Paris and Selective Sympathy

By now, people of myriad ideological persuasions have weighed in on the latest tragic attack to rock France. Liberals exhort us to not give in to hatred and embrace Islamophobic rhetoric, lest we play into ISIS’s hands. Just about everyone in the alt right – as well as mainstream conservative pundits and politicians – has criticized Islam, Muslim immigration, or even multiculturalism itself. Certain individuals have been less than thoughtful, with one Israeli rabbi asserting that this tragedy was payback for European anti-Semitism. Just thought white American conservatives who slavishly worship Israel should know just whom they’re subsidizing.

I think there’s merit in both liberal and conservative responses. Longtime readers of this blog know that I don’t hold Islamophobia in high esteem and that I regard it as a distraction at best. I also have a dim view of American imperialism, and like the late and great Sam Francis, assign a large amount of blame to the West’s broken foreign policy. Such foreign policy failures are only compounded by Muslim immigration to the West. Needless to say, this whole Invade the World/Invite the World policy needs to be immediately jettisoned.

However, Western countries hardly have a monopoly on deadly terrorist attacks. Around the same time as the Paris attack, Beirut, Lebanon, was the site of deadly suicide bombings – also claimed by ISIS. Unlike the Paris tragedy, most of the world doesn’t give two shits about Lebanon; understandably, the Lebanese are rankled by this. They feel like Arab lives don’t count as much as white Western lives.

Obviously, any terrorist attack is a deplorable tragedy. Nevertheless, I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear an Arab or leftist denounce Westerners as hypocrites for not caring as much about non-Western deaths. It’s as if they’re shocked or appalled that people naturally relate more to those like themselves.

Needless to say, whites are hardly the only people who are selectively outraged or saddened by human tragedy. Take Uighurs, for instance. While most of the world could care less about China’s repression of this Turkic minority, their cousins in Turkey have expressed great anger – even going so far as to label China’s actions “genocidal.” For that matter, as much as #BLM activists are aggrieved over various trespasses – whether it’s police killings of blacks or even offensive Halloween attire – I highly doubt that the black agitators who accosted students in Dartmouth’s library lose any sleep over the suicide epidemic among middle-aged whites. And going back to our rabbi friend, many (if not most) Jews aren’t as concerned about troubles of goyim as they are about the well-being of the tribe.

For that matter, as China and India continue to rise, the people of those nations will likely care more about the lives of their fellow Han and Hindus than humanity as a whole. And frankly, I wouldn’t expect anything different.

To once again quote Dale Carnegie, a person’s “toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people.” Applied to groups, I would say that a “microaggression” upsets a people more than the deaths of thousands of out-group members. In our Hobbesian world, individuals and groups (exceptions notwithstanding) are innately self-interested and unconcerned about the plight of people they can’t relate to.

Deal with it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Blacks, Europe, Race, Tribalism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Paris and Selective Sympathy

  1. Acartia says:

    Deal with it.”

    And the best way to deal with it is to not accept your “keep the races separate” attitude as inevitable. We tend to care more about people of different races and cultures when we live beside them. You might not like the idea of multiculturalism, but it works.

    • EPGAH says:

      The idea of multiculturalism does NOT work. Those whose cultures lead to failed lives, will ALWAYS be jealous those whose cultures made them successful.
      Because they refuse to admit their culture is the problem, they will believe their betters CHEATED, and that makes it OK to rob or even kill them!
      Look at Black Lies Matter for the most visible example.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      I hardly believe that races should be kept “separate.” I simply believe that whites ought to remain the majority and that non-white immigration should be limited. And yet again, provide me some solid proof that MC works.

      • Acartia says:

        BAG: “I simply believe that whites ought to remain the majority and that non-white immigration should be limited. “

        I guess it’s a good thing that we didn’t allow the native Americans that option

        And yet again, provide me some solid proof that MC works.”

        I provided it to you. It is not my fault that you choose to keep your blinders on.

        OK, here is another example. In the 70s, Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees (I believe you classify then as non white). No problems. We are currently in the process of accepting over 25,000 Syrian refugees (do you consider them non white? They are certainly non Christian). Would you like to place a wager on whether or not this will cause a major problem?

        We have had MC as an official policy for all of my life. With fewer racial and cultural problems than most countries without it. I think the burden is on yo to convince me why we shouldn’t continue along this path.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        I guess it’s a good thing that we didn’t allow the native Americans that option

        I guess shedding crocodile tears over native Americans never loses favor among your ilk; too bad it doesn’t work on people like me. Newsflash: just about every nation on earth was founded by conquest or displacement at some point. Doesn’t mean that those nations are forever tainted with the original sin of conquest. At this point, invoking native Americans is no longer a legitimate tactic.

        OK, here is another example. In the 70s, Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees (I believe you classify then as non white). No problems. We are currently in the process of accepting over 25,000 Syrian refugees (do you consider them non white? They are certainly non Christian). Would you like to place a wager on whether or not this will cause a major problem?

        So in other words, you can’t provide any solid evidence that MC actually works. All you can do is say that it hasn’t (yet) caused any problems. Just because something has yet to be destructive doesn’t mean it’s a positive force.

        I also notice that you never addressed Dota’s query on the thread where we had this original debate. He challenged you to name real, tangible benefits bestowed upon Canada by MC.

        I await your answer.

  2. Acartia says:

    BAG: “I guess shedding crocodile tears over native Americans never loses favor among your ilk;”

    I have noticed that people use the word “ilk” when they have already lost the argument.

    I also notice that you never addressed Dota’s query on the thread where we had this original debate. He challenged you to name real, tangible benefits bestowed upon Canada by MC.”

    No, I provided many examples. He just didn’t like them. They didn’t fit in with the xenophobic narrative that your ilk try to present. (See, I can use “ilk” as well).

    I gave you Canada as an example. 50+ years of MC. Very little racial or cultural strife. No race riots. Strong economy. Well respected internationally. But, I suppose you could avoid all racial and cultural tensions by restricting citizenship to a whitebread, Christian, homogeneous mass. That was tried in the thirties and forties. I don’t remember it working out well for them. Maybe I was misinformed.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      You know you’re grasping at straws when you resort to chiding me for my word usage.

      I gave you Canada as an example.

      And you still have yet to substantiate your claim.

      No race riots. Strong economy. Well respected internationally.

      1) Yet again, the absence of blatant negatives does not indicate that something is a positive force. At this point, you’re just being willfully obtuse.

      2) Regarding the economy, methinks you have cause and effect reversed. Non-white Immigrants only came to Canada (and the US) because those countries had strong economies in the first place. MC as a policy had nothing to do with the growth and development of North America.

      3) Correlation doesn’t equal causation. What makes you think that MC is the reason why Canada is respected, as opposed to, say, other factors? After all, there are other countries high on the list that aren’t exactly renowned for their embrace of multiculturalism. And the US, despite all its diversity and having elected a minority as its leader (something Canada has yet to do, by the way), the US ranks relatively low in terms of respectability.

      But, I suppose you could avoid all racial and cultural tensions by restricting citizenship to a whitebread, Christian, homogeneous mass.

      I suppose you’re adding strawmen to your repertoire of bad faith arguments. On this blog, and on the radio, I have never claimed that the West can become or remain homogenous, and I recognize that no affluent country – particularly an empire like the US – can hermetically seal its borders. Some diversity is inevitable.

      But it’s the degree of diversity that matters. My goal is to keep diversity within limits and preserve the cultural dominance of whites in countries where they’re majorities.

      That was tried in the thirties and forties. I don’t remember it working out well for them. Maybe I was misinformed.

      I guess you were misinformed. If I recall correctly, the US had a booming economy and rising standards of living prior to opening up its borders to the 3rd world post-1965. Again, correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I have a hard time buying your assertion that North American societies were shitty places prior to mass immigration/multiculturalism. I also confess that I don’t know as much about Canada.

      But seriously, Acartia, in the interest of not wasting any more time, put up or shut up. Give me real evidence of MC’s benefits. Continuing to throw out unsubstantiated arguments, using faulty logic, and shifting the goalposts – for the umpteenth time, the simple lack of blatant violence and disruption does not constitute “success” – do not qualify as valid arguments in favor of MC.

      I eagerly await your reply

      • Acartia says:

        MC as a policy had nothing to do with the growth and development of North America.”

        In this we agree. Our growth was significantly and positively affected by the exploitation of other races and cultures, not by their fair and equal treatment. Do you really want to hang your hat on that? If you doubt me, just look at how both of our countries treated, and profited by, blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.

        I guess you were misinformed. If I recall correctly, the US had a booming economy and rising standards of living prior to opening up its borders to the 3rd world post-1965.”

        And so did Canada. Before and after. What’s your point? And, if I remember correctly, we were in a massive depression before the war, when both countries were more homogenized than after the war.

        And the US, despite all its diversity and having elected a minority as its leader (something Canada has yet to do, by the way), the US ranks relatively low in terms of respectability.”

        And the US has never had a leader that came from the majority (Women). Again, what’s your point?

        You keep saying that I have not identified any benefits of MC. I point to things like no race riots, but you ignore that. Why is that? I point out things like increased knowledge and understanding of other cultures and races. You ignore that and say that you can get the same benefit from travel. Which is true, except for the small inconvenient fact that the vast majority of people never travel.

        You mentioned that the US is less respected than many other countries. Did you ever think that this might be due to the general lack of knowledge of other countries by the majority of its citizens?

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Our growth was significantly and positively affected by the exploitation of other races and cultures, not by their fair and equal treatment. Do you really want to hang your hat on that? If you doubt me, just look at how both of our countries treated, and profited by, blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.

        Okay, so white people were mean in the past. I fail to see how that’s relevant to this discussion.

        What’s your point?

        Umm, you’re the one trying to link a good economy to MC. I’m just showing you that the two hardly go together.

        And the US has never had a leader that came from the majority (Women). Again, what’s your point?

        First of all, we’re talking about race/ethnicity, not gender, so don’t go off topic. But anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that despite the fact that you claim Canada is so enlightened and MC, you have yet to elect a minority leader. That’s rather telling, if you ask me.

        I point to things like no race riots, but you ignore that. Why is that?

        Because, there would be no race riots if countries decided to remain homogenous. Therefore, MC isn’t bringing anything new or good to the table that wouldn’t already exist in less diverse societies. I can’t believe this is so difficult to understand.

        I point out things like increased knowledge and understanding of other cultures and races. You ignore that and say that you can get the same benefit from travel. Which is true, except for the small inconvenient fact that the vast majority of people never travel.

        You can also increase your understanding via books and intellectual curiosity. Many Europeans speak good English without importing entire English speaking populations. And I’m also guessing that most don’t extensively travel to English speaking countries.

        You mentioned that the US is less respected than many other countries. Did you ever think that this might be due to the general lack of knowledge of other countries by the majority of its citizens?

        Of course. Likewise, did you ever think that perhaps Canada is respected on account of its high standard of living and its more humane foreign policy, as opposed to MC?

        Yet again, you fail to provide any convincing evidence. Unless you can give me some solid proof that doesn’t involve grasping at straws or shifting the goalposts, this will be my last response for now.

  3. acartia says:

    Yet again, you fail to provide any convincing evidence. “

    Yet again, you have not provided me with any benefit to me, a white anglo Canadian, by discarding the MC policy that we have had for well over half a century.

    “Okay, so white people were mean in the past. I fail to see how that’s relevant to this discussion.”

    Your argument that a homogenized, white population is better for whites than MC. And you have frequently used the past as an example. So I think that my comment is very relevant. Much of the benefits that whites enjoyed prior to liberalization and MC were at the expense of other races and cultures that we exploited within our borders to obtain this wealth and prosperity. I’m sorry, but I am not prepared to prosper if the only means of me doing this is to oppress others.

    First of all, we’re talking about race/ethnicity, not gender, so don’t go off topic.”

    How is this off topic? A minority is a minority.

    But anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that despite the fact that you claim Canada is so enlightened and MC, you have yet to elect a minority leader.”

    We have elected numerous minority leaders. Why do you assume that minority can only refer to skin colour? We have had numerous french Canadian leaders, in spite of the fact that the French are a minority in our country.

    Because, there would be no race riots if countries decided to remain homogenous. Therefore, MC isn’t bringing anything new or good to the table that wouldn’t already exist in less diverse societies.”

    Your point simply is not supported by the evidence. Canada and many European countries are as racially diverse as the US and have never had race riots. This doesn’t mean that we do not have friction between the races and cultures, but because we embrace MC, both in law and in action, we are somehow able to avoid the violence that you have had in the US.

    “Many Europeans speak good English without importing entire English speaking populations.”

    This is because English is the language of business. I have travelled to countries in ever continent and can’t speak a word of any other language (except beer. I have my priorities) and have never had a problem.

    You sit here and complain about the increasing level of violence and strife in the US and equate it to increasing diversity, with no evidence. As you have said, correlation is not causation. So far this year, the US has had 355 mass shootings. Canada has had zero. This has more to do with differences in gun culture than in racial/ethnic culture.

  4. Dota says:

    Hey Acartia

    Did you know burgers aren’t junk food at all? Burgers don’t cause AIDS even Cancer. That’s why they aren’t junk food and can safely be consumed every day, all 3 meals. It doesn’t matter that they clog your arteries with cholestrol and increase your chance of heart failure, but because they don’t cause STDs and Cancer, they are not junk food.

    • Acartia says:

      Sorry Dota, I don’t get your point. Were you trying to draw some analogy? Hopefully it wasn’t the “guns don’t kill people…” nonsense. .

      • Guy from Montréal says:

        Acartia, where in Canada do you live? big city or the country?

      • Dota says:

        Acartia

        The point, my leftist friend, is that even if MC doesn’t cause the problems you have in mind, it doesn’t mean that it is a good thing. Burgers might not give you AIDS but that doesn’t mean that they can be safely eaten everyday. Even if MC doesn’t cause race riots that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cause other problems, like plummeting wages and the financial costs of accommodating third world immigrants (who pays for things like the Open door society?).

        I asked you this before and I’ll do it again. How do third world immigrants improve the quality of life for other Canadians? Do they launch conglomerates that hire thousands of Canadians? Do they make substantial contributions to high culture by funding theaters and such? Do they improve the per capita income of this country (quite the contrary in reality)?

        MC isn’t free, and so far, the costs outweigh the benefits. Only a fool would advocate a venture with low returns. The businessman in me believes that the opportunity cost of MC makes it not worth the expense. The resources wasted on useless MC programs could be better used to improve infrastructure and provide manufacturing incentives.

  5. acartia says:

    GFM: “Acartia, where in Canada do you live? big city or the country?”

    Fourth largest city in North America.

    • Guy from Montréal says:

      If MC is so great then why doesn’t every country practice it then? why just the western countries?

      • Acartia says:

        You would have to ask them. But my guess would be a xenophobic fear of anything different and a fear that their own values would be found wanting.

        Sound familiar BAG and Dota?

  6. A Swain says:

    Multiculturalism is a scourge apart from the fact it’s basically unnatural.

    To have several different racial/ethnic groups occupying the living space of one other group, inevitably gives rise to conflict as each tries to usurp the host as well as one another.

    In order to control the situation, draconian measures are legislated into law which are usually targeted at the majority group since it’s the majority group whose living space(s) it is that are being overrun by a myriad of uninvited out groups and who, when the majority group(s) then object to their own ethnic cleansing, are consequently vilified with charges of racism, xenophobia and intolerance including threats of loss of livelihood, prosecution and imprisonment as well as being compelled to accept their own territorial/cultural dispossession as their living spaces(s) increasingly fill up with racial and cultural aliens demanding parity and equality which is further reinforced by racial privilege concessions such as Affirmative Action and quota systems awarded to the racial/cultural aliens at the expense of the majority host.

    No non-White host majority would tolerate such racist treatment for long were the roles reversed.

    Just from the above ill effects alone, it’s patently obvious that multiculturalism does NOT work – why it is discriminatory, racist and downright divisive aside from the fact, it reduces rates of pay especially amongst the lower Middle and Working Classes and as a result also decreases the standard of living, puts extreme pressure on essential civic services as well as causing an accelerated crime rate, overcrowding and assorted disease risk incidents upon all involved.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      In order for diversity to work, there are two major prerequisites: a powerful state and abundant resources.

      People are willing to tolerate, or even embrace, strangers in their midst when they’re prosperous and happy. In my opinion, it’s no coincidence that the civil rights movement and immigration liberalization succeeded during a time of unprecedented prosperity.

      But otherwise, people will grudgingly tolerate outsiders if a powerful state is prepared to bring down the hammer in the event of sectarian conflict.

      In today’s US, the economy continues to suck while more and more people are rejecting the legitimacy of the state. If history is any indication, we’re in for some rocky times ahead.

      To be clear, I’m not predicting a race war or bloodbath. Most Americans are too distracted by cheap entertainment and other distractions. However, the US will be characterized by increasing distrust and rancor – none of which bodes well for a healthy society.

  7. Quartermain says:

    The Leftists are fools. The best way to bring peace is not to bring people together but leave them alone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s