August 11, 2016
Every time Western society is treated to another charmingly impish killing spree or terror attack at the hands of a Muslim, we”re told (by those guardians of all that’s good and decent”leftist pundits and politicians) how important it is to safeguard the fragile feelings of those poor, beleaguered followers of Muhammad. “Please, people, let’s not hold them responsible for what their coreligionists do. Let’s not shame them.” Of course, no one knows the power of shame better than leftists; no one better understands this one simple truth: Shame works. Shame is the most powerful tool for manipulating a group”any group”of human beings. When a leftist tells you, “Making ordinary Muslims feel ashamed is no way to wage a war against extremism,” they”re lying and they know it. Leftists, more than anyone else, get the awesome power of shame. They fight against using it in the war on Muslim terror precisely because they understand what an amazing weapon it is. They don”t want Muslims shamed, because they don”t want a reduction in Islamic belligerence. Muslims are vital to the left’s plan to forge a Europe hostile to its indigenous population, culture, and traditions. So damn right you don”t want to create an army of milquetoast Muhammadans. The more proud and belligerent, the better.
The question is not should Muslims be shamed for the fact that their “faith” has become so closely associated with murder, violence, intolerance, and hatred”of course they should. The real question is, can Muslims be shamed? Can Muslims be shamed as easily as, say, white folks? To answer that question, it might be helpful to take a brief look at some of the lofty goals the left has accomplished by shaming whitey.
Germany is by far the most shamed nation on earth. Since the end of World War II, Germans have been shamed to such an extent that it has quite literally been hardwired into their DNA. Shame has become such an intrinsic aspect of being German that the world today need only sit back and watch as Germans quite ably shame themselves. This is perhaps the most important “autonomy” granted to Germany in the decades after the war. We no longer feel the need to obsessively monitor their shaming; their own leaders do the task quite well. Putting aside the right or wrong of it, shame is what truly won the postwar peace. Germans are so shamed by “their” Nazi past (putting aside the fact that the majority of Germans didn”t vote for Hitler, and that the killing grounds of the Holocaust were not in Germany proper) that they”re fine with laws that limit their ability to question aspects of their own history, and they”re grinning (perhaps with clenched teeth) and bearing it as the world (led by their own chancellor) demands that Germany import endless hordes of Muslim Third World “refugees.” Shame is such a powerful weapon, it can actually short-circuit the logic center of the human brain. Shame dictates that Germany must imprison its own people for denying (or merely revising) aspects of Holocaust history, while at the exact same time shame dictates that Germany must import millions of “refugees” from countries (and cultures) in which Holocaust denial is the norm.
I”ve often wondered if it’s possible to play those two contradictory by-products of German shame against each other. What would happen if a German “citizen journalist” armed with a video camera waded into the masses of refugees to ask one simple question: Do you think “the Jews” lied about the Holocaust? You ask 1,000 AliAliOxenfrees that question, and you”ll probably get at least two-thirds of them answering, “Yes!” Now, German law demands that any expression of Holocaust denial be punished by either imprisonment or deportation (if the denier isn”t a German citizen). So it would be a win-win all around. Either the German government would have to follow its own laws and deport every immigrant who denies the Holocaust, or the government would refuse to prosecute, thus weakening (and perhaps even killing) those archaic, repressive statutes.
Of course, even if some doughty Deutscher agreed to try my little plan, I doubt the German media would give it any play. After all, such shenanigans could bring shame to the German nation.
Shame was the primary force behind the dismantling of South African apartheid. And I”m not at all arguing that apartheid was a good thing, but damn, one really has to gaze with admiration at just how well the left played that one. Leftists realized that there was no way an armed struggle could be as effective as making every white person in the fucking world feel ashamed because of South Africa. As a teen in the 1980s, in junior high and high school, we were forced to watch one antiapartheid assembly after another, month after month. To this day, I have vivid memories of my fellow white students leaving the auditorium weeping from shame. These were white kids in L.A. with zero connection to South Africa, but the shame was still felt, and that was absolutely the intended result. As famed South African playwright and singer David Kramer told People magazine in 1988, “I”ve seen whites come out [of my plays] crying hysterically. They come up to me after the show and say, “You have made me ashamed to be white.” That is what I wanted.”
I”d go so far as to say that the shaming whites endured in the name of anticolonialism was so severe and so successful that even those who call themselves white nationalists (or any similar term) today have been infected, even if they don”t consciously realize it. Defense of white colonial adventures has very much gone out of style among the “everyone’s a cuck but me” crowd. These “proud white warriors” appear to have adopted the Pee-wee Herman defense (“I meant to do that”) regarding the defeat of white colonialism””Whatever, bro; we didn”t want those stupid lands anyway.” The irony is, 1970s Rhodesians would almost certainly call these white men “cucks” for abandoning the dream. One can almost hear the voice of that “man among men,” John Alan Coey, thundering from beyond the grave: “Damn you for obsessing about internet memes while jungle savages are shitting on everything the white man built in Salisbury.” Even that murderous psycho Dylann Roof, Charleston’s lethal Bieber, couldn”t drum up any renewed interest in Rhodesia among white nationalists.
People of my generation might recall the hugely successful “Sun City“ all-star protest album/song/video/campaign, but if you ask the average forty- or fiftysomething what it was about, you”ll probably be told that it was an “antiapartheid” crusade. Not entirely. The song was a protest against compromise. Sun City was at the time a resort in an independent black Bantustan, a place where apartheid rules were not enforced, a place where the races could mix and make merry as equals. The purpose of the “I”m not gonna play Sun City” campaign was to say, “No half measures, no gradual degrees of change, no compromise. Apartheid must be gone everywhere at once or we”ll continue to make sure every white lives in shame.” And man alive, did it ever work. Compare that with how whites deal with Muzzies these days, applauding every insignificant half measure designed to placate critics of Islamic gender apartheid. “The Saudi king has declared that he”ll allow ten women to vote in 2026! Progress! They”re not monsters after all!” Because God forbid we issue the same inflexible demands to nonwhites and non-Christians who practice their own form of apartheid.
Even some of the most hardcore white “defenders of Western civilization” can be shamed with an ease that’s stunning. Author Dan Mallock, as “Dan “D.L.” Adams,” used to run a group called Stop Islamization of America, along with Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. Among Adams” many pen pals was a plucky young Nord named Anders Breivik. When Breivik took his pluckiness to an unfortunate extreme five years ago, he acknowledged Mallock (as Adams), along with Geller and Spencer, in his “manifesto,” No one accused Mallock of having had any foreknowledge of the crime. I knew his wife well, and I can confirm that he didn”t. Breivik was just one of many anti-Islamist activists and writers with whom Mallock corresponded. Yet even though he was guilty of no crime, Mallock was destroyed by shame following Breivik’s murder spree. As his wife told me in 2015, Breivik’s bloodbath
affected Dan in the worst possible way. He (STILL) is haunted by that and is still troubled that his writing encouraged Breivik’s actions and justified them in some way. Of course, I don”t think that’s the case and maybe, intellectually, Dan probably knows it’s not so, but, still, he’s haunted by that…and, after that, Dan started changing his politics in ways I really don”t even agree with. He still thinks Islam is evil, but he’s much less conservative now than I am and he also stopped reading the same authors he used to read. He reads the liberal spins and buys into that sometimes, and we”ve stopped talking politics.