From exiled race realist John Derbyshire:
Conservatism, Inc. or otherwise, is a white people's movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.
Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain't too many raisins in that bun...
This isn't because conservatism is hostile to blacks and mestizos. Very much the contrary, especially in the case of Conservatism Inc. They fawn over the occasional nonwhite with a puppyish deference that fairly fogs the air with embarrassment. (Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1,000 Republicans? A: "Mr. Chairman.")
It's just that conservative ideals like self-sufficiency and minimal dependence on government have no appeal to underperforming minorities—groups who, in the statistical generality, are short of the attributes that make for group success in a modern commercial nation.
Of what use would it be to them to embrace such ideals? They would end up even more decisively pooled at the bottom of society than they are currently.
A much better strategy for them is to ally with as many disaffected white and Asian subgroups as they can (homosexuals, feminists, dead-end labor unions), attain electoral majorities, and institute big redistributionist governments to give them make-work jobs and transfer wealth to them from successful groups.
Which is what, very rationally and sensibly, they do.
So it's not the "white" that bothers me. Heck, conservatives might just as well be honest about it, since it's so almighty bleeding obvious.
5 comments:
That's odd-Mainline Protestants and Unitarians and Quakers have very small percentages of nonwhites as members but they usually manage to get at least one nonwhite as Chair or Moderator. The ELCA Lutherans even have actual quotas for nonwhites and nonEnglish speakers although their membership is less than 4% nonWhite. Which means a lot of people have to be recycled.
Oddly enough, the Mainline Protestants are some of the most left of center groups in the US, basically "Mother Jones" at prayer.
1. It saddens me that conservatives of Derbyshire's sort have dismiss'd the realities set forth by George Gilder in "Wealth and Poverty." Obviously liberals should have taken up Gilder's book too, simply adding in that "government" isn't intrinsically contrary to wealth creation but in some ways even necessary for it.
In any case, "successful groups" in their creation of goods and services economically benefit the entire population, including the least fortunate. ... Perhaps if we added "culture" (Mammon) to the reckoning of 'wealth' American blacks could be seen as general social benefactors. As Reggie White's outline of American Purusha suggests. ... Aerobic exercise would not be doable without sustaining music by or derivative from African Americans.
If in fact Purusha is evidently opposed to the unpickwickian sense of economic self interest, then Gilder's book may be used to reveal this. For instance, he amply proves that lotteries and gambling culture are vastly ruinous to a population. But since the publication of his book in 1981, gambling and lotteries have expanded tremendously.
... Obviously any "wealth transfer" from successful to less successful groups depends upon the continued production of wealth by the economically more successful groups. Is ressentiment so fulfilling that one could rejoice in the destitution of whites even at the cost of destitution for oneself?
Derbyshire also doesn't account for the paucity of oriental and south Asians in conservative institutions.
2. But about affirmative action in white Protestant denominations. This reminds me of the journalism today by Amanda Marcotte etc that takes seriously the self-reporting reasons that (white?) young Americans give for not bothering to attend church: "Christianity is too homophobic and exclusive etc."
A statistical book entitled "UnChristian" takes this rationale for abandoning institutionalized or not-anonymous Christianity. With the conclusion that if churchgoers jump'd through all the hoops of inclusion then young white Americans would stream back into church. As if they will suddenly feel a need for a church blessing upon the valuational attitudes that they have learnt outside the churches.
These youngsters would surely give the same reasons for not becoming Muslims -- too exclusive, no gay marriage, not enough women mullahs and imams, etc -- that is, until they convert to Islam.
Unfortunately or not, the existence of 'inclusive' churches such as the evapourating denominations the previous anonymous commenter remarks on proves that inclusion has no felt need of Christian blessing.
Derbyshire also doesn't account for the paucity of oriental and south Asians in conservative institutions.
2. But about affirmative action in white Protestant denominations. This reminds me of the journalism today by Amanda Marcotte etc that takes seriously the self-reporting reasons that (white?) young Americans give for not bothering to attend church: "Christianity is too homophobic and exclusive etc."
A statistical book entitled "UnChristian" takes this rationale for abandoning institutionalized or not-anonymous Christianity. With the conclusion that if churchgoers jump'd through all the hoops of inclusion then young white Americans would stream back into church. As if they will suddenly feel a need for a church blessing upon the valuational attitudes that they have learnt outside the churches.
These youngsters would surely give the same reasons for not becoming Muslims -- too exclusive, no gay marriage, not enough women mullahs and imams, etc -- that is, until they convert to Islam.
Unfortunately or not, the existence of 'inclusive' churches such as the evapourating denominations the previous anonymous commenter remarks on proves that inclusion has no felt need of Christian blessing.
Inclusive Christian institutions can 'make sense.' There are special-effort, inclusive but not anonymous Christians, who get out of bed every Sunday morning to attend church. Yet this adds nothing essential to inclusion.
In other words, a lot of reality is counter-intuitive.
Post a Comment