The subtitle reads: America's war on Mexicans has gone too far.
Hardly. Ten million of them are still here without permission. Not nearly far enough.
*If you have an anti-emetic on hand and would like to scroll through the kind of BS that makes Ex Cathedra all un-civilized like, here it is.
As for the image...the illegal cholo with his undies showing as 1. the lynched Negro 2. the concentration-camped Jew (tattooed number) 3. the Crown of Thorned Christ (blood and barbed wire). Is the fire and flag background a hit of race war? And the Guadalupe image lyingly makes her bi-national, when she is clearly and only a Mexican goddess. The usual little angel underneath has become a death's-head...why?
___
____
9 comments:
How is the border war race war culture war not 1000% "white on white" violence?
White America riding high in 1945. It's only challenger an odious Communism that until Hitler had total claim to infinite cruelties and oppression of its own population.
Evidently the white elite wish'd to open the border to permit in illegal laborers -- because that's what happen'd. Not a nice thing to do for black Americans and low-class white Americans. But since the white elite rule America, and the white elite are racist capitalist militarists, they can do as they please with the system they dominate.
Lots of other countries permit influxes of foreign workers. The foreign workers in these countries, though, aren't rally'd into aggrieved pressure groups abetted by the 'media' in these countries. But in North America and Western Europe, the white racist capitalist militarist elite have deem'd Turkish Muslims led by not-progressive mullahs to be just as much "Germans" as the German Germans. And so also for all the countries of the West. The German Turks didn't have this power.
Would have been very easy for American authorities to tell Mexican-flag-waving Hispanics that they left Mexico because Mexico was and is an economic hell hole because of the way Mexicans ran and run Mexico. (Sure foreign corporations will 'exploit' Mexico, but foreign corporations also 'exploit' in Switzerland. So the reasons that capitalists exploitation ruins Mexico and lifts Swiss must be sought in these countries -- not that suddenly capitalists forget to be greedy in certain locales.)
German war guilt, French belief that almost all French were ferocious anti-Nazi Résistance members, etc, is used to lock these countries into seeming to need to agree that just anyone has the right to define what "French" means, "German" means, "American" means. But this wasn't caused by Turks, Algerians, etc. Nor by Mexicans in the USA.
The white racist militarist capitalist sexist etc elite decided to open the borders to make plausible the impossibility of maintaining the civilization of the Western European countries and Anglo-Saxony. Because they wish'd to destroy "western Christianity" and the aftermath of "western Christianity" -- including real "liberalism" which was emphatic that men aren't caring sharers, rooted communitarians, etc.
Spinoza, Locke, Kant, even Rousseau would be deem'd 'haters' today for their view of human nature. (Rousseau takes pains to argue that one can't do better than Lockean liberalism is for corrupt civilized men; and that civilized man can't return to uncorrupt selfish individuality of pre-social man or even to the bigoted only somewhat corrupt virtue of narrow, xenophobic countries and cities (Sparta, republican Rome).
Marx too is a hater: only total political domination of society by an unlimited dictatorship in the name of the proletariat can hammer men into social cohesion. Selfs can't be liberated into uncorrupt cooperativeness by removing the bourgeois legal and economic system. Abolishing the bourgeois system is only the first step -- and the easy step. What happens after the Revolution is the more difficult enterprise -- re hammering and terrifying Selfs into spontaneous ungreediness and especially no amour-propre (no competitive imitation, as René Girard describes it).
Marxism demands an unlimited regime that systematically and ruthlessly hates human nature "as we know it" and for as long as is necessary to achieve the impossibility of competitive imitation. Enjoy the equality of results!
In any case, the "new Canadians," multi-cultural Americans and the nonEuropean Europeans were never given the option to vote on whether they wish'd to turn Europe into Arabia, etc. They really bear little or no responsibility for the decision to tank the West.
In all my time in Toronto the only persons who hated 'white' Canada's British institutions and pre-1967 Christian religion were white intellectuals. I don't say that one never met an Angela Davis communist, but they would be powerless without Margaret Atwood, Northrop Frye, Porter, Pierre Trudeau, et al.
Confronted, they always turn into mere critiquers and progressives who wish Canada's founding institutions would do better -- the institutions which drew Pakistanis, East Indians, West Indians, but they are destroyers of the substance, the understanding which made such institutions possible. ... It isn't Montréal's Haitians or First Nations population that are marching and demanding. The students weren't marching and demanding when capitalists shut down various high-wage industries in Québec.
The destruction of America was probably thought up in the winged Golgotha skull -- which is white! -- that replaces the usual little angel on the Frisco magazine's image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe.
Blaming nonwhites is the most obtuse 'race war' mistake that American patriots can make. ... Ex Cathedra recently quoted an inner city black youngster who said "We['re] screwed!" when ask'd what would become of American blacks if all whites suddenly disappear'd. The white anti-Western Westerners I've met have no such sôphrosunê. Their critical theory destroys all possibility of maintaining Western institutions since "we" aren't sharing carers and rooted communitarians, and thus don't deserve to have our institutions maintain'd.
White Nationalists assist in the collapse by insinuating an ethnico-communitarian meaning for such institutions as due process, habeas corpus, western Christianity (although really they are careful to give no such examples, since that sounds absurd). This is to agree with critical theorists who also sort-of argue that due process and western Christianity were only tribal war totems for making war on POCs and women via racism, sexism, militarist homophobia etc (sc depriving them of white privilege and male privilege).
Maybe the only way to avoid disaster is to invite a committee of Japanese or Chinese to rule as philosopher-kings over Anglo-Saxony and western Europe. White academics and journalists could go on and on about the nightmare of stuff and it wouldn't have any political effect.
In a way white academics and journalists make good theatre: right in the midst of the knowledge institutions that determine the Western labelling system and are own'd by capitalist economics, hierophants jump up and down about the need to destroy our civilization for the sake of social justice. Probably the most entertaining of these could be paid as actors for an HBO series. This would ensure their economic viability.
In a way it's more exciting to hear a professor declaim against the Western political economy that gives him an income and prestige than to hear a professor do routine lectures on Shakespeare or Michelangelo. As long as critical theory is prevented from having any power to undo Western law in the name of silenced voices, I see no harm in it. Even though I haven't seen how silenced voices have delegated professors to be unsilent for them.
Really, though, critical theory would be powerless were it not for our preceptors' new inability to affirm their image as portray'd by Locke, or-and, if you will, by Christianity.
Only the most unselfknowing flakes ever try'd to set up real communism in communes ostensibly along "Christian" principles (never any theology, only this or that favourite 'Think of others!' verse from the Bible).
Machiavelli's description of the Church and of man generally in the Prince is as old as the Reformation. Luther was opposed for his hostility to the prevailing arrangement of Western Christendom, but not for any overly naive reading of human nature. RCs at this time were also not all that idealistic about stuff: the evangelical counsels (poverty obedience chastity) were only for a few, and everyone else had the broad gate of the precepts of the Gospel.
When did it become impossible to admit that one is selfish and not a rooted communitarian sharing carer? During the Wars of Religion? the Industrial Revolution? The French Revolution? Colonial experience? WW1? WW2? The evidence of Communism? ...
Basically a good person for liberalism is one who obey'd the law while having an eye to his material and prestige interests. Generosity within families somewhat diluted the individualism of this vision -- or perhaps the cohesion of certain ethnic groups.
But the welfare state and the New Deal was predicated precisely on an awareness that Christian generosity or humanitarian generosity was not enough to remove destitution. Public money -- gather'd by a tax system from everyone with some income -- was to deal with the problem or unseemly inconvenience of the destitute in public view.
What about mentally ill persons sleeping on sidewalks after the deinstitutionalization of the 1960s? How have Rawlsians been able to adjust to this reality but been unable to accept a 'capitalist' political economy except in the easy version of deserving an okay or even super affluent and highly prestigious situation in life while others are in misery by using one's material and prestige advantages to 'call for' a society of inclusion and solidarity?
Really I think that academics and churchmen and journalists should be able to accept the reality of ongoing inequality since in fact they are doing precisely that from a position of material affluence and high prestige.
Nietzsche had supposed that he could make equality a contemptible goal for men motivated by ambitious thumos. But the Nietzschean valuation has been shrug'd off. For higher white man today the spectacle of ongoing unequalness is apparently unendureable, at least for 'privilege' connectable to 'race' 'gender' or 'homophobia' (aversion to valluational class sameness as the direly urgent goal for our richly vibrant diversity culture).
Liberalism always welcomed -- perhaps too easily -- tinkering with the political economy in order to achieve better results. The innovators and improvers may have been deem'd ridiculous 'limousine liberals' by the more cynical and realistic but they were never expected to give up their advantages. They supposed it would be a fine thing if the poor were uplifted (usually by changes to their personal habits or lifestyle morals as well as by changes to the economic system).
Nietzsche's calling for a new inequality has been successfully totally dismiss'd from politics, literature, philosophy, religion, and even from academe. The Bible has been neutralized into either a set of texts calling for social justice or into a set of texts calling for responsible morals as are suitable or even necessary to not slide into destitution.
Why is it necessary to use statistics about material and prestige inequality in terms of race, gender etc to make liberalism unworkable (unworkable because adjustment to Selfs' real selfishenss is deem'd unjust), rather than for renew'd efforts to help individuals and population groups achieve such prosperity as is possible for them? especially with no real alternative system proposed -- e.g. a dictatorship of the proletariat is not proposed as a replacement for "bourgeois political economy."
All the anti-liberal liberals' population base was encouraged to enthuse for the current president, who is quite willing to 'work with' the techocratic elite, the capitalist militarists, et al. His wife is supportive of his career, and so on. He wishes to use the women's equal paycheck act to get re-elected (unmarry'd women are a huge and growing demographic), not for revolutionary gender relations. ... Again, if the present president is fine, how is the capitalist militarism etc of western civilization a nightmare that must be abolish'd no matter what system replaces it?
I lookt at the article "The War on Mexicans has Gone Two Far[s]." The unpickwickian remark I'd make is that white agrobusiness capitalists have used undocumented Mexican labour to avoid market dynamics.
Let's suppose that without such labour, food in America would be much more expensive. But evidently form the reporter's stories, a constant fresh supply of illegal labour is required -- I guess because, quite reasonably, the illegals aspire to a better life, and are eager to get out of difficult low wage labour on farms. This is the story of American immigrant groups.
But capitalists of any colour evidently couldn't care less about the sustainability of our institutions. Thus the demand for fresh new illegal labour at low low wages.
If the capitalists had to pay what the labour market would bear, sure some foods would become much more expensive. But then, agricultural labour could be an attractive line of employment.
People might have to pay a greater portion of their income for food, but "income" in terms of one's power to buy goods and services is adjustable -- by freeing up productivity. More and more jobs these days don't produce anything. If a shortage of goods and services occurs because too many people are computer tenders etc in the unpickwickian economy, then wages would increase for those making food, clothing and shelter and other plausibly useful consumer items, and wages would decrease for jobs that don't produce a good or service.
But in any case, if population attitudes inevitably result in a total disinclination to pick fruit and vegetables except at some monstrously high wage that makes an apple more expensive than a Rolex watch, then the population should make do with foods that are produced without much intense labour. Importing labourers from ruin'd countries such as Mexico isn't a long-term solution if their children -- all with 'anchor baby' citizenship -- won't do agricultural labour.
Foolish ruinousness of our geo-graphical writing system, e.g. Army Corps of Engineers, pay'd for by general tax revenues, basically dam'd the slow-moving river of the Florida Everglades c. 1940(?). So that the local white gentry could grow sugar cane. But since white and black Americans won't cut sugar cane, the necessity to import (shorter?) workers from Latin America to do this, per generation. And meanwhile there was no difficulty growing plenty of sugar via sugar beets in farms in Iowa etc, harvested by tractors driven by whites. No need for the grand project which incidentally really damaged the Everglades.
To me these things are like "rent control." Why interfere with the market when there's no important civilizational value involved.
Rents keep increasing in desireable locations such as central NYC. Let them keep increasing. Living in a choice area is a luxury. So what if the rich people who eventually live there have to pay super high prices for groceries because supermarket employees have to be pay'd super-high wages in order to be able to live in NYC. The rich are rich and can afford to pay more.
If they can't afford to pay more, then they aren't rich enough to live in a condo with a view of Central Park.
Instead of letting prestige-mania or whatever drive these human amour-propre things, the government decides to construct vastly complicated rent control systems -- and then complain that landlords aren't sacrificial and caring enough. And when insufficient new housing is built, the government undertakes to become a building contractor. And so on. All these economically warping complexities simply because it is a war crime if only super rich can afford to live in central manhattan.
With the additional damage done by the powerfully enculturated conviction that it would be impossible to build cities in New Jersey with a fine central park, and attractive buildings. Strange forces in the universe compel the building only of shopping malls.
Or suddenly the argument is brought in that government must act to prevent 'excessive' rent increases in order to ensure that "all classes" can mix. But God help the government that started to inclusivize Martha's Vineyard by building social housing. Posh private schools are eager for really talented smart POC children, and will provide handsome scholarships. But the problem children of the underclass are not welcome -- sc quite contrary to "all classes must be included," eh?
Whenever I pause in the course of my day to think of examples of truly disgusting, contemptible, harmful behaviour, a stream of examples of advantaged whites come to mind. Low-class whites can be scary and violent, but I don't expect much from them. "Rightwing" educated whites can also be harmful, but they don't have the good opinion of the good opinion institutions: they bear unwanted karma. So do the economic 1%.
But the cultural 1%! To me there's no more disgusting person than the advantaged educated-class white who can't accept that he grabs affluence and prestige because he wants those things, and instead fancies that he is promoting equality and social justice by condemning the selfishness of lower class whites, and 'western Christianity' and whatever else. And maybe goes in for 'eastern spirituality' or whatnot. And these are our 'noble' class exalted over the 'base'! ...
I was born into institutions shaped by the cultural 1%, and I can't stand it! If their fraudulent pretenses to unselfish goodness didn't occur, we could all see each person's and group's basic 'selfishness' and maintain our classical liberal institutions accordingly -- realistically.
Where Locke was unrealistic was in his insufficient warnings against what some call Catalinarian ambition.
One of his more famous bon mots is that a Day-labourer is better fed and housed than a king [Indian chief, perhaps] in America. Straussians complain of Locke's obtuseness to the glory that a king may have even in pre-civilized pre-literate conditions.
But really I guess it is Locke's erosion of glory for the cultural 1% (priests, clergy, et al) in civilized systems that grates on amour-propre. The landed gentry and the higher clergy don't benefit us in terms of production of goods and services, as Locke construes these things vis-a-vis a natural condition of material neediness.
Admittedly, the cultural 1% could respond to Locke's rationales by indicating different benefits that they do. To some extent artists and poets did this: their technê adds value to our lives just as does the techné of miners and mining engineers.
But the clergy balk at proposing that they mediate (cohenize) meaning to mankind, to us who would otherwise be lost in nothingness. Instead of this, the clergy stand as social justice heroes -- for those "forgotten" etc in the Lockean project.
From a proposed motive of selflessness -- which, strickly consider'd, can be explain'd only on Christian sainthood terms [e.g. why Simone Weil gave away her self, as George Grant emphasizes] -- the spiritual lords assert that Locke's realisticness can be dispensed with. Society can be re-built in terms of solidarity, compassion, etc.
And why is this assertion made? For the sake of amour-propre: wishing to have the beau role, wishing to destroy Lockean reasoners -- the new spiritual lords.
The Church's lords were free to propose a social justice egalitarian solidarity meaning of Christianity in the ages prior to Locke. Why didn't they do this? Why were they happy spiritual landlords prising rent out of the peasants as blithely as did the landed lords? But now they're all for equality and solidarity -- if consistent, then unto the disappearance of their authority altogether (mainline Protestants), or if temporizers, then all for total equality outside the Church, but no gay rights etc inside the Church, nor any adjustment of Catholicism to the Two-Thirds-World 'future of Catholicism' cultures who are rather totally disinclined to foster up sons who aspire to celibate priesthood.
Even after the French Revolution they still could have regain'd their authority as spiritual lords by out-revealing Locke and even Rousseau and Marx.
POCs are a marvel to me. They can endure our vast hypocrisy. How do they do it?
Post a Comment