Saturday, May 6, 2017

Vox Popoli: Not paying for phone > honor-killing

Not paying for phone > honor-killing
It's rather telling that whites get more upset about a white father cutting off his daughter in response to her decision to attend prom with a black man than they ever do about Muslim fathers honor-killing their daughters. If Daddy had only had the foresight to first declare his newfound Muslim faith, he could have buried her in the front lawn and news of his arrest would never have made the national news, much less the international news.

Anna said that though Phillip is just a friend, he's also 'really funny' and 'super cute', so she snatched him up as her prom date.  Unfortunately, Anna's dad — whom she says has always been vocally racist — saw the snaps online and wasted no time sharing his disappointment with her in an incredibly abusive manner.

Anna explained to BuzzFeed that she and her dad have had a strained relationship for years. Her parents are divorced, and though she lived with him briefly as a child, she's been in her mom's house since her early teens.  His tirade, however, seems to have gone beyond any uncomfortable words they'd shared in the past.

Responding to his initial texts, Anna wrote: 'I went to prom with a black guy so that's a problem ... racist much.'

'Yes I am,' her dad wrote back unabashedly before continuing with the grammatically incorrect pronouncement: 'Your dead to me. Don't ever contact me again we are through,' he added. 'Go ahead be a F***IN wh*** leave me out of it.

He also told her that he was cancelling her cell phone and her car insurance, to which she replied, 'I didn't do anything wrong.' 'Shut the f*** up you have no right to talk to me anymore. Go live with the F***IN n*****s. Your pictures are already off my walls. You can go to hell. What the f*** is wrong with you? ... You want to mingle with Subhumans I'll treat you accordingly.'

Anna knew of her father's opinions, though she still found it 'incredibly sad' when he reacted so vitriolically. 'He has told me that if I ever dated a black guy that I will and would be dead to him,' she told BuzzFeed. 'I stood my ground for what I believe in.'

It's really admirable that Anna is so willing to stand her ground for what she believes in. And it's a sign of character that she is so willing to pay for her own phone, car insurance, and college education.

Of course, the father was foolish to actually put his feelings in writing, or to imagine that the young woman wouldn't immediately rush to social media to virtue-signal to the world at his expense.

But regardless of what you think of Angry Racist Daddy, and whether you agree with his decision to cut off his daughter or not, freedom of association is a fundamental human right. Exercising that right has its consequences, of course, but it remains a basic human right nevertheless.

The sad thing isn't that Daddy isn't going to pay for his little mudshark-to-be's higher education; given her observably poor judgment she'll probably be better off if she doesn't put herself in debt for a useless degree. The sad thing is that even if this young woman is eventually beaten to death by one of her future paramours, no one will ever learn anything from the entire debacle.

We are living in an age where everything just happens for no reason at all, and to even notice patterns and connections is considered immoral and the sign of a deplorable character.

The practical problem here is that ethnocentrism doesn't merely exist for a reason, it is increasingly apparent that it is an important hallmark of a strong, confident, healthy, and growing society. If you examine the arc of civilizational rises and declines, one thing that is readily apparent is that the more strongly homogeneous a society is, the earlier in the arc of the societal life cycle it is. This, of course, is completely contrary to the equalitarian idea that a decline in ethnic self-preference is indicative of social progress, but then, equalitarians are wrong about almost everything, so it should come as no surprise that they have this completely backward as well.

The multicultural trend was also manifested in a variety of legislation that followed the civil rights acts of the 1960s, and in the 1990s the Clinton administration made the encouragement of diversity one of its major goals. The contrast with the past is striking. The Founding Fathers saw diversity as a reality and as a problem: hence the national motto, e pluribus unum, chosen by a committee of the Continental Congress consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Later political leaders who also were fearful of the dangers of racial, sectional, ethnic, economic, and cultural diversity (which, indeed, produced the largest war of the century between 1815 and 1914), responded to the call of “bring us together,” and made the promotion of national unity their central responsibility. “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all,” warned Theodore Roosevelt, “would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” In the 1990s, however, the leaders of the United States have not only permitted that but assiduously promoted the diversity rather than the unity of the people they govern.

The leaders of other countries have, as we have seen, at times attempted to disavow their cultural heritage and shift the identity of their country from one civilization to another. In no case to date have they succeeded and they have instead created schizophrenic torn countries. The American multiculturalists similarly reject their country’s cultural heritage. Instead of attempting to identify the United States with another civilization, however, they wish to create a country of many civilizations, which is to say a country not belonging to any civilization and lacking a cultural core. History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society.
- Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, 1998