Saturday, 23 May 2015

This is an example of one of the Dialogues on the Death of Europe that I am writing. I think the Socratic dialogue format is a helpful way of exploring an issue. Feedback welcome. 

Robert: Let’s say it was true that I was a racist, an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe. Leaving aside the imprecision of these terms, let’s pretend that some kind of definitive conclusion could be reached on the question and I was happy to stipulate that the accusations levelled against me were true: I am indeed a racist, an anti-Semite and an islamophobe. So what?

Andrea: What do you mean “so what”?

Robert: If I’m a racist, an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe, what difference does it make? Why do you keep throwing out these accusations every time I try to have a serious discussion about government policy?

Andrea: Because it’s not acceptable.

Robert: What do you mean it’s not acceptable?

Andrea: It’s not acceptable for you to hate people like that.

Robert: Well, actually I don’t hate the objects of my “prejudice”: people of other races, Jews or Muslims.

Andrea: Then you’re not a racist, an anti-Semite or an islamophobe. Or wouldn’t be, if this is still supposed to be hypothetical.

Robert: I have, however, concluded that the presence of non-Europeans, Jews and Muslims has been in the past, and is likely to be in future, harmful to Europeans; and therefore that we would be better off without them. That is a carefully wrought intellectual conclusion, not an emotional impulse. I’ve arrived at it after long reflection and laborious study and only after overcoming great inhibitions that were instilled into me as I was growing up. So would you characterise someone who thinks Europe would be better off without non-Europeans, Jews and Muslims as a racist, an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe?

Andrea: I would.

Robert: Then it’s possible to be those things without hating, with intense antagonistic emotion; calmly, intellectually.

Andrea: Sorry but I think you’re deluding yourself.

Robert: About what?

Andrea: About your calmness and lack of emotion. I think you do hate those people and just can’t admit it. You dress it up as an “intellectual conclusion” to make it seem more acceptable, because you probably still have some of those inhibitions you talked about.

Robert: Let’s, for the sake of discussion, assume that this is true. Let’s say that I really do hate these non-Europeans, Jews and Muslims. Again, the question is: so what?

Andrea: It’s not acceptable to feel that kind of hatred, that’s what.

Robert: But if I did feel this hatred, what could I do about it?

Andrea: What do you mean?

Robert: Surely if I had these feelings, they would be non-volitional. I couldn’t just switch them off if I wanted to.

Andrea: I don’t accept you don’t have a choice.

Robert: Think of something you hate, if a soul as pure as yours is capable of such an ignoble emotion.

Andrea: There are lots of things I hate.

Robert: I bet there are. Now could you choose to stop hating them if you wanted to?

Andrea: No. But my hatreds are justified. I hate injustice. I hate exploitation.

Robert: And the people who perpetrate these things?

Andrea: Yes. But my hatreds are good because they have a moral purpose.

Robert: The “purpose” of my “racism, anti-Semitism and islamophobia” is to prevent the lives of our descendants being ruined by misconceived government policy. That is a moral purpose too. We could debate that, but it’s irrelevant.

Andrea: I don’t think it is irrelevant.

Robert: My point to you is why does the presumed quality of a person’s motivation affect the validity of what they have to say or indeed their right to say it?

Andrea: What do you mean?

Robert: Well, you say you hate injustice, exploiters. What about rich bankers, how do you feel about them?

Andrea: I hate them.


Robert: OK. So let’s say you proposed some new policy that would cut the pay of bankers, take away their bonuses or somehow limit their “depredations” as you see it. And let’s say I opposed the initiative and was debating the issue with you. Would it be valid for me to counter your argument by simply impugning your motivation for making it, by saying, for example, “You’re just proposing that policy because you hate bankers”?   And we could then have a discussion about the texture and quality of your feelings towards bankers, instead of rationally debating the merits of a policy and its likely or actual effects.

Andrea: You’re entitled to say what you want to say.

Robert: But if I did respond in that way, not just on that issue but on every issue, if I insisted on impugning your motivation for proposing a certain policy instead of engaging with the merits or effects of that policy, serious discussion would become impossible, wouldn’t it? Democracy would die.

Andrea: How would it die?

Robert: Because the country would simply be divided into factions, each convinced that the other had an improper or wicked motivation and should therefore not be allowed to speak or, if somehow won an election anyway, rule. And after you get to that stage, the only option left is civil war.

Andrea: Look. I partially see your point about motivation, although I think you’re being melodramatic. But the analogy isn’t valid, because the things I hate, or the people I hate if you want to personalise it, choose to become what they are. Bankers chose to become bankers. The people you hate had no choice in the matter. That’s a fundamental difference.

Robert: So Muslims didn’t choose to be Muslims? Jews, if you accept their self-presentation of Judaism as a matter of “faith”, don’t choose to embrace it?

Andrea: I don’t think they do. They’re initiated into it by their parents. So it has almost the same quality as race, something they can’t help.

Robert: I’d say you're infantilising them. In fact, it could even be argued that you’re being racist towards them.

Andrea: How am I being racist?

Robert: Because you deprive them of agency. You reduce them to the level of helpless children. Only Europeans make choices for which they are responsible. Everyone else is just helplessly adrift on a sea of circumstance.

Andrea: I don’t accept I’m being racist. And I don’t accept our respective “hatreds” are comparable or morally equivalent.

Robert: So your emotions don’t invalidate your declared policy positions but my emotions, or the emotions you attribute to me, do invalidate mine?

Andrea: In my view, they do, yes. Because the objects of my hatred have made a choice, and the objects of your hatred have not. I’m sorry, but there’s no place in modern Europe, in the 21st century, for racism, anti-Semitism and islamophobia.

Robert: But is there a place for racists, anti-Semites and islamophobes?

Andrea: What do you mean?

Robert: You discuss it in terms of abstractions, racism instead of racists, anti-Semitism instead of anti-Semites. But whether we cast it as an emotion or an intellectual conclusion, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. live inside the minds of human beings. So you can’t really separate the phenomenon from the person.

Andrea: Well, OK, but what’s your point?

Robert: My question is: is there a place in modern Europe for racists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes?

Andrea: In my view, no there isn’t.

Robert: But surely you can see that the logic of your position is exterminationist? This is exactly the same kind of exterminationist rhetoric employed by tyrants like Stalin and Mao to perpetrate massacres that were far greater in scale than anything ever carried out by “racists”, “anti-Semites” or “islamophobes”.

Andrea: How is it “exterminationist”?

Robert: You’re denying me the right to exist.

Andrea: That’s nonsense. How am I denying your right to exist?

Robert: You say there’s no place for me in my own ancestral homeland. So where is there a place for me?

Andrea: You just need to change.

Robert: I can’t change. I can’t choose not to be a racist, an anti-Semite or an islamophobe. You are, in effect, persecuting me for something I can’t help, something I can’t change. Yet that was the very logic you cited to justify your anti-racist positions before. Your position as being far more pernicious and destructive than mine.

Andrea: How so?

Robert: My position is not exterminationist. I don’t deny non-Europeans, Jews or Muslims the right to exist. I deny them the right to exist in Europe. They have their own homelands. But you deny me mine. The logic of your position therefore is exterminationist. Because, although you say I have “no place” here, the implication is I have “no place” anywhere. 

Andrea: Hating people for what they are is fundamentally different from hating people for what they choose to do. You have chosen your path. Or w
ere you always a racist, an anti-Semite and an islamophobe?

Robert: No.

Andrea: So what made you become one?

Robert: Knowledge. I learned things I didn’t know before and that knowledge forced me to reach  uncomfortable conclusions.

Andrea: Maybe what you think of as knowledge is pseudo-knowledge. Maybe the facts that persuaded you to change the way you felt weren’t real facts.

Robert: Maybe.

Andrea: So you might acquire true knowledge in future. You might learn things that will convince you you were wrong.

Robert: I don’t think so but I must concede the possibility. If you had told me a few years ago that I would become a racist, an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe, I would have told you you were crazy. So, given the extraordinary intellectual tectonic plate shifting I’ve already experienced, it would be foolish of me to deny the possibility of comparable change in future.

Andrea: So that’s the solution.

Robert: But that’s just a hypothetical possibility. There’s no way I can force myself to it.

Andrea: Read things that might change your view. Acquaint yourself with the viewpoint of “the opposition”.

Robert: I do that all the time. The Establishment media is absolutely in the hands of the Equality Cult. So I am exposed to their point of view all the time. I also deliberately seek out the screeds of the anti-racists, of the Jews whining about anti-Semitism, read their books, their periodicals, all of that. It’s absurd to think that I somehow screen myself from this. And yet despite all of that, I remain firm in my conclusions. Indeed, if anything, steeping myself in the rhetoric of “the opposition” only confirms the strength of my convictions.

Andrea: How so?

Robert: Because they’re just like you, unable to offer substantive arguments. The whole logic of their discourse is that anyone who dissents from their ideas must be somehow morally impaired. And should therefore not be allowed to speak, should not be taken seriously, should not be responded to. There should be “no platform” for discussion. There should be “no place” - this sinister formulation that comes up all the time now – no place in their own country for those who dissent from the elite’s ideology du jour. You cannot win a substantive debate; you strive instead to prevent that debate from taking place. And these accusations you fling out so casually are just one means of doing that. These words – anti-Semitism, racism, islamophobia – convey a charge of wickedness. Most people are so intimidated when accused of being, in effect, evil that they will panic and try to prove the accuser wrong. So instead of a substantive discussion on the merits of the issue we then have this pantomime-level exchange on the order of “You’re really, really evil”, “Oh no, I’m not”, “Oh yes you are.”

Andrea: I’m not saying you’re evil. I think you’re misguided.

Robert: I’m sorry dear but these terms you use carry the imputation of evilness. They are dehumanising. They transform a political opponent, an intellectual dissident, into the Demonic Other. It’s an irony, really.

Andrea: What is?

Robert: Well, it’s usually your side that likes to talk about how “racists” strive to turn minorities into “the Other”. But it seems to me that it is your “anti-racist” rhetoric does that. You are demonising people whose ancestors shared the trials and tribulations of your ancestors for centuries, millennia; people who tilled the soil together, who fought in wars side by side, who, through their choices and struggles, shaped the culture, the character, the destiny of our country, our continent, our civilisation. Now, in response to what is no more than an intellectual fad, you turn your back on them and embrace the alien.

Andrea: I don’t accept this is just an intellectual fad. It’s about right and wrong. It’s fundamental.

Robert: Look, dear. I’ve read about the early years, when this lunacy began.

Andrea: What lunacy?

Robert: The repopulation of Europe by non-Europeans, in the late 40s, early 50s. No one at that time, or even into the 60s, not even the most fervent “anti-racists”, although I recognise that is an anachronistic term, would have seriously contemplated or endorsed what is now in prospect: that sometime in the course of the 21st century the European peoples would be minoritised in their own ancestral homelands. If you had proposed that, if you had put it up for debate, everyone, and I mean everyone, even the most hardcore lefties, would have said you were not just an extremist, but an outright lunatic. Off the charts. A nutter. Yet that is now effectively the consensus of our ruling class. What would have been unthinkable madness only a few decades ago is now the orthodoxy of the age. So this is indeed a fad, a transitory lunacy, a blip in time. But so destructive is the course you have embarked on that this moment of madness was all it took for you to destroy a millennial civilisation.

Andrea: I don’t think we’re going to agree on this.

Robert: I don’t think we are.




  1. I would mention something along the line of: "Simply being a racist, antisemite or Islamophobe does not, in and of itself, undermine my or anyone else's credibility." or possibly asking Andrea "In what way is my credibility undermined? etc."

    Also, for more emotional power I would make the pro-European a female and the anti-racist male. It would doubly jar when the male patronises her by calling her "my dear".

  2. I agree with Anonymous @ 10:37 that the phrase "my dear" is a mistake; whilst it is correct that the European male has been gravely emasculated and thus all European society is feminised in order to regard emotion as preferable to reason, it does have a patronising tone. Why not engaged in some male empowerment for a change and convert Andrea to, say, Andrew? (Leave Robert intacto!) I think your use of the Socratic Dialogue format is excellent because it returns the practice of debate, rebuttal and dispassionate disputation to the central role it should have in matters of our highest concerns and hones our minds and rhetorical skills. The only strongly negative aspect is in the final remark of Robert whereby he states that no one, even the 'Left' would have had the intention of what has now (almost) come to pass in terms of European peoples and our civilisation: au contraire, these plans have been in train for at least 150 years and by the early sixties Daniel Coh(e)n-Bendt was proclaiming that 'we' (the Left) must swamp Europe with 'immigrants' and then, 'we' would be able to do all 'we' wanted regarding changing the {Western} world. What is happening is not a result of stupidity, ignorance or misplaced Christian altruism: it is evil and was always thus and I think a final remark should mention this, for, as the thespian once said, "always leave your audience longing for more..." More, please! And pack it with facts, the Left hates facts.

    1. Have you got a quote and a source for Cohn-Bendit saying that in the 60s?

    2. Not certain what year in which he stated the following (he joined the Green Party in Germany in 1978 but was involved in the Paris riots in '68 and his parents were German Jews): "We, the Greens, must strive to this end, that as many foreigners as possible be brought to Germany. If they are in Germany, we must fight for their right to vote. Once we have achieved this, then we have the segment of voters we need to change this Republic." Ever since his notorious German TV interview, in which he admitted sexual 'interaction' with kindergarten children (he was enthusiastic about it), it has become more difficult to source info on him. More people need to realise that the prevalence of paedophilia amongst 'elites' is largely enabled and furthered by support for mass 'immigration' of one ideology which supports this and by the other ideology which in its own core texts condones and permits it.

    3. I see some juicy quotes like this floating around on websites but usually with no solid citations. I need quotes like this for various books I am writing but the sourcing has to be bulletproof. If my books aren't ignored, I can assume they will be attacked. They need to be able to withstand that attack.

  3. En realidad el dialogo está ganado desde el principio.

    En el sentido de que el Racismo no es un delito, a no ser que el que ostenta un cargo de autoridad discrimine por su raza.

    El Patriotismo es sinónimo de Racismo, y no menos la identidad de los pueblos históricos del mundo que han mantenido su seña de identidad hasta hoy. Sin embargo en el Patriotismo es un aspecto que no impide al sujeto que ha sido asimilado en un país sentirse patriota.

    El problema viene de lejos. En el sentido de un pensamiento exclusivo de alguien o de un sujeto con otro que es distinto. El entender mal ésta diferencia --- natural --- hace que aparezca en determinados individuos dudas o ideas defensivas por lo que representa.

    Yo creo que el Racismo no sólo es natural sino que Dios lo dispuso así, solo es necesario saber la composición del planeta Tierra hace miles de años, donde en cada continente había determinados grupos raciales y culturales. Unos grupos conquistaron a otros, y otros se defendieron de las amenazas a su pueblo.

    Hoy, y desde hace décadas, se promociona la positiva idea de que cualquier etnia o raza que no sea la raza blanca está bien vista. Y no sabemos por qué motivo, ya que la raza blanca es una de las razas que son minoritarias en comparación a otras etnias.

    El problema aparece cuando las razas van asociadas a culturas NO DECOCRÁTICAS, como por ejemplo el Islam, y además a otros grupos raciales como los latinoamericanos o amerindios donde muchas personas han aprendido desde niños que el hombre blanco es malo o perjudicial, además de leyendas negras. Además de otros factores socio-económicos y de la delincuencia como es la aparición de la droga y sustancias estupefacientes en el Era moderna.

    Y, no menos el factor de los avances y las aportaciones en todo tipo de asuntos de la vida, tecnología, arte, ciencia, etc, donde la cultura Occidental ha sabido proteger de una forma u otra para acompañar a su grupo ; con el Cristianismo.

    Sin el Cristianismo no hubieran aparecido otras ideas filosóficas como es la Democracia moderna, la ética, la moral occidental, y muchos valores que han sido exportados a otros continentes y a culturas que no son de raza blanca.

    Entonces llegamos a la conclusión que se trata de un asunto que se puede resumir en una sola palabra : Envidia.

    No obstante hay culturas como los amigos asiáticos que han sabido igualmente conservar su identidad y tradiciones aportando otros logros y perfeccionando los logros del hombre blanco u occidental.

    Pero, la envidia tiene un factor adicional, que puede resolver el problema o agravarlo y es : la educación. ( continua.. )

  4. Continúa.

    Si hablamos de inmigración, tendríamos que buscar el motivo por el cual las personas emigran y no desean cambiar sus costumbres adaptándolas al sistema democrático Occidental. He ahí la cuestión : la educación occidental es garantía de valores universales que no dispone ninguna otra cultura de forma avanzada y con garantías. Sólo si el individuo interesado hace un esfuerzo podrá conseguir la meta, pero además en un sentido más amplio el inmigrante de forma general no retorna a su lugar de origen para aportar sus conocimientos y ofrecer la ayuda que ha recogido, sino que facilita sus conocimientos para que lleguen más y mas inmigrantes al país extranjero, y ésto hace que el problema se convierta entonces en una amenaza para los nativos del país occidental, sobre todo si dicho país sufre de millones de desempleados. Y las ideas de las luchas de clases y conquistas sociales son un mero recuerdo, pues nadie podrá competir con un inmigrante tenga o no tenga documentación en regla, ya que es un caramelo para los empresarios sin escrúpulos para un beneficio rápido aunque negligente.

    Poner una cerradura en la puerta de mi casa, nunca puede ser Racismo, y sí seguridad.

    Recordemos por unos momentos que hay estrellas del cine, del deporte, de la música, de todo tipo de asuntos, con muchos fans, con mucho dinero, y sin embargo no significa que todo el mundo tiene por que gustarle una estrella determinada o en particular.

    El Racismo de hoy en día, el que promocionan, es de sabor único. O sea, que nos dicen que solo hay un color, un gusto, un aroma, una esencia, y sabemos perfectamente que hay personas que no le gusta una determinada comida, alimento, marca de coche, música, etc, y eso no significa que sea una mala persona.

    Usted elige, al eligir algo : discrimina, ya sea un producto, una idea, una opción política, etc. Sin embargo si silban a un jugador negro en un estadio de deporte o fútbol sancionan al público presente. Si alguien me ordena que mi libertad de expresión y pensamientos libres no son permitidos lo más lógico es intuir que no existe democracia y sí una dictadura de pensamiento único.

    Piense, por unos momentos, si todo el mundo pensara igual la vida sería muy aburrida, aunque quizás más segura. Entonces volveríamos al apartado inicial donde hablábamos de Dios y cómo hizo la distribución de las razas humanas.

    Saludos Diversity, y disculpas por las mayúsculas y por el largo y extenso texto.

    Me gusta escribir algo.