No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a part of the continent." There are no autarkies, not even the Communist nightmare idiocy of North Korea. Nothing is alone anymore and without influence and without connection to other X. There is no racial purity, no such possibility, and no sane person thinks there should be. To think otherwise is by definition insane. To think we can "purify" nations of ethnic outsiders is silly and pointless to discuss. Those who take racialist conspiracy theorizing seriously are not our friends and not worth complaining about any more than would be the shouting, filthy guy on the street corner. But it does come up.
There is a concern regarding the native European anti-jihadist movement. Is it composed of neo-Nazis? Is it filled chock-a-block with racists? I find this discussion to be bizarre. Neo-Nazis? That's so far removed from normal living that only the most uninformed or deluded could consider it. But "racists"? Ah, that we can go on about at some length.
":Racism." Boaz, Benedict, Mead, et al have made our conversation nearly taboo. Why, and who really knows these people in the first place? Why bring up names like that? Because without knowing them, who they were, what they thought and wrote, how they came up with our modern understanding of racism and cultural relativism we will forever find ourselves speaking without knowing, taking without understanding. White Guilt didn't begin with the aftermath of the Nazis. It began with the anthropologists of the post war era, post 1918. It began among a small and dedicated group of intellectuals who decided to correct the wrongs of colonialism and social Darwinism by promoting philobarbarism and cultural relativism. "Racism" as we know it, didn't begin with de Gobineau, as it should have; it began with the anthropologists who came out of the anti-slavery movement, women who worked with religious reformers to ensure an end of slavery in America. It came from those same women finding that after the end of slavery, women had fewer rights than Negroes. It came from intelligent, educated, and organized women barred from the traditional professions who found themselves in positions of authority and influence only in the field of baby-sitting on a grand scale, i.e. as social workers. Benedict and Mead were such women, from such milieu. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has," as Margaret Mead wrote. It is sinister, it is in that sense "left." This small gang of Gnostic minders changed the course of our intellectual history far more radically than did the architects of the Holocaust. They are the ones who hijacked the idea of "racism" and turned it into what is used today as a catch-all pejorative to quell dissent, to deny freedom to the masses, to entrench themselves ever further in the ground of povertarianism. There is no "racism" in the sense our screaming Left uses the term. "Ethnic cleansing" so-called in Jugoslavia was no such thing. There are no ethnic "Bosnians." There are no specific Serbs different from Croats. Rubbish. There is no racism involved. No ethnic profiling. Rubbish! Rubbish! They are only different in religions and sects therein. It's the anthropologist echo we find claiming "racism." This canard of racism doesn't fly. It's a manufactured tool of social engineering created by a small group of intellectuals in the 1920s. Racism? This is not de Gobineau. This is aggressive American Gnostic sentimentality browbeating the working class for quiescence and the financial elite for money. When we speak today of "racism" we do not speak of the same thing as the anti-Semitism of the Germans and Europeans generally. "Racism" in the West is meant as anthropology and philobarbarism. The crazies don't think of anti-Semitism as racism because it isn't: it's anti-Semitism. Racism? That's a different story altogether.
Slavery predates Social Darwinism by the entire length of Human history. But when we talk about "racism" today we mean, whether we understand it or not, the theories of the social Darwinists. Ganging up on and enslaving others who are weaker is no news anywhere. The idea that it is OK and right to do so due to "the survival of the fittest" is what we react to today and call racism. That ship hit the sand long ago. It no longer floats. Pretending that anti-Semitism and the "racism" of social Darwinism is the same thing the anthropologist reacted to is to conflate the obviously different for no legitimate reason. Viciousness is ordinary. The only remarkable thing about the Nazis was the efficiency of their genocidal acts. The so-called racism of the colonialist Europeans is not of scale or kind the same. The casual contempt one finds in colonialist memoirs is a natural xenophobia of any sane person who wishes to survive. Anyone who wasn't xenophobic until one hundred years ago in major cities in western Europe must have been insane. Outsiders meant threat, disease, murder, invasion, or the tax-collector. Xenophobia, even today, is smart. So is our moderation in our Modernity, our blessing that we do not have to run to and kill a stranger on sight before he comes to do us harm. But xenophobia is still an integral part of the Human experience, even for those who spend their lives traveling the world solo. One must depend on ones own-- even in the Modern cosmopolitan megalopolis. Even in a hotel in Africa. Even in a parking lot at the supermarket in Kansas. To sentimentalize the "Other" is nothing more than a meal ticket, or more accurately, a meal thesis. Confusing what is natural and right in Human behavior, xenophobia, with the maniac genocide of the Germans against the Jews is not convincing. The Nazis didn't act from xenophobia, nor did they act from a feeling of missionary Modernist evangelism. Boaz and Mead, et al, reacted to the latter, not to the former, when they began their campaigns against "racism." Bringing the light of Modernity to the ignorant masses is not the same as exterminating everyone. It ain't the same. Contempt for other cultures and the people of those cultures is not Nazi-ism. Only an idiot would think so, and only a foolish idiot would say so. Slavery is normal; extermination of ones enemies is normal; fearing those whom one does not know is normal; but in our blessed Modernity those things, those acts, those attitudes are not normal, not permissible, are outright bad. But they are not the same as being a Nazi. Being a xenophobic Swede or Swiss or Dane or Darfuran is not the same as being a neo-Nazi. Slavery of the weak and primitive is the nature of things in a primitive and more visceral world than ours today. Doing good for the benefit of those less fortunate than ourselves, those who are primitive and uncivilized, that's the mind of the Gnostic Left at work, the mind of the Gnostic Right at work, the mind of the minder at work. Those things, if unlikable to us in our Modern time, are still understandable and within the scope of our experience. These are things we can control as mature and civilized affluent beings in a state of economic and social benefit. We can afford to be generous with others, and if we aren't, so much the worse for us. If we don't "do enough" to satisfy the missionaries among us, that is not racism, not evil, not worth discussing. That doesn't make us Nazis. Rampaging across the world murdering Jews is not the nature of things, it is a madness of primitives gone amok. A medical definition of the term might clarify: Amok: A syndrome first reported in the Malay people, usually male, consisting of a period of brooding followed by a sudden outburst of indiscriminate murderous frenzy, sometimes provoked by an insult, jealousy or sense of desperation. The person who runs amok may also die in a form of murder-suicide. Confusing or conflating Nazi genocidal madness with ordinary Human behavior, however repugnant to our Modern sensitivities, is not productive. Bashing others for assumed or supposed "racism" without defining or understanding the term is a failure on our part.
Most groups are uniform, and there's no good point in denying such an obvious reality. Skateboard kids do not hang out with investment bankers. Muslims do not hang out with Baptists. Koreans do not hang out with Japanese. Why? Because they are not the same kind of people. And if millions of skateboard kids invaded our city... wait a minute. If millions of Muslims invaded a small and mono-ethnic nation of centuries of in-breeding, what would be the mistake in thinking the natives won't like it if the invaders are ill behaved? Invaders? Yes, of course. To go into in a harmful and intrusive way. Mom in your bedroom is an intruder. She has invaded your space. Go figure.
To sentimentalize is always dishonest. To force ourselves to pretend we are enthused about strangers is a hopeless exercise in deception. Unless one hopes to have sex with a stranger that stranger is a threat until proven otherwise. And even with the promise of sex it's not always a good hope that two strangers will get along for more than a day. To change quickly and fundamentally is harmful and suspect. To allow millions of strangers into ones homeland is outrageous. To o pretend we like it when strangers some to our places and do odd things is to lie to ourselves and to offend the decency of others who do not so lie. To adulate is to cultivate contempt for oneself in place of the feeling of self-righteousness one expects. To fawn over strangers is to make them hate you. The phoniness is degrading and despicable. If the stranger is not acculturated to city living amongst a variety of strangers as we in our Modernity are, he is likely to want to cut the throats of such pointlessly groveling sycophants. To pretend to like "multi-culturalism" is to lie in the face of others and to oneself. To dislike the different is normal. To wish to improve those one finds less than oneself is normal. To dissociate oneself from strangers who don't get ones jokes is normal. It's not "racism." It's not Nazi-ism. To kill people over inconsequential differences of origins is to be mad. Those who don't get my jokes? Don't get me started.
European "racists"? Who can blame them? And who among us really doesn't get the 'Palestinians' and the rest who hate the Jews in the Middle East? Yes, the Israelis are unobtrusive and confined to an ever shrinking area. Yes, one might understand a few years of antagonism as one group moves in and rubs against the older. Italians and Irish faced it in Manhattan, and they eventually became Americans like any other Americans. But it's only New World nations that can have such multi-ethnic groups becoming one. Jews will never become Arabs, and no one should expect it to be so. Nor should one expect Arabs to obsess for generations like rabid dogs over a group of outsiders living in Jerusalem. No one should expect 300 million Arabs to go berserk over a few Jews, insane to the point of killing their own children over self-created Nazi-esque disproportion. Would a group of investment bankers be expected to murder a skateboard kid in a meeting on the street in a suburb? Even if the damn kid lived there it's not likely. But why should they like him? If the suburb is overrun, then one group must prevail and set its perimeter and defend it against intrusion. That's living la vida loca, folks, and it's real in spite of the sentimental trash one is expected to parrot in pubic, smiling as one does so.
We can't escape strangers in our world. We have to accommodate them. They too have to accommodate us. We don't have to like every one. We do have to get along. And when we can't we have to separate civilly. How do we decide who to separate and who from? What criterion is decisive? "Race"? Language? In-house customs? Religion? "I was here first"?
This particular sentimental episode in history is over. People won't continue buying it. The rule of society by nineteenth century spinster nannies is just about over. Hurling epithets like "racist" is going to earn one a sharp sharp slap. Racist? Get over it. Nazi? That's from outer space. However, reason and sense might not prevail after all. There might be a surge of Reaction among delusional Leftists that could rival the French aristocrats of the Napoleonic era and beyond. In fact, those are the very enemies we've always faced, though they don't recognize themselves as such. The question is "What is to be done?" Are we going to kill a whole lot of people like the Jugoslavs did? If we do we won't find ourselves at rest in our own homelands; we'll find ourselves at war with the primitives of the world, a bifurcated world of those who are Modern and those who are primitive. And that is insoluble. It's not about race. It's about how do we survive our differences without killing the other side in toto. What is to be done?