Saturday, May 21, 2011

The liberal script in three actors

Described by a man far to the right even of me!

Why, for example, when a white American Protestant pastor burns a Koran and Afghan Muslims kill UN staff because of it, the moral fault lies with the Floridian reverend. Or why toads like "Rev" Jesse Jackson, "Minister" Louis Farrakhan or "Rev" Al Sharpton continue to find a public voice while people like David Duke are silenced into marginality.

...the liberal order articulates the world through a “script” in which there are three characters: the white liberal, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime; the white non-liberal, who discriminates against nonwhites and who must be crushed by the white liberal; and the nonwhite/non-Westerner, who either is discriminated against by the white non-liberal or is non-discriminatorily included by the white liberal.
In the script, furthermore, only the white liberal and the white non-liberal are moral actors, with the first representing good and the second representing evil. The nonwhite/non-Westerner is not a moral actor, but is simply the passive recipient of the white liberal’s goodness or of the white non-liberal’s bigotry. The reason that the nonwhite/non-Westerner cannot be a moral actor is that his very function in the script is to be the recipient of either good non-discrimination or evil discrimination. If he were a moral actor, then his own actions would have to be judged; specifically, his bad actions would have to be judged.

But to judge his bad actions would be to discriminate against him. And since the central purpose of liberalism is to eliminate all discriminatory treatment of nonwhites/non-Westerners, moral judgement of nonwhites/non-Westerners must also be eliminated. Therefore nonwhites/non-Westerners cannot be seen as responsible moral actors.

QED. The real battle as imagined here is local: between the liberal and the non-liberal: the nonWhite and nonWesterner is simply the means. As such, it is the script of the liberal that effectively de-humanizes and sub-humanizes the supposed object of his care and concern.

While the Whites kill each other off, so to speak, in internecine war, guess to whom the future advantage goes?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I’m thinking about how this reminds me of a common pacifist line, and it’s logical oddity. The line is that one shouldn’t defend oneself destructively/forcibly/violently because “violence only / always leads to more violence.” The idea being that the original assailant will only redouble their efforts later, or some friend of theirs will, and so the “cycle of violence” in the world will only be perpetuated.

What’s interesting to realize about this line is that what the pacifist preachers propose as some inevitable societal rule doesn’t actually apply to the preachees (or the preachers). Those who are meant to be converted to the peacenik thought, are presumed to be quite capable of responding to a violent attack like either Gandhi or Vlad Tepes by their own moral choice. The v-creates-v rule only really applies to the party of the criminal/thug/terrorist.

Also, the non-pacifist isn’t supposed to apply the rule to themselves as exculpatory or even explanitory. “I joined the NRA because I want criminals to know that their violence will only lead to more violence.”


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...