Anti-racism By Jim Kalb
Posted: 17 November 2008 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2182
Joined  2008-02-18

Anti-racism By Jim Kalb

A good article.

Anti-racism By Jim Kalb

“Racism is the worst of sins, the gravest of public dangers, the most repellent of spiritual disorders. Any taint of racism soils and discredits in all respects.”

Some such view is fundamental to public life today. The emphatic opposition to racism that is now obligatory gives the “race card” extraordinary potency.[1] If you are not part of the solution then simply by living your life from day to day you are participating in “institutional racism.”

The nature of anti-racism is rarely discussed analytically, so it appears to be less a matter of doctrine than feeling and general orientation. Nonetheless, as a view that dominates public policy it has definite content. As such, it holds that there is a definite thing called “racism,” backed by power and constituted by contempt and hatred for those who differ, but for which race relations would be harmonious if indeed differences were noted at all.


Anti-racism is not at all middle-of-the-road, although resistance to it is thought extremist. Its principle is not live-and-let-live but eradication of the universal practice of ordering life by reference to feelings of extended kinship. On the colorblind reading of civil rights law that is the most conservative view now tolerated, it is illegal to treat ethnicity as relevant to social relations that matter. More advanced readings of the law, that recognize the continuing power of ethnic ties, call for government to equalize advantages by suppressing ethnicity in the case of whites and enhancing it for others. It is simply assumed that government can carry out such a program fairly and effectively and that men will accept it indefinitely.

...anti-racism is aimed at whites. In their case, racism includes not only hatred and abuse, but any distrust of others, any special concern or preference for whites, any recognition of whites as a people. Anti-racism also imposes on whites an obligation to sacrifice their interests to those of nonwhites. If a white does something at odds with black interests or desires, for example if he fails sufficiently to favor “affirmative action,” he is racist or at best insensitive.[10] In contrast, public statements by blacks can be revoltingly bigoted without consequence.

Permitting to some what is forbidden others seems to relativize racism and thus deny that it is ultimate pathological evil. It also suggests that anti-racism draws support from anti-white bigotry. The suggestion is correct.

...

Attempts to abolish deeply rooted human tendencies are necessarily tyrannical; “rule by the people” is absurd when a government that loses confidence in the people can dissolve it and form a new one. Such attempts inevitably fail, and succeed only in destroying traditional restraints. Attempts in Russia to abolish the profit motive ended, after unparalleled brutality and massacre, in lawless greed and mafia rule. It is not clear why attempts to abolish ethnicity should be more successful.

...

Life worth living depends on culture, and culture on ethnicity. Without the common habits and understandings that constitute culture society would be a battleground of brutish asocial individuals. The seedbed for culture is the complex of prerational connections a people develops through long common history—in other words, ethnicity. While ethnicity and race are not the same, they cannot be altogether separated because both are consequences of a people’s long life in common. Since all actual cultures are tied to ethnicity, and therefore at least somewhat to race, to give culture free play is to permit race to have significance.

...

Anti-racism is thus at odds with basic principles of human life. In practice, eradication of racial differentials requires destroying all cultures and thus all possibility of a tolerable way of life. Anti-racism is therefore blatantly unrealistic. Its lack of realism explains a great deal: as in other cases, refusal to face obvious features of human life leads to hysterical irrationality and the tendency to see profound evil everywhere, especially in the faces of one’s opponents.

...

A good society cannot be an intentional construction. However, bad societies can ruin themselves, especially as their principles approach logical perfection, and it is possible to cooperate with the growth of something better. The failure of liberalism will reverse current trends in its favor. As the public culture becomes too empty to support trust and cooperation, bureaucracy will become useless, world markets unreliable, and ties of kinship and religion once more at a premium. As the denial of all sources of knowledge other than sensation and formal logic makes reason and even language impossible, men will turn to the transcendent, in their own lives and as a basis for cooperation with others. In the end they will find ways to live a tolerable life, even under the circumstances modern technology has created, and, since man is an embodied, social and historical animal, the pattern will necessarily include traditional local community and therefore ethnicity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2008 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  667
Joined  2007-01-26

Jim’s one of the good guys. It will be interesting to see how far he can take this. Others, with equally impeccable credentials, have been driven out of public life. Jim’s had a couple of books published by ISI (my favorite press of late), and is now entering on a career (if not avocation) as a public intellectual. How far views such as these will be tolerated will be interesting to see. I hope for all our sakes that academe ingests him and processes the important things he writes, without mauling him and spitting him out, as it did with Sam Francis and so many others. Jim has recognized Kinism on his site, and has shown sympathy with our views.

Until we recognize that many of our intellectual forebears were Catholic reactionaries, we will owe a debt without acknowledging it. I think some of the strident anti-Catholic demagoguery that has come from certain Kinist quarters is regrettable, if not completely without merit, since it has either driven from us (or at least made uncomfortable) several men who might have lent intellectual credibility to Kinism in more mainstream circles. If we eschew ideology, and cling to living principles, we may be able to regain the trust and interest of such as Mr. Kalb.

One thing I have settled on is the necessity of abandoning any shred of romanticism in my approach. Kinism is not atavistic. It is conservative and traditionalist in the truest sense: that of the preservation of the “permanent things” and their continual renewal through the activity of the rightly reasoning spirit of Western men, under the counsel of scripture. Any atavism must be seen as the futile attempt to recapture a pre-industrial halcyon era, an idyll, and as such, disconnected with reality as the eschaton of communism is in a different way, that is, a utopian delusion. Kinism argues, rather, that by upholding and cherishing the spirit that animated those former ages, the White West can ASCEND from capitalism and the managerial plutocracy of the therapeutic state, and toward a state of existence where the proper ends of man as defined in scripture are enshrined in the law, and where the force of technology is made to serve human, rather than infra-human ends. If this occurs, there will have been a great divestiture of the power of mass society, a recrudescence of the life of limited scale and scope, of the local and personal, and a restoration of the conception of extended kinship to its rightful place of honor.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
{google_analytics_script}