Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Unseasonable thoughts

Racial and ethnic groups all over the world have far more predictable patterns of behavior, and consequently predictable outcomes, than polite liberal society would allow us to contemplate. And in fact expects us to lie about all the time. Except when they call it "culture" and drool about it.

Genocide is as human as apple pie.

The genius of the Founders was to make a government for men as they are. They created the antagonistic separation of powers in reliance on the greed and vanity of men. Leftists of all stripes before and since have wanted to make government for men as they think they ought to be. Which always leads to disaster: tyranny and failure. We have a disaster sitting in the White House now. To paraphrase his irritating and spoiled wife, his election made me really ashamed of my country for the first time in my life.

When people go on about the depravity of the human race...no argument here, really...what they usually forget is that our species is the way it is also because of the place where it has lived: planet Earth. Our kind did not come to be on a tabula rasa level playing field. (Nothing of the sort has ever existed.) The beloved "environment", now seen as Our Lady of the Sorrowful Gaia, is also a system which forces any creature wanting to survive to compete and struggle, with not a lot of room for choice. Nice humans would never have lasted and still do not (See item 2, above). So if you want to trash humanity, be my guest, but make sure you include Mother Nature.

Shrinkwrapped has made the case for nationalized health care pretty clear. Please give me an example, he says, of a system where you have 1. universal access 2. good quality and 3. affordability. There ain't none. You can have 2 out of 3, but never all three. We are about to find out...again. If we have health care for all, it will not be good care and it will bankrupt us. My prediction. (Who will go into medicine if it's a government job?)

Is it an accident that the places in the world which combine both the greatest amount of social and legal freedom and the greatest security and prosperity are the places created by white Christian men? And is it not odd that the places Third World peoples want to go and live in --America, Australia, Canada--are the very places created by those paragons of racism, white Christian and English-speaking men?

And since I am being unseasonable, I wonder if there are or were any societies where there was a difference in skin color and darker color did not correlate with lower social status? (This is a real question; I don't know the answer.)

Much of the world is savage and/or barbarian Other and we would do well to recognize it and act accordingly. Makes no difference if they use cell phones or not. If you want evidence that use of technology has no bearing on human value, just read the comments sections of, say, a controversial YouTube video. It's all there. The global "we" is thin as a micron. All men may be created equal, but that equality lasts about ten seconds til they start to cry and are handed over to their mothers.

There can be a huge difference between what is merely true and what is both true and significant.

If group A has an average IQ that surpasses group B by several points or more, then if group B is gonna do more than just hang on, it had better have some serious cultural resources that can balance up its intellectual inferiority.

I am speaking, of course, of Asians (A) and Whites (B).

When Wyoming passed the non-binding Code of the Cowboy, some effete pussy on the local paper complained that it was an "ethnocentric ethic" which would not appeal to our multicultural society. Does he not know, this post-Enlightenment waste of breath, that the only codes of ethics that have any claim on a man are ethnocentric? Include his own Kantian BS, which every other group in the world recognizes as useless except for monks and showoffs who never have to face anything like a real moral demand.

Islam is a religion for men. There is no god but Allah, a single and very male God. Muhammad --a ruler, a soldier, a lawmaker-- is his prophet. Submit and obey. End of story. It is utterly patriarchal in its values and structures, absolute monotheism being the primary drive and submission to absolute divine authority the primary structure. The mosque is for men. Men worship together, the women segregated and secondary. Men love this: affiliation created by hierarchy and rank.

Christianity represents a significant feminization of Judaism. Men have had to struggle with it to create versions of it that they could tolerate and thrive in. These versions must always be only partly Christian. Unadulterated Christianity requires either monastic withdrawal or unconnected mendicancy. Not really a religion for this world, without significant admixtures.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Re Christianity as a significant feminization of Judaism. I suppose somehow this is true, but I remember thinking vs Straussians' valuation of Judaism and Islam as manly religions vs Christianity the feminine religion, that both Islam and Judaism celebrate their beginnings in a running away event (Hegira, and Exodus [fleeing after a defeated Hebrew slave revolt against the Egyptian authority, according to Straussians]), whereas Christianity celebrates its high point in not running away (Gethsemane). Straussians were also candid enough to maintain that by Aristotle's criteria Jesus' willpower vis-a-vis Crucifixion was not fine (kalon) and accordingly didn't involve courage (andreia) -- sc but only willpower (egkrateia). ... Ordinary women have follow'd Jesus into martyrdom, but the fine, courageous female warrior seems only a device of fiction for interestingness, or an 'intersex' soldier in disguise during the Civil War and so on. Joan of Arc was a strategist and commander, not a sword-wielder, and like Boadicea, Thatcher, an extremely rare exception. Women presumably also are not much good as soldiers in retreat, as during the Exodus or Hegira.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...