I missed the spat in the comments with Slumlord and his usual insults toward social conservatives; it was a very busy week for me. I’m going to be completely unfair and take inspiration from the most recent comment (then maybe work my way back). Aegis asks what I think of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1979 Pastoral Letter on Racism. This ties in nicely with some other things I’ve been thinking about.
First, the letter itself. It makes me marvel at how little brain it takes to become a bishop. Let’s start here:
The continuing existence of racism becomes apparent, however, when we look beneath the surface of our national life: as, for example, in the case of unemployment figures…
We strongly urge that special attention be directed to the plight of undocumented workers and that every effort be made to remove the fear and prejudice of which they are victims.
Surely there aren’t any connections they’re not seeing here?
Racism is apparent when we note that the population is our prisons consists disproportionately of minorities; that violent crime is the daily companion of a life of poverty and deprivation; and that the victims of such crimes are also disproportionately nonwhite and poor.
So, should we let them prey on each other, or shouldn’t we?
Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of races. It is the sin that makes racial characteristics the determining factor for the exercise of human rights…
Finally, racism is sometimes apparent in the growing sentiment that too much is being given to racial minorities by way of affirmative action programs or allocations to redress long-standing imbalances in minority representation and government-funded programs for the disadvantaged. At times, protestations claiming that all persons should be treated equally reflect the desire to maintain a status quo that favors one race and social group at the expense of the poor and the nonwhite.
That’s right. They say it’s a sin to criticize affirmative action.
Perhaps the biggest embarrassment is that none of the included bible or papal quotes has anything to do with the matter at hand. Or maybe calling UN documents the voice of God was the most embarrassing thing. Actually, it’s hard to decide what is worst in this disgraceful document. From the point of view of conversations here, the biggest problem is the fail to define their terms, especially “racism” itself.
Anyway, what I’ve been thinking is that Leftist rules wouldn’t be so bad if they were made formal and explicit. Just a few days ago, Henry Dampier made the same point about the unofficial requirement of Leftist orthodoxy in a number of professions.
In some ways, we should encourage the left begin to begin mandating Party membership for certain industries, in the same way that certain parties have done in many other times throughout history. This is a formalized way of cleansing dissenters from institutions — it’s transparent and orderly — rather than relying on soft and poorly-legible methods of terrorizing people.
Or a long time back, I made a comment at Sunshine Mary’s blog to the effect that conservatives in academia would be better off if there were more explicit speech codes, with a complete list of propositions that may not be held or may not be questioned. The university would be a freer place, because everyone could know exactly what cannot be said and so could feel completely safe exploring any topic that they didn’t think to put on the list.
The Catholic Church’s condemnation of racism is clearly driven by anti-white animus. Negro and Latino separatist or supremacist organizations are never criticized. I would prefer that this be made explicit. That is, if I had any influence in the Church, I would like a paragraph added:
None of the above should be taken to deny that nonwhites may exercise a legitimate affective preference for their own distinctive peoples and cultures. Such local loyalties and piety toward distinctive lineages when found among nonwhites should in no sense be construed as a denial of the dignity of all human beings. Furthermore, it is not wrong for nonwhite peoples to desire the continued existence of their peoples and to safeguard the integrity of their cultures through the maintenance of organizations and neighborhoods exclusive to themselves.
My main reason for wanting this is not to expose the hypocrisy behind the bishops’ hateful document. The Church’s antiracist witness is intended as a weapon against whites; and I would like to make sure it doesn’t end up claiming any other victims.
The world in 2079 will be much different from the world in 1979. Whites will be a fairly powerless minority at that time. There will still be enough whites to serve as a plausible scapegoat, but it should not be imagined that a common hatred of whites will be enough to ensure peace among the new rulers of the West. The Democratic-voting block has been called “the coalition of the fringes” to draw attention to its heterogeneity. (I prefer “coalition of the powerful” against the “coalition of the scapegoats”. The first because the upper levels of any profession seem to be liberal-controlled. The second because conservatives are always playing the ugly contest against each other to try to crawl out of the scapegoat class.) Presumably, white-dominance will be replaced by a formal racial caste system, as each group unambiguously establishes its rank in the hierarchy of victims. Some people expect the coalition to crack up over placement in the hierarchy, but I’m convinced this is a mistake. First of all, only the current state, in which the hierarchy is unclear and several groups have comparable status, is unstable. The natural progression is for nearly equal status groups to compete until one trounces the other (as, for example, transexuals have recently done to lesbians) and establishes a wide, stable separation of status. And during this process, there is no incentive to defect from the coalition of the fringes and join the scapegoats; that would just mean forfeiting one’s present status. The incentive is always to double down on the victimization narrative.
Anyway, there is a danger that general condemnations of “racism” may be used by a higher caste group to demand not only the submission but the destruction of a mid or lower caste group, applying to them a category that was intended only for whites. And the demand that any caste cease to be racist is inhuman.
Being a racist, my first concern is my own people, but I wish every other people well and would spare them calamity if it were in my power. There would be something fitting in a white conservative arguing for an amendment to the bishops’ letter like the one I propose. Of course, I would prefer that the right to particular loyalty be granted to everyone, but it would have no chance if the bishops thought it might apply to whites. Besides, if we included our own protection, it might seem that were were only arguing our own case. A non-white who wanted an amendment like mine might also come off as self-interested. It would be undeniably grand, though, for a white racist, seeing his own people mortally stricken, to exert himself to ensuring no other peoples fall victim to antiracism’s vicious ideology.
Filed under: Uncategorized |