0 comment Saturday, September 20, 2014 | admin
South changes and survives
We may not be Mayberry any more, but the sun keeps coming up every morning. Right here in the heart of the Confederacy. The South survived the change.
[...]
Now we're faced with another change -- a demographic shift of historic proportions.
I saw signs of this change years ago, when I took my son to the Outer Banks for our first North Carolina vacation. We stopped for gas in one of those classically Southern towns east of Rocky Mount, where tobacco plants hug the two-lane on the way to the beach. As I leaned against the car watching 99-cent gas fill the tank, I noticed a group of Latinos walking together across the street. Then I saw another group coming up a side street. Then a car of Latinos pulled up to the pump beside me.
"Toto," I said, "this doesn't look like North Carolina anymore."
Mind you, this was 1996. Which is to say that today's front-page stories about illegal immigration are documenting a change that has already taken place.
Bank of America's move to offer credit cards to folks without Social Security numbers isn't driven by a concern for social justice, or by some leftist plot to destroy this country. It's simply good business -- a practical move to deal with the reality on the ground.
Progress: Managing change
As a community, we can deny that reality. We can erect fences on the border, ban the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish, claim that illegal immigrants are taking over the country. This is throwing stones into the Catawba River to try to dam the flow.
That flow is a globalized economy. We like it when we can get our TVs cheap, when we can buy beer from around the world at Harris Teeter, when we send Valentine's Day flowers that come from South America. Most of us participate eagerly in that part of the change.
But that change, along with our Sony flat-screens and Bass Ale and long-stemmed roses, brings an evolving workforce. The question no longer is whether we stop that change or not. The question is how we will manage it. If we manage that change to benefit all North Carolinians, we'll call it progress.
So yeah, Mayberry is gone. Wishing for it to come back is wishing for Pillowtex to reopen. Is it the end of civilization?
Only if our response is uncivilized.''
The last sentence is very telling: opposing immigration is 'uncivilized' according to the writer, Mike Warner, who is apparently the self-appointed arbiter of such matters.
Mr. Warner, let me tell you what is 'uncivilized', since we are being openly judgmental here. (Hey, if you liberals who constantly denounce 'judgmentalism' can indulge in it, then so can I, without apology. Conservatives are vilified for making judgments, while liberals do so with impunity. So I'll take advantage of being labeled judgmental, and judge you, Mike, and all apologists for wide-open borders and willy-nilly change.)
'Uncivilized'? What I call 'uncivilized', first of all, involves masses of people invading a neighboring country in a stealthy, sneaky manner. Uncivilized means not only sneaking into another country like a common thief, then brazenly demanding things: loudly demanding the right to stay, in defiance of the laws of the land and of that land's rightful occupants. That's uncivilized. Uncivilized is demanding all the benefits which accrue to the rightful citizens and taxpayers of that country you have invaded and squatted in. Uncivilized is lying, stealing others' identities, defrauding with those stolen identities. Uncivilized is availing oneself of 'free' medical care in emergency rooms to the extent of bankrupting hundreds of hospitals in border states. Uncivilized is driving drunk, in defiance of more laws, and killing many Americans, injuring and maiming many others. Uncivilized is committing many crimes of violence in the country you have illegally entered. Uncivilized is making your hosts speak your language, while refusing to learn theirs. Uncivilized is spreading many exotic (and unnecessary, because preventable by civilized hygiene) diseases in the country you are illegally occupying. Uncivilized is loudly demanding your 'rights' from the very people you denounce and disdain.
I could continue, but I think I ought to point out some civilized attributes with which to contrast the uncivilized ones. Civilized peoples (and societies) do not passively allow far-reaching changes to overthrow what they have so carefully and diligently built and defended for centuries. Only uncivilized societies are passive and resigned to sitting inert and letting change wash over them. Warner and other liberals counsel passivity and resignation.
Such qualities are not historically characteristic of the West. In fact, what has set the West apart from the non-Western nations is that they/we are actors rather than acted upon, historically. The non-Western countries in many cases had an attitude of passivity, and were thus transformed without their active participation. There is a Hindu saying that it is easier to straighten out the crooked tail of a dog than to change the world. Often Eastern religions counseled this kind of resignation, whereas the people of the West set about trying to improve things. This is not to say that every effort at improvement was successful; sometimes Westerners overreached and sometimes there were unintended consequences. But whatever their shortcomings, Western peoples saw themselves as actors, not as passive pawns in somebody else's game. Now, modern liberals preach the inevitability of certain trends, like the all-powerful Globalization, and the implication is always that it is a force of nature; it is predestined, and to resist it is foolish and backward. Of course, with this magic Globalization comes mass movement of peoples; we can't expect to remain isolated, can we? After all, it's just one big global village, and We Are All One People. Who are we to fight the unstoppable forces of Nature, which demands that all barriers be dropped? Who are we to fight the tide of mass immigration? After all, the wretched of the earth are entitled to their fair share of our prosperity. So we cannot stop this tide, any more than King Canute could order the waves to retreat. So say the liberals among us.
As I've said before, when people pronounce the inevitability of the transformation of our country, they are telling us that we are really no more than insignificant ants in this far-reaching scenario, which is beyond our control. We are in essence the rape victim, being told to 'lie back and enjoy it, if you can't stop it.' And further, Warner does not just say that the change is inevitable, but that it is already an accomplished fact. So there. Give in and give up, is the message.
Interestingly, here is somebody else who believes in the inevitability of mass immigration:
Mr Gaddafi told ministers gathered for a conference on migration from Africa to the EU that resisting migration "is like rowing against the stream".
[...]He told the delegates in Tripoli that migration had complex historical and social roots and was a force of nature that could not easily be ignored.''
Hmm. He even uses similar metaphors: 'rowing against the stream' vs. 'throwing stones in the Catawba River to try to dam the flow.'
Regardless of who is saying it, this is a message meant to discourage action, and to encourage resignation.
How is this message of helplessness and hopelessness, this gospel of submission, consistent with all our deepest beliefs as Americans? Our traditional beliefs include the sovereignty of the people, the right of the majority to determine the fate of our nation. And yet we are supposed to meekly accept that we no longer have a say in the fate of our country, or its future? That we no longer have any right to say who enters our country, our national home, and who is allowed to stay here?
Mike Warner, and all others like him, are solidly outside the American tradition. He is preaching that America is no longer a Republic in which we, the People, are sovereign. He is saying that millions of Mexicans, El Salvadoreans, and whoever crosses our border in the dead of night, has more of a vote, more of a voice, than we do. He is saying that they, the immigrants, alone can determine the makeup of our country. They self-select, and we don't even have a veto, the right to say, no; you cannot enter or stay here. Even our 'government' has not exercised the right to keep the illegals out, giving them, the invaders, the final say in who is allowed here.
In effect, Warner is saying 'hey, it isn't your country anymore, so get used to the changes, because you can't do a thing about it.'
A more anti-American message could scarcely be conceived.
Civilized people do not submit readily to chaos, which is what our open borders and our promiscuous immigration policy amount to. Chaos and anarchy cannot stand in a civilized country. No; the 'civilized' response is to assume control of our country and our future as a people, by enforcing our laws, and reasserting our rights.
Civilized people would not welcome millions of people from one of the most chaotic, crime-ridden, corrupt parts of the world, to enter and stay.
The 'uncivilized' response is actually the response that our government is offering now; our government is passive and inert in the face of an invasion, and history has shown us what happens when change is allowed to run unchecked, out-of-control. Only an effete, decadent society responds as our present government is doing.
Shades of ancient Rome before the fall; the analogy has been made many times, and with justification.
Warner in his article gives some details about his family history, indicating that he is a non-Southerner, and a Catholic. Between the lines, I very much sense that he is not friendly to traditional Southern culture, probably from a religious viewpoint, as he makes reference to the small numbers of Catholics in the old South. He seems to glory in the changes to the traditional South. I would wager that he identifies more strongly with the immigrants because they share his religion. And being a Yankee, I think he is just as glad to see the traditional South, which he likens to the fictitious Mayberry, disappear. The traditional South was too Anglo-Celtic, too Protestant, too homogeneous, for people like Warner. So the new Hispanicized South (which will really be the North of Latin America, not the Southern U.S.) suits him just fine.
As a liberal, he probably puts immigrants on a pedestal as being humble, colorful, authentic people, noble savages of a sort, far superior to the redneck old stock people.
And why is it almost always a certainty that descendants of later-wave immigrants identify with immigrants more than they do with old-stock Americans? Maybe that should give us pause about the assimilability of some of the later immigrants, and maybe we should have been more exclusive in our policies, not less.
But the South is not Warner's to give away; he doesn't speak for the real people of the South. The South for a long time was the area least touched by immigration. For that reason, partly, a distinct and vigorous regional culture developed there, without the disrupting influences of mass influxes of immigrants. To me, the South represented the last of a strongly American way of life, and this is now undermined by the ravages of mass immigration.
Maybe Mike Warner is happy to bid farewell to Mayberry, and all it symbolizes. Mayberry, it's true, was a fictitious place, and it was never a completely faithful image of a small Southern town, but it did capture something that people across the country could relate to. It was emblematic of all that was good, decent, honest, and worth preserving about small-town America. And most of us, unlike the elitist liberals, are not happy to see Mayberry vanish, to be replaced by a polyglot, balkanized, crime-ridden America, where people neither know nor trust their neighbors. Robert Putnam's study showed how diversity fostered distrust. The homogeneity, the commonality that the liberals despise -- or fear, actually -- was the cement, the bond that held people together, just as in the fictitious Mayberry. If we throw away the common culture in favor of the false gods of diversity, we are losing the America we knew and loved, in favor of what? In favor of some yet-to-be revealed Babel, full of cheap, shoddy goods, strip malls, rising crime, and increasing division, along racial and ethnic lines as well as class lines. Warner and the immigration cheerleaders may get their anti-Mayberry, but the rest of us will have lost something that can never be restored.
We may not be Mayberry any more, but the sun keeps coming up every morning. Right here in the heart of the Confederacy. The South survived the change.
[...]
Now we're faced with another change -- a demographic shift of historic proportions.
I saw signs of this change years ago, when I took my son to the Outer Banks for our first North Carolina vacation. We stopped for gas in one of those classically Southern towns east of Rocky Mount, where tobacco plants hug the two-lane on the way to the beach. As I leaned against the car watching 99-cent gas fill the tank, I noticed a group of Latinos walking together across the street. Then I saw another group coming up a side street. Then a car of Latinos pulled up to the pump beside me.
"Toto," I said, "this doesn't look like North Carolina anymore."
Mind you, this was 1996. Which is to say that today's front-page stories about illegal immigration are documenting a change that has already taken place.
Bank of America's move to offer credit cards to folks without Social Security numbers isn't driven by a concern for social justice, or by some leftist plot to destroy this country. It's simply good business -- a practical move to deal with the reality on the ground.
Progress: Managing change
As a community, we can deny that reality. We can erect fences on the border, ban the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish, claim that illegal immigrants are taking over the country. This is throwing stones into the Catawba River to try to dam the flow.
That flow is a globalized economy. We like it when we can get our TVs cheap, when we can buy beer from around the world at Harris Teeter, when we send Valentine's Day flowers that come from South America. Most of us participate eagerly in that part of the change.
But that change, along with our Sony flat-screens and Bass Ale and long-stemmed roses, brings an evolving workforce. The question no longer is whether we stop that change or not. The question is how we will manage it. If we manage that change to benefit all North Carolinians, we'll call it progress.
So yeah, Mayberry is gone. Wishing for it to come back is wishing for Pillowtex to reopen. Is it the end of civilization?
Only if our response is uncivilized.''
The last sentence is very telling: opposing immigration is 'uncivilized' according to the writer, Mike Warner, who is apparently the self-appointed arbiter of such matters.
Mr. Warner, let me tell you what is 'uncivilized', since we are being openly judgmental here. (Hey, if you liberals who constantly denounce 'judgmentalism' can indulge in it, then so can I, without apology. Conservatives are vilified for making judgments, while liberals do so with impunity. So I'll take advantage of being labeled judgmental, and judge you, Mike, and all apologists for wide-open borders and willy-nilly change.)
'Uncivilized'? What I call 'uncivilized', first of all, involves masses of people invading a neighboring country in a stealthy, sneaky manner. Uncivilized means not only sneaking into another country like a common thief, then brazenly demanding things: loudly demanding the right to stay, in defiance of the laws of the land and of that land's rightful occupants. That's uncivilized. Uncivilized is demanding all the benefits which accrue to the rightful citizens and taxpayers of that country you have invaded and squatted in. Uncivilized is lying, stealing others' identities, defrauding with those stolen identities. Uncivilized is availing oneself of 'free' medical care in emergency rooms to the extent of bankrupting hundreds of hospitals in border states. Uncivilized is driving drunk, in defiance of more laws, and killing many Americans, injuring and maiming many others. Uncivilized is committing many crimes of violence in the country you have illegally entered. Uncivilized is making your hosts speak your language, while refusing to learn theirs. Uncivilized is spreading many exotic (and unnecessary, because preventable by civilized hygiene) diseases in the country you are illegally occupying. Uncivilized is loudly demanding your 'rights' from the very people you denounce and disdain.
I could continue, but I think I ought to point out some civilized attributes with which to contrast the uncivilized ones. Civilized peoples (and societies) do not passively allow far-reaching changes to overthrow what they have so carefully and diligently built and defended for centuries. Only uncivilized societies are passive and resigned to sitting inert and letting change wash over them. Warner and other liberals counsel passivity and resignation.
Such qualities are not historically characteristic of the West. In fact, what has set the West apart from the non-Western nations is that they/we are actors rather than acted upon, historically. The non-Western countries in many cases had an attitude of passivity, and were thus transformed without their active participation. There is a Hindu saying that it is easier to straighten out the crooked tail of a dog than to change the world. Often Eastern religions counseled this kind of resignation, whereas the people of the West set about trying to improve things. This is not to say that every effort at improvement was successful; sometimes Westerners overreached and sometimes there were unintended consequences. But whatever their shortcomings, Western peoples saw themselves as actors, not as passive pawns in somebody else's game. Now, modern liberals preach the inevitability of certain trends, like the all-powerful Globalization, and the implication is always that it is a force of nature; it is predestined, and to resist it is foolish and backward. Of course, with this magic Globalization comes mass movement of peoples; we can't expect to remain isolated, can we? After all, it's just one big global village, and We Are All One People. Who are we to fight the unstoppable forces of Nature, which demands that all barriers be dropped? Who are we to fight the tide of mass immigration? After all, the wretched of the earth are entitled to their fair share of our prosperity. So we cannot stop this tide, any more than King Canute could order the waves to retreat. So say the liberals among us.
As I've said before, when people pronounce the inevitability of the transformation of our country, they are telling us that we are really no more than insignificant ants in this far-reaching scenario, which is beyond our control. We are in essence the rape victim, being told to 'lie back and enjoy it, if you can't stop it.' And further, Warner does not just say that the change is inevitable, but that it is already an accomplished fact. So there. Give in and give up, is the message.
Interestingly, here is somebody else who believes in the inevitability of mass immigration:
Mr Gaddafi told ministers gathered for a conference on migration from Africa to the EU that resisting migration "is like rowing against the stream".
[...]He told the delegates in Tripoli that migration had complex historical and social roots and was a force of nature that could not easily be ignored.''
Hmm. He even uses similar metaphors: 'rowing against the stream' vs. 'throwing stones in the Catawba River to try to dam the flow.'
Regardless of who is saying it, this is a message meant to discourage action, and to encourage resignation.
How is this message of helplessness and hopelessness, this gospel of submission, consistent with all our deepest beliefs as Americans? Our traditional beliefs include the sovereignty of the people, the right of the majority to determine the fate of our nation. And yet we are supposed to meekly accept that we no longer have a say in the fate of our country, or its future? That we no longer have any right to say who enters our country, our national home, and who is allowed to stay here?
Mike Warner, and all others like him, are solidly outside the American tradition. He is preaching that America is no longer a Republic in which we, the People, are sovereign. He is saying that millions of Mexicans, El Salvadoreans, and whoever crosses our border in the dead of night, has more of a vote, more of a voice, than we do. He is saying that they, the immigrants, alone can determine the makeup of our country. They self-select, and we don't even have a veto, the right to say, no; you cannot enter or stay here. Even our 'government' has not exercised the right to keep the illegals out, giving them, the invaders, the final say in who is allowed here.
In effect, Warner is saying 'hey, it isn't your country anymore, so get used to the changes, because you can't do a thing about it.'
A more anti-American message could scarcely be conceived.
Civilized people do not submit readily to chaos, which is what our open borders and our promiscuous immigration policy amount to. Chaos and anarchy cannot stand in a civilized country. No; the 'civilized' response is to assume control of our country and our future as a people, by enforcing our laws, and reasserting our rights.
Civilized people would not welcome millions of people from one of the most chaotic, crime-ridden, corrupt parts of the world, to enter and stay.
The 'uncivilized' response is actually the response that our government is offering now; our government is passive and inert in the face of an invasion, and history has shown us what happens when change is allowed to run unchecked, out-of-control. Only an effete, decadent society responds as our present government is doing.
Shades of ancient Rome before the fall; the analogy has been made many times, and with justification.
Warner in his article gives some details about his family history, indicating that he is a non-Southerner, and a Catholic. Between the lines, I very much sense that he is not friendly to traditional Southern culture, probably from a religious viewpoint, as he makes reference to the small numbers of Catholics in the old South. He seems to glory in the changes to the traditional South. I would wager that he identifies more strongly with the immigrants because they share his religion. And being a Yankee, I think he is just as glad to see the traditional South, which he likens to the fictitious Mayberry, disappear. The traditional South was too Anglo-Celtic, too Protestant, too homogeneous, for people like Warner. So the new Hispanicized South (which will really be the North of Latin America, not the Southern U.S.) suits him just fine.
As a liberal, he probably puts immigrants on a pedestal as being humble, colorful, authentic people, noble savages of a sort, far superior to the redneck old stock people.
And why is it almost always a certainty that descendants of later-wave immigrants identify with immigrants more than they do with old-stock Americans? Maybe that should give us pause about the assimilability of some of the later immigrants, and maybe we should have been more exclusive in our policies, not less.
But the South is not Warner's to give away; he doesn't speak for the real people of the South. The South for a long time was the area least touched by immigration. For that reason, partly, a distinct and vigorous regional culture developed there, without the disrupting influences of mass influxes of immigrants. To me, the South represented the last of a strongly American way of life, and this is now undermined by the ravages of mass immigration.
Maybe Mike Warner is happy to bid farewell to Mayberry, and all it symbolizes. Mayberry, it's true, was a fictitious place, and it was never a completely faithful image of a small Southern town, but it did capture something that people across the country could relate to. It was emblematic of all that was good, decent, honest, and worth preserving about small-town America. And most of us, unlike the elitist liberals, are not happy to see Mayberry vanish, to be replaced by a polyglot, balkanized, crime-ridden America, where people neither know nor trust their neighbors. Robert Putnam's study showed how diversity fostered distrust. The homogeneity, the commonality that the liberals despise -- or fear, actually -- was the cement, the bond that held people together, just as in the fictitious Mayberry. If we throw away the common culture in favor of the false gods of diversity, we are losing the America we knew and loved, in favor of what? In favor of some yet-to-be revealed Babel, full of cheap, shoddy goods, strip malls, rising crime, and increasing division, along racial and ethnic lines as well as class lines. Warner and the immigration cheerleaders may get their anti-Mayberry, but the rest of us will have lost something that can never be restored.
Labels: Diversity, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Societal Decay, Traditionalism
0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
A few words from Daniel Webster on Pride of Ancestry:
"It is a noble faculty of nature which enables us to connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness with what is distant in place or time; and looking before and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors and our posterity. Human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. Neither the point of time, nor the spot of earth in which we physically live, bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments.
We live in the past by a knowledge of its history, and in the future by hope and anticipation. By ascending to an association with our ancestors; by contemplating their example and studying their character; by partaking their sentiments, and imbibing their spirit; by accompanying them in their toils; by sympathizing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs -- we mingle our own existence with theirs, and seem to belong to their age. We become their contemporaries, live the lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. And in like manner, by running along the line of future time; by contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are coming after us; by attempting something which may promote their happiness, and leave some not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard when we shall sleep with the fathers -- we protract our own earthly being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly existence.
As it is not a vain and false, but an exalted and religious imagination which leads us to raise our thoughts from the orb which, amidst this universe of worlds, the Creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be proper among children of the same Eternal Parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of fellow-beings with which his goodness has peopled the infinite of space; so neither is it false or vain to consider ourselves as interested or connected with our whole race through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last with the consummation of all things earthly at the throne of God.
There may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for ancestry which nourishes only a weak pride; as there is also a care for posterity, which only disguises an habitual avarice, or hides the workings of a low and groveling vanity. But there is also a moral and philosophical respect for our ancestors, which elevates the character and improves the heart. Next to the sense of religious duty and moral feeling, I hardly know what should bear with stronger obligation on a liberal and enlightened mind, than a consciousness of alliance with excellence which is departed; and a consciousness, too, that in its acts and conduct, and even in its sentiments, it may be actively operating on the happiness of those that come after it.
Poetry is found to have few stronger conceptions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind, than those in which it presents the moving and speaking image of the departed dead to the senses of the living. This belongs to poetry only because it is congenial to our nature. Poetry is, in this respect, but the handmaid of true philosophy and morality. It deals with us as human beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connection with this state of being is severed, and who may yet exercise we know not what sympathy with ourselves; and when it carries us forward, also, and shows us the long-continued result of all the good we do in the prosperity of those who follow us, till it bears us from ourselves, and absorbs us in an intense interest for what shall happen to the generations after us, it speaks only in the language of our nature, and affects us with sentiments which belong to us as human beings."
Labels: American History, Ancestry, Filial Piety, Founding Fathers, Traditionalism
0 comment Tuesday, September 2, 2014 | admin
Caveat: the following is not meant to disparage anybody who has few or no children. I am speaking in generalities and I trust that nobody will take offense at anything I say here.
In the recent discussion, the question of family size and number of children came up. Now, the most common reason we hear for encouraging large families these days, is the Mark Steyn-esque argument that we need to outbreed the Moslems. I think that's one of the least compelling, and the worst reasons, for having large families. First, can we, who are a dwindling number globally, out-reproduce the teeming Third World? Remember we are far outnumbered, and also keep in mind that this teeming Third World is knocking ever more insistently at our doors and windows. Those who are not already in our midst are on their way or planning to be on their way or trying to find out how they can get here, wishing to be somewhere in the 'rich world', as they call it in The Economist. So hoping to outpace the Third World in reproducing is a far-fetched hope.
There are better reasons for having large families, the best being that we love children and want to welcome as many as we can take care of into our already happy lives. And for Christians, we view kids as God's gift to us, and we want to raise them to know and love and serve and give glory to God.
As members of a large extended family called our nation or people, we want to raise our children to carry on the life of that group, and to continue our ways and our heritage into the future. Our children are the future for our particular line, and for our people.
Who should not have a large family, or perhaps any children? Those who don't want children, who are not prepared financially to care for them, or who are in some way not good candidates.
People should not reproduce carelessly and should not have children by accident.
But apart from all this, what are the advantages of big families?
Over the last 30-35 years, we've seen the triumph of the leftist-feminist idea that large families are harmful to women, who are thereby made nothing but domestic slaves to husband and children. Even many 'conservative' women believe this, and say as much. Once, only leftist feminists said and thought such things; now it's considered common wisdom among 'conservatives', sadly.
The other attitude that has won out since the counterculture days is the 'zero population growth' attitude, that somehow people having large families are irresponsible and backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of an enlightened, environmentally responsible person.
Somehow, this ethic is never applied to the Third World peoples, whether they are at home in their native countries or whether they are here in our countries, breeding large families, at public expense.
Another argument that has been widely accepted is that couples cannot afford large families because today's world makes childrearing and stay-at-home mothering out of reach of 'average' people. I say this is not as true as we think; it's all a matter of priorities. It's only economically unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their resources on pricey toys and gadgets, extensive travel, dining, and many other non-essentials while ruling out the 'expensive' family.
This is very much a 'live for today' attitude, which is at odds with conservatism or tradition.
Today we have much higher standards in terms of what we think is an acceptable standard of living. Many think poverty means having only one car, or living in a modest home rather than a McMansion, or shopping at a lower-price retailer (and I don't mean Wal-Mart) rather than having the trendiest, most up-to-date of everything.
In other words, many of us are spoiled and self-indulgent.
Most of us, myself included, could cut out a lot of the frills and nonessentials and thus have more money for the essentials. In this day of rising gas prices, and tightened budgets, we will probably have to cut out the fat.
But are there real arguments to be made for large families?
I grew up in a fairly large family of five children.
My parents were from large families, of thirteen and eight children, respectively.
Here's what I know from experience and observation about large families:
The children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity, and they have to pull their weight and do their part. This encourages a work ethic and a mature attitude at an earlier age, as well as giving them confidence in what they can do.
They learn the idea of accommodating and getting along with others among a group of siblings.
Kids in a large family are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. You learn to interact with peers through interacting with your sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always a bed of roses, but neither is life in the larger world. It teaches you a sense of reality.
"The great advantage of living in a large family is that early lesson of life's essential unfairness."
- Nancy Mitford
Older children in the family act as role models (in positive ways, and sometimes negative ways).
Older siblings can sometimes be an inspiration either to do good things, or an example to avoid, by bad example. Having younger siblings helps us learn childcare skills and responsibility, which prepare us to be parents in our turn.
Having many siblings tends to teach us not to be as materialistic, because resources are spread rather thinner in large families, and we learn to have regard for others and their wants and needs as well as our own.
Children in larger families have a less exaggerated sense of their own importance; in a larger family you are not going to be doted upon by your parents or grandparents as much as if you were an only child. You thus attain a sense of perspective about yourself and your value. You don't get the idea that the sun rises and sets on you, in a large family. It isn't all about you. There are other people to be considered, and everybody has to take their turn, and learn to wait.
I've noticed that many 'only children' have more trouble relating to peers, or that they tend to be more idiosyncratic, more inclined to be loners. That can be good or bad, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems rather lonely to be an only child. Friends somewhat take the place of siblings, but friends can and do come and go. They are not always there for life, as siblings usually are.
Now I can hear the arguments that 'brothers and sisters aren't always close; many times they can't get along, and even loathe each other.' That's as may be; no doubt it happens, but I don't see that in really well-functioning, loving families much. I didn't see any of that kind of conflict in my Dad's family; the bond between him and his brothers and sisters, and their loyalty to each other, overrode any squabbles they had, which were few.
Blood is, as the old saying has it, thicker than water. Friends can fall out and part ways forever, (and yes, so can family members) but especially with a large family, even if you are estranged from one or two of your siblings, there are plenty of others there for you. Large families present better odds of having supportive, loyal family members who will stick by you.
The same is true of parents and children. My beloved Grandma, with thirteen children and dozens of grandchildren and who knows how many great-grandchildren never lacked for someone to care for her at the end of her life. She did live a long and healthy and active life, and her health failed only at the very end. She was always surrounded by people who loved her as only family members can love.
Of course we can love those who are not kin. But there is a special kind of accepting, enduring, unconditional love that is found among close kin. We can see it also between loving spouses and among certain very close friends, but the family circle is the main source of such love, and after all, it's within the close family unit that we first learn love, acceptance, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and compassion. We also learn patience, and contrariwise, we learn how to stand up for ourselves, if we have contentious siblings.
The family is a microcosm of the larger world out there. It can prepare us to succeed and prosper, given the right conditions. Even a less-than-ideal family can teach us useful lessons.
And surely having large families, with many caring relatives is better for society, especially when seen from a conservative or traditional perspective. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will rely on nursing home care, and on the ministrations of strangers and the government to help them as they become infirm.
In past eras, when there were large families, siblings shared in the care of the elders when they could no longer take care of themselves, and there was less need for the old folks to be warehoused in nursing homes as they aged and their health failed. Usually, one of the many children could take in the ailing parent and care for them at home.
From a conservative point of view, smaller families and many childless adults will one day mean many frail elderly having to be cared for by the state and by strangers in the relatively near future. If our ideal is smaller government, and a shrinking of the 'nanny state', small families are counterproductive. The presence of strong (and large) family support systems means far less need for entitlement programs and institutions for the elderly.
Likewise, the leftist-feminist agenda has created a need for more day-care centers and has led to a tendency to put toddlers in 'pre-schools' at earlier ages, in the care of the school system.This contrasts to the customs of the past. When I was a child, most of us did not leave our mothers until age six, when we were required to start first grade. Now, at age six, most children are already veterans of the 'system', and fully acculturated to the public school institution.
So the smaller family tends to mean more isolation, early in life and late in life, with the reliance on the rather impersonal institution rather than the loving bosom of the family.
There are many reasons why the left pushed the idea the desirability of few or no children, and of the 'village' raising our children, as opposed to parents and the extended family having control over their children's upbringing. Overall, the agenda has weakened the family and home and the influence thereof, in favor of the influence of the state and debased popular culture.
And speaking of debased popular culture, has anybody noticed how much our popular culture tends to disparage and ridicule the family unit, especially the traditional family? Many sitcoms and movies tend to portray 'dysfunctional' families with obnoxious, boorish parents and malicious siblings. The family is treated very roughly in our entertainment media. I think this is intentional.
People in a society with mostly small families and a weakened family unit are often people with few close ties, people who are rootless and disconnected and more prone to alienation and anomie. They might be possibly more inclined to find 'surrogate families' in weird places, like cults, or political causes, or perhaps simply to remain permanent adolescents, doing adolescent things into middle age or beyond. We often read the standard excuses made by liberal sociologists and journalists about how fatherless kids, (of whom we have many now) or kids with weak family bonds, join gangs, and find their support system there. We are social animals, and people who lack the most primal connections will either tend to find some substitute, or perhaps just become isolated. There does seem to me to be a larger number of isolated, lonely people in today's America, compared to the past.
On WikiAnswers, someone asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a large family.
The only response was this:
If someone decides to have a large family that's their business, however having a large family you better have a good salary or both parents working as the cost of having a large family today is expensive. With a small family the costs are less.''
Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.
Our parents and grandparents raised families, often large families, in less prosperous times than ours. If they did it, so can those today who want families.
It all comes down to priorities.
"He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too." - Benjamin Franklin
In the recent discussion, the question of family size and number of children came up. Now, the most common reason we hear for encouraging large families these days, is the Mark Steyn-esque argument that we need to outbreed the Moslems. I think that's one of the least compelling, and the worst reasons, for having large families. First, can we, who are a dwindling number globally, out-reproduce the teeming Third World? Remember we are far outnumbered, and also keep in mind that this teeming Third World is knocking ever more insistently at our doors and windows. Those who are not already in our midst are on their way or planning to be on their way or trying to find out how they can get here, wishing to be somewhere in the 'rich world', as they call it in The Economist. So hoping to outpace the Third World in reproducing is a far-fetched hope.
There are better reasons for having large families, the best being that we love children and want to welcome as many as we can take care of into our already happy lives. And for Christians, we view kids as God's gift to us, and we want to raise them to know and love and serve and give glory to God.
As members of a large extended family called our nation or people, we want to raise our children to carry on the life of that group, and to continue our ways and our heritage into the future. Our children are the future for our particular line, and for our people.
Who should not have a large family, or perhaps any children? Those who don't want children, who are not prepared financially to care for them, or who are in some way not good candidates.
People should not reproduce carelessly and should not have children by accident.
But apart from all this, what are the advantages of big families?
Over the last 30-35 years, we've seen the triumph of the leftist-feminist idea that large families are harmful to women, who are thereby made nothing but domestic slaves to husband and children. Even many 'conservative' women believe this, and say as much. Once, only leftist feminists said and thought such things; now it's considered common wisdom among 'conservatives', sadly.
The other attitude that has won out since the counterculture days is the 'zero population growth' attitude, that somehow people having large families are irresponsible and backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of an enlightened, environmentally responsible person.
Somehow, this ethic is never applied to the Third World peoples, whether they are at home in their native countries or whether they are here in our countries, breeding large families, at public expense.
Another argument that has been widely accepted is that couples cannot afford large families because today's world makes childrearing and stay-at-home mothering out of reach of 'average' people. I say this is not as true as we think; it's all a matter of priorities. It's only economically unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their resources on pricey toys and gadgets, extensive travel, dining, and many other non-essentials while ruling out the 'expensive' family.
This is very much a 'live for today' attitude, which is at odds with conservatism or tradition.
Today we have much higher standards in terms of what we think is an acceptable standard of living. Many think poverty means having only one car, or living in a modest home rather than a McMansion, or shopping at a lower-price retailer (and I don't mean Wal-Mart) rather than having the trendiest, most up-to-date of everything.
In other words, many of us are spoiled and self-indulgent.
Most of us, myself included, could cut out a lot of the frills and nonessentials and thus have more money for the essentials. In this day of rising gas prices, and tightened budgets, we will probably have to cut out the fat.
But are there real arguments to be made for large families?
I grew up in a fairly large family of five children.
My parents were from large families, of thirteen and eight children, respectively.
Here's what I know from experience and observation about large families:
The children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity, and they have to pull their weight and do their part. This encourages a work ethic and a mature attitude at an earlier age, as well as giving them confidence in what they can do.
They learn the idea of accommodating and getting along with others among a group of siblings.
Kids in a large family are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. You learn to interact with peers through interacting with your sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always a bed of roses, but neither is life in the larger world. It teaches you a sense of reality.
"The great advantage of living in a large family is that early lesson of life's essential unfairness."
- Nancy Mitford
Older children in the family act as role models (in positive ways, and sometimes negative ways).
Older siblings can sometimes be an inspiration either to do good things, or an example to avoid, by bad example. Having younger siblings helps us learn childcare skills and responsibility, which prepare us to be parents in our turn.
Having many siblings tends to teach us not to be as materialistic, because resources are spread rather thinner in large families, and we learn to have regard for others and their wants and needs as well as our own.
Children in larger families have a less exaggerated sense of their own importance; in a larger family you are not going to be doted upon by your parents or grandparents as much as if you were an only child. You thus attain a sense of perspective about yourself and your value. You don't get the idea that the sun rises and sets on you, in a large family. It isn't all about you. There are other people to be considered, and everybody has to take their turn, and learn to wait.
I've noticed that many 'only children' have more trouble relating to peers, or that they tend to be more idiosyncratic, more inclined to be loners. That can be good or bad, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems rather lonely to be an only child. Friends somewhat take the place of siblings, but friends can and do come and go. They are not always there for life, as siblings usually are.
Now I can hear the arguments that 'brothers and sisters aren't always close; many times they can't get along, and even loathe each other.' That's as may be; no doubt it happens, but I don't see that in really well-functioning, loving families much. I didn't see any of that kind of conflict in my Dad's family; the bond between him and his brothers and sisters, and their loyalty to each other, overrode any squabbles they had, which were few.
Blood is, as the old saying has it, thicker than water. Friends can fall out and part ways forever, (and yes, so can family members) but especially with a large family, even if you are estranged from one or two of your siblings, there are plenty of others there for you. Large families present better odds of having supportive, loyal family members who will stick by you.
The same is true of parents and children. My beloved Grandma, with thirteen children and dozens of grandchildren and who knows how many great-grandchildren never lacked for someone to care for her at the end of her life. She did live a long and healthy and active life, and her health failed only at the very end. She was always surrounded by people who loved her as only family members can love.
Of course we can love those who are not kin. But there is a special kind of accepting, enduring, unconditional love that is found among close kin. We can see it also between loving spouses and among certain very close friends, but the family circle is the main source of such love, and after all, it's within the close family unit that we first learn love, acceptance, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and compassion. We also learn patience, and contrariwise, we learn how to stand up for ourselves, if we have contentious siblings.
The family is a microcosm of the larger world out there. It can prepare us to succeed and prosper, given the right conditions. Even a less-than-ideal family can teach us useful lessons.
And surely having large families, with many caring relatives is better for society, especially when seen from a conservative or traditional perspective. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will rely on nursing home care, and on the ministrations of strangers and the government to help them as they become infirm.
In past eras, when there were large families, siblings shared in the care of the elders when they could no longer take care of themselves, and there was less need for the old folks to be warehoused in nursing homes as they aged and their health failed. Usually, one of the many children could take in the ailing parent and care for them at home.
From a conservative point of view, smaller families and many childless adults will one day mean many frail elderly having to be cared for by the state and by strangers in the relatively near future. If our ideal is smaller government, and a shrinking of the 'nanny state', small families are counterproductive. The presence of strong (and large) family support systems means far less need for entitlement programs and institutions for the elderly.
Likewise, the leftist-feminist agenda has created a need for more day-care centers and has led to a tendency to put toddlers in 'pre-schools' at earlier ages, in the care of the school system.This contrasts to the customs of the past. When I was a child, most of us did not leave our mothers until age six, when we were required to start first grade. Now, at age six, most children are already veterans of the 'system', and fully acculturated to the public school institution.
So the smaller family tends to mean more isolation, early in life and late in life, with the reliance on the rather impersonal institution rather than the loving bosom of the family.
There are many reasons why the left pushed the idea the desirability of few or no children, and of the 'village' raising our children, as opposed to parents and the extended family having control over their children's upbringing. Overall, the agenda has weakened the family and home and the influence thereof, in favor of the influence of the state and debased popular culture.
And speaking of debased popular culture, has anybody noticed how much our popular culture tends to disparage and ridicule the family unit, especially the traditional family? Many sitcoms and movies tend to portray 'dysfunctional' families with obnoxious, boorish parents and malicious siblings. The family is treated very roughly in our entertainment media. I think this is intentional.
People in a society with mostly small families and a weakened family unit are often people with few close ties, people who are rootless and disconnected and more prone to alienation and anomie. They might be possibly more inclined to find 'surrogate families' in weird places, like cults, or political causes, or perhaps simply to remain permanent adolescents, doing adolescent things into middle age or beyond. We often read the standard excuses made by liberal sociologists and journalists about how fatherless kids, (of whom we have many now) or kids with weak family bonds, join gangs, and find their support system there. We are social animals, and people who lack the most primal connections will either tend to find some substitute, or perhaps just become isolated. There does seem to me to be a larger number of isolated, lonely people in today's America, compared to the past.
On WikiAnswers, someone asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a large family.
The only response was this:
If someone decides to have a large family that's their business, however having a large family you better have a good salary or both parents working as the cost of having a large family today is expensive. With a small family the costs are less.''
Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.
Our parents and grandparents raised families, often large families, in less prosperous times than ours. If they did it, so can those today who want families.
It all comes down to priorities.
"He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too." - Benjamin Franklin
Labels: Family Unit, Kith And Kin, Liberalism, Social Conservatism, Traditionalism
0 comment Saturday, May 31, 2014 | admin
I've often said that the best hope of this country is in the people, the real people of America.
Foehammer over at Foehammer's Anvil has a great post called Small Town USA vs. Sanctuary City, in which he reports on his recent experiences with a citizen of a liberal 'sanctuary city' and his contrasting experiences with small-town USA. The liberal 'sanctuary city' attitudes display little real knowledge of the realities of the world, while small-town Americans, contrary to the stereotype of small-town people as being insular and backward, have a much more savvy perspective, and consequently are better prepared to deal with the difficult realities facing America and the Western world. This tallies with my own observations in my experience living in both the liberal big cities and in the small-town environment. Paradoxically the small-towners are often much better informed about the wider world than the urban sophisticates.
The discussion thread following Foehammer's piece included a comment by Bill Strong, of Seymour, Indiana, who linked to his group's website
CHOICE - Coalition of Hoosiers for Order of Immigration Control and Enforcement
'Founded in 2006, "Because Americans have a CHOICE in immigration laws"
It looks like a very worthy effort and I wish that group all success; I think such citizens' groups, acting to preserve America, are a hopeful trend, one that seems to be taking hold in many places.
And the Patriot over at the People's Patriot blog writes about
One Way to Fight a Sanctuary City
The Patriot quotes an e-mail from a group called Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, which appears to be a grassroots citizens' group. The group sent a letter to the Mayor of New Haven in response to the city's plan to issue 'municipal ID cards' to illegals. This is a novel approach: invoke the RICO laws against sanctuary cities.
For Immediate Release
CTCIC Sends Warning Letter to DeStefano
CT Citizens for Immigration Control sent a warning letter to Mayor Tom DeStefano of New Haven. The letter asserts that an identification card for illegal aliens would be a criminal violation of U.S. Immigration Law by inducing illegal aliens to reside in the United States.
The letter says the mayor and city officials issuing an ID, plus any citizen or organizations accepting such an ID card, would be subject to fines and imprisonment.
In addition, the letter says that such an ID card and its acceptance would be criminal racketeering. Officials implementing an ID Card and citizens accepting it would be engaged in immigration racketeering would be subject to private law suits under RICO.
"Mayor DeStefano will be putting himself, the City Council and other New Haven residents in financial jeopardy by passing this bill," says Mr. Streitz.
"If there is one person killed or injured by an illegal alien living in New Haven by homicide or vehicular accident, the mayor, the councilmen and anyone accepting this card would be personally liable," says Mr. Streitz.
"The parents of a murdered child are not going to want to hear the Mayor�s praise of illegals," says Mr. Streitz."
Again, it is encouraging to see the signs that people around the country are organizing and acting.
From the website:
We need you, our country needs you. Without your participation, our families' future and the future of the United States and Connecticut will remain dire. Collectively, we can reverse this trend and put ourselves back on the road to making and keeping America the greatest country in the world.''
Amen to that; we all need to be reminded that there are lots of people out there who see what is happening, and who care greatly about our country and our way of life. No doubt there are good traditional Americans living in the big urban centers, but such places are often actively hostile towards traditional American culture and attitudes. Small-town and rural America is the best hope we have for salvaging our country, or what is left of it. The internet is a great advantage for us in that even those of us who might live in alienating urban environments can find a kind of cyber-community with others of like mind. So even for those who may be isolated among the liberal multicultis in a big city can reach out to other traditional and conservative Americans via the Internet. Knowing that there are more of us than we may realize is encouraging.
And for Americans to act in this fashion is in the best tradition of this country; from such citizen activism this country was made.
We can all do something, and working with other citizens wherever we are is a heartening thing.
I applaud the good people of CHOICE and CTCIC, and all others, whether as individuals or groups, are doing their part. We are all needed; there will not be a man on a white horse to save the day for us; it's up to us.
Foehammer over at Foehammer's Anvil has a great post called Small Town USA vs. Sanctuary City, in which he reports on his recent experiences with a citizen of a liberal 'sanctuary city' and his contrasting experiences with small-town USA. The liberal 'sanctuary city' attitudes display little real knowledge of the realities of the world, while small-town Americans, contrary to the stereotype of small-town people as being insular and backward, have a much more savvy perspective, and consequently are better prepared to deal with the difficult realities facing America and the Western world. This tallies with my own observations in my experience living in both the liberal big cities and in the small-town environment. Paradoxically the small-towners are often much better informed about the wider world than the urban sophisticates.
The discussion thread following Foehammer's piece included a comment by Bill Strong, of Seymour, Indiana, who linked to his group's website
CHOICE - Coalition of Hoosiers for Order of Immigration Control and Enforcement
'Founded in 2006, "Because Americans have a CHOICE in immigration laws"
It looks like a very worthy effort and I wish that group all success; I think such citizens' groups, acting to preserve America, are a hopeful trend, one that seems to be taking hold in many places.
And the Patriot over at the People's Patriot blog writes about
One Way to Fight a Sanctuary City
The Patriot quotes an e-mail from a group called Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, which appears to be a grassroots citizens' group. The group sent a letter to the Mayor of New Haven in response to the city's plan to issue 'municipal ID cards' to illegals. This is a novel approach: invoke the RICO laws against sanctuary cities.
For Immediate Release
CTCIC Sends Warning Letter to DeStefano
CT Citizens for Immigration Control sent a warning letter to Mayor Tom DeStefano of New Haven. The letter asserts that an identification card for illegal aliens would be a criminal violation of U.S. Immigration Law by inducing illegal aliens to reside in the United States.
The letter says the mayor and city officials issuing an ID, plus any citizen or organizations accepting such an ID card, would be subject to fines and imprisonment.
In addition, the letter says that such an ID card and its acceptance would be criminal racketeering. Officials implementing an ID Card and citizens accepting it would be engaged in immigration racketeering would be subject to private law suits under RICO.
"Mayor DeStefano will be putting himself, the City Council and other New Haven residents in financial jeopardy by passing this bill," says Mr. Streitz.
"If there is one person killed or injured by an illegal alien living in New Haven by homicide or vehicular accident, the mayor, the councilmen and anyone accepting this card would be personally liable," says Mr. Streitz.
"The parents of a murdered child are not going to want to hear the Mayor�s praise of illegals," says Mr. Streitz."
Again, it is encouraging to see the signs that people around the country are organizing and acting.
From the website:
We need you, our country needs you. Without your participation, our families' future and the future of the United States and Connecticut will remain dire. Collectively, we can reverse this trend and put ourselves back on the road to making and keeping America the greatest country in the world.''
Amen to that; we all need to be reminded that there are lots of people out there who see what is happening, and who care greatly about our country and our way of life. No doubt there are good traditional Americans living in the big urban centers, but such places are often actively hostile towards traditional American culture and attitudes. Small-town and rural America is the best hope we have for salvaging our country, or what is left of it. The internet is a great advantage for us in that even those of us who might live in alienating urban environments can find a kind of cyber-community with others of like mind. So even for those who may be isolated among the liberal multicultis in a big city can reach out to other traditional and conservative Americans via the Internet. Knowing that there are more of us than we may realize is encouraging.
And for Americans to act in this fashion is in the best tradition of this country; from such citizen activism this country was made.
We can all do something, and working with other citizens wherever we are is a heartening thing.
I applaud the good people of CHOICE and CTCIC, and all others, whether as individuals or groups, are doing their part. We are all needed; there will not be a man on a white horse to save the day for us; it's up to us.
Labels: American Culture, Amnesty, Illegal Immigration, Sanctuary Cities, Traditionalism
0 comment Wednesday, May 21, 2014 | admin
'Men and women need each other
Should be like sister and brother
There�s a fraction too much friction...'
Well, I didn't want to write about this subject but it seems to be everywhere I look these past few days. It's the subject of the rift between men and women that seems to exist mostly among racially-conscious Whites. On the recent thread about race and dating/marrying, the subject was discussed, with men blaming feminism for their misunderstandings with women, and/or their antipathy to White women.
And on Steve Sailer's blog, in a discussion about an Obama-related piece, there was this comment:
...The phenemonon of whites bashing other whites for perceived insensitivity towards minorities is too widespread to be disputed.
[...] I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths. To some extent, it isn't anything new under the sun; just a PC version of the chivalry racket that men have been caught up in for centuries. But given that men and women are considerably more inseparable than any set of racial groupings, a permanent schism between men and women - i.e., a governing mindset that says that "all men are bad for women" (with the man of the moment who is making that declaration always exempting himself from that universal censure) -- is bound to have a much more toxic effect on human relationships (both male-male and male-female) than mere racial and ethnic one-upmanship.''
And here, from TakiMag, on a thread that had nothing, really, to do with male-female conflicts:
...Not only are 3rd world women still pretty--they don�t suffer from a divided puritan psyche (madonnah-whore) which plagues so many western women. In short, western women are boring!'''
It's tempting for me to undertake a knee-jerk defense of my own sex, in the face of the criticisms, but it would be just that: a knee-jerk reaction, which I usually counsel against. I know that I myself am not one of those male-bashing women, but I know that they do exist.
In the past I've been fairly critical of women on this blog; I've actually taken a more critical stand towards my own sex here than many males on the right do, and some of my male readers have disagreed with me and defended women or even some feminist ideas. A woman criticizing other women is always at risk of being branded disloyal by other women and, even more likely, being branded -- by men -- as 'catty' towards other women. So it's a delicate balancing act.
I've said or implied on this blog that I thought female suffrage has, overall, been a negative for our society, and I've expressed disapproval of women in combat and the co-ed military, as well as the absurd practice of having women police officers or firefighters who are not the equals of men in size and muscular strength. Oddly, many men have disagreed with me, not so much on this blog, but on forums where we've discussed such things.
The commenter from Sailer's blog alludes to this phenomenon of men defending feminism, or bashing other men for not being appropriately 'sensitive', and it doesn't just happen among liberals.
So why is it, guys, that some of you defend many feminist innovations, like the co-ed military and women in combat or other such roles? Another way in which many men defend feminist innovations is in regard to legalized abortion.
Hermes over at Wise Man's Heart discussed a slightly related topic: Does sexual liberation deter white men from being traditionalist, in other words, does it encourage men to at least outwardly support feminism?
...But the predicted white men's reaction to my traditionalist views is: "you're never going to get laid with an attitude like that." Young men know that most single young women are liberal, and, except for those with strong religious convictions about sexual behavior, the overarching concern in life is to have sex with women. So the truth or falsity of non-liberal views is almost irrelevant; the question for the young man is "will women be attracted to me if I accept this view versus that one?" This phenomenon has spilled over to religious conservatives as well; a few weeks ago I remarked to some evangelical Christian friends that I thought that by and large, women should not be doctors, and one of them said to me, "you're never going to get married!"
[...] in the past restraining one's sexual desires was seen as manly, whereas today to bend over backwards for liberal women in order to "get laid" is seen as manly while to care more about standing on principle than about opportunistically having cheap sex will get one labeled weak, feminine, wimpy, etc.''
In some cases, though, some men on the right are simply trying to be 'fair' in taking the non-traditionalist stance as regards women and 'women's rights.' Some of you have daughters and you want your daughters to have all the opportunities that men have, although presumably conservatives or realists can see that women and men are not equals in all respects, just as the races are not equal, and women cannot do certain jobs that men do.
I could spend more time on this blog bashing feminism, because I certainly think it's been an immensely destructive force along with all the other guises which leftism assumes, but would that be shouting into the wind? I seem to have more male readers and commenters than females, and I think this is a reflection of the fact that more men than women are political, interested in what is going on in the world, and men are more inclined to be nationalistic or 'tribalistic' or territorial, as opposed to women whose concerns are more domestic, familial, and personal. So my blog is less likely to draw female readers; so be it. I wish that more women would see things as I see them; some do, obviously, as I have some female readers, and there are other like-minded women on our side.
But in criticizing feminism, who would my audience be? My women readers are already something of an exception, and are not likely to be in need of a message critical of feminism. And some of my male readers seem to have the urge to go all chivalrous when I have criticized feminism, or when they perceive that I am bashing my own sex. So in all, it seems counterproductive for me to criticize feminism or feminists, though I certainly have taken my shots at them from time to time.
I think instead what is needed is a message of reconciliation between men and women, particularly those of us who care about the future of our people. The stark fact is: we have no future if we can't resolve our anger and resentments towards each other.
I've mentioned before that I used to be quite the feminist when I was young and liberal. But even then, I recognized the absurdities of some of the radical feminist ideas, such as female separatism. Even then, I could see that while people may form separatist groups along many lines, such as religion, age, politics, or race, they could not divide along sex lines and still continue. The two sexes are interdependent and complementary in ways that other such groups are not. Men and women need each other. There might be some individuals who have no need for marriage and who for idiosyncratic reasons don't like the opposite sex, but they are anomalous, and overall, men and women, and the male and female principles are necessary to survival and to a healthy balance.
But right now, survival in the narrow sense is what we are concerned with. Our numbers are dwindling, we are under siege, psychologically, politically, physically. We have nobody but each other. There are precious few among the minority groups who will side with us, even in the most tepid fashion. We are all we've got.
We truly cannot afford to be a people divided against ourselves, and yet we are, in many ways. Left vs. right, Christian vs. non-Christian, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, everybody vs. middle-class, urban vs. rural, North vs. South. And now male vs. female. We just cannot afford it.
It seems pointless to try to point the finger at the other side, to accuse men like the not untypical one I quoted above saying 'western women are boring' and extolling Third World women as superior. It's not helpful for us to quibble over who marries out more, or who embraced that trend first. It's all counterproductive, and it keeps the cycle of blame and anger going. Time is wasting. We have to try to put the resentments and the rancor aside and realize we need each other.
Men who claim to be racially conscious or pro-American and who still seek out foreign women are frauds, plain and simple. Who we marry and have children with shows much better than words where our loyalties lie. Marrying out is the surest way of turning your back on your own people. Some imagine that their kids will be unequivocally 'American' even if they marry out. This is not so; there will be conflicts, there will be divided allegiances, and in many if not most cases, the nonwhite, non-American side wins out.
Somebody has to break the impasse. Why can't both women and men try to focus on the good things about our own opposite numbers within our own people, and stop finding fault? It wouldn't hurt either women or men to examine their own behavior and attitudes and see where and how we are guilty of contributing to the hostility and the resentment.
I certainly am aware of a lot of 'male-bashing' on the part of women, and although the battle of the sexes is age-old, going back to Adam and Eve, it has escalated greatly since feminism. I hear from the younger generation that many younger women (even the married ones) are very prone to bitterness towards men.
Insofar as I have any influence at all, I try to be a counterexample, and I am not above calling women on this if they do it in my presence.
Men, own up; many of you do your share of female-bashing too. Some of it is thoroughly justified; I have a few male relatives who have been seriously wronged and 'taken to the cleaners' by predatory-type women. It does happen. There are abusive and exploitative wives, just as there are abusive husbands. We tend to think women are the gentler sex; unfortunately we are not, always.
Women, we can do a lot better in trying to teach and model more respect for the opposite sex among our daughters. We have to try to counter all the propaganda of the media, both the 'news' media and the entertainment media, which is the source for the worst of the anti-traditionalist messages being received by our younger generations. The schools, too, are a source of the poison. Homeschooling is of course to be preferred for anybody trying to raise up good children.
The answer, such as it is, is to 'ask for the old paths', to go back to traditional attitudes and roles. They worked reasonably well for millennia. Of course relations between the sexes, like any other human interaction, will never be perfect and problem-free, but we have to muddle along and do the best we can, with the goal in mind of preserving what we are at risk of losing: our children's future.
Should be like sister and brother
There�s a fraction too much friction...'
Well, I didn't want to write about this subject but it seems to be everywhere I look these past few days. It's the subject of the rift between men and women that seems to exist mostly among racially-conscious Whites. On the recent thread about race and dating/marrying, the subject was discussed, with men blaming feminism for their misunderstandings with women, and/or their antipathy to White women.
And on Steve Sailer's blog, in a discussion about an Obama-related piece, there was this comment:
...The phenemonon of whites bashing other whites for perceived insensitivity towards minorities is too widespread to be disputed.
[...] I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths. To some extent, it isn't anything new under the sun; just a PC version of the chivalry racket that men have been caught up in for centuries. But given that men and women are considerably more inseparable than any set of racial groupings, a permanent schism between men and women - i.e., a governing mindset that says that "all men are bad for women" (with the man of the moment who is making that declaration always exempting himself from that universal censure) -- is bound to have a much more toxic effect on human relationships (both male-male and male-female) than mere racial and ethnic one-upmanship.''
And here, from TakiMag, on a thread that had nothing, really, to do with male-female conflicts:
...Not only are 3rd world women still pretty--they don�t suffer from a divided puritan psyche (madonnah-whore) which plagues so many western women. In short, western women are boring!'''
It's tempting for me to undertake a knee-jerk defense of my own sex, in the face of the criticisms, but it would be just that: a knee-jerk reaction, which I usually counsel against. I know that I myself am not one of those male-bashing women, but I know that they do exist.
In the past I've been fairly critical of women on this blog; I've actually taken a more critical stand towards my own sex here than many males on the right do, and some of my male readers have disagreed with me and defended women or even some feminist ideas. A woman criticizing other women is always at risk of being branded disloyal by other women and, even more likely, being branded -- by men -- as 'catty' towards other women. So it's a delicate balancing act.
I've said or implied on this blog that I thought female suffrage has, overall, been a negative for our society, and I've expressed disapproval of women in combat and the co-ed military, as well as the absurd practice of having women police officers or firefighters who are not the equals of men in size and muscular strength. Oddly, many men have disagreed with me, not so much on this blog, but on forums where we've discussed such things.
The commenter from Sailer's blog alludes to this phenomenon of men defending feminism, or bashing other men for not being appropriately 'sensitive', and it doesn't just happen among liberals.
So why is it, guys, that some of you defend many feminist innovations, like the co-ed military and women in combat or other such roles? Another way in which many men defend feminist innovations is in regard to legalized abortion.
Hermes over at Wise Man's Heart discussed a slightly related topic: Does sexual liberation deter white men from being traditionalist, in other words, does it encourage men to at least outwardly support feminism?
...But the predicted white men's reaction to my traditionalist views is: "you're never going to get laid with an attitude like that." Young men know that most single young women are liberal, and, except for those with strong religious convictions about sexual behavior, the overarching concern in life is to have sex with women. So the truth or falsity of non-liberal views is almost irrelevant; the question for the young man is "will women be attracted to me if I accept this view versus that one?" This phenomenon has spilled over to religious conservatives as well; a few weeks ago I remarked to some evangelical Christian friends that I thought that by and large, women should not be doctors, and one of them said to me, "you're never going to get married!"
[...] in the past restraining one's sexual desires was seen as manly, whereas today to bend over backwards for liberal women in order to "get laid" is seen as manly while to care more about standing on principle than about opportunistically having cheap sex will get one labeled weak, feminine, wimpy, etc.''
In some cases, though, some men on the right are simply trying to be 'fair' in taking the non-traditionalist stance as regards women and 'women's rights.' Some of you have daughters and you want your daughters to have all the opportunities that men have, although presumably conservatives or realists can see that women and men are not equals in all respects, just as the races are not equal, and women cannot do certain jobs that men do.
I could spend more time on this blog bashing feminism, because I certainly think it's been an immensely destructive force along with all the other guises which leftism assumes, but would that be shouting into the wind? I seem to have more male readers and commenters than females, and I think this is a reflection of the fact that more men than women are political, interested in what is going on in the world, and men are more inclined to be nationalistic or 'tribalistic' or territorial, as opposed to women whose concerns are more domestic, familial, and personal. So my blog is less likely to draw female readers; so be it. I wish that more women would see things as I see them; some do, obviously, as I have some female readers, and there are other like-minded women on our side.
But in criticizing feminism, who would my audience be? My women readers are already something of an exception, and are not likely to be in need of a message critical of feminism. And some of my male readers seem to have the urge to go all chivalrous when I have criticized feminism, or when they perceive that I am bashing my own sex. So in all, it seems counterproductive for me to criticize feminism or feminists, though I certainly have taken my shots at them from time to time.
I think instead what is needed is a message of reconciliation between men and women, particularly those of us who care about the future of our people. The stark fact is: we have no future if we can't resolve our anger and resentments towards each other.
I've mentioned before that I used to be quite the feminist when I was young and liberal. But even then, I recognized the absurdities of some of the radical feminist ideas, such as female separatism. Even then, I could see that while people may form separatist groups along many lines, such as religion, age, politics, or race, they could not divide along sex lines and still continue. The two sexes are interdependent and complementary in ways that other such groups are not. Men and women need each other. There might be some individuals who have no need for marriage and who for idiosyncratic reasons don't like the opposite sex, but they are anomalous, and overall, men and women, and the male and female principles are necessary to survival and to a healthy balance.
But right now, survival in the narrow sense is what we are concerned with. Our numbers are dwindling, we are under siege, psychologically, politically, physically. We have nobody but each other. There are precious few among the minority groups who will side with us, even in the most tepid fashion. We are all we've got.
We truly cannot afford to be a people divided against ourselves, and yet we are, in many ways. Left vs. right, Christian vs. non-Christian, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, everybody vs. middle-class, urban vs. rural, North vs. South. And now male vs. female. We just cannot afford it.
It seems pointless to try to point the finger at the other side, to accuse men like the not untypical one I quoted above saying 'western women are boring' and extolling Third World women as superior. It's not helpful for us to quibble over who marries out more, or who embraced that trend first. It's all counterproductive, and it keeps the cycle of blame and anger going. Time is wasting. We have to try to put the resentments and the rancor aside and realize we need each other.
Men who claim to be racially conscious or pro-American and who still seek out foreign women are frauds, plain and simple. Who we marry and have children with shows much better than words where our loyalties lie. Marrying out is the surest way of turning your back on your own people. Some imagine that their kids will be unequivocally 'American' even if they marry out. This is not so; there will be conflicts, there will be divided allegiances, and in many if not most cases, the nonwhite, non-American side wins out.
Somebody has to break the impasse. Why can't both women and men try to focus on the good things about our own opposite numbers within our own people, and stop finding fault? It wouldn't hurt either women or men to examine their own behavior and attitudes and see where and how we are guilty of contributing to the hostility and the resentment.
I certainly am aware of a lot of 'male-bashing' on the part of women, and although the battle of the sexes is age-old, going back to Adam and Eve, it has escalated greatly since feminism. I hear from the younger generation that many younger women (even the married ones) are very prone to bitterness towards men.
Insofar as I have any influence at all, I try to be a counterexample, and I am not above calling women on this if they do it in my presence.
Men, own up; many of you do your share of female-bashing too. Some of it is thoroughly justified; I have a few male relatives who have been seriously wronged and 'taken to the cleaners' by predatory-type women. It does happen. There are abusive and exploitative wives, just as there are abusive husbands. We tend to think women are the gentler sex; unfortunately we are not, always.
Women, we can do a lot better in trying to teach and model more respect for the opposite sex among our daughters. We have to try to counter all the propaganda of the media, both the 'news' media and the entertainment media, which is the source for the worst of the anti-traditionalist messages being received by our younger generations. The schools, too, are a source of the poison. Homeschooling is of course to be preferred for anybody trying to raise up good children.
The answer, such as it is, is to 'ask for the old paths', to go back to traditional attitudes and roles. They worked reasonably well for millennia. Of course relations between the sexes, like any other human interaction, will never be perfect and problem-free, but we have to muddle along and do the best we can, with the goal in mind of preserving what we are at risk of losing: our children's future.
Labels: Feminism, Separatism, Social Divisions, Societal Decay, Traditionalism