Friday, 2 October 2015

Mass migration: the secular debate inevitably channels attitudes into the choice between self-hatred versus other-hatred

In few matters has the impossibility of a viable secular culture been shown so clearly as the current debate on what to do about the existential and imminent threat of mass migration.

The secular debate offers two alternatives: either embrace mass migration and open borders, and accept cultural annihilation; or else develop a counter-revolutionary ethic of hatred towards mass migration.


This dichotomy is being forced upon people by the secular framing of the debate in purely material terms: in terms of life being reduced (by the secular frame) to economics and crime; of spirituality and national character being reduced to mere traditions and habits; of ultimates being reduced to the utilitarian hedonic calculus of emotional states of happiness or misery, fulfilment or suffering.

The hatred is being forced upon people by the need for motivation and the fact that (as more than two centuries of experience with secular cultures shows us) hatred is the only kind of powerful, sustainable, manipulable mass motivation available to the secular perspective.


Actively to embrace unlimited mass migration requires that the host culture must develop powerful self-hatred and Despair; such that people feel it is just and right and necessary that that they destroy themselves.

To resist, repel, and reverse mass migration (from where we are now) would require a tidal change in cultural attitudes - a reversal of many decades of the consensus of mass media propaganda, laws and regulations and training - which could only imaginably be achieved in practice by the power of organized other-hatred and the deliberate inducing of pride (I mean sinful Pride, well-understood by Christianity).


Of course people can (and should), in the privacy of their own minds, adopt a non-hating attitude - but public discourse will be channelled into one form of hatred or the other - because there is nowhere else for it to go.


Only if we are able to see the problem of mass migration in a religious frame could we potentially be able to adopt a public, national attitude which is (as it should be, and as it must be if it is to be Good) both 1. non-hating and 2. very powerfully motivated.

The choice is stark: between the sin of Despair on one hand, or the sin of Pride on the other hand... or a powerfully-motivating revival of Christianity such that the public discourse on mass migration can be re-framed, and the problems addressed, in ultimate and spiritual terms.


Since I do not see the prospect of such a Christian revival on the horizon among the nations of The West - I am a pessimist, either way.

But a Christian revival is not excluded from possibility, not at all; so I continue to hope.