Archive

Archive for January 16, 2011

Geographical Mobility Can Contribute to Social Dysfunction: 1

January 16, 2011 7 comments

People in north america are always proud of telling the rest of the world that their geographical mobility is a sign of social vitality. I believe otherwise-

The type of geographical mobility seen in north america has far greater similarity to continuous forced relocation under communist regimes, than many realize.

Consider the type of geographical mobility seen in Europe where people often live in an area for almost all their lives, but travel around the world on vacations. It would be ridiculous to say that people from Europe are not well-traveled or worldly, inspite of their much lower occupation related mobility.

In contrast, the vast majority of people in N. America (including Canada) move or travel for economic reasons rather than leisure. It is not unusual for many of them to have lived and worked in over a dozen places during their life.

But make no mistake: such occupation related geographical mobility has far more similarity with the forced and semi-forced relocation of people usually ascribed to communist countries. In those countries such frequent relocations were often performed to keep people unbalanced, insecure and insular.

I believe that the effect of occupation related relocation on people in N. America is similar. It keeps people on their toes, superficial and unable to form any lasting attachment with places or people.

Don’t get me wrong- I can totally understand why an intellectual might not want to stay in his birthplace of say.. Bumfuck, Indiana or Albany, New York. But the externally enforced necessity to constantly move from city to city, state to state, country to country cannot create a cohesive society in which people feel at home.

I also do not support attempts to restrict geographical mobility. You should be able to live and work wherever you want to. But creating a world where people are kept in a state of perpetual and involuntary instability will create a fragile society

Comments?

Reaping What You Sow: 2

January 16, 2011 5 comments

Following from the first post in this series, I will pose an unpleasant, but inevitable, question-

Given the attitudes of older whites towards non-whites, and the beliefs that support them, is it reasonable for older whites to assume that younger non-whites will treat them in a humane manner?

Whether it is mexicans, other hispanics, blacks, africans, chinese or indians; non-white groups in western countries have a different age distribution from whites. These groups have a lower median age and higher fertility (except east-asians) than whites.

I have talked about this issue in some of my older posts, such as- A View of the Future: July 13, 2010

Whether older whites like it or not, the west will have to live with a significant non-white working age population or become extinct. I do not, however, see younger non-whites treating older whites as anything other than subhuman.

Why should they? You reap what you sow? and demography is a bitch.

Thoughts? Comments?

Guest Post by Nestorius: When did Race become just Color?

January 16, 2011 8 comments

The 15th Amendment (1870) of the Constitution for the United States of America says:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Most of you think that race and color are the same. But it is clear than even in 1870, that was not the case.

‘Race’ was linked to the type of humans. As dogs, cats and elephants were animal races, so French, English, Spaniards and Indians were human races. Most of the time, the difference between those races were just by name, as an Englishman can be Dutch by origin or a Spaniard can be French by origin. But, generally, it was assumed that race implicated genealogical descent. In America in 1870, the human races that composed its people were the English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, French, Spaniards, Indians etc.

In other word, a race was a tribe.

‘Color’ indicated, obviously, skin color. That’s why you had the superficial classification into Whites, Blacks, Reds and Yellows. Since these names indicate different human types, they also indicate separate races.

So ‘color’ indicated ‘race’, but ‘race’ did not imply just ‘color’.

In fact, what is forgotten is that back then the sons of a free black woman belonged to the race of the father, albeit they did not belong to the color of their father. Evidently, the sons of a slave woman were slaves, but this had to do with conditions not color or race. Thus, the son of an Englishman and of a free black woman was a black Englishman.

As you see, back then color was more like an accessory. One could become member of another tribe if his color was not different. But, one stayed a member of the tribe even if his color was passed to him from his mother.

Well, all that was before the rise of the pseudo-sciences of race and nationalism which are still haunting the minds of modern humans.

Back then, the son of a Dutch was a Dutch regardless of the color of his mother. Nowadays, for example, the son of a Dutch is described as Italian-African-Hispanic-Dutch-Maori, if he counts among his female ancestors an Italian, a Black, a Mexican and a Maori. Surely, such a long description of a person, whose aim is to explain why a certain person looks the way he looks, reflects a pseudo-scientific obsession with ‘race’. There is also a feminist influence, as precedence is often given to the female progenitors, especially if the man is a bastard.

Back then, human tribes mixed with each other. That was a known fact. The belongingness of a mixed person was determined depending on the customs of each tribe. Tribal solidarity, a necessity for the cohesion of any society at any time, was kept even if some members of the tribe had a different color. In other terms, an Italian-African-Hispanic-Dutch-Maori person could not exist. A man had to belong to one tribe at a time, or else solidarity was disrupted.

This is what the White West is and will be suffering from. Forget about all economic reasons that eradicate social solidarity, tribal solidarity has been eradicated. One reason is feminism and the sexual revolution, but an important reason is that people don’t know anymore to which tribe they belong. Well if you are Italian-African-Hispanic-Dutch-Maori, how the hell will you ever know to which tribe you belong?

Because of the obsession with color and facial features, not only are Whites not accepting non-Whites as part of their tribe, but also the sons of white men and non-white women don’t know to which tribe they belong.

With the decrease of the numbers of Whites, with the rise of the numbers of other tribes and with the non-mixing of the different tribes, tribal conflicts and wars are heading to the West. While in the past, tribal conflicts were limited by the limits of country borders, in the future tribal conflicts will be within country borders. All this is thanks to the false sciences of race and nationalism. So keep believing all this crap about ‘races’, ‘nations’, ‘ethnic groups’ or ‘genetics’, it will make your countries the worst places to live in.

Comments?