0 comment Sunday, November 23, 2014 | admin
Here's an article which asserts that without organized crime (which largely got started through the late-19th century wave of mass immigration), America would be a dull old place. So we ought to be grateful that the immigrant wave brought us such great cultural benefits as jazz, smutty movies (beginning with the 'nickelodeon), the gay movement, Las Vegas, and interracial clubs which made our country a 'better place.'
Lew Rockwell.com occasionally has articles which are of some worth. I don't agree with libertarians on many things, but I can see eye-to-eye with those who oppose and sound the alarm about a too-powerful central government, and about the decline in our civil liberties.
But this article which was apparently posted originally at HuffPo is one which illustrates the other side of libertarianism, which is nothing more than the adolescent hedonist argument framed in academic or pseudo-intellectual terms. The first libertarian I ever knew in real life was simply a druggie-hedonist who was still rebelling against his wealthy, conservative father and 'whatever else you got.'
Libertarians, being ideologues, are thus brothers to the liberals, who believe in fairy-tale constructs, utopian castles in the air, mythical lands where everyone is free from any external (or internal) restraint, and everybody is happy and harmonious.
The implication behind this particular article is that the original founding population of this country were a crowd of fuddy-duddies who did not want anybody to have any fun, and thus made this country a joyless, repressed place where (horrors!) there were vice laws and social mores that -- imagine! -- discouraged and occasionally punished antisocial and/or self-destructive acts.
So the false dichotomy is set up: which would you rather live in: a repressed, puritanical place where all pleasure is outlawed, or a wide-open lawless place in which libertinism is given free rein?
Most younger people would unhesitatingly choose the latter, the country with no restraints. Sadly, now even the older generations, who usually uphold the traditional, have fallen for the same influences. The fact is, though, that as I said, this is a false choice; it is not an either/or choice. No country existing now is perfectly libertarian (I doubt that such a place could exist) nor is any country as strict and oppressive as to curtail all vice and self-indulgent, self-destructive behavior. Such a place would, of course, be a police state -- unless the majority of the populace were devout people who exercised a great deal of self-restraint, and did not need to be coerced into behaving well. Even then, though, people are subject to the same temptations as any other human being, and it is this inherent weakeness that the libertines and those who profit from vice of whatever sort exploit.
At least the article verifies what I have generally believed about the unhappy effects of the promiscuous immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the post-1965 wave of immigration. If you import people who have differing mores and ethics and behavioral standards, there will be a cultural clash and a disruption in morality as people are offered conflicting messages from different sources.
For years the media have been promoting sleaze and corruption, and the article not only notes the influence of certain cultures and ethnicities, but praises them for doing it, and calls it the 'betterment' of our country.
Pretty shameless.
Lew Rockwell.com occasionally has articles which are of some worth. I don't agree with libertarians on many things, but I can see eye-to-eye with those who oppose and sound the alarm about a too-powerful central government, and about the decline in our civil liberties.
But this article which was apparently posted originally at HuffPo is one which illustrates the other side of libertarianism, which is nothing more than the adolescent hedonist argument framed in academic or pseudo-intellectual terms. The first libertarian I ever knew in real life was simply a druggie-hedonist who was still rebelling against his wealthy, conservative father and 'whatever else you got.'
Libertarians, being ideologues, are thus brothers to the liberals, who believe in fairy-tale constructs, utopian castles in the air, mythical lands where everyone is free from any external (or internal) restraint, and everybody is happy and harmonious.
The implication behind this particular article is that the original founding population of this country were a crowd of fuddy-duddies who did not want anybody to have any fun, and thus made this country a joyless, repressed place where (horrors!) there were vice laws and social mores that -- imagine! -- discouraged and occasionally punished antisocial and/or self-destructive acts.
So the false dichotomy is set up: which would you rather live in: a repressed, puritanical place where all pleasure is outlawed, or a wide-open lawless place in which libertinism is given free rein?
Most younger people would unhesitatingly choose the latter, the country with no restraints. Sadly, now even the older generations, who usually uphold the traditional, have fallen for the same influences. The fact is, though, that as I said, this is a false choice; it is not an either/or choice. No country existing now is perfectly libertarian (I doubt that such a place could exist) nor is any country as strict and oppressive as to curtail all vice and self-indulgent, self-destructive behavior. Such a place would, of course, be a police state -- unless the majority of the populace were devout people who exercised a great deal of self-restraint, and did not need to be coerced into behaving well. Even then, though, people are subject to the same temptations as any other human being, and it is this inherent weakeness that the libertines and those who profit from vice of whatever sort exploit.
At least the article verifies what I have generally believed about the unhappy effects of the promiscuous immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the post-1965 wave of immigration. If you import people who have differing mores and ethics and behavioral standards, there will be a cultural clash and a disruption in morality as people are offered conflicting messages from different sources.
For years the media have been promoting sleaze and corruption, and the article not only notes the influence of certain cultures and ethnicities, but praises them for doing it, and calls it the 'betterment' of our country.
Pretty shameless.
Labels: Crime, Culture Clash, Founding Stock Americans, Immigration, Libertinism