John Derbyshire continues to embarrass NRO by remaining alive, writing, speaking
White people are pussies. Except, perhaps, Derbyshire. And maybe the editors at Taki, who may or may not be white.
Speaking of the failure of developed nations to both assert and then defend their own cultural / national desires, lest they be judged racist, jingoist, etc., Derbyshire writes:
[…] You get what you vote for. No native Briton should ever have cast a vote for any party whose platform did not include a clear ban on mass Third World immigration. Why did the British yield on this? Because they’re pussies.
The Scandinavians are even bigger pussies than the British. For example, read this from Sweden:
A Djiboutian who refused to be named in fear of reprisals from his fellow country men, said that he left Djibouti on May this year, and came to Sweden via France. There is no work in Djibouti, corruption is rampant, and its hard to put food on the table there, Life in Sweden is very easy and getting papers is more easier, you don’t even have to work to put food on the table, i [sic] advised all my friends and relatives to come here, most of them are on the way, five already arrived and sought asylum, two already managed to get Permanent residence permit (PUT)
Savor the lunacy there. Given the statistical profiles of sub-Saharan Africans—low averages for paternal investment and IQ, high ones for time preference and criminality—permitting settlement by thousands of Africans is a sensationally dumb idea. Africans from the Horn of Africa, though—Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti—are Africans squared, with societies even more dysfunctional than the African average, and sensational total fertility rates: 6.26, 5.39, 4.37, 2.63, respectively.
(Yes, Djibouti’s 2.63 is way better than Somalia’s 6.26, but the Djiboutians in that article I just quoted are entering Sweden under false pretenses, claiming to be Somalis, who are the people the Swedes REALLY want! Lunacy upon lunacy.)
The Russians—who, after all, are just Scandinavians in fur hats—are not much better. They may have jailed the Pussy Rioters, but their pussyish response to their capital city’s takeover by an alien mob a couple weeks ago unmasks their true Scandinavian pussiness.
Of civilized peoples in general, I think it’s only whites that are pussies, and perhaps only white Gentiles. I don’t know enough about South Asians to give a ruling, but East Asians are not pussies.
To be sure, the Japanese are pussier than their ferocious ancestors, but they don’t do collective guilt and are adamant that the wretched of the earth should stay in their own wretched countries and not infect Japan with their wretchedness by settling there en wretched masse.
China’s an interesting case. I speak here from forty years’ close acquaintance with that nation. What you mostly hear about in this context are the fierce nationalism and xenophobia of young Chinese men. That is certainly a key feature of modern Chinese society, and the Chinese today are not pussies.
Among my Chinese acquaintances, though—especially the women—I think I detect the stirrings of some sympathetic guilt about the occupied territories of Tibet and East Turkestan (“Xinjiang”) and about China’s quasi-imperialist adventures in Africa. If this guilt was to seep outwards into the society at large, aided perhaps by matriarchal tendencies in Chinese culture and history, the Chinese might conceivably join Western whites in pussitude.
And we white Americans? Are we the most pussified of all—the pussies of the world?
That’s a thought I don’t want to have. That way lies hard, irreversible ethnomasochism.
It’s a thought that keeps bobbing up to the surface, though, prompted by some news item or image; or out of the blue, as on the radio that time, too publicly for me to disown it.
I must discipline my mind.
That last bit about disciplining his mind? That’s what we racists might call an ironic dog whistle. Same with smug dismissals of “collective guilt” — which is really only a request that you own up to your own history and atone for it forever and ever and ever, even if that history is not really yours yours, but belonged instead to someone who may have had sex with someone who eventually produced the someones who then produced you, the remainder demon spawn, and even then, took place in a quite different historical context which may or may not have found particular cultural and legal decisions cause for introspection and culpability — and any discussion of so-called “problems” with “immigration,” legal or otherwise, which we all know by now brings only the best and most noble to us, expanding the already vibrantly-colored cultural national quilt with ever new strands of the most hardworking people in the world who simply yearn to be free.
Or at least, kinda free. Depending on what’s available to them.
Today, we can’t really talk about such things honestly, without euphemism. To do so, we’re told, is “unacceptable.”
But the fact is, however much it may make your skill crawl to hear uncomfortable assertions that at least attempt to ground themselves in some sort of statistical or other plausible and at least partially demonstrable truths, requiring that we bracket those assertions from public intellectual discourse is, quite simply, the very definition of anti-intellectualism.
And sadly, with an ear always toward some pretend political expedience, or out of fear of some sort of social reprisal, we’ve been conditioned to avoid speaking in ways that aren’t socially sanctioned, with that social sanctioning coming in large part from institutions built by and policed over by leftists, or those who have been trained to police speech as if they are doing so of their own volition, without the insight to recognize that they are in fact merely helping the left entrench its control over speech, with the necessary control over ideas, and policies, that follow.
The fallback defense of the “pussies,” to borrow from Derbyshire — that is, those who have bought into the leftist paradigm that controls the trajectory of thought and expression, often in a way that we don’t consciously or readily recognize, and whether the position themselves politically on the left or the right — is that there are certain ways to say things that can’t be then used against “us” when “they” attempt to depict us as [x]. And we need to be careful about the ways we express things, lest we be (watch the circularity here, it’s really spinny!) dismissed outright for being impolitic, and our ideas not given a fair airing.
We may not like it, the argument goes on, but it is the reality we live in. And, eg., Derbyshire’s aggressive adherence to a kind of deterministic racialism, expressed without the kind of glancing, innocuous generalities many of us feel constitutes just the right amount of edginess (how timid we’ve become, pussies!) is clearly unhelpful to those of us who wish to win voters, and thereby change the world one shiny happy heart and mind at a time.
All very sober and pragmatic, is such analysis — and yet, what we never hear, or never see even attempted, are attempts to question the very validity of that “reality,” particularly given that “our” ideological opposition is steeped into anti-foundationalist cant and postmodern / poststructural ideas about truth and reality that, very crudely put, gives them license to create reality by creating perceptions and then entrenching them as narrative truths, defended by a consensus manufactured through years of wide-ranging institutional indoctrination, positive and negative reinforcement, shaming, and punishment for transgressors.
So while it may be “reality,” this idea that we have to then accept that reality and operate within it is merely surrendering the game at the very outset. This idea that by even allowing the “controversial data” into the discussion, we are somehow agreeing with it outright or out of some leftist-imposed characterization of political homogeneity or necessity (cf., Akin, Todd), is itself evidence of our preemptive defeat.
I’ve said this before I can’t count how many times, and it remains true now — truer, even, given the enormity of just how imminent is the fall of the Enlightenment paradigm, built around reason, stable law, individual autonomy, and (in the political sense) brought to its performative apotheosis in the founding and successes of the US: unless you are willing to identify your enemy and name them for what they are, you are playing their game, on their home field, under their rules. And to an anti-foundationalist, “rules” can be reduced to a very simple old saw, “heads I win, tails you lose.”
It’s in the language, people. And far from being “fundamentally unserious,” such an observation is the central insight that will allow us to defeat the left. If only we’d listen.
Sorry. But deal. Pussies.