Adaptability is a double-edged sword. One who moves from a culture in which he’s comfortable to another which differs from it is expected to adapt. But his adaptation can take more than one form.
Imagine one who moves from a dirty, violent, lawless place – a place where life is “nasty, poor, brutish, and short” – to a place of peace, cleanliness, and mutual trust. There’s no guarantee that he’ll adapt to his new environment by conforming to its norms. He may see those around him, so wealthy, clean, and peaceable in aspect – as pigeons for the plucking. Having been steeped in the ethics of his previous environments – i.e., whatever you can get away with is quite all right – he might just try to pluck them.
Americans have been seeing a lot of that. Many of us have reacted against it, which is rational and sane. Many others have done the opposite: they’ve claimed that we, the clean, peaceable, trusting ones, have an obligation to adapt to the newcomers. They may even believe that it’s our ethical obligation to do so.
It “should be obvious” that whichever doctrine prevails will determine the future of that society. What’s not so obvious are the sub-processes by which that future is attained.
Mourn the passing of a great nation:
@viking_boer Desensitization is a big thing-- didn't realize how much so until I left Zimbabwe. Stop rationalizing murders & torture because it wasn't in your area. Stop excusing murder & torture because of politics. I believe there will be ethnic cleansing. Save yourselves, before you can't
— Charlene (@_4Charlene) October 29, 2026
Rhodesia was a great nation. It was built entirely by colonists from Great Britain. Yes, it was imposed willy-nilly upon the blacks in that region. It was great nevertheless, a bastion of peace, order, and prosperity where the law of the jungle had reigned. The same was true of South Africa before the Whites surrendered political control to the blacks of that region.
In neither land is there anything resembling public order or trust today. In neither land are Whites’ lives safe. The law of the jungle has returned.
That’s what happens when a society ceases to enforce high-civilization norms and surrenders to those who disdain them. Actually, “disdain” isn’t the right word. They who destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa didn’t think about the norms the British and Boers brought to those places. They simply lived according to the norms of the jungle, where “whatever you can get away with is quite all right.” In the absence of enforcement, they were too many and too savage for the White minorities to cope with.
A famous incident from a few years back had a remarkable sequel. The two Sikhs who stopped a blatant shoplifter by force were subsequently investigated for assault. Now ask yourself this:
Those two Sikhs may not have been thinking about the abstract threat to the high-trust society in which they lived. They may not have been thinking that “if we permit this, the store will close and we’ll lose our livelihoods.” They may have reacted purely from fury. Whatever the case, in the three-person microcosm depicted by the video, they imposed the norms they preferred upon the miscreant who had tried to impose his norms on them. They enforced the norms of high-trust society without embarrassment, and for a spell, the law of the jungle was warded off.
But we must not pass on without pondering the other facet to the incident. Those Sikhs, who acted in defense of the store and the norms that made it possible, were suddenly subject to legal hazard. Had the district attorney decided to prosecute them, they would have suffered greatly even if ultimately acquitted. They were fortunate that it proved not to be necessary to defend themselves against the weight of the “justice system.”
Acculturation can penetrate any institution. Get enough softheaded types into the system and they can remake it quite opposite to its original purpose. That’s happened in a number of places in these United States. I live uncomfortably near to one.
In even the highest and most civilized societies, there will be a criminally-inclined subgroup. Members of that group will look for opportunities to exploit the prevalence of general trust. I wrote about such a person here:
“And thank You, dear Lord, for keeping Onteora County well stocked with idiots,” Dominic intoned, head bowed over his folded hands. Tony looked up at him in surprise. “Thank You for making them trust those ridiculous Kruger-Smith snap locks, and for never suggesting to them that they shouldn’t keep all their valuables in the master bedroom. Your humble servant really appreciates these labor-saving conveniences.”….
Some thieves seek riches. Others seek challenges to their skills. Dominic sought only sustenance.
Onteora suited him. Its poor had little to defend, and were philosophical about losing it. Its better-offs were few enough not to stimulate much competition for him, and found more succor in their homeowner’s insurance than in the halfhearted efforts of the county police. He knew better than to attack the well secured, privately guarded homes of the county’s few rich. As long as he stayed fit and sharp, he could survive here.
As long as they’re few, and kept in acceptable check by the “forces of order,” that high-trust society will survive with its norms intact. But when the forces of order become acculturated to failure, the few will attract emulators. Those who were previously unwilling to risk violating the norms will become bolder: “They get away with it, so we can too.” Evidence will accumulate that the norms of general trust are fading. Violators will multiply still faster.
It’s a positive-feedback cycle.
I could go on about this, but I think the point will stand. Either we enforce the norms – emphasis on force — or we’ll lose them. To that end, a particular attitude toward such things is to be eliminated: the notion that “the law belongs to the State.” It does not. The State is merely our agent. If that agent has ceased to fulfill its responsibilities, private citizens who understand the foundation of all law, the principles of right and wrong, must step in.
Those two Sikhs got it right.
Refuse to tolerate the intolerable.
Reject acculturation to the law of the jungle.
"If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."
ReplyDeleteWeary of Calvera's depredations, the tiny village of unarmed - and therefore helpless - innocents pooled their meager resources to hire a loose-knit band of wandering modern samurai. This vigilance committee took on the problem of taming brazen lawlessness in one small town.
In a different fictional depiction, a paladin who ironically dressed in bad guy black (actually deep blue that did not render on black and white televisions) expertly wielded a handgun that had been custom built to his own specifications (he told us so at the beginning of each episode) for the purpose of righting the wheel of Justice throughout the post civil war West, usually in exchange for a princely sum, sometimes not. The Lone Ranger and his faithful Indian companion Tonto was another fictional example of such vigilantism that was seen as acceptable for the time. In fact, vigilance committees were very normal until the advent of modern policing and the idea that individuals should not take the law into their own hands. As though it had somehow been voluntarily surrendered from their own hands to begin with. Even the Old West posse is descended from the idea that individual citizens have a responsibility to see that the law is properly administered.
Some actual vigilance committees in the West were formed because the duly constituted law enforcers had become criminals themselves. What else to do in such a situation?
And from whence does the law descend in our modern Western civilization? The Bible of course; The Old Testament. Most people can discern that almost all of our laws are based upon three commandments: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, and thou shall not bear false witness. These commandments are absolute: there are no exceptions. Unlike other ideologies that claim to pass for religion, they do not say thou shalt not steal EXCEPT from someone who is not a member of your tribe. Or thou shalt not murder UNLESS the infidel refuses to ascribe to the absolute divinity of your deity. Or thou shalt not bear false witness UNLESS doing so furthers the advancement of our primitive ideology. Such exceptions are primitive, backward and barbaric, and this is so obvious that it should not even be a matter for discussion.
It is one thing for people of these ideologies to take advantage of such exceptions in their own law, in their own culture, on their own land. But why on God's green earth would we allow them to import these exceptions into our own culture, in our lands? If governments' institutions won't or can't do anything substantive about recent immigrants committing massive fraud against our government charitable programs, who will or should do something about it? If, as is happening in Great Britain and surely soon to become prevalent in this country, recent immigrants of the Muslim persuasion engage in the rape of white girls on a massive scale because their religion allows it, and our government's institutions won't or can't do anything about it, who should?
One or two or a handful of upright men can't solve the whole problem, but they could surely solve small parts of it, in their own localities. I propose the resurrection of the idea of honorable vigilance committees. Not to bring anyone to justice, but to put an end to the rampant injustice.