Rosa Parks in Tajikistan

In an incident that could easily be pigeonholed as “Acts of Divine Justice” or “The Darwin Awards for Stupidity”, four Western cyclists in southwestern Tajikistan were recently intentionally mowed down and killed by Moslem activists. But why don’t we stop for a moment and think just what it is in our consciousness, wisdom or experience that insists: “Don’t go biking in Tajikistan”?

Tajikistan is a beautiful country. It has roads good enough for biking. There are people around, which means that there is probably water, food and shelter as well, and a relative dearth of dangerous animals. Even tools, spare parts and medicine could probably be located, useful in an emergency. And these cyclists were experienced, having already biked through Africa and Europe. They had made meticulous plans and were excellently prepared and well equipped for their task. So why are we so disparaging towards these, as we like to call them, adventurers? What is so patently wrong with biking through Tajikistan? Well, obviously, it is the people. We are prejudiced against the Tajik. Jay Austen and Lauren Geoghegan were not, and they are now dead.

Liberalism teaches us not to discriminate, not to make a difference between people, a difference between the people we know and strangers. Especially people acting publicly, people acting visibly, should not be allowed to discriminate. Other people mustn’t discriminate. Since the state of Alabama was wrong in discriminating against Rosa Parks, all discrimination is, according to liberal dictum, obviously and necessarily wrong. And so bikers die in Tajikistan. Because the prejudice against Rosa Parks and the prejudice against Tajik jihadists cannot be separated. It is prejudice based solely on group-level distinctive superficial differences, where one person of a certain apparent kind is supposed or expected to act in a similar way to another person of the same apparent kind. This is the prejudice that informs us that it is obviously stupid to go biking in Tajikistan.

Mr. Austen and Miss Geoghegan found magic on their trip around the world. They found beautiful landscapes and vistas, created by nature and by men. They expected to find, and did indeed find, unexpected help from people who recognized the predicaments their absolute and voluntary naïvety repeatedly placed them in.

Little did Mr. Austin recognize that the reason that these people were willing and able to invite them into their homes was that they had not gone off on a liberal adventure spree, but had worked hard at home to accumulate the capital Mr. Austin could reap a part of the interest off.1 They did not live as Mr. Austin, self-obsessed in a tiny (private) house.

In South Africa, Mr Austen and Miss Geoghegan were saved by a security guard, using the resources of his employer, who discriminated against them in seeing their predicament camping on a highway in the middle of winter. In Botswana, they were saved by a man who observed them biking through a desert at 35° Celsius, discriminated their supposed thirst and gave them water he had, as opposed to the biking couple, been wise enough to have secured the presence of. In Spain, the couple biked in heavy rain and someone discriminated their being wet, borrowed them a towel and offered to dry their clothes. Only in Tajikistan did their encounter with a discriminating world end not in their favour.

If you take a simple average of Mr. Austen’s and Miss Geoghegan’s encounters with the unknown, they were clearly winning. In reality, they died. On “average”, liberalism, the mindless acceptance of everything new and unknown, is advantageous. But in life, we don’t get to make an average over time. In life statistics, there is no ergodicity.

Exactly this, the unbearable presence in our consciousness of the knowledge of our own vulnerability, is probably what makes us inclined to adopt the liberal stance in the first place. Why can’t we just live together? That would solve the problem. But it is a dream, a dream designed to dampen our angst. It is a life lie. If you take it to the last consequence, like Mr. Austen and Miss Geoghegan did, you die:

“You watch the news and you read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place. People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil. People are axe murderers and monsters and worse.

“I don’t buy it. Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own — it’s easier to dismiss an opinion as abhorrent than strive to understand it. Badness exists, sure, but even that’s quite rare. By and large, humans are kind. Self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind. Generous and wonderful and kind. No greater revelation has come from our journey than this.”

So, does this mean that it was right to ask Rosa Parks to give up her seat because of her skin colour? Of course not. But it was wrong to generalize this local solution to a local problem into a universal principle applicable in all contexts. The laws in Alabama before and after the Rosa Parks incident were both approximations of an ideal system of laws allowing all to just live together in peace. Instead of making bold generalizations in abstract terms long parted from the reality they were created to represent, we should continue to improve our local approximations, step by step, detail by detail.


1. Mr. Austin and Miss Geoghegan also, in Europe, took part in organised and discriminatory coachsurfing.

Advertisements

Evan Sayets fyra lagar för modern vänsterpolitik

Tagna från The Kindergarden of Eden. Se Evan Sayets tal här.

Översättning från engelskan av Fredrik Östman.

1. Urskillningslösheten – det totala avvisandet av den intellektuella processen – är ett absolut moraliskt imperativ.

2. Urskillningslöshet i tanken leder inte till urskillninglöshet i politiken, utan i stället till att man uteslutande och alltid tar det sämres sida gentemot det bättre, det felaktigas sida gentemot det riktiga och det ondas sida gentemot det goda.

3. Modern vänsterpolitik utövas i tandem. Varje ansträngning för det sämres skull matchas med en jämbördig motsatt kampanj emot det bättre.

4. Den moderna vänsterns representanter tillskriver det bättre de negativa kvaliteter som förknippas med det sämre, samtidigt som de tillskriver det sämre de positiva kvaliteter som återfinns i det bättre.

Följdsatserna

1. En representant för den moderna vänstern kan ha privata moraliska principer, men han måste förneka dem och bekämpa deras användning och var och en som tillämpar dem i den offentliga sfären.

2. En representant för den moderna vänstern försöker inte och kan inte försöka förbättra sig själv eller samhället. I stället måste han sänka andra och hela samhället ned till sin egen nivå.

3. En representant för den moderna vänstern har sekundär politik som bara är till för att mildra det större lidande som hans primära politik har skapat eller förvärrat.

(Evan Sayet representerar själv inte den moderna vänstern.)

Se även

Dr Jordan B Petersons tolvpunktsprogram för framgångsrik konservatism på tvåtusentalet

Evan Sayet’s Four Laws of Modern Liberalism

Taken from The Kindergarden of Eden. See Evan Sayet’s speech here.

Läs denna text på svenska här.

1. Indiscriminateness—the total rejection of the intellectual process—is an absolute moral imperative.

2. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.

3. Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.

4. The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

The Corollaries

1. The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.

2. The Modern Liberal does not and cannot seek to better himself or society. Instead he must lower others and society to his level.

3. The Modern Liberal has secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that his primary policies created or exacerbated.

(Evan Sayet is himself not a Modern Liberal.)

See Also

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s Twelve Tenets of a Viable 21st Century Conservatism

Utvecklingsläran

DET GODA SAMHÄLLET

logo­DGSEnligt Utvecklingsläran blir allting med tiden bättre: samhällets institutioner, de mänskliga rättigheterna, miljön, bildningen, moralen, människors utseende, modet och matens smak och textur. Ibland och på vissa orter går utvecklingen snabbare och på andra långsammare, men det går alltid framåt sånär som på enstaka av illvilja och sabotage orsakade smärre bakslag. Från urtiden över de tidiga civilisationerna och resten av historien går en rak linje till dagens svenska Moraliska Stormakt, just i färd med att svinga sig till nya höjder med ännu rättare och ännu mänskligare rättigheter.

View original post 968 more words