The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 28 March 2015 14:50.

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.

The alternative, I repeat, is to seek to explain our racial crises by phenomena, political or psychological, which either do not exist or do not possess sufficient agency.

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 only defence against becoming an ethnic minority in our homeland before 2060 is to draw attention to our predicament. If the left can make such a defence not just immoral but evil, then they have removed the one and only obstacle that could possibly resist their racially-driven agenda, and if they can capture the means of disseminating information (such as the BBC) then they can continue unopposed — which is exactly what they are doing.

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.

Tags: Immigration and Politics

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:15 | #

“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.”

A bit like Kitty Genovese syndromes - bystander effect, diffused responsibility

Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese (July 7, 1935 – March 13, 1964) was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death by Winston Moseley near her home in Kew Gardens, a neighborhood in the borough of Queens in New York City, on March 13, 1964.

Two weeks later, a newspaper article reported the circumstances of Genovese’s murder and the lack of reaction from numerous neighbors. That… prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the “bystander effect” or “Genovese syndrome”, especially “diffusion of responsibility.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/revisiting-austin-street-death-kitty-genovese-50-years-later-76460

What’s harder to explain is why the dispute over numbers matters. Were there more than 38 people within earshot of the first attack? Yes. Did 38 of them know what they were witnessing? Almost certainly not. Was the New York Times story geared toward sensationalism? Absolutely. But even in Cook’s conservative assessment, there were two men who were watching and chose not to intervene, and at least four or five other neighbors who were awake and had a pretty good idea. If the story of Kitty Genovese is that her neighbors did nothing while she was murdered, it is not an “intractable urban myth,” as a paper in American Psychologist described it in 2007. There were witnesses, and no one helped her. That’s no urban legend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIRCIvS7AS0

Posted by To the bottom on Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:26 | #

By that comment I did not intend to distract from the point of GW’s piece by suggesting that a mere “psychological phenomenon” such as diffused responsibility or the bystander effect was at bottom…

Though as deployed social psychology, it is more to the point.

As a matter of fact, the part of the Jewish controlled wikipedia quote that I left out is telling in terms of their control:

“The common portrayal of her neighbors as being fully aware of what was transpiring but completely unresponsive has since been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, that portrayal prompted investigation”...

The point being that they don’t want you, Joe White Public, to be too keenly and critically aware of social psychological phenomenon (and who is in control) which, if treated with strongly warranted assertability, might work in White interests.

Posted by HBD, KM and medieval on Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:31 | #

HBD Chick:

Just to let you know, when regularly scheduled programming resumes, the plan is to first respond to kevin macdonald’s post from january(!), and then — hang on to your great helms! — the blog is going to go completely medieval for a few weeks, as i want to get going on my promised series on manorialism and take a look at some of the data/historical evidence for the decline of violence in europe during the middle ages.

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/on-the-hbd-chick-interview/

Posted by Gavin Langmuir on Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:26 | #

On History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism: The Legacy of Gavin Langmuir

March 31, 2015 — Andrew Joyce

‘A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within….for the traitor appears not to be a traitor…he rots the soul of a nation…he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.’ - Cicero

One of the major themes explored at TOO is that the onslaught on Whites and their culture is massively incentivized. In particular, Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that the multicultural left has created a context “in which many Whites benefit financially from the process of White displacement.” One example is that of White businessmen who are handsomely rewarded in the short-term by immigration because it lowers labor costs. But in the longer-term, these same businessmen are cooperating directly in their own eventual displacement, and helping create a future world in which their genetic descendants will occupy a vulnerable, and probably horrific, role as a victimized minority. MacDonald also pointed to the role played by Whites at colleges and universities, where:

professors who want to move into lucrative positions in administration must be warriors on behalf of non-Whites. A noteworthy example is Mary Sue Coleman, who earns north of $900,000/year as the president of the University of Michigan and has been a leader in attempting to preserve racial preferences and in promoting the educational benefits of diversity. … At a lower level on the academic food chain, one of the most important criteria for professors is whether they can obtain government grants which then pay them extra salary and pay the university for the costs of administering the grant — a major source of funding for the university and a major factor in tenure decisions. Right now there is a lot of money in grants aimed at improving the educational prospects of Blacks and Latinos and no shortage of White professors eager to get their hands on that money.

The fact that taking part in the diminishment of White demographics, culture and political power is incentivized really can’t be stressed enough. It’s also important to note that it takes place on many levels of society, and on smaller scales. Rewards can be promotions, job opportunities, or even just increased esteem within one’s social or professional circle. To illustrate these more subtle examples, in this essay I want to offer a brief survey of the life and work of a White academic who enjoyed good, but unspectacular, success in his career until he styled himself an historian of “Jewish-Christian relations.” After a number of articles and influential books essentially exonerating Jews of any wrong-doing in their history, and mercilessly pathologizing Whites and Western culture, this academic found himself the darling of the Jewish academic establishment, lavished with plaudits, prizes and esteem. It’s the quintessential story of how taking part in the war on Whites can bring with it an abundance of temporary rewards.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/03/on-history-religion-and-anti-semitism/#more-27188

Posted by GT on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 21:14 | #

Experts: Coming Demographic Shift Will Strengthen US Culture
http://www.voanews.com/content/coming-demographic-shift-will-strengthen-us-culture/2701759.html

“The degree of cultural diversity that this introduces to this country is rather like the cultural diversity we had in the 19th century, and for that matter in the 18th century at the time of founding,” observed American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray. In many ways, according to Murray, diversity has been a positive force throughout America history.

“We used to have radically different ways of life among different groups in this country. And the 20th century was something of an anomaly in this regard as we saw an increasingly homogeneous culture with the rise of mass media,” Murray said. “In many ways, I think the America of the 21st century with its increased cultural diversity is going to look familiar to historians of America. And in that respect, it’s as American as apple pie.”

————

Race realism is no guarantee of racial nationalism. For years I failed to get this point across at Majority Rights. Having picked up the diversity mantra Murray’s statements are evidence that I was correct (not that it matters really, given the state of “the movement”). I once asked people why should a white elite – or any elite, for that matter – keep me and mine around if robots could manufacture all the goods the elite required and tend to all of their needs. Because they cared for us? That is bullshit, of course! Murray is simply making my essential point – that is, regardless of whether or not the elite adopts race realism to justify their position, the best possible future for the bottom 99% of whites on the North American continent is still something akin to Brazil.

Racial nationalism must have a collectivist economic foundation else racialism for the rest of us will fail, to be replaced by the cynical racial egalitarianism and globalism that we have today or Murray’s global plantation of “racialism for me but not for thee” for the top 1%.

To succeed, racial nationalism must wage class war. Anything short of class war is akin to another empty-suited Republican Nationalist In Name Only (Niño) solution.

Posted by Murray's a-racial elitism on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 06:07 | #

GT, interesting comment regarding Murray, it illustrates the problem of the right’s elitist ‘objectivism’ maintained and directing concern beyond the interests of our people.

Posted by Daniel A on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:38 | #

To succeed, racial nationalism must wage class war. Anything short of class war is akin to another empty-suited Republican Nationalist In Name Only (Niño) solution.

I say the same thing. Find me on facebook if you are on it and please come comment and write for my blogs and projects if you desire. Would love to have you.

Thought you were gone for good.

My email is easy to find. Would love to chat.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:42 | #

GT, as it was made clear, your comment is more than welcome here as well and if you don’t want an ear-banging as to why you need catechism, this is the better place.