Culture, by its very nature, discriminates. It sets a people who give it a life apart from those not embraced by it. A culture, like a nation, always shares a unique history and relationship with a very particular group of people. White Europeans are responsible for the high culture of Western Civilization. Their work in science and medicine, technology and engineering, political and economic policies have been so pragmatically important that foreigners literally risk their lives in order to benefit from these rewards. But the problem of immigration – or more properly legislated foreign colonization – is quite clear today: foreigners are not willing to renounce their heritage and history, their culture or their ethnic, racial and national affiliations. Many of them are keen on the advantageous position they are in due in large part to Multiculturalism and diversity, for the vast majority of foreigners exploit white people, who are conditioned by the agendas of diversity and inclusivity to welcome, tolerate, give and support those who are not white as a sign of good faith and moral character (and if you do not support non-whites, then you simply lack these traits and are branded a “racist” and “bigot”). In order for Liberal egalitarianism and multicultural agendas to succeed, the barriers of a culture, which is a unique element for any people, must be broken down in order for absolute inclusivity of all people. While this is now often promoted as something good and enriching – even enlightening – liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism is an anti cultural movement and anti human. Anything that seeks to subtley destroy a fundamental element of human identity and personality cannot be good for human beings in that regard, or at least it cannot be good for a particular group of humans. A movement that subverts the very culture of a people cannot, at the same time, be a benefit to that culture. A culture distinguishes a group of people from another group of people, so it’s an element of identity and personality. The attractiveness and beneficial nature of Western Civilization has brought all kinds of people here in search of “something better”. This presupposes the fact that Western Civilization is a higher and more superior culture than the rest. There is no other reason for mass migration from the Third World except that Western Culture is “something better”. But a culture is not some disembodied entity that informs a people, rather a people create and inform a cultural standard. Thus, culture reflects the characteristics of ethnicity and race. We cannot blame the culture for creating people, we must blame the people for creating the culture. Only they can change the culture and indeed it is their responsibility to do so (and any time another people tries to change a culture not their own, there is the feeling of a threat). This is clearly seen in more Conservatively Liberal policies where changing the culture of blacks will inevitable lead to changed black people. But this has backfired and made blacks more isolated and more threatened as a group. The reason is simple: Those outside a group that seek to change the cultural standards of a people will generate anxiety and a feeling of threat within that people (and following this are tensions between those groups). But the same is happening to white people and white, Western Civilization on a whole. Europe, America and Canada are bleeding. Multiculturalism and diversity are a weaponized means to conquer Western civilization. For as long as Western Civilization is herald as “something better” there must necessarily be something worse, i.e. the Third world. The conditions that make the Western world great must be shattered in order to break down those last discriminating features which exclude non-westerners. Thus, multiculturalism and diversity ask us to appreciate the differences of other groups as an equal yet different avenue of human expression. But it is these very differences of other, non Western groups that have made non-Westerners “something less” and in search of “something better”. So, asking us to appreciate those cultural differences as adding to our culture is a ridiculous request! By asking us to view our cultural standards, our traditions, our religious history as something equal to other cultures and histories amounts to us no longer favoring and revering our way of life as something unique. These requests are the requests of “outsiders” and they are intended to obliterate any responsibility of the foreigner and the minority to adapt and therefore appreciate 1) Western society and 2) the fact that their cultural standards were not capable in providing them with a happy life. The “outsider” makes these requests in order to easily transit from their society to ours and thereby absorb resourses necessary for their success without identifying as one of us (and without admitting the failures of his own culture). This is precisely what the vast majority of Hispanics do by coming here, bleeding our social services, exploiting the economy and then sending that money back to their motherlands. When a culture is bastardized and perverted, the people related to it are overthrown in their own countries, they’re polluted from without by ideas and theories which have proven historically harmful for other people and nations, and they are asked never under any circumstances to question the differences of others, even if they are a swelling infection
Tony Robinson Jr., the teen from Madison, Wisconsin that was killed recently, issued remarks about himself before his death. Another teen is dead, more demonstrations (albeit far less intense ones than those in Ferguson) are underway, and all evidence points to the fact- as it so often has in the many previous cases – that a thug was shot practicing thuggery.
But “thuggery” is just another “lifestyle”; a lifestyle that is but another complimentary instantiation of human expression. Thankfully, as it has been suggested in one way or another, our egalitarian driven society will further expand our understanding about the vast richness and uniqueness of humanity. Unfortunately, a society wrought with traditional sentimentality and deeply embedded Conservative undertones is not primed to experience this profound human diversity. And what a culture it is: A bastardized version of the English language (ebonics), a unique fashion sense (sagging, over-sized everything, and flashy gold chains – and even teeth), artistic expression (like the glorification of crime and vice, female objectification, and perversion – the most recent example is Nicki Minaj’s “truffle butter”). Truly, we are missing out! Our blinders have surely blockaded the wonderful vision of human “diversity”.
Before his death, Robinson was arrested for armed robbery. He stole an XBOX and television. After his arrest, according to the report CNN has issued (below), Robinson said (to paraphrase) that cops were the kind of people who shot others and asked questions later. Per usual, Robinson (like so many others) is not responsible for his actions. Rather “society” is responsible – or in other cases, a “culture of violence”, a “rape culture”, a “drug culture”; sometimes “big business” is responsible, the “oil industry”; or the “Republicans” and “Democrats”. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that many people wish to represent abstract concepts and entities as concrete things capable of accepting responsibility. But can concepts be responsible in a proper sense, like an individual? Surely they can be influential and persuasive – but can they be responsible for actions in such a way that we can place blame on them and remove it from others (as if to say people are coerced or even possessed by these specters)?
Protecting human autonomy from standards beyond itself is part of the policing Liberals practice. The idea of imposed “right and wrongs” is preposterous nowadays. The suggestion that a person must live their life a particular way is inconsistent with Liberalism. This leaves the human person as something neutral, without a nature, without inherent qualities, and left to their own “creativity” they become the arbiters of their very own meaning. Who are we to say otherwise? But this presents a peculiar problem for Liberals. How does one deal with incidents like Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and now Tony Robinson? We cannot interpret crime as just another form of human expression that must be equally respected, can we? Maybe the “thug life chose them”?
Blame is placed where it doesn’t – and likely cannot – belong. It is placed on abstract things; the sorts of things people usually do not question (for some odd reason). Tony was a kid who “struggled to fit in” with others. It was his desire to “fit in” with others that compelled this innocent, young man down the criminal path. When someone wishes to “fit in”, a prescribed or set expectation for their life is presupposed. Basically, they must be what something or someone else has told them to be (or they don’t “fit in”). Therefore, they don’t get to choose who and what they become in life. That’s set – you’re either this or you or not (and you will fail at life if you’re not). See the problem here? Tony didn’t really get to choose; “society” chose for him. It’s “societies” fault! Blame it! Change it!
By doing this, thugs like Mike Brown and others are open for the masses to embrace for their own interpretative pursuits. One side will say “It was racially motivated” (institutionalized racism), another will say “Science has shown us how poor and hard environments act on a personality” (social environments), others will say “It’s black culture. We have to help change it.” (culture) All of these can be traced to one, fundamental term: “Society”. The problem is everyone of these is wrong – but they act as a catalyst for a more clandestine plan. With human responsibility removed from the equation, Liberalism can exact change. By doing this, Liberalism saves itself the embarrassment of anymore inconsistencies (in this sense, it avoids the inconsistency of trying to change the individual and thereby toggle with its choice and freedom – or “creativity”). Liberalism can then attack and change something non-human – “Society”. As long as the majority of people believe in personal responsibility, Liberalism is at odds with the majority. If the majority of people placed blame on “society” – or at the very least, facets of society – then potentially Liberalism could easily change society as it saw fit.
So, when Robinson says “I hate my mind” or “My soul is dying” – he cannot be held accountable here. It’s not his choices that brought about this devastation. No, it was “not fitting in” and his slew of diseases that caused him to hate his mind. What brought these about if not “society”? If he actually had diseases, did his environment bring it about? If so, how can we change “society” to better help these situations? If his diseases were genetic, how can we better advance “society” and “science” to help us solve these problems in the future?
Now you’re waiting for some abstract thing to solve the problem (instead of an individual of course)…