As a Christian and a father I not infrequently find myself faced with a certain moral dilemma. Specifically, my income is pretty good and I’m in the position of deciding what to do with it.
Of course, there is no end of uses for money. Our family is growing and we need a bigger, better home. The sort we want in our area will run us about $6k/month in rent, or $1.2m to buy. The public education system is less ‘broken’ than it is actively ruinous (but both), so private schooling and tutoring considerations apply. There’s retirement planning in the face of an increasingly cartoon economy.
My parish, naturally, wants tithes. They want a whole ten percent! Off the top! And in fairness, if my dollar was the one to determine whether it thrived or failed, that would be the best investment I could make. Our community is amazing and the only place I’d want to raise my children. We run a thrift store (like Goodwill) that is an absolute lifesaver for many of the area’s poor. Also, we practice almsgiving, which is acts of charity above and beyond tithing, if not always monetary.
But many other mouths cry out to be fed as well, from crook-smiled politicians who nonetheless are important to support over the other guy to NGOs trying to staunch an arterial rupture of human tragedy with the equivalent of band-aids for want of bigger budgets.
And life’s finer things are to be considered as well. I like good art, soundly-crafted furniture, stylish clothing (important for my job too), high-quality ingredients for cooking, and the occasional getaway to see family, friends, or just interesting places. The kids want enrichment also, and while I’m not going to call this demand a pit, it certainly is bottomless. Too, there is the notion of self-care; that it’s important to expend enough resources on my own well-being that I continue to be able to generate the income.
Only, as all of these are valued in dollars, they directly trade off against each other. And in the way of autists, I can’t help but grope my way down the thing toward the root of the problem. It has taken me to some pretty intense places.
~All human societies hold in common an understanding that it is a father’s duty to protect and provide for his children. This is enshrined in law, culture, and everywhere else. Of course a father would do anything to save his child — rob, murder, cheat, lie, or give up his own life without hesitation. To do otherwise would be reprehensible.
This principle is not without its exceptions. Men in office, for example, are expected to set aside their familial obligations when acting in their official capacity (And, actually, one could find far worse yardsticks of a people’s worth than their ability to hold to this standard consistently). If a soldier on the front lines receives word of a family emergency, efforts are often made to excuse him to attend to it, but where this conflicts with operational considerations he is expected to stay put, and failure to do so is generally agreed to be worthy of capital enforcement, even if our hearts are understandably with him.
I have heard a saying along the following lines attributed to the Bedouin of the deep desert:
Me and my tribe against the world
Me and my clan against the tribe
Me and my cousins against the clan
Me and my brother against our cousins
Me against my brother
If my daughter and the neighbor-kid are both starving I am expected to feed my own and let the other die. So with my nieces and nephews over my second-cousins’ kids, all the way up the enumerated hierarchy. This is understood. This is a human universal. Most, I expect, would agree that this is the very foundation of morality, though as we will see I am not so sure.
Where exceptions come in it is because a man has taken upon himself the role of father to a greater family than that of his immediate. We honor enormously the Patriarch who puts the good of the clan above his own children. We remember with fierce admiration the Emperor who adopts a competent successor as his son while consigning his own degenerate offspring to some idle pleasure dome in the countryside. We exalt the young man who gives his own life in the trenches while his pregnant wife waits for him anxiously back home. We depend upon such men. We call them heroes. This, too, is moral. It is perhaps even a higher sort of morality.
A messiah is one who brings such benefit to his People at the grandest scales. A typical Christian narrative on the subject goes something like: The Jews were conquered by one hostile nation and then another, denied their own homeland, constantly at risk of enslavement and extermination, and were able to survive all of this by virtue of their hope in a coming promised messiah. They had many specific expectations of what he would be like, too. He would bloodily uproot the foreigners, bring the earth under his dominion, and elevate his own race to lordship, never to be so threatened again. When Jesus came to Jerusalem the people laid down palm fronds that he (or his mount(s)) might tread upon these instead of the dirt. They were elated. They knew exactly what was coming, and they were ready as only centuries of bitter anticipation can make a people. And then the State executed him in their ugliest fashion and he didn’t even attempt to resist. Even the disciples, whom Christ had tried to prepare for this over and over again, understood that all was lost and that Jesus was not the messiah. Messiahs do not lose. They conquer.
Let me shift gears now and talk about Hitler. There is no figure more reviled in our culture. He serves as our icon of utmost evil; of the worst aspects of human nature. To publicly question this in the slightest is to run a very real risk of losing everything and, in many Western countries, even runs up against laws that will land one in a jail cell.
Why?
Yes, I realize that I’m committing an unspeakable breach of social etiquette by asking. Yes, I know that many of us, even here, have an uncontrollable disgust reflex on the topic. Even those who are more or less comfortable with discussing differences in average racial IQs or impulse control, or personality trait variances between men and women.
Why?
The usual answer for someone in such circles is, “Because such discourse is controlled by the Jews, etc., yada yada yada” and while there is certainly something to this it is, at least at this resolution, entirely beside the point I’m trying to make. So please bear with me — that is not where I’m taking you.
One day a few months ago I, in the way of autists, asked myself what exactly was so unusual about Hitler that he should occupy the mythological position that he does. One can of course enumerate a long list of terrible atrocities for which he was responsible. Only, as I went through them, I couldn’t help but notice that not only were they all basically par for the course for the Father, the would-be messiah of a people, but that worse examples of each can be found (both quantitatively and almost always qualitatively) in the biographies of other leaders — including, not to put too fine a point on this, those seen often enough on t-shirts in public without ruffling anyone’s feathers particularly.
So, finding myself at a loss, I escalated the question to some trusted friends, and discovered that while it was extremely upsetting to most of them, none even attempted to answer, but rather clucked at me while shaking their heads in horrified exasperation. These are people, you understand, whose capacity for decoupled analysis I generally respect very greatly. Disconcerting, to say the least. Can’t you pick as a mascot, one said, someone other than the craziest and most evil man in history?
Only, I cannot fathom how anyone sees this when they look at Hitler. Here was a man who sincerely held the best interests of his People in his heart. He came of age in a time when his nation was — historical aggression notwithstanding — brutally, horrifically, oppressed. Countless of his countrymen, women and children, starved to death needlessly under spiteful, vindictive post-war Allied blockades. The economy was so saddled with reparation debt that rebuilding would take generations if it were ever possible at all. The people had no hope. Men and women who wanted families faced down a seemingly-insurmountable challenge in doing so. The risk of watching their babies die of starvation was all too real. And what chance had those children of decent lives even if they did survive to adulthood? They would end up de facto slaves, servants to the sneering foreigners who now controlled everything.
Germany’s culture — within living memory arguably the pinnacle of human achievement — was brought low, rapidly to be replaced with this new post-war thrust which we can now recognize as the antecedent to the sort of moral and cultural disintegration with which we are today so familiar.
And this man! This man was nobody. He was a failed art student. But he decided that he was not going to let that happen. He was going to save his people or die trying. Yes, in pursuit of this goal he engaged in some of the most reprehensible methods imaginable. But in what sense was he not playing the highest, most honorable role for his people — that of a messiah? Was the alternative really any more moral? Are we clutching our pearls and sobbing because it was mean to kill political opponents when what he should have done was to suffer the children of his nation to starve to death in the streets while foreigners feasted in the beautiful homes built by his forefathers? Can we really suppose for one moment that the Jewish zealots of AD 66 would have had any problem with Hitlerian tactics were the shoe on the other foot and being executed by Eleazar ben Simon against the Romans? Yes, Hitler was a mess and riddled with countless inexcusable flaws, but are we truly to believe that he did what he did simply because he enjoyed causing others pain? The man was a vegetarian for goodness’ sake!
Now contrast this with Stalin (or Lenin). How explicit do I need to be here? Whether they acted more out of lust for power or a sincere ideological commitment to, idk, ‘the working class’ (imo doubtful), these guys did not act out of love for their people, and did not hesitate to consign millions of them to starvation in pursuit of power.
And they killed so many more. So many more. But our politicians can admire them openly and the common man has only the haziest idea of why this might be a problem. And while, sure, the opposition will attempt to make much hay of this, the younger generations increasingly seem uninterested in what they have to say about it.
Last night a friend told me,
my opinion is that you've been brainpoisoned into calling evil good and good evil and rather than leaning into the caricatures of your enemies by using the word 'hitlerism' to refer to good things you should not do that
(Not that I was — it’s precisely the distinction that I’m trying to draw, but we’ll get to that.)
So on the subject of ‘my enemies’, let me tell you a few things I notice about them.
-
They get abortions
-
They permanently sterilize themselves, or
-
They take pills to trick their bodies into thinking they've just lost a baby because this spiritual distress is preferable to them over the prospect of actually reproducing.
-
They purchase chihuahuas, and pekinese, and felines, and portage them around in equipment intended for human children which will never exist
-
They agonize over the irresponsibility of their own kind having children, but gasp in horror at anyone who suggests that African birthrates might become a problem
-
They desire to privilege children of other races above their own, ceding educational access, preferential employment, etc.
-
They get nervous at portrayals of healthy white families with several children
-
They will loudly insist that they do not have a culture
-
They really don’t like borders and seem to think that it’s their responsibility to feed and clothe the world
This list could be ten times as long, of course. You get the idea. So to circle back around to my original point —
My enemies do not feed their own children first. My enemies sell their children at the market and immediately donate the proceeds to the worst, most irredeemably valueless people they can find. And if they can’t find one close enough to hand, they go looking. And it’s disgusting. It’s reprehensible. It offends me to a degree that I have difficulty conveying without jumping up and down and screaming until I’m red in the face and collapsing into a pile of tears. Only, I seem to remember Jesus telling us to do what my enemies are doing — or it’s at least close enough that I can’t help but notice.
Which brings us back to my daughter. As her father, where does my responsibility to her end? At what point should I give a dollar to feed notional children on the other side of the world rather than investing it in her future? How stiff will her competition be? How can I know in advance which investment will turn out to make all the difference?
Consider the following scenario. I am walking down the street and notice my neighbor’s two year old breaking free from her front door and running into traffic. Of course if I can safely rescue her I should, but suppose I’m not sure that I can without endangering my own life in the process, and leaving my children fatherless? I could maybe look her parents in the eye afterward and say “There just wasn’t anything I could do” and they’d likely catch the nuance and understand and even bitterly sympathize.
But supposing I had plenty of time to save the child, and just choose not to because this would mean I don't have time to read my daughter a bedtime story. Is that equivalent to murder? I say yes. Trying to delineate between the two is an unseemly thing for a man to do and belies a womanly discomfort with agency. But when I spend a few extra bucks to get her the pink scooter someone, somewhere, is going hungry, and in aggregate dying.
Or imagine that I’m the chieftain of one of two small tribes on a small island. Resources are getting scarce and everyone knows that at some point soon it’s going to be us or them. Does a good leader, a good father, wait for the threat to ripen, for the enemy to choose the place and time for battle? Or does he strike preemptively? It will be either our children or theirs who die. We will eat their babies or they will eat ours. Shouldn’t a father make sure of which it is? Isn’t that what a good father does?
The reason our society is so reflexively disgusted by Hitler is because we have mostly internalized the notion that our children should die that others might live, and the man with the tiny moustache represents the polar opposite of that.
Hitler seems to me, at heart, a very good father. If I emulated him, I should not hesitate to feed my own child first, even upon the corpses of my neighbors’ children. I should lie and cheat and steal and murder in game-theoretically optimal ways to bestow upon my children as many resources as possible, that they should not themselves end up in chains or on the dinner plate. The notorious Fourteen Words — “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” — make the connection so explicit and unassailable that the Left dares not to look upon it.
But the icon-stand in my heart labeled “Father” does not have Hitler’s portrait in it. Actually the picture there is blank, ha ha, but that’s another story, and the point is that Christ fills in pretty well. My Father does not feed His own child first. He feeds His child to us. Bit by blood-soaked bit, forever. I can struggle with the apparent discrepancy between disinheriting my daughter to feed what looks to me like a total waste of the Imago Dei, but there it is. I am certain that the difference between my girl, whom I can assure you I adore unbearably and who always seems to have a beam of sunshine on her in my eyes — that the difference between her and the most contemptible human being ever to exist, is as nothing compared to the difference between God’s son and my daughter, or myself.
But the gorge does rise in my throat when I consider failing to protect what seems, to me, the most beautiful person, and the most beautiful People, ever to exist in favor of… that. Every cell in my body says that I should sooner glass an entire foreign continent rather than allow harm to befall one hair upon my daughter’s perfect golden head.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
And we can’t even expect the problem to go away. The least of these will always be among us. He said so. Maybe the only clean way out of this is to not have children in the first place. I’m afraid He might have said that too.
I try to console myself with precedent. I try to believe. We have established two types of morality: A baseline morality of feeding one’s own children first, and a higher morality of sacrificing one’s children for the greater good of the People. But Christ would seem to indicate a third sort, which is to love the foreigner's child more than one’s own. This is, after all, what God did.
And for a minute there humans actually did it too! As Scott says,
The early Christian Church had the slogan “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39), and indeed, their idea of Burning The Fucking System To The Ground was to go unprotestingly to martyrdom while publicly forgiving their executioners. They were up against the Roman Empire, possibly the most effective military machine in history, ruled by some of the cruelest men who have ever lived. [...] this should have been the biggest smackdown in the entire history of smackdowns.
And it kind of was. Just not the way most people expected.
Food for thought, I guess.
So it seems to me that if I'm to be a Christian, this directly implies feeding my child to the dogs. And if I'm to do otherwise, this fully generalizes to Hitler. Either way I had better get serious about whatever it is I'm doing here.
Long story short, I’m currently trying to decide between this apron and this one for my daughter for when she’s painting at her easel. The first is a little bit cheaper, but she’ll like the second one better because it has unicorns. Hoping someone can offer some insight here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sadly, yes. I stand by my country because what can I do, it belongs to me and I to it, but it's clearly a sinking ship without a future. Hell, without a present, even.
I'm not opposed to civic nationalism, but the Grundgesetz, that makeshift postwar document cobbled together under occupation, is hardly worth much. What binding power does it have, other than being invoked when someone wants to use it against his enemies? What else is there to mark the German? The language, as you noted, is despised even by those who speak no other fluently. Work is esteemed, those who work and pay their taxes are somewhat rightfully considered productive members of society, but this too is only a flimsy pretense or else we woulf not be so tolerant of parasites, of wastes of taxpayer money, of welfare queens. How can a German even be German, nowadays? By holding on to cultural products of bygone ages, since nothing of value is produced any longer?
In the end there may be nothing left of Germany but the land itself. There yet remain Germans, millions of them, who are clearly German and nothing else, but as you and Ilforte said, their national identity is fatally crippled. It cannot reproduce, it cannot expand, it cannot propagate or assimilate, and it cannot innovate. Whatever parts of are lost to time will find no replacement.
I'd write more but I think duty calls.
How about German cars? The Germans seem (rightfully) proud of them.
They used to write music and poetry that redefined the whole idea of art, and make philosophy that turned the world upside down. I'm not sure what @Southkraut thinks of those results but it was a mark of something more than a nation and bordering on a sovereign civilization – and all that half-drunk, in a murky state of lingering feudalism. They had magic, they had their own German Logos yearning for a systematic universal expression. Now they have neat logistics. Great.
Maybe not just 'great logistics'.
You are one of the few people here who could probably sneeze in Metzinger over a couple of weekends without his head exploding. Contemporary philosopher with some neuroscience training. Writes books about the problem of consciousness.
I've heard good things about the books by Peter Watts, not someone whom you'd expect to be indulgent of bullshit. (except where his baptist apocalypticism is concerned, mind you)
He also said it was 'harder reading' than many textbooks because the ideas are just .. complex.
«But doctor…»
That's exactly my journey over a decade ago, Watts to Metzinger. I think he's basically correct.
Germans definitely have individual giants. Schmidhuber is probably more impressive.
The snide comments over on his wiki page that he takes credits for other people's achievements are perfidious attacks by jealous anklebiters?
There are different perspectives on that. He definitely plays fast and loose with definitions of ideas to say he published «basically the same thing» first, or that later inventions follow «trivially». He also is genuinely an author of a ton of seminal papers, and Americans (Canadians too) don't like to admit his priority. I'd say he's personally smarter than the Turing Award trio, though this is only relevant to the previous topic.
He also tries to redistribute credit on behalf of the dead, so that's not only about personal ego, charitably speaking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't want to overreach there. I think Germans achieved much in many fields for a good while, and unusually so while being politically fragmented, but ultimately both divided and united under Prussia we remained more or less in the same weight class as, say, the French and the English.
Without expertise, I'd say German philosophers during feudalism often produced absolutely useless tripe they only got away with thanks to patronage, whereas in the Prussian era they often tended towards overly-grandiose ideas in the vein of "Am deutschen wesen soll die Welt genesen" (German nature shall cure the world). Maybe I'm oversimplifying and conflating politics and philosophy here. Even the big names like Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer, in my estimation, were prolific but the quality of what they wrote varied wildly. But in either era, Germans did philosophize. And they made art. Maybe it really was the granular feudalism that enabled all this - everyone somewhat stuck in their own little world, and the heads of each of those little worlds eager to provide patronage, leaving people half-forced and half-enabled to think and create somewhat more than the inhabitants of wider, more open countries. Heine said it succinctly: To the French the land, to the British the sea, and to the Germans the clouds.
But in my comment up there I didn't even mean high art and philosophy. I was thinking more of that which actually makes up the cultural day-to-day of people. That which they share. Language, stories, figures of speech, values, priorities, norms, songs, ways of working, modes of social interaction. "I'm a German, you're a German, which I know because we do X and wouldn't have it any other way.". What X is left for us nowadays?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And you think that's something a German can think about and go "yeah, it's good to be a German, we make nice cars."? That's enough for a tiny subculture, but hardly the nation. And how many immigrants will shed their old national identities in favor of becoming one of "the guys who make nice cars but otherwise hate themselves"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Japanese life may seem depressing from a western perspective, but what they have managed to do that nearly every other country has not has been to adapt to modernity without losing the core of their culture. Rather than splintering into one faction that blindly apes Americanized global culture and one that tries with desperate futility to turn back the clock to the good old days, as most societies have (see Dubai vs ISIS, Westernized Russian oligarchs vs Putin-style revanchists, etc.) they have adopted the technological trappings of the West without becoming a poor imitation of it, and are able to export their own culture back in the form of anime, samurai movies, video games, food, and the general sense that there is something ineffably different about them and their way of life.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, it's better to be alive now in the first world than at any previous point in time. Our material well-being is historically pretty maximal, though we may have peaked just about now.
But in terms of national identity? Is there any non-materialist reason why someone should want to become a German? Or why a German should be glad not to be a member of any other first-world nation?
This is a popular talking point and even Jordan Peterson capitulated on this when he was murdering those Swedes, but I have my doubts. The worthiness of human existence is not defined by material comfort, and I suspect that many a man exists in these benighted latter days who would have been much happier in an era of shitty rights, worse food, and a faithful and stalwart wife who would bear him many children. Your mileage may vary but I know which I would choose, were I not blesséd enough to have both.
Re: Germanity, what can I say but F. I doubt very much if that race can be reconstituted but if I have the opportunity and no greater obligation I surely will accomplish this thing.
Well, yes, but it's counterfactual for most people, whereas the material advantages are easy to quantify. Maybe it's a grass-is-greener issue on some level, too? Would we have hankered for atomization, for a shedding of social responsibility, for sheer wealth, and damn our faithful wives if only we could for once ride on an airplane to go on a whoring trip in Thailand, eat as much as we like and do all the superstimuli under heaven?
I too look upon the past and see much to like, but I have no illusions about how incomplete my idea of life-in-the-past is. But sure enough, there is much in the present to dislike, and there our judgement can be more easily trusted.
Well, thanks if you get around to it, would be swell.
To be honest, these are big questions and you seem closer to the answers. You tell me - how would you go about restoring an entire nation that's almost a century into its own dismantling, dilution and degradation?
And do tell me about my people. My own appreciation of them is too colored by personal connections to make much sense in the abstract, given my limited abilities with language.
To be clear the question was rhetorical. Of course an outsider can see things an insider cannot, but so vice versa.
What can I tell you of Germans? I have only recently discovered that I am not one. Yet I feel a great affinity for what that people, begging your pardon, had been.
Christ.
More options
Context Copy link
Some of them, sure. But we'd still be dissolute, atomized materialists with no ability to generate culture, and ideologically captured and committed to the most outrageous Wolkenschlösser*1 and we'd still be wallowing in self-hate over muh nazis. Foreigners cause many problems and prevent many solutions for other problems, but blaming it all on them is facile and off the mark.
*1 Cloud-castles, i.e., ideas with no chance of being implemented.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link