You Cannot Love Your Own People and Be Multicultural

Here’s a question to think about: globalface

Is it possible to appreciate and love your culture and be multicultural at the same time?

I for one think it is utterly impossible to adhere to both. My culture factors into my identity and personality (as do many other things, like genetics and nurturing by my parents when I was younger for example). As such, it separates me in specific ways from those not parented by the same cultural standards. Culture therefore has a natural way of dividing people, at least in a particular way.

Multiculturalism assumes that the standards born out of culture are not only relative but also arbitrary. A history of each society, how it has evolved, according to those who have ascended to power, have determined these arbitrary standards which are neither true or false. Nobody has the “Truth”. We all have different yet equally valuable ways of encountering reality. Blending those interpretations, ideas, customs and “truths”, etc. will only enrich our human experience, so the story goes according to a Multiculturalist.

Multiculturalism is then asking you to accept that your culture and civilization is no better than anyone else’s. It says you can love all cultures the same. While this seems noble and respectable, especially in a civilization that has been told time and again that by having a sense of pride in one’s history, in their culture and customs, even their identity is wrong, it is anything but respectable. One can only have a sense of pride and appreciation of a standard in their life if it sets them apart from others in such a way that puts them closer to an ideal. The only thing that can do this is truth. It is never respectable to neutralize your cultural standard because it is never respectable to deny truth – or even imply that your cultural standards are not true or even aligned with such a thing.  People are proud of their cultures because people naturally believe – even if they are wrong or until proven wrong – that their culture and cultural practices isn’t lacking truth.

The only people who are happy to accept multiculturalism are Westerners, especially white people. But we must stop this destructive behavior and this experiment should be closed off, locked away, and sunk to the deepest depths and darkest hole. You simply cannot love your culture, your people, your way of life and invite an agenda that asks you to think ever less of those things. If some social ideology came about that prompted you to love your family less so you could love non-family more and more, you would naturally be suspicious – but when Multiculturalism and “diversity” implicitly ask you to love your people and heritage less and less in order to love those who are not of it more and more (even at the expense of your people and heritage) people are more than happy and to do it.

Rather than a respectable and loving thing, multiculturalism is anti-culture, anti-human and a kind of hatred. It is a kind of hatred because it exclusively focuses on the unsatisfactory things of a culture (mainly white cultures) until the people are so disgusted with it they are willing to invite every other cultural way in as kind of redemption and enriching feature. This can only point to one thing: a sense of pride and personal respect within a people is dried up and evaporated. This cannot be a source of love – a proper love of self or a love of the many things that make you YOU (true diversity)

Advertisements

Urbanism and the Broken Spirit of Man

IndustrialDuring the day, I hurriedly finish tasks so I can free up time for something else only to find myself rushing through that. I feel rushed. I notice this phenomena all around me. It permeates through everything.

As I drive from work to my house, I notice how hurried I am. I cannot get out of my car fast enough; I cannot get to my destination fast enough. I feel more aggressive in my car and traffic only worsens these feelings. When I do reach my destination, I feel drained from the experience. I need to defuse. I sense that others deal with this far worse than I do myself. A few days ago a couple of Hispanic men ran me off the road and as they passed by they proceeded to smile at me (while flashing money at me for some reason). Not a day goes by that I am not honked at for not moving immediately once the light turns green. Even if I cannot, I am still honked at forcefully. I may get a derogatory sign, like the finger, because I am not going the satisfactory speed of those behind me. Usually, I would think “Tough luck, pal” but as people are getting shot and attacked for not submitting to others on the road (Here and Here) it’s best to be accommodating and move out of the way. But this leaves me sad and slighted; I want to defend myself and confront these people lest my dignity evaporate. People will say “Yes, but you must pick and choose your battles.” In a world descending into madness, a person no longer has this option. Letting others do as they please lest they burst into spontaneous rage and kill you seems like the only sensible thing to do; however, it leaves one always questioning whether they have any courage. That can hurt, especially if you’re a man.

Inside the city, I feel like I am wasting everyone’s time and yet I feel like everyone is wasting mine simultaneously. I often laugh as I pass through traffic, looking to my left and looking to my right, seeing people scrolling through Facebook (and whatever other application they might be using). I honk at them, because “this isn’t the place to be using social media”. But then as I am sitting at a light, I notice that I too am engaging the use of applications on my phone (and I become disgruntled as others disrupt me with their horn). It’s clear we cannot endure a measly minuet at a red light anymore. A minuet sitting with our self inside a car is like torture. We need a distraction.

Urban life leaves you exhausted, disoriented at times, and anxious; you’re more tense than relaxed, rushed,  fearful, and often feel insignificant. I don’t say that this is applicable to everyone, because there are surely people who pretend to enjoy this (or at the very least, people who would never admit to feeling like that in the city and suppress these feelings). Horns blow, trains abruptly stop you (or wake you at night); gun shots and sirens, smog and exhaust, and always more waiting. There’s neon lights, billboards and skyscrapers to dizzy the senses. Our senses are bombarded with anything and everything. Our malaise is grounded in this sense stimulation. We need a remedy…and we know it.

Urbanism (this lifestyle of excess, efficiency, progress, and prioritization of pragmatic affairs, like status and work) is analogical to drug addiction. The drug addict often knows that the drug is the source of his suffering, yet he fully believes it is the only the thing that can relieve him of that suffering. In a similar way, the urbanite probably understands on some basic level that the city brings much internal discord and strife. Yet it some how, like a drug, it becomes the only think that can remedy the agitation. Urban environment intends on cheapening genuine rest and replaces it with a kind of perversion. No matter what city you find yourself in, you are never in short amounts of strip clubs, bars, smoke lounges, fast food restaurants, move theaters and arcades, casinos and resorts, etc. These are brief, superficial forms of non-work, non-efficiency, non-progressive outlets for a person. Let us call this respite. Respite is, by its very nature, short lived and it leaves us wanting more. But ultimately it never truly satisfies or fulfills us either. This sets up the diabolical duality of Urbanism. We’re often given brief periods of pseudo-rest (or “breaks”), which in turn, being short lived and nice, leave us wanting more of it. They’re never fulfilling, because a break doesn’t offer us the time for genuine rest. In a way, we get a glimpse of it but never really experience it. We return to work. This conditions us as a kind of proverbial beast of burden always chasing after the elusive prize. If we want that break, we must work hard for it. But because the break, by nature, a respite, is short lived and brief, it doesn’t fulfill us. Because our activities while breaking don’t actually satisfy, we’re not fulfilled. It’s frustrating. We want more break! (But we have to go back to work to get it so we think). This is evidenced by the fact that people get bored very quickly while on their break from work, whether it be during the day or their weekend (sometimes even during vacation). Sometimes we feel like our break is a complete waste because it doesn’t fulfill us as we had hoped or envisioned it would. So, we start this process over again. What is peripherally happening is work becomes fundamentally necessary for human beings; it make us chase after cheap, perverted rest only to then realize we’re not really fulfilled and find ourselves going back to work to alleviate the boredom engendered by this superficial humdrum we call “rest”. Work is designed this way, because it cannot be presented as some end in itself; it’s an absolute, satisfying good. Nobody would accept that (we all know work is toilsome and burdensome). It removes us from the finer and more valuable things of life. If one can diminish rest (and the forms of rest) as something cheap and ultimately meaningless, work seems like the best thing to do with our time. While work has a valuable place in a man’s life, it does not deserve the priority and importance it now receives.

Urbanism is a paradox. It functions both as sanctuary and desecrator. Inwardly, our spirit is reduced to a vicious cycle (and therefore a trap). One cannot ever count on or achieve peace, which is the very ingredient of genuine rest, with a life dictated by such a diabolical structure.

In truth, that is what urbanism does to a man. It breaks him down into a perpetual oscillating state of restlessness (and restless man is always conditioned to keep moving and doing). Nothing is ever genuinely restorative or restful (not work and not the current/popular forms of rest provided to man). Without proper rest, they have no time for peace and he cannot transcend the economic, working, industrial world. They have no idea of themselves, no understanding of their  emotional states, their intellectual or psychological states or their spiritual state because they lack the introspection to put words to this. All they knows is that they are agitated inside. But they cannot heal because they have no time for silence and quiet. They are petrified by eternity and by Paradise, the stillness of this, believing these as fanciful myths but, by their nature, contrary to “how life is” (and life is about work of course). These are the same people who reduce vacation to a kind of unreality. “Back to reality” people often say when their vacation is over, as if a time set apart for family, for leisure, for relaxation, is surreal (the only real thing being the “work a day world”). They have no relationship with the land (and what I mean here is the joy of a cool breeze, the rustling of the leaves, and the smell and texture of freshly cut grass; they fear the silence and very structure of the country side, the trees, and the vast natural skyline uncluttered by buildings). They are repulsed and nauseated by the “laziness” of rural, un-urbanized people. They are embarrassed by what these people call common sense and intuition (and truths grounded in these); he is happy to reduce this to unscientific and simple thinking. He laughs at tradition as myth. They scoff at their love of heritage as bigotry and racism. Unwittingly, they are revolting against a life consistent with and complimentary to the development of familial and spiritual living. But if you told any of them this, if you told him they were drowning in their industrial, urban complexity, would they possess the aptitude to believe you?

A Paradox of Modern Life

A paradox of a techno-immersed, consumerist age heavily influenced by that modern liberal principle of autonomy:
Like
Take the phrase “I don’t care what other people think” or “I don’t care what [insert name] said or thinks.”

People say this all the time. It’s quite the cliche now; in fact, I think it is so much a cliche now that whenever people hear this, barring exceptional cases when people truly do not care, we immediately assume people are simply trying to convince themselves they do not care, not us. Personally, for the most part, I never truly believe anyone when they say this. Neither do many others when they are subjected to other people uttering this phrase. Whatever else this phrase is meant to symbolize, it mostly functions as a way to convince ourselves (and others) that we have transcended an interconnected community. What others think do not matter (in fact, I would say in a world now obsessed with personal autonomy the thoughts and sentiments of others about my self cannot matter if I am to be truly free). It is no surprise to me that many people say “I don’t care what you think” or “I don’t care what others think” when they go on making their personal choices. It is their choice after all – and not yours – so caring about what you or anyone else thinks is disruptive to their so-called freedom. This phrase is meant to show others that this person, who supposedly doesn’t care, is beyond the influence of other people. They live their life exactly as they please and wish apart from any concern or worry about others – a truly modern Liberal Übermensch.

But could anything be further from the truth? Sure, people like to pretend this is what they actually believe but I have serious reservations about this (and I always have). A world so immersed and controlled by technology suggests otherwise. People who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, fishing for “likes” as a form of affirmation, posting pictures of their life and possessions; tweeting their aphorisms, their vacation spot; snapping their participation at the biggest and best party, or their meeting a celebrity typically do these things because they want others to think and feel a particular way about their life. Our buying the most up-to-date version of a phone, or buying the newest and most progressive form of technology, like an Ipad or Mac computer, is also another way of symbolizing our status, which amounts to a whole lot in our culture. But status only means anything if others recognize and affirm it. In a word, consumerism has driven many of us into an obsession of what others think about us. Consumerism, as it has been said by other writers, convinces us to care more for quantity rather than quality. For example, people usually care about how many friends they have rather than the kind of friendships they have (again the quantifying of “friends” and “followers”  on social media only goes to support this).

This isn’t complex or complicated. It’s just  a paradox of a technologically immersed, consumerist world also heavily influenced by that modern Liberal principle of personal autonomy. You are not beyond the thoughts and feelings that others have about your life choices (which the phrase “I don’t care what you think” suggests), if almost everything about modern industrial and technological life seems to suggest you do in fact care what others think about you .

The Incredibles and Anti-Egalitarianism

SyndromeIf you haven’t already heard, Pixar is working on their follow up to The Incredibles. The movie was successful but not as popular as their other films, like Toy Story and Finding Nemo. Long after it’s release, The Incredibles became ever more popular, especially with young adults who like to indulge in movie nostalgia.

After hearing the general excitement over this announcement, I began to wonder why so many people are feeling this way; after all, it’s not like the theme of the movie is exactly a popular idea nowadays.

The Incredibles is not consistent with Liberal egalitarian principles; in fact, it’s in opposition to those principles. “Supers” – or those human beings with extraordinary abilities – roam the streets of Metroville fighting crime and protecting ordinary citizens. As the supers clean up the streets of Metroville, buildings get smashed, windows are broken, and sometimes innocent by-standers are hurt. A law is eventually passed that forces the Supers into ordinary lives. The supers reluctantly accept this, but many of them secretly fight crime when and where they can. Their lives are a testament of what it is like to possess abilities and talents that elevate you beyond many others while pretending these abilities and talents don’t exist so that you do not “trigger”, “intimidate” or “exclude” others.

And that is exactly the plot. The antagonist of the film, Syndrome, is not a super; he’s one of those ordinary guys who holds a grudge against all Supers because they won’t let him pretend he is a super. However, the world expects the Supers to pretend they’re ordinary (when they’re not) and this is some how okay. This makes the world especially vulnerable and weak to depraved minds (i.e. Syndrome). It’s no coincidence that the villain of the film has a name like “Syndrome”; he doesn’t possess the mental fortitude to accept the very basic truth that some people are in fact better and more deserving than others in some regards. This creates Syndrome’s psychological motive, as he says “When everyone is super, no one will be.”

Syndrome goes onto exploit the mediocrity of an absolutely ordinary world and the Supers who are oppressed by it. The writers put these ideas into Syndrome, the antagonist, for a reason: they want us to associate them with villainy, not heroism.

It’s strange to see a world so in favor of egalitarianism be so excited by the release of a second Incredibles film. But then again, Egalitarians are not always the most logically consistent kind of people either…

I look forward to the second installment of this film and hope it stays true to its theme (although I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t).

Celebrating White Guilt

JulianneJulianne Hough recently admitted making a grievous error last Halloween. She dressed up as a fictional character, who happened to be portrayed by a black person, and so administered black paint as an element of her costume (but she looks like she has a bad spray tan instead). What this means of course is that Hough was, consciously or not, actively participating in behavior that offends and hurts black people. How this is so should not matter – if a black person is offended, that in itself is proof and evidence that there is racial wrongdoing. Many people have denounced her decision for various reasons (mostly because it has some relation to “blackface”), but others have suggested that media outlets are fueling and igniting racial tension on purpose.

It’s not provocation though; it’s celebration of public confession. Hough is publically admitting a supposedly grievous wrong she committed and the media is showcasing her confession (as it does in so many similar cases). She is ready for new, more enlightened kind of life. Like a person emerging from the baptismal pool, Hough is now washed clean of her white identity. Celebrities are idolized (there is a kind of hero-worship with them, as there was with Roman emperors) but not all of their behavior can be venerated (and it shouldn’t be for obvious reasons). The media knows all too well how many people kind of deify celebrities today. It capitalizes on their errors, especially those revolving around racial issues, in order to push a point (which I will get to below). Many readers and viewers of these racial issues and stories do feel provoked though. When people make the comment that media outlets are “stirring the pot”, they mistake the effect these stories have with the intention. The intention behind these stories is to inspire, particularly white people, into action, i.e. inspire people into admitting a sort of ‘ignorance’ (an ignorance that comes along with simply being white). Only then can true education and change occur. The effect it is now having on many people is akin to hearing the same song played on the radio repeatedly everyday; it’s not inspiring, it’s repulsing and even discouraging.  While many whites are still unable, whether because they are not capable of putting words to their thoughts or because they are uncomfortable speaking up on behalf of their race and people, plenty of those reading this story (and other stories) are entirely disgusted with this sort of propaganda. One may assume that successful and affluent (white) people are more than willing to admit to their grievous wrongs (as is evidenced by Hough and so many other celebrities) and if you want to be successful too then look to the example of these celebrities who are learning from the error of their supposed white-ignorance, or a kind of hereditary negligence imbedded into the very core of white people that blockades true “equality”. As the media highlights these stories of high-profile whites reveling in their ‘ignorance’ and guilt ad nauseam, a theme becomes real clear (at least for me): White people must feel sorry for being white, accepting the burden of their ancestor’s errors, in order for real equality to materialize. Julianne Hough, and so many others like her, are merely exploited by the media as exemplary behavior.

The media, in my opinion, doesn’t intend to provoke; they honestly believe it will inspire, as it has many whites in the past, towards a confession for the sin of being white. Here Hough feels sorry for pretending to be – not some fictional character – but a black person. How dare she! She didn’t realize, that as white person, she has a supposed propensity to “offend” and “hurt” others. Ignorance, she says, isn’t always a bliss. The subtle invitation imbedded in these stories is for (white) people to reflect upon themselves and ask “Am I being ignorant in a similar manner?” If my entire social and public life is not geared towards the ceremonial respect of the minority (and eventually abolishing majority/minority distinction) , if I do not observe and respect the idea of national neutrality (no national identity), and if I do not profess a universal condemnation for the white race and the crime of my imperialistic, oppressive ways then it is clear that I am ignorant. I am invited, much like Hough and company, to renounce this ‘old life’ and be born again if only I would repent the nature which stains me and keeps me from true righteous egalitarian living – my white identity.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/julianne-hough-on-her-blackface-costume—it-makes-me-so-sad-195207493.html

What Has Become of the Family Reunion?

What has become of family reunions? The annual gathering of dispersed family members is a fading thing. Setting apart a time to remember the extension of heritage and bonds is likely vanishing. I genuinely wonder why. Besides the fact that family is no longer celebrated, and that younger family members of a generation bent on egocentric living – or “experiencing life” if you prefer – likely no longer find a family reunion worth their own time. I do wonder if there are other reasons.

Childlessness as Virtue

womanRecently I had a polite but brief exchange with two sisters over the role of motherhood and femininity  (and whether these two are necessarily connected). One sister began by posting an article – if that’s what it can be called – which was more or less a collaboration of remarks and quotes made by famous female entertainers and their choice to avert motherhood (and why any suggestion that motherhood some-how completes or enhances femininity in any way is at bottom a sexist, patriarchal remark). Both sisters agreed that women should be able to define what is that makes them female. I made some remarks, which I will hash out below in more detail than I did on Facebook, but needless to say my remarks had no effect and were, for all intents and purposes, frowned upon by every female reading or commenting.

I mentioned that women who avert motherhood and are then celebrated for it are by that very fact celebrated for a “powerful choice”. I mean that when we celebrate a person – or a group of people – for making a decision, that decision cannot be a considerably common or “easy” one to make. Something must make that decision a hard one. I suggested that everyone – even the women being celebrated for this choice – intuitively recognizes some real determinant or condition, intertwined in their very being, in their very nature, that they must voluntarily oppose and cast off. This is the biological condition and propensity of motherhood. If these women do not make a choice to exercise discipline in their life, they may very easily fall into temptation and find themselves impregnated. This means practicing “safe sex” and contracepting no doubt. It means being “independent” and developing relationships that fit more modern standards, which complement the notion that women can “be whatever they wish to be” and a “real man” understands that (and those men that do not are deluded by patriarchal undertones). Simply put, their life must be in order; they must practice, each and every day, with great discipline, their female independence. Like many movements that find their genesis in modern liberalism, feminism is no different in that much of it verges on the religious. Here we find women celebrated in a saintly way for practicing something akin to a virtuous life. In a world almost devoid of any real, religious or transcendent sentiment, a gapping hole is being filed by “new virtues” and “new vices”. “Feminine independence” (or whatever one wishes to call it) is just one of those “new virtues”.  And like many of these new virtues, it is a “virtue” that possesses a self-determining feature (meaning it enables a person to choose what they are for themselves, in this case a woman chooses what it means to be female for herself, especially and most importantly apart from any suggestion or pressure of men). You can see this in many other social facets: gender, sexuality, race, nationality, etc. Where people are self-determining, i.e. defining what they are for themselves (in any regard), there too one finds praise and celebration. In the case of females and motherhood, their resolve to avert motherhood is powerful because, under our current conditions, it is seen as something virtuous (and so difficult, brave and exemplary) and it can only be seen as something virtuous if they are in fact averting something really difficult (and not just something “social” or ‘made up’). This real difficulty resides in a primordial urge and the virtue of “feminine independence” is thereby grounded in challenging this urge and so not sinking into any pattern which would effectively destroy the potential for “female independence”.

Motherhood is just the kind of institution that would effectively destroy this alleged virtue of female independence (which again is why many women are celebrated for perpetually avoiding it in their life, just like the monk that perpetually averts certain temptations in his virtuous life). Motherhood requires a woman to turn away from her self and direct her very life to the meaning and protection of another. Something else outside her very self now threatens (and make no mistake, for many woman a child is a threat nowadays) her freedom to be what she wishes to be. Why? A child demands certain responsibilities, it brings certain duties and obligations, and it brings with it a meaning, wrapped up in a relationship, that you don’t get to choose. But such a life is not compatible with the on-going “creativity” of that “new virtue” of “female independence” which means persistently defining (and redefining) what it means to be female for an individual woman. One must make a choice. Just as there is a religious call to the devout, so too the there is a “higher calling” that beckons females today. So you can hear many allegedly liberated ladies saying “There is nothing wrong with women who decide to have children; however, the higher path is being free of any imposed expectations – and at many times this means casting off motherhood”.

By doing this, the common line is that women are now more “empowered”. This issue with “patriarchy” for many feminists is that it mystifies and romanticizes a drab, boring existence (i.e. motherhood). In fact, there is no real power in motherhood; rather, it is to men’s benefit that women are taught motherhood is wonderful. But it’s seriously questionable that motherhood has no power in it. This seems like a counter-intuitive claim. I cannot say just what that power is or does, as it is clearly one of those relationships that cannot be explained in full nor comprehended completely without a corresponding experience. But any observer can see a real change in new mothers. What feminism often does is cultivate a disdain for motherhood while at the same time a desire for the power men have supposedly withheld from women ( one assumes, by the feminists standards, that this power is the only power worth having – but is that true?).

In my opinion, the best way to defeat feminism is by celebrating real, genuine mothers who have truly encountered this power I think we’ve all encountered in some way.

http://mic.com/articles/112910/12-women-who-had-the-best-response-to-society-s-biggest-expectation?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com