They are things of such exotic wonder, it really is a shame that more people haven’t been exposed to the underlying premises of accepted liberal pieties. Never discussed and thus rarely seen, these assumptions typically remain as sheltered from inspection as a stargazer fish. But just because a thing is buried under rhetorical silt doesn’t mean it can’t be periodically hauled above the surface to gasps of astonishment.
It’s probably useful to haul something else to the surface even more frequently. That being the foundations of nation and state. One would think this topic might be covered in high school courses, though understandably there’s only so much time for instruction after semester-long indulgences to african grievance. As a result, the topic is explored with less enthusiasm than time dilation in a Tyler Perry film.
As a primer for civics neophytes, such as those who write for conservative periodicals, a small group, alike in customs, temperament, and biology form functional communities. Functional, it must be reiterated for some reason, by virtue of their relatively low-friction homogeneity. Like communities cohere into nations, which claim or conquer land as their countries. States evolve as the political, legal, and enforcement expression of those nations, so that men of good-faith can go earn a living instead of standing on their porch (or border) all day with a rifle.
The state is naturally conceived in a subordinate role to the nation that created it. Though every state strains at its leash, with most inclined to maul any nation so foolish to succumb to negligence. A prudent man doesn’t conjure an entity with powers of imprisonment, then leave it unattended. Jefferson understood this perfectly: his tree of liberty was a metaphor; the blood of patriots and tyrants was not. Unfortunately, the only patriots this torpid nation tends to cheer for wear tights and shoulder pads. Though that’s beginning to change, and the Dorian Gray conservatives can’t stand the picture.
All of which might lead one to wonder what the hell is the point. We could live under hostile states without the trouble and expense of forming them ourselves. Though because our forefathers cherished their children and felt a moral obligation to their continuity, they sought, fought, bled, and died to create a habitat favorable to them. That is to say a country, state, and institutions exclusively for them. And thus an environment of bland privilege over those who were not them. Not one starving hypothermic man at Jamestown suffered with the hope his misery would purchase no benefit to his offspring.
Dearest Jane, I have survived the winter as many did not. With God’s blessing none of this sacrifice will accrue to our children’s inequitable profit. Yours lovingly, John.
Of course the concept is so elementary I must apologize for writing it in an adult forum. But doing so becomes necessary when this ancient proposition gets vomited up on our shoes. And that is precisely the fetid mess we find ourselves standing in. A state presumption of national no-privilege. This being a fairly felicitous state of affairs if you happen to be a member of an encroaching nation. In fact, history offers few such opportunities to lay upon an enemy that is so spiritually necrotic. One that could actually be induced to renounce the privilege fundamental to their national formation and maintenance. Though if chance did favor, well, your destruction of them would be very efficient indeed.
What prompted these contemplations was some mildly good news. There is something slightly less rotten in the state of Denmark.
Denmark Passes Tough New Immigration Law
Sounds nice, but don’t retire to the opium pipe quite yet.
Denmark’s parliament has voted in favour of seizing the assets of asylum seekers to help pay for their stay while their claims are processed. The controversial law is part of a package of immigration reforms designed to make the country less appealing for migrants. The new measures, which also delay family reunions by increasing the waiting period from one to up to three years, had cross-party support and passed with an overwhelming majority.
Under the new measures, valuables worth more than about £1,000 will be seized by police as migrants enter the country to help cover their housing and food costs.
After considerable uproar Parliament clarified that jewelry, including wedding rings, and other sentimental possessions would not be taken.
Well thank Allah for that clarification. Here’s another one: only a clairvoyant could predict the forthcoming explosion in migrant sentimentality. This roll of $100s has been in my family for generations. But that’s less the point. What follows is more…
However, the Danish government claimed the measures have been “terribly misunderstood.” It argued that Danes who want to qualify for social benefits may also have to sell their valuables.
“We’re simply asking that if asylum seekers – in the rare case where they do come with enough means to pay for themselves then – following exactly the same rules as for Danish citizens wishing to be on unemployment benefits – if you can pay for yourself, well then you should pay for yourself, before the Danish welfare system does it.”
Following the exact same rules. Thus the approximately five million indigenous children of men who traversed the Arctic in longboats and carved prosperity out of ice have no privilege in their own country over innumerable opportunistic spores from the Maghreb. I suppose American whites would consider that a promotion. Though for clinical comparison, when a human body follows this program the mortician has a new customer.
But it’s not all to frown.
However, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen from the opposition left Red-Green Alliance that was against the legislation, said “this is a symbolic move to scare people away” from seeking asylum in Denmark.
That’s solid detective work. Thanks for the laugh, Johanne. Though I would think a man like you would more approve of symbolic moves to dissuade invasion than the much more tangible ones to follow.
Critics said separating families was inhumane and would severely affect integration efforts.
I’m starting to appreciate the sub-sub genre of Danish shitlib humor. Yes, barring mass migration will–in theory–severely affect Denmark/Africa integration efforts. Don’t tell Johanne, but that’s the point.
Though everyone can leave this issue with a smile. As no families need suffer separation a moment longer. The loved ones of every migrant in Europe are ready and eager for reunification in their ports of origin. And isn’t being returned home the greatest privilege of all?