Thursday, 27 February 2020

Why You Should Worry About ''Whiteness''' (And How To Beat It)





My New video with transcript


Modern Europe was forged by an ideology of white supremacy that – regardless of our politics – is the mood music of our culture. Historically, it informed the direction of science, assumptions in philosophy – and, crucially, what constitutes valuable or noteworthy art. The Church of England has begun to recognise that. And it’s not alone. A growing number of white voices are vocalising the problem of whiteness.





Those voices weren't exactly actually white but this is YouTube so. 


But note how expansive the scale is here, this isn't just about having more diversity on the tv or moaning about wages or whatever...she goes on..
>
This informs the stories that create our national sense of self, the ideas shaping our culture, and the debates over whose history becomes our common mythology. The conversation about whiteness may be under way, but earnest words shouldn’t become a convenient distraction from concrete action.


What is this concrete action? they leave that out and if you were to ask it'd be something mundane like representation in politics, but, again, their critique of ''whiteness'' goes back 500 years and encompasses all of modern western thinking, art, economics and politics.

Wiki
Princeton professor Nell Irvin Painter, in her 2010 book The History of White People,[27] says the idea of whiteness is not just a matter of biology but also includes "concepts of labor, gender, class, and images of personal beauty"


One article on classical music called ''It's time to let classical music die'' had this to say:


Western classical music is not about culture. It’s about whiteness. It’s a combination of European traditions which serve the specious belief that whiteness has a culture—one that is superior to all others. Its main purpose is to be a cultural anchor for the myth of white supremacy. In that regard, people of color can never truly be pioneers of Western classical music. The best we can be are exotic guests: entertainment for the white audiences and an example of how Western classical music is more elite than the cultures of people of color.


It's here that I'm going to pre-empt what I think a lot of viewers are thinking, why don't we simply part ways? And to this they'd say there's no getting away from whiteness because it's spent 500 years forcing itself upon the world, as was stated in the Guardian article above. 
 I'm being as objective as I can here by the way...for now. But what I have noticed while reading through their essays and talking points is that I've come across this sort of thinking before, though in an inverted form who's sympathies lay with Europeans...

Not from the left, but from the far right

>
Frankfurt School: wiki

In works such as Dialectic of Enlightenment and Negative Dialectics, Adorno and Horkheimer theorized that the phenomenon of mass culture has a political implication, namely that all the many forms of popular culture are parts of a single culture industry whose purpose is to ensure the continued obedience of the masses to market interests.
>
The Frankfurt School was of course tasked with finding out and investigating what had gone wrong with Marxist theory, why hadn't the masses in Western Europe overthrown their masters and declared the universal brotherhood. The issue, the key, was culture.

After being chased out of Germany and landing in America it became clear to Adorno that, at least in America, capitalism and culture had pretty much became the same thing. 

In postmodernity capitalism itself has receded and instead it, the culture and now especially the people who carried it all on their backs, are the oppressor class, and all of it can be lumped into one big blob called ''whiteness'' and whiteness is in effect, the modern world. 

 The difference between the Traditionalists and Neo Reactionary right is that they're looking at modernity from within, and have scant regard for the outside. The postmodern left are looking from outside in.

And this view from outside is how the framing works for something like ''whiteness studies'' you hear them talk about ''experiences'' and 'perspectives''. 

 Most of the people in the media, the Ash Sakars and Afua Hirshes, they didn't come up with any of this stuff. They've simplified it to a moronic level and they come over as grifters most people wish would just get lost. But what they also do is look back at the last 500 years of this system and scream oppression, racism and white supremacy. 

Everything is a legacy of whiteness, and so therefore it has to be deconstructed. But this raises a question or two, is free speech as a concept wrong? whatabout democracy? is free speech just whiteness? whatabout individual rights?

 You see, if they're going to go all in on deconstructing western civilization then they can justify doing pretty much everything they want because their moral framework is operating outside of what we consider to be ''western''

 Kehinde Andrews went to South Africa and blamed the failing infrastructure on ''whiteness'' which was part of his book ''The Psychosis of Whiteness''. This is obviously insane, but why not?, rationalism was a creation of Europeans, and so it too can be written off as whiteness and cast aside.

 Property rights are a product of whiteness, a fair trial is whiteness, the rule of law is whiteness, individual freedom is whiteness. Being against slavery is whiteness, according to the rules which these narratives perpetuate.

You see, the modern post-Enlightenment world is a world of rights and laws and freedoms, and if they're in the business of tearing that down, as a construct of whiteness, then they really don't have any reason to leave anything in tact.

 A family could be dragged from their home and slaughtered on the streets, the police might arrive but the very idea of a police force is a creation of whiteness as are laws against people being butchered by a mob.

This may seem hyperbolic, even hysterical, but if classic music is a form of whiteness that needs to be purged then the question is what can't be purged or abolished as belonging to that category?

 Lets get back to the idea of whiteness, colonialism and capitalism all operating in a symbiotic relationship. If the superstructure of the west is built on racism, oppression and ''othering'' people of colour, why then are these ideas allowed to perpetuate themselves across the west? why is there a demographic shift, why, when we put these things together as a whole, has the modern west allowed for its core population to be cast as a metaphysical evil which must be deconstructed, while at the same time actively facilitating the physical replacement of that population?

 Something isn't right, but leaving aside some of the more controversial aspects of this and sticking with the theme of capitalism, the fact is Global Finance feels constrained by the mores and values of the west in postmodernity. 

Like some Frankenstein abomination it's breaking through physical barriers, like the nation state, and breaking through philosophical constraints too, all in the name of finance and markets.

 Its core European population has become disposable, like the horse and cart being replaced by the steam engine, finance now looks at the endless potential of Africa and Asia in a borderless world. And so from this perspective Afua Hirsch and the rest, they aren't actually attacking the system, they're doing its bidding and the system helps them every way it can via platforming and funding.

 The Revolution is no longer about destroying capitalism, but to be it's servants on a more equal footing than Europeans. Everybody in the world can be a consumer, everybody in the world can work 12 hour night shifts stickering boxes, the dream can be made real if only we get rid of the pale and stale and male core identity of the system then we can all be its slaves forever. 

During the Cold War the Marxist strategy was to weaponize the third world against the first, armed with AK47's the revolution would begin in places like Vietnam and Cuba. Global Capital's response was a simple one, invite them all in and give them chicken nuggets and I-Phones. 

 Leftist energies would then be redirected into so-called Social Justice and demands that special groups get their fair share of capitalism's treasure. Not! into questioning the structure itself.  

The multi-national and the billionaires who run it aren't really a problem for the left, the problem is that the boardroom isn't diverse enough.

So...what's to be done?

I noted before that when it suits these narratives they step outside of what we might call ''the liberal paradigm'' but if you then ask them what they actually want, then their answer is very benign and it will be something like ''We want equal pay'' or ''we want to be on tv as much as you'' and so all the stuff about 500 years of whiteness erasing their identity and destroying the world takes a backseat and what we get is the mundane, in other words they're doing a motte and bailey.

 It's just about ''equality'' you see. But hang on a minute, isn't egalitarianism a product of whiteness? is that not a philosophical idea born out of the very culture and people you've designated as a metaphysical evil to be de-throned so you can fulfill your destiny as highly productive members of the consumer proletariat?

 And so like other groups before them, they step within the liberal frame when it suits, then step outside of it again to attack and deconstruct. The Europeans being attacked though, are trapped within the bubble of liberalism and modern western thought, and we've been bent over this rack for a long time.

 The critiques leveled at Europeans rely on the Europeans being more or less signed up to liberalism, and egalitarianism, otherwise, why should anybody give a damn about them, their supposed enrichment, their diversity or whether they're represented and fawned over enough. But as I'm not a liberal why should I care about their complaints at all? and what's more, it's pretty obvious they've rejected almost every other liberal value which makes their complaints even more facile.

Did Europeans colonize places? Yes
Do I feel bad about it? No
Oh, then you're a bad person: Under what morality or philosophy? the one you're deconstructing, the one you call oppressive?

 Why should I check my white privilege? social justice, equality, egalitarianism, humanism, civil rights, individualism, because it's rational? is that where this moral framework stems from, they're all products of the Enlightenment and the modern west and therefore a creation of white supremacy.

They deconstruct western liberal values while relying on liberal western values to ground their own ideology. This is the grand arc of liberalism collapsing in on itself under it's weight and baggage.


I touched earlier on reactionary thinkers such as Evola, how would a conversation between Julius Evola and Noel Ignatiev have played itself out? Ignatiev would have opened by rolling out his talking points about whiteness and oppression. Evola would probably, for various reasons, have viewed Ignatiev as being akin to some sort of snake creature, but more importantly, he'd have rejected the premise that any sort of equality was even desirable.

If a Hindu complains that I enjoy a steak I'm going to politely explain to him that I'm not a Hindu and don't have to abide by the rules of his religion. In the same way I'm not a leftist or a liberal so arguments about egalitarianism mean pretty much nothing to me.

 Does that seem harsh and uncaring? does it seem like the morality of Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones. 

 Tywin is the epitome of master morality, he's powerful, and he never apologizes. But more importantly he also understands that in order to survive in a harsh world you have to dominate it. Sticking with the fantasy theme the anti-thesis of Tywin might be Gollum, with his slyness and low cunning, he ingratiates himself and plays on your sympathies but really he's out to rob you and slit your throat in your sleep. 

 We see these Gollum creatures all over the media and politics these days, with their pick n mix selection of rhetorical tricks, cynically deployed egalitarianism because that's what is useful to them right now. Their utter and complete lack of empathy to outrages like Rotherham while they preach universalism, it's behaviour of the gutter rat. 

 It isn't just that I'm not sorry, it's that I find the very idea of it repulsive.

But more importantly we see the reemergence of an older dialectic between non other than the long forgotten and much maligned writings of reactionaries such as Evola. The decadence and lethargy brought about by hundreds of years of western liberalism has brought us to the precipice and the choice has to made and made soon, does the future belong to the Tywin Lannisters or the gutter rat sneak? 






No comments:

Post a Comment