The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2
Having been a child of the sixties and come to my majority in 1972 … having an acquaintance, therefore, with the famous personal, spiritual and sexual freedom of that time and with the aesthetic and the argot, and having witnessed and rejected the anger and dissent which disfigured the politics …. having been exposed quite routinely to all that feral revolutionary thought and deed, still I find in its lineaments no real clue to or explanation for what today, I suppose, we can properly call the Rotherham Syndrome.
This is something of a blow actually, since my preferred, all-weather explanation for the ills of the present is precisely the malign formative effects of the past. If the seeds of the psychological present are in the ideological past, then it should certainly be possible to find them in the fertile soil of the sixties counter-culture. But my thesis in this short second part of the essay will be that there is, in terms of effect, a limit to political causality and a limit, even, to the philosophy which forms politics. We commit a category error when we look there for the cause of an ethnic or racial crisis. We must look into inter-ethnic and inter-racial rivalry for that, even if there are political and philosophical dimensions and implications to the rivalry. It is a question of defining and ordering them, that’s all.
Let us remind ourselves of the nature of the Rotherham Syndrome. Wherever possible, over a period of two or more decades, every police officer, social worker, doctor, local and national politician (save Ann Cryer), local and national journalist (save, eventually, Andrew Norfolk) … everybody in any position of responsibility whatsoever who had to deal with the victims, or came into possession of any knowledge of the crime, promptly and unequivocally betrayed them and allowed their abuse to continue. The girls’ own words were routinely disbelieved. They were seen as unreliable witnesses, trouble-makers, even “trash”. Their parents were consistently fobbed off with lies and inaction. The abusers, on the other hand, were left in peace if at all possible. Their racial identity, and any racial thinking attached thereto, was rigorously protected from debate. A blanket of silence was thrown over the whole matter.
This didn’t just constitute an official neglect of the duty of care, or even an abrogation of it. Almost inconceivably, it was the child-victims of a shocking sexual crime who were punished here. The gangs of racially-alien men giving free rein to the basest, most heartless vice were supported, their actions materially condoned. In the process, then, these paragons of authority and official concern set aside not only their public and professional duty but all common humanity. There is no more stark and shocking betrayal than this. None more resilient either, it seems, since activities by these gangs have not been halted and, it is said, quite probably occur in every town and city in the country where there is a Moslem enclave. Yet if, post-Rotherham, the response of the “responsible” has improved - and prosecutions are reported locally - still we are not hearing anything much about it in the national media. At best, it would seem, the crime is being regularised - situated safely within the general flow of the justice system, as if it was exactly like any all-too-ordinary, unremarkable crime or, at least, like any other crime committed by non-whites against a white victim (ie, given minimal coverage).
One could, of course, never imagine that eventuality if the criminal roles were reversed. The media would be in perpetual uproar. The liberal Establishment, gimps to a man, would be ecstatic in its agony of guilt and submission. The politicians would scream at their civil servants for some idea about what to do. Out of nowhere, intellectuals with names ending in “stein”, “feld” and “berg” would advance exciting new theses hyper-critical of “white sexual authoritarianism” and “the father, deviance and racism in white sexuality”. The progressive Third Sector and left activists generally would unfailingly react by generalising the crime to all white men but themselves. Natch. Sociological studies would be commissioned. Conferences would be organised. Modules would be created in every university sociology course. New laws with special new offences would be placed on the statute book. Ambitious senior policemen would have their career advancement tied almost exclusively to their capacity to generate successful prosecutions. The media would play the dog with a bone it will never, never bury. I mean, never. Think Stephen Lawrence squared, and then some. Anti-racists and the self-righteous everywhere would froth as never before, and manufacture a whole new range of attack-words to bestow upon anyone remiss enough not to think like them. And so on. And so on.
To extend the dynamics only slightly, if it’s white, hold it in contempt, abuse it, toss it aside, even if it is a child-victim of rape, torture, sexual enslavement, trafficking, and prostitution. If it’s non-white protect it, praise it, advance its interests, even if it’s an utterly foreign, middle-aged paedophile rapist and racist pimp of children. So how are we to understand this morally and historically unique pathology? The answer to that question, which was the question of my Part 1 essay, is, as I have intimated above, not just politically and psychologically.
Politically, of course, there has been a revolution across the publicly funded sectors of British society in the years since the 1970 marxisation of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. If the Rotherham Syndrome stands testament to it, however, I don’t see how. Even revolutionary hegemonic politics has some understanding of and respect for a basic, common human value, which it seeks to generalise across all sections of society. Universalistic and humanitarian the Rotherham Syndrome is not. It attaches no value to the life of white peoples … simply does not recognise their humanity. Neither, obviously, is it egalitarian. It is violently, unnaturally partisan. If it registers the status of whites as living ecologies at all, it does so only in the negative, as something not to be made equal, and therefore preserved, but to be consigned to history.
So, we can’t make the claim in respect to it that the brave and worthy Paul Weston does in respect to the anti-racist left here:
The Rotherham Syndrome does not engage at the level of restraining the defence of white interests and the white life in the battle for racial equality. There is no fundamental human value, no platform of equal racial worth underpinning it. The callous, complete betrayal of tens of thousands of English children takes us past that, past the universalism of the white altruist, past all claims to the good and into the heart of a dark and implacable hostility. One might glimpse the mindset in the necessary killing of a dangerous animal … perhaps, a poisonous snake or spider. Something of it is captured in Susan Sontag’s famous quote about the white race being the cancer of human history. No course of action remains but to cut it out of the body of Homo sapiens. The Rotherham Syndrome belongs to a mind which is genocidal.
So the categories clarify. At the point at which human value is withdrawn from the Other, philosophy and philosophically-derived politics cease to apply in any foundational sense. Whatever politics, whatever apologisms come into play at this point do so in service to a rival ethnic or racial cause. They may, of course, be proposed, believed in, fought for by members of our people, our race. Explanations for that abound, and in Part 3 of this essay I will offer some fitting to the categorical context I am outlining. As to the ethnic cause itself, that belongs to an ethnic group every nationalist can name; and to this too I will seek to add some appropriate detail.
Post a comment: