“Because It’s 2018”: Annotations on the Cultural Marxist Present: Vol. I
In the March 6th edition of USA Today, Maeve McDermott wrote that Oscar wins for Gary Oldman and Kobe Bryant were “a slap” and “revealed how much Hollywood really cares about purging the industry’s toxic men.” This is noteworthy for two reasons: 1) Oldman and Bryant were accused of rape in 2001 and 2003, respectively, but were never proven guilty, and 2) look at the language used: “purging the industry’s toxic men.” This phrase reveals the degree to which Cult-Marx dogma has saturated our discourse, because we all know from ceaseless feminist propaganda what pigs men are, and how every self-respecting communist organization needs a good old-fashioned purge every once in a while. There is a deeply-rooted colonization of the Western psyche at work here, one which traffics in pathology and the triumph of the subjective over the objective, of the cultivation and maintenance of particular blind spots and double standards.
We live in a very saccharine, sentimental age, a very therapeutic age where the idea of the noxiousness of “repression,” which is directly traceable to Bolshevik psychoanalysis, demands that we must express that which is inside externally in order to be “true to ourselves”; this idea is not without some merit, but taken to its extreme, as is presently the case, everyone is now living in public and it seems as if society itself has become one extended therapy session, a purging of emotion in the public space, an intrusion of guilt projection and impulse and dubious notions of morality into the realm of the objective, which ultimately frames everything as a referendum on one’s capacity as a fellow human being to feel the depth of another’s suffering. For example, immigration is nothing more than policy, but it has been affixed with a moral filter whereby opposing immigration (from non-white countries) is akin to denying someone’s basic human rights. Never mind that immigration should be in service of the needs of the host country, and said country is under no obligation to accept a single person it does not want to. The consequence of this unchecked permissiveness is nothing less than the surrender of national sovereignty and the dissolution of the nation-state.
This permissiveness and full-fledged commitment to “tolerance” makes it impossible to view a (Western) nation as existing for any other purpose than to serve as a charity for the global downtrodden. It also makes one immune from logic and highly susceptible to guilt, unable to view the world through any other prism than what I call the Mighty Ducks 2 filter: the evil, Aryan Team Iceland versus the vibrant, multi-cultural and mixed-gender Team USA. It makes it possible to ignore the land confiscations in South Africa, which is, according to media darling Julius Malema, “cutting the throat of whiteness,” or at the very least excuse these expropriations as justified for a legacy of colonialism and conquest. If you buy the cosmic retribution line, at what year do you place a conquest “cut-off,” as we know the Bantu/Zulu/Xhosa inhabitants of South Africa and Bantu/Shona of Rhodesia, among others, originally came from present-day Nigeria and expanded southward. So their conquest and colonization is deemed “legitimate” and Anglo- and Boer colonization is not. Why, because it’s more recent? Or because the modern Left is unable to differentiate between different black ethnicities? Or because the post-modern dialectic can only view the world as oppressor-oppressed black-and-white despite a supposedly avowed resistance to binary structures?
I have a series of questions for the “We stole this country from the Native Americans” crowd in this light: Do you advocate for open borders for the entirety of the Western Hemisphere due to the legacy of European colonialism, or just the northern two countries? What is your stance on the imperialistic Aztecs, who would tear the beating hearts out of their ritual sacrifices’ chests and whose enemies, the oppressed peoples of Central America, came to the aid of the Spanish conquistadors? What about the Lakota (Sioux), who were driven onto the Great Plains from the north by the Chippewa? Shifting contexts, since China conquered and annexed Tibet does it then follow that Tibet should have open borders as a consequence, as the Chinese are not the original inhabitants and thus it is not “theirs”? What does it mean to be Chinese in that particular multi-ethnic society? What about Egypt, where less than one percent of the population (the Coptics) is genetically similar to the group that built the pyramids? What about Greenland, where the current population is comprised entirely of immigrants from present-day Canada, who arrived after the Vikings—the original settlers—abandoned it?
One of the major issues we run into is that European short-comings, crimes, and atrocities are so well-documented because they are just that—documented. The “pre-colonial” populations of the Americas, Africa, and Oceania did not have written languages before Europeans arrived, and thus, we know very little about them. Many of the tribes and groups the Europeans encountered in the Age of Exploration had not yet invented the wheel and were generally subsistence-level Stone Age populations. This does not justify some of what went on, but the disparity in technology and sophistication helps us frame why it was the Europeans, as opposed to the Tasmanians or the Xhosa, who fanned over the globe, mapping and settling it. There’s far more complexity to this issue than is presently discussed, and it does not follow that some convoluted idea of “privilege” should see whites in particular divested of the countries their forebears built. Privilege doesn’t make the trains run on time, privilege doesn’t prevent social unraveling and collect the trash every Tuesday at 2 PM, and privilege doesn’t send you to the moon.
By unmooring “interpretation” from logical constraints, post-modernism in the academy has had the effect of producing decades of students unable to think critically and without a moral filter, with the added by-product of the conflation of the self with external validation of their identity. What exactly comprises this identity has been hijacked by both the matrix of intersectionality and what Theodore Dalrymple calls “the toxic cult of sentimentality.” The refutation of someone’s opinion or the refusal to use their “preferred pronoun” is thusly treated as an invalidation of their very self. Sorry, but our identities are not solely the province of our own creation; you must negotiate your existence with that which is external, and therein lies yet another base contradiction of the Cult-Marx paradigm: when the self is wholly externalized, but subsists exclusively on what is internal, this is in itself a negation. There is, like their utopian delusions, nothing there. As a result of this cognitive dissonance, egalitarianism-cum-therapy culture wants to infringe on our legitimate human rights of freedom of association, freedom to defend ourselves, and freedom of speech in order to advance the ill-defined and ever-shifting notion of “social justice.”
Our life, liberty, and property are fair game for appropriation; case in point: taxes in Sweden are rising to pay for the “migrants’” benefits, as is the age of retirement, blasphemy laws are being imposed, and sexual assaults and criminality are increasing exponentially. One in eight Swedish women has been raped, and there have already been 140,000 recorded cases of female genital mutilation in the country. Certainly we can only expect this to improve as the High Migration projection from Pew Research has the country at 30% Islamic by 2050. Yet this is viewed by the managerial class and their co-sophisticates as an inherent good, because it is in the service of DIVERSITY. What was so wrong with a high-trust, low-crime society populated by bombshell blondes and statuesque ex-Vikings surrounded by an enviable cache of natural beauty that it had to be demolished? And why was it decided that the replacement population would be, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, “a pre-modern population coming into a post-modern society”?
There is actually no upside to the globalist project; if it works, then we will have re-created what we had before mass Third World immigration just with lots of different races and religions. If it doesn’t, the civilized world dies and a new Dark Age descends. If things completely fall apart, who would even take us? Where are native Europeans and the Eurowestern Diaspora supposed to go? As we’ve witnessed with the universal cold shoulder given white South Africans, with not a single nation deigning to grant them refugee status while the West hands out asylum like promotional fliers on the Vegas strip to every Khalid, Mahmoud, and Mohammed, it must become do or die. Immigrants have their home countries that they theoretically could always return to, but they are coming into our home countries. There is nowhere else for us to go. Action must be taken now, for even the strongest man will eventually meet a weight he cannot lift.