It is a commonplace of neoreactionary and reactionary discourse that Social Justice Warriors always project. Once you’ve digested a Red Pill, in respect to any domain of life, you cannot help but notice this phenomenon. No one in the modern West is as hateful as the haters of haters; no one in the modern West is as blind to his own hatred.
It is worth remembering, then, that as Jung first developed the notion of projection from his own vast clinical experience, projection is of those traits that people most abhor in themselves. It arises from their deep conviction of their own personal evil. What we most hate in others then is – so Jung found – a pretty reliable indication of what we hate in ourselves, but would rather not confess to ourselves, or of course a fortiori to anyone else.
Excursus: Yet another demonstration of the profound psychospiritual efficacy of the Sacramental Rite of Confession and Reconciliation.
Racism is perhaps the most popular projective epithet du jour. What does this tell us? It tells us that Social Justice Warriors know at some deep level that they engage in racial stereotyping, and that they feel guilty for so doing. Not consciously, of course. Or not very consciously, anyway. But they know they are doing it, they know they are making decisions on the basis of such evaluations – i.e., they know they are *discriminating* – and they feel bad about the whole thing.
Excursus: What’s fascinating to me is that illiberals of all races seem by contrast rather careless of race, and much more cheerful. They are far more ready to admit racial differences, and also *to feel relaxed about them,* in rather the same way that they feel relaxed about gravity or bipedalism. It’s just not a big deal for them.
You can’t be true friends with someone if you are not able to admit your differences to each other, or especially to yourselves. Differences are in a sense a basis of friendship.
We could with but little trouble extend such observations to many of the liberal shibboleths: sexism, Islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia, you name it. Even hatred of climate change deniers is amenable to this sort of analysis: SJWs are worried about *their own* contribution to the supposed death of the planet – about their own inherent evil – and so they worry that they ought to kill themselves, but they cannot help the fact that they *don’t want to die,* so *they themselves are doubly evil.* A terrifying thought. Because the evil *deserve death.* They themselves might be worthy scapegoats, fit for the sacrificial pyre! O no!
But let’s stick with racism.
What’s the apologetical weapon?
“Why are you so angry about racism?”
That’s really it. Whatever your interlocutor answers, your response is simple: “How come you are so angry about that?”
Keep asking that question to every response he gives. You may need to vary your response to this or that explanation of why racially informed evaluations are so profoundly wrong, as:
“OK, I get that; but, why does that make you so *angry*?”
If you keep at it, gently, without the slightest indication of controversion of anything he is saying – you are not arguing with him, but rather only seeking understanding – eventually the truth will out. If you are not fighting with him, it can’t be about you, or your ilk. It can and will turn out to be only about him.
That is likely to be especially painful for him. You must then be with him so, so very gentle. You must be to him the Good Samaritan, to him who has his whole life been beaten, to dereliction, weakness, fault, fear, unconsciousness – indeed, *willed* unconsciousness. You must remember that your enemies, your ultimate enemies – the demons – are his enemies, too. You must muster, and feel, and show, compassion for him.
Ideally, you should at that moment pray for him. Do not omit to pray for yourself, and for a proper humility.
Then, you can say something like this: “What would it look like for you if you didn’t need to worry about that anymore?” And then, you should shut up, so that the soft harmless question can sink deeply in.
And that will engage his visualization engine in constructing a picture of what life would be like if he could stop worrying about race. It will, in other words, engage him in thinking about what life could be like if he could go ahead and be realistic about racial differences, the way that normal people of all races have always been. The thought might occur to him for the first time consciously (although not unconsciously): “What if the races are different, *and that’s OK*?”
That vision is bound to seem to him a tremendous relief, from anxieties that have bedeviled him for years.
All good, right?
I hasten to add that I do not myself think in terms of races. I think rather in terms of nations. The comfortable Swedes are much different than those flinty Norwegians, e.g. Anyone can see it, who has two neurons to rub together …