The Three Steps for Disproving the Existence of Racism: Systematic Manifesto, Brief.

The Three Steps for Disproving the Existence of Racism:

 

1.         Demonstrate, either systematically or non-systematically, that no rational being could inhabit such a mental state.

2.         Demonstrate that the belief in the existence of such a mental state is in itself a projection.

3.         Demonstrate that, insofar as one attempts to describe the mental state, one in fact describes the projection to which one is party.

 

A fourth step may be appended, whereby one extends this reasoning in order to account for external events which are erroneously linked to the myth of “racism”, yet such a coda is not required for the proof to suffice.

[({Dm.R.G.)}]

First Response: the Seducer's Diary.

Make no mistake: the “Seducer” is, by any modern estimation, a “creeper”, a “douchebag”, and a “sleaze”, effectively in that order, yet to all of us who have had to endure such taunts he is sort of an idol, one to point to either as an example for that which we wish to become or that which we shall never stoop to, depending upon the extent to which we are ourselves seduced. If we’ve been wronged, he’s what we almost hope that our oppressor was, for we wish to be outwitted only by a genius, so as not to suffer fools; if we have wronged, or if we stand accused, he’s what we hope to be, to be perceived to be, and to perceive ourselves to be, as though the disapproval of the Public towards ourselves were secondary to the secrets we possessed about his genius. His writings are philosophical attempts at justification, rather than merely attempts at philosophical justification, for while the attempt at a philosophical justification may either succeed or fail either in being philosophy or in being justification, the philosophical attempt at justification, though it may succeed or fail in being justification, always succeeds in being philosophy.

 

[({Dm.R.G.)}]

Ends, Means, and Intentions: a Memoir.

Kresten must recognize that, insofar as he is in the Wrong, he waives any right to a retaliation on his own behalf, and I am charged with employing whatever means are necessary, to an extent which he defines by his own actions, in bringing him to Justice, and that no seeming excess of force or wile in this project could ever possibly reflect upon me, and any attempts at a retaliation upon his part, while he persistently refuses to atone for the injuries against me which he so shamelessly confesses to, will only aggravate his debts towards me. This much must be made unmistakably clear: so long as he remains within the Wrong, there can be no levelling with him, for to become his equal is to stoop to his level, that of Being Wrong, yet to accuse me of having stooped in such a fashion can only be a permissible affront insofar as my modus operandi was unnecessary or unjustifiable in the imperative task of supervising his rehabilitation, which was my only reason and my only excuse for restoring association with the scoundrel. It follows that, insofar as I was steadfast in this rehabilitation project, regardless of his consent, for he has waived that pretense, too, any such accusation against me constitutes an unwarranted offence, for I continue to represent that Higher Purpose at work in remedying him and the situation he has created about himself, the former agent to be equated with the latter agency, for this situation was contrived to be a mere instrument of that ego. It is impossible for me to err as he has done, for so long as the intent is purer then any violence whatsoever is justified, insofar as it is either necessary or conceivably so from my finite point of view. To project an Equality upon us is only to enable utter savagery.

 

[({Dm.R.G.)}]

This Can't be a Coincidance: [sic]

You know an irony I noticed? Okay, so naturally you’ve heard by now that racial tension is a popular meme nowadays, swaying the currents of politics and policy alike. One would imagine that, in appeasing all parties concerned, and with the hopes of nullifying any potential damage portended by the propagation of the racial meme, mass advertisers would seek to represent a variety of people(s) in their commercials and, for the most part, this they have done, yet not without one blaring shortcoming: a seeming overabundance of uniracial couples.

(I must add, ere I inscribe this, that Microsoft Word, amidst its ample embarrassments, recognizes the word “biracial” but not “uniracial”, as though the former were peculiar enough to merit a word and yet the latter were entirely commonplace and self-evident.)

The peculiarity of this is underscored by its obviousness; very often, the couples featured, at least in American commercials, are apparently African American, yet this is a bizarre statistical anomaly, since only approximately 13.4% of the United States population is listed as “black”, implying that a heteronormative pairing between any two “black” people is technically astronomically improbable, not even one per cent, if one considers first the probability of being born an African American and secondly the probability of finding an African American partner, divided by two in order to account for gender.

Now: don’t get me wrong; even my next-door neighbours are a well-to-do black family, and they have never, to my mind, impressed themselves upon me as bigots, even inviting their non-black friends over from time to time and going out of their way to converse with me. Yet one must nonetheless suspect some element of foul play, almost as though an archaic custom of breeding were decisive in one’s choice of mate.

The same, of course, cannot be said for any majoritarian classification; in so far as any person is part of a majority, it is a matter of common sense that most probably, though not exclusively, he or she should find one’s self involved with other members of the same majority; heterosexuality itself follows this pattern, though it remains highly regulated on both the legal and the civilian levels, to a Draconian extent, in spite of myths about the personal advantages of that agon we call heterosexuality which formed the basis for so many classic tragedies.

Yet the meme persists, and it is almost as though consumers have grown so accustomed to it that they come to not only expect it but to demand it indignantly. Profiling played an unforeseeable role in the public reception for the 2017 film Death Note, an adaptation of the hit Japanese animated and manga series. Anime fans, in spite of having seen a markedly pale-faced anti-hero throughout thirty-seven episodes, nonetheless complained that he was portrayed in the film by a Caucasian actor. Similar complaints were lodged against J.K. Rowling for the casting of Nagini in the 2018 film The Crimes of Grindelwald, even though there was never any reference made within the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts lore that precluded the possibility that Nagini might have resembled a Korean woman whilst in her human form.

There are, of course, arguments at once defending the propagation of uniracial couplings whilst denouncing casting choices which defy archaic ethnic prejudices, yet all of these arguments are either banal or so ridiculously remote from daily life that they serve only to enable the banal whilst empowering the pretentious. The simplest contention may be summarized in that trite adage “it’s easy for you to say,” implying that the luxury of seeing one’s own likeness frequently portrayed in media entails a certain responsibility to accommodate those parties whose likeness is less often celebrated.

Yet there are almost too many remonstrative counterarguments to be made against this. The most obvious is, of course, that no likeness is so deceptive that one would literally mistake the man on the screen for one’s own reflection; even dogs, who are supposed not to self-identify with their own reflections, (though I doubt this) would be smarter than we are if one were to imagine that anyone sharing a melanin type with one’s self is an extension of one’s own, autonomous identity. Furthermore, to classify people based upon melanin type would be to laugh boldly in the face of the oceanic variety of peoples and ethnicities who happen to share either eumelanin or pheomelanin in common. While we all are taught to profile, from a young age, and this essay in itself is made possible by access to this encultured habit, it does not excuse the cynical presumption that people WILL profile to such an extent as to make life-changing decisions accordingly.

Perhaps, as Edgard Varese put it: “[one] is never ahead of his time, but most people are far behind theirs.”

[({Dm.R.G.)}]

To Kresten Taylor: August 31, MMXX.

To Kresten:

 

All I have to say, now that I am to think upon the matter once again, (for there never really goes by one day that I don’t think upon it) is that you have some neurotic nerve to accuse ME of harbouring self-interested motives in a matter where the facts themselves already speak so boldly in my favour. YOUR actions produced a situation so infernally corrupt that I could not have dreamt it up, much less produced it of my own accord. I need not even make a claim against you, since the only verdict is so unequivocal. Even our modern stories must abound with men, of higher quality than even I am, who contend with you and people like you. No rational adult would dare say of such a man that he merely pursues his sovereign interests at the expense of his competitor, nor that he’s moved by envy, like a crab within a bucket, whenever his own good will is stepped on by his lesser brethren. All the World is allied with me, though it may not know it yet, for it sleeps in its own false awakening,  and all the facts themselves, God’s Very Truth, protest against you, whether silently or given voice by saints and scholars. That any decent standard SHOULD favour me over you, rather than letting the scales swing your way, is unequivocal, incontrovertible, and obvious. My every minor failure, as well as each disappointing victory, both now serve as a reminder from my God that nothing will atone for what you’ve done until YOU have atoned. Even success itself is an escape, as well as its pursuit, for Life Itself is shameless when Her Life is mute. I should have had the dignity to watch you crumble silently into despair. I but did you the courtesy of voicing what you were too blind to see, and you, so addled in the mind, would not face facts, for you had fabricated far too many lies, believing you could paint the Halls of What Must Be to look like What You Have Created. The record shows now that I’ve NEVER USED ANOTHER TO MY PRIVATE PURPOSES, nor will I be accused of doing so by YOU, of all the damned who walk this Earth. My purposes were always civil, public, and insured. My moments of private despair should have been mitigated by a Public Justice.

Dmytri.

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

After After Virtue:

For a scholar who professes a belief in that an innovative society is the most effective one, Alasdair MacIntyre seems extremely resistant to innovation in the defence of his own work, standing by his breakthrough publication After Virtue for nearly forty years. While he contends that any credible counterargument would have already been presented to him by now, there is nothing within his ethic which precludes the possibility of being sheltered from the Truth.

The simplest means by which to prove him wrong is to describe Life in three parts: fitting in, standing up, and standing out. We start our metamorphosis by attempting to “fit into” an established social order, in spite of personal moral scruples, hoping that by doing so successfully we might appropriate an appreciation for its norms, thereby bridging the gap between the inner and the outer.

Yet what we find is that social life is intrinsically Absurd, so all such ventures are Sisyphean. In the process, we learn one of Life’s few known constants: that we must “Stand Up for Ourselves”. It is by acquiring this virtue, upon which all other virtues are contingent, that we are able to retain our dignity when we inevitably fail.

The Third Stage is a reintegration, but not, as in the case of a bildungsroman, into a Society, but rather into Ourselves. Recognizing that we shall never “fit in”, yet that we cannot escape, we learn to exist within a Society which contradicts us while retaining our dignity in the contradiction. It is because the only constancy available to us is in this act of standing up on behalf of ourselves and our own views that the Individual comes to take precedence over all illusions of status and social value. Because courage is always necessary, the conscience becomes a Universal.

The examples corroborating this narrative are so multifarious that I might fill an entire book of my own with them. Suffice it to say that, of the few men whom MacIntyre references who articulated this intuition, his scholarship misrepresents them. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, in spite of doctrinal differences, arrive at one and the same conclusion. Yet in spite of citing many of Nietzsche’s own favourite sources MacIntyre dismisses Nietzsche, and MacIntyre’s philosophy might be considered symptomatic of Nietzsche’s first stage with very brief intimations of the second. Regarding Kierkegaard, conversely, the kinship MacIntyre seems to feel with his fellow Christian is overshadowed by a dubious negligence of the finer points of Kierkegaard’s work, especially regarding the Knight of Pure Faith and the inevitable disparity between internal and external life.

Ultimately, MacIntyre’s philosophy is a doctrine of conformism. While he is effective in disarming certain forms of conformism, exposing them for what they are, such as political “protest”, (which is, after all, no more than an attempt to adapt the external to the internal) he also propagates and reinforces various modes of conformity which are even more disastrous, simply because adapting the internal to the external is even more barbaric and demoralizing. (Even George Lucas, another great modern student of mythology, intuits the authoritarian consequences of forcing people to agree in spite of partisan reservations.) Both responses are failures to live with the inherent contradiction between the internal and the external worlds, which Albert Camus called the Absurd and which Carl Jung established as the imperative for psychological individuation.

MacIntyre’s scholarship is fundamentally typical; he forgets Camus in favour of Sartre, just as he forgets Jung in favour of Freud, shamelessly identifying each individual only as representative of his respective group, for that reduction lies at the heart of MacIntyre’s sociology. In demonstrating an unwavering allegiance to the Analytical School, professing its blessings openly, he does not avail himself of the blessings of its opposing school(s), and it comes as small surprise that no convincing antitheses to his admittedly partisan presumptions have yet reached his desk.

 

[({Dm.R.G.)}]

There is No Anti: Thesis.

Look closely. It does not say “educators against racism”, but rather “educators for antiracism”.

That is an extreme distinction. One “against racism” might think to never judge a person by the skin but rather by the “content of one’s character”, (now that should sound familiar, now doesn’t it?) the other just might overlook the character in service to the skin, presuming upon one’s own character in doing so. The former wouldn’t dare to even take the homely details into serious consideration, knowing well both the internal contradictions in that “logic” and all the external consequences; yet the latter might suppress that scruple, saying, “contradictions in such logic are the Way of Nature. Our work is not ascesis but the proper use of evil, in contending with a Greater Evil Still.” One would not admit a student based on race, nor class or background, nor ethnicity or culture, save that culture which the University professes. But the other says: “There are no ‘students’, truly, only Groups. We owe our debt not to the ‘individual’, his ‘character’, nor any such archaic fiction, but rather to every race, each class, and every ethnic group, that our figures should reflect our best ideal projections.”

One opposes truly, inwardly, believing in the Inward, seeing past the Outward, shrugging off the skin, insisting: “I refuse to see, since in perceiving surfaces I blind myself to Substance.” Yet the other says: “the Surface IS the Substance. There’s no character but in the Context of a Culture. Change the culture; only thus are you exempt from its conviction.”

Again raised from the dead are two Greek men, “alike in dignity” (ostensibly). The Platonist insists on Martin Luther King; yet Aristotle speaks for Malcolm X. One seeks transcendence to the plane of racial colour-blindness, knowing that is the extent of virtue, for to force one’s wisdom on another is to force one’s love upon another, tantamount in all respects to rape. Yet the second seeks reform in turning the opponent’s weight against him, like the judo master, saying “it is not enough for us to think. We have to act, and our action must affirm.”

Hence once again we see the tragedy unfold: the noble teacher and the wayward pupil. Plato’s wisdom is usurped by Aristotle’s arrogance. Instead of standing to the side of racism, we must stand for its antithesis. Yet in so doing we stand with it, for the opposite is but the obverse side of the same token. The non-racist who will stand AGAINST the evil knows that, like most mental problems, it will vanish once the consciousness of it is altered, since most problems are mere problems of the mind. Yet the “(anti-)racist” who stands FOR ANTITHESIS will stoop to any level of depravity once having settled with his scruples; for the antiracist, it is either “us” or “them”, and if THEY sway the outcomes in their favour, WE’LL fight back.

Hence even the non-racist is the scapegoat of the anti-racist. Yet have I not turned the anti-racist too into a scapegoat? Are we not contending, both of us, to see which is the Traitor to Our Cause? Who has become our common enemy? Which of us truly is the one who’s tantamount to “racism”? Is it the pious introvert or the neurotic, overactive extravert?

 

In Truth: it’s neither. For the careful contemplation of this problem shows us that there never was “a racist”, nor was there a “race”. There was only Projection, and the most that one could do was to take that projection back. Hence Plato wins, for victory is in the Mind.

[({Dm.R.G.)}]