Katie’s Dad 2.0

Yesterday, I spent much of the day with my sister, who visited briefly while traveling by on a business trip. It’s aways good to catch up with her when she’s away from her home in a more sensible and mostly un-multiculturalized part of the rural Midwest. As usual, we spent some time discussing family, heritage and tradition as it was carefully made “ours” by our parents. We do not see much of each other, and unfortunately we never really have; she was in college when I was born and stayed close to her birthplace after my parents moved with me to Florida.

I cherish the insight I gain whenever we have a chance to sit down and earnestly discuss who we are and where we came from. It’s always good to reconfirm that even though we were raised a full generation apart, our parents were steadfast regarding the things they knew were important to instill in both of us.

My sister had just visited a couple of our cousins, ones with whom she grew up. I do not really know or touch base with them except for occasional communications after deaths in the family. My sister insists that I need to make the time to visit them and spend some time having a good old family argument about politics, religion and heritage. I think she’s probably right.

It has been explained to me that whenever my father’s brothers brought their families together in the 30s, 40s and 50s, all of the social taboos regarding polite discussion eventually were thrown off the table. In my mind, I’ve always imagined it devolving into an intellectual free-for-all; nobody left without being both offended and enriched. Dear sister contends that she experienced a mini-version of the good old days during her visit with our cousins, and she thinks that I would get a lot out of having my convictions challenged by kin who grew up immersed in “the family story” in ways that were denied me because I was born so late. It appears that my cousins and I all believe that the same things are important to keep, but we have markedly different thoughts on how to go about keeping them.

After sleeping on it, I’m really getting an itch to go toe to toe with these guys. And today I’m feeling a bit philosophical.

So, wouldn’t you know that first thing this morning my friend Jake from FreedomFolks published something really interesting. The original authors ask that if it’s posted elsewhere that it be done in its entirety. I’m going to honor their wishes, and then I’m going to comment on it.

HonestThinking 15

Other publications (websites, newspapers, magazines, etc.) are encouraged to republish this manifesto. Permission to do so is granted provided (a) that the manifesto is published verbatim in its entirety, including its pre- and postscript, and (b) that HonestThinking is acknowledged as the source.

Immigration manifesto

The immigration policies currently in vogue in most Western countries show increasing signs of being unsustainable, and the associated problems are likely to grow ever more severe in the coming years. This is one of the largest ethical dilemmas of our time. We therefore believe the entire foundation for the prevailing regime needs to be reconsidered, and submit this manifesto as a starting point for reasoning about these challenges.

1. It is a moral duty to promote human rights all over the world.
2. The concept of human rights must not be confused with any particular legal implementation or formulation of that concept, since such explications could contain internal inconsistencies or imply consequences that would cause conflict with the previous tenet.
3. The worth of a human being is independent of his or her gender, religion, ethnic background, sexual preferences, culture, language, and other such markers.
4. Cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders is desirable andnecessary.
5. Even so, culture, language, religion, and ethnicity are instrumental in establishing each individual’s identity, and thus central in forming his or her sense of belonging and loyalty. Any policy aimed at sustainability must take this into account.
6. It is therefore legitimate for any sovereign state to implement restrictions towards non-citizens in such a way that control over its demographic development is retained.
   
7. It is unacceptable, without foregoing careful consideration and proper democratic processes, that political
   dispositions be made to alter the demographic composition of a state in such a way that its stability, its inner cohesion, and the mutual loyalty of its population be threatened.

We are apprehensive of individuals, organizations, and other legal entities that try to quench free and open debate on the above issues, and regard such political actors as having little or no legitimacy in questions of democracy and human rights. Moreover, ideologies and political movements whose goals are irreconcilable with the above tenets should be considered devoid of moral and intellectual integrity, unlessthey are able to justify said discrepancy.

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, Ph.D., editor, HonestThinking

Jens Tomas Anfindsen, Ph.D.,
editor, HonestThinking

There is definitely a lot of the European mind at work here, even if it is conservative. No doubt, these are conservative words, but they are flavored by the European experience.

1. I disagree with the notion that we have a moral duty to promote human rights all over the world.  Just as surely as all cultures are not equal, most cultures have divergent views regarding morality and human rights.   I believe that our duty to other nations and cultures ends with Winthrop’s “city on a hill” concept, perhaps as reprised by Reagan.  Our only moral duty is to seek higher good in America through human freedom so that we can be an example that other nations not yet so blessed might emulate if they desire. That is as far as I’m willing to go with it. Making it a “moral duty” to directly affect the mores or human rights policies and practices of other lands is inviting the hubris of full-time interventionism. It risks hunting neoconservative snipes that would entangle us with foreign enemies and alliances far beyond what is prudent, or what was prescribed by our founding fathers.
2. Placing caveats on the first point isn’t really a second point. It’s acknowledging a weakness in the original proposition. It says that point one needs work.
3. I would define the “worth of a human being” quite differently. My writing of it would go something like this: “The worth of every individual, at conception, is identical and divinely equivalent. At that point differentiation begins, and it continues throughout each life thanks to myriad things that affect the character of every individual. A person’s “worth” is malleable, shaped by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The United States Declaration of Independence contends that all people are created equal; it does not say that all people are always equal, all the time. We must be wary not to equivocate through the use such charged ideas like “human worth;” when we start thinking this way, it opens the door for Political Correctness to gain a foothold from which it can play its leveling game. We will be too soon tempted to insist that all men are of equal worth all of the time regardless of whatever influences to which they have been subjected. That’s socialism.”
4. I’ll agree that cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders is usually necessary, but it isn’t always desirable. It should only be undertaken with hefty doses of skepticism, intolerance and caution.
5. This fifth point is merely a modifier of the fourth. Maybe the fourth and fifth point should be combined: “Heritage, culture, language, religion, and ethnicity are instrumental in establishing each individual’s identity and essential to the development of a healthy sense of belonging. Every action by government must take this into account. While cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders is often necessary, it is not always desirable because of its potential to undermine a healthy sense of belonging throughout a population. Engage with others often; trust only when prudent and necessary; and, assert the primacy of one’s similars at all times.
6. This was pretty good.  It is not only legitimate, but history renders it prescriptive, that every sovereign state has a right to and should be selective and restrict non-citizens that enter its territory in such a manner that its demographic traits are neither radically nor quickly altered by the impositions that aliens naturally make in relation to their numbers.
7. This was pretty good too.  I’d add that no government in a republican form of democracy has a right to do anything that might alter the demographic composition of its nation without first obtaining the full, well-informed, long-considered and diligently vetted consent of the governed.

Jørgen and Jens made an admirable try, but there is too much in it that doesn’t apply to American experience. I hope that this is just the beginning of a dialog. We need to have this with the native stock people of our ancestral source nations; we’re all in this Western Civilization boat together. And we face problems too similar not to share wisdom.

I’m imagining that these variations on theme are the sorts I will find when I set up the much needed pow-wow with my cousins.

American Kernel, Conservatism, Culture, Demographics, Diversity, Family, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Sovereignty, western civilization