Since 2016 nationalism has made substantive gains across the West. At least as far as public awareness of key, previously peripheral issues goes.
Despite this emerging and legitimate opposition, Cultural Marxists dominate our culture: prevailing in culture-making institutions which forge young minds. By this crucial measurement, the Left is winning the cultural war.
An important sign of how deep their cultural hegemony runs is the conventional framework for discussing race.
Today, there are two publicly permissible approaches one may take to race. This includes a view that combines advocacy for POC’s with anti-white prejudice; or one that hastily rejects any racialised talk as a matter of principle.
The former’s hypocrisy–condemning tropes about ‘angry black women’, while cheering on courses about ‘angry white men’–is incontrovertible and thus less interesting to unpack.
But the latter is more worthy of discussion, given the abundance of apparently sincere individuals–Wayne Swan, Mark Latham, Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt–that subscribe.
For these well-intentioned figures of the Left and Right, to openly discuss race is dirty, immoral, and often culminates in violence. These critiques have been particularly voiced following the Christchurch shooting, and are integral to justifications for increasing censorship of online Right-wing pundits.
However, nothing could be further from the truth–it reflects our dysfunctional times they need addressing.
So to them. Of course race is important, thereby capable of provoking tensions and generating subsequent conflict over. But in this respect, race is not distinguishable from any other cause which matters to humans–environmentalism, wealth inequality, religion, international law–which have all caused conflicts in the past.
Furthermore, race is but an extension of a universally accepted precept of familial loyalty. As humans act upon an instinctual, genetic impetus to protect their own off-spring; a broader dynamic operates when homogenous societies have higher levels of cooperation, altruism and harmony, whilst individuals demonstrate in-group preferences among friendship groups.
We all understand to tear apart families would destroy pools of trust, cohesion and stability paramount to peoples’ lives. The globalist press confirms this much when it condemns President Trump’s ‘family separation’ policy. So why should genetic kinship at the racial level, be treated as principally distinct from familial love? There is no real answer, aside from the subjective, arbitrary, passing, constructed morality that our time dictates.
It goes without saying that race is far from everything. And racial idolatry should be rejected in kind.
Nevertheless, those who fanatically ignore racial issues are deluded–and dangerous.
Think of it this way. You’ve found a bodily defect indicative of health problems. Further to this discovery, that defect is growingly painful, and beginning to adversely affect your quality of life. At this point, medical intervention is likely essential to any recovery. But you fear doctors; stress upon hearing discomforting news; worry over costs of surgery; and are generally overwhelmed by the situation. Here, although seeing a doctor is objectively better for your health, due to the aforementioned reasons, you decide against it.
The idea we should act upon politically expedient aversions to race and disregard imminent hazards, is markedly similar to this hypothetical. As with seeing a doctor, there are risks associated with honestly approaching race: it could lead to certain groups being excluded or upend a status quo convenient for some.
Likewise, we might successfully mitigate multi-racialism through focusing on other pursuits. And perhaps, it may not end as brutally as did World War 1, World War 2, Rwanda or Czechoslovakia. But this would be to depend on Liberal ideology and unlikely contingencies–no less a successful recipe than sheer hope is to a sick person.
The irresponsible aren’t those who honestly discuss racial issues, and seek to prudently manoeuvre us out of these disordered times. Rather, the downright reckless are those who spurn historical and empirical discussions about race so to sustain their individual, fleeting place within modern society.