Crash, not Clash

Races are “crashing” not “clashing”. A “clash” implies a degree of orderliness and clarity, absent in the present conflict between racial groups.

Huntington‘s critics have often picked fault with his “Clash of Civilisations” by pointing out that the fault-lines he posited, have yet to flare-up, or enjoy far less action, than clashes taking place within Civilisations. This is due to the presumption of order.

A Crash of Races presumes a disorderly, and subterranean process, in as much as “crash” connotes “accident” and “collision”.

A civilisation is a self-conscious cultural construct, Race is a concrete reality.

Were civilisation to become an acknowledged political factor, one could work from the inside to adapt it.

When race is a political factor, you can only deny it, or encourage it, with no possibility to work on change from any “inside”.  In more than one way, when relevant – race is binary. Culture is rightly viewed as something malleable, race is no such thing. If it becomes important, you are stuck with it, like it or not.

Denying race psychologically, amounts to a simple Freudian suppression, and while it cannot be judged either good or bad on moral grounds, when race is central to politics, its denial gives it the force and power, that only a subconscious force and power can have.

When forces are denied, their collisions are denied and misattributed. Those doing the denying are motivated by good intentions – denying the force, means destroying it. So the thinking, and story goes.

The reality, goes somewhere else. Rather than destroying the force, denying it lends it energy, intensity, and force. When it finally bursts, it becomes more systematic, and deadly, than if it had been operating – and hence combating – in the open. Instead of a Clash, it becomes a Crash, and genocides, holocausts, mass murders were the direct results.

Historically governments who denied, censored, and suppressed conflictual identities, cultivated inevitable catastrophe. The role of political correctness in the rise of someone like Hitler, is too uncomfortable for historians to ponder in their own uncomfortable politically correct environment. Duly – it is denied.

A Crash of Races does not seek to denigrate the importance of parallel, and overlapping conflict. Rather, it considers “competing” hypotheses, such as the Clash of Civilisations, and expansive Islam as part of a broader racial conflict.

Islam is a prime example of a force, which is actively denied and suppressed – hence, whose explosiveness is being actively nurtured.  To claim Islam’s rise to political centre stage  has no racial component, is to ignore the very reason for its ascendancy.

Civilisations, are also fighting, but in ways, far better understood as racial, than cultural. For while Huntington would seek to separate the sphere of Orthodoxy from Protestantism and Catholicism, or a broader Western Civilisation, it is far more parsimonious to analyze the countries where this religion is enjoying a rebirth, from the perspective of racial confrontation, rather than the Orthodox vs Islam.

What Huntington and the anti-Jihadists enjoy, are admissible enemies and fault-lines, hence very little in term of Freudian suppression.

Racial conflict whose very core is Freudian, is over-packaged in layer upon layer of denial, evasiveness, suppression, and cognitive dissonance the likes of which, can catapult a political virgin such as Obama, to the apex of modern political power, and slowly but surely pave the way to eventual catastrophe.