There are few things Thomas Sowell writes that I disagree with. His theory that Blacks picked up their bad behavioral habits from redneck Whites was one of those. And then this, where he tries to soften his normal pessimism:
Demography is not destiny? I don't really see how that works. It may not be sufficient by itself to explain what drives history, but the movement of peoples sure as hell is in the top three. Demography is not destiny. But the history of Balkanized and polarized societies in the 20th century is a history of horrors that we dare not ignore.We are not at that terrible point yet. But that is the direction in which we are headed, under the spell of magic words like "multiculturalism" and "diversity," which have become substitutes for thoughts, even among those who pride themselves on being "thinking people."
Our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, is permeated with ideologies of group grievances and resentments, painting each group into the corner of its own separate subculture, instead of drawing them into the mainstream of the American culture that made this the greatest nation on earth.
Unless this fashionable Balkanization is stopped, demography can become destiny -- and a tragedy for all.
And what would stop our "fashionable Balkanization"? Had a pleasant and stimulating chat on the weekend with an infamous homo fascist author who is actually a nice guy, and very bright and insightful. One of his points --which he makes in his latest book as well-- is that groups act in their own self interest*. It does not necessarily make them evil, but when their interests collide with other groups', problems arise. (See "demography is destiny"). And history, despite liberal self-deception, shows that these are rarely resolved by peaceful negotiation.
*Except, apparently, foolish White people.
___
6 comments:
I think Ex Cathedra should have ask'd the IHFA (& NGVBI) to define "interests."
For instance, George Gilder observes in "Wealth and Poverty" that the ethnic groups that sought success via political machines in fact did not fare as well economically as the ethnic groups that focus'd on direct economic activity.
In defense of the political-machine ethnic groups one could say that the group prestige gain'd even via machine politicking is 'worth more" than the economic prosperity that could have resulted in concentration on industriousness. A similar argument could, I suppose, be made in defense of Italian-Americans' complicity in their image as the organized crime ethnicity. The direct-action violence involved in the crime family cultural image has more charisma than that of the Robber Barons, who aren't street fighters, and even the that of the military-industrial complex who also outsource their violence to soldiers.
These are valuations that would make Locke and Mill look askance, but are they mistaken? What are one's "interests"?
What does or doesn't make valuational 'sense' is no easy set of questions to answer -- even supposing, as I do, that value relativity in the unpickwickian sense is mistaken. What the heck are "interests"?
But it is not only foolish whites who can seem obtuse to their 'interests.' "Desublimation" may have been devised by Jewish and Gentile whites, but American blacks seem to have gone with the bad behaviour that so distresses Thomas Sowell and that expresses desublimation even more than we whites have since, say, 1967. How has this been in blacks self-interest as a group or as individuals?
One could bring in the critical theory victim drama, obviously, wherein blacks' victim status is enhanced the more their behaviour expresses how victimized they were by slavery and white prejudice (even though it is odd that the impact of slavery etc seems worse in 2012 than in 1950).
But this depends upon a group decision to value high status in the critical-theory victim drama.
I readily despise anti-liberal critical theorists for inducing POCs and women to reject all karmic responsibility for the System's evil and instead to accept an identity of resistance at best and powerless victimization at worst. But not all victim stories are wholly contemptible. Lincoln and MLK, to cite just two examples, seem to have had some sense that their deaths would advance their causes. Accordingly, by not avoiding risk of violent death they seem'd to be obtuse to the 'rational' rationale that comfortable ongoingness is anyone's own real 'interest.'
When a project has been set in motion by an inapt or only partially apt rationale, it is easy to walk in and declare "None of this makes sense" -- for instance, that Great Britain lost money on her Empire, with only India a gainful situation (cotton exports for the mills in England). Everything, then, done for prestige is obtuse and not really human -- the prestige of building an empire for the outsourced will-to-power 'needs' of the dominated; Mozart's composing serious and great music, rather than only financially successful works; the Founders revered by Machiavelli also ruin'd their own interests since they didn't make any money from their efforts and for which they risk'd life and limb.
But prestige is also reckon'd along with wealth and "power" as an obvious "interest," which means that the British Empire did make sense -- group prestige. But then there's better and worse prestige. Strauss says, or nearly says, that Socrates prefer'd the honour of the few Selfs who could at least sort-of explain philosophy to their self units, rather than the honour of the many Selfs as were enjoy'd by tyrants and the wanna-be tyrants call'd sophists or intellectuals. ... But Socrates' own immorality (he let his self misunderstand the meaning that he knew nothing) is taken up into organization as the state (Will to Power ¶717), and he wouldn't say this. Jesus at least allow'd that his disciples owed Caesar upkeep via taxation.
In view of the group prestige "interests" of the Persians, Israelites, the Greeks, and the Germans (Zarathustra, 1001 Goals), we should find the individual and group prestige of SAT LSAT etc hypertrophy contemptible.
I reckon that critical-theory academics and anti-racism activists in general would not intensify whites' self-identification as white -- if the activists really intended to dissolve unpickwickian 'racism.' ... I'm so white after reading an article by Tim Wise I feel that there's nothing else to me except whiteness, and indeed a whiteness that bears the karma for the entire Jungian "Shadow" of erstwhile western idealism.
They may say now and then that they aren't asking the white to feel guilty -- and then they karmically connect his everyday white privileges (e.g., being evaluated by other whites as an individual, rather than as a member of a racial group) to the world's enormities -- black slavery, Indian extermination, etc all the way back to the Crusades.
But if unpickwickian racism is to be removed, our common humanity should be emphasized, and the contributions of POCs to western civilization as a good thing. (Deeming western civilization a nightmare of racism and white privilege founded by Western Christianity, and then celebrating multiculturalism in the west and the contributions of POCs to western civilization, is obviously doable, but it definitely makes no sense. And although it is doable, it isn't edifying a strong west that is multicultural, but only "liberal" self-doubt in white higher man and declinist panic in white lower man.
Anti-racism activists may assert that they aren't responsible for how their agitation material is used -- as if 'relativists' have the right to disregard the cultural context their stuff will be used in! ... And since when have they urged that multiculturalist anti-whiteprivilege America should be a self-confident America?
Yet these are "my" people! What is my group interest with my group, who condemns the reality principle? ... "Let justice be done, though this makes everyone's life more miserable"?
I suppose it's obvious that the POC of critical theory is "Puck" (etymologically an [ego] inflater) sc also colourer, valuer (cf Francis Bacon, the colours of good and evil) js6320 PhWk, whence Arabic fiqh. But this colouring involves wavering, turning (js6328 PhWQ) and occurs by blowing (js6315 PhWCh), where air or spirit or breath is the element of Shem, whose colour is red.
But is Sufi qua Dervish sc Darius (js1867f DRYVSh)? Sufism provides dizzy dualist (persian, pharisee) ruling One? The Whirling Dervish is the revolving (js1752 DWR) Ish js376 who does the existing (YSh js3426) but merely consumes and is consumed (js6211, 6244) in a dizzying hypertrophy of Hamitic half-genealogical fire (ASh 784. 'ash' is persian for 'truth' sc revelation) as a burnt offering (js801) by woman (js802).
(All meanings mutually interconnect, eh?)
Satan admits "I've fallen in[to an] Ike ant get-up"?
Or maybe Sufi, Darius, Dervish (js1867f DRYVSh) from revolving (js1752 DWR) + Vashni (js2059 VShNY) preserver (js3461) cf Hindu Vishnu the preserver guna (Hindu Japheth, I guess) of guna Brahm (Hindu Ham, I guess) of whatever residue of Brahm isn't undone by guna Shiva (Hindu Shem, I guess).
Newton reveals to whites that we include all colours, maybe just as ultraviolent black light excludes all colours?
Post a Comment