Psycho Backlash: When Lackeys Attack

Last week's piece on the elitist depravity unintentionally revealed by Mitt Romney's departure from the presidential campaign ("American Psycho: An Elite Exposed in an Exit Speech") seems to have hurt the feelings of some bootlickers out there, who take great umbrage at seeing Massa disrespected. A (fairly brief) reply to these fretful lackeys can be found after the jump, for anyone who cares.

"....[Floyd's] extraordinary hatred for all things capitalist & caucasian.....Someone please tell us what it is you revolutionary malcontents want. We get the picture on the negative side. It has been detailed ad infinitum. You hate everything that now exists in America....Just give me an outline of your ideal workers` paradise where we are all happy healthy citizens." 

"Worker's paradise." "Revolutionary malcontents." You know you are in the presence of implacable ignorance when this kind of flaccid floppery comes out in the face of a few criticisms of the rich and power-hungry. For these guys, there are only two possible forms of human existence: you are either a sniveling bootlicker or a hardcore "commie."

I've seen this boneheaded dynamic at work my whole life. It comes out on every single issue, not just with the "War on Terror" or the "breeding Muslims." Anyone who criticizes the slightest aspect of American society is automatically a card-carrying communist who hates every single thing about America. (Unless of course, this criticism comes from the Right; then you can say any damn thing you want about America, belch out the foulest possible slanders of its people, its leaders, its culture, and you are still accounted a great patriot.)

What kind of "worker's paradise" do I want? I know this might be hard for those who feel all wiggly if the world is not ordered exactly as they want it, but I personally don't want any kind of paradise at all. I can't even imagine the kind of cramped, crippled, infantile mind that would assume there is some kind of perfect society to be had -- and to demand that any critic of present conditions must present a program for such impossible perfection. It must be terrible to live in such a box, beating your fists furiously and impotently against the sides when someone refuses to bend to your view. But adults must sometimes indulge childish petulance (if only to reduce the noise level somewhat), so let me indulge this witless request with a very brief word on my preferences -- not demands, not a program, not a doctrine -- for the ordering of human affairs.

As noted, I don't want any kind of paradise; I would simply prefer a somewhat more human, humane society, full of the usual amount of corruption, crime and tomfoolery that attends all of our endeavors -- but with these restrained somewhat by an honest striving to create just laws and apply them fairly. Radical stuff, eh?

I would prefer that my government not torture people and launch aggressive wars that not only kill multitudes of innocent people but stir up hatred against my country and keep the whole world in ferment and fear. Revolutionary, I know.

I would prefer that employees and employers work together more closely for the betterment of their communities, rather than having the latter gut the entire socioeconomic fabric of our towns and cities by shipping every steady, good-paying job they can get their hands on off to a foreign country where they can squeeze wage slaves to death to get a few pennies more on the dollar. But that's just plain old Bolsheviki terrorism, I reckon.

As for hating "all things caucasian" -- well, that's beyond (or below) the knee-jerk stupidity of the "commie" canard. What does the blog post in question actually talk about? It rails against the depredations of the American elite against ordinary Americans, (who are overwhelmingly caucasian); it mentions the "disaster capitalism" inflicted on the Russians (who are also caucasians, the last time I looked); and so on. Why, the last time I looked, I was even a caucasian myself. But as the commenter is obviously all het up on the subject of race, I hasten to assure him that my infinite capacity for human sympathy does indeed extend to those of paler hues.

But his wiggiliness on this score dovetails with that of another commenter -- some Aussie acolyte of Mark Steyn taking exception to my less than adulatory mention of his hero. This licker writes, factlessly, that "it's a fact that 17 European populations such as Greece, Italy, France etc are beyond birth rate replacement levels. The only growth is through often Muslim immigration. Do the math on how any culture remains sustainable like this? Oh, none of the cultures are of value cos they're kinda white?"

Dubious stats aside, here again we meet with flaccid yet implacable ignorance; to wit, the idea that "culture" (always undefined by these flaccidists) can only be transmitted through blood and semen. Of course, the reality is that most of what we know of Greek and Roman culture (the lodestones of the flaccidists) was passed on only because it was saved by....a bunch of dirty Muslims. Otherwise, much of this legacy of human civilization would have been lost to the neglect -- and extremist frenzies -- of Christendom. Again, the same charges that the blood-and-semen crowd are now leveling against Muslims -- that their dark, breeding hordes will swallow up European "culture" -- are precise echoes of the charges once made against Jews in Europe.

I doubt very seriously if any of these blood-semen panickers know a single Muslim. They almost certainly don't know any European Muslims, who seem to be their worst nightmare. But I do. I live among European Muslims of every conceivable type and status, from shopkeepers, clerks and laborers to salaried professionals and business owners to mandarins of the highest Western culture at Oxford University. Their beliefs and behavior are just as varied as those of all other human beings.

And here's an important point: just as with many Jews and Christians, many "Muslims" are Muslims in name only, or by cultural background. As with many Jews and Christians, they don't actually practice the religion, or do so half-heartedly, or by habit; or, as many Jews and Christians do, they leave the religion altogether.

But -- again as with the Jews in pre-war Europe -- none of this matters to the blood-and-semen fanatics. In their little boxed minds, they can never see human variety in anyone who doesn't look like them or think like them. They can only see monolithic hordes of "Others" -- commies, "revolutionary malcontents," hot-blooded Muslims getting jiggy with it under those long black robes -- always acting completely in concert, and always with the goal of destroying everything good and decent in the world.

You know, it's not really for me -- or any other critic -- to explain ourselves when we decry self-evident evils that any ordinary person would denounce. It's for all those bootlickers out there to explain just why they stand for torture, greed and aggressive war -- and why they repeat so faithfully the same tropes that once led their oh-so-beloved caucasian Europeans to murder six million Jews (and millions of others) in order to preserve their "culture." Let them explain that before they start demanding programs for paradise from everyone else.