The Ultimate Target of Diversity

In the latest issue of Touchstone, SM Hutchens identifies the ultimate target of the Social Justice Warriors:

The white male conservative is the hidden, negative correlative of “diversity” among those who value that concept. It is he who, by definition, is *not* diverse, and therefore can not only *not* share in that virtue, but is the embodiment of all that opposes it. “Conservative” is the operative word here, because all who partake in this vice lose the virtue inherent in the original presumption of diversity bestowed upon women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, the disabled, etc., who are accused by the diversicators of diminishing their identity as such to the degree they embrace traditional moral teaching. They then become like Diversity’s subterranean but iconic devil.

As a Christian theologian who is sensitive to the nuances of such things, I have found it difficult to convince people who are not that the real devil in view, after all the layers of dissimulation, temporizing, and subterfuge are removed, is Christ as the Founder of the pestilential Christian Church. He is, at base, the White Male who troubles the narrative of political, social and religious liberalism. Hatred of the white male conservative may safely be assumed, unless it is shown otherwise, to be hatred of the Christ of the Bible, unreconstructed into the innocuous and dithering cipher its partisans require – into which, for example, they are desperately attempting to make Pope Francis.

Those who would follow Christ, of either sex, or of any race or culture, must be incorporated into him, and therefore cannot avoid being like him, or avoid the charges that being like him will evoke from his enemies, including those brought at the bar of Diversity.

Our Enemy is not, NB, after white male conservatives as such, but rather only insofar as they stand in cultural discourse for the partisans of Jesus, and in virtue of their preponderant membership in his mystical body.

46 thoughts on “The Ultimate Target of Diversity

  1. Pingback: The Ultimate Target of Diversity | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. “Those who would follow Christ, of either sex, or of any race or culture, must be incorporated into him, and therefore cannot avoid being like him, or avoid the charges that being like him will evoke from his enemies, including those brought at the bar of Diversity.”

    Yep. Jn. 15: 18-21

  3. Pingback: The Ultimate Target of Diversity | Reaction Times

  4. The target of diversity is the white Supremacist, ie., the white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., The Perfect Man. He is just so the target of diversity for his fervent faithfulness in the Perfect paradigm providing all things with particular purpose. Diversity equals redundancy equals anti-Singularity equals anti-Perfection equals against The Perfect (white) Man equals murderous hatred for white men seeking a perfected will (a truly free will) through Christ.

  5. I would caution lumping all liberals in the same basket with those who advocate the diversity / anti-white male attitude described in this piece. It is my impression that most “liberals” like most “conservatives” are centrists and see the folly and dishonesty of being politically correct. However, it is because extreme conservatives and extreme liberals tend to lump all those on the other side of the middle as extreme that prevents us from finding a middle ground where compromise is possible.

  6. Hutchens is terrific (he was kind enough to correspond with me many years ago about an article he wrote on theology). Even so I don’t think your conclusion is correct. They hate us because in the current narrative we “victimized” them.

    • Yes, of course, it is the “humiliation” of the “colonized.” The colonizer is evil. He showed them their weakness, and dared to find the solution by his way, his method, his culture his (the) civilization. It isn’t just the regular victimized (oppressed) who hate the White Man, it is everyone who isn’t white.These days, the Chinese – mainland and “westernized,” who one would have thought would be allies of this White Man – are viciously attacking this white man because he has shown them that he is better than them.

      Hutchens has beautifully, and with great insight, shown us the link between spirituality (Christianity) and hatred of any who follow or attempt to follow perfection through Jesus’ perfection. A perfect housewife is hated rather a woman leave her home and lives as a masculine in a masculine world. A perfect artist is hated (look at the abomination of perfection in art these days where artists have finally shown clearly that they are following the devil’s direction). A perfect man is hated where young boys and men are being pulled into homosexuality or effeminate ways and made to hate this man. And so on.

      Our enemies have now been emboldened into telling us that truth that our battle is a spiritual one. That is because they appear to be winning. But who is more conceited than the devil? Of course it is still, and always, God’s world.

      • Let me be the first to welcome Kidist to our conversation.

        P.S. – Kidist is a kind of “neighbor” of mine, being a Torontonian, sight of whom the curvature of the Earth only just prevents an Oswegonian from seeing directly. But I sense her like-mindedness from across the lake…

      • Thank you, dear friends for your kind (re)welcome. I am still very active (whether online or off) as a champion of western civilization and “beauty” and just received a new role – promoter of the Austerian View – as Kristor said in an email regarding my comment registration. What an honorable title!

        Please visit my new website where I’ve now added “The Society for the Reclamation of Western Beauty.” It is still a work in progress but I hope to make it bigger than web musings, and into a full-fledged revolution!

        http://societyforreclaimingwesternbeauty.blogspot.ca/p/a-beauty-movement.html

        KPA

      • The “victimization” narrative is a rationalization of their resentment, which is prior, and arises from envy.

        A lot of the people including some of those invovled in modern identity politics have legitimate grievances especially with the English intellectuals (like the theorectical Mormon here) who condoned the brutal surpression of peoples around the world for centuries and helped spread liberalism to the four corners of the map.

        Traditionalists would profit much more from reading Domenico Losurdo’s work than buying into the standard right-liberal fairy tale about “resentment.”

      • Sucks to be conquered, to be sure. I’ll take a British conqueror over a Spanish or Portuguese, or any of them over a Muslim conqueror, any day of the week.

      • I didn’t suggest that the benignity of the British Empire was unalloyed. Just better than some alternatives. As I’d rather be governed by Turks than by Arabs, so I’d rather be governed by the Imperial British than by the Imperial Iberians.

      • Kristor,

        I think the Anglos had a much higher body count. If we are going to (rightly) cite atrocities like the Holodomor to disprove Soviet style communism than we can cite British atrocities in Ireland, Africa and India to condemn liberalism. Not everyone who points this out is doing so out of some false sense of victimization.

        That really is what I am really trying to get at. Whatever the much slandered Iberians might have done they did not formulate and then impose liberalism around the globe.

        I know for some here “not being a cuck” actually means embracing 19th century nativism but can we still point out the hypocrisy of English “gentlemen” like Locke who simultaneously supported African slavery and the genocide of the Irish while demanding liberty for his own class? Do we have to defend those dead white males?

      • The British Empire was not at first liberal. It was aristocratic, and monarchical. It didn’t get liberal until after the American Revolution. Liberalism infected it, just as it infected France.

        Without descending into splitting historical hairs about body count and so forth, I get your point, Ita. The British did atrociously wicked things, as conquerors do. Nevertheless I’ll take a British overlord with his British sense of fair play, decency, noblesse oblige, the White Man’s Burden (and its concomitant, an intense awareness of who is a wog, and who not), and so forth – these being all pre-ideological characteristics of the British people – over most any other.

        Empires kill. But NB: the very notion of victimization is Leftist.

      • I’d rather be ruled by Iberians than Aztecs. I’d rather live under the British Raj than the Great Mogol. A curious sort of racism runs through modern anti-imperialism. Brutality and misrule don’t seem to count when the brutal misrulers bear a physical resemblance to the brutally misruled.

      • I’d rather be ruled by white men faithfully desirous of objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection, where a spirited national nature is axiomatic and definitive in the understanding of “rule.” Ergo, those who rule AGAINST the most spirited national nature just are illegitimate rulers. And certainly any followers of an axiomatic spirited national nature towards objective (S)upremacy should respect said white men’s equally faithful* desire to be understood as white Supremacists.

        *Just as it takes great faith to strive towards Supremacy as a white man, it takes even greater faith to then publicly identify as a white Supremacist. To then not perceive this faithless reluctance as a victory for Babel within *your* mind is only to exponentially degenerate.

  7. We need to make much more use of the word “vilification,” since we are so often subject to it. Vilification is a rationalization of irrational hatred, so it is most often practiced by people such as SJWs, who are officially opposed to Hate. To vilify is to calumniate a person or group so as to make them fit objects of pre-existing hatred. This usually involves imputation of dark malice and diabolical power. In other words, it involves projection of Hate. Most of us see today’s organized Christianity as a toothless, spineless, ramshackle affair; but to our enemies it apparently looks like the massed armies of Mordor. The same can be said of conservative white men, who are leaderless, demoralized, disorganized, and divided. Yet when one reads about us in the liberal press, one gets the impression we are as fearsome as Genghis Kahn and his Golden Horde.

    • JM: My late and much-missed friend Steve Kogan, who in his life made the agonizing journey from “red diaper baby” to what I would call genteel reaction, once said to me that everything the Left says about those on the other side of its psychotic barricade, and he meant everything, is pure projection.

      • You and I have privileged insight into this, inhabiting Liberal-land during working hours, but then retreating to Normalville in our free time. The folks in Normalville don’t think about Liberal-land nearly as much as the folks in Liberal-land think about Normalville. When they do, they can get “worked up,” but they don’t often tip over into twitching rage and ranting. Incandescent hate is largely restricted to those who hate Haters.

      • WS @ Thordaddy inhabits Supremacistville, which looks down on Normalville and Liberal-land from an olympian height.

      • Lol…

        Actually, I try to “see” Perfectville and create white Supremacists who shall do the same from somewhere in Normalville.

  8. I just read somewhere a sentence that said something like this: Modernity is anti-religious because it is anti-Christian, and not vice-versa – but I can’t remember where I read it! Vilification, which the Left calls demonization and which it attributes to its opponents, is the first stage of the scapegoat ritual. The Left vilifies because, like Islam, which it resembles in no few ways, it is in a state of perpetual sacrificial crisis and therefore requires an endless supply of blood-offerings to its Ungod. “The Ungod is God and Saul Alinsky is his prophet.” The Aztec-like callousness of the Left is suddenly made even more evident than before by its depraved willingness to campaign its own already etiolated presidential nominee to death for the sake of hanging on to power. One would expect a sacrificial religion to be hostile to Christianity, and to the one, Jesus, who once and eternally deconstructed the sacrificial logic of his vilifiers and persecutors. One would also expect it to eat its own when the usual method of lynching its Other begins to be difficult because the demonization process (i.e., political correctness) is failing. Those people are above the law, but Trump appears to be above scapegoating, and simply by an act of determination. His might be the more powerful position.

    • I question whether all your labels along with the attributes you seem to associate with these labels actually reflect reality. Most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Moreover, these leanings do not necessarily match with their religious views.

      • wS…

        You continue to insist that an evaluation of Babel’s meta-scheme is falsified by areas of random micro-scheme. No.

      • wS

        You can question the labels all you want, but when you question the label of “Roman Catholic” as a self-avowed Roman Catholic THEN you indicate collusion with Babel.

        To be a Roman Catholic JUST IS TO ASSERT the Truth of the Nicene Creed which is faithfully believed to be The Perfect Paradigm providing all things with particular purpose.

        Translation: No truly redundant phenomena… No actual deconstruction… No “infinite regress…” No general entropy.

        At the point of metaphysical first principle, there is unrelenting faith in (P)erfection and flat out denial and rejection of The Perfect Paradigm providing all things with particular purpose.

        You call yourself a “Roman Catholic,” but what does such a self-referential label mean anyway?

      • At this stage of the Fall and our collective proximity to Final Liberation, there is only conserving liberalism and liberating conservatism.

      • wS…

        You do not understand “operating paradigms?”

        Think of a computer’s “operating system” both hardware and software and its worldly boundedness.

        The universe as giant computer possesses an “operating paradigm.”

        This “operating paradigm” is either conceived as (P)erfection or “it” reduces to “nothing” IN THE MINDS OF WHITE MEN.

        On one side are white Christians and believers in the Perfect “operating paradigm” and on the other side are all those whose “operating paradigm” reduces to “nothing,” ie., self-annihilating.

      • I agree that this is an eccentric use of the word paradigm. Admittedly, the word has been stretched out of shape since Kuhn first introduced it to general use, but one cannot get away from the basic meaning of the word, which is “model, representation, or image.” When C. S. Lewis wrote of the Discarded Image, he was talking about the model of the cosmos that stood behind medieval and Renaissance literature–what we might call the “worldview” or “paradigm” of the age. A paradigm (i.e. worldview, etc.) might very well include the notion that the universe is tending towards perfection, but this notion is in the paradigm, not in the universe. Even if the universe is, indeed, tending towards perfection, this actual tendency would exist as an essential property in the nature of the universe, not as as an aspect of a paradigm possessed by the universe. The universe is simply not the sort of thing that can have a “paradigm,” unless we impute it with some sort of imperfect and evolving consciousness of itself.

      • And the “reason” one maintains faith in the Perfect “operating paradigm” is due a God-granted desire to realize genuine free will.

      • The universe as giant computer possesses an “operating paradigm.”

        This “operating paradigm” is either conceived as (P)erfection or “it” reduces to “nothing” IN THE MINDS OF WHITE MEN.

        This is the key passage IMHO. Either white man’s “operating paradigm” is conceived of as an absolutely knowable model of the universe AND imputed with total meaning OR his “operating paradigm” reduces to “nothing.” Implied and implicit in all this is a) the existence of (P)erfection itself (with secular man conceiving of the universe as (p)erfect* from the beginning) and b) white man’s God-ordained free will.

        The goal of Babel is to convince the masses of General Entropy (total imperfection) thus falsifying white man’s freed will to (P)erfection.

        *(p)erfect in the sense that said universe was NOW tending toward imperfection, ie., general entropy, SO must have began “perfectly.”

      • Obviously an “operating paradigm” is a “knowable model,” since a paradigm is a model, and a paradigm cannot be operational if no one knows what it is. Fukuyama’s argument that liberal democracy is the “end of history” would seem to say that the present operating paradigm of the West is “perfect.” I suppose the same could be said of the salvation system one finds in the New Testament.

      • Well wS, abstractly, “whiteness” to (p)erfection could be like “blackness” to abyss.

        But…

        The really pertinent question that you want to ask is what is the connection between the white race and (P)erfection?

        I would say unbreakable.

  9. Picking up on Dr. Bertonneau’s theme of “demonization” is the mechanism of “bearing false witness” and “universal equality” as the “ordering paradigm” of the dull “white” masses. The demons of Babelization have so effectively been bearers of false witness that in the mind of the dull “white” mass are equal demons on both sides. Yet, ultimately, the “success” of this utterly fallacious “equality of demons” MUST BE THE FAILURE of the most angelic amongst white men to make their faces known AS WORSHIPPERS of the perfect will. The Fall DID NOT PROHIBIT the perfecting of the white man’s will. The Fall has defined this white man’s desire for Perfection.

    Such white men are called white Supremacists, absolutely. And no one need cry “religious bigotry.”

  10. “They” are “demon eyes” because “it” has visions of (P)erfection…

    And the dull “white” mass must use “perfectionist” pejoratively and only know the “white supremacist” as an unhinged, white degenerate!

    You see, nothing less than the relentless memetic propagation of a visual virtual reality translated linguistically into “white supremacist equals white degenerate” can our babble do the “trick.”

    No white men worshipping Perfection to be found in all the Orthosphere or the new fallen “Christendom.”

    “The Truth of Modernism” pg. 0.

  11. Kristor @ Envy, but also pride. There is special form of resentment that begins with a feeling of shame over one’s inferiority, and over therefore standing in need of help. In a well ordered soul, this shame is transformed into gracious humility and gratitude. But pride very often prevents this, and substitutes ridiculous resentment. I suppose it is an ego defense. A good part of Christian spirituality is learning to accept a gift with gracious humility and gratitude. A good part of Christian apostasy is resenting the inferiority that is implied by Christ’s gift.

  12. On paradigms: The term paradigm is originally grammatical. It refers to the inflection of verbs and the declension of nouns. As Nietzsche (of all people!) put it: Once people stop believing in grammar, they will stop believing in God. (That would explain ninety per cent of modern people.)

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s