Monday, November 2, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
It's a boy!
Yes, that's right. Yours truly is the absurdly proud new father of a healthy and beautiful son. If my blog posts become less frequent for a time, you'll know why.
All the best.
All the best.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
The tension between Judeo-Christian values and paganism is at the core of Western Civilization's monumental contributions to human culture. The pendulum has been swinging between those two points for millennia. Those who would uproot Christian uprightness would upright our ancestral foundation. Those who attack science and paganism willy-nilly would do the same.
Preserve the tension. Have the gonads to deal with a bit of cognitive dissonance, people. In the meantime, enjoy this video set to the achingly pagan strains of the well-known Norwegian Black Metal band Emperor.
Preserve the tension. Have the gonads to deal with a bit of cognitive dissonance, people. In the meantime, enjoy this video set to the achingly pagan strains of the well-known Norwegian Black Metal band Emperor.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Europe is changing to accomodate Islam, says US author
Europe is changing to accomodate Islam, says US author
By Marc Leijendekker
In Germany the number of immigrants grew from 3 million in 1971 to 7.5 million in 2000, but the number of immigrants with jobs remained more or less equal, at around 2 million.
This is the kind of statistic that Christopher Caldwell likes to point out, because it illustrates a blind spot that politicians in most Western European countries have when it comes to the economic and social cost of immigration, he says.
Caldwell, an American writer and a journalist, has written a polemic book about the issue: Reflections on the revolution in Europe: Can Europe be the same with different people in it?
In a nutshell: the economic benefits of immigration were short-lived and marginal while the social consequences have been far-reaching and have led to a watering-down of traditional European values.
Flesh and blood people
Critics of the book often argue that it is inappropriate to discuss the cost of immigration because it is about flesh and blood people. Caldwell thinks this is absurd.
"The question about the economic cost of immigration is entirely legitimate. The justification for [the] mass immigration [of the seventies] was economic too: Europe's industry needed guest workers. You can't argue that immigration is necessary on economic grounds and then not look at the economic effects."
American economists like George Borjas and David Card have done extensive research into the economic effects of immigration in the US. "Far too little such research has been done in Western European countries with high immigration," Caldwell said during a recent telephone interview from Washington, DC. Had it been done, Caldwell thinks, the perspective on mass immigration would have been radically changed.
'The welfare state is like a dying industry that needs to be rescued with foreign immigrants'
Christopher Caldwell
From the mid-fifties until the mid-seventies, countries like Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium set up programmes for guest workers. Their net impact on the economy has not been positive, Caldwell argues.
"Rather, they were a brake on the rise in productivity. The main effect was that industries that were doomed to become extinct were allowed to stay afloat a couple of years longer, such as the steel industry or shipyards."
Selective immigration
All too often people argue that immigration is necessary to fill those jobs that local workers refuse to do, says Caldwell. "But as soon as immigrants have settled in, they too run away from those jobs. Europe would have done better to choose for selective immigration, like Canada." Britain, Ireland and Switzerland now have successful programmes to attract foreign doctors, but Caldwell says Europe still hasn't embraced selective immigration wholeheartedly.
He also rejects the argument that immigrants are needed to compensate for the ageing population of Western Europe.
"Perhaps this is partly true for the services industry, like nursing or the restaurant business. But it is philosophically illogical to bring people from poor parts of the world to your country and think that by having them work and pay taxes, you will be able to pay the pensions of the rich. It is also nonsense from an economic point of view. These people will eventually retire themselves. In the long term, the welfare state will not be able to deal with its internal contradictions and will inevitably have to become less generous. In that sense, the welfare industry is like a dying industry that needs to be rescued with foreign immigrants."
In your book, you write that Europe became an immigration region ‘in a fit of absence of mind’, without a public debate or conscious choices. Would immigration have been less conflictual and more controllable if countries had openly chosen to become immigration countries?
'You will never hear an American say what you hear in Amsterdam, that immigrants don't want to work'
Caldwell: "I have never completely understood that definition. I first heard the expression 'immigration country' from a German woman. She said that America should allow an unlimited number of immigrants in and Germany none. When I asked her why she said: 'America is an immigration country, Germany isn't.’ To me that means that Americans are more open towards immigration, whereas European society is much more normative."
Has immigration been forced upon us then, by powerful economic interests?
"The way immigration came about in Europe does show the economic interests behind it, even if they were all short-term gains. Germany is a good example. The Gastarbeiterprogram was well-intended: young men would come from a variety of countries to work for two years and then return go back home. But companies thought: why would we send good workers back after we've invested so much in them? It was much more logical to keep the workers and have them bring their families over."
What is your advice to European countries struggling with immigration issues?
"France could set the example. There are many problems with how president Sarkozy runs his country, but his approach to immigration is sound. He acknowledges the religious impulse of Muslim immigrants, but he refuses to make concessions where crime is concerned. More importantly, he is confident that French law is the proper instrument to control this problem. Many other countries have lost this confidence. Take Spain for instance. There is a lot of ambiguity in prime minister Zapatero's approach. When the country needed more immigrants some years ago he declared a general amnesty - allowing people to freely travel on to other European countries. But when a lot of Africans started arriving on the Spanish beaches in small fishing boats a couple of summers ago, he asked for help from Europe. It is unclear where the responsibility lies."
You note that the argument for letting immigrants in has changed over the years: from economic necessity to moral duty.
"During the research for my book I found that immigration is controversial everywhere. Many Americans are against immigration too. But you will never hear an American say what you hear people in Amsterdam say, that immigrants don't want to work. In the US nearly all immigrants are employed. Unemployment among immigrants is extremely low. You can be anti-immigration in America, but there is a fundamental respect for immigrants at the same time. That's something you don't see too often in Europe. And as far as moral duty is concerned: the solidarity principle and the asylum policy in Europe have been extended too far. Solidarity is fine but it has its limits."
'Europe needs more politicians like Sarah Palin who reflect the traditional values of immigrants'
But that’s mixing up two different categories: economic refugees and asylum seekers.
"There is a lot of confusion. The boundaries between asylum seekers and economic refugees have become blurred. Differentiating between them gives you a better understanding of the obligation you have towards people. If someone is not personally threatened by the state or - if there is no state like in Somalia - by the powers that be, he is not a legitimate political refugee. You have to be practical with your solidarity. China's one-child policy is a clear case of political repression, but you can't open your borders to all the Chinese women who have a problem with that."
Another theme in your book are the social and cultural aspects of immigration. You write: "In no country in Europe does the bulk of the population aspire to live in a bazaar of world cultures".
"People in Europe have been far too reluctant to look at the cultural factors. There had been so much violence, so much misery in the [second world] war. For this reason people didn't want or didn't dare tell the immigrants: this is how we do things over here and if you don't like it you can leave."
Isn't work the best way to integrate, to overcome cultural differences?
"I don't think people become less assertive culturally once they find their place in the economy. And there is another essential element to the problems Europe is having with immigrants. Developments in mass media have changed the dynamics behind immigration. Twenty years ago an immigrant in England watched the BBC and Monty Python. Now he watches Al Jazeera. That has big consequences for the way immigrants deal with cultural differences and how they participate in society.
"European countries would have more success integrating immigrants if they had more politicians like Sarah Palin [the Republican running mate in the 2008 US presidential election]. Someone who comes to Los Angeles from a traditional village in El Salvador brings along traditional ideas about the position of women, homosexuality, abortion. If he turns towards national politics he will see his traditional values reflected, however imperfectly, in people like Sarah Palin. Most immigrants in Europe today are Muslims. But the Muslims who come to Europe don't find see anything there that reflects their traditional values."
You warn against the influence of Islam in Europe. "Immigration doesn't strengthen or affirm European culture; it is taking it place. Europe doesn't welcome its new residents; it gives way to them," you write.
'Some countries are changing laws that are deeply rooted in European culture to laws that try to mediate between cultures'
"I'm not suggesting that all European countries will be ruled by a council of Muslim clerics, or that Islam will become the dominant culture. It's not about radical scenarios like that. What I'm talking about is deep changes to Europe's core values, in order to accommodate Islam. A good example is the discussion in the Netherlands about criminalising blasphemy. Or the French court that agreed with a Muslim man who wanted to have his marriage annulled because his wife wasn't a virgin.
"Some countries are changing their laws, from laws that are deeply rooted in European culture to laws that try to mediate between cultures. Look at Denmark. If you had told a Dane a few years back that there would be a law banning young Danish citizens who marry foreigners from outside the European Union from living in Denmark for a number of years, he would have called you crazy. But there is a law now doing exactly that, and people don't just accept it on a pragmatic level; they actively support it."
Isn't that part of the dynamics of society?
"I see it as making concessions. The natural dynamic of a society should be towards more democracy, more freedom of speech. Now it is going the other way. Of course respecting someone else's religion is an ideal too. But the traditional European approach has been to give priority to freedom of expression over respect for someone else's religion. The fact that is changing is not because Europeans have become more religious, but because they are afraid of a conflict with the Muslim minority."
You don't see it as respect for the other?
"It is a sign of respect if you take people's convictions seriously and you recognise that is not obvious for different cultures to integrate. Europa has to choose for a more restrictive immigration policy. It also needs to make a more realistic assessment of how open European culture can be towards other cultures. Europe today lacks large, metaphysical ideals, self-confidence and a vision for the future. When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter."
Calculating the cost of immigration
# In July 2009 Sietse Fritsma, a member of parliament for Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV), officially requested a cost-benefit analysis of the presence of non-Western immigrants in the Netherlands. Fritsma asked for detailed calculations from all twelve Dutch ministries.
# But on September 4 integration minister Eberhard van der Laan (Labour) said in a letter to parliament that the government will not be responding to the PVV's request. "Western and non-Western immigrants are members of our society. Their presence cannot be reduced to a simple sum," wrote Van der Laan.
# A few attempts were made in the past to make a cost-benefit analysis of immigration in the Netherlands.
# In 1999 economist Pieter Lakeman published the controversial Enter without knocking in which he estimated that Moroccan and Turkish immigrants had cost the Dutch state around 70 billion guilders (31.8 billion euros) in the past twenty years.
# The most commonly quoted figures are from the report Immigration and the Dutch Economy, published by the bureau for economic policy analysis CPB in 2003. The CPB estimated that every non-Western immigrant family costs the state on average 230.000 euros. A 25-year-old immigrant who comes to the Netherlands will cost roughly 3.000 euros per year he spends in the Netherlands, according to the CPB.
By Marc Leijendekker
In Germany the number of immigrants grew from 3 million in 1971 to 7.5 million in 2000, but the number of immigrants with jobs remained more or less equal, at around 2 million.
This is the kind of statistic that Christopher Caldwell likes to point out, because it illustrates a blind spot that politicians in most Western European countries have when it comes to the economic and social cost of immigration, he says.
Caldwell, an American writer and a journalist, has written a polemic book about the issue: Reflections on the revolution in Europe: Can Europe be the same with different people in it?
In a nutshell: the economic benefits of immigration were short-lived and marginal while the social consequences have been far-reaching and have led to a watering-down of traditional European values.
Flesh and blood people
Critics of the book often argue that it is inappropriate to discuss the cost of immigration because it is about flesh and blood people. Caldwell thinks this is absurd.
"The question about the economic cost of immigration is entirely legitimate. The justification for [the] mass immigration [of the seventies] was economic too: Europe's industry needed guest workers. You can't argue that immigration is necessary on economic grounds and then not look at the economic effects."
American economists like George Borjas and David Card have done extensive research into the economic effects of immigration in the US. "Far too little such research has been done in Western European countries with high immigration," Caldwell said during a recent telephone interview from Washington, DC. Had it been done, Caldwell thinks, the perspective on mass immigration would have been radically changed.
'The welfare state is like a dying industry that needs to be rescued with foreign immigrants'
Christopher Caldwell
From the mid-fifties until the mid-seventies, countries like Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium set up programmes for guest workers. Their net impact on the economy has not been positive, Caldwell argues.
"Rather, they were a brake on the rise in productivity. The main effect was that industries that were doomed to become extinct were allowed to stay afloat a couple of years longer, such as the steel industry or shipyards."
Selective immigration
All too often people argue that immigration is necessary to fill those jobs that local workers refuse to do, says Caldwell. "But as soon as immigrants have settled in, they too run away from those jobs. Europe would have done better to choose for selective immigration, like Canada." Britain, Ireland and Switzerland now have successful programmes to attract foreign doctors, but Caldwell says Europe still hasn't embraced selective immigration wholeheartedly.
He also rejects the argument that immigrants are needed to compensate for the ageing population of Western Europe.
"Perhaps this is partly true for the services industry, like nursing or the restaurant business. But it is philosophically illogical to bring people from poor parts of the world to your country and think that by having them work and pay taxes, you will be able to pay the pensions of the rich. It is also nonsense from an economic point of view. These people will eventually retire themselves. In the long term, the welfare state will not be able to deal with its internal contradictions and will inevitably have to become less generous. In that sense, the welfare industry is like a dying industry that needs to be rescued with foreign immigrants."
In your book, you write that Europe became an immigration region ‘in a fit of absence of mind’, without a public debate or conscious choices. Would immigration have been less conflictual and more controllable if countries had openly chosen to become immigration countries?
'You will never hear an American say what you hear in Amsterdam, that immigrants don't want to work'
Caldwell: "I have never completely understood that definition. I first heard the expression 'immigration country' from a German woman. She said that America should allow an unlimited number of immigrants in and Germany none. When I asked her why she said: 'America is an immigration country, Germany isn't.’ To me that means that Americans are more open towards immigration, whereas European society is much more normative."
Has immigration been forced upon us then, by powerful economic interests?
"The way immigration came about in Europe does show the economic interests behind it, even if they were all short-term gains. Germany is a good example. The Gastarbeiterprogram was well-intended: young men would come from a variety of countries to work for two years and then return go back home. But companies thought: why would we send good workers back after we've invested so much in them? It was much more logical to keep the workers and have them bring their families over."
What is your advice to European countries struggling with immigration issues?
"France could set the example. There are many problems with how president Sarkozy runs his country, but his approach to immigration is sound. He acknowledges the religious impulse of Muslim immigrants, but he refuses to make concessions where crime is concerned. More importantly, he is confident that French law is the proper instrument to control this problem. Many other countries have lost this confidence. Take Spain for instance. There is a lot of ambiguity in prime minister Zapatero's approach. When the country needed more immigrants some years ago he declared a general amnesty - allowing people to freely travel on to other European countries. But when a lot of Africans started arriving on the Spanish beaches in small fishing boats a couple of summers ago, he asked for help from Europe. It is unclear where the responsibility lies."
You note that the argument for letting immigrants in has changed over the years: from economic necessity to moral duty.
"During the research for my book I found that immigration is controversial everywhere. Many Americans are against immigration too. But you will never hear an American say what you hear people in Amsterdam say, that immigrants don't want to work. In the US nearly all immigrants are employed. Unemployment among immigrants is extremely low. You can be anti-immigration in America, but there is a fundamental respect for immigrants at the same time. That's something you don't see too often in Europe. And as far as moral duty is concerned: the solidarity principle and the asylum policy in Europe have been extended too far. Solidarity is fine but it has its limits."
'Europe needs more politicians like Sarah Palin who reflect the traditional values of immigrants'
But that’s mixing up two different categories: economic refugees and asylum seekers.
"There is a lot of confusion. The boundaries between asylum seekers and economic refugees have become blurred. Differentiating between them gives you a better understanding of the obligation you have towards people. If someone is not personally threatened by the state or - if there is no state like in Somalia - by the powers that be, he is not a legitimate political refugee. You have to be practical with your solidarity. China's one-child policy is a clear case of political repression, but you can't open your borders to all the Chinese women who have a problem with that."
Another theme in your book are the social and cultural aspects of immigration. You write: "In no country in Europe does the bulk of the population aspire to live in a bazaar of world cultures".
"People in Europe have been far too reluctant to look at the cultural factors. There had been so much violence, so much misery in the [second world] war. For this reason people didn't want or didn't dare tell the immigrants: this is how we do things over here and if you don't like it you can leave."
Isn't work the best way to integrate, to overcome cultural differences?
"I don't think people become less assertive culturally once they find their place in the economy. And there is another essential element to the problems Europe is having with immigrants. Developments in mass media have changed the dynamics behind immigration. Twenty years ago an immigrant in England watched the BBC and Monty Python. Now he watches Al Jazeera. That has big consequences for the way immigrants deal with cultural differences and how they participate in society.
"European countries would have more success integrating immigrants if they had more politicians like Sarah Palin [the Republican running mate in the 2008 US presidential election]. Someone who comes to Los Angeles from a traditional village in El Salvador brings along traditional ideas about the position of women, homosexuality, abortion. If he turns towards national politics he will see his traditional values reflected, however imperfectly, in people like Sarah Palin. Most immigrants in Europe today are Muslims. But the Muslims who come to Europe don't find see anything there that reflects their traditional values."
You warn against the influence of Islam in Europe. "Immigration doesn't strengthen or affirm European culture; it is taking it place. Europe doesn't welcome its new residents; it gives way to them," you write.
'Some countries are changing laws that are deeply rooted in European culture to laws that try to mediate between cultures'
"I'm not suggesting that all European countries will be ruled by a council of Muslim clerics, or that Islam will become the dominant culture. It's not about radical scenarios like that. What I'm talking about is deep changes to Europe's core values, in order to accommodate Islam. A good example is the discussion in the Netherlands about criminalising blasphemy. Or the French court that agreed with a Muslim man who wanted to have his marriage annulled because his wife wasn't a virgin.
"Some countries are changing their laws, from laws that are deeply rooted in European culture to laws that try to mediate between cultures. Look at Denmark. If you had told a Dane a few years back that there would be a law banning young Danish citizens who marry foreigners from outside the European Union from living in Denmark for a number of years, he would have called you crazy. But there is a law now doing exactly that, and people don't just accept it on a pragmatic level; they actively support it."
Isn't that part of the dynamics of society?
"I see it as making concessions. The natural dynamic of a society should be towards more democracy, more freedom of speech. Now it is going the other way. Of course respecting someone else's religion is an ideal too. But the traditional European approach has been to give priority to freedom of expression over respect for someone else's religion. The fact that is changing is not because Europeans have become more religious, but because they are afraid of a conflict with the Muslim minority."
You don't see it as respect for the other?
"It is a sign of respect if you take people's convictions seriously and you recognise that is not obvious for different cultures to integrate. Europa has to choose for a more restrictive immigration policy. It also needs to make a more realistic assessment of how open European culture can be towards other cultures. Europe today lacks large, metaphysical ideals, self-confidence and a vision for the future. When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter."
Calculating the cost of immigration
# In July 2009 Sietse Fritsma, a member of parliament for Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV), officially requested a cost-benefit analysis of the presence of non-Western immigrants in the Netherlands. Fritsma asked for detailed calculations from all twelve Dutch ministries.
# But on September 4 integration minister Eberhard van der Laan (Labour) said in a letter to parliament that the government will not be responding to the PVV's request. "Western and non-Western immigrants are members of our society. Their presence cannot be reduced to a simple sum," wrote Van der Laan.
# A few attempts were made in the past to make a cost-benefit analysis of immigration in the Netherlands.
# In 1999 economist Pieter Lakeman published the controversial Enter without knocking in which he estimated that Moroccan and Turkish immigrants had cost the Dutch state around 70 billion guilders (31.8 billion euros) in the past twenty years.
# The most commonly quoted figures are from the report Immigration and the Dutch Economy, published by the bureau for economic policy analysis CPB in 2003. The CPB estimated that every non-Western immigrant family costs the state on average 230.000 euros. A 25-year-old immigrant who comes to the Netherlands will cost roughly 3.000 euros per year he spends in the Netherlands, according to the CPB.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
What is Our Contribution?
Identify that within your culture and ancestry which is true, good, and beautiful. Seek those qualities in a husband or wife. Be fruitful and multiply, and raise your children with those eternal values, rooting them in their own folk and high culture. That is the essence of how to survive, ethno-culturally, without hatred and immorality. Sound simple enough?
Maybe, but such an enterprise requires mindfulness of a higher sort than materialistic and shallow pop culture is ever going to foster for us. We will have to do some heavy lifting, and face our fears with real courage and humility.
We must elevate our consciousness of ourselves as a distinct people with something of unique and precious value to offer the world. A cultural essence which cannot be duplicated from without, but which is of use to all nations. Extending kindness to all, but drawing ever deeper into ourselves. We must become nations within nations, without losing sight of the moral laws of the Universe, and our responsibilities toward our brothers and sisters of all cultures. That is the fundamental problem. Neo-nazism and it's ilk runs deeply afoul of divine moral truth, a truth as deeply embedded within our Universe as the laws of mathematics. (See C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" for a superb and highly pleasurable elaboration of these principles.)
How did the desire to be a vibrant, strong, beautiful and healthy people (all good things) degenerate into evil under the Nazis? Because they employed evil methods in pursuit of good goals. This was a tragic and fatal error. Being a vibrant, strong, distinct, beautiful and healthy people is a good goal. There is nothing evil there. But under Nazism those goals became so polluted by the evil and hateful methods used, that they both failed spectacularly and sinned immeasurably.
Clearly, serious moral corrections are in order, brothers and sisters! We have fallen into the trap of hatred, and would inflict grievous suffering on our fellow Man. By so doing, we undermine some of our most deeply held goals. We must operate in cooperation with God as we understand him, and not run contrary to Universal Moral Law, as encapsulated in the Golden Rule.
We must give to the world, through art, philosophy, science, and truth. Our orientation must shift, fundamentally, if we are to survive. Here again, we have much to learn from our Jewish brothers and sisters, whose religious duty to be a "light unto all nations" has enriched both Western culture and Jewish culture immeasurably.
A culture that has continued to survive for 3,00 years has much to teach us, if we want to survive, too.
Food for thought.
This cannot be accomplished by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a dangerous trap, set by perfectly well-meaning people. We may accept multiple cultures. We may enjoy the occasional frission caused by our interaction with other cultures. We must accept a common humanity with all nations. But if our primary focus is multiculturalism, we will inevitably lose focus on our own, unique culture(s). Our own cultural heritage is where our primary efforts must be focused. The values that sustain us as a people; aesthetics, morals, scientific values, religious values.
Maybe, but such an enterprise requires mindfulness of a higher sort than materialistic and shallow pop culture is ever going to foster for us. We will have to do some heavy lifting, and face our fears with real courage and humility.
We must elevate our consciousness of ourselves as a distinct people with something of unique and precious value to offer the world. A cultural essence which cannot be duplicated from without, but which is of use to all nations. Extending kindness to all, but drawing ever deeper into ourselves. We must become nations within nations, without losing sight of the moral laws of the Universe, and our responsibilities toward our brothers and sisters of all cultures. That is the fundamental problem. Neo-nazism and it's ilk runs deeply afoul of divine moral truth, a truth as deeply embedded within our Universe as the laws of mathematics. (See C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" for a superb and highly pleasurable elaboration of these principles.)
How did the desire to be a vibrant, strong, beautiful and healthy people (all good things) degenerate into evil under the Nazis? Because they employed evil methods in pursuit of good goals. This was a tragic and fatal error. Being a vibrant, strong, distinct, beautiful and healthy people is a good goal. There is nothing evil there. But under Nazism those goals became so polluted by the evil and hateful methods used, that they both failed spectacularly and sinned immeasurably.
Clearly, serious moral corrections are in order, brothers and sisters! We have fallen into the trap of hatred, and would inflict grievous suffering on our fellow Man. By so doing, we undermine some of our most deeply held goals. We must operate in cooperation with God as we understand him, and not run contrary to Universal Moral Law, as encapsulated in the Golden Rule.
We must give to the world, through art, philosophy, science, and truth. Our orientation must shift, fundamentally, if we are to survive. Here again, we have much to learn from our Jewish brothers and sisters, whose religious duty to be a "light unto all nations" has enriched both Western culture and Jewish culture immeasurably.
A culture that has continued to survive for 3,00 years has much to teach us, if we want to survive, too.
Food for thought.
This cannot be accomplished by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a dangerous trap, set by perfectly well-meaning people. We may accept multiple cultures. We may enjoy the occasional frission caused by our interaction with other cultures. We must accept a common humanity with all nations. But if our primary focus is multiculturalism, we will inevitably lose focus on our own, unique culture(s). Our own cultural heritage is where our primary efforts must be focused. The values that sustain us as a people; aesthetics, morals, scientific values, religious values.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Extremely valuable video....
The insights presented here are brimming with utility for us as Occidental people. Pay attention!
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Church is for atheists
By now any repeat visitor to this blog (if there are any) will understand that the unique intellectual, moral and aesthetic contributions of Western Civilization constitute the focus of this blog.
Much of the substance of that civilization is (still) contained in the institution of our churches, especially the old ones (Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant). That vital portion of our civilization is, in common practice, reserved for "people of faith," and therefore inaccessible to the growing number of Westerners who are professed atheists, agnostic, etc.
The emptying churches in Europe are a testament to a transition to secular norms among the indigenous population of that continent. Many, pointing to the bloody history of the Church bid it a decisive "good riddance," and I can understand their sentiments.
But something essential and important is being lost, and it's importance to our cultural survival warrants discussion.
Presently, much of Europe's growing Muslim population is saying "thanks but no thanks" to the cause of modern European secularization. Piety is shifting from Church to Mosque.
That this is a cause for alarm for many of us speaks to our recognition of religion's great power as a means of cultural and social cohesion. We recoil from the veiled woman not because she represents oppressed womanhood to us, but because she symbolizes a potent cultural competitor, a strong and decisive counterpoint to the effete and secular "tolerance" of the non-procreative Euro-liberal. Those who renounce religion may feel as though they have bid adieu to primitive stone-age myths, and right they are!
But science, potent and necessary and fascinating, does not function on the level of myth. And why should it? Science has it's own fish to fry.
Yet human beings need myth. We need stories, poetic metaphors that deeply penetrate our being, realms that ordinary language is too clumsy to describe. Art can provide that. Literature, music, and history can provide it.
But for a culture to cohere, it requires a powerful set of common guiding myths, large and enduring stories. We need to be "on the same page," at least in part, lest we cease to be a culture.
I believe much of the current weakness of Western Civilization is attributable to the crumbling of our common mythology. We are fragmenting into millions of disconnected individuals, without a common mythic cause. And this is made visible in our empty church pews.
Christianity is the mythological lingua-france of European culture. Our deep pagan roots, though also important and valuable, are hazy, incomplete and of limited geographic scope. Paganism has, in fact, fused into European Christian practice, been absorbed into it, perhaps by necessity.
Where does this leave us? Where do we go from here?
Here is my suggestion:
Go to church. Even if you do not "believe in God," go to church. As a North American, I can say that most Episcopal churches, if you ask, will welcome you on your terms. You will not be hassled, pressured, or ostracized. Tell them that you are agnostic, secular, etc., but would like to join them anyway. Connect with your roots. They exist to feed and nourish you. Our ancestors created these institutions and left them to us. They are a gift from our past, our birthright and bequest. You have a right to them.
Much of the substance of that civilization is (still) contained in the institution of our churches, especially the old ones (Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant). That vital portion of our civilization is, in common practice, reserved for "people of faith," and therefore inaccessible to the growing number of Westerners who are professed atheists, agnostic, etc.
The emptying churches in Europe are a testament to a transition to secular norms among the indigenous population of that continent. Many, pointing to the bloody history of the Church bid it a decisive "good riddance," and I can understand their sentiments.
But something essential and important is being lost, and it's importance to our cultural survival warrants discussion.
Presently, much of Europe's growing Muslim population is saying "thanks but no thanks" to the cause of modern European secularization. Piety is shifting from Church to Mosque.
That this is a cause for alarm for many of us speaks to our recognition of religion's great power as a means of cultural and social cohesion. We recoil from the veiled woman not because she represents oppressed womanhood to us, but because she symbolizes a potent cultural competitor, a strong and decisive counterpoint to the effete and secular "tolerance" of the non-procreative Euro-liberal. Those who renounce religion may feel as though they have bid adieu to primitive stone-age myths, and right they are!
But science, potent and necessary and fascinating, does not function on the level of myth. And why should it? Science has it's own fish to fry.
Yet human beings need myth. We need stories, poetic metaphors that deeply penetrate our being, realms that ordinary language is too clumsy to describe. Art can provide that. Literature, music, and history can provide it.
But for a culture to cohere, it requires a powerful set of common guiding myths, large and enduring stories. We need to be "on the same page," at least in part, lest we cease to be a culture.
I believe much of the current weakness of Western Civilization is attributable to the crumbling of our common mythology. We are fragmenting into millions of disconnected individuals, without a common mythic cause. And this is made visible in our empty church pews.
Christianity is the mythological lingua-france of European culture. Our deep pagan roots, though also important and valuable, are hazy, incomplete and of limited geographic scope. Paganism has, in fact, fused into European Christian practice, been absorbed into it, perhaps by necessity.
Where does this leave us? Where do we go from here?
Here is my suggestion:
Go to church. Even if you do not "believe in God," go to church. As a North American, I can say that most Episcopal churches, if you ask, will welcome you on your terms. You will not be hassled, pressured, or ostracized. Tell them that you are agnostic, secular, etc., but would like to join them anyway. Connect with your roots. They exist to feed and nourish you. Our ancestors created these institutions and left them to us. They are a gift from our past, our birthright and bequest. You have a right to them.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Identity, violence, Camille Paglia, and the Old vs. New Testament
It occurs to me (and doubtless millions before me) that Identity, in virtually any form, is inseparable from the real possibility of violence and exclusion. As soon as one forms an identity, exclusion and conflict wait in the wings. I don't know that this problem can ever be solved.
As I read through my newly acquired King James Bible, I think about the broad differences and conflicts between the Old and New Testaments. The obvious primary theme of the Old Testament is obedience (to God), but another potent theme is the building and buttressing of identity, which naturally leads to some smiting here and there.
The New Testament, on the other hand, calls for Christ-like compassion to supersede identity conflict.
American Christians of a politically conservative bent seem to gravitate largely toward the Old Testament view, perhaps to an un-Christian degree, while some Christian liberals blithely ignore all the wrathful and jealous dimensions of Yahweh's character (and by Jungian extension, our own characters).
One of my criticisms of liberal policy prescriptions is that they often place themselves at too far a remove from human nature, eventually collapsing over the chasm between heartfelt idealism and reality.
Conservative, on the other hand, tend to fear and mistrust the better angels of their nature to an unhealthy degree.
In my opinion, writers like Camille Paglia strike closest to home. Paglia understands and accepts the dark Jungian shadow-selves lurking in each and every one of us, what she might call the Daemonic, Cthonic, Dionysian pagan spirit of the West.
Paglia is fundamentally devoted to Western culture and is capable of seeing revival and reemergence where others see only decline.
Her writings can't compete with the King James, but they are awfully invigorating nonetheless.
The Slothful Multiculturalist
I've been giving some thought to multiculturalism as a political and social movement.
I have recently been attending a beautiful Episcopal church in my hometown, largely as a way to reconnect with my and my family's deep cultural roots. The liturgy, language, music and architecture of old Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic church, have a deep draw for me. Simply put, Episcopalians embrace beauty.
My church attendance has led me to appreciate a truth expressed very succinctly by Camille Paglia when she said that "institutions are civilization".
Recently I was having a chat with several fellow church members (all of whom I am proud to consider friends) when the subject of Santaria came up. A church member spoke about a friend who had studied Santaria, and was an accomplished Afro-Cuban percussionist/steel drum player.
Suddenly, the conversation shifted to "wouldn't it be great to bring that into church services here"!
As a new member (and perhaps as a Midwesterner), I felt a strong duty to keep my mouth shut. These are people I really, really like. But inwardly I groaned.
I live in a town that very much embraces multiculturalism as an ideal. It is a University town. Consequently, there are many, many opportunities to revel in a multicultural atmosphere for those who wish to do so.
"But what about OUR culture?!" I felt like yelling. "Where is the space for us to practice our own beautiful native cultural traditions, of inherent value, rich and sufficient unto themselves?"
It was then that I had the realization than many White Liberal advocates of multiculturalism are, in fact, very, very lazy, exhibiting a profound sense of entitlement.
They don't see the riches lying at their own feet. In some cases it is so 'deconstructed,' criticized, and lambasted that they are no longer willing to acknowledge it's greatness (thank you very much hippies, yippies, yuppies and Baby Boomers).
Culture, to them, is the province of "other people". They are merely consumers of other people's culture. They have renounced the heavy lifting of creating, maintaining, and keeping up their own culture. That, after all, requires effort. That is the way of the diligent farmer. Theirs is the way of the supermarket shopper, picking and choosing what others have toiled over.
Therefore, I challenge the readers of this blog; write! sing! play instruments! paint!
Engage with your Western cultural traditions vigorously and proudly. If you are really good at it, and deep down you know it, you have a duty to share it with the world!
I have recently been attending a beautiful Episcopal church in my hometown, largely as a way to reconnect with my and my family's deep cultural roots. The liturgy, language, music and architecture of old Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic church, have a deep draw for me. Simply put, Episcopalians embrace beauty.
My church attendance has led me to appreciate a truth expressed very succinctly by Camille Paglia when she said that "institutions are civilization".
Recently I was having a chat with several fellow church members (all of whom I am proud to consider friends) when the subject of Santaria came up. A church member spoke about a friend who had studied Santaria, and was an accomplished Afro-Cuban percussionist/steel drum player.
Suddenly, the conversation shifted to "wouldn't it be great to bring that into church services here"!
As a new member (and perhaps as a Midwesterner), I felt a strong duty to keep my mouth shut. These are people I really, really like. But inwardly I groaned.
I live in a town that very much embraces multiculturalism as an ideal. It is a University town. Consequently, there are many, many opportunities to revel in a multicultural atmosphere for those who wish to do so.
"But what about OUR culture?!" I felt like yelling. "Where is the space for us to practice our own beautiful native cultural traditions, of inherent value, rich and sufficient unto themselves?"
It was then that I had the realization than many White Liberal advocates of multiculturalism are, in fact, very, very lazy, exhibiting a profound sense of entitlement.
They don't see the riches lying at their own feet. In some cases it is so 'deconstructed,' criticized, and lambasted that they are no longer willing to acknowledge it's greatness (thank you very much hippies, yippies, yuppies and Baby Boomers).
Culture, to them, is the province of "other people". They are merely consumers of other people's culture. They have renounced the heavy lifting of creating, maintaining, and keeping up their own culture. That, after all, requires effort. That is the way of the diligent farmer. Theirs is the way of the supermarket shopper, picking and choosing what others have toiled over.
Therefore, I challenge the readers of this blog; write! sing! play instruments! paint!
Engage with your Western cultural traditions vigorously and proudly. If you are really good at it, and deep down you know it, you have a duty to share it with the world!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Stateless Peoples?
As the demographic sands of the Western world shifts beneath our feet, many of us look to our presently shrinking numeric, economic, cultural and political stature with fear, as the specter of ethnic and cultural dispossession looms menacingly in the imagination. This kind of brain-stem anxiety is natural, inevitable, necessary, but also defeatist, short-sighted, and misguided. In a word, The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.
It is possible that Occidental people will become minorities in many of our homelands, the likelihood and significance of which are to be earnestly debated.
In the meantime, it's probably worthwhile cull insight and wisdom from the experiences of historically stateless peoples.
Our Jewish brothers and sisters come readily to mind. The richness, creativity and endurance of Jewish culture despite millenia of statelessness can only be instructive in an era of demographic uncertainty.
What forces, spiritual, cultural, intellectual, and external have been necessary for Jewish survival, and how can we nurture and develop those qualities in our own families and communities?
This is obviously a complicated question, and the idea of a single "Jewish Culture" (to say nothing of "Occidental Culture") is clearly a simplification.
Nonetheless, if we are to survive the demographic tide as we cycle our way through the current waning, we need to pay attention, use our brains (as well as out gonads), and develop positive, culture and life-affirming strategies.
The right to openly think and speak of ourselves as a people (or more precisely as a large and unruly confederation of peoples, heirs of what was once known as "Christendom") is a sin qua non of progress, and we must politely but firmly insist upon that right. No one else can be expected to intercede on our behalf.
In the meantime, my glorious wife (who is far too sensible to spend much time obsessing over these questions) and I have learned that we have a son on the way. Cheers and blessings!
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Minnesinger - Walther von der Vogelweide
I really love this performer's interpretation more and more every time I listen, even though his vocal timbre bears an uncanny resemblance to this guy....Singers interpreting early music (renaissance and earlier) often bring a vocal approach which, to my instincts and ears, is too steeped in the classical operatic style of the conservatory. It seems obvious to me that much of this music was sung in a much more personal and rustic style, more like folk than classical singing. Of course, understanding the performance practices of this era with total certainty is impossible; in most cases the melodies of the Minnesingers have been lost, and only the texts remain.
(As late as Bach's cantatas and masses, I prefer countertenors and boys choirs to trained female sopranos. Concentus Musicus Wien's performances of the cantatas are absolutely spot on).
The Minnesingers as a group and a genre are absolutely fascinating. They seem to have been the folk-rock stars of their day.
By the way, the etymology of Minnesang is worth remarking upon; Minne was a Germanic Aphrodite, a love-Goddess. Yet another glimmer of pagan tradition in the heart of Christian Europe forming a subtle syncretic whole.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
"The power of kings is founded on the reason and the folly of the people, but especially on their folly. The greatest and most important thing in the world is founded on weakness. This is a remarkably sure foundation, for nothing is surer than that the people will be weak." - Blaise Pascal, Pensees
Nature Deficit Disorder
Not long ago my lovel
y wife and I coined the phrase 'Nature Deficit Disorder' to describe chronic under-exposure to woods, fields, gardens, trees, and wilderness in human beings. At the time we were going on frequent 10-mile hikes through the National Forests in our area, and could not help but notice the restorative power of those hikes on our spirits.
Environmentalism is fundamentally about human well-being. Any talk of 'saving the planet' is ridiculous, as life on Earth will survive handily without us. It's ourselves we are 'saving.'
Industrialization provided unparalleled prosperity for the many, but it has done a number on our relationship with Nature, of which we are a part.
Wildness is a needed salve for the human spirit, and a central theme of traditional Occidental Culture. It is time to rekindle that relationship.
Germans seem to understand this well. I submit the following New York Times article from 2004 for your consideration.
y wife and I coined the phrase 'Nature Deficit Disorder' to describe chronic under-exposure to woods, fields, gardens, trees, and wilderness in human beings. At the time we were going on frequent 10-mile hikes through the National Forests in our area, and could not help but notice the restorative power of those hikes on our spirits.Environmentalism is fundamentally about human well-being. Any talk of 'saving the planet' is ridiculous, as life on Earth will survive handily without us. It's ourselves we are 'saving.'
Industrialization provided unparalleled prosperity for the many, but it has done a number on our relationship with Nature, of which we are a part.
Wildness is a needed salve for the human spirit, and a central theme of traditional Occidental Culture. It is time to rekindle that relationship.
Germans seem to understand this well. I submit the following New York Times article from 2004 for your consideration.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Long Live The Heroic Masculine Spirit
The Great, Great Shirley Collins
I've long had a love affair with the voice of Shirley Collins. Spare and utterly devoid of needless ornamentation, like a river of moonlit silver, always in service of music and story. The British folk revival of the 1960s and 70s has no shortage of brilliant stars; Incredible String Band, Vashti Bunyan, Bert Jansch, Davy Graham, The Watersons, Nick Drake, and on and on....But Shirley Collins is the Queen, right at the center, holding it all together. Thank you Madam!
Ale, Ale Beyond Compare, of Golden Sun and Winter Air!
Few pleasures in life rival the refreshment found in a well-poured ale-glass. Agreed? For those in or around Philadelphia, you owe it yourself to check out Eulogy, a fine Belgian-beer gastropub.
The Non-Obervant Christian?
The non-observant Jew is a staple of urban and suburban North American culture. I have many friends who describe themselves as such as a matter of habit. They are culturally Jewish, have a strong sense of ethnic identity and belonging, but have a difficult time embracing the traditional Biblical religious view of the cosmos. Most are skeptics or atheists. Some have retreated into a kind of neo-buddhist paganism, and why not?
But what about the Non-Observant Christian? Those who find incomparable beauty and guidance in the sacred cantatas of J.S. Bach, the Missas of Ockeghem, Machaut, Dufay? Heinrich Schuetz's sublime Psalmen Davids, the paintings of Cranach, the prose of Paradise Lost or the King James?
We must take caution before throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
This has come to the fore in my life as my wife and I prepare for our first child. We are considering attending a beautiful Episcopal church in our town in order to acculturate and root our child.
So often spiritual truths seem to run at cross-purposes to factual truth, forcing compromise or decision.
Just another day in the life of a Non-Observant Christian.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Where there is no vision, the people perish
Ask a White American to identify their culture. In my experience, chances are good they will have no ready answer, and the answer that eventually comes is likely to be confused and incoherent.
Many deracinated White liberals celebrate cultural diversity, but have only a vague idea of themselves as cultural contributors. They are mere consumers of culture, which in their minds have become the province of other people.
So-called conservatives have problems of their own. With a singular focus on politics, reduction of government, and a reductio ad absurdum celebration of individualism, their defense of capitalism ignores the destructive effects of shallow mercantile pop culture on their own deepest roots
Culture is guided by values, often lurking in the depths, below our awareness.
The resentment many conservatives express toward 'the media' has to do with an awareness of the power of mass media to affect social values, the very thing liberals deplore about 'Corporate America.'
Capitalism is certainly the most effective framework for creating wealth, but is an untrustworthy courier of culture. Absent vigilant effort, it is a usurper and destroyer.
My passion is with a revival of Occidental Culture and it's people. As furiously as liberals attempt to 'deconstruct whiteness,' we will revive and renew it. In the process, we have an opportunity to invigorate and renew ourselves as a people.
Time does not stand still, but guiding ideals possess remarkable endurance.
High time to revive Occidental Culture, but not as a museum piece. Life should emanate from within.
Realist painting, polyphonic music, folk traditions, philosophy, cooking, language and literature; It is time to engage and to raise our children with a profound awareness and love of the classical and folk cultures of our ancestors and to make something of it, plugging it back into our lives and families. We are the people of the scythe, of wine and ale, of bread, beef and invention.
'Conserving' the past is necessary but insufficient and in the absence of innovation, futile. We must focus our efforts on shaping the future, guided by the exalted aesthetic and cultural ideals of our own past.
Time is a mighty wheel, winter will give way to spring....
Many deracinated White liberals celebrate cultural diversity, but have only a vague idea of themselves as cultural contributors. They are mere consumers of culture, which in their minds have become the province of other people.
So-called conservatives have problems of their own. With a singular focus on politics, reduction of government, and a reductio ad absurdum celebration of individualism, their defense of capitalism ignores the destructive effects of shallow mercantile pop culture on their own deepest roots
Culture is guided by values, often lurking in the depths, below our awareness.
The resentment many conservatives express toward 'the media' has to do with an awareness of the power of mass media to affect social values, the very thing liberals deplore about 'Corporate America.'
Capitalism is certainly the most effective framework for creating wealth, but is an untrustworthy courier of culture. Absent vigilant effort, it is a usurper and destroyer.
My passion is with a revival of Occidental Culture and it's people. As furiously as liberals attempt to 'deconstruct whiteness,' we will revive and renew it. In the process, we have an opportunity to invigorate and renew ourselves as a people.
Time does not stand still, but guiding ideals possess remarkable endurance.
High time to revive Occidental Culture, but not as a museum piece. Life should emanate from within.
Realist painting, polyphonic music, folk traditions, philosophy, cooking, language and literature; It is time to engage and to raise our children with a profound awareness and love of the classical and folk cultures of our ancestors and to make something of it, plugging it back into our lives and families. We are the people of the scythe, of wine and ale, of bread, beef and invention.
'Conserving' the past is necessary but insufficient and in the absence of innovation, futile. We must focus our efforts on shaping the future, guided by the exalted aesthetic and cultural ideals of our own past.
Time is a mighty wheel, winter will give way to spring....
Friday, May 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
