Ethnic Chess: Keeping the Left in Check.

The Left and the Right are playing a game of Chess, and the Left is losing. The Right intends to preserve the corporate state as an expression of the individual will within the context of age-old ethical traditions, and it has resorted to an uncompromising and inflammatory form of foreign interventionism under the fear of invasion by hostile foreign and domestic radicals. Conversely, the Left wishes to salvage some sense of moral teleology and meaning by pushing its own Marxist and Globalist idealism upon the entirety of the domestic population. The Trump Administration’s success in polarizing the American public and alienating other World Powers has backed the Left up against a wall, no puns intended. And when one starts to lose in Chess and the clock is ticking, most amateurs will forego the sort of idiosyncratic thinking that turns the tables; Instead, they will start to sacrifice pieces and to mirror the opponent’s aggression with vainglorious and annoying moves.

I give you: the Social Justice Knight!!

When I returned to college in 2014, I had spent a great deal of time studying mysticism, Eastern religion, and postmodern (“poststructural”) philosophy. Given all of this, I had only to hear the word “racism” to push me irreversibly into the conviction I have held for five years since, political agendas notwithstanding: race does not exist, outside of the abstract domain of census keeping, so racism can’t exist and never has. Considering that people make such claims such as “there is no Truth”, “there is no true morality”, “there is no God”, “there are no facts in Science”, “there is no Individual”, “Life is without meaning”, “Life cannot have meaning”, “love is an illusion”, “Life is virtual”, “there are no absolutes”, and “there’s no Self”, my theory seemed more like a breath of fresh air than a gust of wind that knocks one off one’s feet or tears the tarp off of the circus.

Yet the racial meme did not abate, and neither was my contribution to the conversation welcomed by the Debate community. For a long time I wondered why such sophisticated intellectuals would believe in so archaic and arbitrary a concept. Then it occurred to me upon reflection on a strategy that my coach had professed: that we were to fight as dirty as “they” did, but to appear totally polite. This was the entire attitude of the “anti-Racists” who led the extremely conformist and mutinous pack known as the Debate community. They were not virtuous people. They were simply indignant hypocrites.

Some books you encounter and can judge easily by their titles. A quick synopsis by a reader will help you to understand the position before it’s sold to you, and you are so tired of having it marketed to you that you know you would hate yourself for falling prey to it again. All media is so regulated now that it can be equated with propaganda, and where in the past wisdom was derived from attention paid to it, now it is a matter of shutting out the noise. An Orwellian paranoiac feels insulted when he hears the same argument twice, simply because it was never convincing the first time but seems to become indoctrinated through suggestion. Our instincts are to belong; being threatened with rejection plays an irrational but decisive role in our hang-ups, especially if we are clever enough to rationalize the suggested bias and much too sophisticated to make a conventional excuse to break with the norm (even if it is a norm with which we outwardly disagree, so that the contradiction would be closer in character to cognitive dissonance than to hypocrisy). Yet some concepts simply make me laugh, since they are symptoms of surrender. How to be an Antiracist, for instance, teaches me to embrace within myself, as though by force of necessity, the same tendencies which I found so laughable in the master debaters. Yet whereas previously I felt the dire burden of the enlightened man to bring the true nature of the hypocrites to light, now it seems that they are doing the work for me, as though piously defending themselves in court, admitting to their crimes but trying to sway the jury with their arbitrary ethos. There appears to be no shame now in embracing one’s prejudicial nature. But as the Church had done regarding sin, the desperate last ditch attempt to win a losing battle is to universalize one’s weaknesses and thus enthrone them. No longer are there any “non-racists”, they might attest. There are only racists and anti-racists. 
Now, obviously, the thought of being “anti” anything was something I was wary of since I was still in high school. Feminists appeared to me back then as patriarchs, and they appear far more so now that they have come to power. Communists turn into Fascists all too often; much like Churchill said, Fascism comes to the United States under the guise of anti-Fascism. I need not seek much warrant for the fact that anti-racists are as biased and barbaric as the people whom they criticize, if not more so; the only reason that I do not call them “racists” is because I do not believe in such a thing. Neither do I believe in Bipolar Disorder or A.D.H.D. People are people. It’s not as though most of the activists who would contest that it is subconscious and intrinsic are known for maintaining dream diaries and frequently seeing a Jungian analyst. Some of them even reject Jungian psychology according to these prejudices!!

What most people refer to as “racism” is best described psychoanalytically as “projection”. An individual who is unintegrated and out of touch with one’s own dark side will instinctively project negative qualities upon others. The therapist who rejects Jung might do so out of envy for his ability; that same therapist, learning of Jung’s bizarrely inclusive, pioneering views and nervous breakdown, forgetting (or never having known!!) that most great minds are lost at some point or another in their lifetime, might project his or her own neuroses upon Jung, as well as upon all patients who would prefer dream interpretation. So it is with judges, whether formal or self-appointed, who feel qualified in calling someone a “racist”. Their interpretation of behavior takes liberties that are shocking to the intellectual who understands that so many forces converge to produce any one decision that such a reductionist diagnosis can only be expressive of the doctor’s own agenda.

We are, for the most part, born racially colour-blind. There is nothing INTRINSIC about the distinctions that are made socially between black people and white people, for instance. These lines are established by tradition and historical precedent, and even if we are exposed to it repeatedly, it is only to the extent that we allow ourselves to be impressionable that we fall victim to them. Culture is not our puppeteer if we are so daring to use it as a tool. If we were not taught the distinctions, we might never even think them up.

You can imagine how I felt losing my innocence to a bunch of master debaters.

Thankfully, I would not have even remained innocent for so long were it not for my immunity to peer pressure. The tribal mind itself is something strange to me. My friends in high school were not so much a group as they were a conglomerate of loners. The hazing was purely for show and laughter. I never joined a gang or special interest group. I never voted in a presidential election. I am a virgin.

If there were any way to be “non-racist”, to REMAIN that way, as I have implied it to be the natural state of things, a blessing not to be touched, even by moral progress, it was by doing precisely this. How can a man without a tribe be biased in its favour? From whence would the midbrain derive its potency??

The Left has given up the only virtue that it had with which to fight. It sacrificed its Queen to save its King, all though the Queen, though far less crucial, is more powerful by far. Besides: the King is never even lost in Chess. He’s only cornered so that he can’t move. The Left depends on movement just to stay alive. And it would rather keep its King moving by petty steps than to avail itself of true transcendence.

The Queen is the virtue which is nondiscrimination, that ideal taught by the Buddhists, by the Taoists, by the Hindus and the Jewish mystics, to say nothing of the works of Kierkegaard, Camus and Nietzsche. The Queen is colour-blindness, non-grudging acceptance, and unpatronizing hospitality. She is the piece that can touch any colour on the board (unlike the bishops who preach to us within black and white confines) and can reach the other side instantly by any direct path. Her only weakness is before the Social Justice Knight, whose crooked pattern of movement leaves her blindsided. And the Left, to serve the Knight, has sacrificed the Queen, all just to save the King. 
And who’s this King? He is the very act of judging others. He is criticism for the sake of criticism. He is the myopic and feeble attempt to explain complex patterns by appeal to irrational biases, assigning blame as a means of coping with tragedy. He is intellectually out of shape. And he is about to lose.

No truly free thinker will allow himself to be drafted into a race war just based upon the defeatist notion that he is all ready involved on it, but on the wrong side. The absolutism of this duality is typical of those people who are locked into the third chakra. Samsara presents life in terms of opposites; nirvana transcends this. Marxism has suffered so many shortcomings, so many pieces lost to the Right, so many failed regimes, that it wants to infect the populace with its hopelessness. But if any pawn remains who will allow himself to be promoted to a Queen, may she then be free to occupy any tile on the board. Let us think little of the colours of the pieces in this game. They are unimportant.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]