Yesterday I had an online conversation with a friend in the United States. We talked about the need for new vocabulary in which we don’t have to rely on identity politics and ‘eternal truths’.
“I have pointed out in Europe that the comfort of being ‘right’ (not just being ón ‘the right’) is something conservatives, or lets say ‘critics of the left’ (because they don’t actually CLAIM to be conservatives, let alone Christians or morally motivated) have continued to broadcast over the last maybe twenty years.
In a way they have made a parody of what conservatism is, and have retired into their cigar smoking salons or fancy book clubs where – as you said – they ponder (really) great ideas, but without the burden of practice – or renewal of those ideas.
They have no talent or even interest to size up their enemies and apparently no interest in winning the culture-war (“what culture wars?! Don’t be ridiculous!”). They take pride in the fact that they have “moved beyond” the everlasting phase of fact-free and uncivilized warfare: “those social justice activists are just silly, stupid youngsters, they will get bored with it”. They don’t stand up to censorship (“free markets!”) or the demise of Christian culture (“morals can do without religion”). This is a big mistake and it plays right into the hands of those who dó understand partisanship and are willing to lie, cheat, overpower, vandalise and even kill to prevail. I am not saying we should act in the same manner, but these forces are now active in our democracies and operating in plain sight.
I am sick and tired of the right trying to set an ‘example’ by being gentlemen and overtly ‘non-hysterical’ – only to further whitewash and facilitate the left’s identity politics and religious-like progressivism that further and further categorises people into either ‘pure or stained’. I strongly believe the left fully depends on the idea, consent and trust that their instruments of ‘anti-racism’, ‘anti-hate’, ‘anti-nationalism’ and ‘diversity’ policies are in fact good intended and therefor righteous in principle. Which they are obviously not. But apparently we secretly envy their scrupulous cynicism and nihilism! It’s so much easier.
It’s the good hearted, good spirited people (also found on the left) who are in fact the intolerant left masquerading for itself. The left relies on the outside believing in the fairness of their politics— because they themselves don’t. They will toss out any official victim-group that stands in their way of gaining power and attack ex-muslims, anti-feminists and anti-globalists in a heartbeat. What they wánt is conformism, and methods to uphold that. In short they need consent from their enemies to cleanse their wrongdoings.
If everyone is bad, that means they won’t be held accountable.
Let me give an example. In Germany this has become very clear: the extreme left (‘the Greens’) is trying to get into power, aided by a worshipping mainstream media and Angela Merkel who has nowhere to turn, other than where her totalitarian path has already taken her: outside of the centre, outside of the people’s democracy and into the arms of those who will protect her legacy (or so she might think).
The centre-left social-democrats (SPD) in Germany are digging their own graves at this point. Scared to fuel the far-right (the ultimate sin), they have distanced themselves totally from the ‘deplorables’: the East-Germans and the working class in general and taken refuge in climate politics and Woke Capitalism. A Swiss newspaper has called it the ‘Renaissance of the Totalitarians‘. It really is just straight forward communism at this point. For example, young leftist politicians from the Greens and the Social Democrats have outspoken ideas about ‘taking out the right’, nationalising the housing market and big industries. For Germany this would be disastrous, combined with an already failing ‘Energie-Wende’ (the Green-deal).
We can talk more about the specifics on Germany, but it is different to the rest of Europa. The ‘stain of man’ as you said in your article is an explanation for these events, and perhaps being accelerated by Germany’s specific history and fondness of their guilt. What lies behind their guilt absolutely terrifies them. Moving forward, forgiveness and redemption etc. would mean a return to contemporary consciousness, to judging one-self, instead of hanging onto a kind of inherited stain. No way could they give up the comfort of that last lifeline!
When you, my friend, describe how the transgressor is being chosen from the perspective of stain, there might also be the component of willingness or even desire to be sacrificed, in this case the ‘white, heterosexual male’. You see, I feel they don’t sense it is really them. Like in The Netherlands, sacrificing stained history (statues, narratives, traditions, and believe systems) is all fine, there is no significant pushback. Because being defenseless means this is not really ‘us’ under attack – it is just the bad conscious of our bronze forefathers. This keeps the psychiatrist away from our current sins and opens te door to those who exploit that luxury. Again, the left foresees this cowardice.
Your scapegoat analogy is sufficient in explaining why Europeans want to sacrifice who they are, but like I said it needs te be done on a un-personal level (through skin colour) because deep down they do feel superior as individuals and as a culture (and rightfully so). The false self that modern, narcissistic man has created in order to do so, is the self that puts others before him (through victim culture), but only to somewhat secretly supersede institutionalised victims on a higher level: in the eyes of God. ‘Look how we are helping black people, we are god-like!’ This is also why the ruling classes and the sheep-like masses embrace trans-humanism. It ‘steralizes’ their sacrifice. They don’t actually have to sacrifice themselves or their bodies to the earth. Let alone their souls. Or so they believe.
Escaping the rhetorical obsolescence and toxic relationship to the left means letting go of the comfort of romantic ideals (see German philosophers). Challenging transgenderism for example is not about protecting the family (during conversations at our cocktail parties) as the Only Standard, but man himself. The political right needs to up their game and get to the heart of what is being threatened, not just their worldview, but the world of man itself.”
Ik ben jurist/journalist en schrijf vrijpostig en grondig over de grote thema’s van deze tijd. Met belangstelling of plezier gelezen? Doe een donatie voor het vrije woord. Dank!