I am soliciting responses to a piece of mail I received from a British pro-lifer the other day.
Please read the following, then leave your response in the commbox...
Prizes to be announced.
Let's play a game!
When you've devoted your whole life to fighting a life-and-death battle to save humanity
when you've spent 15 years working to defeat the prevailing evils,
when you've written thousands of articles, briefs, legislative analyses, interviews, parliamentary notes, blog posts and other on-the-record work laying your position out for all the world to see,
when you've knowingly sacrificed any hope of ever entering the secular professions by defending a position that is utterly anathema to the secular world,
when you've left your country, your friends and your family to live somewhere foreign and frightening to serve in this war,
when you're being named in a half-million dollar lawsuit - by a priest - for your defence of Catholic truth,
when you've made enemies from the bottom to the top of the corruption-chain in the Church,
when you have, in short, stuck your neck out a bit for the Truth of Christ,
how would you respond to someone, who claims to be on your side, who asks you:
"So, just checking here, but do you support genocide?"
"I'm just asking because of a link on your blog..."
~ * ~ * ~
You might be wondering what my first reaction was to being asked this.
Mostly the urge to bitch-slap, actually.
So, I know that people in the pro-life movement often have wondered why we are so dumb. Why is it that so many people involved in sincere efforts to save the humans from their own stupidity are themselves often so stupid it is difficult to understand why their autonomic nervous systems don't just give up in despair?
Come on, I know that you know what I mean. It's a sad and embarrassing truth that we often could not be more self-defeating if we walked around with targets painted on our shoes. We've all experienced, and lamented it. One of the things we have a big problem with is trust. We often treat each other worse than we treat our political opponents.
I once had a conversation with the Great John Muggeridge about this, and he said something quite sensible. I asked him why people in the Save-the-Humans movement (giving the broadest possible definition, from people opposing abortion to those defending freedom of speech and opposing things like gun control) were so eager to vilify each other. Just what the hell is with that circular firing squad thing?
He said that people without power often turn on each other. It's one of those Fallen Human Nature things that we just can't understand.
Also, one of the most important rules of life I ever learned, and thanks-be-to-God, learned early in life: people are stupid. (A little gem of wisdom I learned working in retail back in the days when I had no scruples about using my mind-powers to make people buy things they didn't really need or want. I got out of sales when I realised that I was too good at it and would go to hell.)
Yes, people are stupid, and in our times they are especially stupid about politics.
It might be helpful to these people asking questions about my politics to remember that terms like "rightwing" and some names like "BNP" are used in the media and the political classes not as words that have specific meaning, but as psychological trigger mechanisms to induce mass hysteria. To the political manipulators of our time, words are, in the words of Chairman Mao, not symbolic representations of an external reality but "little sticks of dynamite" to ignite a violent emotional reaction in people's minds. This reaction is intended to shut down the processes of rational thought and reduce individual citizens to screeching mobs. The modern "political discourse" is in fact no such thing. It is, in reality, a vast mechanism for mass psychological manipulation.
So, congratulations, half-wits, you've been used.
I've been writing this blog for, good grief! about nine years now (!!!), in various forms and there are people in our little club here who have been reading me for that long and pretty much know the score. They get the jokes, but they also know how easy it is to fall foul of my temper, and they behave accordingly.
And in all that time, of course, I've received and shared all manner of ridiculous, offensive, insulting and idiotic communications from various people offended by my ideas. And, hell, fair enough. That's what this is all about. No skin off my nose if you don't like them. I'm up for a fight if you are. I've been fighting most of my life, and I'm pretty good at it now, so be warned. These are some pretty hardened little fists nowadays.
And I realise that we talk about stuff that is not exactly mainstream here. (I remember particularly the reactions I used to get when I would say - and make clear that I really meant - that a huge step forward for saving the world would be to repeal women's suffrage laws...Hee Hee! Now THAT was some hate! Pure, black, acidic, vicious and refreshingly straightforward.)
I think that in recent history we haven't received any mail here that was funnier than that from our friend the nice, naive, (and wildly talented) young painter from Duncan BC who demanded that I remove a link to his blog because, with my evil, hating, rightwing, homophobic, anti-woman positions, I was so intolerant and horrible that I could not be tolerated, even by someone as sweet-natured and tolerant as his enlightened self. I know we all enjoyed his correspondence very much.
But, unlikely as it seems, the other day I think we've topped it. I think that in all the years of stupid emails, we've finally received a communication that can truly be called the absolute nadir of stupidity. And, as anyone who's ever had anything to do with them will be totally unsurprised to learn, it was not from an enemy, but from "a friend," someone in the pro-life movement in the UK.
Do I support genocide?
Yes. I support genocide. That's why I link to Simon Darby.
And, of course, if I did "support genocide" and locking people up in camps for being too brown, I would certainly want everyone in the world to know about it. In fact, I'd stick it up on the sidebar of my blog, just to make sure everyone knew.
Here's the email:
To: Hilary White
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:31:52 AM
Subject: BNP Support etc
You don't know me very well (we corresponded a little recently about Marriage Care) but we are connected by a not so very long chain of pro-life friendships that is putting me in a difficult position and I'd be grateful if you could help me out.
I'm getting some flak from (privately for now but it could erupt in to a more public row) about the fact that you link to blogs such as Simon Darby (BNP) and are therefore (allegedly) sympathetic to "far right" fascist, racist, let's put all the foreigners in a concentration camp type views. Personally, I have no idea what your views are (hence this email) though I find it hard to believe you are pro-genocide.
Ordinarily my response to all this would be to say "take it up with Hilary" but the valid point is made that I regularly link to LifeSiteNews which in turn makes a lot of use of your writing. If you were linking to pro-abortion groups and LifeSite thought that okay then I would have a problem with LifeSite. If you do support genocide (which I highly doubt) then the same logic would obviously apply.
Anyway, I thought it best to get in touch directly and ask about the link to Simon Darby and your thoughts on the BNP in general?
Hope you are well,
Yes... I know.
So, you "highly doubt" that I support genocide.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence there pal. Mighty white of you.
So, now that I've calmed down and stopped swearing, I thought of various responses to this amazing communication, and I've found none really sufficient for describing the depths, or indeed the multitudinous facets and nuances, of my contempt for it.
I like to think that I've got plenty of venom. I know I can send a withering look over the internet that would knock over trees on other continents. A long time ago, I made an effort to learn to control my evil superpowers for the good of all humanity. But so stunned am I by the incredible asinine inanity of this, that my finger is actually hesitating over the ingition switch of my Wave Motion Gun.
Can it really be right to turn the full blast of my scorn on such a target?
So, I thought in the end, that I would turn it over to my loyal little band of regular readers. I decided that a contest was in order.
Please leave your responses in the commbox or send by email.
~ * ~ * ~
Of course, the material on this blog, when we go there, (which is less frequent in these latter years since I'm kind of sick of it all) is not of the sort that one finds often elsewhere, and I can see people being confused by such displays of independent thought. I generally just toodle along on the assumption that if you're here (and the readership, while loyal, has never been huge) you've got a fairly high-functioning cognitive ability, can do the basic tasks of rational thought, know the difference between satire, metaphor and irony. That the people who read me, in short, do so regularly enough to tell when I'm joking and when I'm serious and have the background to be capable of getting the joke most of the time. I work on the assumption that my readers know what they're getting, even if they don't agree.
I'm not very libertarian in my politics, and oddly, not all that right-wing in objective terms (based on, you know, actual political theory, as opposed to Guardian headlines). I once took a political position test and was surprised by how "moderate" I came out on the graph. Less authoritarian than Margaret Thatcher, and a good deal less libertarian than Ghandi. I have noticed, however, that whatever the actual facts are about one's political positions, the problem of talking about them is always the same, the drooling stupidity of the people one is talking to.
A big part of the problem of defining the political position of someone like me (and yes, I'm not alone) is that the current political theory does not include categories for us. Catholic social teaching is now so little understood, so little talked-about, so anathematised in the media, that there are few political writers or theorists who are aware of its existence. If you think the way I have learned to think, you have to create new categories (or, more accurately, revive very old ones). And you have to either not bother to talk to most people, who get their political theory from the back of the cereal box, or spend an inordinate amount of time making tiresome explanations.
This is especially true of the British who seem to have received their political education from a combination of Saturday Morning Cartoons, video games and the Guardian newspaper. This is a country where the newspapers start screeching like Pod People if someone suggests politely that there might be a few too many CCTV cameras watching their every move.
Britain is, if it can be believed, even more brainwashed than Canada where all the broadcast media is directly controlled by the government. British people, particularly British young people, having no contextual knowledge, often have no idea how far to the left they are. Nearly every young British person (anyone under 40) I have ever talked to is an unconscious socialist and feminist. It's hardly their fault, of course, since there is simply no other idea allowed to be spoken in public over there.
They appear, moreover, to be so utterly without a clew as to any political theory not found in some Little Red Book or media style guide, that it is very difficult to make them understand the implications of their own positions, let alone yours. They have been so mindwiped that they don't really even have the categories or vocabulary now to make it possible to communicate with them.
One small example will have to suffice:
I was in a conversation about gun control laws with a British priest who is widely considered "conservative" in the UK Catholic Church. He was in favour, it hardly needs to be said, and was lamenting loudly on Facebook that these awful Americans were running around waving their guns all over and killing children. I started pointing to the, you know, facts, letting him know that the violent crime rate in all heavily gun-controlled countries is a great deal higher than it is in countries where the citizens are free to arm themselves. I then noted that I found it surprising that he, a Catholic priest from control-freak Britain, would at such a time be taking such a strongly statist position. He replied that he didn't know what I was talking about, "This has nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage"...
At that point, I realised there was so little knowledge to talk to, there was no point in continuing.
British people have so little awareness of what "conservatism" is, what "right wing" means, what positions constitute Socialism, what the influences of Marxist feminism have been on their own thoughts and society, that there is rarely any time when I consider it fruitful to talk to anyone over there about anything but gardening.
But every now and then, the urge strangely rises, like those occasional freakish high tides. So, in the interests of fairness, I'll try to use small words.
~ * ~ * ~
So here is the nutshell version for those too lazy or stupid to be bothered looking up everything I've said publicly over the last 15 years.
(I've often commented that while people often ask me what I really think, they are usually rather sorry they did on the rare occasions when I am feeling bloody-minded enough to tell them.)
The first thing I am is a Traditionalist Catholic, one deeply skeptical of current Catholic culture and of most of Catholicism's interactions with and concessions to the general culture.
- I believe that post-Englightenment, Protestant and post-Christian "liberal democracy" is a failed experiment and that one of the very few things that might save us is to start moving back towards Catholic monarchy and the Catholic confessional state - the Social Reign of Christ the King. But I also think that our culture is so far gone that it is far more realistic to expect that we will simply carry on committing cultural suicide. We have become a culture of addicts, and addicts will destroy themselves, with full knowledge that they are destroying themselves, before turning their backs on the Sexual Revolution and returning to sanity.
- I believe in a limited nation state, based for the most part on the natural cultural and linguistic separations that were the basis of the European civilisations until the end of WWII. I am opposed to Socialism for many reasons, primary among which is its assertion that the state is the first and last authority. I am both anti-statist and anti-libertarian: I believe in Subsidiarity as it has been defined and defended by Catholic teaching since the rise of Marxism.
- I believe the Welfare State has reduced men to being supplicants and slaves in their own lands and that statist welfare is a form of grand larceny on a mass scale that has the effect of turning to stone the hearts of citizens and reducing the poor to a condition of animalistic moral degradation and corruption unknown in all of human history.
- I think Socialism is evil primarily because it inverts the purpose of the state; it says that man exists to serve the state, not the other way around. It also usurps the proper place of God, attempts to flatten the natural hierarchical nature of society, de-divinise human beings and reduces them to little more than meat-puppets enslaved to the state.
- I believe in the rights of property, that the state does not have the right to confiscate the property or wealth of citizens to fund projects that dehumanise and ultimately kill fellow citizens.
- I believe in a very limited state, run according to the moral and political teaching of the Catholic Church (look it up yourself for once), the government of which concerns itself primarily with defence. (All of which puts me at odds with the BNP, by the way.)
- Second, and perhaps even more passionately, I am actively anti-feminist. I violently loathe every. single. thing. feminism has ever held or declared and believe that it is probably the single most evil and destructive ideology ever to stalk the earth sowing misery, despair and death. (Yes, actual death, and plenty of it.) It is a disease that has come close to destroying our entire civilisation at its most basic level and that, if we want any hope of surviving, even as a species and certainly as a culture, Absolutely. Must. Be. Stopped.
- I do not care about "race". At all.
- I believe that most of the "race" issues have been created by political opportunists of various stripes, mostly on the left but plenty on what is usually termed "the right". People who concern themselves with "race" as a political issue are being manipulated through their emotions and ignorance. Most of the "race" issues consist of screaming, name-calling and idiot polemics.
- Most of the vocabulary of "race" is that of Marxism and as an issue it is mostly aimed ultimately at maintaining state control of individuals, mentally and financially. Blacks who allow themselves to become obsessed with "race" as a victim category, are being used, as are the bonehead whites that go along with it. It is nothing more than a manifestation of the Victim Politics that was designed by the likes of the Frankfurt School to keep the citizens at each other's throats.
- And as for the BNP, I am continuously amazed at how eager people who regard themselves as upright and sensible are to create a scapegoat and to believe the headlines and the idiot pronouncements of politicians and BBC pundits. The BNP is nothing more than a Boogey-Man in British politics. Moreover, most of their support has gone over to UKIP after the last election, so they are more or less defunct as a political force; whatever effect they may have had (which was mostly forcing Tory politicians to out themselves as leftists) is now finished.
When I first arrived in Britain, I had to learn as much as I could about the political scene. I therefore attended meetings of the local Tory organisers, watched political conference coverage closely and talked to everyone. (Yes, I mean everyone.) I subscribed to email lists and dozens of Google news alerts, feeds and websites.
I did this because it was my job.
I was fascinated, as an objective outside observer, by the incredible hysteria that the mention of the BNP could create. It was this strange knee-jerk screeching that interested me enough to send for a copy of their manifesto and read the whole thing.
What I read made me even more surprised. They are not right wing. The BNP, looked at objectively and rationally, are, in fact, socialists and Republicans (in the British not US partisan sense, of course... try to keep up). The believe in the state confiscation of private property and forcible re-distribution of wealth to support the British welfare state.
Their positions, as far as I could tell, were a combination of socialism and some leftover and rather dated nationalist ideas imported from the Continent in the 1960s. That they are called "rightwing" and "fascist" and "promoters of genocide" is much more a comment on the mendaciousness of the British media, dedicated as it is to its project of national self-destruction, and the gullibility of the fools who listen to them. This didn't surprise me, of course.
It also didn't surprise me how eager most people who thought of themselves as "pro-life" and "conservative" in Britain were to jump on the BNP witch-hunt bandwagon. I have observed many times the phenomenon of Pro-lifer Stockholm Syndrome, that manifests itself mostly as a desperation to appease our enemies on the left by demonstrating how warm and cuddly and non-rightwing it is. Certainly throwing anyone under the bus who might not want to play along is the first task.
And the saddest part of the joke is that the BNP are not in fact "rightwing" by any objective political measure. The label has simply been attached to them by political operators looking for someone to point at and screech. The fact that nearly all the nice, warm, friendly pro-lifers, desperate to appease their enemies, do not know this, have never bothered to learn anything about the object of their trumped-up hatred only makes them all the more pitiable.
As for the BNP's claims, (the ones they actually made, not the ones the Guardian says they make... please learn the difference...) they have mostly been demonstrated to be true. Documents and statements have been made public that prove the Labour government under Blair did indeed consciously and deliberately use mass immigration from non-European countries to dilute and undermine the traditions of British society.
It has also been proven beyond any reasonable person's objection that Pakistani drug gangs have for years been targeting white girls in places like Blackburn, "grooming" them and forcing them into prostitution. It has also been demonstrated that the police and other social authorities did nothing to stop this out of fear of being accused of "racism" and being anti-Muslim. And anyone who is still determined to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace" certainly deserves everything he gets at the hands of its missionaries.
Nearly all of which I've said before. I do wish people would do a little research once in a while. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone is still interested in this, and it is what makes me think that my "friends" in the pro-life movement who are asking J____ about it must be either very young or in some other way very ...err... sheltered.
~ * ~ * ~
Finally, in case anyone is wondering, my response to my friendly interlocutor above:
You might want to point out to these six-year old girls you're talking to that the BNP, whatever else they say, is the ONLY political party in the UK that has reduction of the abortion rate as part of its platform.
I read the platform, and I also didn't notice any mention in it of advocating genocide. I might have noticed such a thing.
The Brits are the biggest political morons on planet earth. Every. single. one. I've talked to is utterly incoherent. No British person has the ability to think his way out of a wet paper bag on politics. And the idea that I would take advice about what to and what not to link to on my blog from any of them when they're having their usual little hysterical tizzie fits over a differing opinion, is simply laughable.
I'd like to revise my previous response. Please tell them, "Hilary told me to tell you this very precisely: Grow the ___k up."
In fact, I encourage you to post my response on your blog.
...only there were no blank spaces.
I now open the floor to you all...
~ * ~ * ~
Update: we've had our first responses by email.
Chris Ferrara responds:
"Hi, Hilary, you don't know me very well, so I thought it would be a good idea to meddle in your blog site and give you unsolicited advice about which other sites you ought to be linking to. I know you must welcome this intrusion from a virtual stranger, but there is no need to thank me. Providing enlightenment to the little people is my duty, for what I do to the least of my brethren, I do to Him."
And the inimitably furious Kathy Shaidle commented that her brain hurt too much from reading J___'s email to say much but...
Well I can't accept his premise, [that] the BNP is pro-genocide. Well if you could find a clever clog at the BNP and I'm pretty sure they've all decamped to UKIP -- they might say they are interested in PREVENTING the "genocide" of old stock Brits. Too hard for J___ to understand.