheating teammates. They would then be criticized and threatened by mafia-like people because they are not doing enough to help the wounded or the mafia. Some of the team members would then - by threat of force - be made to give more and more money and energy without the possibilty of speaking out. It is really an evil system when you think about it. Can there be another word but ‘evil’ used to describe a system where a race-replacement strategy is used with overt and implicit threats of force; where psychological and communication techniques are uses to ‘soften’ the group-collective like some 19th century artillery barrage; where education is reduced to anti-majority propaganda; where history becomes just another weapon; where ethnic hypocrisy rules and the future is always described in terms that involve the disappearnce of the majority? To me it’s an evil system and the whole guilt-inducing apparatus is just another evil technique to batter us down to a demographic nothing. I have psychologically ‘tuned’ out of it long time ago. Why tune in to something that seeks to destroy you? I guess the big question is why would other people of European descent want to ‘tune’ in? Why don’t the rest of the European people not frown at the constant guilt-trips, diversity-rants, and ‘politically correct’ power trips? Maybe one answer is that they don’t look at it as a threat. They don’t fully understand the power behind it - or the intentions. They think that things can’t change. In some way they still live psychologically in the yar 1900 when whites were tough and kicked some ass. They cling to their illusion of ever-lasting power and never-changing status-qou, of weak minorities, and well-intetioned underdogs. They are so many myths today. Not just at the ordinary person level, but at the intellectual elite level. For example, the whole movement of neo-conservatism in the US is a movement of white suckers. Whites who do someone else’s bidding. Whites who psycologically tune out and are to lazy or cowardly to do what must be done. Would they ever call someone on the ugly game of guilt-by-association? Of course not! Instead they just try to copy the game and use it themselves on allowable targets such as the Mulsims and of course ‘Nazis’. And make no mistake about it ‘Nazis’ will always be the first and last target. The reason guil-by-association works is because (White) people don’t see it as a problem. Not just ordinary people, but our leaders. When we convince them that it is a problem, only then will things change. 4
Posted by The White Abe Foxman on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:10 | # “Any attempt to spread the war to later generations is always political, and deserves to be challenged as such.” That is absolutely correct, and the best way to mount a challenge is to declare it defamatory and its political leaders mere defamers, full of contempt and supremacist intentions. Our group is pretty small, but we have made innumerable changes in the vocabularies used in the print media around us, and in some electronic media contexts. All that is required for more success is more of us. As far as monuments to the suffering of certain groups, that isn’t defamation unless language or art or photos are used that defame our group in which case it is the language or art or photos that are to be protested. We wouldn’t have any hesitation to denounce a specific slander as defamation. We waged campaigns around Northern California against “Righteous Gentile” and “Righteous Among The Nations” and “goy” and “gentile” and “shicksha” on the ground that there were defamatory elements surrounding each term. These hate terms have been very reduced in this area. We just started attacking the noun “anti-Semite” as a name or label for any individual on the ground that its use shows a supremacist claim to name the other, and contempt toward those so-named. All of which is to say, any time naming/labeling or describing/defining is done to your group, you are empowered to take a verbal, demonstrative swing back, not explaining why it is all so untrue, but because such naming/labeling and describing/defining opens a window into the loathsome mind of the namer/describer. When someone fools with your name or description, he or she opens themselves up to the most cutting retaliations. We did it to David Broder just on “white shoe” alone. I am amazed that there was such surprise when Arabs and Muslims roared in the streets about the Danish cartoons and the Papal address. They were empowered to do so when they were named/labeled and/or described/defined. It was like giving your 5-yr-old nephew the sugar bowl and saying, “Eat up!” It’s not really about sensitivity or minority rights, it’s about who has naming, labeling, describing, and defining rights for oneself and one’s group…..and we are entirely free to claim those as majority rights, too. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:37 | #
That comment of Top’s (the whole thing, not just this truly outstanding excerpt) is an excellent statement. No Top, there cannot be another word to describe it: it’s evil, all right — evil through and through. It wants worse than to kill us — it wants to extinguish our race. Precisely those always leveling the “racist” accusation are trying as hard and as fast as they can to commit genocide! It has fallen to our generation to shoulder the task — the sacred task — of somehow prying this genocidal iron boot heel off our windpipes, of wrestling this profound evil off our necks and out of our lives, hopefully forever. 6
Posted by The White Abe Foxman on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:15 | # We just did an attack on the editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News today for promoting the term “non-Hispanic whites,” and you can see it at: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g41b.htm Scroll all the way down. ============= Then we sent him an email telling him the attack was there and saying that in the past we had tried to understand the left-wing racialists use of negative terms to describe us, but we guessed that it was like the question about the dog, the left-wing racialists do it because they can. I can see that swinging against the smear-masters is not a particularly popular proposal, even as an effective wedge issue to educate parents and grandparents of young European Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans in Europe. C’est la vie, but not adieu! 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:55 | # “Abe,” I think your efforts are brilliant. Essentially what you’ve done is gotten inside the mentality of those on the other side who are constantly attacking us as racial slurrers and turned the tables on them using precisely the rules-of-the-game which they themselves originated then honed to such perfection in the service of their neverending ethnic warfare against us. The sampling below are simply terrific (as are all the others in the original column at your site, without exception):
______
______
______
______
I’m so glad you’re doing what you’re doing. You’ve perfected a method of fighting back in a way the other side can’t defend itself against, since it’s simply an exact application of their own principles. All they can do when faced with one of your counterattacks is sheepishly run up the white flag (no pun or hate-term intended, I assure you ... lol). They can’t tell you to go take a running leap, because then they’d have to! Brilliant stuff! Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! Post a comment:
Next entry: The Little Lexicon
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by The White Abe Foxman on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:55 | #
“Guilt by association, however attenuated, never ends – in large part because the significance and power of the guilt-associated is so over-estimated. In its wider meaning, this isn’t accidental.”
With due respect to Guessedworker, all he is describing is a theme in the campaign of defamation by hostile left-wing racialists. It’s not the guilt-by-association that never ends, it’s the use of that theme by defamers to beat up us and our children that never ends. It grows and grows until we attack back, labeling it for what it is and denouncing it as a tool to silence us.
The best response is to name the phenomenon in question as an example of the campaign of defamation, and to take it to the public square.
To take the guilt-by-association theme as something seriously real is to mistake the theme’s role in contemporary inter-ethnic low-intensity warfare.
Rejecting “guilt-by-association” as a defamatory technique takes work…willingness to hit back at its promoters wherever they push the theme, instead of intellectual analysis of the falsity of the theme itself. Of course, the theme is factually false, but until we attack the theme as defamatory, we stay stuck in a purely defensive mode.