The two fundamentals of justice—and of existence itself—that whites have rejected
I just came upon another good but unposted e-mail from July 2011, in which Aaron S. was responding to the
entry,
“African woman pregnant with quintuplets flew to Britain for their £200,000 birth, and now is fighting to stay for their further care.”
Bimbo Ayelabola with her British-born babies
(Sophia A. asks: “Would you call this a Bimbo eruption?”)
Here is Aaron’s comment:
You wrote:
Why do Westerners keep allowing this kind of thing to happen and seem so utterly helpless and lacking in will to stop it?
The answer is simple. Whites have lost two essential and normal things: their belief in themselves in relation to other peoples and nations (which exists on what I call the horizontal dimension), and their belief in right (which exists on what I call the vertical dimension).
Lawrence, you’ve used this formulation before, but it strikes me as being especially apt here. Put them together and they could be expressed in this form:
“YOU have no RIGHT to be HERE.”
Surely, if there be such a thing as juridical arithmetic, this must count among its most elementary of propositions.
In other words, “You have no right to be here” is what, under normal circumstances, we would be allowed to say to outsiders. But with “right” construed as liberally as it is today, there are no outsiders, and hence no real measure of justice.
Westerners have what we regard as a very advanced and sophisticated notion of right. But you’ve put your finger on the ugly truth of the matter: this coin has been so debased by its promiscuous use as to encourage the ready pilfering of our inheritance.
Should we be surprised that others boldly grab from the till when we’ve lost the ability to add two and two?
LA replies:
“Should we be surprised that others boldly grab from the till when we’ve lost the ability to add two and two?”
Indeed. Consider the Muslim dominated neighborhoods in Britain, Scandinavia, and the Continent, where Muslims openly say to the natives: “YOU have no right to be HERE,” and use violence and threats of violence to enforce the edict. Because Europeans lost their sense of their own existence, and of the justice of defending their existence, which would have enabled them to keep Muslims out of Europe, Muslims are now keeping Europeans out of ever spreading parts of Europe.
Yet the Europeans learn nothing. That they are now being attacked and excluded in their own countries has not woken them up to the fatal mistake they made in allowing Muslims—the adherents of a religion of conquest—into their countries in the first place. The strongest statement they’re capable of making in response to this ever-growing and ever-more hostile presence is, “Multiculturalism was a mistake, because it divides us. So we are giving up multiculturalism and are going to try harder to integrate the Muslims, by emphasizing our common values, even as we keep allowing more Muslims to immigrate into our country!”
- end of initial entry -
LA to Aaron S.:
Seven months later, I’ve posted the key parts of your comments from last July about Bimbo Ayelabola.
Aaron S. replies:
Thanks. I was thinking about this issue a bit today after you posted the British Freedom Party platform, especially point six, “Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos” [quango: an organization or agency that is financed by a government but that acts independently of it]. It would seem that there is a whole system in place to protect the autonomy of these enclaves you mention.
How can there be justice where there is no distinction between self and other? Worse yet, how can a body survive when it permits “selfhood” for invading agents, but not for itself? (Even language fails us here.) Doesn’t such a body soon cease to be? In a normal society, simple biological metaphors would suffice to make these points. There is a word for that state of being when there ceases to be any boundary between an organism and its surroundings: decay.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 23, 2012 05:32 PM | Send