Apr 14, 2016

Mass Migration and Reversing the Polarity of Morality

via Alternative Right

On a certain level morality is merely rationalization for what you want to do anyway. If you’re into paedophilia then, of course, you are suddenly intrigued by the issues and science surrounding infant intelligence and volition, as well as religious systems that seem more accommodating to it. If fucking sheep is your thing, you may wish to point out the “plausible idea” that killing them is already morally acceptable, so why not something they might even enjoy? If rent boys float your boat – and you want them cheap and keen – then you may be inclined to see the “moral utility” of ensuring that the migrant boats to Europe keep floating.

But morality is rationalization only on a certain level, because there is actually an absolute level where morality is connected to absolutes, and where there is no justification at all for fiddling with three-year olds, fucking sheep, or buggering doe-eyed bacha boys. Unfortunately, this absolute level requires much more intellectual rigour than most people are capable of, so morality is effectively an emotional dimension.

But this kind of “I want it, so let’s rationalize it” morality is a comparatively recent innovation. Also it doesn’t necessarily push things – as it has done for decades – towards Leftist degeneracy. As things get worse, it may actually push them in the other way.

Take the ongoing migrant crisis. You often get statements, like that recently made by Christos Stylianides, the EU commissioner in charge of immigration, that we have a "moral duty" to accept migrants:

"Christos Stylianides, the EU commissioner in charge of immigration, enraged Eurosceptics by insisting that turning boats full of migrants round and sending them back to Turkey or Libya is 'against our EU values.'

Mr Stylianides is said to have to become angry when he was asked why the EU has not adopted the Australian system of sending boats full of illegal migrants back to their point of origin.

The revelation came as EU leaders threw open the Continent’s doors to Turkey in a deal to tackle the refugee crisis. Talks to start the Turkish accession to EU membership process will now start in days and will eventually give its 77million citizens the right to come to the UK.

In the meantime the Schengen area countries will give Turkey visa free access in exchange for allowing Greece to return migrants who arrive after Sunday back to Turkey after being assessed. And the EU has promised to accelerate payment to Turkey £2.3bn promised last November with a further £2.3bn to also be made available."
In this case, the existing morality is clearly pushing us to do what we don’t want to do, rather than enabling us to do what we do want to do, which is its much more common application today.

Two Europeans battle to save their nemesis.
Traditionally, of course, the function of morality was to get us to do something we didn't want to do – or stop us doing that which we did want to do – in a way that would ultimately strengthen or benefit us. But this scheme, which was always validated by reference to the absolute and the eternal – faith or reason – was successfully deconstructed and made malleable by Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume from the 18th century onwards. Hume, a brilliant and rational mind himself, pointed out how subjective and emotion-driven morality was:
"If morality had naturally no influence on human passions and actions, it were in vain to take such pains to inculcate it; and nothing would be more fruitless than that multitude of rules and precepts, with which all moralists abound. Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always comprehended under the latter division, it is supposed to influence our passions and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding. And this is confirmed by common experience, which informs us, that men are often governed by their duties, and are detered from some actions by the opinion of injustice, and impelled to others by that of obligation.

Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."
A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III Of Morals
Hume's keen psychological insight prepared the way for modern-day morality as rationalization of whatever we want to do, which is where it is now. But once you change from morality acting on the passions to the passions acting on morality, you create a double-edged sword that can cut both ways.

Ask not for Hume the bell tolls.
While certain powerful groups benefit a little from the migrant invasion – it helps maintain property prices and drives the "emo-economy" – most people, including many powerful people, do not benefit, and that quite severely. This means that a very powerful group is created with strong passions that they then feel an urge to rationalize and moralize.

The present moral status quo is a loose, one-world, globalist, liberal democratic humanism that was cobbled together to undermine Soviet Communism in the Cold War period.

This morality, which is held by EU apparatchiks like Stylianides and most liberal democratic politicians, clearly favours mass migration. Resistance, such as it is, can only be justified by temporary practical difficulties, as in "We can only cope with two million this year," or "We haven’t built enough accommodation yet. Please come later," etc. This is not unlike complaining about being buggered not because you disagree with the act itself but simply because it hurts too much at the moment and you need more time to go shopping for lube.

That moment when your emotions
and morals coincide.
But in the world created by liberals, where morality follows emotion, that emotion may not always follow liberal paths. If you can only have a secure White country by hating globalism and egalitarianism, and then finding a morality that justifies that, then that is exactly what you will do. You will simply reverse the polarity.

Indeed, the version of half-hearted Islamophobia prevalent in the West that seeks to exclude Muslims – but not other non-Whites – on the basis of how radical Islam views Jews, gays, and women, seems to be a expression of this, and an attempt to partially line up with existing liberal morality. But its effectiveness is clearly held back by accepting some of the premises of liberalism, which means that the pressure will continue to build to reformulate morality in accord with a mass emotional rejection of liberal values.

In short the migrant crisis, through the medium of emotionally-derived morality, is creating the forces that will ride roughshod over liberalism and reformulate its outdated morality along much more illiberal lines. Get ready for the ride!

No comments:

Post a Comment