Thinly Veiled Threats
The modern Western condition is one of increasing centralization of power on an institutional level, but de-centralization of access to anyone of positional authority. Think about the last time you called a customer service line for a large company and the experience you likely had—passed off from one customer service representative to the next, strung out over hours or days, somehow never managing to speak to a manager despite the fact that about every mid-level functionary has “manager” somewhere in their title. The diffusion of responsibility is endemic on a social level, on a corporate level, on a governmental level, and it all ties back to the general abdication of responsibility on an individual level. The lack of accountability preached from the Left’s bully pulpit has permeated the general populace’s thought processes to the point this all seems somehow normal. Entitlements, hand-outs, cheap virtue signaling, and easy answers are the consequence of over fifty years of so-called “liberalism” in the West, and it’s gotten us nothing but a hollow culture and a pervading sense of defeatism.
This permissiveness and willingness to cede responsibility to authority is a direct consequence of the infantilization of the individual in the West and the drive for comfort to supersede principle. Not only do we allow shadowy multi-national executives and leaders of government to use fronts and misdirection on a macro scale, we accept the lies on face value and don’t pause to interrogate contradictions or obvious obfuscations. On a micro scale, people willingly allow themselves to be censored and cowed, and for the few who do not adhere absolutely to the accepted public viewpoints, the consequences can be dire indeed.
These ever-expanding bureaucracies in businesses, governments, and universities are sort of like single-celled organisms or even malignant viruses that exist for one reason—to split and perpetuate more bureaucracy. They’re a smoke-screen for machinations set in place for your benefit, Dear Reader, but you don’t you dare deign to question their motives or intentions. Besides, you couldn’t possibly understand, you rube. Strange, isn’t it, the preeny moral narcissism of people who espouse moral relativism? Relativism excuses the individual from having to make difficult choices, from having to stand for something; it excuses the individual from having to work out internal contradictions and potentially worldview-altering cognitive dissonance. We’ll pull down the statues of any historical figure we deem “problematic,” and so we’ll never have to stop and think about the fact that there’s good and bad in all of us. Thomas Jefferson was evil because he owned slaves, but…wait…his work on…never mind that! It allows for complexity of character and motive and asks that we understand this human being on a three-dimensional plane in historical context. It doesn’t matter that whites ended slavery—were, indeed, the first to do so—this doesn’t fit the new (if you’ll pardon the pun) white-washed historical narrative the Left eagerly claims to want to complicate. It does anything but.
Western discourse has become about avoidance, of not calling something by its actual name. Celia Dugger of the New York Times insists we refer to female genital mutilation as “genital cutting” because the former term is too “culturally loaded.” You’ll certainly be familiar with the litany of other terms meant to code, confuse, or obscure: migrants, undocumented persons, alternative beauty standards / positive body image, gender-neutral pronouns, “on a spectrum”…and on and on it goes. My last piece painstakingly began to engage with the origins of this jargon, heavily influenced and informed by critical theory; the ideology is so self-referential and ties itself into such dense linguistic knots it is an extremely tall order to even begin to untangle them. That said, the tension between overly-simplified solutions and linguistic gymnastics may well be bound to unravel of its own accord. Barack Obama can mouth his platitudes—“Kindness covers all of my political beliefs”—and prevaricate about red lines, but that is simply not good enough. Empty vessels like Justin Trudeau and Angela Merkel mouth clichés about immigration and diversity and open borders as inherently positive, but why is that the default? And at what cost does this mindless compassion come?
Minnesota recently spent five million dollars to contain the Somali measles outbreak. Disease and crime rise in direct proportion to the concentration of Third World immigration in a given community. Illegal aliens rape schoolchildren throughout the United States and major news outlets cover it up. Muslim migrants make whole European cities borderline uninhabitable and rape European women and children in staggering numbers. Unconstitutional speech codes proliferate on American college campuses and hate speech laws like C-16 and M-103 in Canada, dealing with “transphobia” and “Islamophobia” respectively, are sponsored by many Western governments. The peace, love, and harmony so lauded by Leftists is at direct odds with every single policy originating from this intellectually and morally bankrupt group of Lobotomites. They pretend to care about every kind of diversity, but that is obviously not true. “Diversity” requires “un-packing,” but when you can only feel and no longer think you’re reduced to the likes of these college student sloganeers shouting down free speech or fundamentalist Muslims gunning down Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.
There were ructions by Democrats in Congress and beyond when Donald Trump emphasized he had been elected President of the United States, not Planet Earth or some other such delusion, and would put American interests first, contrasting sharply with previous president Obama’s citizen-of-the-world snake oil. This vision of a borderless world will never work. We naturally prefer our own kind, those that share our dispositions, hence multi-culturalism has been, and will always be, an abject failure. People are inherently hostile and tribal, and really it was only the great Pax Americana since 1945 that’s ushered in an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity across the globe, driven in no small part by cultural cooperation across the West. The shake-out of World War II drove the creation of a number of autonomous ethno-states across the globe, and in the intervening years, the evidence for the case against multi-culturalism has continued to mount as multi-ethnic states like Rwanda, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, and the USSR have ultimately collapsed and/or been plunged deep into civil war and genocide. This is where tribalism inevitably leads.
Immigration is meant to be reflexive, and in small numbers immigrants can enrich a culture while simultaneously being enriched by it. I think of the Indians and peoples from the West Indies immigrating to the UK (and immeasurably improving its cuisine), though these immigrants did have the benefit of being “children of empire” so to speak, hence the barriers were fewer. And perhaps that’s the lesson here. The default should, nay must, favor the nation-state and ethno-national ties, not diversity for its own sake, and if there is going to be immigration, it must emphasize cultural compatibility and individual assimilability, as well as language proficiency and in the modern world also skill level and education; monocultures strong enough to insist immigrants assimilate (the United States until the mid-1960s, though of course these immigrants were nearly all white) can diminish ethnic conflict with a common goal, but as was the case before the madness of the past fifty years, we must never lose sight of the very real consequences of demographic upheaval.
I often refer to the West in a broad sense because though we are ethnically diverse peoples, we are also united by the forging fires of a shared history, a shared faith, a shared intellectual inheritance, and, I might as well say it, an underlying unity of race and origin; our shared values and ideals have allowed for us to develop an unprecedented philosophy of openness, going so far as to welcome different colors and creeds within our borders, but this has very often been to our detriment. For those that truly share our values, they will understand that it is essential that they must subordinate their old identity with their new one. Multi-culturalism holds that individuals do not need to do this, that “hyphenated” identities are preferable to assimilation, but they interfere with adherence to the broad set of local mores, institutions, and foundational principles. Hence, immigration may be reflexive in the long run, so long as it doesn’t alter the fundamental fabric of a culture through sheer transformative force of numbers. A super-majority and a strong cultural confidence forces their hand and they will have no option but to assimilate. That said, we really only want people that would assimilate of their own volition. Otherwise, it is right to question their loyalties. The confluence of immigration volume, demographic decline, and the multi-cultural ideology is a major reason why the West is in grave danger today, though we may also include a lack of cultural confidence and an intense racial hostility amplified by academia, the Democrats, and the media narrative (Black Lives Matter, etc.). We should also entertain the possibility that immigration from certain cultures be closed entirely, or with very select exceptions, as the evidence suggests these groups in any real quantity can only represent a net negative in civic, social, and economic capital.
Though power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, their servile functionaries (think vampire familiars, or Cal-Berkeley college students) dutifully carry out the leg-work of silencing all contradictory dissent of the globalist utopian project furthered by the Left. The massive state apparatus is not a reflection of the people anymore; it designed to serve a very particular globalist agenda against the wishes of a great many people. No one gives you a straight answer to anything, or if they do it’s couched in vagaries and relativist precepts. Any speech with the potential to offend is deemed hate speech and must be stopped, even by violent means. Art deemed appropriative has been conflated with “cultural genocide” and banned (see: Amanda PL).
White genocide in South Africa and Zimbabwe—if discussed at all—will be explained away as deserved for the whites’ colonial and imperialist practices, and the acting out of jihad across the globe is due exclusively to Western foreign policy, not Islamic doctrine itself. That very idea is so morally narcissistic it’s stunning, and the idea that the brown and black peoples of the world can only react to our actions removes them of any agency the same way modern feminism does to women on campus with the cloak-and-dagger Title IX codes and sexual assault tribunals (Laura Kipnis has a terrific new book about this called Unwanted Advances). They are inert objects only to be acted upon in this strange distortion of liberalism.
Even stranger, the globalist project is helmed by some of the most wealthy and powerful individuals on the planet—their disregard for national borders at the altar of the all-powerful MARKET obliterates the middle class and exacerbates the economic disparity so bemoaned by the Left! Their solution is to further tax the middle class to death with re-distributive policies called “welfare.” I believe that domestically we need to let the market go to work, with some limitations obviously, and the nations that’ve most readily embraced the free market are those that are freest and most prosperous today, but globally uninhibited “free trade” is a death sentence for the West. Suffice it to say this is yet another incongruity in the increasingly incoherent Leftist worldview that bears mentioning. The multi-nationals and cheap labor lobbies are more than happy to cast their lot in with the open borders crowd for this reason.
We should be encouraged by the fact that the Leftist house of cards will collapse with even a little push-back, however. There ideas are that intellectually flimsy and incongruent. All we need is the wherewithal. The reason dissent is so viciously silenced and even prosecuted is because Leftist notions of equity of outcome, identity-politics-for-me-but-not-for-thee, limitless government entitlements, and diversity for its own sake are fraught with contradiction, circular logic (at best), and faulty premises that simply do not hold up under scrutiny. No idea that must be buffered or sheltered is a strong one; good ideas will stand on their own two feet without the full force of the law and ceaseless censorship. Good ideas and noble causes do need to be nurtured and cared for, like a plant, so they may flower and give fruit, but this comes from diligence, freedom of speech, and a sense of duty to the past and to the future. Europe and the European Diaspora must re-trench to protect their cultures for they are the last line of defense against the rolling back of human progress and the growing global caliphate, and in America, we still have “a republic—if [we] can keep it.” Prize it and defend it, for, to quote Barack Obama, “The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders.”