Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Family or friends? Low-trust vs. high-trust cultures

  • Damian Thompson: friends are no substitute. It’s primal.
  • Muslims in Norway. The usual fear and envy (including mating competition as Roissy notes) from the white-power folks. Filtering the race-baiting, lots to think about. Both forms have good and bad. The two forms are at war. Sailer’s noted that the upper-class, high-trust northern Europeans (SWPLs) appeal to a kind of universalism (ripoff of Christianity), claiming to love humanity, fighting for the Other as an underdog (ditto ripoff), to wage war on underclass whites’ natural kinship and local community ties. (And, incidentally, on the Other’s natural ties, though the rich whites use the Other in a proxy war on their own prole kin; it gets interesting when the Other become too much for the SWPLs to handle. Then they wish conservatives would help them disarm them.) Is there a way to have the best of natural kinship and northern European high-trust societies? Not pure libertarianism’s every man for himself (‘question authority, man’; authority is part of God’s order, like it or not, so grow up), which leaves us all outnumbered Nordics, but halfway between it (hooray for individual rights and spreading family’s benefits as wide as possible) and Burkean ordered liberty, minarchism, recognizing families’ and ethnicities’ place in the social order; weak libertarianism. (Including freedom of association, balanced with the individual right not to have harm done to you.) In itself, libertarianism — strictly defined as living the golden rule; not starting fights but defending yourself — is not a problem; perfectly compatible with Christianity (and it can be said to come from Christian ethics). But the atomized individualism/anti-authority kick rings false and gets old. And if a guest abuses you, show some of your Viking ancestors’ strength and kick him out.
  • By the way, remember, in the ’20s, for example, when the northern Europeans in America didn’t like Italian immigrants? For a few minutes in the Sixties, as part of the war on the old America, Catholic ethnics were cool like Jews (holy Otherness), then Roe v. Wade brought the hostility back, at least for the remaining unassimilated folks. Spiritual war on the church trumped that coolness. You still sort of see that political correctness about Hispanics (who are lumped together thus), but no va; they’re supposed to be America’s Next Big Thing but aren’t. (I’m one-fourth Hispanic.)


  1. I liked it better when Catholics killed Muslim invaders instead of cynically aligning with them and upper-class Protestants against lower-class whites.

  2. Also, you're not one-quarter "Hispanic." That's a linguistic category which has zero meaning in the context you're using it. You are one-quarter Iberian, or perhaps Catelonian, Basque, etc., or you are one-quarter indigenous American (Meso- or South-).

    1. Or one-quarter mestizo (Spanish-Indian mix). As far as I know, my quarter is white Spanish (I don't know which part or parts of Spain) by way of Mexico.

    2. Also, as shown backhandedly by the insult form, 'spic', you can put Spanish-speaking cultures in a category. Sharing a language, a church and a colonial past count for a lot. Like with the Anglosphere. Lots of shared culture: Latin America. That said, there's something wrong and amusingly backward about the politically correct lumping all these different countries together just like somebody putting them down. (In real life Mexicans don't like Guatemalans, for example, and an Italian-Argentine has less in common with most of either. Of course Americans often confuse Spain and Mexico.) I call it the 'Chico and the Man' lesson after ’70s TV: teaching the Anglo kids that all Spanish-speakers are alike.

    3. The white left does it because it's more claimed numbers to use in their proxy war with prole whites than referring to the national groups separately.

      Also, there are the anti-Communist Republican Cubans. Bet they're ignored because they don't fit the narrative.

      By the way, did you know that César Chavez was against illegal immigration? Because he was born here, and the companies he fought used illegals against American workers like him.

    4. Of course he was. Immigrants reduce native workers' bargaining power, which is why the Left has tiptoed away from workplace issues and toward identity politics. The working class is too religious, too provincial and too armed. The Left doesn't want the flag-waving rubes to be well-paid, so now they're all globalists, arm-in-arm with their billionaire brethren who want to reproduce the Third World patron-peon model here.

  3. "Spic," from Dutch "spek," meaning "bacon." It was a Dutch slur directed against the Spanish during the Dutch Revolt, or Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), and the implication was that the Spanish had lots of Jewish blood or ancestry.


Leave comment