Tags

,

Part 6: Genocide

Raphael Lemkin, the father of the notion of genocide, wrote:

“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings [emphasis mine], religion, and the economic existence of national groups and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.” Lemkin cited in Stephen L. Jacobs, “Indicting Henry Kissinger: The Response of Raphael Lemkin,” in Adam Jones, ed., Genocide, War Crimes, and the West, p. 80.

Nothing I have written in this series so far has any moral or political implications; I have just discussed the forces that contribute to the persistence of ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds. The forces I have discussed—genes, culture, homeland, spirit—would traditionally be called ones heritage or inheritance. But these terms sometimes simply have the connotation of being akin to useless baggage one comes into the world in possession of, whereas I have illustrated how they act as an ethnic or other genocide-susceptible kind’s sustaining force, the “essential foundations” Lemkin mentioned in the above quote.

Although by them selves these facts about the nature of different kinds have no political implications, when combined with certain moral principles concerning the nature of genocide they do have political implications. It should probably be obvious by now that my point is going to be that Cultural Marxism is genocidal in that it attacks and prevents the working of the forces that allow ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds to persist. Empedocles taught that there were two forces operating in nature: Love (philos) and Strife (neikos). Love was the force the brought and kept things together; Strife was the force the drove things apart and destroyed them. The essence of Cultural Marxism is neikophilia; its imperatives are designed to break the bonds, and prevent the working of the forces that keep ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds together.

You could do worse than define Cultural Marxism with the above Lemkin quote. However, I don’t like the phrase “Cultural Marxism.” I feel it is too academic and dry. And “Cultural Marxism” doesn’t lend itself to any good derogatory terms like “commie.” (We need to get to work on this!) Furthermore, many libertarians and capitalists would fall under the category of being a Cultural Marxist, and it seems odd to call them Marxists. Nevertheless, “Cultural Marxism” has caught on so we will have to live with it, I suppose.

The point of this article is to draw the conclusions that result from the combination of ethnic realism with this standard account of genocide. The realist account of ethnicity in parts 2 – 5 forms the first premise of the argument. The nature of genocide forms the second. This series of posts is not about the definition of genocide, a very complicated issue in its own right with a large literature. I am just going to adopt the standard UN Convention on Genocide definition as a baseline.

The UN Convention on Genocide defines genocide as:

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) forcible transferring children of the group to another group.

The crux of my argument is this: ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds require the working of certain forces in order to persist. These forces were discussed in parts 2 – 5. The prevention of the working of these forces by individuals, society, or the state through laws, sanctions, violence, or social pressure, would result in the destruction, in whole or in part, of the genocide-susceptible kind, i.e., would be genocide. Cultural Marxism advocates and facilitates the prevention of the working of these forces. Therefore, Cultural Marxism advocates genocide. (If you want you can complete the argument in that we ought to resist or forbid those ideologies that advocate genocide, therefore, we ought to resist or forbid Cultural Marxism.)

Thus, the forces I discussed in parts 2 – 5 must be allowed to do their job of sustaining ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds. Specifically, from part 2, ethnic groups can not be prevented or censored from the reproduction of their distinctive traditions, or from advocating the creation of new members of the kind, i.e, advocating against miscegenation is not in any way morally objectionable.

From part 3: members of an ethnic group can not be hindered or censured for seeking to live among members of their own kind, i.e., “white flight” or any other kind of ethnic clustering is not immoral or objectionable, although introducing the factors that cause it is.

From part 4: an ethnic group has a right to reserve its territory to itself, i.e, borders, immigration controls, or housing discrimination are in no way morally objectionable.

From part 5: an ethnic group has the right to inculcate affection for the group in its members in order to urge them to perpetuate the kind and defend its territory, i.e., patriotic celebrations and displays of ethnic pride, ethnocentrism, or attempts to inculcate group affection among a people, are in no way morally objectionable.

In short, it is perfectly acceptable and unobjectionable to favor members of your own kind when it comes to a whole host of behaviors and social functions. On the contrary, efforts to weaken and destroy these forces, known as Cultural Marxism, are immoral and unjust and may or must be resisted.

(There is one qualification to the preceding: an ethnic group or other genocide-susceptible kind is not entitled to physically harm others in perpetuation of its kind. For example, the Comanche may justifiably be prevented from raiding and looting other tribes, and that a life of raiding and looting made up a significant part of the Comanche’s cultural identity does not protect it from being justifiably suppressed. )

We will conclude this series in part 7.

Advertisements