"ANTI-RACISM" IS JUST THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG OF THE LOW FERTILITY SOCIETY

by Colin Liddell

All powerful words rely on a certain degree of mystery to have their effect. Once this is lost, however, once the word is unveiled, then much of its power is dissipated and lost.

In my lifetime no word seems to have had more power than the dreaded "R-word." Not only did it crush my childhood homeland, Apartheid-era South Africa (mixed feelings), but it has hung over me and my kind from the first moment I went to a large, diverse city, London in the 1980s. Since then, it has hovered over me, like an ever-thickening and damning cloud of destruction. 

There were constant efforts over the years to beat it off, to undermine it, to chip away at it, to call attention to its often malign effects and insane consequences. Some of these were even partly successful, but always the word stayed where it was, throbbing away in gloomy omnipotence, surveying and distorting the scene, like a merciless god of the age, a bane of my existence and that of almost all White people. 

The wrong way to understand "Racism" is to follow the approach that Alain De Benoist took in his long, rambling essay "What is Racism?", which looks at what the term or concept might have meant for a wide variety of thinkers over the ages, from Locke and Hume to Chamberlain and Gobineau, and comes to this rather twee and pointless conclusion:

“It is time,” wrote Guy Michaud, “to develop a strategy for interethnic and intercultural relations, based not only on respect and understanding, but on the reality of differences.” This is also Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s view: “One often hears the argument that only a single worldwide civilization, with a total mixture of all races, would resolve the tensions and conflicts between groups. That does not appear to me necessary or desirable. If one could teach man to be tolerant, i.e., to be ready to understand and accept other life-styles both within civilizations and between various peoples, then ethnocentrism will find itself defused without it being necessary for groups to surrender their cultural uniqueness nor pride in their own civilization. Establishing peace among peoples need not be accomplished over the dead bodies of civilizations and races.”

Yes, basically Benoist fired off all his high-powered intellectual cannons to arrive at the same place midwit grifter RamZPaul is at right now, essentially "happy homeland" nationalism for all, with the implication that those who don't believe in this are the "real racists." Yes, many of the Diss Right critiques of "anti-racism" are actually backhanded endorsements of it! Also, it's clear that these "takes" have very little to do with how the world actually is. A neat, pretty little "polynationalist" paradise is a childish fantasy, so get real!

"Anti-racism" exists not because it's good or bad -- a mere matter of opinion -- but simply because it needs to exist in the World that has been created. It is, in short, a functioning part of the present-day machine, and its existence maps perfectly onto the rise of that system. In fact, the need for the word already existed long before the word came into being. Hence it's rapid uptake.

So, what exactly is "anti-racism"?

The best way to get at it is through the German National Socialist term gleichschaltung. This is variously explained and directly translates as "coordination", but essentially it was the unifying and harmonising principle of that particular society before it stupidly destroyed itself. It can be likened in some respects to the Soviet concept of soyuz (union) or the internal aspect of the North Korean term juche, which also emphasises the unity and harmony of the state.

Each state, civilisation, empire, and political entity needs to find a principle of unity and harmony that addresses its own unique characteristics and thus strengthens it. This is exactly what "anti-racism" does for the West, which can be defined as a collection of interlinked societies that unwittingly promote low fertility through their common values of individual liberty and GDP prioritization.

These latter values can't help but lead to falling birth rates (something that doesn't need to be explained in detail here), and this invariably leads onto mass immigration, which, of course, is highly socially divisive.

While individualism and GDP prioritization threaten to destabilise and undermine societies by creating alienated racial blocs, "anti-racism" with its accusations of "racism" comes along to hold things together, as these societies square the circle by "going browner" or whatever colour the new immigrants may be.

However, many in the Dissident Right would reject this thesis and claim that "anti-racism" is not a unifying force, because, according to them, it simply "victimises" White people. But this is poor or narrow analysis yet again, and one that implicitly calls forth notions of hostile and alien elites and ultimately leads to anti-Semitism.

"Anti-racism" is not intended to be anti-White. But it has to be deployed disproportionately in order to be effective. This means it has to be employed to overcome resistance -- active, passive, or hidden -- to the incomers. Resistance might include things like violence, exclusion, smears, snide remarks, stereotypes, racial humour, or even funny looks. The same things employed the other way is not resistance and so cannot be castigated as "racist". Here we see extremely clearly how functionality determines meanings.

The resistance we are talking about comes from those groups already in the population, who feel threatened by the influx which they have, let us say, unwittingly "invited in" by prioritising GDP and the freedom to stay single or marry late and to have few or no children. Historically, in Western societies, these people have always been White.

But to show that it is not just an anti-White thing, something similar is now happening in Japan, where the gradual up-creep in immigration and diversity has also seen the creation of "anti-racist" movements. Thus it is irrefutable: "anti-racism" with its constant finger pointing and screams of "racist!" is just the gleichschaltung of the low fertility society.

So what about the R-word and its frequent application?

When someone calls you a "racist", traditionally they have been calling you an ignorant person who is afraid of "change" you do not understand, and, as a consequence, is weak and beneath them. In most cases they have been right. However, if you understand the word in its fullest sense, naked and unveiled, as merely gleichschaltung for a society constantly undermined by an unstable, dysgenic, and group suicidal tendency, then you have stolen from them much of the magic of the word that they use to oppress you.

___________________________________

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).