Miscellaneous on immigration, lesbians, and space colonization

The biggest weakness of the immigration advocates is that they won’t even address concerns that the native culture will be overrun.  They think it racist to even acknowledge this as a valid concern.  Many even promise that the native culture will be overrun, that we will become “diverse” and “multicultural”.  The biggest weakness of the restrictionist’s case is that our culture and collective identity is dying anyway and won’t be saved even if we stop the flow tomorrow.  White nationalism is an attempt to remain a European Christian society by inertia, without positively asserting the core commitments of our civilization.  If America is to remain what it has been, an English people, it must assert itself as such by public submission to the English monarch and the Church of England.

Recent events give us a good illustration of the flaw of the judiciary’s and the Catholic Church’s thinking of immigration in terms of “rights”.  In liberal polities, rights are trumps, meaning the prerogative of the individual with a right overrides any consideration of the common good.  No judge or bishop needs to consider what ruin will follow the influx of Muslims; they’ve got rights.

Patriactionary reports straight women have fewest orgasms.  I always trust stereotypes over “studies”, and lesbians are better known for being angry ideologues than being solicitous lovers, but in this case the result might be true.  I imagine there are a lot of asexual women, and most default to heterosexual since such relationships bring kids and financial support.

Just for fun, let’s speculate more about the lesbian apocalypse.  Recall, the idea is that as the social expectation of heterosexuality recedes, there’s no guarantee of a continued roughly 1:1 ratio of heterosexual men to heterosexual women.  There is some evidence that women have the more malleable sexuality, so we seem destined to have lots of lonely men.  I can see lesbianism becoming very high status and attractive to many women.  There seems to be very little of the visceral repulsion to it that male homosexuality elicits in many people.  I don’t remember how it came up, but my wife once mentioned that if I were to commit adultery, she’d rather I had sex with another woman than went gay.  I, on the other hand, would rather she cheated with another woman.  Both make sense.  Men are worried about paternity, with being supplanted.  What matters most of all is being the man to my girl.  Women are more worried about being inseminated with the best genes.  What matters most is lack of signs of defects in her boy.  A woman could fool around with other women much more than she could with men without alienating a future husband, so she may be less likely to end up bothering to switch to the future husband at all.  Another thing:  adoption would quickly become predominantly a service for lesbians.  Probably they will prefer girls even more than average adopters.

In a 2010 study, economists from the California Institute of Technology, the London School of Economics and New York University discovered, among other things, that adoptive American parents preferred girls to boys by nearly a third. The data was based on more than 800 adoptions that occurred between June 2004 and August 2009. The researchers suggested that this preference for girls might occur because adoptive parents “fear dysfunctional social behavior in adopted children and perceive girls as ‘less risky’ than boys in that respect.” Adoptive parents are even willing to pay an average of $16,000 more in finalization costs for a girl than a boy. Same-sex couples and single women showed an even greater proclivity for adopting girls.

Would bringing in foreign baby girls restore the balance of heterosexual women to men?  Or would these girls raised without fathers by potentially man-hating lesbians be unlikely to take any interest in men themselves?

It’s fun to read about plans to colonize space, but as a proof of principle, I think we should first get serious about colonizing Antarctica.  My God, what a paradise!  Breathable air at atmospheric pressure, protection from cosmic rays, lots of water ice…

I can still remember the almost religious awe I felt as a child for the idea of manned space exploration.  It was unthinkable for me that mankind’s fate might not eventually lie beyond the Earth.  As I said, I remember it, but I find I can no longer feel it.  Why would people ever want to go to any other celestial body?  Unmanned exploration is so much cheaper.  With falling birth rates in the developed world, overpopulation probably won’t be an insuperable long-term problem.  Not after the lesbian apocalypse, anyway.

6 Responses

  1. > The biggest weakness of the restrictionist’s case is that our culture
    > and collective identity is dying anyway and won’t be saved even if
    > we stop the flow tomorrow. White nationalism is an attempt to
    > remain a European Christian society by inertia, without positively
    > asserting the core commitments of our civilization.

    This is a problem with a certain racialist view that posits a one-way determination from genes to culture, i.e. that “race determines culture”. The implication is that carrying good genes will spontaneously lead to development of high culture. This then leads to an almost panglossian view of things whereby European man is an Uebermensch who simply ought to kick out rootless cosmopolitan elites, immigrants and draw ethnic boundaries, upon which European man’s good genes will lead him back to greatness without worrying about interethnic competition. The fact that European man has completely ravaged his customs and traditions isn’t dwelt upon, because culture is not allowed to be an autonomous force under the model’s specification.

  2. White nationalism is an attempt to remain a European Christian society by inertia

    Wow, it’s doing a piss poor job. Nothing drives people into the arms of multiculturalism faster than the typical white nationalist.

  3. Heck, I’ll bet the TFR of American white nationalists is less than 1.

  4. I either blogged or have in my drafts a similar point about space exploration, but let me play meta-meta-contrarian: whatever form of colony we want on another planet, manned or not, all of the actual challenges and costs (and glaring impracticalities!) come from the “6 month+ journey through the interstellar void” part. Therefore, if we want to learn something from a mock-colonization attempt, it makes more sense to build a crappy colony on another planet (even if it turns into a disaster) than to build a Shangri-La in Antarctica, because the whole point is to burn money getting the kinks out of space travel.

  5. “If America is to remain what it has been, an English people, it must assert itself as such by public submission to the English monarch and the Church of England.”

    But it is sinful to submit to a false religion such as Anglicanism. Besides, England was Catholic before it became Anglican, so Anglicanism cannot be required for “Englishness.”

  6. […] has a grab bag of miscellany on immigration, lesbians, and space colonization. Also some Arguments against […]

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

%d bloggers like this: