Geert Wilders’ retweet of the apt photo, pictured above, has been described as “shocking” -Edit: even as “barbaric” (I would reserve this term for the Islamic violence). Personally, I found Merkel’s insane policy, despite the protests and warnings, that caused this latest attack to be truly “shocking”. It’s as if impoliteness (or perhaps honesty) is considered to be more “shocking” than causing real misery.
This seems very odd. It was yet another revolting (Islamic) deed, yet again by someone who came in with the migrant wave. The migrant wave which could have been easily averted with local safe havens. I’ve mentioned the full scope (without the grisly details that make the reality) before. Why do the media, and presumably some part of its audience, jump on a social(media) faux-pas with so much vigor, while yawning at the carnage? How do you get an entire profession to behave like a trained monkey?
The West, between Nazism and Islam, has been remarkable peaceful and prosperous. Hunger made way for want of luxury. Desperation made way for ennui. The moral need of survival made way for the moral need of civility. Politeness, pleasant behaviour, courtesy; if these aren’t the cornerstones of a healthy civilisation, they are the fruits by which you shall know them. Politeness is the moral for when all is well; when there is no danger or want to overshadow its importance.
A code of conduct is a moral code which will fit the needs of the group. For the courtier a serious game of subtleties, a tool. To the peasant, a code of conduct simply meant the way to get along with his peers and neighbours. For both it serves to tell them their place. As status driven animals, humans have contrived of ways to force additional codes to those classes with less power. Once it was kneeling and bowing. “Vous” or “Tu”, “U” of “Jij”; these are remainders of social status denominators we hardly remember. It can just as easily denote respect as it can be empty form. Rules of an inter-personal bureaucracy; politeness to the letter while trampling over the spirit.
The spirit of status and dominance, on the other hand, has gone from strength to strength. One might think of the way in which to conduct oneself with royalty; such was royal status and power that it has become ceremony. Power-dynamics between people today, in the West, are more commonly seen between customer and retail. The Dutch phrase for “The customer is always right” is even “De klant is koning” (the customer is king). A code of conduct between two people will betray any difference in (situational) status or power.
Status and power aren’t necessarily in line with historical classes or castes. There is no greater example than the reaction to the word “nigger” in the English speaking world. The word “nigger” is distasteful, and should be treated as such. The reaction to use of the word however, especially by whites, just might trigger narcissistic anger. Narcissistic (hollow) outrage by which to virtue-signal, (what better way to tear down competition?), to narcissistic violence to reassert dominance. As a code of conduct, it must have started with the moral need to be courteous to those who were given few opportunities, and many burdens, for superficial reasons. What happened after it became a taboo, not-done because it is not-done? Did the courteous spirit become malnourished? Of course such a social dogma will be exploited, and who isn’t to blame? We all play along in the spectacle of our own society.
“Nigger” is the father of political correct taboos. You can’t expect people to notice such a strong, social rule and not crave one for their own. And when all is well, if everyone gets one, maybe it would help people get along just a bit better. It could have been very useful as a tool to create, if not unity , then at least mutual respect. This was made impossible by the default exclusion of whites. This was betrayed especially through the SJW fad of inventing slurs for heterosexual whites. White women (predominantly middle-class), even tried to join the appealing faux-victim class by redefining feminism. White heterosexual males, already prohibited from identifying as such for fear of liberal outrage, found themselves besieged even by invented genders. The supposed civility became yet another burden; irksome for an insulated, white-collar liberal, but unbearable for poor whites, already struggling to make ends meet, and already demonised and ridiculed in pop-culture and media.
In Europe, the working and lower-middle classes have been subjected to increasing violence and harassment. It might occur to the language police that it’s not so easy to pay attention to arbitrary language rules and taboos, when you’ve been driven out of your neighbourhood by spitting, stealing and violent people. Civility was betrayed when foreign-in-spirit “youths” could express their contempt for their hosts (robberies, random abuse, all the usual enrichment) with hardly a slap on the wrist. Especially when people are faced with burglaries, muggers, racial violence, rape, and eventually terror, “politeness” tends to become of secondary importance. Political correctness as a code of conduct is the sneer of the elite and sheltered towards those they sacrifice for their ideal.
The reaction to Geert Wilders’ tweet indicates a divide between those whose circumstances dictate that “proper” conduct is the moral need, and those who have conduct dictated to them as yet another burden. The reaction to Geert Wilders has always been one of haughty socialites jumping on a social faux-pas. Wilders is just considered uncaught in some circles. It shows once again that Geert Wilders is a politician against the elite, for the people.
Thank you, Geert.