The Reciprocity of Cultural Genocide

Gates of Vienna
Verbatim Post


Or, "There is no precedent in history to indicate that mass immigration is a path that leads to something good in the end."

A reader who calls himself “Run-on Ranter” sent us the following email in response to Nicolai Sennels’ recent post about the psychological reasons for political correctness:

Nicolai Sennels’ take on psychological issues has a seminal importance that deserves recognition. I’m speaking not just of his most recent article, but also his other work in which he approaches analysis of group psychological patterns in Islamic culture and the characteristic group psychology of Western societies that receive Muslim immigrants and other groups — and his attempts to articulate these interactions using these same terms of group psychology. For his efforts, I wish to communicate my support and admiration for his continuing intellectual fortitude.

You may want to take an Advil now in advance. I have a penchant for run-on sentences that is truly terminal, and beyond any mortal man’s ability to correct (myself included).

There may be something worth exploring and articulating further in the concept of “coping mechanisms” in relation to Western societies and their apparent “vaginal” response to Islamic immigration. Perhaps in comparison to what we would see manifested psychologically in a rape victim. The denial, the disassociation, etc.

I also see wisdom in working the term “cultural genocide” into GoV vernacular.

The phrase “cultural genocide” provides an important conceptual handle for people who are struggling to articulate and relate to what’s happening now in Western societies concerning conflicts caused by the policy of mass immigration. Trends such as the “war on Christmas”, for example, may be used to introduce, with some dark humor, the of the notion of “cultural genocide” into public discourse as a kind of faux satire. Broach the notion in a diffuse manner initially, and then proceed from there under the assumption that there is currently observed at GoV a sensitivity to the counterproductive nature of alarmism, and how most people would react to the term “cultural genocide” when presented in this context — a context I believe is the most appropriate and correct one.

The Left is selective to the point of rank denial in their application of the term “cultural genocide”, as they apparently refuse to apply it reciprocally and equally to Western societies. There seems to be some deliberation on their collective part, whether conscious or not, in denying that the term does reciprocally apply. The same reluctance can also be seen in their typical responses bordering on hysteria that are asserted in defense of their own denial, in which they commence to shame and attempt to illegitimately discredit those who assert the term’s more appropriate application to Western societies and not only to their immigrants. This should be characterized as an intellectually inferior practice — a highly suspect and questionable type of alternate, secondary, even artistic approach, rather than scientific application of the term.

Not only does the term “cultural genocide” apply to the current situation in the West, but the inertia of current social trends suggests its applicability will increase at an exponential rate.

“Cultural genocide” is a term that more appropriately applies to Western societies because they are to date in a perpetual state of cultural “receivership” that has no corollary in non-Western societies. There is no precedent in history to indicate that mass immigration is a path that leads to something good in the end.

In the Left’s view, “cultural genocide” is only in operation when Western societies commit it against immigrant enclaves. In their often warped estimations — fueled by anti-intellectual emotionalism — the situation is never the other way around. There is then a staunch cultural resistance in the population of the host country that places a taboo on exploring the idea in public discourse. The term “cultural genocide” can and should be applied in a reciprocal, equal, culturally unbiased manner that allows for open examination of its application to the antithetical reactions of immigrant groups against the Western societies that act as their receivers. Especially where there is evidence that steps are being taken from within or without Western host societies to empower these immigrant groups in making such hostile assertions.

The selective manner in which the Left applies the term “cultural genocide” is analogous to the proverbial shaming of the rape victim — that is, the Western “receiver” society. Poignantly, in this analogy the Left actively shames itself as well as others, because obviously they are also part of this “receiver” society.

An aspect of this shaming is to project onto the victims the notion that they are not to view themselves as the victims. To ignore legitimacy of the concept of “cultural genocide” as applied conversely to Western “receiver” societies seems similar to the denial and disassociation that is sometimes manifested in a rape victim who rationalizes that the rape was somehow her fault. Since she caused it, she must allow it to continue happening to atone for herself.

How one would say all this in psychological terms, I’d have to leave to adepts like Nicolai Sennels. I’m not trained or certified in psychology.

Thank you for everything you do. Your intellectual resilience has been an inspiration to me as well.

— Run-on Ranter