This post briefly explains why the methods by which the media tosses conservative skepticism about immigration, globalism, and multiculturalism into the category of racism and why such actions are harmful to those who would wish to have a dialogue.
The prior post was about the way in which history and commonsense can interpret the findings of the WN movement in a more coherent fashion. This week will be about how the media inadvertently creates sympathy between conservatives and racists by casually employing the pejorative.
One of the key ways pernicious sympathies build between conservatives and WN's is through an alarmist and dogmatic leftists press, which sees any criticism of immigration, mass immigration, multiculturalism, and often nationalism in general as some form of ethno-fascist sentiment. No longer may one openly say their country is the best, their nation is the best, their customs and history the best; people can no longer criticize or question alien ideas and their relationship to western society unless they indulge in extensive self-flagellation first.
The fact that the governments in the western world fail to assert the superiority of western values and show no interest in preserving heritage is a great betrayal. Governments fail because they do not set the tone for discussion. They do not lay groundwork for reasoned criticism of alien custom and they do not upbraid those who would slander race as the primary factor in national well being.
The fourth estate is just as bad. The journalists slander any rightward thought as inimical to plurality or suggest that it is derived only from xenophobia. They use terms like racist, islamaphobe, and fascist often interchangeably to discredit ideas. This is dangerous because it establishes conservatives skeptical about foreigners as victims. Those who would advocate for their own civilization find another voice who will advocate on behalf of western civilization however, these individuals paint such as civilization as rooted in racial primacy not ideas.
Peter Hitchens, though himself a journalist, gives an extensive account of being branded a racist by the popular press in a chapter of his book The Broken Compass. He recognizes that he is not a racist and cannot fathom how a former revolutionary Trotskyite can be interpreted as one. He admits to being an aggressive protester, regrettably, against Enoch Powell. Most importantly, Hitchens touches on something in the media that is feeding the WN narrative and that is the tendency of the left to excoriate anything discourse beyond the politically correct or culturally relativist narrative as racist. This is problematic, because if conservatives who are not racists are branded as such, it both feeds the WN narratives of white guilt, white genocide and fosters an affinity between both marginalized groups.
Hitchens expands upon the lefts’ customary usage of the word racist to denigrate opponents: [L]et us return to the use of “racist” to describe a person. A helpful (to the zealot) confusion is created by the fact that all racialists are racists (just as all Jihadists are Muslims) but not all racists [in contemporary discourse] are racialists . . . . So the racist may truly be a racial bigot . . . and may . . . actively discriminate on irrational grounds. But he may do none of these things. He will . . . often find himself classified and dismissed as a racist if he is in fact what ought to be called a “culturist” . . . . This is how I would describe someone . . . who states or implies that the existing culture of this country is worth preserving.’
‘There is another more important way in which the charge of “racism” is abused. Those who believe that culture, rather than race, is a defining characteristic of peoples are often smeared with the charge of “racism”. Yet their position is often the exact opposite of . . . the bigots with whom they are being corralled.’ Hitchens continues on to state that the problem with racism is that it is not true, and that it is hopelessly defeatist because it assumes unalterable differences and no course or cause for reconciliation between racial groups. Hitchens refers to African-American economist, political theorist, and prolific intellectual Thomas Sowell who believes that through the accumulation of ‘cultural capital’ people of any racial group may unite favourably. Hitchens continues, ‘If this is so, then a powerful monoculture . . . is an important weapon in the fight to achieve integration. . . . The alternative . . . [maintaining multiculturalism] is likely to . . . perpetuate division— especially if many cultures are based on ethnic groups, as they generally are.’ Hitchens writes that still despite the aims of monoculturists and nationalists the left continues to denigrate them next to those who advocate a racialist discourse by condemning like minded people as racist. Hitchens suggests that his tendency to brand opponents in such a manner makes no sense if the aim is to abolish racial differences in a society, but does make sense if one's goal is to preserve a revolutionary discourse against those who dissent. I would also maintain that this is a common tendency of the intellectual left that any tendency of common, bottom up, discourse is subject to marginalization almost immediately due to perceived lack of merit.
The fact that the modern liberal media is so absorbed in silencing undesirable speech and shutting out those who do not kow-tow to the status quo is disappointing. If only the collection of pundits, newsmen, journalists, and governors had the tenacity and the sagacity to differentiate between the racists and the true conservatives shaming them to silence would prove easier, and the public would be made more aware.