0 comment Thursday, September 18, 2014 | admin
Who Gives the Most? Americans, by a long shot
Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations. But why?
It would be nice to believe that as a group they are just more generous. Of course, it's more complicated than that.
For instance in the U.S., which is notably religious among wealthy Western nations, about a third of all charitable giving goes to houses of worship.''
This article confirms the same phenomena regarding charity and Americans.
It's worth noting that Christians tend to be bigger givers, as do conservatives generally, contrary to popular stereotypes of stingy conservatives.
Liberals give less, despite all their talk about the downtrodden poor. I suppose the idea is that Uncle Sugar is responsible for taking money from the greedy right-wingers and giving it to the worthy poor. If this is supposed to constitute 'charity', it seems liberals don't get the idea that charity cannot be coerced or demanded; it's always voluntary.
The writer of the Forbes article linked at the top of the post, Elisabeth Eaves, dissects the motivations behind the American altruistic tendency, examining various possible reasons for it, and ultimately, and rather disappointingly, says this:
In the end I don't think Americans are more generous in their hearts than other people, nor that they have more cynical motives than anyone else. They are responding, rather, to their culture.
For all its polyglot shifting, U.S. culture is unique when it comes to a belief in philanthropy. It's a value that may be rooted in Christian tithing, but has spread to the secular world. Maybe it's a recognition that with individual freedom comes responsibility, too.''
[Emphasis mine]
It's social expectation and 'peer pressure', ultimately, she says.
Well, yes, that's becoming the default liberal explanation for any and all observable differences among groups of people: ''it's the culture." This is the safe, non-threatening answer to all differences which can't be denied. ''It's the culture."
But as I've said before, this just shifts the question elsewhere: WHY do some people have certain cultures? What causes Western people in general, specifically Americans in comparison with other Westerners, to have a culture which values altruism and charity? Why should Americans have 'peer pressure' or 'social expectations' concerning charitable giving?
Could a nation of stingy, selfish, cynics value charity and volunteerism? What an absurd question. The reason we have the culture we have is because it embodies the innate traits and tendencies that we, on a communal level, share among ourselves.
So often in discussion of racial/ethnic differences, the answer to all obvious distinctions among groups is to blame (or credit) this mysterious thing called 'culture' for the differences. But which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
Some who believe in evolution and natural selection claim that because of the harsh climates in which European man developed, Europeans had to learn to be cooperative and altruistic, at least within kin groups, in order to survive. That's as may be; if it's true, why are not Eskimos, for example, the most altruistic of peoples, since they live in the coldest climate?
Other groups survived in harsh conditions without developing our traditions of helpfulness and altruism.
Some people credit (or blame) Christianity for our tendency to be charitable; obviously our charitable and helpful tendencies can be a vulnerability when interacting with people who do not share them, and who don't reciprocate.
This 'study' would seem to indicate that those who receive the most help will in turn be most helpful to others. If it's true, why are not Third World countries the most altruistic, since they are by far the biggest recipients of help, mainly from us?
But to return to the subject of Europe: why was Europe the only area of the world which enthusiastically embraced Christianity? It never really ''took'' in any other part of the world, despite scattered believers here and there in other regions. And I don't count Latin America; their ''Christianity" is too syncretistic, bearing little resemblance to European Christianity.
There's no avoiding the issue of how much of our behavior is genetic, and how much is environmental.
If I overemphasize the genetic aspect of behavior, it's only as a necessary corrective to the big error of our time, an error motivated by political correctness and cultural Marxism, towards denying all genetic components of behavior.
The subject of charity and altruism, which as this article says derives from the Latin alter or Other:
Coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte, the word "altruism" has dominated the social sciences� discussion and measure of our behaviors toward the Other, and the motivations behind those behaviors. Altruism derives from the Latin alter, or "other." Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have since taken up Comte�s nomenclature.''
Certainly altruism is a good thing, but even good things can be excessive and then become bad things. We are now at a stage in which we are wrongly placing priority on the ''Other'' at the expense of our own, and ourselves. This is contrary to nature. I don't see how the secular believers in evolution or natural selection -- as many liberals are -- can champion suicidally altruistic behaviors such as the idea of open borders and special privileges for people of color. This is not natural, nor conducive to our survival and the survival of our progeny.
And those Christians who advocate this self-sacrificing preference given to The Other are slighting their own kin and people in doing so. It seems there is almost an idolatrous reverence for The Other, and the more ''other'', the more they are idealized by this type of Christian.
Many ethnoconservatives accuse Christianity of being responsible for our present precarious position. And they are correct that a certain faction of Christians, unfortunately the most visible and vocal ones, are promoting what amounts to self-genocide in the name of 'Christian charity' and loving one's neighbor. Yet these same people would not promote such self-abnegation if the recipients of the charity were our own people.
Has anyone noticed how virtually all of those TV appeals for starving children never show any American children? I actually saw one such appeal that did show some White American children, and it was startling because we never see that. Never, ever. I can hear someone say, 'well, we are so prosperous in this country that we have few or no starving children." Technically, we don't have starving children like those shown in the 'food for Africa' appeals. But we certainly have malnourished children and children in need.
The other response is usually ''anybody who can't find a way to prosper in this country just isn't trying, isn't working hard." To some extent, it's true, but in our increasingly difficult job market and with living expenses rising, many families are barely scraping by. So it isn't accurate to say that nobody need be poor in this country.
But why is it that we tend to rush to the aid of the ''other'' in preference to our own? Is it a perverse scramble for moral superiority, a desire to show off one's superior charitable tendencies?
Why is it that Americans tend to put foreign people on a pedestal? Some years ago, when Russian immigrants were a rarity in this country, there was a newspaper sob story about a Russian immigrant who had succeeded in getting to this country, but who was struggling to get on his feet. A follow-up story told of how the people in a local small town rallied to provide him with a car, a place to live, and a job. Who would do this for a local neighbor? Not many, but lots of people will rush to the side of a foreigner who has a sad story to tell. Why don't we seek out our kin and neighbors who have needs first, and if there truly are none, then give to ''others"?
It may be that this is an admirable thing; it may be that these people who will give the shirts off their backs for 'others' will have many stars in their crown in eternity. But somewhere we have lost the healthy love for our own that enabled us to prosper so well for so many centuries.
Whether something in our wiring has gone wrong, or whether propaganda can override our natural tendencies, I don't know.
Our altruism is something to cherish, only if we use it as it was meant to be used, to care for those nearest to us first, and for our extended family and tribe next. If all people everywhere did just that simple thing, we in the West need not have to be responsible for saving the whole world again and again.
Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations. But why?
It would be nice to believe that as a group they are just more generous. Of course, it's more complicated than that.
For instance in the U.S., which is notably religious among wealthy Western nations, about a third of all charitable giving goes to houses of worship.''
This article confirms the same phenomena regarding charity and Americans.
It's worth noting that Christians tend to be bigger givers, as do conservatives generally, contrary to popular stereotypes of stingy conservatives.
Liberals give less, despite all their talk about the downtrodden poor. I suppose the idea is that Uncle Sugar is responsible for taking money from the greedy right-wingers and giving it to the worthy poor. If this is supposed to constitute 'charity', it seems liberals don't get the idea that charity cannot be coerced or demanded; it's always voluntary.
The writer of the Forbes article linked at the top of the post, Elisabeth Eaves, dissects the motivations behind the American altruistic tendency, examining various possible reasons for it, and ultimately, and rather disappointingly, says this:
In the end I don't think Americans are more generous in their hearts than other people, nor that they have more cynical motives than anyone else. They are responding, rather, to their culture.
For all its polyglot shifting, U.S. culture is unique when it comes to a belief in philanthropy. It's a value that may be rooted in Christian tithing, but has spread to the secular world. Maybe it's a recognition that with individual freedom comes responsibility, too.''
[Emphasis mine]
It's social expectation and 'peer pressure', ultimately, she says.
Well, yes, that's becoming the default liberal explanation for any and all observable differences among groups of people: ''it's the culture." This is the safe, non-threatening answer to all differences which can't be denied. ''It's the culture."
But as I've said before, this just shifts the question elsewhere: WHY do some people have certain cultures? What causes Western people in general, specifically Americans in comparison with other Westerners, to have a culture which values altruism and charity? Why should Americans have 'peer pressure' or 'social expectations' concerning charitable giving?
Could a nation of stingy, selfish, cynics value charity and volunteerism? What an absurd question. The reason we have the culture we have is because it embodies the innate traits and tendencies that we, on a communal level, share among ourselves.
So often in discussion of racial/ethnic differences, the answer to all obvious distinctions among groups is to blame (or credit) this mysterious thing called 'culture' for the differences. But which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
Some who believe in evolution and natural selection claim that because of the harsh climates in which European man developed, Europeans had to learn to be cooperative and altruistic, at least within kin groups, in order to survive. That's as may be; if it's true, why are not Eskimos, for example, the most altruistic of peoples, since they live in the coldest climate?
Other groups survived in harsh conditions without developing our traditions of helpfulness and altruism.
Some people credit (or blame) Christianity for our tendency to be charitable; obviously our charitable and helpful tendencies can be a vulnerability when interacting with people who do not share them, and who don't reciprocate.
This 'study' would seem to indicate that those who receive the most help will in turn be most helpful to others. If it's true, why are not Third World countries the most altruistic, since they are by far the biggest recipients of help, mainly from us?
But to return to the subject of Europe: why was Europe the only area of the world which enthusiastically embraced Christianity? It never really ''took'' in any other part of the world, despite scattered believers here and there in other regions. And I don't count Latin America; their ''Christianity" is too syncretistic, bearing little resemblance to European Christianity.
There's no avoiding the issue of how much of our behavior is genetic, and how much is environmental.
If I overemphasize the genetic aspect of behavior, it's only as a necessary corrective to the big error of our time, an error motivated by political correctness and cultural Marxism, towards denying all genetic components of behavior.
The subject of charity and altruism, which as this article says derives from the Latin alter or Other:
Coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte, the word "altruism" has dominated the social sciences� discussion and measure of our behaviors toward the Other, and the motivations behind those behaviors. Altruism derives from the Latin alter, or "other." Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have since taken up Comte�s nomenclature.''
Certainly altruism is a good thing, but even good things can be excessive and then become bad things. We are now at a stage in which we are wrongly placing priority on the ''Other'' at the expense of our own, and ourselves. This is contrary to nature. I don't see how the secular believers in evolution or natural selection -- as many liberals are -- can champion suicidally altruistic behaviors such as the idea of open borders and special privileges for people of color. This is not natural, nor conducive to our survival and the survival of our progeny.
And those Christians who advocate this self-sacrificing preference given to The Other are slighting their own kin and people in doing so. It seems there is almost an idolatrous reverence for The Other, and the more ''other'', the more they are idealized by this type of Christian.
Many ethnoconservatives accuse Christianity of being responsible for our present precarious position. And they are correct that a certain faction of Christians, unfortunately the most visible and vocal ones, are promoting what amounts to self-genocide in the name of 'Christian charity' and loving one's neighbor. Yet these same people would not promote such self-abnegation if the recipients of the charity were our own people.
Has anyone noticed how virtually all of those TV appeals for starving children never show any American children? I actually saw one such appeal that did show some White American children, and it was startling because we never see that. Never, ever. I can hear someone say, 'well, we are so prosperous in this country that we have few or no starving children." Technically, we don't have starving children like those shown in the 'food for Africa' appeals. But we certainly have malnourished children and children in need.
The other response is usually ''anybody who can't find a way to prosper in this country just isn't trying, isn't working hard." To some extent, it's true, but in our increasingly difficult job market and with living expenses rising, many families are barely scraping by. So it isn't accurate to say that nobody need be poor in this country.
But why is it that we tend to rush to the aid of the ''other'' in preference to our own? Is it a perverse scramble for moral superiority, a desire to show off one's superior charitable tendencies?
Why is it that Americans tend to put foreign people on a pedestal? Some years ago, when Russian immigrants were a rarity in this country, there was a newspaper sob story about a Russian immigrant who had succeeded in getting to this country, but who was struggling to get on his feet. A follow-up story told of how the people in a local small town rallied to provide him with a car, a place to live, and a job. Who would do this for a local neighbor? Not many, but lots of people will rush to the side of a foreigner who has a sad story to tell. Why don't we seek out our kin and neighbors who have needs first, and if there truly are none, then give to ''others"?
It may be that this is an admirable thing; it may be that these people who will give the shirts off their backs for 'others' will have many stars in their crown in eternity. But somewhere we have lost the healthy love for our own that enabled us to prosper so well for so many centuries.
Whether something in our wiring has gone wrong, or whether propaganda can override our natural tendencies, I don't know.
Our altruism is something to cherish, only if we use it as it was meant to be used, to care for those nearest to us first, and for our extended family and tribe next. If all people everywhere did just that simple thing, we in the West need not have to be responsible for saving the whole world again and again.
Labels: Allophilia, Altruism, American Culture, Charity, Nature Vs Nurture, Western Civilization
0 comment Friday, August 29, 2014 | admin
One of the worst things that the Left has done in their transformation of Western society is that they have killed off traditional values and attitudes in a number of ways.
The most obvious way is by infiltrating and subverting Christianity, either directly, or indirectly, by implanting via education and media ideas that are antithetical to Christianity.
Psychology, with its exaltation of the 'self' and 'felt needs', and the religion of 'tolerance' are examples.
Reading this thread from Free Republic is a sad experience, as I knew it would be when I read the headline: An uncertain future after jobless benefits expire
The story which is being discussed is that of a 55-year-old man who finds himself still unemployed as his benefits run out. I won't focus on the merits of that particular man or his story, but on the larger issues of 'hard times' and social cohesion.
A commenter says:
Now for all the Freepers and their "Well, the bum should FIND A JOB!!!" Either most are unaware of the true market in some areas of the US, or just willfully ignorant.
11 posted on 01/29/2011 5:04:39 PM PST by autumnraine''
Actually she (I assume it is a she) is correct that the ''the bum should find a job!!!'' theme is the one that is heard most often over at FR or any other Republican/conservative forum or blog.
There have been times in this country when all that was needed to find work was a willingness to work and minimal qualifications.However, such is not the case now. I know of a number of people who have been out of work for a year to two years, despite a solid employment history and experience. Those that have found work have had to accept jobs that were low-paying and physically demanding. This is especially sad when one is a man in his mid-50s and not as strong as he was. And age discrimination is a reality; hardly anyone gets sued for it, but it is known to happen. Over 40 is over the hill, for most employers.
One man I know of found a job after more than a year, only to have that job eliminated after a couple of months. Sure, you may say this is anecdotal stuff, but it is becoming much more common. Jobs are not growing on trees out there, and employers who are hiring can be extremely selective about hiring, given that it is so much an employer's market. Add to the poor economy the factor of a few million (as far as we know) immigrants every year, as jobs disappear, and things look bleak for many people.
The stereotypical 'conservative' will say of the unemployed ''well, they should have saved or invested better when times were good.'' Yes, but savings and other resources get depleted very quickly in these times. Unexpected things can happen. These days, with wages and benefits being cut, and the cost of living growing quickly, money does not go as far.
I can say honestly that I never had to draw unemployment benefits, but that does not mean that I condemn those who do have to draw them. There but for the grace of God, etc.
Yes, initiative, hard work, and personal responsibility are cardinal virtues, and ones that conservatives uphold, or should uphold. By no means do I disagree that those things are important, or even vital. But bad things do happen to good people sometimes. Not everybody who is experiencing hard times is a lazy no-account who deserves his misfortune, which is what I hear conservatives saying all too often.
Do we forget that other things are also 'conservative values', things such as empathy for kinsman, neighborliness, filial piety, civic pride, and so on? What I see all too often among the average conservative or Republican types is 'everybody for himself, the devil take the hindmost.'
What I think is partially to blame here is that many 'conservatives' are not conservative at all in the sense of revering traditional values and preserving our shared past and heritage. Instead, they tend to react against the excesses of the Left and go to the opposite pole. If liberals/leftists preach about compassion, then the 'right' decides that compassion is just more liberal twaddle. If the left insists that we owe the world a living, (which of course we don't) we go even farther to the 'right' and deny that we even owe anything to our brother, or our kinsman.
Add to this, the fact that in recent years, the libertarian element in 'conservatism' has grown until it eclipses the eternal verities, and leaves us with the 'every man for himself' ethos, the 'every man is an island', I-owe-nothing-to-nobody philosophy.
The sad fact seems to be that the Left with their excess of sentimentality and faux charity have discredited charity and kindness for too many conservatives. With their 'brotherhood of man' claptrap, they have produced the opposite reaction on the right, the idea that nobody is my brother. 'I am a rugged individualist who asks nothing and offers nothing to others', seems to be the motto of the tough-minded 'conservative.'
My recent post about the Great Depression asked whether we would be able to survive such hard times in our era. I think most of us would agree that we probably wouldn't. We lack the communal spirit, and too many have hardened their hearts toward their fellow man. I acknowledge that it's true that the Left has abused and perverted the innate altruism of our people, to the extent that many of us (including myself, I admit) feel cynical at the left's manipulation of our emotions when they guilt-trip us about the bleeding Third World.
During the Reagan Administration and later, when the 'homeless problem' first became a big issue, there was talk about people suffering from 'compassion fatigue' towards the homeless. For myself, I know that I used to sympathize with the rare panhandler who would approach and ask for money. Actually, in the old days, even the few beggars had some pride, in that they would not ask a woman for money, or at least not a young woman as I was then. But I was at one time quite moved by their obvious condition and would try to help. But as the numbers of beggars, most of them quite brazen and obnoxious started to multiply, I quickly became jaded to their pleas. I don't like feeling that way, but it seems there is a limit to the amount of sympathies that we can extend to strangers. And that is probably how it should be. We need to emphasize personal responsibility, but there has to be some balance with concern for our neighbors and kinsmen, the latter first, of course.
What the Left has done is that they have exhausted our normal feelings of compassion, in many cases. Their excessive use of guilt and sympathy for the underdog has produced something of a backlash, or an overload, at least among some of us.
I often think that liberals are immune from this condition because they themselves do not feel guilt; they see us, the non-liberal normal people, as being rightfully guilty, while they see themselves as the 'good guys', the virtuous ones who are never guilty of things like racism or xenophobia or sexism or homophobia or whatever other social sin they have dreamed up.
Their 'compassion' is often just a show, not a genuinely felt emotion. It's been shown that liberals are not the best givers of charity.
And I notice that all the lefties who cry crocodile tears over the poor illegals are not taking said illegals into their own homes to house and feed them.
There has been much talk of the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy', apparently due to Glenn Beck's belaboring that subject on his TV show. What that strategy is said to be is an effort to destroy capitalism by overloading the government's resources. Maybe what they are doing to our character is something like this; they weary us and wear us down, asking us to care for the poor and downtrodden, the underdogs and victims of the world. They spend untold amounts of money in an effort to fix all the world's woes, and things only get worse. They are not only stripping us of financial resources, but I think they have, wittingly or not, stripped many 'conservatives' of their old-fashioned values of neighborliness and old-fashioned charity, in every sense of that word.
And in so doing, they have created a living caricature of the hard-hearted conservative who sneers at his neighbor's misfortune and washes his hands of any kind of civic responsibility. This is the stereotype that the left has always used to discredit conservatives, and it is now being translated into reality more and more. This does not help anybody but our enemies.
Am I proposing that we become like gushy liberals, weeping crocodile tears over the 'victims' of the world? Hardly. I am just reminding us that the old America once had a proper balance between the emphasis on personal initiative and the realization that we are all in this together, and we can't sustain a society based on the atomized invididual who looks out for number one only.
Our parents and grandparents maintained something of a balance, but we seem to be losing that, or have already lost it.
The left, I think, wants it that way. They want a society in which people care only about self, or at most their own spouse and children, a society in which people neither know nor trust their neighbors, much less form bonds with them.
I see some very troubling signs on the right, what with many 'conservatives' ever more willing to jettison the old as ''too costly'' -- without even considering the consequences of, say, stopping all social programs cold turkey. There are lives involved; real human beings, who matter more than abstract principles.
I see a danger that many on the right are becoming ideologues in the same sense that Libertarians and Leftists are ideologues -- devoted to abstract ideas rather than to what works in reality, or to what the real-life consequences of ideas are.
Even among ethnopatriots, I see a mere handful who seem to care about all our folk, and not just about those who agree 100 percent with us politically. I see quite a few who can't say anything good about their people, and that is not promising for our future. If we don't like or care for each other, what's ethnopatriotism about?
We seem to have been trapped into repudiating some of the old verities, into thinking that any kind of community is 'communism' and any kind of altruism is manipulation, or that any kind of interdependence is 'slavery'.
This is the worst thing, really, that the leftists have done. In corrupting our culture, by distorting or weakening our better qualities, they have done real damage. Can we undo it?
The most obvious way is by infiltrating and subverting Christianity, either directly, or indirectly, by implanting via education and media ideas that are antithetical to Christianity.
Psychology, with its exaltation of the 'self' and 'felt needs', and the religion of 'tolerance' are examples.
Reading this thread from Free Republic is a sad experience, as I knew it would be when I read the headline: An uncertain future after jobless benefits expire
The story which is being discussed is that of a 55-year-old man who finds himself still unemployed as his benefits run out. I won't focus on the merits of that particular man or his story, but on the larger issues of 'hard times' and social cohesion.
A commenter says:
Now for all the Freepers and their "Well, the bum should FIND A JOB!!!" Either most are unaware of the true market in some areas of the US, or just willfully ignorant.
11 posted on 01/29/2011 5:04:39 PM PST by autumnraine''
Actually she (I assume it is a she) is correct that the ''the bum should find a job!!!'' theme is the one that is heard most often over at FR or any other Republican/conservative forum or blog.
There have been times in this country when all that was needed to find work was a willingness to work and minimal qualifications.However, such is not the case now. I know of a number of people who have been out of work for a year to two years, despite a solid employment history and experience. Those that have found work have had to accept jobs that were low-paying and physically demanding. This is especially sad when one is a man in his mid-50s and not as strong as he was. And age discrimination is a reality; hardly anyone gets sued for it, but it is known to happen. Over 40 is over the hill, for most employers.
One man I know of found a job after more than a year, only to have that job eliminated after a couple of months. Sure, you may say this is anecdotal stuff, but it is becoming much more common. Jobs are not growing on trees out there, and employers who are hiring can be extremely selective about hiring, given that it is so much an employer's market. Add to the poor economy the factor of a few million (as far as we know) immigrants every year, as jobs disappear, and things look bleak for many people.
The stereotypical 'conservative' will say of the unemployed ''well, they should have saved or invested better when times were good.'' Yes, but savings and other resources get depleted very quickly in these times. Unexpected things can happen. These days, with wages and benefits being cut, and the cost of living growing quickly, money does not go as far.
I can say honestly that I never had to draw unemployment benefits, but that does not mean that I condemn those who do have to draw them. There but for the grace of God, etc.
Yes, initiative, hard work, and personal responsibility are cardinal virtues, and ones that conservatives uphold, or should uphold. By no means do I disagree that those things are important, or even vital. But bad things do happen to good people sometimes. Not everybody who is experiencing hard times is a lazy no-account who deserves his misfortune, which is what I hear conservatives saying all too often.
Do we forget that other things are also 'conservative values', things such as empathy for kinsman, neighborliness, filial piety, civic pride, and so on? What I see all too often among the average conservative or Republican types is 'everybody for himself, the devil take the hindmost.'
What I think is partially to blame here is that many 'conservatives' are not conservative at all in the sense of revering traditional values and preserving our shared past and heritage. Instead, they tend to react against the excesses of the Left and go to the opposite pole. If liberals/leftists preach about compassion, then the 'right' decides that compassion is just more liberal twaddle. If the left insists that we owe the world a living, (which of course we don't) we go even farther to the 'right' and deny that we even owe anything to our brother, or our kinsman.
Add to this, the fact that in recent years, the libertarian element in 'conservatism' has grown until it eclipses the eternal verities, and leaves us with the 'every man for himself' ethos, the 'every man is an island', I-owe-nothing-to-nobody philosophy.
The sad fact seems to be that the Left with their excess of sentimentality and faux charity have discredited charity and kindness for too many conservatives. With their 'brotherhood of man' claptrap, they have produced the opposite reaction on the right, the idea that nobody is my brother. 'I am a rugged individualist who asks nothing and offers nothing to others', seems to be the motto of the tough-minded 'conservative.'
My recent post about the Great Depression asked whether we would be able to survive such hard times in our era. I think most of us would agree that we probably wouldn't. We lack the communal spirit, and too many have hardened their hearts toward their fellow man. I acknowledge that it's true that the Left has abused and perverted the innate altruism of our people, to the extent that many of us (including myself, I admit) feel cynical at the left's manipulation of our emotions when they guilt-trip us about the bleeding Third World.
During the Reagan Administration and later, when the 'homeless problem' first became a big issue, there was talk about people suffering from 'compassion fatigue' towards the homeless. For myself, I know that I used to sympathize with the rare panhandler who would approach and ask for money. Actually, in the old days, even the few beggars had some pride, in that they would not ask a woman for money, or at least not a young woman as I was then. But I was at one time quite moved by their obvious condition and would try to help. But as the numbers of beggars, most of them quite brazen and obnoxious started to multiply, I quickly became jaded to their pleas. I don't like feeling that way, but it seems there is a limit to the amount of sympathies that we can extend to strangers. And that is probably how it should be. We need to emphasize personal responsibility, but there has to be some balance with concern for our neighbors and kinsmen, the latter first, of course.
What the Left has done is that they have exhausted our normal feelings of compassion, in many cases. Their excessive use of guilt and sympathy for the underdog has produced something of a backlash, or an overload, at least among some of us.
I often think that liberals are immune from this condition because they themselves do not feel guilt; they see us, the non-liberal normal people, as being rightfully guilty, while they see themselves as the 'good guys', the virtuous ones who are never guilty of things like racism or xenophobia or sexism or homophobia or whatever other social sin they have dreamed up.
Their 'compassion' is often just a show, not a genuinely felt emotion. It's been shown that liberals are not the best givers of charity.
And I notice that all the lefties who cry crocodile tears over the poor illegals are not taking said illegals into their own homes to house and feed them.
There has been much talk of the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy', apparently due to Glenn Beck's belaboring that subject on his TV show. What that strategy is said to be is an effort to destroy capitalism by overloading the government's resources. Maybe what they are doing to our character is something like this; they weary us and wear us down, asking us to care for the poor and downtrodden, the underdogs and victims of the world. They spend untold amounts of money in an effort to fix all the world's woes, and things only get worse. They are not only stripping us of financial resources, but I think they have, wittingly or not, stripped many 'conservatives' of their old-fashioned values of neighborliness and old-fashioned charity, in every sense of that word.
And in so doing, they have created a living caricature of the hard-hearted conservative who sneers at his neighbor's misfortune and washes his hands of any kind of civic responsibility. This is the stereotype that the left has always used to discredit conservatives, and it is now being translated into reality more and more. This does not help anybody but our enemies.
Am I proposing that we become like gushy liberals, weeping crocodile tears over the 'victims' of the world? Hardly. I am just reminding us that the old America once had a proper balance between the emphasis on personal initiative and the realization that we are all in this together, and we can't sustain a society based on the atomized invididual who looks out for number one only.
Our parents and grandparents maintained something of a balance, but we seem to be losing that, or have already lost it.
The left, I think, wants it that way. They want a society in which people care only about self, or at most their own spouse and children, a society in which people neither know nor trust their neighbors, much less form bonds with them.
I see some very troubling signs on the right, what with many 'conservatives' ever more willing to jettison the old as ''too costly'' -- without even considering the consequences of, say, stopping all social programs cold turkey. There are lives involved; real human beings, who matter more than abstract principles.
I see a danger that many on the right are becoming ideologues in the same sense that Libertarians and Leftists are ideologues -- devoted to abstract ideas rather than to what works in reality, or to what the real-life consequences of ideas are.
Even among ethnopatriots, I see a mere handful who seem to care about all our folk, and not just about those who agree 100 percent with us politically. I see quite a few who can't say anything good about their people, and that is not promising for our future. If we don't like or care for each other, what's ethnopatriotism about?
We seem to have been trapped into repudiating some of the old verities, into thinking that any kind of community is 'communism' and any kind of altruism is manipulation, or that any kind of interdependence is 'slavery'.
This is the worst thing, really, that the leftists have done. In corrupting our culture, by distorting or weakening our better qualities, they have done real damage. Can we undo it?
Labels: Altruism, Cultural Marxism, Ethnopatriotism, Leftism, Liberalism, Social Decay