If the current Euro crisis indicates that you can't turn Greeks into Germans, then how much less likely to try turning Somalis into Danes or Moroccans into Dutchmen or Jamaicans into Englishmen? Hell, look how successful Tito was in turning the Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrans and Macedonians into Yugoslavs?
Multi-ethnic White states have themselves been difficult to create and maintain. The United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland was not achieved overnight or without blood. And the United States Civil War, regional rather than ethnic*, shows that the U in USA has always been a project rather than a settled truth.
What human group, regardless of its commonalities, does not create sub-group and intra-group tensions? The hubris of multiculturalism is that this ideology, enforced by the State and the organs of social control, can defeat this inherent human tendency.
The only way you can do this is by making being German or Danish or Dutch or English a merely territorial marker without any relation to a physical group of people and the cultures they have created and maintain. The groups who suffer most here are the ones who lose their identities in order to make the strangers feel at home: the native peoples of Europe and their descendants. Them alone.
Everyone immediately knows this game is played in reference to White peoples only. What fool imagines that you could import a million Mexicans into Szechuan province and imagine that they would ever, ever be Chinese? No one. Least of all, to their very great credit, the highly realistic and amoral Chinese.
When it comes to exclusionary immigration laws in the US in regard to them, they play the victim well, but few human groups are as hard-headed and unapologetic about power and culture than the Chinese.
Non-White groups --or certain White subgroups like Jews-- have full support for their efforts to maintain their physical and cultural identities against the "dominant" society, but if plain old leukophore Caucasians try it, they are "White supremacists".
When it comes to the countries and cultures of The Most Foolish People On Earth©, to refuse faith in the infinitely malleable inclusivity of propositition-national identity is to commit the ultimate and criminal heresy of racism.
Every story I hear about the clash of non-European immigrants with native Europeans makes me shake my head at the criminal stupidity, hubris and self-destructiveness of the whole enterprise. Enoch Powell was right about that.
And when I am told that I should rejoice in the shrinking of the foundational White population in America as it turns into Multiculty Heaven, I feel the same way. I can't imagine that the people who inhabit what is now the USA 100 or 200 years from now will have even the kind of connection to their founding past that Italians have to Rome.
Just as the technological civilization that men have created has allowed women to overtake them in status and dominance, so the liberal ideology and structures that Whites have created has allowed colored peoples to do the same.
A recent posting on FB about the Anders Breivik trial reminded me of the clever but groundless lines of TS Eliot:
Multi-ethnic White states have themselves been difficult to create and maintain. The United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland was not achieved overnight or without blood. And the United States Civil War, regional rather than ethnic*, shows that the U in USA has always been a project rather than a settled truth.
What human group, regardless of its commonalities, does not create sub-group and intra-group tensions? The hubris of multiculturalism is that this ideology, enforced by the State and the organs of social control, can defeat this inherent human tendency.
The only way you can do this is by making being German or Danish or Dutch or English a merely territorial marker without any relation to a physical group of people and the cultures they have created and maintain. The groups who suffer most here are the ones who lose their identities in order to make the strangers feel at home: the native peoples of Europe and their descendants. Them alone.
Everyone immediately knows this game is played in reference to White peoples only. What fool imagines that you could import a million Mexicans into Szechuan province and imagine that they would ever, ever be Chinese? No one. Least of all, to their very great credit, the highly realistic and amoral Chinese.
When it comes to exclusionary immigration laws in the US in regard to them, they play the victim well, but few human groups are as hard-headed and unapologetic about power and culture than the Chinese.
Non-White groups --or certain White subgroups like Jews-- have full support for their efforts to maintain their physical and cultural identities against the "dominant" society, but if plain old leukophore Caucasians try it, they are "White supremacists".
When it comes to the countries and cultures of The Most Foolish People On Earth©, to refuse faith in the infinitely malleable inclusivity of propositition-national identity is to commit the ultimate and criminal heresy of racism.
Every story I hear about the clash of non-European immigrants with native Europeans makes me shake my head at the criminal stupidity, hubris and self-destructiveness of the whole enterprise. Enoch Powell was right about that.
And when I am told that I should rejoice in the shrinking of the foundational White population in America as it turns into Multiculty Heaven, I feel the same way. I can't imagine that the people who inhabit what is now the USA 100 or 200 years from now will have even the kind of connection to their founding past that Italians have to Rome.
Just as the technological civilization that men have created has allowed women to overtake them in status and dominance, so the liberal ideology and structures that Whites have created has allowed colored peoples to do the same.
A recent posting on FB about the Anders Breivik trial reminded me of the clever but groundless lines of TS Eliot:
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
But here the wrong deed was done for the right reason.
*Although it was the archetypal American instance of Whites fighting with each other about Blacks. Carries on to this day.
____
*Although it was the archetypal American instance of Whites fighting with each other about Blacks. Carries on to this day.
____
4 comments:
I can't believe it. There's another sane white man left in the U.S. I'm afraid we're dinosaurs, my friend, what's coming after us is revolution not evolution. And it ain't gonna be pretty.
I can't believe it. There's another sane white man left in the U.S. I'm afraid we're dinosaurs, my friend, what's coming after us is revolution not evolution. And it ain't gonna be pretty.
... As for moi, I skim'd through a book in a Newton Kansas used bookstore that made me very sad -- an old-style liberal study (by whites, I'm sure) of black and white populations in America just before the Great Depression and thus prior to the New Deal (that rescued American "capitalism" from "socialist" conquest).
Anyway, the liberal white academics took great pains with statistics etc to establish that black populations were well on track to attain white middle-class etc moral and familial habits, despite the predations of slavery and post-Civil War hostility by whites upon moral self-help and familial soundness in blacks.
... I wonder at what point exactly America decided to agree with Rousseau, in a way - for blacks and for whites - the middle-class moral habits and whatnot were of a piece with oppression by robbers barons, crucifying mankind on a cross of Gold, etc etc. "Family values" and Wall Street predatory lending practices combine to oppress the poor and minorities and women (whose career ambitions in the military industrial complex are nevertheless to be promoted by 'take your daughter to work' day, and the school curriculum K-J.D.).
For Rousseau, the path of the solitary dreamer Jean-Jacques was for solitary dreamers only, not for civil society. Rousseau lookt to the Romans, the Spartans and (for an example of a polis that actually occur'd I guess) Calvin's Geneva, although in the Emile he outlined a kind of Montessori home-schooling vision for reconciling children of the advantaged classes to the demands of 'alienation' that didn't quite annihilate original nature. Something like that anyway.
With some slight bit of plausibility Jean-Jacques' paranoid reveries were extended into a snobbish bohemia for the arts and literature set, quasi-Rousseauan higher man above the hypocritical moral middle-class but with a fancy'd solidarity or similar profligate lifestyle with the peasants (greedy, nature-hating, superstitious) and eventually the urban rabble.
But the onward and upward vision for blacks Americans' advancement was obliterated why? because Marcuse et al didn't have the strength for Freudian repression and sublimation? Why couldn't Marcuse et al have just tuned in, turn'd on a drop'd out? had children that they couldn't support and thus were abandon'd to the welfare agencies? why did they have to validate unmiddle-class alienation and repression for ordinary black and white Americans -- for whom they doubtless had no real knowledge of, any more than the usual limousine liberal has?
That pre-FDR liberal moral uplift study is now 'moot' -- it doesn't apply to the Democrats' vision (if any) or the Republicans' or the Catholic social justice crowd's or the Mennonite Central Committee's (Jesus proclaim'd the Beatitudes as policy criteria for Caesar), or the UCC's or Jim Wallis's etc.
And yet that older liberal uplift vision remains necessarily implicit for all "social spending" idealism: if 'we' are not trying to uplift 'minorities' and destitute whites etc to prosperity, what is the guiding agendum? using the Beatitudes to undermine "middle-class values"?
Why don't the Mennonites and the anti-Augustine Catholics and anti-Augustine Prots go libe the Beatitudes if the Beatitudes are so fine? Why are they using the Beatitudes not in order to find and boddisatva-style share the makaria that Jesus declares results from his Beatitudes?
Why are the neo-Mennonites now super-busy and concern'd with structures of perdition? Isn't the proper Christian witness to those caught in the structures pf perdition to withdraw in new life and exhort those still trap'd in perdition to also withdraw?
The state can't live like a lily of the valley. Bankers can't give no thought to the morrow. etc.
Our neo-Mennonites are a kind of anti-Augustinian -- or an anti-Calvinist: not trying to sanctify the world but condemning the world as the world (John 3:16ff Christendom uses the world as a mechanism for eternal life; even though the world is somehow Satan's, according to the Temptations as told in Matthew and Luke [Mark isn't to be given such intelligence, at least during his obedient will-to-power spiritual formation]).
And apparently our Catholics and Calvinists basically agree with the neo-Mennonites: what America most needs is a tear-down vis-a-vis the Beatitudes. This will help "the poor and oppress'd"?
I could well welcome a sound, realistic "leftwing" social democratic Calvinism and-or Catholicism. "Christian Democracy" as originally set forth, more or less. One set of criteria for the reborn, the church-members, the baptised, the 'religious' etc: the Beatitudes, the evangelical counsels; and one set of criteria for 'perdition' (the state, economics etc) as also God's but not reborn in Christ, as Paul doesn't pretend for Caesar à la Romans 13.
The two swords, the two kingdoms, temporal power and spiritual power, etc. The nightmare of "western Christianity" has a long rich complex history arguing etc for these things. But none of this is on offer in the public square today -- although obviously our neo-Calvinists, neo-Catholics and neo-Mennonites are desperately eager to make compromises with perdition, e.g. that Jesus wold strongly support the re-election of the current president to the position of Caesar as in some way really fulfilling His vision for a Good Samaritan public policy for Roman health care and semi-Keynesian job creation.
Perhaps indeed the re-election of Mr Obama would be preferable to a Romney presidency. One could argue this either way, I suppose. Quite irrelevant to living like a flower, giving no thought to the morrow, giving away one's shirt and cloak, walking the second mile for employees of homeland security etc. Menno Simons, Thomas Aquinas and Jean Calvin all agree that the bloated Western "health care" system needs massive new infusions of borrow'd money in order to provide health?
Post a Comment