The European Grammar of Self-Intolerance


The greatest enemy that we have is raised in our own mind.

The grammar of self-intolerance is what we have imposed and allowed others to impose upon us. Political correctness is a white European grammar, which we’ve been taught, and we’ve stumbled through the early phases of, and yet we’ve learned this grammar and the methodology that lies behind it very well. And we’ve learned it to such a degree that we can’t have an incorrect thought now, without a synapsis or a spasm of guilt that associates with it and that goes along with it. Every time we think of a self-affirmative statement, it’s undercut immediately by the idea that there’s something wrong, or something queasy, or something quasi-genocidal, or something not quite right, or something morally ill about us if we have that thought. And this extends out beyond racial and ethnic questions to all other questions: to questions of gender; to questions of group identity and belonging; to questions of cultural affirmation; to questions of history.

The new Eastern Europe is relatively interesting and will have a lot to say about the future of European man in the next century or so. Eastern Europe was preserved by communism from the decadence of the liberalism which has semi-destroyed Western Europe (and points to the west of that). Communism was a strange non-exultation. Communism was a strange doctrine, because it preserved in aspic, and persevered under permafrost, many of the characteristic social chapters of what it is to be a European. Communism was pretty hellish to live under, particularly materially, and it was almost always the most deformed, the most warped, the most degraded parts of the society had been put in charge of you.

East Germany is now a state that no longer exists. It’s been agglomerated into Western and greater Germany. The Wall has come down, the Stasi have demobilized and are no longer evident, and yet in a strange way a spirit of Marxism is abroad in the West. A spirit of Marxism is abroad in the United States, unbelievably so! The number of American Marxist-Leninists you could have got in a few taxis to a certain extent, and yet this element of cultural Marxism is abroad in the United States, as it is in Western Europe, as it is in Northern and to a certain extent Southern Europe, as it is much less evidently so in post-communist Eastern Europe, where there’s been an enormous reaction against it.

Let’s take a little bit of time to examine why Marxism, of all things, has ended up culturally influential in the United States. It’s got little to do with economic theory; it’s got much more to do with self-hatred and negation. Guilt. The extending of your own mental remit into groups that don’t care for you, or that purposefully wish you ill. And it’s got a lot more to do with the architectonics of the Frankfurt School, and its ability to morph and to merge into the general liberal currency of the last fifty years.

Since the Second World War, white Europeans have felt guilty about being themselves and have been made to feel guilty and are being encouraged to feel more guilty than they have at any other time in their history. There is no period in our history where we have faced such evident self-hatred and such evident insults upon ourselves which are harmful to the prospects of our children’s lives, and their children, and generations as yet unborn. Is this a phase that we’ve gone through, or is it something slightly more sinister and ulterior than that? These are questions which we need to analyse.

Whether communism killed a hundred million in the twentieth century is up for grabs. Whether it killed twenty million or between twenty and a hundred million is up for grabs. And yet everywhere one looks the soft Left, the Left untainted by communist atrocity, is everywhere apparent and appears to be everywhere triumphant.

The trick that the soft Left has learned is that if you disavow the hard edge of Leftist slaughter and Siberian camps and Stasi prison cells and you instead excel in the polymorphous rebellions of Herbert Marcuse and the student Left of the nineteen-sixties, you can actually influence the whole soft spectrum from the moderate Right, through the Center, through the Center-Left, through the general-Left/generic-Left, through the soft Left, up to the softest accretions of the hard Left and to the moderate-hard Left. An enormous spectrum – two-thirds of the political spectrum – can be influenced by Marxist ideas shorn of their hard-edge Stalinist and Maoist filters.

No one wants to know about Jean-Paul Sartre now, even in France. Partly because he embraced Maoism at the end of his career. He embraced Maoism, with Simone de Beauvoir, and Gorz, and these other people right at the end of his career. He edited a Maoist paper. This was at a time when Pol Pot was wreaking extraordinary havoc in Indochina. And yet the ideas that these people stood for – the idea that the family is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that humour itself is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being male, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being a Caucasian, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about the Western historical destiny – all of these ideas have been shorn of their human rights abuses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Far Eastern Asia, and have been reflected back into the West and onto the West, to the degree that you can’t set up a student group in an American university now – unless you’re under relatively deep cover – to oppose this sort of thing because the ideas themselves are so hegemonic.

Why has this occurred? It’s occurred because the radical Left with a culturally Marxian agenda, scorned by the Stalinist hard line that they were quick to repudiate, marched through the institutions in the United States and elsewhere from the cultural and social revolution of the nineteen-sixties and has marched through those institutions for fifty-odd years to such a degree that the whole of the media – mainstream – the whole of mainstream politicking outside of the Rightist and libertarian allowed areas of dissent in the Republican Party and their European equivalents are controlled by a nexus of ideas and interconnected thought processes which determine moral valency and morality.

The idea that identifying with yourself and with your own past is somehow immoral is one of the chief factors whereby the identity of post-European people in the United States has been turned: turned back upon themselves, turned back in a vice-like constriction where it can be used to destroy people and to disarm them. If you rip out – for the fear of being hostile to anyone else – all prospect of group identity that is based upon strength, you will end up with a very weak and very effeminate and a very fey doctrine of your own culture, and that is what is occurring at the present time.

Why have our people allowed a situation to emerge whereby our own historical reckoning and our own traditions of self are turned against us in such a radical way that it’s almost impossible – except by a recession to the absolute Right – to defend oneself?

Political correctness is a methodology and a grammar. It is designed to restrict the prospect of a thought before the thought is even enunciated. Chairman Mao had the idea of “magic words.” Magic words. “Racism” is a magic word. Use it, and people fall apart. People begin to disengage even from their own desire to defend themselves. All of the other “–isms”: sexism, disableism, classism, ageism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, all the others are pale reflections, in other and slightly less crucial areas, of the original one: “racism.” “Racism” is a term developed by Leon Trotsky in an article in the Left oppositionist journal in the Soviet Union in nineteen-twenty six or nineteen-twenty seven. It is now universalized from its dissentient communist origins and that word has been abstracted now to such a degree that it is a universal. It’s universal, it’s become a moral lexicon of engagement and disengagement. If you wish to condemn somebody in contemporary discourse, you say that they are a racist. And there’s a degree to which nobody can refute what you’re saying in the present dispensation.

It’s important to realize that these psychological constructs for the majority of our people are deeply crippling and deeply negative in their effects. You have a situation now where people have so loaded upon themselves the untrammeled forces of guilt and the absence of self-preservation that almost any healthy instinctual or virile capacity is beyond them, except as a reaction to a prior threat. Only when we recover the sense of dynamism that we seem to have partly lost will we have a future.

Many other groups in this world wonder about what is happened to us, wonder what has happened to our energy. Don’t be surprised if you learn that many of the elites in foreign countries, in India and China and so on, view with bemused amazement the trajectory of the present West, the degree to which the West is so self-hating: about its own music, about its own art, about its own architecture, about its own military history – other groups in the world are amazed at this, but will seek to take advantage of it, because why wouldn’t they? In the circumstances of group competition which this globe entertains, all groups are partly in competition for scarce resources against all other groups. It doesn’t have to be as merciless as all that. But it is real, and it is extant, and it is ongoing.

Mass immigration into Britain began with the Nationality Act in nineteen-forty eight, which was passed by the Attlee government. And Attlee, who was the then Labour Prime Minister, in a landslide victory that Labour won immediately after the Second World War, said that “If the races of the world are mixed together there will be no more war.” What you get instead is the internalization of divisions and a bellyaching of a globalist sort inside societies instead of between them. So all that happens is the group dynamics which were nation-state oriented and national in the past – in the last three to five centuries, shall we say – become internal, because human competition and the dynamics of group difference are such that they will always exist, no matter what you do. They will exist inside multiracial marriages. They will exist inside multiracial schools. They will exist inside multiracial cities. They will exist within multi-ethnic housing developments. And they will certainly exist within multiracial societies.

What is happening here and elsewhere in the West is the biggest test that Western people have faced for a very long period. In the past threats are always perceived as external: another nation; another dictator; another aggressor; another imperial rivalry; another imperial rival in the firmament of Empire in the scrabble for Africa at the end of the nineteenth century, and so on.

All the enemies that we now face are internal. And the biggest enemies that we face are in our own minds. The feeling that we shouldn’t say this, shouldn’t write this, shouldn’t speak this, shouldn’t think this.

These are the biggest enemies that we have.

By Jonathan Bowden

Compiled by YouTube user Expanding Overton


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s