Basic thesis: we are all victims – except for white, Christian, heterosexual men. They aren’t because, if I understand correctly, white, heterosexual, Christian men in “white Western civilization” 1. are in the majority, 2. have had and still have power, which they abuse. The key statement of the apologists for the culture of victimhood: “the oppression of minorities, the different, the weak, the vulnerable has been a very real phenomenon throughout history (up to the present day)”. The latter is hard to argue with. Of course, I too would prefer to live in a world where the wolf and the lamb graze together but based on the experiences of human history so far, we have very little chance of this: without exception, it has always cost human lives when people tried to realize utopias.
The progression seemingly formulates a moral stance, but according to the logic of today’s dominant left-liberal course, its moralization slips into an existential judgment: the white, Christian, heterosexual man is collectively guilty by his mere existence. The sins of our fathers have accumulated so much – and it’s customary to list the keywords: slaves, women, homosexuals, Jews, Roma – that we have already committed a sin if we stand in our own culture and want to live our lives as white, heterosexual Christian men.
The progressives therefore make political identity statements, but the problem with these is that they cannot be argued with. Because those smarter than me say that the truth of a political identity statement cannot be questioned – because if you do this, you threaten the other’s existence. An absurd example: if anyone said about themselves, “I am a glitter pony night lamp, therefore a light in the night,” and they have the right to this nowadays, then I couldn’t refute this: if I say that your premise is false, you are not that, then I would endanger your existence. Ergo, I have to accept your conclusion as well. Identity politics excludes the possibility of rational discourse, which nevertheless brought white Western civilization to the level where we don’t lynch anyone because of their skin color, we don’t kill our fellow humans on an industrial scale, in principle there is equality between women and men, etc. The condemned Western civilization abolished slavery, for example. And speaking of colonization: there’s a paradox to this, namely that colonial peoples rebelled against the colonizers based on ideas imported from the “Western, white, Christian” world (self-determination, democracy, human rights – these are creations of Western, white, Christian civilization).
Moreover, if anyone, we know exactly that something like “collective guilt” doesn’t exist. We inherited our concept of sin from Christianity, and as such, it is deeply personal. In a theological sense certainly, but also in a legal and moral one.
White Western thinking has created a livable civilization – and here comes the addition that the progressives don’t talk much about: not just for white heterosexual Christian men! Although I personally don’t like it, we are even tolerant towards circles of intolerance. Let’s see how Muslims can live in the West, and let’s ask Jews how they feel in the Middle East, or Copts in Egypt, women and homosexuals in Muslim societies, and so on.
By this, I don’t mean to claim at all that Western white Christian civilization is superior to any other. I only claim that it’s livable. For us, it’s still the most livable.
The culture of victimhood, which is the moral justification for political identity madness, is not a new phenomenon. Ady published a brilliant pamphlet back in 1905 about the world’s “lambification” by rewriting the well-known fable, from which I quote: “The Lamb can do anything because it is a Lamb. The Wolf can do nothing because it is a Wolf. Any Lamb that is weak, restless, and ambitious needs to do nothing but attack the Wolf. No matter if the Wolf is strong, serious, honest. One whose name has once been slandered must perish. […] No matter what Darwin teaches you, believe me, the sad reality is that in the animal world, those succeed who can be unruly, make noise, and be violent, yes, but under the guise of weakness.”
The culture of victimhood questions the very system in which the victim can find justice. We experience this day by day: the dictatorship of otherness makes it impossible to embrace self-identity, just as political correctness works against freedom of speech. Or take the #metoo campaign: they shattered our two-thousand-year-old concept of law by declaring anyone guilty without proof. And if we do this, which we did amidst huge media noise, everyone was swinging the moral whip, then we abolish the presumption of innocence, legal certainty, roughly the rule of law.
It seems that the extreme left-lib has learned nothing from the mistakes of the past. The racially based class struggle declared against the Western white Christian cultural circle is a combination of two ideologies that individually led to dictatorships. We know, as we suffered both.
Of course, I didn’t mean to prove by all this that Western culture is the best of all possible worlds. But if it’s customary to rub under our noses that our feet are firmly on the ground, and we don’t work with hallucinations caused by our excessive worldview, then perhaps let’s spread out the world map and go through where it’s worth living. (Since I love my country and my homeland, this is not a question for me.) From any perspective, it’s still best for any kind of minority to be in the countries of Western civilization. All this because we, white, Christian Westerners, consider them important too. That’s why we make laws that apply equally to everyone, and that’s why we maintain state law enforcement organizations from our taxes. It’s not from a lack of empathy that I consider it dangerous that today’s extreme left-liberal union talks nonsense. But because they are cutting off their nose to spite all of us.
Notes:
Political terminology:
“Progressives” and “left-liberal”: Terms used in Hungarian political discourse to refer to liberal and left-wing ideologies, often with a critical connotation in conservative rhetoric.
“Identity politics”: A concept criticized in the text, referring to political positions based on the interests of social groups with which people identify.
Historical and cultural references:
Endre Ady: A significant Hungarian poet and journalist (1877-1919). The text quotes from his 1905 article critiquing what he saw as societal weakness.
References to colonialism and its paradoxes reflect ongoing debates about historical legacies in Europe.
Hungarian context:
The phrase “We know, as we suffered both” refers to Hungary’s experiences under both Nazi and Communist regimes in the 20th century.
Literary allusions:
“The wolf and the lamb graze together” is a biblical reference (Isaiah 65:25), used here to discuss utopian ideas.
Homeland Dictionary 