Whites cherish the belief they are acting on principle. That their choices are grounded in an unbiased moral doctrine. That the demands they would impose on others are regulated by what they would accept for themselves. Self-interest is seen as gauche to modern eyes, particularly when it flounces about nakedly.
There are, of course, whites who eschew principle entirely. And in sufficient numbers to provide at least some visible contrast to the vast majority rule. But the rule certainly does exist. As every charlatan pays it homage in his rationales.
Though critics could claim other people hew just as closely to principle. And they would have a valid point. For instance, “what’s best for the jews” is the neutral principle upon which most of that group hold themselves unrelentingly accountable. Though they’re certainly not the only ones with such strict moral boundaries.
Practically all of the left’s “minority” menagerie embraces the principle of rapacious self-interest. This being awkwardly at odds with the movement’s ecumenical pose of One World/One Human Race. Though that awkwardness is never enough to prompt a public reconciliation. In this way liberalism represents a series of unprincipled exceptions to its unexceptional principles. Over time this begins to sow unpleasant cognitive dissonance in its less fanatical adherents. Some of whom eventually grow sufficiently critical of the program to find themselves at outposts such as this.
One of the obvious elements of a principle as opposed to an interest is whether it remains in effect when turned backward. That is to say when its who and whom switch places. I don’t know how much total text storage WordPress allots, though its capacity could surely be exceeded with examples of contemporary principles that collapse upon reversal.
One of those that frequently come to mind since the migrant tsunami began breaking is the principle related to responsibility. Specifically, by what neutral criteria are one people obligated to another? Today’s historically novel answer is: what they want, you owe.
It’s accepted–for some reason–that Europeans owe their habitat, finite social services, and increasingly their lives to aliens ranging from Tajikistan to Senegal, as Americans do every tribe of Amerinds.
How invigorating to think we could count on that want/owe principle surviving contact with the non-Western world. I think a man on the streets of Marrakesh would find himself slack-jawed in amazement to hear he is responsible for the housing, feeding, and general upkeep of millions of itinerant white westerners as a matter of principle. Moreover that these foreigners have become his obligation by virtue only of their desire to live in a sunnier locale.
What if we went on to explain that each migrant he didn’t want would relieve his country’s treasury of an annual 30 grand in upkeep? You can imagine his logical reaction: Isn’t there a cheaper way for me to subsidize the foreigners I despise?
Actually I don’t think that would be his reaction at all.
More likely we would hear a compassionate hope that the sea will take them all gently. Interestingly, that response wouldn’t be altered an iota even if you offered to slash the bill by 90%. Like the price inelasticity of being punched in the face, it’s fascinating how little cost-cutting spurs demand for a product people don’t want.
But saving money on subsidizing others becomes a critical topic once your principles demand responsibility for them. That’s why European capitals are presently flush with recriminations over just which of that continent’s countries haven’t “pulled their weight” in refugees. How much weight was each of theirs to pull is apparently an equation calculated by the billions of third-worlders who want to move there by the number of European countries in which they wish to reside. Here’s a topology depicting its present results.
By this measure then a country like Germany’s required refugee “weight” is measured in megatons of human biomass. By comparison, and by the fortune of its undesirability, India’s refugee load could be carried on the back of a single gourmet rat. The principle being, whatever they want is what you are obliged to provide.
But that’s not at all the problem principles were designed to address.
The first article linked above cites statistics that migrants would cost a tenth as much to care for in provisioned foreign camps than ensconced in the welfare rolls of Europe. We long-ago mentioned that fact here. Thus if one is committed to telescoping welfare, you actually can save an enormous amount of money and your home as well. But that’s less the point of this piece. Rather it is simply to note the debt that does not exist. For western nations, there is no more pulling their weight in accomodating foreign migrants than there is pulling their weight in consuming obesity porn. Both are examples of a purely contrived obligation. This being a thing we could use much less of…strictly as a matter of principle.