Feral Cultures

The Nazis operated with a hierarchy of biologically virtuous and vicious “races”, whereas now we are determined to accord all “cultures” equal respect. Or are we? It is normal for progressives to attribute the evil thoughts, evil words and evil deeds of white heterosexual males to the baleful effects of a dysfunctional culture, namely, the construct called “patriarchy”. (Or perhaps to the baleful effects of male biology; the discourse is most unclear on this point, as “biological determinism” is only a bad thing when it is the other side doing it.) Moreover, progressives see no problem about intervening in foreign cultures in order to prevent, for example, female genital mutilation. Attributing this horrible custom to “patriarchy” – even though in fact it is largely female-driven – rather than to religion, or to ethnic tradition, helps them square the circle and maintain the illusion of consistently respecting everybody (except, naturally, men).

Any unveiled attempt to suggest that a given ethnicity, as opposed to a given gender, might have a dysfunctional culture in the same way as “patriarchal culture” is dysfunctional would, however, be greeted with progressive outrage. Such a suggestion would be equated with Nazism, even if a cultural rather than biological rationale were proffered. In fact, the two causes of perceived dysfunction are systematically confused, so that the early postwar abductions of Aboriginal children to be fostered in the majority society, and similar goings-on in Northern Europe, are commonly regarded as a hangover from pre-war eugenics. Well, not entirely: the Nazis did not set out to “cure” children of their Jewish traits by having them brought up by certified Aryans. If the Australians really had been Nazi or Scandinavian eugenicists, they would simply have had all the Aboriginal children killed or sterilised respectively. What the Australians actually did only makes sense if they regarded the children of their minority population as tabula rasa and thus “redeemable” by fosterage. It may have been a stupid and wicked thing to do, but not the same sort of stupid and wicked thing.

Social workers see cultures that can be called dysfunctional every day – they call them “problem families”. For what is such clients” behaviour if not a family culture, transmitted from generation to generation by learning and imitation? And children are taken into care precisely in order to prevent them inheriting that family culture. While it may be already too late for the fostered ten-year-old, no one doubts that if he had been taken away from his slatternly, drunken mother and bestial, violent father at birth, his prospects would be better still; although we might still have the physical effects of alcohol and drug abuse during pregnancy to contend with. Moreover, it is not difficult to predict which schoolgirls are going to shack up with the feckless sociopath this boy may otherwise grow up to become, and engender more of the same. How is this possible? Because we can see at a glance which girls have a family, social-stratum, peer-group or entertainment “culture” that will render the knuckle-dragger irresistibly sexually attractive.

We can also think in terms of cultural strategies. If we give Group X, for example, public housing and a job, they will live in the house and go to the job, problem solved. Group Y, however, will rip out and sell all the plumbing, then do a midnight flit. That is the only strategy they have learned.

What we are facing, therefore, is dysfunctional cultures: transmitted mind-sets that really ought not to be regarded as equally deserving of respect and protection – inherited patterns that it is indeed severely tempting to break up by compulsory fosterage and adoption. Human beings really do develop and perpetuate subcultures that train people to act badly; the only alternative to recognising this is to enact that human beings can treat their children and neighbours just however they like, provided only that they can claim to be a group. That way madness lies.

It will be objected, of course, that the culture we call dysfunctional does not regard itself in this light. To which may be countered: well, no, but then neither does the sociopathic individual, and yet we still lock him up. No man is a villain to himself; and in the same way a feral culture may regard itself as normal and everyone else as inferior, perverted or ritually unclean. Indeed, that self-confidence may be part of the very definition of a culture. Such a culture might refuse to teach their children to read and write, or have them taught to read and write, so as to prevent assimilation to the unclean host culture.

To make matters worse, some cultures may function perfectly well in their own little bubble, while regarding the whole of the outside society as prey animals, beneath them in the food chain, so that what we call crime is to them merely the exploitation of natural resources. We – that is, the rest of us – cannot lock them all up, and we certainly ought not to exterminate them, so what exactly should we do about them? Might throwing money at their advocacy organisations help? That is certainly what the advocacy organisations want; but there again, I would like people to throw money at me, too, without any obligation to change my behaviour in return.

Leave a Reply