Monday, December 29, 2014

When Everybody Else Is Us…

People today do not identify themselves, and others, as flesh and blood beings grounded in concrete absolutes (such as race, ethnicity, gender, particular families etc) but as adhering to this or that faddish ideology
There are no longer Irishmen, or Germans, or Italians, or Saxons, or Bavarians or Johnsons or Smiths.

No, there are only now Capitalists, Socialists, Feminists,  Islamists, Fundamentalists, Pro-Abortionists, Liberals, Conservatives, Nazis, Communists, Free Traders, Progressives, Reactionaries, Traditionalists, Atheists, Agnostics, Revisionists, Revolutionaries…the list goes ever on.

And people wonder why we have wide-open borders.

Upon what grounds should the borders be sealed and protected, let alone acknowledged? Many of the invaders are capitalists: or progressives or conservatives or Christians or, take your pick.

So is it upon the grounds of a mere technicality that you object to open borders? Is it because it’s not legal or because so and so did not go through the proper process?

If so, what happens when the laws are re-written to make that which was once illegal, legal?

Think of it this way, most Whites in the US of the conservative Christian bent are opposed to gay marriage. Is it because, hitherto, it has been technically illegal?

Or is it because it is seen as unnatural for two people of the same physical (absolute, concrete) gender to marry?

How about this: what if one of them got a sex change operation and became “female”; would it then be okay for them to marry?

Or, more fittingly, what if one of them simply identified themselves as, ideologically, female?

Would conservative Christians then okay the marriage?

If not, why not?

If your primary worldview is predicated upon the notion of identities being based upon adherence to an ism then at what point does abnormal become normal or the proverbial them become us?

After all, there is no customs office for becoming a conservative. No paperwork or procedural steps to become a progressive or capitalist. There is no recognized jurisdiction dividing pro-abortionists from agnostics.

So what then keeps one from becoming an American?  Is an American a particular kind of person, genetically, or is he merely someone who agrees to a general ideology (capitalism, democracy, constitutional government, etc)?

If it’s the later then a physical border is illogical because it is merely an expression of sentiment or faith to adhere to certain principles.

And faiths and Creeds do not know borders anymore than merchants do.

Look at it this way,

Did the average Englishman fight against the Germans because the Germans were Nazis?

No, of course not.

They fought the Germans because they were Germans, and, therefore, not Englishmen. Just as they fought the French because they were French and the Spanish because they were Spanish.

Fighting for a faith or creed or ideology or form of government is like challenging the wind to a swordfight for supremacy of the air. It is madness personified. It is empty and vain and though you may charge forth without fear and march victoriously forward without wound, you will eventually collapse of weariness, slashing at a foe that has no shape in defense of a thing you can neither see nor touch.

Thus on the flip side, we must ask, do Americans fight for Americans?

No, of course not. American is too generic a term to even define.

Which is why Americans fight for isms such as democracy, free trade and equality. And that might explain why Americans are always fighting IN OTHER COUNTRIES FAR FROM AMERICA.

In other words, Americans are missionaries for Americanism, spreading the faith far and wide across the whole world. A quest to make all men “Americans”.

And, still, they wonder why we have open borders.


Sunday, December 14, 2014

Hypothetical Projected Emotions Only, Please…

Or, the ‘put yourself in their shoes’ ploy.

In modern discourse, political, social, religious, racial and cultural considerations are often framed by the (obviously leading) question, “how would you feel if you were them?”

…or some variation thereof.

This is, of course, a bizarre and esoteric form of existential bait switching.

It’s asking you, as you, to pretend you aren’t you: to assume you’re someone else…and then give their opinion.

You see, the “what if you were them,” question is not meant to engender empathy, but to exploit it. Which is why you’ll never hear it used thusly: “how would you feel if you were Julius Caesar triumphantly parading your hated and vanquished enemies?”

After all, the whole point of the “what if you were them” question is to make you associate exclusively with the enemies/victims.

Which is the salient point here, because another word for victim is loser.

And if there is one thing we can be sure of, it’s that the exploiters of empathy never ever want you to associate with the victors and the winners.

Why is that?