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 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 uncivilised 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!”) and 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. Not saying we should, but these forces are now active in our democracies and operating in plain sight.
I am tired of the right trying to set an ‘example’ by being gentlemen and overly non-hysterical – only to further whitewash the left’s identity politics and their religious progressivism that further and further categorises people into ‘pure and stained’. I believe the left fully depends on our acceptance, consent and trust that their instruments of ‘anti-racism’, ‘anti-hate’, ‘anti-nationalism’ and ‘diversity’ policies are good intended and therefor righteous in principle. Very clever.
It’s the good hearted, good spirited people (also on the left) who are in fact the 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 victim-group that stands in their way of gaining power and attack ex-muslims, anti-feminist women and anti-globalists in a heartbeat. What they wánt is conformism, and methods to uphold that and consent from their enemies to cleanse their wrongdoings.
If everyone is bad, that means they won’t be held accountable.
In Germany this has become very clear: the extreme left is trying to get into power, aided by a worshipping mainstream media and Angela Merkel who has no other place to go, other than were 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 (she thinks).
The centre-left social-democrats (SDP) 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! When you describe how the transgressor is being chosen from the perspective of stain, there might also be the component of willingness 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 also fine. Because this way is not really ‘us’ – it is just the bad conscious of our forefathers. This keeps the doctor away from our current sins and opens te door to those who exploit that luxury.
Your scapegoat analogy is sufficient in explaining why Europeans want to sacrifice who they, but like I said on a un-personal level (through skin colour) because deep down they do feel superior as individuals and as a culture. 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 supersede institutionalised victims on a higher level: in the eyes of God. This is why they embrace trans-humanism because it ‘steralizes’ their sacrifice. They don’t actually have to sacrifice themselves to the earth.
So escaping the rhetorical obsolescence means letting go of the comfort of romantic ideals (see German philosophers) and the fake contradictions to identity politics (family values, church, nationalism, etc.). Challenging transgenderism for example is not about protecting the family, but man himself. The 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.”
*Please consider donating in the box below*