The Dark Art of Condemnation

February 4, 2014 at 9:52 pm

Ever since 9/11, or possibly before but I was too young to notice or care, regular followers of current affairs and news have found themselves bombarded with a common phrase every time somebody does something really bad to somebody else. Whether that somebody is a country, a group, a politician, a pop star or just an ordinary person there always follows a wave of condemnations from a plethora of important people.

If there’s a bombing in a city however near or far, Obama will condemn, Cameron will condemn, Merkel will condemn, Hollande will condemn, Bob the Builder will condemn, Joey Essex will condemn, your average Tweep will condemn et cetera, et cetera… But I often ask myself, why? Why do these world leaders feel the need to condemn? It’s pretty obvious that bombing innocent people is not a very nice thing to do, why do we need our world leaders to tell us so? If they didn’t stop everything they were doing at that moment and summon a press conference immediately, would that affect our opinions of them or of the act itself? Would we think they were pro-bombing? Would we think bombing is good? I don’t think so, I don’t think so at all.

I look at the long list of people condemning these obviously gruesome and twisted acts and notice one or two common themes: They’re mostly white, and the ones that aren’t white are in a position where it pays to appease white people. Next time there’s some horrible unspeakable tragedy, note who condemns it.

That kind of brings me on to the reason I started writing this piece. I noticed Mo Ansar had been getting a bit of grief from career troll Louise Mensch and a whole host of hangers-on attempting to hound him in to condemning stoning. I didn’t follow the whole thread because I could feel my blood temperature rising, so I don’t know what provoked them into this frenzied keyboard attack but it did make me question what difference would it make if he did condemn it then and there? None, none whatsoever. If somebody had intended on stoning someone before the condemnation, their mind wouldn’t be changed after it.

This condemnation that was being sought, would have been a purely hollow one. Strikingly the people demanding it were all white, and this leads me on to my next point: why does Mo Ansar have to condemn acts carried by people purporting to be Muslim? Is it because he too is Muslim? Should we ask white female author and former politician to condemn every negative act ever carried out by whites, females, authors or politicians? Of course not, it’s ludicrous to suggest such a thing, but why do the white majority increasingly feel that minority communities within the UK must condemn horrid acts committed by said communities? It could be said that the white majority are actually characterising these horrid acts with that community, which may go some way to explaining the disgusting treatment reserved for black communities by the police. We are forever seeing the Daily Mail, Express, Star, Sun, Telegraph and Times publishing brash headlines characterising truly despicable acts as belonging to minority communities. Think Romanians, Bulgarians, Muslims, Blacks and even stretch it to include Welfare Claimants.

Britain’s spectrum of ‘normality’ is becoming increasingly narrow, whether that’s a product of harsher economic times, our current government or a mixture of both I’m not sure, but it is quite worrying that minority and/or vulnerable groups of people are being targeted by the white majority in such a way. The likes of Mensch and her merry little band of white keyboard bashing sheep are becoming increasingly common and increasingly racist. Mo didn’t respond to them by outright condone stoning, and why should he? Mo hasn’t partaken in the stoning of anyone or came out in favour of it before, neither does he belong to Mensch. He is not her slave to be ordered. Minority communities of Britain are not duty bound to condemn the acts of their brothers and sisters, no more than whites are not duty bound to condemn the acts of their fellow whites.

The next point about condemnation in the public eye is of course the outright hypocrisy of the condemnation. Barack Obama is a fine exponent of the hypocritical condemnation. Any time, any place, Barack is amongst the first to condemn an act of terror. So long as it isn’t carried out by US or NATO armed forces of course. If one of his own weapons of mass destruction were to, I don’t know, kill an entire wedding party in Yemen, then it’s a ‘regrettable mistake’ or something along those lines. Yet if a Yemeni insurgent who, I don’t know, is fed up of Americans killing innocent Yemenis kills a few US Soldiers then Barack is out there at the front of his blue-curtained press room condemning it as a violent, provocative act of aggression and terrorism. Other condemnations include Cameron criticising the likes of Iran for providing weapons to Syria. Sure, that’s no good thing. But on the other hand, Cameron sells weapons to Bahrain. To Saudi. To Egypt. All repressive regimes, all using it against their own people to stop them protesting.

So what’s the point of condemnation?

There is none. It’s empty, meaningless PR drivel aimed at programming the white majority into believing that whites are great and others less so, and turning the others against themselves, furthering the white cause.