Cathedral gets hysterical: Mark Shea’s latest hit piece

The Cathedral gets hysterical.  Check out Christian Cultural Marxist Mark Shea’s new hit piece.

Love Nick Land’s tweet on Shea’s post:

“… open white supremacist filth … racist white supremacy garbage … racist poison … bullshit” — he argues.

George Soros-Backed Conservative Evangelicals Lobby for Amnesty

In continuing with our “Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?” theme, I thought I’d draw attention to a recent development.  As noted this summer, a bunch of conservative evangelical Christians formed a group called the Evangelical Immigration Table to promote Third World immigration into the West, which unsurprisingly seems to be funded by George Soros.  Well, George Soros this week has paid for a bunch of conservative Evangelicals to fly into Washington DC to demand immigration amnesty from Republican congressmen (see full story here).  In short, from the video clips I’ve seen, you see a bunch of girly men talking about how much Jesus just loves Third World immigrants.

Nevermind that Soros is an anti-Christian leftist; hey, Soros likes brown people, and that’s what Christianity is all about these days.  Outside the West, Christianity becomes a non-Western religion.  Inside the West, Christianity merges with Cultural Marxism.   This could end up making traditional Bolshevism look enlightened, as at least its adherents had some survival instinct, unlike the real headline from today:  “Christian pathological altruists invite violent and low IQ Third World hordes to dispossess them”.

Related:

“Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity”

“As Christianity becomes a ghetto religion…”

“Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?”

“Why the religious should reject Intelligent Design“

“The Evangelical Adoption Scam”

Evangelical Nutjobs Pray for Amnesty

The ghettoization of American Culture

Regarding John Derbyshire’s response to my recent post on the increasing ghettoization of Christianity, one might add that this ghettoization goes beyond Christianity.   One could give many examples, but I’ll limit it to a few.

Children’s entertainment:  One of the most popular children’s shows in the USA right now is Dora the Explorer, some low-brow mestizo form of entertainment that teaches kids Spanglish and was dreamed up by Latino-savvy consultants.  We’ve come a long way from D’Aulaires, Sutcliff, and Marshall in a short span of time.

Perhaps even worse is the degradation of Thomas the Train, which was once a rather innocuous British book series turned television series that taught lessons such as not to lose your temper.  In recent years, however, the Thomas the Train television show has been completely Americanized, which of course means ghettoized, replete with tribal African rhythms:

For adult examples of ghettoization, just watch NFL football, which has turned into a showcase for black thugs.

And then there’s the exporting of America’s ghetto culture.

In particular, I think of the 2005 riots in France, where many of the African rioters were wearing American ghetto clothing (e.g. NY Yankees hats on sideways, etc.) and flashing gang signs at the cameras.

Has America reached rock bottom?

Perhaps we’re reaching the terminal stages of what Alexis de Tocqueville labeled the “tyranny of mediocrity,” where this final stage of American depravity culminates in what Elizabeth Wright more recently called the “negrophilia” of American entertainment.

Of course, this isn’t meant take away from the ghettoization of Christianity, which is a more global phenomenon — occurring not only in the USA but also in Africa and Latin America.  The empowered wretched of the Earth are coming home to roost.

White Flight from Christianity?

Regarding my previous post on increasing ghetto elements of Christianity, John Derbyshire responds:  “A White Flight From Christianity?”  It’s well worth the read.

Cathedral gets nervous: twofer hit-pieces this week!

The Cathedral gets nervous:  two hit-pieces in one week!

The American Conservative‘s Jordan Bloom writes this hit-piece on Richard Spencer.  (Unfortunately, it’s not as flattering as Lauren Fox’s piece.)  James Kirkpatrick responds here.

Cato Institute’s Jason Kuznicki writes this hit-piece on British philosopher Nick Land.  Land responds here.

Updates:

Actually, you might make this three-for-one, if you include 20/20’s piece on the manosphere.

Bryan Caplan, Borders Abolitionist

Nick Land takes note of Tyler Cowen’s admission that “Plunking 500 million or a billion poor individuals in the United States most likely would destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.”

Land comments: “This sentence twists deeper into delirium with every reading. It has to be a candidate for the most insane splinter of sanity in history. (It makes me wonder whether an object the size of Jupiter, consisting of pure neutronium, colliding with Manhattan Island at 90% light speed, would most likely depress property values.)”

I really like that: “the most insane splinter of sanity in history.”

Bryan Caplan, on the other hand, reacting to Cowen’s remark, launches straight into insane insanity, comparing the cause of open borders to that of the abolition of slavery: “Yes, enslaving a Haitian is plainly worse than forbidding him to accept a job offer anywhere on earth except Haiti. But they’re both dire harms. How would you react if the world’s laws barred you from every non-Haitian labor market on earth? With weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Well. I must admit that, yes, I’d be pretty unhappy if I were barred by “the world’s laws” from every non-Haitian labor market on earth. But, then, I’m not Haitian. The people, culture and language of Haiti are utterly foreign to me. Forcing me to find a job there would be a social, if not a physical, death sentence. Obviously, this is not true of native Haitians – who, after all, grew up there, have both shaped and been shaped by their society, and presumably know the ropes sufficiently well to get along and go along and – who knows? – possibly even do their bit to improve the place.

The question Caplan ought to ask me is how I would react if “the world’s laws” barred me from every non-USA labor market on earth…to which I would reply that, in the first place, I am, pretty much, so barred, and, in the second place, I neither weep nor gnash my teeth about this. I don’t even lose any sleep over it – even though I’m stuck in a low-pay dead-end zero-security job the very thought of which would, no doubt, reduce Caplan to “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Besides, Caplan’s characterization of the position of immigration restrictionists – that they want the “world’s laws” to forbid anybody “to accept a job offer anywhere on earth except” their original place of citizenship is utterly unhinged.

In the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no, no no!”

(1) I don’t want there to be any “world’s laws” at all bearing on employment.

(2) I have no problem with anybody anywhere accepting any job offer whatsoever.

(3) But I do have a problem – a very big problem – with people who have contributed nothing to the extremely expensive (a) infrastructure and (b) welfare system (now including Obamacare!) of my country coming here and exploiting said (a) and (b) without first proving that their presence will be a net benefit to all, or at least most, of those of us who have so contributed, and not just to themselves and to a small political and economic elite.

(4) And I have an even bigger problem with the fact that the minute anybody “of color” crosses the desert or steps off the boat or gains admission in any other way, s/he/it instantly qualifies for “affirmative action” – i.e., racial preferences that privilege s/he/it over my kin and kind.

(5) And I have an even bigger problem than that with the fact that all this is taking place within an ideological climate, imposed from on high by the powers that be, of politically correct multiculturalism, which, far from requiring immigrants to change so as to accomodate themselves to the traditional culture of America, instead positively encourages them to maintain their own separate identity, insisting that it is, precisely, the traditional culture of America that must change to accomodate itself to them.

So far as I can tell, Libertarianism Inc. is barely even trying to do anything about the welfare state and affirmative action these days, and when it comes to multiculturalism, the Cowen’s and Caplan’s of the world seemingly just can’t wait to sell their fellow Americans’ birthright for a mess of pottage cheap chalupas.

In any case, given Caplan’s evident inability to paraphrase the position of his opponents on this issue accurately or honestly, he ought not to try: he should confine himself to responding to actual quotations.