Definition: particularism – human beings are naturally a social animal, they live embedded in groups. ‘Particularism’ can be defined as preference for, or loyalty to, ones own kind – family, nation, race… (antithesis: universalism – cosmopolitanism, one-world brotherhood, globalism.)
Preference for in-group vs. Hostility towards out-group. (Commonly believed to be one and the same – or two sides of the same coin – but are in fact separate; analogous to two independent sliding scales.) As is shown in the below study:
The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?
Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one’s ingroups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups. Yet the prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups and that much ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of ingroup members rather than direct hostility toward outgroup members. Thus to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings. This article reviews research and theory on the motivations for maintenance of ingroup boundaries and the implications of ingroup boundary protection for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention.
Additional studies can be read here, here, here and (to a lesser extent) here.
So, if we have two scales operating independently of one another – preference for in-group and hostility towards out-group – then this presents us with four possible configurations:
- Preference for in-group but no hostility towards out-group
- Preference for in-group and hostility towards out-group
- No Preference for in-group but hostility towards out-group
- No Preference for in-group or hostility towards out-group
[labelled as 1. 2. 3. and 4. below.]
The linguistic meme-concept, ‘racism’, was developed in order to blur the first three together, as if they were all one and the same – and then pit them against the supposed neutrality of number four.
^ A false dichotomy is implied therein between racism (‘hostility towards out-group’) and not racism (‘neutrality towards in-group and out-group.’)
Examples: wanting to preserve ones country as belonging to ones own nation, vs. wanting that and also disliking a people, either for no good reason, or which – for example – is trying to move in and displace your people (i.e. there are perfectly good reasons to even hate another people – for example if they are seeking to ethnically cleanse or genocide you.) vs. stabbing a black man in the head just because he’s black. <– in leftish newspeak these are all but different manifestations of the same phenomena – ‘racism.’ All are then opposed to a mythical ‘colour-blindness’ – that “race doesn’t matter.”
Of the four possible configurations, the first three are therefore dismissed as ‘racism.’ They are blurred together into one singular construct.
This – however – is only true for white people. A separate standard is deliberately applied to non-white people across all areas of life. So…
Two additional terms related to Racism – and used in the exact same way – are ‘Xenophobia’ and ‘Hate.’ So with the latter, for example, love of ones own kind becomes ‘hate.’
Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.
“Why do you hate?”, “All he is doing is spreading hate…” (SPLC’s ‘hate-groups.’ ‘HopeNotHate’, etc…) …
… ^ The grammar of Newspeak has two characteristics: (i) the virtual interchangeability of linguistic function (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, etc.) among the parts of speech…
Whenever we think about loyalty to ones racial, national or ethnic group, we can use the metaphor of the family. Everybody – barring life-events or psychopathology – has a natural preference for, and loyalty to, their own family over others. In no sense would anybody assume this necessitated a hatred of non-family members. Indeed anyone claiming that ‘love of ones own family’ is merely a thinly disguised excuse for hatred of other people’s families would rightly be viewed as someone whose head was not screwed on right. Additionally families – like nations – have fought one another throughout history, and always will; but nobody would claim that families therefore should be done away with due to their being primarily based on hate which inevitably leads to violence. (Various kinds of leftist of course do want to get rid of the family, but they don’t use this stupid logic. They reserve that for nation and race…)
Such ideologically-loaded terms as ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ function as what are known as thought-terminating clichés (aka thought-stoppers.) These are words or phrases which have the effect of shutting down rational and critical thought or discussion, and of providing a simplistic answer to what are often highly complex human problems.
They can pre-empt and shut down any substantive analysis. Appearing to say something substantive about a given topic, they are often empty and say nothing of substance whatsoever.
Mundane examples from everyday life include ‘it is what it is’ and ‘everything happens for a reason.’
Any word or phrase operating as a thought-terminating cliché may actually be valid in certain contexts, but it is the facility with which it is regularly used to shut down thought or debate which makes it a thought-terminating cliché.
The following words of psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton – the man who popularised the term ‘thought-terminating cliché’ in his 1961 book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China – are incredibly pertinent to any thought regarding the modern Western hivemind:
“The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis”.
This is the primary function the word ‘racism’ fulfils in the modern West.
Note: thought terminating clichés are not just expressed to others in order to quell discussion or dissent, but are also often expressed internally to oneself in order to suppress cognitive dissonance and to avoid thinking about certain things.
Beyond the fact that the term ‘racism’ blurs together the aforementioned three separate phenomena, it additionally represents a false dichotomy because there are not only two factors at work – ‘preference for in-group’ and ‘hostility towards out-group.’ There is a third: hostility towards ones own in-group.
It is this third, not neutrality, which sums up white leftists. They harbour a deep-seated hostility towards their own in-group (as white people, for Europe – culturally and its civilisation – and their respective nations: white English leftists disdain England, white Swedish leftists loathe Sweden, white French leftists despise France, etc…)
Given that preference for ones own kind is the natural and default position, and hostility towards ones own kind can only develop and override the former under the influence of a neurotic psychological complex; it is very debateable whether true neutrality can even exist in these matters.
This hostility towards ones own amongst white liberals has been demonstrated in a modern study by David Pizarro – which he subsequently called the “kill whitey study.”
Summed up here:
Given the Choice, Liberals Would Rather “Kill Whitey”
Recent work by David Pizarro at Cornell is shedding light the role that race and ethics play in politics, by asking people to sacrifice the lives of either Tyrone Payton or Chip Ellsworth III.
OK, they didn’t really have to sacrifice anyone, but each participant in the study was faced with a variation of the classical ethical dilemma called the “trolley problem.” The trolley problem asks the question: Would you push someone on to the tracks (and kill them) to stop a trolley holding 100 people from crashing (and killing them all)?
The paper (pdf) describes the twist that Pizarro and colleagues put on the trolley question when they asked it to California undergraduates:
Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra.
While the study didn’t specifically mention each person’s race, the researchers reasoned that “Tyrone” would be stereotyped as black, while “Chip” would be stereotyped as white. On the saving end, they assumed that the Philharmonic would be thought of as white, while the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed black.
When faced with this choice, each individual in the study group showed different reactions based on their political leanings–the liberals were more likely to sacrifice “Chip” to save the Orchestra, while conservatives were more likely to sacrifice “Tyrone” to save the Philharmonic. When describing the findings in a recent talk Pizarro explained his interpretation of the findings:
If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.
But this was just college students. Perhaps they were morally mushier than most people. So the team went further afield. As Pizarro describes in the talk:
We wanted to find a sample of more sort of, you know, real people. So we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. The effect just got stronger. (This time it was using a “lifeboat” dilemma where one person has to be thrown off the edge of a lifeboat in order to save everybody, again using the names “Tyrone Payton” or “Chip Ellsworth III”.) We replicated the finding, but this time it was even stronger.
Despite professing to not see race, it is in fact this attitude that typifies the average leftist. And in a leftist world it is this hatred of whiteness that is all-pervasive. The following being the exact same attitude manifesting at a more extreme level:
This hostility for ones in-group amongst leftists is definitely related to feelings of low self-worth [see: Psychology of Leftism] and resentment – it is possible that the average advocate of equality is a low self-esteem individual who has always felt undervalued by the other members of his own group, which over time results in resentment towards that in-group; and a knee-jerk tactical preference for taking the side of the other – the outsider.
This psychological mechanism is the original source of all egalitarianism. The basis of leftism. A life-strategy of the weak.
‘The Christian religion [read: egalitarianism] originated in the realization that the weak could overcome the strong when they banded together in a herd, using the weapons of guilt and conscience. In modern times this prejudice had become widespread and irresistible, not because it had been revealed as true, but because of the greater numbers of weak people.’ — Francis Fukuyama paraphrasing Friedrich Nietzsche
Is the greater propensity for modern people to disdain their own group simply due to heightened neuroticism – brought about by the increasing sensitivity and softness induced by comfortable living?
The End-Goal: Where leftism is taking us…
The two forms ‘diversity’ can take and their respective effects:
- as groups = ethnic conflict (overt decline + extraverted conflict.)
- as individuals = isolation (covert decline + introverted conflict.)
^ This is why our governments put so much effort into mixing everyone up as individuals with much opposition to ‘segregated communities.’ It is because on some level they understand that the decline will be so much more peaceful and easier to manage.
The following two studies on this speak for themselves:
1. Diversity as Mixed Groups:
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing [IA: see point 2 below] to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.
2. Diversity as Mixed Individuals:
Robert Putnam – Diversity and trust within communities
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory [IA: see point 1 above], distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
- Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
- Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s own influence.
- Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
- Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
- Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
- Less likelihood of working on a community project.
- Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
- Fewer close friends and confidants.
- Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
- More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”.
Full Study: E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
What needs to be done then is to formulate each of the points made in this article in their absolute most simple, concise and easy to understand form; and then to repeat those points again and again and again, as far and as wide as possible, and also – without actually parroting one another verbatim – in as consistently similar language as possible. Simplicity and repetition are key.