"Now we get to the subject of ‘trust.’ Trust, as a society, is something
that most people understand poorly. Trust is vital for a society to
function. It’s not hard to explain, though. Trust means that if you loan
your lawn-mower to a neighbor, you’ve got a pretty good chance of
getting it back. There’s an implied contract. I let you use the
lawnmower. You return it in pretty much the same condition you got it.
You don’t loan it to your cousin who then uses it to cut his
client’s yards. You don’t break it and give it back and then insist you
didn’t break it. You don’t sell it. You give it back in pretty much the
same condition you got it.
There are several different types of societal trust but they really
boil down into two major groups. Familial and general. Familial is the
society where if you loan your lawn mower to your cousin, he’ll give it
back. But if you loan it to your neighbor, who is not your cousin, you
don’t know if he’ll give it back or not. So you don’t loan it to your
neighbor. You don’t do anything for anyone if you can possibly help it.
You don’t trust the cop unless he’s a cousin. You don’t trust the banker
unless he’s a cousin.
If you’ve ever been overseas (or, hell, in certain areas in the US)
and had someone say ‘I have a cousin who…’ then you’re in a familial
trust society.
Then there are general trust societies. The US is, by and large,
(and we’ll get to Chicago, LA and Detroit in a second) a general trust
society. In most segments of American society you could loan your lawn
mower to your neighbor with a fair expectation of getting it back. If
you didn’t, you could take him to small claims court and the judge
wasn’t going to care about you or your neighbor, mostly, just about the
merits of the case.
Trust is vital in a society. If societal trust is too low, people
trust no-one. Except, maybe, their cousins.
This brings us to ‘multiculturalism.’
A study was done by a very liberal British sociologist back in the
mid-oughts. The study set out to prove that multicultural societies had
higher levels of societal trust than monoculture societies. It seems a
no-brainer that the reverse was the case, but at the time
multi-culturalism along with a bunch of other urban myths were the way
of the world.
However, it was a no-brainer. The study proved the exact opposite.
That is, the more diverse an area was in cultures, the less societal
trust there was.
Look, humans don’t trust ‘the other.’ The name every single
primitive tribe gives for ‘other’ translates as ‘enemy.’ Apache was the
Hopi name for the Apache tribes and that’s the exact translation:
Enemy.
But it’s more complex than that. Say you’re from a general trust
culture. A neighbor moves in next door who is from a familial trust
culture. You offer the use of your lawn-mower. It never comes back. You
point that out and eventually learn that it’s been used to cut about a
hundred lawns. If you get it back, it’s trashed.
The neighbor considers you a moron for loaning it to him in the
first place. And he doesn’t care if you think he’s a dick. He doesn’t
trust you anyway. You’re not family.
Actual real-world example I picked up on a forum. Group in one of
the most pre-Plague diverse neighborhoods in the US wanted to build a
play-area for their kids in the local park. They’d established a
‘multi-cultural neighborhood committee’ of ‘the entire rainbow.’ I got
this from the liberal ‘general trust’ side of the story. I’d have loved
to have gotten it from the rest of the cultures. If they could stop
laughing.
Anyway, this group of ‘let’s all sing kumbaya’ liberals got their
little brown brothers together and proposed they all build a play-ground
for their kids. There was a kinda run down park in the neighborhood.
Let’s build swings so our children can all play together. Kumbaya.
There were, indeed, little brown brothers and yellow and black. But…
Well, it’s kinda difficult to tell the difference between a Sikh and
a Moslem unless you know one’s turban looks cool and the other’s looks
like shit. (For general info, I can not only tell the difference between
a Moslem and a Sikh, I can 90% of the time tell the difference between
two tribes of Moslems. Yes, I may be a culturist SOB, but I’m a very
highly trained one. I can tell the difference between a Moslem and a
Sikh and talk about the history of conflict between the two groups.) And
Sikhs and Moslems can barely bring themselves to spit on each other much
less work side by side singing Kumbaya. The liberals had, apparently,
never noticed that the fucked-up-turban guys never went into the
cool-turban guy’s corner store.
The Hindus were willing to contribute some suggestions and a little
money, but the other Hindus would have to do the work. What other
Hindus? Oh, those people. And they would have to hand the money to the
Kumbaya guys both because handing it to the other Hindus would be
defiling and because, of course, it would just disappear.
(At some point I need to talk about India. It is not the India today
that it was in 2019.)
When they actually got to work, finally, there were some little
black brothers helping. Then a different group of little black brothers
turned out and sat on the sidelines shouting suggestions until the first
group left. Then the ‘help’ left as well. Christian animists might soil
their hands for a community project but not if they’re getting shit from
Islamics. Sure, they’re just two different tribes that lived right next
to each other in Africa. Speaking of Kumbaya. But they’ve also been
slaughtering each other since before Stanley ever found Livingston
smoking his bong.
Trust. If you lived in a mostly white-bread suburb before the Time
of Suckage you just can’t get it. But when trust breaks down enough in a
society, nobody trusts anyone. Blacks don’t trust black cops. Whites
don’t trust white cops. Nobody trusts their mayor, nobody trusts their
boss. Nobody trusts nobody.
What the study found was that the more multi-cultural a society, the
lower the societal trust. (The professor, by the way, refused to accept
his own results. He sat on them for five years and even then spouted
bullshit about ‘education’ as the answer even though that was covered in
the study. The only way to get generalized trust was to blend the
societies and erase the differences. Back in the 1800s an Italian
wouldn’t be bothered to spit on an Irishman unless he’d just stuck a
knife in his back. These days the only way you can tell the difference
in the US is one has better food and the other better beer.)
So why does this matter to Ching Mao? Doesn’t, really, he was dead
and never really cared. But it mattered, a lot, to the response in
Chicago.
You see, by that time Chicago was a very multi-cultural area. Gone
were the days of it being pure white-bread and kielbasa. Only recent
immigrants, who didn’t recognize the local white guys as being anything
like Polish despite their names, spoke the Old Language. Where there had
once been mostly assimilated German and Polish and Russian Jew and a
smattering of Black communities there were now Serbian and Pakistani and
‘Persian’ and Assyrian not to be confused with Syrian and Iraqi and
Fusian who were not Manchu who were not Korean or anything like who were
definitely not Cambodian, damn it…
Each trusted the family group around them. To an extent they trusted
others who were ‘them.’ The few white-bread multi-cultural
true-believers trusted all their little rainbow brothers, of course,
until you got a few drinks in them and they started telling about their
experiences. “And I never did get my lawnmower back!”"
This is an excerpt from the JOHN RINGO book "THE LAST CENTURION"...... Ringo is always a "good read" pick up a couple or 12 of his books.
No comments:
Post a Comment