Reposted in full from Ehud Would’s blog.
“Is it good to preserve your own heritage? This is clearly a yes or no question but few seem to answer it coherently, at least when referencing European stock. Despite the simplicity of this question modern secular indoctrination demands that good “global citizens” answer in a self-contradictory manner. It usually goes a little something like this:
Question #1:
“Is it good, as a Christian of European extraction, to preserve your own heritage and people?”
Answer #1:
“Well yeah, that’s a good thing.”
Question #2:
“If it’s a ‘good’ to preserve your heritage, would the opposite, y’know marrying outside your religion and race, be a negative thing?”
Answer #2:
“Yeah. No, wait a minute…no. That would be discrimination. I guess both are good things.”
Question #3:
“I’m sorry, could you explain to me how doing the exact opposite of ‘good’ is also ‘good’, ‘cause I thought that the opposite of good was bad (?)— or am I setting up a false dichotomy?”
Answer #3:
“That’s exactly what you’re doing.”
Question #4:
“Alright then, can you elaborate on how the preservation of our people is good but their decline is also good?”
Answer #4:
“I never said that their ‘decline’ was good. Now you’re just putting words in my mouth. All I mean is that it’s good that White people preserve themselves but that it’s okay if they don’t too.”
Question #5:
“By ‘its okay’ do you mean ‘good’ or are you intending to say ‘permissible’?”
Answer #5:
“Yes, it’s perfectly ‘permissible.’”
Question #6:
“But not ‘good’? Are you saying the opposite of good is ‘permissible’?”
Answer #6:
“I don’t think the words ‘good’ or ‘bad’ have a place in this conversation.”
Question #7:
“So then the issue of perpetuating one’s heritage or one’s people is now morally neutral; neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’? But didn’t you answer the very first question saying that such preservation was in fact ‘good’?”
Answer #7:
“That was before I knew you were trying to get me to say that race-mixing is bad. In light of that I’ll change my answer— it’s immoral to ‘preserve’ your race.”
Question #8:
“Wow. Well, if you’re gonna go that route, doesn’t the whole issue cut back the other direction? Doesn’t saying, as you’ve now opted, that it’s bad or ‘immoral’ to preserve White people also mean consequently that it’s good and moral to destroy the White race?”
Answer #8:
“There you go again…No, I don’t think its ‘moral’ to ‘destroy’ any race.”
Question #9:
“You just think its ‘immoral’ to prevent its destruction. How’s that any different?”
Answer #9:
“Y’know what? You sound like some kinda’ Nazi…I mean really racist. Seriously.”
Question #10:
“If you’re claiming that it’s either good to do away with the White race or that it’s immoral to prevent its destruction, how does my arguing for their well-being make me the Nazi? I’m not the one defending genocide— you are. Or maybe you’re finally being consistent on the matter by claiming I’m ‘immoral’ for opting for preservation over destruction?”
Answer #10:
“Maybe White people do need to disappear inorder to rid the world of your kind of hatefulness.”
Question #11:
“That certainly settles the matter doesn’t it? You think the expungement of our people, an act of genocide by anyone’s definition, is moral but my love for my family and my people makes me the ‘hateful’ one?! Talk about ‘calling evil good and good evil!’”
Answer #11:
“Stay away from me Hitler.”
While the preceding account has been a fictional one, it faithfully relays the character of discussion I’ve had with a number of Church-going Whites. It represents the mid-line thinking of popular ice-cream social Evangelicalism on the matter of heritage.
Of course there are those occasional few to both the left (who answer the first question with a “No”) and right (who conclude that it is in fact good to preserve our heritage) but what always remains the same is the logical structure of the argument which allows only three formal choices:
A) Our Heritage/ Race should be preserved.
B) Our Heritage/ Race should be destroyed.
C) The issue is unimportant or even imaginary and should therefore be ignored.
Choices A and B are clearly polarized but option C seems at first blush to be the moderate and judiciously impartial alternative to the squabble of extremes. But this is just a ruse because option C, someone claiming race ought to be ignored, will never argue against the decline or societal erasure of Whites. Conversely, the proponent of option C will always argue against the conservation of White Heritage as such. Really, option C will always work covertly toward the ends of option B— Destruction. The “Myth of Neutrality” strikes again. The three formal choices break down into only two actual choices: Preservation or Destruction.
What’s interesting about the dialogue above is that it shows a vacillation between all three formal positions on the part of Joe American. When asked if preservation of his heritage be a good thing, his candid conviction of filial love moves him to answer in the affirmative. But as he begins to see the implications of “honoring his mother and father” and the love of his family to be rather exclusionary and thereby in conflict with modern social theory, he changes his answer. He finally settles between the exact positions held by secular Academia— that European heritage should either be ignored or destroyed. But as we’ve established, the two are actually one position; directly or indirectly, both advocate genocide.
But all of this has been well understood by the social engineers of the secular University. Though certainly a slide into the absurd, their official resolution— that Race is imaginary, is not a hapless one. It may be patently false but it is nevertheless a well-crafted falsehood. This new social orthodoxy maintains that Whites are Racists unless completely “colorblind” in order to avoid our (Whites’) endemic prejudices; but we are to simultaneously afford non-Whites extra consideration and handicaps in all areas of life, recognizing that all other ethnicities have every right and duty to be race-conscious and no matter what they say or do against Whites it cannot be considered Racism because only Whites (and sometimes oriental Asians) can be Racists.
It’s all splendidly self-contradictory but reason and what they consider equity are two radically different things and they feel no compulsion to harmonize them. Irrationality is fine so long as it serves to disarm (figuratively as well as literally) Caucasians. The motivations of the reigning culture Lords for bringing down European Man are legion and beyond the scope of this article but suffice it to say that their objective is no secret. They are plainly committed to the eradication of Christianity in general but Christian Whites especially. They understand what Hillaire Belloc meant when he said, “The faith is Europe and Europe is the faith.” Chistianity found by the grace of God a heretofore unmatched fertility and potency uniquely amongst our people. The White Christian community, despite their comparatively small numbers, is still the single greatest force for social order in the world. Secular Anthropology abhors this fact and makes of it a one to one correspondence between The White Race and the Christian Faith. Consequently, they will exhaust all possible means to undermine the cohesion of our communities. For them, a strike against Whites is a strike against the Faith and vice versa.
The easiest way to do this would be to convince the Church that the Civil Rights movement be a prime tenet of Christian orthodoxy and that the “color-blind society” be the summation of the second tablet of God’s Law. Largely, they have accomplished this goal. Employing the unified efforts of government, media, education and entertainment they have influenced the Church at large to dissolve our nations, communities and families from the inside.
They’ve persuaded the church to destroy the cohesion of their own community and they’ve made an idol of Multiculturalism. They’ve convinced the Church that the Multi-cult is Christianity come into its own. Concordantly, the Church has become as self-contradictory as the University in that the “color-blind society” ethos demands a blurring of societal responsibilities between people of close relation and those of the most remote relation. It would have every man to consider himself the brother of every other man—not just in the sotereological or heavenly sense but in the biological and social sense also. Machen was right when he wrote, “The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers…” (Gresham Machen—Christianity and Liberalism)
This Multi-cult ethos claims in essence, that “all is one” and that the one is indistinguishable in its parts, none more significant than the others— in fact, its parts are an illusion. Man as a collective entity, is therein ascribed attributes of simplicity which are only attributable to God Himself. Multiculturalism in and out of the Church is the deification of the human race— in all its parts bearing no differing relation to any other part.
Due to the extremely central nature of these concepts relative to our doctrine of Man, those with whom we broach such issues often arrive quickly at a metaphysical crossroads; in one direction lies the well-accepted path of Multicultural idealism. The other is the path cordoned off by the social taboos of the last fifty years— it is the road of biblical realism.”
| Tweet |
|
|
|
