One of the stupidest and most cynically destructive dogmas of modern liberalism is that any group of people --as long as they have approved victim status-- have the right to live wherever they want and the people in the host country --especially if they are white--have to be happy and grateful about it and accommodate them, even if it means offending or erasing their own native values and institutions.
One of the most obvious truths about humans is that we are tribal and that when you start mixing tribes together in the same space you almost always have trouble. Human groups are territorial. Struggle for land and the control of it is a constant of life on this planet.
The predictable cries of "racism" are based on that liberal dogma. And that dogma is not only groundless but cruel. It asks people to be angelic about your particular moral agenda despite its deleterious effects on their real ordinary lives and it disingenuously sets up other people, the official victims, for a bad experience. If people go where they are not wanted and where they have no right to be and then suffer the consequences, whose fault is that?
What is preferable, to refuse to allow an unwanted group to enter your land or to let them in and then mistreat, abuse or slaughter them? Common sense, even common decency, suggests the former.
I, as an individual, have to ask permission to enter a foreign country. I have to show a passport and tell them why I want to enter and I have to abide by the laws which tell me how long I can stay, etc. I am a guest in someone else's house. But when thousands or millions of people cross into another country without asking and then behave badly and are sent home, that's racism? Again, approved victim status is the key.
IMHO, not every group of people should be living next door to each other. It's beyond brainless to believe that they should. Ever read a history book? Or watch the news? Even groups that are similar almost always develop some kind of conflict. And whatever group of people own a land (as in a nation) have the right to decide who else gets to live there. It's what's called sovereignty, sort of an enlargement to a group of the right of private property and self-defense and self-determination, etc. The issue is NOT "What right do you have to keep us out?"* but "Why should we let you in?" The analogy between your own home (aka house) and your homeland can be overdone, but it's a damn good marker of how crazy someone is on issues of ethnicity, immigration and that completely bogus concept, xenophobia.
*This was the lie behind the disastrous US immigration policy changes of the 60's that will one day not too far off turn the USA into a white minority country. I doubt very much that that will be pretty.
6 comments:
Re the future of the USA and Canada as "minority white": is this possibility primarily from immigration changes, or from deeper causes, namely the divorce of civilization and ?family? (I'm not sure what.) ... Consider the canaries in our coalmine: the Jews who are most committed to civilization and who excel in civilization, are presumably the successful, high-achieving (non victim) population most beset by demographic dearth. Lubavicher etc Jews, on the other hand, evidently go for generation (and in vitalness, not as a grim duty that takes time and energy away from career and lifestyle) -- but they are alienated from civilization, somehow actually deeming America, Canada, etc a goyim system! in which they prefer to live in de facto ghettos.
... Presumably the separation of our civilization from life spells disaster for our civilization -- and for “deep” reasons, not the usual aetiology that ‘foreign’ inhabitants won’t understand the principles of Western civilization. Has this "white" civilization has become only parasitic on generation, and thus on life? But world or civilization or culture and even sacra doctrina have value only for life. Previous places in a civilization for communities of monks and nuns, or of individual celibates, have been for life nevertheless.
The celibate sage has never supposed that his unusual hobbies or vocation which are tangential to civilizaiton should become the pattern for civilization's personnel. The individual with a true calling that can't congrue with parenthood has always been content with poverty (even Camus said this) and a marginal social position. It would only irritate Pascal or Newton to be a role model for young women -- or young men. (I’d say that would seem ridiculous to Pascal or Newton, but probably the sage wishes for a certain obscure prestige in his apparently ascetic marginal sage -- a wish to seem incomprehensible and strong in will. A woman or man who sets aside parenthood in order to focus all his time and energy in order to become a workaholic account manager [whatever that is] and feels she or he is imitating the astronomer, the philologist, or, say, the Nietzschean psychologist misunderstands the astronomer, the philologist or the psychologist. Asceticism to all else and eros for astronomy philology psychology makes sense (possibly, anyway), but ascetism to all else and eros for the work of a ‘professional’ makes no sense.
Freud enthused for thanatos (a transmodulated libido) and did not hold off from generation or recommend childlessness to his patients. ... Initially the experience of War, Depression and War did not compel drawing conclusions of childlessness: you and I are products of a Baby Boom among high-achieving "whites." And the turn to child-freeness c.1970 in our demographic was not from "Buddhistic" pessimism: one is duty-bound to not procreate because life is no good. The turn to childlessness occur'd because of an absurd optimism for career and lifestyle (life-free lifestyle).
Are the deep causes the same of the demographic disaster in China, where the means have been so different? Not prestige manipulation and shaming of mouseyness in women but the use of gov’t power to restrict Chinese men to one child by making abortion compulsory after their wives had given birth to one child. … It would be reasonable to suppose that one task of China’s impending extension of power to global hegemony will be to more or less forcefully find foreign wives for all the only-child sons in their land who have no hope of finding a Chinese wife. Which nationalities will be selected might be one of the most interesting eu-dysgenics programmes since the seizing of the Sabine women?
Anyway, is our demographic’s self-image -- swinging fitfully back and forth between narcissistic self-contempt and narcissistic career strategizing -- a hint that our civilization has no right to the space it takes up? no right to a future? I would have said “no right to life,” but “life” is what our civilization rejects -- and not for the sake of thanatos (which is a version of life).
Another hint: the subliminally self-congratulatory “slacker” fool (who must be white) who seems to have figured it all out -- namely that today one doesn’t need a landed estate in order to live like an old-style aristo -- work-free, responsibility-free, and for as much sex and drink or mild drugs as one can get.
The aristos may have been mistaken to despise scientific achievement (to the extent they were aware of it at all), but their sense of whatever it is that is done or thought by Roger Bacon or Lavoisier as something remote is surely more accurate than any sense of it attain’d by ordinary professors, let alone journalists who complain of Intelligent Design fundamentalists’ ignorance. Aristos were probably mistaken to despise middle-class achievement since such achievement involved a contending vs scarcity that the aristos had no experience of: putting together the resources for a family life that couldn’t rely on the taxes of a manor was presumably a very considerable achievement. The aristo also had very imperfect respect for achievements in religion.
A slacker’s contempt, by contrast, seems much more firmly based: he doesn’t have to consider Roger Bacon or St Francis (who is for us only a sort of Christian activist à la Mahatma Gandhi) or the efforts of landless bourgeois who cannot rest on landed wealth but who nevertheless put together a life for their family that’s more than scrambling for food like the urban poor. The slacer says only “Why bother to strive to imitate Bill or Hillary Clinton?” …
How could this have happen’d? Men's ordinary instinctual life has no regard for parenthood -- or for career climbing. The question is how They removed prestige from generation and family for males while continuing to induce us to will to override our instinctual satisfaction whose negative elements (not working, not getting up early to punch a time clock) are as important as the positive elements (humping and drinking). The "lifestyle" enjoyments for our demographic aren't living like old-style aristocrats (no work, lots of drink, and as much sex as possible) are as ascetic and worry-driven as our career workaholism: gym workouts, eco-tourism and other culturally enhancing restless movement, white water kayaking, rock climbing, etc etc).
A "slacker" is deem'd a loser, not someone who has figured out that one doesn't need a landed estate in order live like an old-style aristo today and not actually starve.
Relatively easy, I guess, to get girls to buy into no children. Expose them to the contempt males have for childcare (staying home and baking cookies) compared with activities that partake of war or struggle -- a contempt that co-existed uneasily with the respect that men do have for the trouble and effort women go to in raising their children. Also women's own contempt for the work they have done, and for their "moralistic" cautions: e.g. that not wanting to seem "mousey" they will abandon their wish for marriage and family, and prefer instead to live like a sexual adventuress (which means getting fkd a few times when young, and then ingored when their looks pass: in this situation, black women go ahead and have babies anyway, but white women forbear; speaking broadly statistically, I guess).
How exceptional womengirls are able to navigate -- explore sexual relationships with interesting guys during their twenties, have enough looks remaining when 30 to still get marry'd to an eligible guy, and have a child or two plus work on a career that has prestige -- has been the way to prevent ordinary women from saying that this arrangement doesn't work well for them -- and they need the support of nomos. (But why should womengirls have to say things boldly: they're feminine. Guys should have observed this and said this for womengirls' sake!)
Magazine articles whether by conservatives or liberals, secularists or Christians, seem never to remark that a womangirl who doesn't want children and wishes to focus all-out on career and lifestyle will find she has many more marriage opportunities than if she tells guys she dates that she hopes to raise a family. There are so few such womengirls that the comparably large proportion of guys who also don't want children would situate them quite well, I guess. But this isn’t mention’d by magazines because it might take the sheen off career work as a preferable alternative to raising a family -- for girls who are no longer attractive and have no notdisgusting marriage prospects. (Friedan: “The suburban housewife and mother is too isolated and lonely: therefore our civilization must dissolve the appeal of marriage and family for little girls. There’s no way to re-arrange the situation of educated suburban housewives so they don’t feel lonely.”)
The new arrangement is reinforcing for guys since the more interesting girls to spend time with are the smarter girls, and the smarter a girl is the more she can buy into the career prestige rather than children value system. But a smart stay-at-home mom who read and thought would be more interesting to converse with for me than a smart woman who was only a lawyer -- unless the latter thought a lot about her disappointments etc and was willing to talk of them. The smart stay at home woman would have to be a prodigy of self-sufficientness, since she would have to override the constant career message that we all inadvertently express.
No doubt the demographic dearth that hit our population group is much preferable to a bunch of guys in our group getting kill'd off in another big war (with a large part of the female population having to go without husbands and thus without families). Nevertheless, it does vaguely feel to me that a big disaster hit us somehow -- on a very deep level, as express'd in various cultural shifts (e.g. that the Friedan wave of feminism didn't go for access to the foreground prestige hierarchies while maintaining the no sex outside of or before marriage rule, which previous feminist movements did maintain).
I wonder how my high school graduating class would compare with my mother's or father's in terms of the proportion of numbers of women who never marry'd and never raised children, or who were maybe marry'd for a little while and have maybe one child or so.
Yet the question is more accurately posed in terms of the number of guys who never marry'd and who never had any children, because it's in guys that the deepest aversion to generation occurs, I feel, and for the sake of civilizational optimism, not from pessimism about life.
Probably there'd be sufficient "replacement" generation for our demographic if the older arrangement had been maintain'd: Frank Sinatra's song runs "love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage -- because Mother told Dad you can't have one without the other." The statistics on the number of children each woman must have for a certain population to be sustain'd should be shifted to a reckoning of the number of children each man must have for a population group to attain replacement.
Anyway, we have a vast workaholic career and workaholic lifestyle civilization in "the west" -- with no link to life and the generation of life. Our civilization isn't even thanatos that can enhance life, as I guess Egypt supposed it could do though never admitted it. (Egyptians thought they had children for the sake of thanatos.)
It's all very well to say that persons “should” be free to make their own choices in how they wish to live. This is true, but abstracts from the reality of enculturation of value -- a civilization's value systems. Not least of all because it’s work guys don’t want to do, I would be totally glad to see childraising and primary parenthood gain in prestige at the expense of “career” and “lifestyle” -- again, speaking first of all to and of guys’ situations. Prestige would influence the actions of “educated class” males and females, not the populations outside our prestige systems about whom rightwing white demographics agitators ostensibly worry. … Eighteen years since HRC blurted out our inner valuation of parenthood (“staying home and baking cookies”): I sense that since this time, the prestige burnish has worn off career climbing and maybe even hectic lifestyle pursuits. Maybe this is only because the leading edge of the Baby Boom has aged and starts to get cranky. What’s certain is that since that time there has been no restoration of real sincere prestige or honour for generation -- not in the hearts of men or of women. Male or female Baby Boomer old timers aren’t pervading the message “Don’t waste your best years on career work, youngsters. I face thoughts of mortality and have only my resume to ponder. Raising a family is one of the only things one can do that really feels meaningful.”
Not that there’s been an ascent to real sincere Buddhist pessimism, which would pervade “I was a fool putting all that attachment into career meaning when I was young. But no doubt parenthood would also have been foolish attachment to maya.” The crankiness pervaded by the leading edge Baby Boomers that has taken the sheen off career climbing is not really buddhistic or even pessimistic in some other way. My sense is that the crankiness is full of blame -- especially for western civilization’s ostensible conservatives. If only there’d been no Reagan along the way, no Thatcher, no Daniel Patrick Moynihan, no Thomas Sowell, no George Gilder, no Allan Bloom, et al, then things would have turn’d out fine by now (sc instead of all this low-class white resentment - and cultural crumminess).
P.S. I suppose there’s a large quantity of sexual activity in our life-free, generation-averse civilization. Is this technically “homo-sexuality”? Sc. the homo-sexual Itself has descended into the whole of our civilization? Is that what caused this?
Post a Comment