What I Think We Should Do

I am not alt right, but believe it or not I think a lot of their concerns are quite valid in terms of the effects of minorities on populations, immigration, the evil of Islam, etc.

Where I (mainly, among other ways) differ is in response. I simply see no way in which mass deportation can be considered moral at this point. We would be dragging people out of their homes – legal citizens – at gunpoint and forcing them on pain of death to them and their families to settle in lands utterly foreign to them. It is not right. It is not moral. It is not just. There is no recourse to just war here: You would be the aggressor.

Might this mean that war is coming eventually? Maybe! So what do we do about it?

Unlike most people, I am willing to say that there is simply no good answer. Deportation is not a magic bullet. A radical change of the school system is not a magic bullet. Stricter immigration laws is not a magic bullet. Trump is not a magic bullet. There are no magic bullets.

What we can do is this: Sell your cloak and buy a sword. Maybe war is coming. Maybe not! Live out the faith in word and deed. Perform the corporal works of mercy. Try to contribute something good, true, and beautiful to society. Repent. And pray without ceasing.

Will this prevent war? Will this solve our many other issues?

Probably not, really. At least not for a long, long time. But that’s life. As Tolkien once said, we are in for the long defeat. Take heart – the final victory is assured. And in the meantime we muddle through as best we can.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to What I Think We Should Do

  1. dpmonahan says:

    Don’t take Vox Day’s diversity + proximity = war line too seriously, guy lives in trilingual Switzerland.

  2. James says:

    I wasn’t thinking so much Islamics as “Dreamers” (and maybe you were as well) and I agree that even though these young adults came into the U.S. illegally, effectively and culturally, they’re Americans, so “sending them back where they came from” would be like sending them to a foreign country.

    Also like you, I don’t have any easy answers. Ethical and moral decisions are always (or often) a struggle and in the end, someone’s going to be mad at you no matter what decision you make.

    The best decision you can make is the one that will let you sleep at night and you’re right again, it’s what pleases God that matters most.

    I like the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, which basically means “repairing the world”. Any kind act or good deed at all contributes to that repair, even to the point of simply picking up one piece of litter that you didn’t make in the first place. It doesn’t make the whole world perfect, but maybe it inches our tired, old globe in the right direction.

    • Actually I am referring to the alt right “They have to go back” position, which to my understanding includes also American blacks and hispanics.

      As for dreamers I think the question is more complex. But if it’s somebody who has been legally allowed to enter and live in our country even *if* it may lead to a bad long term outcome I see little morally permissible to do about it.

  3. John says:

    Quote: “But that’s life. As Tolkien once said, we are in for the long defeat. Take heart – the final victory is assured. And in the meantime we muddle through as best we can.”

    If one accepts the idea that Christ is a representative not only of humanity, but also of all reality, then all of this makes sense.

    Why? Because if there has to be a Good Friday before Easter Sunday, then things getting worse is to be expected, and not only at the level of human history, but all of creation as well. Suddenly, thing such as Futurism in eschatology make sense, and this makes the current situation look like the calm before the storm in comparison to what will happen later, since history will be getting much, much worse, to the point of death, and the same will happen to everything else in existence.

    And what this then means is that things getting worse is a cause for joy! Why? Because the story is going along as it should, we are in the final chapters, the finale is soon upon us, and just as we mourn on Good Friday yet still experience the joyful horizon and excitement of Easter, so too should we lay back, relax and enjoy how the story develops, for we are in the hands of an amazing storyteller, and we know that all of the evil and corruption is in fact the story of reality. and we also know that we are facing the twilight of the story, just before the final word and scene whereby all is consumated. So the fact that things are getting worse should make us excited, since we are getting closer to the ending. Just as the early Christians didn’t count the days that had passed since the death of a loved one, but reminded themselves that with every passing day they are getting closer and closer to seeing them again, perhaps we too should remind ourselves how every passing day gets us closer to eternal happiness, and how the more the world falls apart, the closer it gets us to it’s eschaton.

    But on the other hand, maybe this is just another downward spiral in history just like all of the other spirals, and we would thus expect things to eventually get better as the current system collapses due to it’s own incompetency. In such a scenario, we aren’t heading for a long defeat, at least not yet, but find ourselves in one of the valleys of history, with probably a mountain to look forward to.

    Or maybe that’s just the optimist in me speaking.

    Quote:“What we can do is this: Sell your cloak and buy a sword. Maybe war is coming. Maybe not! ”

    When it comes to war, I am personally a bit skeptical that the U.S. will actually be facing massive Yugoslavia-levels of ethnic strife. For one thing, Americans just don’t see themselves primarily on an ethnic basis like Europe, say, or Africa, but are commited to being supraethnical by designating themselves as American without further notice, and this will have a huge impact on any possible war that happens since the participants would be amateurs who don’t already have a national history that extends back into the past (as compared to, say, Poland or Hungary, or the various ethnicities that made up Yugoslavia). For another, the logistics that would allow such a war to happen are quite problematic to say the least, and would likely have to involve a massive failure of the federal government in order to be feasible on local levels.

  4. Have any of the pro-deporters given any concrete plans on how to, you know, actually deport people? Do they expect some sovereign nation to just import another’s undesirables? Well sure, we did with the Cubans and the El Salvadorians and the…

    As for the coming night I am unsure what to say. I’m far too pessimistic, though I agree with John in that I don’t think a war is coming, or at least not one recognizable as such. Your approach is the best we can do I think, though I would add “build a community” to your list. There is little we can do alone.

    • Aethelfrith says:

      Vox Day was infamous for suggesting in 2005 (2006?) that if Germany could get rid of six million Jews in a few years, surely
      America could do the same with every illegal living in their borders.

  5. Crude says:

    Where I (mainly, among other ways) differ is in response. I simply see no way in which mass deportation can be considered moral at this point. We would be dragging people out of their homes – legal citizens – at gunpoint and forcing them on pain of death to them and their families to settle in lands utterly foreign to them. It is not right. It is not moral. It is not just. There is no recourse to just war here: You would be the aggressor.

    There’s something weird about this reply. Specifically with regards to citizenship.

    How many of them honestly meant their citizenship oaths? How many are, in fact, loyal to the US and not to their country of origin? How many look at the founding documents and history of this country and see something to be loyal to, rather than something they hate and which has to be erased? You can get at least some hints at the answers to this by checking out the signs people carry at immigration protests.

    I think those are fair questions when it comes to whether or not all of this is just. And when we’re talking about a just war – I wonder if the reconquest of Spain would have qualified. And note that Vox always refers to the current state of affairs as Reconquista 2.0 – for a reason. If you can say “Well yeah, Catholic Spain had every right to uproot and chase out all of those muslims, many of whom were simply people who had settled into a conquered territory for generations”, then I think the just war talk gets cloudy.

    The line about sending people ‘to a land utterly foreign to them never works with me, partly because for many of the people in question, moving them *to another part of the US* would be utterly foreign to them. Uproot the second generation border family that lives in a now-majority hispanic neighborhood, where most of the people in the household barely speak English, and drop them in a 99% white Idaho town. You think it’s going to be anything but foreign to them? Will it be more or less foreign than if you dropped them into their home country where they speak the language fluently and the culture/customs is very familiar to what they had in their carved out enclave?

    With all this in mind, I think the racial aspect of this – while important – is partly a red herring. While I’ll say “it’s OK to be white” happily, the importance of race largely comes down to culture, values and beliefs, which tracks heavily to race, like it or not. Drop those values and beliefs, and racial similarity starts to mean a lot less. If we do hit the point where people are going to be chasing other people out of this country, if I have a say in it, the pansexual pagan-atheist with the mental illness haircut who lists their pronouns will be looking down the shaft of a bayonet as quickly as anyone else, even if they’re alabaster. So is, for that matter, the white Catholic priest in the rainbow vestments who lisped his way through a homily wearing a pussy hat. And I don’t care if they end up in “a country totally foreign to them”, because those people – and quite a few of the more mundane immigrant compatriots – have been working overtime to make other people feel like they live in a foreign country in their own neighborhoods.

    • You are talking about first generation immigrants and muslim invader/migrants. But the alt right position to my understanding also goes towards descendants of immigrants who legally answered, blacks, hispanics, etc.

      Now, if war is inevitable unless all these people go back…then I stand by my original position as outlined here.

      If not you are at the very least not as far alt right as Vox Day is.

      • Crude says:

        I think Vox’s personal position is that it’s the post-1965 wave which has to go back, and I think -that- is in the context of “There’s going to be a war, and the war is going to involve those people going back.” As for who should get deported -now- to prevent that war (if it’s even preventable), I do not know. I do not think he includes American blacks in that, detached from recent immigrant considerations.

        The alt-right is all over the map on this, but I think the broad sentiment there is ‘Illegal immigrants, out. Border wall. Moratorium on immigrants. White majority protected.’ The post-1965 thing is very unique to Vox as far as I can tell.

        I think even the whiteness aspect only goes so far with the alt-right. Watch how they react when they find out that the white person mowed down by some Truck of Peace incident was a left-wing pro-immigration activist. They don’t sob. They don’t say “what a shame”. They think it’s funny and karmic. They wish left-wing whites would come to their senses, but if they don’t, hey.

        Either way, I definitely have disagreements with Vox on this.

      • The Vox Day position seems to be pretty clear on blacks being fake Americans.

      • On the other hand the 1965 immigration position of Vox’s is precisely my point.

        What exactly can we do to people that is moral if we let them in legally and they are legal citizens?

        I do not see recourse.

      • And – part of this is accepting that we CAN’T do much. Our spheres of influence are small. We do the best we can.

      • Crude says:

        Re: blacks, I’m not sure. You got an example of Vox talking about blacks being fake Americans? He has criticisms, but I think those are detached from this topic. I honestly think Vox would regard blacks similar (not identical, but similar) to white liberals. Except for recent black immigrants (Somalians, etc) and modern blacks who make it very clear they hate this country, its culture and its founding principles, etc.

        What exactly can we do to people that is moral if we let them in legally and they are legal citizens?

        I’m not sure what legality has to do with morality here. If you were making the argument that a good share of those 1965 legal immigrants were, in fact, assimilated just fine, I’d see your view more easily and I’d agree that’s something Vox doesn’t satisfactorily address.

        But simple legality has no moral dimensions that I care about. If someone comes here from the DR, doesn’t speak English, is on welfare, and their main contribution to the country is “votes for the party that promises increased benefits for immigrants”, I see zero moral issue with exporting them to the DR. Or to Saudi Arabia.

        If the simple legal process of citizenship weighs heavily on you – and maybe it doesn’t and I misunderstand – I’m kind of surprised, since that seems like it wouldn’t fit with your attitudes towards modernism and such. I’m thinking here of your sympathy towards Zippy’s views. What’s legality have to do with morality?

      • As far as I can see Vox is very particular – insistent even – that particular views of minorities on issues have nothing to do it, but they all must go back en masse.

        And I think the legal question is important here because it is the difference between breaking in and being let in, and the difference of being treated as the subjects of the government like everyone else or as strangers with no claim to being here.

      • Crude says:

        I agree that Vox would say the particular views of the immigrants can be irrelevant, but parsing that out would be important. There’s the bullshit angle (‘Hispanics are natural conservatives!’ – no they are not) and there’s the ethnic angle (‘Even if your immigrants are highly assimilated, ethnic loyalties and identification remain, and too many makes talk of assimilation moot’). Vox isn’t saying America needs to be some white-exclusive country, just white majority, if I have him right. And both of these are distinct from the questions of blacks, who are in a unique situation.

        As for the ‘legal’ issue, I’d say Vox outright would argue that’s irrelevant. I’d agree. Citizenship can be revoked. I would be more than happy to revoke the citizenship of any person who had no loyalty to the country, instead had loyalty to another, who had no interest in assimilating or sustaining the fundamental values of it, etc. If you think it would be immoral to revoke the citizenship of the majority of immigrants we’re talking about, I’d be interested in hearing why.

        That’s not a wholly racial/ethnic thing. Again, I’d happily do it to anyone in (say) antifa.

      • Crude says:

        Part of the issue that we may be having here is that I’m no longer a “The rule of law is important!” conservative, or even a “the results of elections must be respected!” one. The rule of law transparently doesn’t apply equally (and it’s not unequal in the way people think), and the ‘respect the results of elections’ shit has been shattered. I feel no moral or civic compulsion to respect these things when people who frankly hate me and anyone like me violate/enforce them at will.

        So if someone starts angrily gesturing at me and says, through a translator, that they received an amnesty under President Reagan and they’re as much a citizen as I am so they don’t see what moral right I have to support their being deported, well hey. They’re not going to be any kinder or fairer to me. That’s what it means when things break down.

      • One of the factors that many of Vox’s commentators wilfully overlook is both the Louisiana purchase and the 1856 Mexican American war. How do you send back the Acadians and Hispanic mezitos who’ve lived in those regions as long or longer than there’s been a US?
        xavier

  6. Bedarz Iliachi says:

    How much does a self-confessed reactionary respect the founding principles of USA?
    And where will the persons born in America would be deported? They have no citizenship elsewhere. Antifa? To what possible place would a white antifa be deported.

    • Crude says:

      >How much does a self-confessed reactionary respect the founding principles of USA?

      Who, me? Respecting the founding principles of the USA is precisely what makes me a reactionary.

      >And where will the persons born in America would be deported? They have no citizenship elsewhere.

      I will gladly support bribing, or threatening, their home countries to take them back. But in reality, I think they can easily be made to self-deport. Cut the right welfare spending and they’ll leave. Combine that with mandatory english laws and you’ll make it rapid.

      >Antifa? To what possible place would a white antifa be deported.

      Venezuela. South Africa. Zimbabwe. And in antifa’s case, I don’t particularly care if it’s orderly or safe.

      Upper middle class white antifa dropped in South Africa.

      Granted, a lot of this is fantasy. In reality it’s going to be messier than that when it comes to antifa in particular, but as it stands, unsympathetic cops knocking them to the ground and forcing their masks off is doing wonders. A bit more of that, please.

      • This is the elephant in the room, isn’t it?
        If immigration is war, wjo’s firing the shots? And if blacks are fake Americans, what exactly does that mean?

        That’s my point. We pretend there are these easy solutions. But while war might be unpreventable I think we’d be a lot more clear that it’s here.

      • Bedarz Iliachi says:

        Self-confessed reactionary –I meant like Zippy who, I believe, does not care much for the founding principles and inveigles against all sorts of liberalism. Or like Patrick Deneen or people of monarchist tendencies.

        However, I guess, even the founding principles can be interpreted to give anti-liberal meanings, contra John Wright, who has recently declared that “all men are created equal” yields anti-racism self-evidently even though it wasn’t evident for more than a hundred years. Reference to Lincoln’s self-declared inequality between the white and black races yielded no response.

      • I have described myself as a Tolkienite, meaning, I more or less agree with Zippy.

      • Bedarz Iliachi says:

        Tolkeinite?
        Shouldn’t you be called a Zippy-ite if you agree with Zippy?
        Does Tolkein agree with Zippy?

      • Well, if I didn’t think so I probably wouldn’t have put it that way. But from what I know of both they do agree at least in broad strokes, yes.

      • Bedarz Iliachi says:

        Zippy sees liberalism everywhere. Is there a single illiberal state in existence or even one that existed in past?
        Perhaps casteist Hindu kingdoms were not liberal. But would you or Zippy like to live there?

      • When you have a real objection, be sure to give it.

  7. Mike T says:

    I think it should be obvious to everyone that at the very least we should impose a hard immigration moratorium for at least a full generation while we settle this. Adding to the problem by creating more second and third generation “Americans” who are from nations with no relation to the traditional components of American society is simply going to make matters worse and also create more of the tragedy of “not Americans who are also not What Their Parents Are.”

    • GJ says:

      An immigration pause for the USA. That has been done before.

      To borrow a Zippyism, it is a consolidation phase because things got a bit too out of hand because of fullblown Liberalism. Once things have settled down during the respite of the pause (i.e. the latest wave of immigration has been semi-stably absorbed), the next wave can start.

  8. Gabe Ruth says:

    Denouncing belief in magic bullets is telegraphing your straw-manning. I don’t doubt that there are alt-right people who are upset by the idea that we can’t deport ’em all, or that attempting to do so systematically would be both morally and socially destructive. It’s just not worth worrying too much about people who want impossible things.

    But as a matter of policy, it should be the position of the USG that anyone in the country illegally is subject to deportation. Anything else is keeping the invitation open, and there should be a continuous flow of deportations as well, though nothing like all of them. Start with the most egregious, and see where you are once that is addressed.

    As with many things, the right policy for an entity at one scale is not necessarily the right policy for an entity at another. It is the height of insanity to ask a continent scaled entity with a global empire to act with humanity. The scale of the USG dictates that it look at the big picture, and things like relative population IQ, social capital, labor demand, and even many of those icky things the Nazi’s worried about are going to be part of the equation that seeks to maintain a functioning society.

    Personally I think that trade policy, anti-trust regulation, and the market power of labor are much more promising areas if your main concern is the well-being of citizens. As it happens Trump was the most promising candidate on those issues as well.

    • “Denouncing belief in magic bullets is telegraphing your straw-manning.”

      You don’t say.

      “But as a matter of policy, it should be the position of the USG that anyone in the country illegally is subject to deportation.”

      That isn’t the alt right position – only a part of it – but yes, I agree.

      As for the rest of your comment you accused me of strawmanning then waffled off vaguely on other topics.

      But see, there’s the thing. We can’t ask a continent scaled with a global empire to “act with humanity” (which is vague enough to mean very little anyway), which is exactly my point, depending on how strongly you mean that. There is little we CAN do. But we pretend there are these solutions that aren’t really open to us.

  9. Mike T says:

    We would be dragging people out of their homes – legal citizens – at gunpoint and forcing them on pain of death to them and their families to settle in lands utterly foreign to them. It is not right. It is not moral. It is not just. There is no recourse to just war here: You would be the aggressor.

    In the case of California, I can’t agree with this. There are a lot of folks there that deserve it richly, particularly the higher you go up the socioeconomic ladder. Don’t let a piece of paper convince you otherwise. A whole lot of them almost certainly either lied during their citizenship oath or were incapable of understanding what it meant.

    • Okay, but now we’re heading for the trees and missing the forest.

      Illegals, criminals, liars, etc. are in a different category.

      But what exactly do we mean by they ALL have to go back? How many generations back are we fake Americans? How about blacks? Jews?

      And maybe they are fake Americans! As I said, I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to the concept. But what, exactly, are we pllanning to do, then?

      Really. What would be the just and reasonable response?

      I suspect that the just and reasonable response could not jive with the more extreme alt right “They have to go back” position advocated by folks like Vox Day.

      That was the point of the “Germans deported Jews” comment – the deported Jews were not sacrificed via Holocaust, after all. But the deportations were not just responses to many – most? – of the deportees either.

      • Mike T says:

        But what exactly do we mean by they ALL have to go back?

        I think Vox Day has been pretty specific that it’s the post-1965 immigrants and their descendants.

        Now, I don’t think it’ll happen. However, I think it would be perfectly feasible to go through the immigration records and order every chain migrant deported by a single, sweeping order. It should be done as a matter of principle. It’s bad enough that we allowed childless, married couples to immigrate. Allowing them to bring their extended families is utterly insane from an assimilation perspective. (Inter-marriage between a small number of immigrants and American citizens should be the norm for immigrants wanting to be married, not the exception).

      • Where has he said that? I’m serious. All I can recall is him saying that a people are not fully assimilated until the 4th generation in. And perhaps I am wrong about his position on minorities but it’s hard for me then to understand what he’s saying at all about the black community.

      • Mike T says:

        Where has he said that?

        Quite a few places. I don’t know his position on blacks. It would seem that he views a lot of blacks as having self-selected themselves out of consideration for being “true Americans” by virtue of their adamant refusal to integrate. However, I don’t recall him calling blacks “fake Americans” as a group.

  10. GJ says:

    It seems to me that Americaness consists of (among other things) an increasing amount of diversity. The Hispanic/Native American Vox Day might wax lyrical on Anglo-Saxons at the beginning, but it remains a fact that over the centuries Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, Italian, Hispanics, Africans and others have become part of the country, a trend of ever-increasing diversity.

    In other words, one central element of Americaness is increasing diversity. Sad to say, that makes almost all of you who oppose it unAmerican.

  11. GJ says:

    “They must go back.”

    While one must applaud the Hispanic Vox Day for being consistent in self-deporting, when full-blown nationalism hits Europe as he predicts, the Italians might not want him there.

    • Frankly, I don’t care.

      Vox is either right or not right. What happens to him after that is something that doesn’t interest me.

      As far as “America=diversity”, I don’t buy it. And if that is the case, we were doomed from the start.

      On the other hand, we probably were.

      • GJ says:

        On the other hand, we probably were.

        So what’s stopping you from buying it?

        The same pattern is recurring. It starts with an acceleration in immigration, to a point where the resistance becomes so great that a pause is enacted. Then after a time the rate of immigration increases again.

        Throughout it all, diversity increases in terms of the number of races or ethnicities being included.

      • What’s stopping me from buying it?

        I see no reason to believe that diversity was ever anything but a dilution of what it meant to be American – not a part of it.

      • GJ says:

        I see no reason to believe that diversity was ever anything but a dilution of what it meant to be American – not a part of it.

        It is undeniable that the original 13 colonies consisted of, besides the English, significant numbers of Dutch, German, Africans, Scottish, Irish, and Swedish.

        What more do you want?

      • I want a recognition that the colonies were english that happened to have other people living under english rule, and more non-anglo saxons woukd not necessarily be an improvement on the anglo roots of America.

      • GJ says:

        I want a recognition that the colonies were english that happened to have other people living under english rule, and more non-anglo saxons woukd not necessarily be an improvement on the anglo roots of America.

        These are orthogonal to the point I’m making. The original people were mostly English, but the essence of the country throughout the centuries has been diversity, as evidenced by the unprecedented diverse start and acceleration in diversity.

        Related to ‘improvement on the Anglo roots’, if some Alt-Right factions wins presumably they’ll ask “what are Catholics (especially Italians and Irish) doing in our White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation’, especially when they’ve been so destructive[1]?”

        [1] https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/where-does-one-find-romanism-in-america/

      • Why do you think I have an issue with that? Italian Catholics sold their souls to the democrats. We were a terrible influence on America.

      • GJ says:

        So you accept that “you have to go back”?

      • I feel like you didn’t actually read my post.

      • GJ says:

        I am highly interested in whether you think that “Italian Catholics sold their souls to the democrats. We were a terrible influence on America” is a good reason for deportation of the group. And if not, what’s the moral objection to it?

      • I feel like you didn’t read my original post.

      • GJ says:

        I feel like you didn’t actually read my post.

        I also know how you feel about deportation, which was made clear in your post.

        But there wasn’t any moral reasoning there, save maybe for a red herring about ‘just war’.

      • Sure. Right now my family, which has been here for generations, are law-abiding subjects of the sovereign, and deportation would be unjust.

        This was quite clearly said by me.

      • GJ says:

        Right now my family, which has been here for generations, are law-abiding subjects of the sovereign, and deportation would be unjust.

        How the first point (‘has been here for generations’) is relevant I don’t see, we can grant the second point, and the third is just an assertion.

        On the other hand, you’ve admitted that the presence of your group has been a very bad thing.

      • Why does the presence of my group, historically, being a very bad thing surprise you? Some groups will be.

        Of course the generations thing matters. We are an assimilated part of the community, not new settlers still trying to claim a stake in the land.

        And I’m not seeing the justice in instituting a punishment for a crime not committed.

      • GJ says:

        law-abiding subjects of the sovereign

        What if the sovereign demands you leave, and makes that law?

      • There is a point where what the sovereign commands is unjust, and exile as punishment for no committed crimes is one of them.

      • GJ says:

        no committed crimes

        I surmise that you would agree that besides the law of the land, there is also the natural law.

        You would also agree that the sovereign should not rule merely by the law of the land, but also by natural law.

        You further admit that your group has “sold their souls to the democrats”.

        What more do you want?

      • I feel like you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

        I did not sell my soul to the democrats. Nor did my family. The vast majority of us are law abiding citizens.

        You are making my point, not disputing it.

      • GJ says:

        There is an important point to be made first:

        that human law is not all the matters, but also natural law. Do you agree, or not?

        I feel like you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

        You have avoided giving moral rationale. Maybe you think your expressions of feeling count, but they don’t, which is why I keep asking.

      • I’m not sure what you want me to say. You seem to think if I say “Exile is sometimes a just punishment for certain crimes” I mean “it is okay for the sovereign to retroactively punish me for the sins of my ancestors.”

        If the wrongness of that is not obvious I’m not sure what there is to talk about.

      • GJ says:

        I’m not sure what you want me to say

        Currently, I want from you an answer whether it is not just offences against human law that should concern the sovereign, but also natural law.

        It should also be added that exile in response to grave wrongs is not the only possible framework to consider deportation. If a group aren’t part of the community, deportation can also be regarded as landlords (the sovereign and his community) asking tenants to leave their land.

      • GJ says:

        If it helps, my understanding of the matter has been that since an essence of America is Diversity, and your group has assimilated to some degree or other, there’s no grounds for expulsion. So you are ‘safe’.

        But that’s only because of the unusual nature of America.

      • I’d actually more or less agree with the community thing. As to your point about natural law, frankly I think the answer is way too complex for all that. The fact is the vast majority of the cultural groups in America have hurt the country in some way or another.

  12. GJ says:

    Where I (mainly, among other ways) differ is in response. I simply see no way in which mass deportation can be considered moral at this point. We would be dragging people out of their homes – legal citizens – at gunpoint and forcing them on pain of death to them and their families to settle in lands utterly foreign to them. It is not right. It is not moral. It is not just. There is no recourse to just war here: You would be the aggressor.

    There’s no need to invoke ‘war’, surely there are concepts of exile or banishment in common law.

    • GJ says:

      In other words, the ‘right to stay’ is hardly inalienable.

      • I never said it was.

      • GJ says:

        Then I really don’t see what is the rationale behind your opposing the proposed mass expulsions.

      • What do you mean by proposed mass expulsions? Only the people here illegally, for whatever reason? Or blacks? Hispanocs who have committed no crimes? How many generations back?

        As far as I can see the answers the alt right gives are entirely pragmatic, which is fine as it goes until it conflicts with the moral law.

      • GJ says:

        What do you mean by proposed mass expulsions?

        Well, the ones you have issues with. We don’t have to consider the fantasies of the alt-right at present. You have some concerns about the effect of some minorities. If some people are injurious to the whole, what’s the moral objection against some type of exile?

      • I’m still confused by what you mean.

        As far as I can see – and to be fair it does vary – the alt right does not believe Jews, immigrants less than 4 generations, blacks, or hispanics to be real Americans. They have.to go back.

        Now it would clearly be just for *some* of them, but it has been made quite clear to me that they *all* have to go.

        Now this may well be a valid point – that war would be inevitable if we don’t deport *everyone*. But I don’t see the option open.

      • GJ says:

        I’m still trying to figure out what’s your moral objection. Or how the proposed expulsions are against the moral law, if you want to put it that way.

      • You have so far brought up “Get rid of people who arrived or are living here illegally, or who are breaking the law”.

        Which is fine. But the alt right position doesn’t stop there. They ALL have to go back. Which would also include legal citizens, and it would include law-abiding people, and how many generations are we going again? That has always seemed pretty unclear. And what are we doing wirh minorities again?

      • GJ says:

        You have so far brought up “Get rid of people who arrived or are living here illegally, or who are breaking the law”.

        I have tried to gone further. Maybe a concrete example would help the discussion along:

        Your community, the Italian Catholics. You’ve admitted to the damage done. Deport, or not, and why?

    • GJ says:

      The framework of exile clarifies.

      Many in the past considered exile to be a punishment worse than death, something that those who glibly say “You must go back” elide. On the other hand, considering it as exile entails that it is not completely unthinkable, not necessarily immoral, not necessarily unjust.

      So we can expect both sides, in general, to avoid this frame.

  13. GJ says:

    Here are my initial thoughts on community and exile:

    If a man is part of a community, then the community necessarily as a collective has obligations to him. Exiling the man, removing him physically from the community, would be immoral for at least two reasons. It would not fulfill the obligations the community has towards its constituent member. Also the community would be harming itself by harming a constituent member.

    However, if we talk about a man or group of people who have not integrated into the community, to me that implies that they are not part of the community, and therefore we can’t derive from the reasoning above an obligation against exile.

    • Mike T says:

      Illegal immigrants are obviously not proper members of the community, and there is a good argument to be made that their children aren’t either. The fact that Germans managed to force their way onto Roman territory doesn’t make their children the natural subjects of Caesar with the rights and duties that follow. It just makes them second generation colonists.

    • Bedarz Iliachi says:

      To exile an innocent man is immoral but the exile could be a justified punishment for an offender.

  14. GJ says:

    and there is a good argument to be made that their children aren’t either.

    There may be mass deportation of illegal immigrants, but I can’t see deportation of their children happening. You’re too fragmented and diverse to come to a consensus that ‘we need to cut diversity down now’.

  15. Mike T says:

    If you went back to 2015 and showed mainstream conservatives where we’d be by 2018, they’d find it unbelievable how big the paradigm shift in peacetime in a mere 2.5 years would be. This is why I find your prognostications empty, GJ. It is entirely possible that in 2030-2040 things could be so bad that there is a consensus among a majority of whites and blacks to unleash the US military on these people in a mode that would make Slobodan Milošević look like a humanitarian toward the Kosovar Albanians by comparison.

    Who knows? Unlike Italians and Irish, Indians, Chinese and Latin American groups by and large don’t really assimilate. They just don’t and have little interest. So looking to the past as a guide is simply idiocy. The black community is already getting it good and hard in places like California. It’s only a matter of time before the problem becomes a coast to coast phenomenon.

    • Bedarz Iliachi says:

      You imagine that blacks and whites form one bloc? Or hope they would form a bloc?
      Perhaps whites find they have more in common with Hispanics or Asians, then would it be justified to deport blacks?

    • GJ says:

      Mike:
      This is why I find your prognostications empty, GJ. It is entirely possible that in 2030-2040 things could be so bad that there is a consensus among a majority of whites and blacks to unleash the US military on these people …This is why I find your prognostications empty, GJ

      Hidden here is the assumption that all ‘whites’ (Italians and Irish) and blacks have been assimilated into ‘Americans’. This would have been unthinkable to the mainstream only some decades ago.

      As I argued, Diversity increases despite pauses and partial corrections. One step back, two forward.

    • GJ says:

      In addition, I do consider the past important. As such, I have a question:

      Was there a racial divide behind the American Civil War/War of Northern Aggression?

    • GJ says:

      So looking to the past as a guide is simply idiocy.

      I note the irony that your continuing assertions that whites will go ‘road war now’ eventually is based primarily on looking to the past.

      • Mike T says:

        Hidden here is the assumption that all ‘whites’ (Italians and Irish) and blacks have been assimilated into ‘Americans’. This would have been unthinkable to the mainstream only some decades ago.

        They don’t all have to be assimilated for that to happen. The simple fact is that blacks’ natural interests are much more closely aligned with the majority of whites’ than most of the ethnic groups coming here. Black male support for Trump and his nationalist policies is slowly, but steadily growing.

        I note the irony that your continuing assertions that whites will go ‘road war now’ eventually is based primarily on looking to the past.

        What I actually said was that if one assumes a fairly linear continuation of our current problems, it’s entirely possible that they will have reached a breaking point in 10-20 years or so.

      • GJ says:

        The black community is already getting it good and hard in places like California.blacks’ natural interests are much more closely aligned with the majority of whites’

        Are you saying that ‘Hispanics are grabbing the serf jobs en masse, and it’s better that the blacks have them instead?’

        By the way, who has more white blood? The average black or the average Mexican?

      • GJ says:

        What I actually said was that if one assumes a fairly linear continuation of our current problems, it’s entirely possible that they will have reached a breaking point in 10-20 years or so.

        I seem to recall you’ve made stronger statements than ‘it’s entirely possible’ at Zippy’s, and was also referring to those.

        Also, Vox’s 2030 prediction is rather optimistic. You’re nowhere near the nadir yet.

  16. Scholar-at-Arms says:

    I’m not Vox, nor Alt-Right, but I’m pretty sure his answer is “it would be wrong to exile an innocent member of the community, but they are not members, and never have been.”

    Which may seem glib, but strikes right at the root of the matter. We have no complete answer of what it is to be a member of a political community, and much nonsense has been said on all sides.

    • I think this is the best answer.

      To talk about the response needed we need to figure out what a community is and what it means to be a part of one.

    • Incidentally, your responses on Mr. Wright’sthe Neoconfederate thread are quite good. I await with interest to see the creative ways he deigns to insult you.

    • Man, reading the responses in those threads is like looking at two competing, enormously complex attempt to expunge guilt over support of one rebellion or another, with neither side ever daring to admit that the original rebellion could have possibly been unjustified –

      Despite that being the simplest and clearest answer of all.

    • Bedarz Iliachi says:

      And who is Vox to say that a particular person is not a member of the community?

      I do think that question of membership is not a constitutional or legal question and can only be answered by brute force.
      The point about “brute force” being the ultimate answer to certain questions is not well-received, I have found. The question “who is sovereign over this particular territory?” is one such question.

      • GJ says:

        Bedarz Iliachi:

        And who is Vox to say that a particular person is not a member of the community?

        I do think that question of membership is not a constitutional or legal question and can only be answered by brute force.

        For the majority of societal communities throughout history, the question of membership can be determined quite easily.

        The problem of determination occurs when societies are diverse.

  17. GJ says:

    The elephant of in the room is miscegenation, which blurs the line between community in the abstract and in practice because of the offspring of the one-flesh union.

    Related to this is the hysteria in the alt-right over racial purity, the lack of any realism about mixed-bloods in the ‘race war now’ dreams.

    Also,
    Unlike Italians and Irish, Indians, Chinese and Latin American groups by and large don’t really assimilate. They just don’t and have little interest.

    How much of this is just ‘they have intermarried much less’?

    • The elephant of in the room is miscegenation, which blurs the line between community in the abstract and in practice because of the offspring of the one-flesh union.

      I agree with this.

    • Mike T says:

      The elephant of in the room is miscegenation, which blurs the line between community in the abstract and in practice because of the offspring of the one-flesh union.

      Under a sensible immigration policy, miscegenation would be normal for immigrants. We would generally not allow married people, much less ones with kids, to immigrate unless they truly brought something special. The rational policy would have unmarried foreigners be the vast majority and there would be absolutely no visas for foreign spouses if they get hitched “in the old country.” The only spouses coming over like that would be “war brides.”

      Marrying into the tribe is one of the few ways to legitimately become a permanent member as an outsider. That’s why a rational immigration policy would force the vast majority of immigrants to pick someone from one of the constituent ethnic groups of the United States (ex whites, blacks, Amerindians, Tejanos, Cajuns, etc.)

      • Mike T says:

        By white I mean “the English speaking, quasi-Anglo-Saxon/Scotch-Irish culturally” whites.

      • GJ says:

        Under a sensible immigration policy, miscegenation would be normal for immigrants.

        And people wonder why I say the essence of American includes Diversity.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s