Tintin aux Pays totalitaires
By Dave Yorkshire. Tintin is on trial at the moment. Yes I do mean Hergé’s famous creation Tintin and no I am not joking. No one, it seems, can escape the laws regarding thought criminality devised by the Eurocrats of Brussels – not even if one is a cartoon character.
Let us just remind ourselves of where this word came from and why. The word was devised by a homosexual Jewish Trotskyite called Magnus Hirschfeld in 1930 as a means to destroy Western homogeneity and therefore Occidental society in general.
He knew that encouraging non-white immigration into the West while simultaneously rendering Caucasian man intellectually defenceless through a series of psychological complexes brought about by supercharging emotions of guilt and pity via neo-Marxist ‘critical thought’ would ensure his downfall, along with the civilization he created, leaving a vacuum for the emergence of a global, Communist, totalitarian super-state.
‘Racism’ then, as many have pointed out, is merely an attack on native Europeans and is therefore in itself ‘racist’. As ever with Marxist semantics, the word is used to mean the opposite of the real desired effect (one thinks also of such words as ‘tolerance’ or ‘diversity’).
The other side of discourse on ‘racism’, again utilising the stereotype (racist again!) of the white man as the eternal oppressor is also engineered to antagonise non-whites against whites through the rewriting of history, the Caucasian becoming a hate figure.
This legitimates any means – through the media, violence, legal process and alteration, academia, the education system – of denigrating, subjugating and ethnically and culturally cleansing Europids in their own homelands.
As ‘racism’ is a Trotskyite invention, laws regarding it are Communist in nature and ensure that Caucasians are unable to define themselves as themselves either to the exclusion of, or in contradistinction to other races in their own homelands – unless that contradistinction is in and of itself a debasement of Caucasians.
It is because of this that the Africa Mbutu Mondondo Bienvenu, aided and abetted by his Arab solicitor Ahmed L’Hedim, have brought about the current legal case against a positive white male role model for adolescents. Tintin is characterised by his intelligence, guile and spirit of adventure. Apparently, Mr Bienvenu is offended by the positive characterisation of Tintin, coupled with supposedly less than flattering portrayals of blacks.
Ironically, Mr Bienvenu is behaving in the way Hergé portrays the Congolese. In the extract I have given, Tintin is blamed for the destruction of the Congolese’s dilapidated train (left over from the days of empire) and is racially abused.
At this point, the ordinarily diplomatic Tintin ceases to apologise and rounds on the Congolese, ordering them to push the train back onto its tracks. As Tintin shows his anger, the Congolese are pacified and accede to his wishes – despite their antagonism to work.
Mbutu Mondondo Bienvenu, like the Congolese in the book, is aggressive because we, as a race, have become apologetic towards other races who have then sensed the weakness in us.
A century and more ago, back when white Europe controlled huge swathes of the planet, rule was only maintained through the open display of power, as any of the native tribes would soon take advantage of any weakness. Perhaps the last mainstream author to assert this was Evelyn Waugh, which goes to show how long cultural Marxism has been in place.
Indeed, any literature not conforming to the parameters set by today’s neo-Marxist dogma will be instantly rejected by publishing houses, while the ‘politically incorrect’ literature of yesteryear is either being made to disappear into obscurity through a mixture of refusal to republish and refusal to incorporate it into school and university curricula, or, such as with Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, being bowdlerised into conformity.
Ironically, the chattering left-liberals, who follow such dogma with an almost religious fervour, have nothing to say about this. It is ironic because in the 1960s, these same left-liberals were screaming like harpies about freedom of speech and how ridiculous it was to expurgate and censor works of art as though we were all children.
Indeed, it was no coincidence that the 1960s opened with the famous ‘Lady Chatterley’ trial, which saw the full D H Lawrence novel made available in Britain thirty-two years after it was written. The leftist satirical magazine Oz was also the subject of indecency and obscenity trials in 1964 and 1971, the latter being turned into a circus by Marty Feldman. Its editor, Richard Neville has been turned into an iconic figure for the extreme left and a film about him entitled Hippie Hippie Shake is due for release this year.
The point is that either speech is free or not, but free speech was never the intention of these trials in the 1960s; the intention was to nullify laws regarding taste in order to get extreme leftist dogma into the mainstream.
That being done, the next stage would be to push the old mainstream ideas out and make sure they stayed out by reintroducing similar laws that had kept out the extreme left.
This was made perfectly clear in the opening to the Frankfurt-School neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance:
“This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”
I have no doubt that Messrs Bienvenu and L’Hedim will get what they want in court and obtain at the very least a disclaimer about the views represented in Tintin, which will be the first step towards expurgation and then proscription.
So far, Alain Berenboom, representing the trust Moulinsart, which is custodian of Hergé’s works, has remained unmoved.
“Demanding a disclaimer at a tribunal is a form of censorship, he stated.
Quite, and I wish him luck in defending the freedom for Caucasians to read their own cultural works without being confronted by a notice stating that the work and, by extension, the affirmation of Caucasian identity, is evil.
Such a notice is, in itself, anti-white and therefore ‘racist’.