Give Me Your Huddled Privilege

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?


10 thoughts on “Give Me Your Huddled Privilege

  1. Pingback: Give Me Your Huddled Privilege | Reaction Times

  2. And the Dane who falls on hard times will declare every last asset when claiming state benefits, while the invaders will laugh as they hide everything and pretend to be indigent.

  3. It’s funny. Periodically a troll will go for the lulz by dropping one of my pieces into some goofy leftwing coffee claque. This obviously resulting in a riot of spinning fedoras and goggle-eyed shitlib versions of Oh no he di’nt! I usually get a chuckle and move on, though I thought some of you might enjoy the feathers.

    As silly as his rebuttal is, the last one at least tries to peel the lint off his tongue. So stop in any time, young Redditor. The Kakistocracy increasingly identifies itself with civic concepts that are accessible to anyone who believes in them.

    [–]WhaleshipEssexThe Ghost of ehbrums1 5 points 13 minutes ago
    Are you trying to burn down this sub? Because this is how you burn down this sub.

    [–]rwesswein 2 points 10 minutes ago
    At this rate I’m just convinced this sub is filled with Grand Wizards.

    [–]Anna_rampagePalm Beach Babe 2 points 8 minutes ago

    [–]PBR_Prep 4 points 11 minutes ago
    Saw the photo….noped the fuck out.

    [–]heysinned 2 points 12 minutes ago
    What’s this doing here?

    [–]MistaPittsBoston 2 points 11 minutes ago
    What the fuck? No it’s not, it’s an incoherent mess.

    [–]Anna_rampage 2 points 11 minutes ago
    Why was this posted?

    [–]-MassachoositeCambridge MA 2 points 11 minutes ago
    This post doesn’t belong here.

    [–]Flexin_Texan 2 points 7 minutes ago
    No no no no absolutely fucking not get this shit out of here

    [–]TahmaspNYC 2 points 6 minutes ago
    This is a strange essay.
    Firstly, it’s not an analysis of “white privilege” at all. It’s a defense of the ability of a state’s native citizens to receive benefits (“privileges”) from the state before and over recent migrants to that state.

    Two main problems with the essay – firstly, it central argument is a total strawman. No one believes that European migrants deserve state privileges equal to citizens. The question is one of degree – if you accept that it’s impractical and/or inhumane to load every migrant who arrives in Europe on a boat bound for Syria, we have to figure out how much help they deserve and at what expense. One can arrive at different points on the spectrum, but no one arrives at “instantaneous citizenship and all attendant benefits for everyone who arrives.” So the principle of a state’s citizens having privileges greater than recent migrants is totally uncontroversial.

    Secondly, the main premise of its argument is flawed. The author justifies greater privileges for citizens over migrants on the idea that states are artificial creations of nations, and nations are groups of people “alike in customs, temperament, and biology” – from which he gets that states exist to serve the nations that created them. This was a central argument in Giovanni Gentile’s Doctrine of Fascism, but it’s plainly ridiculous. Since the 19th century, states have come to embody more than “blood and soil,” they’ve increasingly identified themselves with civic concepts that are accessible to anyone who believes in them. The idea of citizenship has thus become civic rather than ethnic in much of the Western world, which is why the US didn’t fall into the sea when it began to include nations other than the British subjects who created its first state.

    • That last reply at least goes beyond the incoherent rage of those preceding it. But the assertion that ‘Since the 19th century, states have come to embody more than “blood and soil,”’ needs a bit more scrutiny. Some examples of these states:



      Iraq (though it needed some outside help to usher its descent into chaos)




      We’re now importing the squabbling natives of all these disastrous artificial countries into our own white homelands. Our rulers seem to be in competition to create the failed state to end all failed states.

      • Describing what “states have come to embody” might seem vaguely familiar to readers here. Presumably the rebuttal is found in viewing it favorably.

    • “The question is one of degree – if you accept that it’s impractical and/or inhumane to load every migrant who arrives in Europe on a boat bound for Syria, we have to figure out how much help they deserve and at what expense.”

      What’s so impractical about putting them all on a boat and shipping them out? That’s the best offer I’d give them myself. It just goes downhill from there.

      “Since the 19th century, states have come to embody more than “blood and soil,” they’ve increasingly identified themselves with civic concepts that are accessible to anyone who believes in them.”

      Really? I wonder what the Japanese would think about that concept.

      And of course what do you do with people that arrive but clearly don’t accept these high-minded civic platitudes? I guess you just sit them down and have a philosophical talk with them about modern nation states because that will fix everything.

    • Porter, you need a black guy. In the early years of Saturday Night Live, token black guy Garrett Morris selflessly and eloquently provided closed captions for the deaf. If you could get him, or one like him, to reprocess your delicious word banquets into metaphorical McNuggets, then perhaps — dipped in #BBQsauce — the lexically malnourished could also benefit from your work.
      I wish I could help, but I don’t know any blacks.
      Critics said separating families was inhumane and would severely affect integration efforts.
      I’m not sure what they’re implying here. AFAICT, Denmark is only asking for the gold Sovereigns stashed in their cavities, not commanding Mohammad to pimp out his daughter-wife Aisha to finance their room and board.

      • I figure Ben Carson will be available soon. If we can lure him into the fold here, then we can prove that liberals are the real racists.

  4. Blood and soil states are the countries of the past, and of the future. Europe will be blood and soil territory again one day – the question is whose.

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/01/31) – The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s