Do “Anti-Racists” Protest Too Much?

Our Canadian correspondent Rembrandt Clancy has translated a recent essay by the German Islam-critic Marc Doll, and includes his own brief introduction.

Racism in the Middle of the Society?

Introduction by Rembrandt Clancy

Marc Doll, the author of this essay, is a founding member of Citizens’ Rights Party DIE FREIHEIT (28 October 2012) and is one of its leaders. He is also one of the eight or so Islam-critics who revived the White Rose (Weiße Rose) resistance movement of 1942 to 43 (Gates of Vienna reported).

“Racism in the Middle of the Society” — the idea that racism is endemic to society — was commonplace among the New Left of the 1960s. Older readers will know that for sure. Nor will the silencing of critics with the argument from potential consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) be foreign to most. The inflation of numbers to create the impression of an epidemic and the exaggeration of a minuscule minority to forge a massive presence (homosexualism), are also commonplace everywhere, not just in Germany.

But Marc Doll’s treatment of the reproach of racism using psychoanalysis, combined with his announcement of intent to “return the accusation [of racism] to the senders” begs the question as to the identity of the original “senders”. Might they have been the psychoanalytically oriented “critical theorists” of the so-called Frankfurt School? They may have established the ideological prototype for endemic “racism” in the unprovable claim that anti-Semitism, fascism and their depth-psychological infrastructure, the so-called “authoritarian personality”, have their paramount source in the paternalistic structure of the family. They even developed a personality questionnaire, the F-Scale, to identify the “potentially” fascistic individual (Adorno et al. “The Authoritarian Personality” (1950)).

Racism in the Middle of the Society?

by Marc Doll (translation by Rembrandt Clancy)


14 May 2014

An article [“White is always guilty”] by Michael Paulwitz in Junge Freiheit describes how the German opinion cartel and all its opportunistic bandwagon freeloaders use the term “racism” as a weapon so they can maintain their immigration quotas with the goal of establishing a “multicultural society” behind which is the simple principle of divide et impera; that is, a society which is internally divided by internecine struggles among minorities is not in a position to overthrow a regime (cf. Manfred Kleine-Hartlage), and it is also considerably easier to translate such a society into a dictatorial EU. I would like to shed a little light not only on the underlying mechanisms, but also return the accusation to the senders.

To accuse someone of racism is a crushing indictment, especially in Germany. Therefore it is all the more important to verify such a charge in a deliberately responsible manner, and if it is substantiated, then only to bring it forward if there is very compelling evidence. A racist is someone who believes that his race is biologically superior to other races. The number of those who believe in this long since discredited nonsense may fall within the 0.00X percent margin, and those same people admit that openly. It is a marginal manifestation which is found in every society.

In view of these numbers, one might wonder why racism is still an issue today at all and why it attracts so much interest. At any rate, no one has yet come to grief based on the above mentioned attitude, and doubtless it would be far from a full-time job for anti-racists to have to wait for the 0.X percent out of the already noted 0.00X percent to start committing racially motivated offences.

Therefore the cart is put before the horse: what COULD lead by way of pure POTENTIAL to the same results as violence-prone racism is explained as racism which has already occurred and is punished accordingly. Let us put it this way: the practice of Islam-criticism, by way of pure potential, could lead to people proceeding to kill Muslims. That this line of argument does not stand the test of experienced reality or that it is not confirmed by the facts is irrelevant, for it is at least superficially comprehensible; which is to say, the argument is fully sufficient to permit application of the term racism, indeed to employ it as a weapon, for it provides a chain of causality, which although it has the above mentioned surface comprehensibility, it still remains for it to be subject to reasoned and confirmatory justification. For as is the case with all loaded terminology, with a single word and without any basis, I can otherwise reproach my opponent with an entire library of moral failings which cannot be refuted with only a single word, and also not with a single sentence, not to mention that one finds himself at this point already in a defensive position.

If therefore such a simplified usage of the definition of racism applies to constitutionally attested rights such as freedom of speech and assembly and to freedom of religion — in its sense of ‘freedom from religion’ — because it could potentially lead to the committing of racially motivated offences, then it applies all the more so to real effects as well; for example, to the cold genocide of a people, or portion of a people together with their culture, by permitting them over the long term to become a minority in their own country (cf. UN Genocide Convention). It is racism if one condemns it in Tibet but welcomes it in Germany; it is racism if a German, who in seeking a hearing at an anti-discrimination office is sent home because as a German he cannot suffer discrimination; it is racism, if at every opportunity, and in addition, a latent (genetically determined?) racism is imputed to Germans, whilst non-Germans on the occasion of even the worst crimes are taken under protection and alternative explanations are sought. And if it is now being planned that ‘xenophobic motives’ are to have the effect of increasing the severity of punishment in the courts, and this naturally applies only to Germans, then that too is a judicial device which separates people according to ethnicity, a circumstance we really thought had been overcome.

But it is also a double racism, which is to say against the immigrants themselves. For whoever exculpates these groups, time and again, from the liability attached to their actions, absolves them also of their responsibility. It is rather the critics of immigrant criminality who are addressing immigrants on the same footing. Children do not appear before a court, for they lack responsibility and they cannot foresee the consequences of their actions. In a court of law, whoever imposes on a Turkish serial offender probation or hours of community service for the umpteenth time, while imposing on Germans much more for much less, reveals at the same time how he perceives immigrants in relation to himself; namely as an underdog, as more undeveloped, more inferior, and as children who are not responsible for their behaviour, for which reason they have to be paternalistically taken under protection. And it is precisely this breed of person for whom it is clear at the level of his unconscious what attitude he really possesses toward people from “poorer countries”: it is he who lashes out wildly against others whose opinions could potentially reveal what is slumbering deeply in himself. In Psychology this is called ‘projection’: the affected individual assumes that all other people possess the same moral failings, but — unlike himself — they do not possess the moral integrity for self-control, for which reason he interprets every criticism as a racially motivated attack [perceived racism being the projected content; the projection itself, by definition, being also an unconscious process]. The idea does not occur to the accuser that what he invariably presumes to be a “hate campaign” is based solely on factual, behaviour-oriented criticism, and is not, as is always assumed, aimed at the person’s heritage.

In the extreme case of inherent racism, the kind associated with radical leftist extremists on the streets and in editorial offices, the projecting individual, in a similarly pre-emptive manoeuvre, tries to eliminate his own culture (certainly with a differentiated arsenal), for if all other people carry within themselves the same degree of racism as himself, then as an expedient to peaceful co-existence he has the alternative of eliminating his own people, or at least of eradicating the culture which inspires them; and since a violent Final Solution is not available, the next best alternative is chosen, that of cold cultural genocide by mass immigration numbering in the force of millions, which of course burdens many times over the power of the host state to integrate them — particularly since the latter is further weakened by additional measures which oppose as reprehensible everything which provides a form of identification with the nation. It is no accident that it is so easy to switch from the extreme “Right” to the extreme “Left” and vice versa, for as already mentioned elsewhere, the differences between these two are marginal [cf. Gates of Vienna: The Better Lenin].

Since the human species is very diverse, the above-mentioned type of racist will likely always exist. The fanatics of the totalitarian dictatorships of the twentieth century certainly had to have been recruited from some category of person or another. It has been impressed upon this type in a sustainable way that the racial persecutions of the past were wrong, but the type itself has remained unchanged in its inward character, for it has simply followed its nature and (on the basis of the mechanics of projection described above) has lapsed into the opposite extreme, following the pattern of a reformed robber baron who as a holy crusader now massacres his fellow man in the name of the good*.

And for that reason there is no “racism in the middle of the society”, but only the projection of one’s own racist nature onto the environment. Think about this next time you hear someone use this word.

[* Translator’s note: With this statement, Marc Doll provides an additional level of psychoanalysis to his critique, hence rounding out the explanation of the phenomenon of exaggeration and distortion. “On the basis of the mechanics of projection” there is yet the additional defence mechanism of reaction formation, whereby the conscious attitude is in unconsciously exaggerated opposition to its unconscious opposite.]

9 thoughts on “Do “Anti-Racists” Protest Too Much?

  1. Why some people brings constantly the “homosexuality” to scene? What’s the problem?

    Homosexuality is a private issue and gay people don’t try to change society besides having freedom to be with the person they want. Islam is trying to change european society and to bring it back to dark age (again, indeed dark age was a consequence of Islam).

    Please, Islam is a very serious issue, don’t bring your agenda there.

    • It could also be argued the Dark Ages were a consequence of immigration to the Roman Empire from the other provinces of the Empire like North Africa/the Levant. Of course, the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by invasions from the Germans/Huns, but it’s reasonable to think the Roman Empire lost the ability to beat these foes as they did previously because of the domestic decline of the Roman Empire, due to immigration. That’s just a theory of course, nothing really that can be 100% proved. The Dark Ages were already underway by the time Islam came around, anyway.

      To your other points, I agree, and it really baffles me why homosexuals and the liberals that support them are in favour of immigration. Who are the ones with laws making these people illegal? It’s not the Europeans, it’s the Arab and the African countries. It isn’t Sweden or the UK, it’s Uganda and Saudi Arabia where it’s illegal and these people are horribly treated by their own citizens, not only the government. What do these people think will happen when the Ugandans and Arabians come here? It’s really baffling. They should be on our side if they used some logic for just one second.

      • Dark Ages were not triggered by immigration, but by naval war. Since Phoenician times and until Dark Ages, european commerce was based in mediterranean maritime transport. That was ended by muslim attacks. For centuries, europeans didn’t dare to go open sea. One known example of this is Black Death. It took it several years to reach the whole mediterranean coast. That happened because there was no commerce between distant coastal cities. Otherwise, it would have spread in months.

        And with no commerce, there was no transmission of ideas. Europe become a group of isolated feudalist reigns. That didn’t change until Renaissance, when commerce started again through the Holy Roman Empire (and so did the transmission of ideas). Mediterranean countries never recovered of it.

        With regard to the second thing: yeap, it’s true. Liberals like “multi-culturalism” but you won’t see them spending some years living in Middle East to enjoy it. Quite a revealing fact, since people that really like some culture use to spend some years living there, usually in their 20s/30s. Tell me what you do, no matter what you say, and I will tell you what you really think.

        What reminds me from an interesting comment a I read a few weeks ago. Mass shooting in US a highly covered by liberal media that ask for weapon control. However, they’re black swans, you’re only likely to be shot if you go near black suburbs. Saying that is racist, and because of that they can’t talk about this openly. But that doesn’t take away the fear of being shot, so they use mass shootings to ask for some weapon control to protect them from something they can’t talk about.

        I’m sure the fear to muslim immigration is starting to grow deep down every european liberal. I wonder how it will manifest.

        • I’m sure the fear to muslim immigration is starting to grow deep down every european liberal. I wonder how it will manifest.

          As long as European liberbals can maintain physical distance from their immigrant populations, they can continue to spout their multiculti lies. They don’t have to worry about job or school competition. At least not until the govt starts mandating quotas.

          BTW, as long as the US localities allow illegal gun ownership to persist in the cities and are too afraid/compromised to enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, efforts at making stricter gun laws will fail. Law enforcement is cynical: they know the vast majority of gun crime is black-on-black.

          Most but not all of those mass killings are done by young white men. It can take years for severe brain disorders to manifest themselves – usually shows up in strange behaviors by the late teens, early twenties, though the families have known *something* was wrong for a few years before that. Usually family & friends think the problem is drug abuse…and drugs ARE often involved as a form of self-medication.

          The two groups – black boys and white boys – are usually socio-economically separate too. In the former the killings are over territorial disputes and who is to be in charge. They are “normal” in the sense that all of them are chasing leadership positions…there are never enough to go around. Law enforcement often ends up putting the alpha male dealers in prison and leaving the less-smart in charge of the streets. Until they too are captured and sent to prison, leaving even more intellectually challenged to deal out what’s left.

          The “families” these boy/men grew up in are extremely dysfunctional. No fathers, immature and narcissistic mothers and grandmothers – authorities are beginning to see increasingly high levels of PTSD in these children. Childhood PTSD is quite different from what a man acquires on the battlefield.

          In the latter groups of middle class boys w/ brain disorders of a different type, their script calls for them to be educated to violent melodramas by video games, movies, and TV. After their training, the brain disorders manifest in those who were already vulnerable and they proceed to act out the fantasies they’ve memorized. The ending is a blaze of glory & death by cop.

          Breivik was from the brain-disordered group. The only difference is that he was very likely recruited and trained as his disorder “matured”. He didn’t go out in a blaze of glory on the island because his handlers had convinced him he was the secret leader of a group of like-minded neo-Nazis. He gave up so easily since he was sure he’d be rescued by his mythical ‘men’ when the right time came…of course he was smarter than they gave him credit for. In *their* plan, only the truck was involved and they were going to roll that up as soon as he arrived in Oslo.

          Great plan: they grab the “LoneWhiteMaleExtremist” that Hillary Clinton talked about before the bombs went off. Except he was several steps ahead of *their* scheme. They hadn’t a clue about the police uniform or the island.

          They chose one date for detonation and he chose another.

          They had Plan 1.0 and ABB had Plan 1.5 and guess which one worked??

          Crazy white boy fooled them all.

          • Very interesting comment.

            However, I disagree. I think that liberals are gonna face immigration sooner or later. Why?

            (1) Demographics.
            (2) Peak Oil. Economics is not gonna go better. There’s a limit to the money you can print, and sooner or later welfare is gonna vanish. Because there will be no money.

            Liberals will have to options in the future:
            (a) Try to keep welfare no matter what. But People watch a lot their wallet when economics is down and taxes become really hard to be paid.
            (b) Cut down welfare. And then suddenly there will be HUGE social disturbs. Let’s imagine 10% of the country, living from welfare, suddenly leaving suburbs and starting to burn every downtown.

            Bot cases people will be really upset, parties as UKIP will rise. And the moment some mass media start to talk about some (today) politcally incorrect matters many other will follow.

    • Yann, I totally agree: I have many gay friends and support their rights. Homophobes and misogynists on this site need to be at least balanced by people like us. Show the world that concerns about islam should be an issue for liberals and human rights advocates!

  2. Do you suppose that the founders of the EU said “Hey, too much killing in the 20th century. We must dilute our pathological nationalist fervor by changing demographics of our warsome peoples. The easiest way to do this is by enhanced immigration of our surrounding MENA nationalities (which happened to be Muslim). ” “Homogenize our new diverse cultures and we won’t have the mojo for war.”

    Or. is this too innocent a theory?

    • William, not quite. The EU founders sold the concept of the supra national state propogating that the elimination of nation states would lead to an end to war. The big lie strikes again!

  3. “For whoever exculpates these groups, time and again, from the liability attached to their actions, absolves them also of their responsibility.”

    Exactly! They are the racists because they refuse to treat everyone the same.

Comments are closed.