Guillaume Faye, a French political theorist, defines anti-racism metapolitically as the “doctrine [that] encourages discrimination in favour of aliens, the dissolution of European identity, the multi-racialisation of European society, and, at root, paradoxically, racism itself” (Why We Fight, p. 77).
Mr. Faye’s critique of anti-racists consists of five main points:
- Anti-racists are hypocritical. Combating racism and xenophobia is their pretense to replace European identity with economic, cosmopolitan, and foreign interests.
- Anti-racists are self-contradictory. They obsess about races while denying that races exist.
- Anti-racists are counterproductive. “In promoting open borders and dogmatically encouraging multi-racial society, anti-racists end up objectively provoking racism” (p. 78).
- Anti-racists are intellectual terrorists. They reflexively denigrate and stigmatize every critique of mass immigration and multiculturalism as ‘racist’ on the basis of quasi-religious faith in the dominant ideology.
- Anti-racists are postmodern totalitarians. By indiscriminately demonizing all dissidents as ‘racists’, including whoever defends his European identity, they use anti-racism as a totalitarian tool against anti-system opposition.
Commentary
ad 1. Anti-racists are hypocritical. We know from moral psychology that the purpose of moral reasoning is to justify preexisting sentiments and emotions. For Europeans, anti-racism is a moral pretense to justify their historical guilt and ethnomasochistic sentiments. Yet, of course, anti-racism is not only that; part of it also comes from a desire for cheap honor (virtue signaling), a fear of being discriminated against when power relations change, and genuine compassion.
ad 2. Anti-racists are self-contradictory. This point is misleading because it confounds social and biological constructs. Anti-racists fight against oppression and discrimination based on racial stereotypes and prejudices while denying that these social constructs are rooted in biology. They thus do not logically contradict themselves. Still, they are scientifically wrong to claim that race (or ‘population’) is only about superficial features like skin color.
ad 3. Anti-racists are counterproductive. With their belief that racism and xenophobia are in no way natural instincts but purely socially conditioned, they promote mass immigration and forced multiculturalism as a utopian means to abolish racism, not once considering the possibility that their efforts could have the opposite effect. In fact, we objectively know that less homogenous societies are also less tolerant; for example, van Staveren & Pervaiz (2017) found that Ethnic Fractionalization correlates negatively with Inclusion of Minorities (r = −0.41, p < 0.01, see Table 3). While it is laudable to judge humans as individuals, it is dangerous to completely disregard biological and sociological dimensions.
ad 4. Anti-racists are intellectual terrorists. They indiscriminately shame and disparage dissidents, force them out of their jobs, and exclude them from the public debate. Such sociomoral mechanisms are important, of course, but throwing around the word ‘racist’ too generously inhibits rational discussions, yields subpar political solutions, and even weakens the accusation of racism itself. Moreover, lumping together a broad range of thinkers and shitheads under the reputation-ruining label ‘racist’ radicalizes those who may otherwise have measured, non-bigoted concerns. Anti-racist intellectual terrorism might breed more racism than it cures. Maybe it prevents people from expressing racist views, but does this eliminate racism or does it merely eliminate the corrective feedback that could be given in a less politically correct society?
ad 5. Anti-racists are postmodern totalitarians. They mask their political ideology with a moral agenda to systematically repress opposing points of view. Although a moral agenda can be broadly realized only if it is politicized, we must be aware that ideologues can conversely use moralizing as a political weapon, for example, as a weapon to destroy the political itself by establishing a totalitarian world state without borders, without races, without diversity—but with an ideologically homogenized, economized mass of meaning-deprived, pleasure-puppeteered consumers.
Read More
Please Vote
Leave a Reply