Once you get to watch a racial or ethnic group other than your own it is not very hard to find their flaws. Usually what is called stereotypical and offensive is pretty much on the money. (If it weren't so close to home, it wouldn't hurt.)
Of late I have formed the opinion that one of the biggest flaws of Whites is moral arrogance and blinding narcissism.
I indicate what I mean by one example: Alinsky's Law which says that the radical should "use their own rules against them." Something which has worked spectacularly well.
Whites are given to grand, universal-sounding, abstract forms of moralizing. Once cut off from the healthy group self-interest which actually tempered that ethical compulsion, Whites are now the most foolish race on the planet. All someone has to do is achieve victim status, cry or bleed a little, blame it on the inconsistency between White morality and White behavior, and surrender is immediate. For this alone, Western civilization is unravelling. Atonement by suicide.
But this is not White, this is liberal, you may say. (Ex Cathedra has often said as much.) But who, I ask, could have come up with liberalism save for Whites?
No other group on earth would allow themselves to be tied up in knots and gutted by this kind of tactic, merely on principle, even funding and enlisting in the forces of their enemies for the sake of unselfish goodness. And think well of themselves in the process. Or imagine that they would be thought well of.
I can think of no precedent in history for this kind of cultural suicide. Plenty of culture and civilizations come to an end and, according to Toynbee, many of them die by their own hands. But never, as far as I can tell, with such a sense of pathetic righteousness.
If indeed America and the West unravels, it will be out of arrogance and pride. Not the kind that led to empire, but the kind that gave it up for noble reasons.
Of late I have formed the opinion that one of the biggest flaws of Whites is moral arrogance and blinding narcissism.
I indicate what I mean by one example: Alinsky's Law which says that the radical should "use their own rules against them." Something which has worked spectacularly well.
Whites are given to grand, universal-sounding, abstract forms of moralizing. Once cut off from the healthy group self-interest which actually tempered that ethical compulsion, Whites are now the most foolish race on the planet. All someone has to do is achieve victim status, cry or bleed a little, blame it on the inconsistency between White morality and White behavior, and surrender is immediate. For this alone, Western civilization is unravelling. Atonement by suicide.
But this is not White, this is liberal, you may say. (Ex Cathedra has often said as much.) But who, I ask, could have come up with liberalism save for Whites?
No other group on earth would allow themselves to be tied up in knots and gutted by this kind of tactic, merely on principle, even funding and enlisting in the forces of their enemies for the sake of unselfish goodness. And think well of themselves in the process. Or imagine that they would be thought well of.
I can think of no precedent in history for this kind of cultural suicide. Plenty of culture and civilizations come to an end and, according to Toynbee, many of them die by their own hands. But never, as far as I can tell, with such a sense of pathetic righteousness.
If indeed America and the West unravels, it will be out of arrogance and pride. Not the kind that led to empire, but the kind that gave it up for noble reasons.
4 comments:
One wonders how Gandhi would have fared against the empires of China or Islam instead of England. Gandhi succeeded by showing England what they were doing and they grew ashamed. I don't know that other empires would have felt anything but pride.
Does Ex Cathedra agree, then, that Anglo-Saxony's white privilege must be ended? ... Other empires destroy'd themselves from economic incompetence (USSR?) or carnal self-indulgence (ancient Rome; Ottoman empire), or military extravaganza (Europe 1914-45). We on the other hand can't maintain self-confident will-power in the face of critiques by subalterns rally'd by Alinsky who depend upon our will-power?
If the Church withstood Machiavelli and, under the Jesuits, even ascended in the Counter-Reformation to her greatest glory and power, surely capitalists who frankly admit that they aren't good enough even to admire let alone wish to emulate St Francis can withstand condemnations by academics who are funded by the capitalist system.
The only weak point I can think of in the case that we must collapse before Edward Said et al is that we the collapse proponents may be urging that we will be praised for "noble reasons" in self-dissolution in the face of critiques. This will not happen. We will no more be praised for noble suicide than the Soviets will be praised for economic incompetence or the Romans and Ottomans for lifestyle decadence.
Machiavelli makes this clear: only the successful are praised. If Jesus had not been resurrected from the dead and in that format inspired Christian civilization, He would not be praised today. His parables and Beatitudes would have had no power. Our civilization's guilters could not use His "Give no thought for the morrow" to effectively demand that we destroy the social basis of our power.
Perhaps we should claim only to be Caesar, and to realize that if we have the things of Caesar we don't need the good will of academics and the NPR archipelago. ...
Here's a good one, from the NYT account by Tamar Lewin of the president's decision to deliver this year's commencement address at Barnard College (4 March 2012, p. 20).
The previous three graduation speakers were "Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, the actress Meryl Streep and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." Apparently Barnard College had lined up as this year's speaker "Jill Abramson, the ececutive editor of The New York Times" but then the White House call'd asking if the president might speak.
Everything's cool, though: Debora L. Spar, the president of Barnard College, "said that Ms. Abramson had said she would be happy to speak at Barnard in the future."
President Obama, who's a Nobelist, let's remember, apparently will be awarded at the graduation ceremony apparently not just a thrid- or fourth-rank prize from the college, but "The Bernard Medal of Distinction, the college's highest honor."
Okay but the news write-up by Ms Lewin ends with this: »Historically, some politicians in the middle of a presidential campaign have been less than deft in finding the right tone for addressing the graduates of women's colleges. In 1955, Adlai E. Stevenson gave the commencement speech at Smith College, telling the women that their job should be to influence "man and boy" through the "humble role of housewife." "It went down as one of those bad moments," Ms. Spar said. Sc the remark was only a forgettable bad moment, not a nightmare of misogynist repressiveness that lives on in infamy up to our own day -- had it been said by Republican Ike.
Okay, so what's my point? This is simply an example of the amusingness of the Anglo-Saxon system that the future must do without in the coming aiôn of Chinese global hegemony plus Islamist warring petty states in western Europe Orwell's "Oceana"?
My sense is that the military-industrial complex lords -- Barnard, "an independent liberal arts college for women," is a tributary state of the Columbia University system -- fancy that the things of women can be laugh'd at, as the Greek intellectuals of ancient Rome encouraged men and boys to laugh at the things of women in Christianity.
They could observe that given the right initiation into Islamism, educated-class coeds are willing to accept that their power is in "influencing man and boy" or "staying home and baking cookies" in HRC's formulation.
Christian hierophants ceased believing in motherhood, and Friedan's summons to emergency cultural change to enable girls to not waste their lives and instead going on to get more higher education and making their own independent contribution to the arts and sciences and to politics (Friedan's wording, as I recall) e.g. becoming a corporation lawyer for "Organization Man" which had already totally devalued by Marcuse, and Whyte, and C. Wright Mills et al.
What Christian hierophants had ceased to do (so that even the sainted Adlai Stevenson sounded absurd) Islamists have begun doing.
But whether the military-industrial complex in the new aiôn continues to get funding and freedom will depend upon the things of women. Francis Bacon had a difficult task persuading Christendom to fund experimental science. Staying home and baking cookies is rather less contemptible than one may easily get boys to imagine it is (and being an organization man, even a "No Girls Allow'd!" subterranean organization man, is rather less honourable than one may easily get boys to imagine it is.
Value isn't establish'd by simple exclusion, nor by risking life and limb in violence (if so, old men would be eager for this honour, rather than curiously withdrawing from battle scenes [cf the greater prestige of the comfy inner ring, vs death-risking military exposedness in the passage from Tolstoy treated by C.S. Lewis].
So the military-industrial lords will probably not remain supreme over the Islamist authorities, who understand and bother with the things of women. ... Even for Francis Bacon experimental science was only derivatively important. The lords at Columbia and MIT and CalTech may fancy that the makers of advanced weaponry will dominate the hierophants of shariah and fiqh. 230 years of civilian domination of the military in the USA and they still think that mere weaponry will rule.
No, sending boys off to die in military conflict rules. But even Columbia's college for girls teaches the utter contemptibility of staying home and baking cookies.
To us it is obvious that if free contraception will encourage more and more of the smartest girls to become lawyers, then even Catholic colleges should provide free contraception. This is so obvious that even the dumb'd down version of the Bible used by Muslims provides more understanding than do Ms Spar, Ms Lewin, Ms Clinton, Ms Abramson.
They could retort to Islam with City of God, Summa theologiae, Il Principe, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Leviathan, etc on up to genealogy of morals -- but they won't.
Their condemnation is just.
Post a Comment