Pacifism or Passivism?

Pacifism or Passivism?

War is over if you want it?

I saw this John Lennon video posted on Facebook the other day and was flabbergasted to think that people are still proposing that ‘War is over if you want it’, and are prepared to use this meme to dismiss those who question it.

https://www.facebook.com/johnlennon/videos/1107163325969046/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbKsgaXQy2k

The YouTube video is almost identical.

There are two sides to this question, at least as I perceive it.

Firstly, how does this work?  What I mean by this is how does wanting war to be over make it happen?

And secondly, assuming that what John Lennon was proposing was some kind of pacifism, what are the likely outcomes of such a behaviour.

But we must address that first question first.

How does it work?  For myself, I can say that I would like ‘War to be over’, in fact I very much want it.  A million people wanted it to not even start twelve years ago and thronged the streets of London in an effort to prevent it, but it still went ahead because a small number of people at the top wanted it.

I’m willing to wager that there are a good many people in the Middle East who would also like war to be over, I’m sure that they want this much more fervently than I, since I am not embroiled in a war situation and it is only a notional idea for me, whereas for those others it is a pressing daily reality.

This reminds me of a popular version of the ‘Law of Attraction’ which claims that you attract things by thinking about them.  Well, that is the first stage of the process of manifestation, but if that is all we do, then I would guess that we are likely to remain in that situation where the big wigs remain and carry on their wars.

My own understanding of how to achieve success in the manifestation of one’s desires is that having thought about them, and decided what you want, then you have to do whatever might be required to bring about the process of material realisation.

I don’t really think this is controversial, it is just the way the material world works.

But what dear old Johnny Lennon and Yoko Ono seem to be suggesting is that one should simply not engage in these wars when they are started.

Frankly, I’m staggered that highly educated people should still be engaging in such ideas which seem to me to be so unsupported.

I recall hearing this whole business as a teenager in the early seventies and even then it was obvious to me that one person, or many, choosing not to engage in fighting might be all very well, but that if there are those who don’t wish to participate in that paradigm, and rather prefer to carry on the old ways of aggression, then you can be as non-violent as you want, but those aggressors will still carry out that aggression.  As Eowyn said in The Lord of the Rings ‘Those who do not wield a sword may still die on one.’

Um… isn’t this obvious?

During the Second World War pacifists were allowed to register as ‘Conscientious Objectors’, known colloquially as ‘conchies’, but were required to serve as non-combatants in the likes of hospital corps and so forth.  Clearly it is a wise decision to not have pacifists on the front line who might lay down their arms and refuse to fight, as this would endanger their fellows.

But for an entire nation to refuse to fight would be another thing.  The advancing enemy would walk in across the borders and take control without a shot being fired.

The extraordinary thing about those who still propose the pacifist response is that they will say things like ‘it’s never been tried’ or ‘you are stuck in outdated thinking’.  However, I would beg to differ on this.  History is littered with examples of civilian populations who didn’t resist and were consequently eliminated.

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and countless others have swept through the open borders of peasant territories unprotected by lords or empires strong enough to repel the invaders, and the peasants were put to the sword, their womenfolk raped and taken into sexual slavery.

Thousands of Christians who did not resist were murdered by Romans or put to the lions in the Colosseum.  It was some two hundred and fifty years after Nero first did this to them when Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire.  That’s a lot of dead Christians along the way in between.

Now, if, like those Christians, you believe that by not resisting you are ensuring your position in Heaven, or Paradise, then that is all very well for you, but some might say that this is a selfish position to take as it involves abandoning your kin, your tribe and culture for your own personal salvation.  A similar attitude is present in some varieties of Buddhism who seek personal ‘enlightenment’, the Buddhist equivalent of Christian ‘salvation’, while others seek the ‘enlightenment’ of the whole Universe and all sentient being within it.

The fundamental point to be made here is that I cannot control the actions of another.  I may want certain things, and I may believe that performing or not performing certain actions will bring these things about, but ignoring the possible interference of ‘The Other’ on the outcomes you seek is to fail to see the whole picture.

This appeared obvious to me as a teenager and I couldn’t understand why no-one called Lennon out on this.  You lay down your arms and refuse to fight when the enemy attacks you, and you will be trampled in the dust.  I’m all for non-cooperation insofar as this might be possible, especially in cases where one’s own side is engaging in unprovoked aggression, sure, that is fine, but conflict is often complicated, and to refuse to respond when the aggression is directed against oneself is simply not survival adaptive.

So far as I can make out, the only way this could work is if everyone, all at the same time, decided not to fight.  The game theory model would indicate that a failure of all to participate in collective pacifism will lead to those who don’t gaining the upper hand, due to the asymmetry of the situation.  These are very simple, and practical considerations.

[A late addition.  The poster of this video, Palden Jenkins, who as a young man knew Lennon in Liverpool has detailed in a reply what I would summarise as ‘confidence building measures’ as the way to world peace.  I have no objection to most of these measures, they are generally a good thing

> You'd invest as much in diplomacy and broad-spectrum citizen diplomacy as you invest in military issues, and you would manage international relations in ways that do not lead to conflict. You would work on the tone and purpose of the media and education to reduce and eliminate negative projection on others and nationalist and divisive incitement. You would highlight the fact that war is no longer economic, except to minority vested interests, who are themselves no longer economic to the majority. There's a whole range of measures that can be taken.<

Apart from the neuro-linguistic association of ‘nationalism’ with ‘incitement’ I have no problem with this, but it is too simplistic.  Do we really think that those who control the media and the military industrial complex etc etc etc would engage in this wholeheartedly and unreservedly?  Would there never be anyone who might try to cheat, or even just create wiggle room to give their own group some advantage? 

I recall the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the only Israeli politician that has ever appeared, to me at least, to have seriously engaged with the possibility of a genuine and balanced peace and pursued such confidence building measures with the Palestinians.  No sympathetic backlash against the anti-peace constituency ensued, sweeping the peace measures through in the way that the IRA bomb which assassinated Airey Neave helped to cement Margaret Thatcher’s election; rather it seemed to be the starting signal for a new push for colonisation of Palestinian lands and pressure on that people.  We may see that that was the day the Oslo accords truly ended. 

A tossed pebble may precipitate an avalanche.  Being nice to people is often not enough.  If you don’t show that you have teeth, then your opponent will press forward.  This is nature.

It isn’t the likes of me, who only seeks to critique the effectiveness of this model, who are against peace, it is those who covertly seek to undermine co-operation who do that, those who seek to cause conflict and destroy our societies with crazy speculative schemes like pacifism, open borders and unrestricted migration into lands where they have no ancestry or heritage.)

And yet the advocates of Lennon style pacifism won’t look at the inevitability of people taking advantage of the passivity or non-resistance of others.  All they seem to propose so far as I can gather is to call names at those who seek to be able to defend themselves and try to make them feel guilty about taking responsibility for their own self defence and survival.

It concerns me greatly that this thought virus is still so present in our society, in fact is more virulent and present than it ever seems to have been, and so I take the opportunity here to do my best to contribute to its end.  I still like much of John Lennon’s music (but not Imagine) but I think he should have left politics alone and stuck with Rock’n’roll.

So, having failed to understand on examination how pacifism can be an effective means of establishing or maintaining peace, I turn now to our second question, what will be its outcome?  I can only offer rhetorical enquiries, the outcome seems so obvious.

Surely this can only be a concomitant of the first?

How can non-resistance to the enemy possibly lead to peace?  Can it do anything other than ensure victory to the aggressor?

This is the point at which most pacifists seem to break off, either refusing to engage with the debate or offering some choice epithet about my moral standing.  But I am a serious philosopher and I want answers, or at least further discussion of the premises and reasoning involved so that we may get closer to some answers.  I am highly disappointed that people who have graduated from top universities and even written books are unwilling to take on these points and respond in some way.  The usual refusal to discuss these most obvious of points seems to indicate some sort of ‘Virtue Signalling’, that is, that they consider my argument to be beneath them because they are of a much higher moral standing, and believe in the goodness of all people so that I am to be implied as somehow unkind, uncharitable, mean and cynical.  Not to be touched.  In a world in which they argue that there are no enemies, those who critique pacifism are made the enemy.  Not because of the content of the argument, which is not addressed, but because of the implied character of the person.  Self defence is seen as aggression.  This is an attitude which if inculcated and brainwashed into the population sufficiently can remove or at least negate the natural will to defend territory.

Sun Tzu in his classic ‘The Art of War’ says that the best victory is one which is fought without a battle.  He also recommends that the enemy should be demoralised so as to impair their ability to resist.

And this is exactly what we see with the pacifist agenda, for which I am often amused to find myself thinking ‘passivist’, if I may coin a neologism.

A pacifist agenda which is currently rolling out in Europe.  The current ‘Migrant Crisis’ which is taking place could not have developed if the European peoples, or at least the parts of them which hijack policy, had not succumbed to this agenda and become passive.

It’s an astonishing sleight of hand and trompe l’oeil.  Peoples who have maintained identities through the turbulence of hundreds of years of wars have been persuaded that it is wrong to resist ‘The Other’, that it is wrong to maintain any sort of unique identity, or a border against strangers, and that we can all look forward to living in a world with ‘no countries and a brotherhood of man’ if only people would stop being so selfish as to maintain their heritage and identities.

If Sun Tzu’s recommendations on demoralising the enemy and getting them to surrender without a fight aren’t being deliberately implemented here, then it is quite a coincidence I would suggest.

I have heard it said that all you need to do to achieve this is to get everyone to agree to it.  So simple! 

[I think this may have some shared aetiology with the New Age idea seeded by Ken Carey that there would be a moment when suddenly everyone would ‘get it’ and we would all open our hearts to our fellows, and presumably our borders as well, there would be no more conflict and those who refused this would excarnate because they resisted the energy wave or something similar.  But no psychological mechanism is ever given as to the manner in which it might occur.  I’m all for wonderful new things happening, but they need to be within the framework of the possible, and I have a lot of questions about this which no-one is willing to answer or even address.]

I recall an episode of Babylon 5 in which a rogue artificial personality takes over the computer system and says to Mr Garibaldi ‘Some people are never happy unless they are screwing it up for everyone else.’  And I have to observe that a truer word was probably never spoken.

If this Utopian dream of a pacifist world with no borders were to somehow be implemented, I think even the pacifists realise that there would be occasions when there would be conflict, however that might be, but pacifism seems contrary to natural instinct and is not clear about how we should deal with these things when they occur..  I haven’t managed to pin any of them down on this specifically, but I can only surmise that the most likely option would be to have some kind of world government, arbiter or policeman.

We have this to some extent at present, albeit not quite officially.  The UN has appropriated the role of government and arbiter and the USA and increasingly the EU that of policeman.  The mess that this has left of the Middle East after the last decade and a half kind of discourages me from excused intervention of this sort, and an ‘official’ World Government would be even worse.

You just have to look at the world situation to see that there are blocks with different interests and policies.  No surprise.  The best you can surely hope for is a balance between these blocks, no one outweighing the others.  A unified World Government would have to level these and that would have to be done with force if any chose to step out of line.

A World Government could only be achieved by massive repression and control of those who did not wish to participate.

It would involve not being able to participate in actions for your own self defence but being forced to co-operate with a system which took away your unique identity.  This is all upside down and looks very much like the kind of thing which Cultural Marxists are aiming for.

However much the pacifists might argue that we should all submit they cannot get away from the fact that at some level their plans need to be imposed from above if they are to be fully implemented.  I’m glad to say that while regrettably the demoralisation of our peoples has taken place, nonetheless there seems to be a growing tide of energy within the nationalist and identitarian movements rising from within their hearts to counter that passivity.

The coming conflict is inevitable since it is the result of natural law.  Passivism has been so effectively infiltrated into our social values that an invasion of our homelands has been taking place in slow motion over many years and it is only when that slow motion has speeded up and the situation has become critical that more than just the outliers have begun to become aware of the dire situation.

A religion that claims to be one of peace, but is designed to make war and is called ‘Submission’ has been allowed to invade our lands and is steadily making headway.  The passivity of the pacifists goes beyond not resisting, but is so swept up in the tide of ‘Submission’ that they support it, they become the enemy of their own culture.  Pacifism is disguised treachery.  And treachery arises from cowardice.

Regular readers of my blogs will know my favourite quote by Krishna from the Baghavad Gita ‘Whence comes this ignoble cowardice?’

Self defence is considered bad by the passivists, while it is the actual aggressors to whom they should be giving their attention.  As is so often the case with ideas that fit the Cultural Marxist mode, natural law is made upside down and back to front.  Passivists aren’t passive when it comes to attacking those who believe in self defence and natural law, because this only hides the fact that their entire philosophy is based on projection of their own shadow nature.

They say we shouldn’t defend ourselves, but they attack us.

They claim that nations and peoples maintaining strong borders and boundaries are being aggressive in so doing, while for most of the time these borders act as defensive and administrative structures.  The international communist nature of pacifism becomes clear at this stage.  Endless and uncontrolled movements of peoples claiming residence, housing, benefits, health care, education and so forth in lands where they have no heritage or ancestry amounts in my eyes to international communism.  It is clearly the antithesis of national identity, which the pacifists and communists seem to have in common as their enemy, along with the Green Party who seek as ‘an aspiration’ that borders should become ‘obsolete’ and that anyone should be able to settle anywhere they like.

And so Pacifism, or ‘Passivism’ as I now prefer to call it, is no more than a tool of the crypto-authoritarian left, who would abandon us to the anarchy of non-resistance in order that they may rescue us with a World Government.

I don’t think John Lennon really understood this, but rather that this was an idea which he had had seeded to him somewhere along the line, perhaps the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or one of the many CIA and MK Ultra plants and infiltrators that he was exposed to over the course of his career.  But he was a high profile and influential person and so even though he himself was trying to break out of the net that had been placed around him, it is no surprise that he played into their hands with this one.  Probably the most remarkable thing about the whole affair is that I don’t think I have ever seen a rational critique of the War is Over if You Want It meme in all the years since it was first made.  It has just become an emotional weapon to use against those of us who live in the world of diverse peoples with different interests and who recognise that there will be competition and sometimes conflict between them.  This is how nature works, but we are expected to leave that behind for the promise of Paradise, whether in this world or the next, even though there is no formal game plan, no road map, no fall back and certainly no guarantees.  It is an argument of mere wish fulfilment fantasy, not a practical methodology based on known principles of natural law.  It is an example of the Fabian doctrine of ‘destroying the world to remake it more closely to their desire.’

Personally, I’d like to see us progress by fine tuning our societies so that they more fully and harmoniously reflect the laws of nature with interlocking groups who have shared ancestries and cultures, than attempt to rewrite those laws of nature according to how a limited human mind thinks they should work in order to be more moral.  Pacifism is a walk off a cliff.

 

Victimhood

Victimhood

I first became aware of how people would exploit their victimhood way back in the 1980s when I had a friend who used to joke about how feminists classified people by their level of oppression; so a woman was oppressed but a black woman was more oppressed, and so on.  Nowadays we have endless spiels on the intersectionality of oppressed classes and feminist analysis.  The fact that our society actually funds this stuff, (and gives the people who spout it moral privilege to abuse and vilify) which no other society in the history of the world, ever, did, seems to be a fact that eludes the people who pursue it, perhaps because it doesn’t support their perpetual cries of their victimhood.

But I get ahead of myself.  The situation I seek to analyse, deconstruct and disarm of its weaponised content is that in which in our contemporary western society a person can amplify their status by claiming some kind of suffering or ‘victimhood’.

The first thing I need to make absolutely clear is that I am not promoting making people suffer, or promoting ‘victimisation’ in any way.  This is absolutely in no way the same thing.

The ‘Victim Mentality’ has several different aspects. 

Firstly, there is the feeling that the subject has that they have been a victim in some way.  That’s not difficult, most people at some stage in their lives have experienced some negative experience.

The next stage is the important one.  You could just get over it, or deal with it constructively if it is a larger issue, which might involve taking countermeasures such as legal recourse.  This may or may not be a good thing or satisfactory.  The real negative downturn occurs when someone decides that in some way this makes them unique, that they have suffered more than others and that this is a mealticket, or at least something which can be used to exploit others. 

This isn’t necessarily a conscious decision, it can easily be an unconscious chip on the shoulder that just gets in the way, a grudge that is borne as if it were natural.

What has happened over the last half century or so is that this has become weaponised through the action of Cultural Marxism.  It is my firm conviction that this must be deliberate, at least in those who seeded and promoted these social attitudes.

This is closely linked with empathy.  If someone finds that by playing on their ‘victimhood’ of whatever form, that they can elicit ‘empathic’ behaviour from those around them, then that playing will be reinforced.  Someone recently suggested to me that they believed that Psychology was ‘no more scientific’ than Politics and Sociology.  And yet neither of these forms of social study have anything approaching the strength of learning theory as far back as a century or more, with Pavlov, Watson or Skinner.  If you associate stimuli together, they will be thought of together, and if a response is reinforced with a pleasurable stimulus, a reward, then its recurrence will be encouraged.  The cultural marxists know all about negative reinforcement, because they employ it all the time in their name calling, which is intended to ‘extinguish’ your behaviour, as the technical term goes.

Feminists and teachers of Gender Studies seem unaware of these basic scientific facts, other than the last.

I am simply pointing out that displays of ‘victimhood’ get rewarded, and so become more frequent, whereas they claim that this is just social justice in action.

At the root of this is ‘empathy’.  We are told it is important to be empathic.  Certainly we as human beings have the capacity for empathy, but if we are empathic with every creature in the entire universe, we would never have the mental attention to deal with our own concerns.

In the summer of 1974, I took a tab of LSD, of which there was plenty around at the time.  I remember walking in some beautiful gardens and it was lovely.  I remember thinking that I seemed to have no boundaries and felt that I was one with it all.  When I came down a bit I realised that I had for a while lost any sense of my ego or identity, and whilst it was an extraordinary experience, was not one which it would be very practical to experience very often, or in less pleasant conditions.

Empathy is like that.  We see images of people suffering on our screens.  Images, which in a world before photography, newsreels, tv or internet we simply would never see.  Now, all of a sudden, millions of people are looking at images of some poor starving child thousands of miles away.

This brings the opportunity for guilt tripping in a big way.  The media manipulators are then on to us all to guilt us into how we should be ‘doing something’ for these people, while they are entirely selective about which suffering children they show to us.  The suffering homeless of our own people are rarely shown to us in such a way, or the children of some state that is out of favour with the power elite.

‘Victimhood’ is paraded before us, and yet, because it is only on a screen, there is nothing we can actually do, but feel bad about it, and perhaps reach for the credit card to make a donation.

Now this weaponised guilt and compassion extraction has been ramped up with ‘white guilt’, ‘privilege’, all manner of vilifications against men and European culture and peoples.  But here we see the point where it diverges from its source.  The suffering of others may be something we can or can’t do something about, should or shouldn’t do something about, but the weaponised form shoots its barbs right into your entrails, because, whatever you do decide, you are guilty!

This is a kind of ‘Original Sin’ which White people especially, and White Men most particularly, are apparently guilty of.  You may belong to an ancestral group which has never had any association with colonisation, slavery or exploitation of other peoples, but the very fact that you live in a prosperous, well ordered and law abiding culture is in itself cause for attack, because you aren’t suffering like the Victims!

It is based on having to give way to someone else’s pain and suffering.  This may have nothing to do with you at all.  Or it may be self inflicted, or the result of living in a culture where these things are commonplace.  The causes are irrelevant.  The only thing of importance is that people are made to feel bad about themselves, so that they give away their power to those who claim to be victims, or more likely, those who falsely claim to act in their interests.

A brief aside here.  I have always thought it strange, perhaps just because I understand the meaning of words, that when a child dies prematurely, you often hear that ‘tributes’ are given.  Tributes, are ‘a sign of respect or admiration, an award to honour a person's accomplishments. A famous director receives a lifetime achievement award as a tribute… etc’

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tribute

This displays something of the inappropriate mindset of the victim mentality, which has to give a kind of worship or applause to the sufferer.  To give ‘Tributes’ to a child who has no accomplishments, however much it might be loved, is just an inappropriate concept which places value on someone simply because they have suffered, and for no other reason.

So this valuing of suffering, regardless of how or why it occurs, as some kind of personal achievement which puts the subject above others who have not experienced that suffering, has become a moral right in our society.  Even if someone dies while seeking to illegally enter another country they are lionised as martyrs, though they might have caused the deaths of others at the same time.  It is as if every single person on the planet were somehow deified like Jesus for having suffered in some manner or other.  And meanwhile, this is used to disempower that person who has not suffered, or apparently not.

The conditioning has been going on so long that it is lost in the background.

And as with all Cultural Marxist conditioning, the true values are upside down.  Sure, there are occasions when apologies or reparation might be of some help, but the real triumph is in the hearts of those who can put their past defeats behind them and go forward with neither bitterness nor resentment.  The SPLC earns no plaudits for its endless victim exploitation after forty years of Affirmative Action, and massive black on white crime (I was astonished when I heard the figures).  Muslims in Britain whine about the ‘oppressive’ history of the Crusades, but manage to forget the 1,400 year Jihad against freedom and the civilisation of the West.

These people are cowards who cannot win on the truth, so they have to work on disarming the minds of their opponents.  Although Sun Tzu, the author of the ancient text ‘The Art of War’ might approve, since he recommends that to win without fighting is the goal.

But the proponents of the Victim mentality are essentially sore losers whose only recourse is to shout ‘No fair’ and the trouble is, that we are so fair that we are disarmed and we stop defending ourselves in order to get into self examination and doubt and start questioning whether we had been unfair.

As Stefan Molyneux brilliantly demonstrates in this video, empathy given to someone who does not reciprocate is wilful collaboration with the enemy.  They will suck you dry, as you give your all to convince them how tolerant, open minded and multicultural you are.  They don’t give a flying ****.

I posted this video on a cultural marxist thread I was commenting on, and I got a response which really made me want to throw up, because it was the typical ‘this is how you become empathic and if you don’t you are being inhuman and cruel’.  If you aren’t empathic all the time, you are a bad person.

So we should be empathic with our murderers and enslavers it seems.  If we aren’t then we are racists! We have been led down the path and deceived.

I would suggest that you look up John Woolman, a 17th Century Puritan who felt intense guilt that he cared more for his own children than for some unknown child who might (or might not) be starving on the other side of the world.  This is a kind of neurosis, or perhaps even psychosis which has absolutely no survival adaptive value for the person who it afflicts, and is quite possibly counter adaptive in its distraction..

 

Cases should be judged on their merits and we should not assume that everyone has good intentions.  Even those can lead to hell as the saying goes.  I see memes admonishing us not to judge people.  Equally I wish we would see memes admonishing us to not trust without that trust having been earned.  Stefan’s example of not telling a murderer who wanted to kill your wife where she is demonstrates clearly why we should not feel obliged to tell the truth or be empathic with people who do not have our best interests at heart, or whom we at least have reasonable doubts about.

I always found myself getting twitchy watching episodes of Star Trek in which Picard or Janeaway would trust an unknown alien vessel and drop their shields without any more reason than saying that ‘a truly civilised race would be peaceful’ or asserting that showing trust was a good thing as it encouraged the aliens to do the same thing.  I don’t know if Kirk ever did that, I may be wrong, but I suspect it was a later development.  Frankly, in a real situation that kind of behaviour would be reckless, and probably in direct contravention of standing orders..

I can’t help feeling that there are some manipulated religious concepts and feelings here.  We have the ‘Original Sin’ of the White Privileged, and the sanctification of the sufferers, like Dives and Lazarus in the parable that Jesus gave of the poor man in Heaven and the Rich Man in Hell.  Perhaps the Rich Man deserved to be in Hell, but surely not just for being rich, and perhaps Lazarus deserved Heaven, but surely not just because he was poor.

After having been a Christian for most of my life, off and on at least, a year or so ago I started to realise how these kind of Christian tales and mythology weaken the mind so as to feel guilt over things which are associated with success, and a feeling of somehow being beholden to the ‘Victim’, who becomes sanctified.  I have to reiterate that I am not defending cruelty or bad treatment, but that ‘Victims’ can become so in an infinite variety of ways, and if that involves becoming so in a way that was self caused, then no-one else should feel guilt about it, but rather that person should take responsibility, and not expect someone whom they can exploit to come and rescue them.  Images of Africans on overladen rafts in the Mediterranean come to mind.

In some cases of course, there is not even any suffering or real victimhood.  The endless moaning of feminists about a society in which women are held in higher esteem than any other culture in the history of  world, and in which men endure extreme hardship to secure the safety of their women and children is wearisome.  It is simply embarrassing to hear these people playing the victim while they claim that men are becoming ‘obsolete’.  Meanwhile almost all construction and infrastructure maintenance is done by men, and often in harsh and dangerous conditions.

The cries of ‘Victim’ have become too shrill and hysterical to be taken seriously any more whether they come from feminists, migrants or social justice warriors.  It has become an exploitable meme that must be resisted at all costs as it has become perhaps our prime weakness.  Literally millions of people are attaching themselves to our civilisation with no thought, as John Kennedy said, of ‘ask[ing] what you can do for your country’ but only of how they can exploit it for their own ends, which now are looking much like the conversion of our society into the one that many of them came from.

And this from the exploitation of our compassion for their suffering and victimhood.

What they fail to understand is that there is a psychological process that goes beyond compassion.  When someone realises that their compassion has been played and exploited the emotion is entirely reversed, and that is an absolutely natural instinct for survival.  That which has betrayed you must be eliminated, or it will do it again.

Othering

Othering

The ‘Other’ was coined as a philosophical concept by GFW Hegel some two centuries ago as a counterpoint to the Self. 

In modern sociological and feminist discourse it has become a weaponised term.  It is not, as someone once suggested to me, a typo of 'Mothering'!

Society is built of in-groups who have normative values and behaviours.  This is the way that humans have evolved.  We might see it in early nomadic ice age tribes, or in the guild structures of mediaeval towns.  Ethnic groups have clustered together, just as those of similar trade or economic standing have always done, or children, women and men.

Modern feminist debate often centres around demonising what they describe as ‘Othering’.  To ‘Other’ someone is to see them as ‘Other’ to your social group.  This is considered very bad by feminists.  Since the current moral imperative is to be ‘inclusive’ and as ‘We Are All One’ we must not perceive anyone as ‘Other’ to ourselves, even if they are a stranger. 

As was recognised by Hegel, ‘Otherness’ is a logically necessary concept in describing the world if we are not to resort to solipsism, and yet modern thought seeks to collapse the distinction between Inner and Outer, whether that be psychologically Inner and Outer, or materially.

I have been somewhat incredulous at the ludicrous extent to which this is politicised and used as an attempted weapon of social control.  This amusing little website claims that ‘There are no others’.  None at all.  While it is admitted that ‘there’s a powerful evolutionary drive to identify in some way with a tribe of people who are “like you” ’ it nonetheless argues that this leads to an ‘insidious’ inclination to ‘other’ people.

https://therearenoothers.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/othering-101-what-is-othering/

Really all it is saying is that the writer doesn’t like the fact that the creation of in-groups as an evolutionary strategy exists.  This seems to be based on some kind of assumption that we have moved beyond the need for such survival strategies.  Feminism sees any group which has achieved ‘hegemonic’ stature as essentially ‘oppressive’, despite the fact that these kind of cultures provide stable milieus for complex societies.

This seems to me to be either a catastrophically naïve error or a purposefully intended attempt to undermine what must be a basic survival instinct.  Stay with those who are like yourself.  They share your genes and your culture.  If you stick together you have a better chance of survival.  Allowing strangers into your midst engages unnecessary risk.  The ‘Other’ may in time become friend, but it needs to earn that trust, that friendship.  The feminist wants you to give that trust without it having been earned, and if you don’t you are a bad person.

I imagine my reader will by now have surmised that there is a connection here with the psychology of the migrant invasion in Europe, November 2015.  The feminist sees the traditional protection of territory as ‘Othering’ the outsider, despite the fact that limited resources are a very important factor here.  Since in that ideology ‘There is no Other’ everyone is part of our own Global, Universal Tribe in the Global Village.

And yet simple game theory will inform us that unless the incomer respects the values of the group that it is accepted into, the system will collapse. 

This is a classic Cultural Marxist move in which reality is inverted and the truth turned upside down.  In the long established way of the world, life and evolution, creatures established their territories.  The dominant members of these tribes and clans would be responsible for defending them from ‘Others’;  but now, the alpha males who previously were responsible for maintaining the boundaries and protecting their people are now made to be the enemy, and the enemies who would invade are encouraged to do so and celebrated for it.

What we see taking place with various people in the aftermath of the Paris Bataclan massacre who are urging us to take more refugees to show our compassion is a pathological expression of this refusal to recognise the ‘Other’, or to see beyond the immediate situation at the larger consequences of endless mixing with it.  The Muslims all know that we are each Other to the Other, but too many Europeans delude themselves that this is not so, that ‘There is no other’.  That to ‘Other’ someone is to dehumanise them.

And so the Liberal European population has been brainwashed into laying down their arms, into refusing to stand up for themselves because we have to ‘treat others as ourselves’.  Everyone?  Does that mean we have to give them all our stuff?  House and feed them?  Let them destroy our civilisation?  One refugee, fine.  A million?  You have to think again.  Probably half the population of the world would like to get into Europe and get a Social Security cheque.  We have to defend against this.  It is not evil to seek to survive in the face of millions who would seek to exploit your civilisation. 

This is about boundaries.  One of the most important factors in human development is the establishment of personal boundaries.  To have a sense of responsibility for oneself and not to over rely or intrude on another.  Systems Theory tells us that we need cell walls, osmotic membranes that protect, select and filter what is permitted to come into the cell.  This is interface between Self and Other.  Where the Known meets the Unknown.

It is also about the poor countries who are losing their most energetic young people to a grandiose and false dream of seeking their fortune in the golden paved streets of Europe.  The Pied Piper of Mr Soros is enticing them all away form their own countries to destroy others.  Villages in West Africa have collapsing economies because all the young men are taking ‘the back way’ across the Maghreb to come to Europe and get rich.  There are downsides for others than ourselves.

We are going to see an interesting process in the coming weeks following the Friday 13^th massacre.  The politicians, liberals and general leftists are going to insist that we keep taking more migrants, insisting that we ‘shouldn’t give in to fear’ and that turning migrants away would in some way be ‘giving terrorists what they want’.  And yet we have already seen borders being closed.  Sweden had already, incredibly, closed its border before the atrocity, simply on the basis of there being too many causing a ‘threat to public order’.

A large number of State Governors in the USA have declared they will not be taking Syrian ‘refugees’ following the atrocities, and France has closed its borders.  This is clearly a chaos situation which is not going to improve unless measures are taken to prevent further deterioration of the situation.  It will doubtless continue to slide for a while as the EU leaders prevaricate.  Meanwhile the resolve of the European peoples is rising.  It is quite clear that the Videgrad 4 ~ Poland, Czech/Slovakia and Hungary are taking a firm stand and that is important for Europe as a whole.  These countries, and others in the East, still have ancestral memories of the Ottoman Empire and its depredations over hundreds of years.

They know that all civilisations periodically face the ‘Other’, and that it is in this that they are tested.  A nation, people or civilisation who are unable to distinguish what is ‘Other’ has lost its sense of Self, of Identity, and is vulnerable to being taken by the ‘Other’ as New Orleans was to being flooded by the sea when the levees broke.

Defence against the ‘Other’ is what all civilisation has ever been about, it is the ancient myth of Osiris keeping back the chaos of Set and the desert.  A civilisation or nation that opens its arms to the ‘Other’ has lost the will to live and submits to its own demise. 

The war for the soul of Europe has now begun.  We must find our Self, and repel the Other.  The alternative is for Europe, the jewel of civilisation, to sink into an endless night of oblivion, as chaos rushes in and its light is extinguished.