Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Blog Guest Authors Butthole Surfer
From the Butthole Surfer
Why We Can’t Have Nice Things Anymore

This is excerpted from a summary of Lord Jonathan Sacks' speech to the American Enterprise Institute:

“Freedom requires not just a state, but also and even more importantly a society,” Lord Jonathan Sacks told the American Enterprise Institute in October. “A society built of strong covenantal institutions, of marriages, families, congregations, communities, charities, and voluntary associations.”

Sacks drew a useful distinction between a social contract—which emphasizes the rights citizens cede to government in exchange for certain protections—and a social covenant, which like a marriage isn’t about rights but about mutual commitment and identity.

“The social contract creates a state but the social covenant creates a society,” Sacks said. “In America,” he added, “the social contract is still there, but the social covenant is being lost.”

Sacks’ speech—filled with humor—is worth watching or reading in full.

It’s also worth quoting at length:

“And because half of America doesn’t have strong families and communities standing between the individual and the state, people begin to think that all political problems can be solved by the state. But they can’t. And when you think they can, politics begins to indulge in magical thinking. So you get the far right dreaming of a golden past that never was and the far left yearning for a utopian future that never will be. And then comes populism, the belief that a strong leader can solve all our problems for us. And that is the first step down the road to tyranny, whether of the right or of the left.

I have argued, a fortiori, that since Americans cannot cooperate at a family level, they cannot cooperate at church, city, state, or national levels. Thus divided against ourselves, the elites plunder and ruin our country and foreigners invade.

“Horatius,” quoth the Consul,

“As thou sayest so let it be,” 250

And straight against that great array

Went forth the dauntless three.

For Romans in Rome’s quarrel

Spared neither land nor gold,

Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, 255

In the brave days of old.

Then none was for a party—

Then all were for the state;

Then the great man helped the poor,

And the poor man loved the great; 260

Then lands were fairly portioned!

Then spoils were fairly sold:

The Romans were like brothers

In the brave days of old.

Now Roman is to Roman 265

More hateful than a foe,

And the tribunes beard the high,

And the fathers grind the low.

As we wax hot in faction,

In battle we wax cold; 270

Wherefore men fight not as they fought

In the brave days of old.

To Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy, I think our Left Coast contributor is imagining the exercise of your powers of extrapolation on this one.

Porter, writing at the Kakistocracy, has made the point that Western elites believe their tax base is locked in place when it isn't.

The Boer is trekking again after 400 years. Recall, they landed in South Africa when it was basically empty slightly after the PIlgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Now, some are headed to Georgia. No, not the Georgia in the USA but that country near Russia.

Laura Southern explains why they are leaving here:

—The Butthole Surfer

Writing Unchained

Prolific Writing by Design

Add Comment
BobFebruary 13, 2018 12:13 AM UTC

I can't agree with PR. Although the point about pusillanimous and venal gentile collaborators rings true, Jews are the vanguard in the racial war being waged against whites. They are the primary actors in a broad, heterogeneous anti-white coalition.
Sam J.February 11, 2018 1:46 AM UTC

Maybe PR is right but let's look at this in a simple add up the amounts way. Isn't that how you analyze problems or pay your bills or any number of things you want to weigh?

The whole entire media, radio, TV, book publishing, newspaper, twitter, Google and magazine publishing are owned by the Jews and just how much time do they spend on being against immigration? How much time for? Now add that political spending by Jews on the political parties accounts for 60% of the Democratic Party and close to 50% of the Republican party and then how much time is spent on mass immigration and how much time is spent stopping it? Now add that up on your sheet and then tell me...where are all these "elite and common goyim"? Where are their radio, TV, book publishing, newspaper, twitter, Google and magazine publishing, etc.? How much money are they spending?

So in reality, real reality not Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood of Make-Believe, just how much in the way of resources are thrown into the mix by Jews to ramp up the "immigration disaster"?

The answer is clear.
PRFebruary 10, 2018 9:32 PM UTC

He's just repeating the dogma of the European elite. It would be easier to believe the Jews were the prime mover in this Anglo-saxon immigration disaster if I wasn't constantly bombarded by treachery and cowardice from elite and common goyim alike. Also, there's a ton of historical precedent for this type of thing in collapsing empires. Read Sir John Glubb. The Jews are little more than a weathervane which is a bad thing itself. I guarantee if half our families weren't failing and we had a shred of backbone, this wouldn't be happening.
BobFebruary 10, 2018 12:08 AM UTC

Purely as a mind-experiment, imagine had the Baron come out instead with:

"If *Israel* fails on the question of refugees, its close connection with universal civil rights will be destroyed."
BobFebruary 9, 2018 6:10 PM UTC

While Rabbi Lord Jonathon Sacks has been a consistent champion of the traditional family, his record on another critical issue has been far less clear and unwavering.

In 2013 he publicly admitted that multiculturalism breeds social division and has "failed":

Come 2015, he publicly advocated for that very same policy, in augmented form:

"Angela Merkel was not wrong when she said: 'If Europe fails on the question of refugees, its close connection with universal civil rights will be destroyed.'"

Informed judgment require non-selective access to facts. Baron Sacks is careful not to mention is that non-European post-war mass immigration to Britain was a project executed by almost exclusively by Jewish activists, entrepreneurs and politicians, starting in 1948 with the arrival in England of SS Empire Windrush carrying Caribbean blacks, and continually increasing up to the present day. Never was popular opinion sought and those few politicians who dissented from the policy (eg. Enoch Powell) were marginalized. Later, hate-speech laws served to tamp down individual dissent, again, instigated in large part by Jewish activist organizations, lawyers and politicians. So I'm a curmudgeon, but it seems obvious that Sacks' main concern over immigration was Muslim anti-Semitism and not the welfare of the broader, native population.