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
0 comment Sunday, May 4, 2014 | admin
Maybe this should have been included in a recent post of mine called 'And you are a gentleman'', which had to do with certain influences on our youth culture. I had been intending to write a blog entry on slang, which is all too often influenced these days by 'gangster' culture.
I happened across this piece by Selwyn Duke which focuses on the term 'junk' as used in its present slang sense, and of course what with the TSA searches (what Vox Day calls 'gate rape') the term 'junk' is being heard a lot. Duke speculates that the term may have originated with feminists (presumably White feminists, as it is mostly White leftist women who constitute the main adherents of feminism). Duke believes the term may be a misandrist term, meant to disparage men. I don't doubt there are misandrists aplenty these days. However that origin had not occurred to me.
Like Selwyn Duke, I have lately been musing about how this usage of the word got its slang meaning. My hunch was that, as commenters on the AT article say, its origins are elsewhere:
" What's with this youth-culture tendency to refer to male genitalia as "junk"?
It is not youth culture, it is specifically black, gangsta thug slang and many Whites are psychophants for this worthless gangsta life style. It is very prevalent in the U.S. military, as are gangsta tattoos, tribal tattoos and many other things that would have gotten me (and anyone else of my age group) an article 15 or worse when I did my service time in Viet Nam.''
(Incidentally, the word 'psychophants' in the above quote may have been a malapropism or misspelling, but it seems to fit. Maybe that is a new word that is needed for a certain type of person today.)
I would say to this post that 'youth culture' these days is all too often synonymous with what is euphemistically called 'urban' culture, or as the above comment puts it, 'gangsta thug', and I agree with his assessment of its baleful influence.
From other comments:
''It didn't start as "youth culture" vernacular it started as "urban speak". Like the contractions "s'up" and "a'ight". They are the products of ignorance and poor education. The mangling of the English language has heightened since "hip-hop" culture came to the fore. This has been exascerabated by the advent of "chatspeak" on blogs and "texting" where forms like "ur" and "h8er" have come to the fore.''
and:
''...it is not a feminist invention but a prison culture/gangsta slang which has infiltrated our society and dumbs it down. Another in a long, horrendous list of "My bad" and "You go girl" used by those desperately seeking "Cool."
When contemplating this topic, I thought of a number of slang terms which have crossed over to middle-aged, middle class, White people, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph before this one, and other such nonsense as 'talk to the hand!' (I had to ask a more pop-culture-wise relative just what that connoted, and having heard the answer, it still makes no sense.)
A somewhat stale term that was once confined to adolescent boys of the diverse kind is ''Word!'' or ''word up.'' Again, after having that one explained to me, as it is not self-evident what it means, it likewise makes no sense -- and you find it being used by middle-aged White FReepers and others. Whatever happened to articulate, well-spoken adults, adults who did not emulate their teenagers' argot and fashions? The ultimate question, though, is why do our teenagers slavishly adopt so much that they see and hear from the diversities?
Duke responds to some critics on the thread who seem annoyed that he is even posting about something as irrelevant and trashy as slang, but I agree with his response that words matter. Semantics matters. The left and their constituent groups seem to exert the greatest influence on society, including our language, these days. As to why that is, I suppose it is for the same reason that minority groups are in the drivers' seat and the White American majority is so demoralized. Everything to do with minorities and ''diversity'' is glamorized by our media. This includes television, movies, music, even the so-called 'fine arts' in which ugly wall-scrawlings are labeled 'alternative art' or something.
Words do matter; our vocabulary, including our slang, says a great deal about our culture. Does language shape thought? I've heard that argued; perhaps it does, and if so, we need to be more mindful of using language that does not debase us or lead to corrupted communication.
Again, I think that we need to maintain the integrity (what is left of it) of our own culture, which is quite rich enough and creative enough that we should not have to resort to mining slang from the underclass in order to be considered hip or up-to-date.
Let's make it acceptable and desirable first, to be adults, and second, to be gentlemen and ladies again, and set the standard for our children.
They need to follow our lead, not the other way around.
I happened across this piece by Selwyn Duke which focuses on the term 'junk' as used in its present slang sense, and of course what with the TSA searches (what Vox Day calls 'gate rape') the term 'junk' is being heard a lot. Duke speculates that the term may have originated with feminists (presumably White feminists, as it is mostly White leftist women who constitute the main adherents of feminism). Duke believes the term may be a misandrist term, meant to disparage men. I don't doubt there are misandrists aplenty these days. However that origin had not occurred to me.
Like Selwyn Duke, I have lately been musing about how this usage of the word got its slang meaning. My hunch was that, as commenters on the AT article say, its origins are elsewhere:
" What's with this youth-culture tendency to refer to male genitalia as "junk"?
It is not youth culture, it is specifically black, gangsta thug slang and many Whites are psychophants for this worthless gangsta life style. It is very prevalent in the U.S. military, as are gangsta tattoos, tribal tattoos and many other things that would have gotten me (and anyone else of my age group) an article 15 or worse when I did my service time in Viet Nam.''
(Incidentally, the word 'psychophants' in the above quote may have been a malapropism or misspelling, but it seems to fit. Maybe that is a new word that is needed for a certain type of person today.)
I would say to this post that 'youth culture' these days is all too often synonymous with what is euphemistically called 'urban' culture, or as the above comment puts it, 'gangsta thug', and I agree with his assessment of its baleful influence.
From other comments:
''It didn't start as "youth culture" vernacular it started as "urban speak". Like the contractions "s'up" and "a'ight". They are the products of ignorance and poor education. The mangling of the English language has heightened since "hip-hop" culture came to the fore. This has been exascerabated by the advent of "chatspeak" on blogs and "texting" where forms like "ur" and "h8er" have come to the fore.''
and:
''...it is not a feminist invention but a prison culture/gangsta slang which has infiltrated our society and dumbs it down. Another in a long, horrendous list of "My bad" and "You go girl" used by those desperately seeking "Cool."
When contemplating this topic, I thought of a number of slang terms which have crossed over to middle-aged, middle class, White people, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph before this one, and other such nonsense as 'talk to the hand!' (I had to ask a more pop-culture-wise relative just what that connoted, and having heard the answer, it still makes no sense.)
A somewhat stale term that was once confined to adolescent boys of the diverse kind is ''Word!'' or ''word up.'' Again, after having that one explained to me, as it is not self-evident what it means, it likewise makes no sense -- and you find it being used by middle-aged White FReepers and others. Whatever happened to articulate, well-spoken adults, adults who did not emulate their teenagers' argot and fashions? The ultimate question, though, is why do our teenagers slavishly adopt so much that they see and hear from the diversities?
Duke responds to some critics on the thread who seem annoyed that he is even posting about something as irrelevant and trashy as slang, but I agree with his response that words matter. Semantics matters. The left and their constituent groups seem to exert the greatest influence on society, including our language, these days. As to why that is, I suppose it is for the same reason that minority groups are in the drivers' seat and the White American majority is so demoralized. Everything to do with minorities and ''diversity'' is glamorized by our media. This includes television, movies, music, even the so-called 'fine arts' in which ugly wall-scrawlings are labeled 'alternative art' or something.
Words do matter; our vocabulary, including our slang, says a great deal about our culture. Does language shape thought? I've heard that argued; perhaps it does, and if so, we need to be more mindful of using language that does not debase us or lead to corrupted communication.
Again, I think that we need to maintain the integrity (what is left of it) of our own culture, which is quite rich enough and creative enough that we should not have to resort to mining slang from the underclass in order to be considered hip or up-to-date.
Let's make it acceptable and desirable first, to be adults, and second, to be gentlemen and ladies again, and set the standard for our children.
They need to follow our lead, not the other way around.
Labels: Culture Clash, Language, Popular Culture