← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 4408 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2003-01-10
2003-01-10 14:12 | User Profile
[url=http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5480]http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/...cle.asp?ID=5480[/url]
White Nationalism: A Symposium By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | January 10, 2003
Carol M. Swain, a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University, has just published her latest book, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. She argues that white nationalism is on the rise and offers many suggestions for defusing its appeal. Among other things, she recommends that her fellow African-Americans desist from supporting affirmative action and slavery reparations.
Is the end of race-based affirmative action a constructive step toward creating a better racial climate in America? If so, what does this mean for the current national black leadership and what direction its activism needs to take?
To discuss these and other questions connected to The Rise of White Nationalism and How to Defuse its Appeal, Frontpage Symposium has invited Carol Swain, the author of the book in question, Peter Brimelow, the editor of VDARE.COM and author of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster; Ron Walters, a Distinguished Leadership Scholar and Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, whose book White Nationalism, Black Interests. Conservative Public Policy and the Black Community will be published by Wayne State University Press in July 2003; and Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance.
(1) How does white nationalism differ from old style white supremacy?
Swain: The new white nationalism is a reactionary movement led by well-educated, financially secure white intellectuals who have given up on integration. Its leaders have studied the mistakes of the Left and the far Right. To recruit more effectively among ordinary Americans some groups and individuals have dropped the offensive language and the regalia of the older racist right and instead they have updated and repackaged their messages of hate.
White nationalists are encouraging white Americans to adopt the interest group politics of racial and ethnic minorities. In making their case to ordinary white Americans, the leaders of the new white nationalism have appropriated the language of the left. Multiculturalism argues that all groups ought to be able to organize to celebrate their unique heritage, contributions to the world and genetic makeup. White nationalists argue that if identity politics is good for minorities, then it must also be good for whites. Civil rights rhetoric tells us that discrimination on account of race; gender or national origin is unconstitutional.
White nationalist leaders point out that white Americans are discriminated against by governmental policies, and that this is unfair and un-American. Whites should, therefore, ban together to protect themselves from insensitive and illegal governmental policies. The old style white supremacy was kept in place by violence, intimidation, and the institutional mechanisms of the state. The primary goal of the new white nationalism is the preservation of white European culture and values. White nationalism, therefore, is a separatist movement, non-violent on its face, but retaining ties and linkages to more extremist groups that openly endorse ethnic cleansing.
Walters: The "new" white nationalism is not at all that presented by Carol Swain - which is the old-style fringe groups that practice black, Jewish, immigrant and government-hating. The new variety has transmigrated into institutions and behaviors of respectability where they reject associations with racism, a new language gives them cover and the media is mollified.
On the other hand, I generally agree with Dr. Swainââ¬â¢s rendition of the character of the transmigration of white nationalism into the mainstream. So forceful has been its entry that it has become for many the ideological center of American political culture and the new axis of the division between right and left politics.
As such, the public policy context of this transition must be explored because the complexity that it yields begins with a strong anti-black proposition as contained in anti-busing and anti-affirmative action positions among neo-conservative intellectuals in the 1970s and ends with civic policies of anti-big government, anti-spending or large tax-cuts, pro-guns, tough on crime and other notions that are utilized in a proxy debate about race.
Many of the resulting policies are not recognizable as racial referents, but the result of their implementation has had a daunting racial affect upon the black community.
Brimelow: White nationalism differs from old style white supremacy in the way that nationalism differs from Nazism - or liberalism from Stalinism. Any political motive can be taken to extremes.
Taylor: Abraham Lincoln stated the classic case for white supremacy in his September 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas:
"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
It is worth noting, however, that white supremacy was, for Lincoln, only a second-best solution. He understood very well that a legally hierarchical society that characterized one group as superior to the other was unjust. Hierarchy was nevertheless preferable to any attempt at political and social equality which, he believed, would be disastrous for whites.
Please note the phrase "while they do remain together" in the above quotation. Like many prominent Americans, he thought the only fair, long-term solution to the race problem was "colonization," or voluntary expatriation of blacks. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he wrote in 1857, "but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will." Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of colonization, as were James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney.
The basis for the early-American desire for separation (or hierarchy if separation was not possible) was the conviction that race is a significant part of individual and collective identity, that multi-racial societies are inherently unstable, and that whites and blacks therefore cannot live together without friction from which whites will suffer more greatly than blacks. These convictions are shared by all racially conscious whites today, and in this respect their thinking is identical to that of what the question describes as "old-style white supremacy."
Today's racially-conscious whites agree that separation is the only fair, long-term solution. Nevertheless, they part company with Lincoln in rejecting hierarchical race relations. In the past, whites have tried to square the circle by means of Jim Crow, segregation, apartheid, and pass laws but the inherent tensions of multi-racialism are simply too great to be contained.
A level of racial separation sufficient for most purposes could be achieved simply by recognizing rather than denying the obvious: that a preference for people of one's own group is natural, normal, and healthy. From this would follow the abolition of all anti-discrimination laws, the reestablishment of neighborhood schools, and a thorough overhaul of immigration, which only increases racial diversity and the potential for conflict.
Swain: Mr. Taylor, what does the overhaul of immigration have to do with this? Your entire assessment of the racial situation in America is woefully inadequate. It ignores the role of social class and the fact that most Americans are not in favor of discrimination. Moreover, our personal choices of mates and living spaces need not be endorsements of racial separatism.
Taylor: To answer these questions in reverse order, a recognition that people are more comfortable and happy when they are with people of the same race is to recognize the folly of the entire "civil rights" enterprise. "Integration," as it has been practised in the United States involves, for the most part, forcing whites to accept the presence of people whose company they do not desire. If Prof. Swain accepts that private actors--and this includes private employers and business owners, as well as residential associations--have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, then we must repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Prof. Swain must not wriggle off the hook by saying she said only "living space" may be legitimately segregated. The same principles apply to "working space," "playing space," "shopping space," "the space we see on TV," and in fact to any space at all. I am saying our society should recognize the tribal nature of man rather than pretend we can rise above it.
This is why immigration is so important. Our color-blind immigration policy is based on the assumption that race is an illegitimate criterion for defining "living space" or any other space. But if race is a legitimate criterion, why should whites (or blacks) welcome the arrival of Asians and Hispanics, who are alien to us both? In any case, our polychrome but overwhelmingly non-white immigration stream is only creating infinite varieties of racial conflict to overlie and complicate the original black/white divide. Racial diversity is a terrible source of conflict and tension; it is not a strength.
Interlocutor: Mr. Taylor, sorry, but I am not sure what world you are living in. In the world I live in, I see many many people choosing to be friends with, to spend most of their time with, and to be lovers with, people of different races and cultures. I am one of those people. I am not saying that tribalism does not exist; of course it does. But not everyone lives according to the rules of tribalism as you paint them. Tribalism does not only surface along racial lines.
Swain: My earlier statement does not concede a recognition that MOST Americans are uncomfortable with members of other racial and ethnic groups. Instead, I strongly recognize the rights of individuals to choose whom they shall marry and where they shall live. Many of these personal decisions are driven by concerns about social class and religion, and not by a dislike or hatred of other groups.
Racial diversity becomes a source of great conflict when governments and institutions adopt policies that favor some groups over others. It remains the case that Americans overwhelmingly endorsed the noble principles of fairness and equality embedded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also, fortunately, most Americans accept the fact that a nation composed of immigrants can never be said to belong to any single racial group.
(2) Given our national emphasis on multiculturalism and identity politics, isn't it reasonable for white Americans to want to join the celebration of group pride and group self-determination?
Swain: White identity politics may well be the next logical stage for identity politics in America. As long as racial and ethnic minorities push separatist agendas, we can expect white Americans, especially as they decline as a percentage of the population, to begin to behave like self-interested minorities.
White nationalists push identity politics as a way for disorganized whites to fight public and private initiatives said to favor minorities at the expense of more deserving white Americans. I firmly believe we have carried identity politics too far in this country. We need to stress our shared American values and move away from the hyphenated identities that divide Americans, while providing a compelling justification for whites to move in the same direction.
Brimelow: It's inevitable that whites join the celebration of group pride and group self-determination. In a political culture like the U.S. today, groups that don't organize get rolled. In fact, covertly, it's already happened. The emerging Republican ascendancy in the last thirty years is really best explained as a form of "tipping" - whites left the Democratic Party as it became the party of minorities because they no longer felt comfortable there. (Ed Rubenstein and I have documented this at length e.g. in our 2001 Hudson Institute article "Swept Away" )
It was the white vote that won the Congress for the GOP this year. Of course, GOP leaders and propagandists don't admit this. They apparently genuinely believe their success is all because of the universal appeal of the capital gains tax cut etc. etc. That's why they think they can abandon Trent Lott - they don't realize the signal it sends to their base.
Swain: I would agree that the Republican Party has firmly established itself as the white man's party. Senator Trent Lott, no doubt, represents the views of many Americans who have given up on integration or never supported it in the first place. If Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats on immigration reform, affirmative action, and other social issues, it will leave their base with literally no place to go. These are legitimate policy areas where bold and creative thinking is needed. However, the Republican Party seems more interested in expansion than principle.
Walters: At least for the moment, the treatment of Trent Lott gives some hope that, at least at the level of public embarrassment, the leaders of the Republican party and many of their constituents have no stomach for an open identification with white nationalism.
Moreover, in order to fix it, they are toying with a repair to liberal policies such as bringing up the hate crimes bill or encouraging the Bush administration to support the retention of Affirmative Action in the Michigan cases before the Supreme Court.
I say "for the moment" because deep in the recesses of the Conservative movement we have discovered recesses that hold racist sentiments, individuals and policies and in that respect, it has been interesting to see conservative activists attempt to separate themselves from the cover they have given to this poison. In any case, the only credible and convincing way they can do this is not rhetorical, but to propose substantive correctives in the form of policies that relieve the damage done to blacks by conservatives in the past two decades.
Brimelow: Translated in American, this means the GOP has been mau-maued into attacking the interests of its base.
Taylor: The word "racism," as Mr. Walters uses it, appears to mean nothing more than any opinion about race with which he disagrees. If it is "racist" to prefer the company of people of one's race, to prefer the culture created by one's race, and to want one's race to survive and flourish, then virtually everyone of every color is "racist," and the term has no useful meaning.
Whites, both liberal and conservative, have worked consistently against their own racial interests by permitting immigration by millions of non-whites who invariably set up pressure groups to promote their own interests at the expense of whites. People like Mr. Walters then suggest it is "racist" for whites to resist affirmative-action racial preferences that discriminate against whites in favor non-whites, including recent immigrants!
Swain: Unless we take this as an opportunity to have a serious debate about race, nothing lasting will come from the Trent Lott debacle.
Taylor: Identity politics have not arisen because of some kind of "national emphasis." They reflect the tribal nature of man. Until only a few decades ago, whites practised identity politics of the kind common among non-whites, and this was reflected in segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, and an immigration policy designed to keep the country majority-white. What we call the "civil rights movement" was a historically unprecedented attempt to dismantle racial consciousness for all Americans in the hope of building a society in which race did not matter.
That is what whites, at any rate, thought was the ultimate goal of the movement, and many tried very hard to rid themselves of any sentiment of racial solidarity. They passed laws outlawing freedom of association based on race, they forcibly integrated schools, they opened the country to millions of non-white immigrants, and even instituted officially-sanctioned policies of racial discrimination against themselves under the euphemistic name of "affirmative action." All this was an astonishing betrayal of their own interests, but whites tried to persuade themselves that losing their institutions, watching their neighborhoods and schools deteriorate, and condemning their grandchildren to minority status was somehow ennobling.
More and more whites now recognize that it was only they who have shed their racial consciousness, while every other racial group unabashedly advances its collective interests at the expense of whites. Whites have practised unilateral disarmament and are discovering the consequences. More and more whites understand this, but many still "celebrate diversity," even though to do so is to celebrate their own declining numbers and influence.
Swain: We need a collective move away from identity politics. White nationalism is the baby that multiculturalism birthed. Our national interests as Americans are ill-served by racial double standards and the single-minded focus on racial politics. Hopefully, we can rise to a higher level.
Walters: Given the fact that whiteness is the cultural content of the entire society and group/race pride has become institutionalized and acts to validate its history and systemic domination in every conceivable way, there is little need for such a conscious display of group pride and group self-determination for most whites.
Swain: Many whites, especially younger ones, would disagree with Dr. Walterââ¬â¢s assessment. What they see are racial double standards that place them at a disadvantage. Why don't we try to collectively move away from overt racial politics and focus on forging an American national identity? As long as racial and ethnic minorities push for identity politics, many whites will want to join.
Brimelow: If I understand this right, Ron is in effect saying that the U.S. is a true nation-state, i.e. the political expression of a particular people, the American whites. Historically, this was clearly the case. But it's no longer true, because of massive non-traditional immigration and because sections of elite are in a "post-American," pro-multicultural mode. So whites will inevitably organize as an interest group - if their interests are to be defended, which maybe Ron doesn't want.
(3) Do white nationalist leaders champion some legitimate grievances that are not being addressed satisfactorily by mainstream political leaders?
Swain: Unfortunately, white nationalists leaders are exploiting some legitimate grievances and fears that trouble many Americans. These worries include concerns about racial preferences, liberal immigration policies, black-on-white violent crime rates, and job losses due to globalization and other shocks to the economy. In their search for votes, leaders of the major political parties have seemly abandoned addressing some of these grievances that resonate with ordinary, non-racist Americans.
Taylor: Let us not overlook some very important facts:
Only whites outside the "mainstream" are prepared to point out the obvious: there is a great deal of black-on-white violent crime and very little white-on-black crime.
"Affirmative action" is nothing more than officially sanctioned racial discrimination against whites.
"Affirmative action" for immigrants is an outrage that would be unthinkable if whites had even the faintest sense of racial solidarity.
Massive third-world immigration is transforming this country in countless undesirable ways.
It is an obvious double standard to encourage every non-white group to celebrate their heritage and achievements while condemning similar expressions by whites as "racism."
Black and Hispanic failure is due largely to differences in ability rather than to "oppression" by whites.
Blaming the failures of non-whites on white "racism" only encourages non-whites to hate whites.
Walters: The display of open white nationalism has been practiced by those who feel aggrieved and consider it as a political resource with which to reclaim their open superiority in society.
Brimelow: "Mainstream political leaders" totally refuse to address immigration and affirmative action a.k.a. quotas. Yet these policies' impact is enormous - using standard regulatory economics techniques, Leslie Spencer and I estimated the opportunity cost of quotas was 1.5% of GDP in a Forbes article in VDARE.COM back in 1993. (Still the only estimate, by the way - mainstream academe has a lot to answer for, too.) This impact falls heavily on whites, particularly blue collar workers. Eventually, someone is going to voice these grievances. Of course, they'll probably be prosecuted for hate speech.
Swain: I would gladly exchange racial preferences for race neutral social welfare programs and more aggressive programs to fight discrimination. Affirmative action, as currently practised does little to help the poor and liberal immigration policies clearly harms Americans with low skills and low levels of education. Unfortunately, it will take a racial crisis before the government does anything about the situation. These grievances are already being voiced by the white nationalists leadership and others who see an injustice.
Walters: The argument that there is any such things as "quotas" that are enforceable - which nullifies the sense that they are indeed quotas, that are an effective aspect of any affirmative action regime is just boring, since there is little proof that it has had any widespread affect upon white privilege in any field.
For all of the noise that has been made about the existence of quotas in higher education, the presence of blacks have only recently - in the anti-affirmative action era - achieved anything like parity with the percentage of blacks in the general population in all institutions of higher education.
And since blacks in higher education as largely concentrated in community colleges, this leaves most of the major state and private institutions with very modest proportions of black students anywhere. The same may be said for faculty.
And I would extend this argument to the labor force. In fact, the labor force participation rates of white makes have fallen somewhat not because of blacks, because of the entry of women into the labor force, such that blacks have become a substitute grievance for one that involves the pillow-mates of white males. They are loathed to take on white females, but feel justified in accusing blacks of usurping their rightful social resources.
I think that in order to satisfy white males, they would have to have 100% of the positions in most fields or at least clear superiority. But that is the way that racism has worked historically in America.
Brimelow: This is why Fred Lynch called his book on white males and affirmative action "Invisible Victims" - the whole chattering class is in a state of flat-earth denial that it even exists. Yet we were easily able to show in 1992 the costs of complying with regulations alone exceeded $20 billion."
Taylor: Mr. Walters appears to be saying whites should be delighted when a white college applicant with better test scores and better grades is denied admission so that a less-well-qualified black can be admitted. This is precisely what I have been talking about: non-whites identifying with their own race and pushing their interests at the expense of whites.
The under-representation of blacks in challenging or remunerative positions is not proof of "racism." The evidence is overwhelming that intelligence averages of people of different races are not the same, and that there are genetic reasons for these differences. Anyone who doubts this should consult the work of Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, Robert Gordon, Philippe Rushton, David Rowe, Richard Lynn, Richard Plomin, Daniel Seligman, Mark Snyderman, Stanley Rothman, Michael Levin, John Baker or Charles Murray. It does no good to run screaming from the room when someone brings up racial differences in IQ. The scientific method leads to certain conclusions, which are impervious to ideology and which we ignore at our peril.
Interlocutor: Is focusing on racial differences in IQ a legitimate or intelligent way to proceed for a country that dedicates itself to freedom and equality for all? Whatever the realities are in this context, does information about racial differences in IQ help heal racial wounds and antagonisms? Is there really any need to focus on IQ differences if we work for a society where people are not judged according to color and everyone operates on an equal playing field?
Brimelow: I'm afraid this falls into the category of running "screaming from the room." Suppose abolishing affirmative action results in a dramatic reduction of minorities in elite institutions. This will certainly be blamed on "systemic" i.e. unprovable racism. What alternative explanation can advocates of color-blindness offer? If they can't offer an explanation, won't quotas be reimposed?
Interlocutor: Good question Mr. Brimelow. This is obviously a complex problem. But all we can really do is steer in the right direction. The bottom line is that racial preferences are a form of discrimination that exacerbate many of the problems they are designed to cure. Still worse, they fertilize the growth of white nationalism.
Despite all of its imperfections, we simply must go in the direction of building a color-blind society and implementing race-neutral public policies. Surely this strategy creates more light at the end of the tunnel than focusing on racial differences in IQ and believing that some kind of new laws based on their findings could build anything other than a nightmare for all races involved.
Swain: Keep in mind that the IQ gap between the races has decreased from 15 points to about 10. Experts suspect that the remaining differences are due to environmental factors such as nutrition. Unfortunately, much racism remains in American society. I would gladly exchange all existing racial preference programs for a stronger set of measures to detect and combat hidden discrimination and for more aggressive programs designed to help all disadvantaged Americans improve their lots in life.
All in all, what we have in place today benefits elites of all races and it fails to meet the basic needs of most disadvantaged Americans. We cannot sustain racial preferences in a society as diverse as we are becoming and not expect unrest and turmoil. We need non-discrimination, outreach to the disadvantaged, and a more equitable systems for distributing opportunities.
(4) What do you see as the future of American race relations? Will we come together as a nation or become increasingly divided over issues of race?
Swain: I believe that we are increasingly at risk of unprecedented levels of racial conflict and turmoil because of conditions coming together at this point in history. These conditions include the continuing influx into the country of non-white immigrants and the prospect that America in the not-too-distant future will cease to be a white majority nation. Many Americans are worried about liberal immigration policies, the decline in high paying, low-skill industrial jobs, and globalization.
Census Bureau data show that all Americans have experienced a loss in real wages and that non-Hispanic whites have had the sharpest increase in poverty. Also, certain social, political, and economic conditions can spur rises in hate crimes against disfavored groups. I see a devil's brew for future racial and social unrest. White nationalists stand ready to exploit the frustrations of ordinary white Americans. Another powerful source of future conflict comes from the rising expectations and demands of racial minorities for a greater share of the nation's wealth and political power.
Walters: The future of American race relations will change, but it will come about through changes in racial and ethnic demographics and through the necessity of Americans to understand and honor the political, economic and cultural interdependence that exists that redefines America.
Brimelow: If mass non-traditional immigration continues, the country will increasingly polarize on the basis of race. The government will become increasingly authoritarian as it tries to repress the conflicts (see my answer to previous question). Eventually, the U.S. will break up.
If immigration is cut off and the assimilative process is allowed to work for a couple of generations, the races might gradually grope to a compromise, probably an unprincipled one that involves government subsidies in return for a degree of de facto mutual isolation. Plus, of course, there will be overlaps where the races mingle, but they will be relatively marginal. People who think we'll all be beige in 2050 just can't count.
Taylor: For decades, the Communists tried to build a society in which selfishness could be abolished, in which all would live "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." This attempt ended in tyrannical failure because Communism was a misreading of human nature. The goal of multi-racialism and the doctrine that diversity is a strength are likewise misreadings of human nature. All around the world, diversity--be it of race, religion, language, tribe, or culture--is at the heart of every sustained blood-letting.
Race is a biological fact. It is the most prominent and intractable fault line in any society. The idea that racial diversity can work in America even though it has never worked anywhere ever is to assume that the United States has abolished the laws of human nature. To the extent that multi-racialism has worked here at all, it is due to the willingness of whites to sacrifice their own interests in order to build a country in which race is supposed to dwindle into insignificance.
Non-whites don't even pretend they want to build such a society. They quite naturally want America to reflect their cultures, celebrate their heroes and holidays, and not those of whites. As whites begin to understand the dangers of the forces they have set in motion, more and more will brave the insults and begin to work for their entirely legitimate interests as a race.
Interlocutor: Just a second Mr. Taylor. We agree, I hope, that individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., in terms of civil rights, desegregation, and equality before the law, can be considered as American heroes. For a long time in this country white racism victimized African-Americans and that racism needed to be counter-acted.
Taylor: Martin Luther King worked to advance the interests of blacks--not whites--by overthrowing a hierarchical society in order to establish "integration" and "equality." He is not a hero to me any more than he would have been to Abraham Lincoln. Integration and "racial equality" cannot work because identity politics cannot be "defused," as you put it. Society should not attempt to be color-blind because people are not color-blind. As I said before, I do not advocate a hierarchical society, but instead one that acknowledges the limited tribal nature of human loyalties. "Racial diversity" only brings tension and conflict. Stability comes with homogeneity.
Walters: I agree with the comments of Taylor that color-blindness is not only probably not possible, but that it is, from my perspective, not desirable. I am not fond of the prospect of losing the valuable contributions blacks have made to American society or the uniqueness of their culture. Otherwise, I disagree that "racial diversity" is the same thing as homogeneity, since the notion of hierarchy is not changed and no ethic of democracy founded on the notion of cultural equality takes it place.
Interlocutor: Mr. Taylor, it remains very ambiguous what society it is that you would like to create. With the kind of America that exists today, with all of its racial diversity and multiculturalism, the kind of America you seem to be dreaming of is an impossibility.
Yes, Mr. Taylor, Martin Luther King did work to advance the interests of blacks, and thank God that he did, because the "hierarchical society" you refer to entailed realities such as black people not being allowed to use certain public restrooms and to go to certain schools. And that was the bright side. The darker side entailed the reality of the KKK, lynchings and the tragedies of human beings such as Emit Till. Is it wise or noble to have a discussion on the rise of white nationalism in this country without considering these dreadful legacies of slavery? By trying to liberate his people from racial oppression, King also advanced the interests of whites, as well as the interests of all Americans. Because as long as this nation did not recognize every human being as equal before the law, those who were privileged were also being degraded.
In giving his life so that a person did not have to sit at the back of a bus because of the color of his skin, King certainly was, and is, a hero ââ¬â for all Americans.
Having said that, I think what we all need to do at this stage in our history is to move toward an American identity and away from racial identity.
Brimelow: I knew Jared would stir things up!As a practical matter, this effort to make King a "hero - for all Americans" is just not working out. Here in rural New England, for example, the public schools have made him a more important figure than George Washington. My little boy has been drafted into Christmas pageant-type things about the evils of segregation since he was in kindergarten. As there are no blacks and no history of segregation in this area, the net effect is simply to inculcate vague white guilt of a sort that would drive David Horowitz nuts.
Ironically, not merely was there no segregation in this area, but it was a hotbed of abolitionism. The local farmboys formed a famous regiment that was shot to bits at Cold Harbor. My son certainly knows some of their descendants (none of this //Proposition Nation// nonsense here). Yet this story is never mentioned. I have never found a public school teacher who has heard of it. For these people, the King cult represents a species of historical dispossession.
I don't think King can bear the symbolic weight our interlocutor wants - not merely because of his personal failings (adultery, plagiarism, fellow-travelling etc.) but also because he quite probably didn't believe all that tactical color-blind rhetoric himself. That certainly is the argument of Michael Eric Dyson's book I May Not Get There With You.
Interlocutor: I am not sure what is so complicated or objectionable about what I am saying in regards to King. I am not saying he is, or should be considered, a saint. I am well aware of his personal failings, and I personally do not agree with many of the political positions he held. How any of this negates the fact that, in the context of civil rights, he was a hero for fighting against the racial oppression of his people, is beyond me.
Again, the tragic reality of a human being such as Emit Till reflected not only the terrifying and inhuman suffering of black Americans at the hands of racist whites, but also the darkness that all of America was submerged in because of racism. That King put his life on the line to bring justice in this tragic area of American life I consider heroic.
That race-baiters such as Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton prostitute Kingââ¬â¢s name for their own racist and destructive agenda today is another matter.
In any case, Dr. Swain, would you like to quickly get the last word in here, since this symposium was created out of the appreciation for your new book?
Swain: Well thank you. I would like to summarize by saying that we should strive to promote an American national identity. Although we can never be totally color-blind as a society, we can adopt race neutral public policies. What we have in place today are a set of policies that pit different groups of Americans against each other. As a multiracial, multiethnic society, America has defied the odds for other countries because we are a nation where the majority of people profess to be God fearing individuals, who believe in a common creator, and a brotherhood of man. Racial preference programs are at odds with core Christian principles of universalism that stress the role of the autonomous individual, equal to every other human being in the eyes of God.
Interlocutor: Ok then. Thank you Prof. Swain, Prof. Walters, Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. It was a pleasure.
2003-01-10 16:50 | User Profile
My man Jared Taylor was the last man standing, despite the bloviations of so-called "conservative" Glazov. His boilerplate sounds like a Simpsons satire: "Forward, not backward, upwards, not downwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling!"
2003-01-10 17:54 | User Profile
This might be worth a look.
GoPostal for "White Nationalism: A Symposium"
Comments Posted: [url=http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/GoPostal/?ID=5480]http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/GoPostal/?ID=5480[/url]
One of them:
Date: 1/10/2003 2:17:02 AMName: DenVildaSubject: Race is the future of politicsComment:
Carol Swain entreats us to renounce racial politics and move into a new political era where we value our common American "identity." As warm and fuzzy as this sentiment might sound, it simply is not a realistic look at how politics will unfold in the coming years. Just as libertarian loonies keep imploring Americans to resist the seductive machinations of state power and keep a check on their liberties all to no avail, so do the new advocates of color-blindism preach a hope that has no chance of fruition. Politics and prospective political contigents must be rooted in human nature -- the common manner in which men behave, their limits and inclinations.
How convenient of Carol Swain to cast a captious finger at white nationalists when she concedes that white nationalism is simply the next logical step in the drama of multiculturalism. How can she call white nationalism reactionary when it is the "baby" of multiculturalism; or does she admit multiculturalism is a reactionary movement as well? Doesn't seem like it.
The reason that Taylor's vision of a racial future is the only plausible one is that there is no effort -- nor reason -- among minority activists to forego anti-white politics. Where would all the race hustlers be without whitey to kick around? Blaming whitey is the number one growth industry in American politics these days and expecting it to abate without reason is quixotic at best. The only movement that can stop minority activism is white activism. America is no exception -- in a multiracial society politics is sublimated racial warfare.
Swain's musings on forging a new "American" identity is an exercise in futility. A nation is really nothing more than an extended family, a very large tribe. Thinking of your nation is really reflecting on the historical experiences of your race -- your people. No one feels part of a history that did not include their race. This is why an effort to create a "global citizen" or a citizen of the world is useless. No one can feel a part of something so vague and multifaceted. However, through the encouragement of assorted non-white immigration we are essentially creating many little global communities in a single country. How can Mexicans ever be made to feel honor toward the brave men who died at the Alamo to save Texas from the Mexican menace? How can blacks favor the white hero Thomas Jefferson who fancied blacks little more than apes? How can whites look with favoritism on Malcolm X who frequently called whites "devils." No one can feel part of an identity that goes beyond their race because there is no connection to it. If Swain is so gaga about a new American identity, why does she not tell us what it can be forged out of? If it can not be forged out of race then it severs current Americans -- whites in particular -- from any sense of historical pride and patriotism. The achievements of your people are reduced to the unromantic "the achievements of certain individuals that bear no relation to you." Patriotism stems from a connection deeper that rational assent, it arises out of the fact that our ancestors were great men who achieved great things and that we are their descendents who must carry on their ideals. Trying to forge a new America without any reference to race will have no more success than the attempts to forge a global citizen that willfully submit to global dictates. Countries exist because people are tribal -- countries come apart when they cease to be.
Let's hope America goes the way of White Nationalism.
2003-01-10 20:41 | User Profile
Outstanding post on a fascinating subject, xmh. Thank you for posting it.
Without a doubt, Taylor and Brimelow make the most sense here. I wish we could have had more from them instead of the Interlocutor's "How can you not love Dr. King??" blathering.
To my mind, Taylor's historical arguments almost place white nationalism into true conservatism. Should the former or the latter be the primary focus, or does it make any difference really? How will this growing movement manifest itself politically, if at all? Is Taylor a solid representative of the 'White Nationalist' ideology? I ask because he makes quite a bit of sense here, much more than anyone else at least. But I'm at a loss to figure out how he would obtain his desired result.
Would love to see this symposium continued here, but I'm afraid we don't have anyone left that would argue the Swain perspective.
2003-01-10 21:10 | User Profile
**But I'm at a loss to figure out how he would obtain his desired result. **
From other stuff of Taylor's I've read, he wants affirmative action and other coerced fraternization ended. He feels people will naturally gravitate to members of their own race. Eventually (if I remember his arguments and the arguments of other people at [url=http://www.amren.com]American Renaissance[/url] correctly) he'd like to see the Union dissolve into completely autonomous ethnically-based nation-states - one for blacks, another for whites, another for those blacks and whites who want to continue pursuing the multiracial experiment.
2003-01-10 21:15 | User Profile
I think this one of Taylor's better efforts. This is a particularly crucial point:
**More and more whites now recognize that it was only they who have shed their racial consciousness, while every other racial group unabashedly advances its collective interests at the expense of whites. Whites have practised unilateral disarmament and are discovering the consequences. **
The key point is that whites are not the aggressors, and self-defense is legitimate under any purportedly objective (i.e., non-ethnocentric) system of morality. I gather that this is what white nationalists mean when they claim that "there is no intelligent opposition to white nationalism".
2003-01-11 12:52 | User Profile
I just noticed an AADAP e-mail bulletin titled "White Nationalism: A Symposium." When I clicked onto it I got the following notice: "That mail is not currently available." Curious. I wonder if some neocon troll has been at work.
2003-01-11 18:09 | User Profile
Very well put, Wintermute.
2003-01-11 21:16 | User Profile
WM,
I'm off to see 'The Two Towers,' but I wanted to offer up this counter-argument before I left and hopefully give you time to reply before I log back in later tonight. You state the following:
When you ask if the latter or the former should be given primary focus, I have to point out - one of these options has already been tried and found wanting.
Now of course you are speaking of conservatism as having already been tried and found wanting. The logical follow-up point is that true traditional conservatism has not been tried, or at least implemented at any level. Would not the proper approach be to continue to work and try see true conservative principles and policies enabled? If not, what do you see as the shortcomings of that approach? I am speaking of the short-term here and not some distant, imagined future.
Thanks,
2003-01-12 03:00 | User Profile
**You can have government for and by Aryans, if that is what you wish. It will probably include some seperation of powers, decentralization, and a relative emphasis on the rights of the individual. To maintain characteristic Western cultural and political forms ('conservatism'), you must awake your kinsmen to the project of self preservation as a moral imperative ('white nationalism'). If you don't keep whites, then you don't keep the cultural forms that they naturally produce. Politics follows from culture, and our problem now is cultural, not political. **
Excellent post and quite true, Wintermute! As you well know, One of the reasons that the Roman Empire declined and fell because of miscengenation of its culture with the cultures it conquered. The formation of the Roman republic is indeed an illustration of politics flowing from culture because for the early Roman tribes, being Aryans, worked out their problems between themselves by eventually forming coalitions which eventually became the Republic rather than fighting wars of elimination between themselves, like Asians and Africans typically do. They also incorporated vassel states the same way.
**You cannot enable the principles of 'true conservatism' in the real world anymore than leftists can enable the principles of 'true communism'. Neither one exists. **
True. One more point about this is " what is true conservatism"? True communism can at least be defined by Marx's treatises. To me, conservatism is a reactionary term that is always changing though the decades, being defined by what the old guard believed and as we know, the old guard is getting more liberal as tome goes by. I prefer not using conservatism to define my beliefs but white natonalism. If anyone has a better term I am all ears.
2003-01-12 03:52 | User Profile
One does wonder why Davey Horowitz put this on his Site?
Lots more Comments added.
Comments Posted: [url=http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/GoPostal/?ID=5480]http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/GoPostal/?ID=5480[/url]
2003-01-12 03:58 | User Profile
FrontPagemag.comââ¬â¢s ââ¬ÅWhite Nationalismââ¬Â Symposium
By Peter Brimelow
ââ¬ÅHow does white nationalism differ from old style white supremacy?ââ¬Â That was the first, glacially impartial question in the symposium on ââ¬ÅWhite Nationalismââ¬Â that Frontpagemag.comââ¬â¢s Jamie Glazov just lured me into. Wiser heads would have refused (at least one did). In the event, I think the debate was dominated by American Renaissanceââ¬â¢s Jared Taylor. I just contributed a few witty asides. I see someone in the enormous discussion thread has complained that ââ¬ÅPeter Brimelow once had some useful things to say about immigration, but now he has discovered the ââ¬Ëjoysââ¬â¢ of white nationalism.ââ¬Â In fact, Iââ¬â¢ve always resisted the argument, ably if less controversially advanced by Lou Calabroââ¬â¢s European-American group, that American whites should accept that they are just another interest group and organize explicitly. I think theyââ¬â¢re Americans, dammit. Nations are ethno-cultural entities; neither exclusively ethnic nor exclusively cultural. Nevertheless, if mass non-traditional immigration continues, American politics will inevitably move in Taylor (and Calabroââ¬â¢s) direction. Congratulations to Glazov and David Horowitz for exploring these issues.
January 11, 2003
url: [url=http://www.vdare.com/pb/front_page.htm]http://www.vdare.com/pb/front_page.htm[/url]
2003-01-12 11:07 | User Profile
wintermute,
I thank you for your civil and detailed reply. That speaks rather well of you, in my opinion. The subject matter here on this topic is obviously one that is weighing on my mind as of late, though I do wonder if it is one of mere labeling or a deeper philisophical shift.
Anyway, there is much to digest in your latest reply and I need more time to think upon the issues you present, specifically your final two questions. Me being a rather simple-minded fellow, I'm sure I will have more questions than answers. I hope you will stick around and indulge your fellow Texan.
Best regards.
2003-01-12 21:13 | User Profile
.....running into the room, screaming If you are going to do identity politics, Get it right.
Lets be specific on our white cultures in America addressed, here. Not to do so is to pull a Lott (Trent?. -- the self-immolator, says Ann Coulter).
Rome is not a model for base-line American republicanism, to start with that. It was the most wantontly depraved, cruel civilization humanity had produced, up to that point. (Reports of ancient Babylon are far, far more laudatory, it lasted two thousand years -before that of Nebuchanezzar.) Especially in matters pertaining to sexuality and children. Would there was a Hannibal to rid the realm of this little caesar.
Jared Taylor's indisputable fulcrum- point, corrected for relevant metaphysical determinants, is this:
"More and more protestants now recognize that it was only they who have shed their religious consciousness, while every other religious group unabashedly advances its collective interests at the expense of protestants."
His statement had "whites" and "racial"where this one has "protestant" and "religious". The substitution here is a metaphysical correction, because religion determines individual consciousness, not blood -- unless the consciousness is re-textualized "downward". Blood is what all share, therefore cannot, for consciousness -- which is separate and distinct for each individual, if allowed to become aware of itself as such -- be the basis of identity. When it is made so, it becomes as the orthodox Jews are: identified, psychologically, through their DNA. Protestantism denies this basis of individual identity (though one may deny it, of course, without being any religion). "White", in American culture, does not stant for blood, but for what is in it; a certain kind of "oxygen" in its higher being-blood. One of the commenters noted national identities had, as it were, scents. This is (one) thing I call "spirit", and say that Taylor was correct in tacitly connecting them. ("White" - in America - "Protestant" -- positive link) ....("Raciaism" -- "Religion" -- negative (regressive-to-poisonous) link).
Communism vs. "Hierarchical" systems and "human nature" I agree that communism, as brought in to Russia last century, was based on a way of being pre-destined to decline, because it could not reproduce itself through the idea-system marxism provided. It was a "stomach-based" (vs DNA based) philosophy, seizing upon the quite valid idea that all civilizations, whatever their labor production organization, lived on/through its stomach. OK. Nothing Jewish about that. But if one wants to draw the relevant historical causes for socialism's failure closer to home, where they can be looked at more closely vis a vis whether, and what kind of "hierarchy" is essential to "human nature" in order for economic regimes to reproduce themselves, look at Cuba and Nicaragua. The kind of hierarchy they had to get rid of there, to bring in a socialist regime, was a combination of the Roman Catholic Church, monied elite, US corporations, and gangsters. What was required to keep it, by the Sandinistas, was standing up to illegal US aggession, with mercenaries fighting for drug dealers, and others. Pretty tall order. Forget poor El Salvador and what the paychopaths did there to put down liberation theology.
There is a spirit that will reproduce itself without force, if force is not applied to those bearing it in any way. It is universally respected by men of good will. American once stood for that. It was a legacy left, in education, by Virginia planters who founded the public school system. For those proving they can objectively benefit -- free, through college, I say. even beyond. As a concept upon which democracy in this country was based, this natural hierarchy of the educated, surely one of the bed-rock of European culture, if there is one, has been egregiously violated by this president, and those who would push him into bathing our Forever in blood.
There is a Will that is equivalent to will-fulness; it uses force to go against the grain. And there is a will that cannot be stopped, because it never goes anywhere. Like white light before a prism breaks it into hues.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION I regard the above as a demonstration of the existence of a natural hiearachy intrinsic to human nature through the Third Person of the Trinity, Whose material progeny on earth are the group of Americans named in the title. They are so lost, however, as to have become witless bastards. For the most part.
2003-01-13 06:33 | User Profile
I am replying to myself to include the poison connection.
Whoever was responsible for mailing the anthrax to political targets -- liberal senators Daschle and Leahy -- has to be connected with the neocon, Cath-O-Jew complex somewhere up the line.
This act, with the enclosed printed letters which are never mentioned in the media, is the absolute proof of the poison connection between religion and politics. It was supposed to get blamed on Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle has made that accusation on TV, even after it was disclosed by the FBI that the source was domestic.
Now, some Fox News kid just straight-faced this. Recalling some probably made-up story of finding the deadly poison ricin in Iraq, back during old Acott Ritter inspections, Peach-Face Boy stated "now this same ricin turns up in London." As if he knew. Somebody had to put him to up making that connection. And, since the only motive could be to provide yet another traversal of the old "HE POISONED HIS OWN PEOPLE" railroad to Saddam Hussein -- tacitly adding sotto voce <<and now he's poisoning us .. or assassinating world leaders, don't say it >>
.... repeating, at the (spiritual) level of communication exactly the same configuration ol communication- poisoning that took place, physically, through the mail, after 9/11 ...
...which sparked the global "bioterror alert", and massive, massive conceptual reorganization everywhere regarding national defense strategies ...
...it has to be the same ones. If they would poison you/us spiritually, by taking away your/our religion ("faith-basing" THEIR "initiatives" on it), and leave you/us with the "fight against Saddam Hussein" as substitute protection/ redemption (yours -- and, did I mention Israel's?) ..
.....they would certainly poison you physically through your spirituality -- which in America, to the rest of the world, is liberalism...
to make sure you got salvation (=vaccination). Who could refuse that offer?
Not so? Stop me if I'm wrong, somebody. Please. Or do something.
2003-01-13 17:08 | User Profile
**To recruit more effectively among ordinary Americans some groups and individuals have dropped the offensive language and the regalia of the older racist right and instead they have updated and repackaged their messages of hate.
The primary goal of the new white nationalism is the preservation of white European culture and values.**
Yeah one can easily see how the latter is intrinsic in the former.
European culture and values = Hate.
No wonder we are perceived as evil, we want to retain our culture and values. Ought to be a crime.
2003-01-13 23:27 | User Profile
**a) can you work and try to see true conservative principles enabled without a self-conscious and determined body of whites? **
No, I don't believe so. In fact, I seem to remember you taking me to task for stating that our Republic and it's unique flavor is impossible to realize without a great majority of white, Protestant Christians.
b ) is this what you really want?
No, I'd like to live amongst my own kind in a very comfortable majority, thank you very much.
** To maintain characteristic Western cultural and political forms ÃÂ ('conservatism'), you must awake your kinsmen to the project of self preservation as a moral imperative ('white nationalism'). If you don't keep whites, then you don't keep the cultural forms that they naturally produce. Politics follows from culture, and our problem now is cultural, not political. **
This was essentially my argument on another thread, I don't remember which one. It appears to me that any perceived differences are more semantic in nature as opposed to fundamental ideology. Of course differences in semantics can cause large scale fractures, especially as they relate to specific tactics, programs, etc.
2003-01-14 01:16 | User Profile
I just registered at Horowitz' Frontpagemag site, and checked in with shavings off my rap: 1. The Jews have never know who, or what "Yahweh" was, which they have purported to worship, to the extent that their religion is not pure ancestry worship; 2. Abraham probably wasn't semitic, but Sumerian; 3. Jesus was Jewish only on his mother's (blood-line) side; 4. The Third Person of the Trinity acceptance of which defines major protestantism's spirit vs blood religion, is America's, by heritage -- citing the founding fathers, as usual.
I quoted Jared Taylor at them. Lets see if there is any spunk over there. I think they are on the run, mightily. Scalia has absolutely, catgegorically blown their gig sky high, and I am trying to be restrained.
Is this good? "Antoinin and Joe, today's soul-mates, finding each other from past lives....As The World Turns..." I don't think so.
2003-01-14 01:28 | User Profile
Zu Herr WombatNeun:
Oy veh dude! Read a history book. You are obviously at the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" stage as concerns ancient European History. Aryan culture has rarely, if ever, been better represented than by REPUBLICAN ROME. I here refer to pre Punic War III Rome. The mostrous abomination you confound with the Roman republic was a vile imposture variously denominated as the 'late' Roman Republic or the Roman Empire. To conflate this miscegantionist horror with its glorious ancestor is like identifying George Bush with George Washington or Don Rumsfeld with Thomas Paine.
One of the great moments in Aryan history was when the Roman Republic, not yet showing signs of the decay to follow, administered the coup de grace to the Semitic Hegemon epitomized in the person of the admittedly capable general Hannibal Barca, who very nearly succeeded in imposing Semitic depravity on the civilized world of his day. Thank Jupiter for men such as Quintus Fabius Maximus, who turned back Hannibal's variegeted mud hordes and the magnificent Scipio Africanus, who finally, and with extreme prejudice, decisively solved the Juden Fragen of his day at Zama.
I don't intend to catalog the innumerable perversions of these sand negroes, but among their more renowned cultural proclivities was the Carthaginian practice of periodically gathering together vast crowds of their own children and feeding them, still living, to the fiery maw of their great bronze statue of Baal. As a prelude, the children were placed into the cupped hands of the idol, already glowing white from the furnace within, and the mothers of the children took great sporting pride in outdoing one another in deceitfully comforting the tortured children so as to delay the inevitable screams of agony from the roasting children as long as possible. Kinda makes today's clitoris lopping Somali/Bantus seem downright Aryan by comparison.
Some may consider this digression to be a bit on the pedantic side, but I do have a relevant point to make, beside the advisability of refraining from blithely commenting on subjects clearly beyond one's competency. It is an old trick of the eternal masters of deceit to refer to an undeniably great culture of the past and identify it with it's putrescent cadaver. As an examplar of this particularly malodorous bit of offal JewJitsu, whenever the subject of Rome comes up on some episode of the Hymiestory Channel, one is invariably regaled with a litany of the degenerate hijinks of the inhabitants of Vesuvius/Herculaneum or even worse, those of the even latter day 'Romans', whose customs were not too different from those of San Francisco's bath house faggeratti or the ARA's greasy, unkempt wiggeritzim. The 'Romans' treated here were about as Roman as Mike Tyson's dad was Irish or Boris Becker's mischlinge is German. The motive for such distortion should be transparent.
Apparently, the WombatMeister considers Kosher Kable watching to be historical research.
As good old Marcus Porcius Cato was often heard to say: "Delenda est Carthago" or, more appropos of the current situation, with all due apologies to Herr Tsunami, "Delenda est Zhido". Much better, I think, than Herr Linder's "No Jews, Just Right".
2003-01-14 01:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 12 2003, 01:34 *Which raises the question: In the real world why are 'conservative' ideals so utterly powerless?*
I hold with the racialist interpretation of that fall from power, which many people who would resist the title 'racialist', share, chiefly Paul Gottfried. His analysis, presented in 'The Conservative Movement', dovetails with many on this board, and can basically be summed up by one word: neoconservatives.
. To maintain characteristic Western cultural and political forms ('conservatism'), you must awake your kinsmen to the project of self preservation as a moral imperative ('white nationalism'). If you don't keep whites, then you don't keep the cultural forms that they naturally produce. Politics follows from culture, and our problem now is cultural, not political.........
You cannot enable the principles of 'true conservatism' in the real world anymore than leftists can enable the principles of 'true communism'. Neither one exists.......
Wintermute**
The emboldened phrase which I think central to your argument, is addressed rather squarely by Suba
"Revolutionary Conservative" - What's That?
If the reader is shocked by the claim that conservatives have no great love for capitalism, he will be even more shocked by the claim that conservatism is not an actual political force in present-day society. And I do make this claim. There is no prominent political institution in present-day society that is identifiably conservative, in the sense specified by the principles enumerated above. Nowadays conservatives in the political realm are--I shall not say a spent force, but certainly a defeated one. Conservatism as an actual political force in present-day society has been defeated by what the late political theorist James Burnham calls the "managerial revolution."
As to the origins of this defeat, it is addressed succinctly in > Why conservatism is currently a defeated position
As Gottfried notes, the neo cons are truimphant, but your overall analysis of conservatismmight best be tempered with the kind of reasoning Suba employs
**However, the revolutionary conservative is not thereby left without resources, intellectual or material. For while the managerial revolution has defeated capitalist and pre-capitalist social, political, and cultural institutions, it has not yet extirpated them (though not for lack of trying). This is why I wrote that conservatism is a defeated force and not a spent one. There is life yet in the family, in the church, in all the associations made on the basis of region or ethnicity, in individually owned businesses tied to these, and in local governments. The revolutionary conservative must cherish these, encouraging them to flourish and to recover control of those social functions that have been stolen away from them by a managerial elite that has nothing but contempt for them. **
Although defeated, conservatism will remain a factor to be dealt with, that is, unless conservatism itself succombs to things that invert its basic nature like technocratic and Machievellian heresays, altering its basic nature.
2003-01-14 01:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Jan 12 2003, 03:00 True. One more point about this is " what is true conservatism"? True communism can at least be defined by Marx's treatises. To me, conservatism is a reactionary term that is always changing though the decades, being defined by what the old guard believed and as we know, the old guard is getting more liberal as tome goes by. I prefer not using conservatism to define my beliefs but white natonalism. If anyone has a better term I am all ears.****
Here you go ears. ;)
"Revolutionary Conservative" - What's That?
2003-01-14 06:27 | User Profile
A delightful post, Wintermute, and though there is little that I can add except by way of particulars you have stirred some measure of neural activity to which I will try to give form.
wintermute Posted: Jan 11 2003, 19:34
**Still, the tendencies which Jews exacerbate for their own ends do have a real prescence in our people which is not dependant on Jewish power. The herding instinct is quite real, as is the deference to status markers, the desire to avoid harsh truths, real limits on the ability to consider the needs of others, etc. **
These shortcomings are inherent in our race and together constitute the biggest obstacle to free and individualistic society steered by conservatism -- no matter if its form is the ideal archetype posited by some OD members or the current ââ¬Åcompassionate conservativeââ¬Â packaged product peddled by the GOP. All societies, if they wish to endure (Westââ¬â¢s policies pertaining to immigration and foreign markets constitute a de facto admission of their non-viability), fancy themselves as conservative in the domain of social interaction. Most US presidents consider themselves conservative and have secured office on that basis. The result as measured by social civility is well known while our economic future is at best uncertain and it is a nice irony that one of the most fiscally conservative presidents was also the most socially promiscuous. As always, it is deeds that demand scrutiny for labels mean nothing.
The life cycle of western civilizations that had their deeds recorded take on a familiar pattern: A group of closely related people settle a territory. They multiply, appropriate more real estate, and enact laws -- supplanting existing laws which had their basis in customs -- to govern more varied human conduct and account for regional differences. They prosper and attract foreigners who desire the same and the process is hastened by expansion into alien-inhabited territory. The influx of cheap labour ensures more wealth for privileged members and the populace becomes more class conscious. Yet more laws are passed, miscegenation becomes norm, and wealth consolidation becomes easier as governing bodies grow sensitive to the well being of their masters. Loss of social cohesion and attitude of indifference toward fellow citizens increases. The exact point where ââ¬Årepublicââ¬Â becomes ââ¬Åempireââ¬Â or when some apex is attained is irrelevant for the road to extinction/displacement of the founding raceââ¬â¢s genotype has long been charted.
The role of our ââ¬Åherd instinctââ¬Â and all its related traits in the recurrence of the above scenario is central. Of people, only few actually desire change and are content -- as in not content but not sufficiently motivated to actively pursue change either -- with their lot assuming minor levels of disparity between men. The more passive their nature and the more visible the inequality around them the greater their susceptibility to influence by others. That one particular group, not recognized as such, is responsible for bulk of the meddling today, and may have been responsible for such in most recorded history, does not excuse the fact our racial elites have acted the same. All thinking animals act to better their condition and a more stratified society makes it easier for talking hominids to go further at the expense of their less endowed and less connected brethren.
The problem of susceptibility to subversive influence underlies all modern societies and it may be that only hunters and gatherers were immune since cooperation in the struggle for survival was doubtless more honest than cooperation for profit. Division of labour paved the way for realignment of loyalties and the inevitability of class distinctions. Observation of societies permits hazarding a few axioms: (1) More complex society = greater class stratification. (2) Larger population = more laws needed (need not be written). (3) More diverse population = greater indifference to state and other groups within. Increase in complexity, laws, diversity and indifference amount to uncertainty in behavioural norms in business and personal life, which means more manoeuvring room for would be meddlers.
There will always be differences among citizens since deviations in motivation and resourcefulness ensure as much. The right to a house that is twice as big as a neighbourââ¬â¢s is inherent in a free society that we, men of the west, value. But can we afford discrepancies on a geometric scale such as exist today? I would submit that a population of same or of similar racial stock does more for social cohesion than truck loads of money and statutory ââ¬Ëcorrectionsââ¬â¢ can ever dream of attaining. Simply, it is a prerequisite.
Naturally, devising a society where elite members function as guides and as resource for others, instead of as hindrance and parasites that many become, is only a diversionary exercise for us and can only be implemented by the next civilization. Sparta was an idea conceived early in the cityââ¬â¢s recorded history and would not have worked centuries later.
Texas Dissident,
At the risk of being perceived as recruiting you to some racist viewpoint or burdening you with needless evaluations, I think Wintermuteââ¬â¢s questions have merit and number two, albeit of the loaded variety, is accurate in that UN statistics postulate just such a scenario.
As a relatively young pup I am aware that attempting to engage someone who has lived and observed the world for much longer than I have brings with it a risk of incompatibility of vantage points, but I assure you I mean no disrespect. In terms of allegiances or my estimate of likelihood of a successful white nationalist revolution, my avatar should tell you all you need to know.
I recently reread the notorious Linder thread and I find it interesting that most currently active OD members would not disagree with the thrust of the manââ¬â¢s arguments save, obviously, the vulgar rhetoric and proposed methodology. Here, it is acknowledged that our problems do not have a one-dimensional etiology, but I suspect, that is a point most of his ilk would readily concede. I do not know what the attitude of more venerable members is in seeing this forum steered in a direction where an outsider would readily classify the bulk of posted commentary as ââ¬Ëhateââ¬Â material, but I suspect it lingers in the minds of some conservatives. Revolutions on account of social problems or unjust taxes are respectable but raceââ¬Â¦
Of course, we all know who mans the front lines in denying the race issue and who spares no expense to educate the masses on the evils of National Socialism and elevates the character of its ranking member to that of Lucifer. I will not insult your intelligence and claim that indoctrination and propaganda is responsible in infecting individuals who think they are immune. I do not need to for there is the reality of (1) a world war ââ¬Åto save civilizationââ¬Â with heavy loss of life on all sides and desire to preserve some meaning for their sacrifice, and (2) a pariah status that accompanies NS sympathizers and revisionists whatever the extent of actual revision.
Perspective is king and there nothing quite like having your infant mother held at various times by soldiers during the interludes in killing, including SS men, Americans (elements of Pattonââ¬â¢s third army could conceivably have gone as far as Vienna if motivated) and Russians, to give perspective to the utter waste and suicidal nature of that fratricidal conflict.
I consider myself well read on the third Reich era, though not on par with some OD members, and I maintain that properly reconsidered Hitler was merely another Napoleon, albeit with a racial twist. He wanted German dominance on the continent and acted accordingly. Nazi policies concerning race were a mixed bag in that filching Ukrainian blondes for conception purposes and calling them subhuman (as a minority did) does not equate with logic. Jews were singled out for special treatment but not the kind that is commonly taught. Mass shootings were not uncommon but were primarily reserved for criminals, and populations of various Slavic countries settled much of their own accounting. Concentration camps were really intensive labour camps and made no small contribution to German production in latter years. Access to Russian archives leaves little doubt concerning fatalities and talks of death factories are laughable. In numerical terms, Nazi excesses were easily offset by Allied mass bombings and when post war liberties are considered the comparisons become quite skewed, to say nothing of uncle Joeââ¬â¢s handy work during the interwar years.
Concerning our present struggle, we, as men of the west, ought not discount a single lesson our history provides or avoid any relevant examples, regardless if others deem our sources and efforts hideous. One hallmark of intelligence is the ability to accommodate reason and accept worthy viewpoints even if previously ridiculed. Patton could motivate men by talk of grinding Nazis underneath tank tracks but he sung a different tune in post-war Germany.
I can only guess at what brand of conservatism you deem worthy for your nation, but I must tell you that I doubt you will see it in your lifetime or I in mine. I only know that the closest approximation will, for a white man, be had in an all-white state or, at the very least, in territory where all laws pertaining to association are non-existent. In the meantime we can indeed be white (Aryan if we think deserving of the title noble) or slaves.
PS: Note that the very existence of a thread on whether we should pursue racial interests is something that can only occur between whites. :blink:
2003-01-14 14:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 12 2003, 01:34 ** > The logical follow-up point is that true traditional conservatism has not been tried, or at least implemented at any level.
I have to be honest, Tex, I just cannot imagine what you mean. Is this like when people say that 'real communism' was never tried, and therefore the poverty and totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. are inadmissable as evidence? The rejoinder to this position, that 'real communism' was tried, and it was always derailed in exactly the same way, is one that I take to be substantially true. It simultaneously deposes a host of smaller theoretical assumptions, most especially the primary error of 'true' Marxist systems: the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the 'state' will never wither away. The vision of 'true communism' rests on false assumptions, therefore it will never be manifested in a real world political system with the hoped for results. It's a gigantic meditation on the 'field of dreams' scenario - "build it and they will come", with 'they', in this instance, understood as a cavalcade of the worst mankind can become: Kim Il Jong, Castro, Tito, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Mao, Zinoviev, Ehrenberg, Kaganovich, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. Communism does not have any other real world terminus except this ghoulish annex to Dante. **
Wintermute: I refer to your comments on this thread.
You, my friend, are a brilliant and insightful writer.
I'm sure glad you're on my side.
Here're my two cents: The thing that we paleoconservatives miss when we think about Jefferson, Adam Smith, Lincoln and others of the Conservative canon is that they simply assumed the truth of race, and thus rarely addressed it in their political writings. None of the great conservatives had the slightest doubt that "freedom" was intelligible only in the context of a nation. The Founding Fathers stood for the Rights of Englishmen, and they waged war when their rights as Englishmen were impinged. Jefferson clearly saw individual freedom not as an end in itself, but rather as the only way to ensure that the most talented and virtuous individuals of the nation rose to leadership positions. The ultimate good was the prospering of the nation, and a broad measure of individual liberty vis a vis the group/state was Nature's way of ensuring that good result. Adam Smith came close to this also when he wrote that his entire system of civil society presumed a virtuous population that took its religion seriously (this when the Established Church of England meant something). Taylor quotes Lincoln above as to the impossibility of blacks and whites sharing a polity - but Lincoln also had no doubts that the Irish, French and Italians could become good Americans, because he understood the simple reality of race.
Our undoing is that we conceded the race issue to the neo-Marxists by agreeing that race is only skin deep and unimportant, and thus we kicked out from under ourselves the very foundation of our Conservatism.
Like Jefferson and those who signed the Declaration, we believe in Nature and Nature's God; i.e. we believe that all of our political institutions must accept and seek to accommodate multifaceted human nature. This is in sharp contrast to both the Marxists (who simply deny the reality of human nature and assert man's endless malleability) and the Nazis (who equate the natural with the good). Conservatives neither deny the reality of man's nature as do our Marxist enemies, nor do we equate man's nature with the good and just as did the Nazis. We conservatives avoid both of those extremes. We avoid the false utopias of both the far Left and the far Right with all their attendant horrors. Rather, we accept man with his animal nature and with hope in the "better angels of his nature," and we use our natural powers of reason in a never-ending effort to approximate justice on Earth. Conservatism is radically centrist in its orientation.
Conservatives thus support in law the institutions that recognize our instincts as powerful and potentially destructive to the group. It places the survival and flourishing of the group as its ultimate value, and then asks itself how best to accommodate the individual's immutable instincts with a view to harnessing them for the common weal. The Uniform Commercial Code is our tribe's attempt to bend man's property instinct to the common good. The marriage laws were likewise designed to harness the sex instinct for the good of the tribe. The establishment of the nation state with enforceable borders at Westphalia was our European ancestors' (very successful) attempt to accomodate man's tribal instinct.
Taylor above states quite rightly that man has instincts for tribe and property, and that it is insanity to deny that fact. Here he cuts directly to the crux of the issue. Man is tribal by nature, period. There's no sense in denying it. Taylor is saying "deal with it or die." He rightly compares the genocidal horrors attendant upon the Soviet Union's denial of man's instinct for property with multiculturalism's denial of man's tribal instincts today, and implicitly warns us of similar disasters that await us for our failure to respect Nature and Nature's God. The really scary thing is that he's nearly alone in uttering these simple truths.
While the New Left has come to accept the need for basic property rights with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it hasn't let go of the Marxist fantasy that all human differences can be rendered moot by proper education. The mainstream conservative movement lost the battle when we joined the neo-Marxist multiculturalists in this insane denial of man's tribal instincts and the objective reality of race.
Thus, the Neocons like Glazov are not really conservatives at all, since they still deny the reality or overarching importance of human nature, especially in regard to our tribal instincts. More fundamentally, by denying the reality of race, they implicitly reject the unspoken sine qua non of Conservatism: the survival and prosperity of the nation-tribe. Since all of Conservatism is ordered toward the higher end of tribal flourishing, and since Conservatism's insistence on individual liberty is really based on an empirical discovery that individual liberty is necessary and conducive to tribal flourishing, Neo-Conservatism with its denial of the reality or importance of race contains within itself the seeds of a new totalitarianism.
In sum, I'm a conservative because I recognize, accept and seek to reasonably accommodate man's instincts for sex, property, security and tribe as the only natural means to the higher end of group flourishing.
As an aside, I note that Glazov doesn't deny the reality of the black/white IQ gap - he merely chides Taylor for bringing it up in public! That's very typical of Glazov's tribe.
Walter
2003-01-14 16:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 11 2003, 10:48 ** Polichinello continually urges members of this board to be conservatives: that is, to think in terms of the propogation of ideas first and foremost, independant of whom they will preserve and whom they must persuade. **
Let me clarify my position here. While I do think most of the country's problems stem from bad ideas, I don't deny the reality of ethnicity. I associate myself with Brimelow's clarification on this symposium: [url=http://www.vdare.com/pb/front_page.htm]http://www.vdare.com/pb/front_page.htm[/url]
"Nations are ethno-cultural entities; neither exclusively ethnic nor exclusively cultural."
My conservatism would include ending mass-immigration and affirmative action, thus preserving our ethnic composition, or at least not worsening it. I would not, however, go on to pass laws segregating different races. If it's a natural thing for races to separate, then separate they shall--Que sera, sera.
Essentially, I take a negative approach to matters of race. Here's an example: The Bell Curve goes a long way towards explaining why after decades of Affirmative Action blacks still lag behind whites. This is good reason to quit bothering with the program because it's ultimately a futile (even self-defeating) effort. Where I differ from many WN's though is that I would not use The Bell Curve to justify a bar on black admittance to college, nor would I endorse a legal ban on miscegenation or any other act between freely consenting adults.
I notice that some people on this thread are looking to Thomas Jefferson. While I wouldn't deny the man's brilliance, I'd be careful accepting what he says. Remember, old Tommy was quite high on the French Revolution, and was just fine with killing off a whole lot of people to see it succeed. As he put it, "I would have seen half of the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than it now is..."
If I have an intellectual lodestar, it would be Edmund Burke. The essence of Burke's writings was to accept the country as it was and try to improve it on those grounds. Looking back on American history, we can see a lot of mistakes. There's even grounds to believe the American Revolution could have been handled better (Sobran discussed this a while back, I believe). But what's done is done, and we have to accept what's here and work with it. The blacks are a problem, but they didn't ask to be born here. Like it or not their ancestors were brought here, and if we're to take credit for all the good things done by whites, we have to take responsibility for the bad things. That doesn't handing out reparations or affirmative action, but they should be secure in their persons and property, and they should have some say in how they're governed. Will there ever be a perfect solution? No, we'll probably always have problems, but such is life. The best we can do is minimize the problems.
To the Jews. Yes, most of them support a lot of stupid programs. I don't think there's a group strategy involved because their policies are ultimately self-defeating (not much evolutionary use!), and most of the problems can be traced to their having a largely urban population. Despite their political stupidity, the majority of them are law-abiding citizens, and should not be deprived of political rights on some group basis. But the more aggressively inane projects, like banning nativities in the park, are certainly worth rejecting, and rejecting loudly. But as to targeting them, I think it's pointless for two reasons: (1) the secular Jews are intermarrying and disappearing and (2) the Orthodox remnant is relatively isolated and aside from welfare scams in New Square (which can be taken care of by abolishing welfare), pretty much harmless, sometimes even beneficial, as in the cases of Don Feder or Daniel Lapin.
Best, P
2003-01-14 22:27 | User Profile
** Now, some Fox News kid just straight-faced this. Recalling some probably made-up story of finding the deadly poison ricin in Iraq, back during old Scott Ritter inspections, Peach-Face Boy stated "now this same ricin turns up in London." As if he knew. Somebody had to put him to up making that connection. ** Doubt it -- those STUPID Fox jerks (I can't even give them the 'out' of youth -- by their ages they ought to have at least SOME SLIGHT SEMBLANCE of intelligence) probably DO think it's the "same stuff." Talk about plastic automatons (with really small hard drives :lol: )!
I had to stop watching them because I kept screaming at the TV! :angry: They haven't even the basics of an high school education! They make some of the most assinine mistakes in what SHOULD BE common knowledge among an barely educated populace (okay, I know, I'm hallucinating that we could have one)
Never attribute to malice what can be explained away by stupidity!
2003-01-14 23:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 14 2003, 16:35 ... The Bell Curve goes a long way towards explaining why after decades of Affirmative Action blacks still lag behind whites. This is good reason to quit bothering with the program because it's ultimately a futile (even self-defeating) effort. ...
P,
Affirmative action in education and in employment has to some extent created the modern black middle class and current black enrollment levels in academia (blacks who can compete arguably have more opportunity to do so as well, but they aren't the problem as far as affirmative action is concerned).
Given the genetic component of mean black/non-black IQ differences, there are two possibilities, have a meritocratic system with very low black participation at the higher levels of society, or artificially boost black participation through quotas (formal or informal). Quotas aren't futile from the point of view of their beneficiaries, to whom they are preferable to the loss of wealth and status which would result from a purely meritocratic system.
When modern mainstream 'conservatives' attempt to position themselves as the promoters of a colour-blind meritocracy, the true heirs to the civil rights era, they promise outcomes from ending affirmative action which the genetic-IQ data says won't be delivered. Removing affirmative action would only create a bigger constituency receptive to the idea that whites are to blame for the relative lack of success among blacks. Its unrealistic to expect those who lose from repealing these laws to accept their fate because of anything Arthur Jensen has to say.
Of course quotas inevitably reduce the quality of black academics, lawyers and so on, which will be reflected in others' opinion of them, which will also create resentment and charges of discrimination. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
2003-01-15 00:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 14 2003, 16:35 ... If I have an intellectual lodestar, it would be Edmund Burke. The essence of Burke's writings was to accept the country as it was and try to improve it on those grounds. ...
This view leaves radicals and other malcontents as the shapers of society. Conservatives are left on the sidelines perpetually praising everything the radicals did in the past and condemning everything they want to do in the future, until they do it. Not effectively defending anything, just moderating the rate of change.
2003-01-15 00:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Affirmative action in education and in employment has to some extent created the modern black middle class and current black enrollment levels in academia (blacks who can compete arguably have more opportunity to do so as well, but they aren't the problem as far as affirmative action is concerned). [/QUOTE]
Actually, blacks improved economically at a faster rate before affirmative action than afterwards. I don't pretend that they'll do the same, but there's no reason that many of them can't work in honest low- to mid-level jobs. I work in the oil industry and the hardest workers around here are black guys. They know all the ends and outs of our test rig, and you go to them if you want things done. These guys aren't mooches. They have a sense of pride and a work ethic.
[QUOTE}Given the genetic component of mean black/non-black IQ differences, there are two possibilities, have a meritocratic system with very low black participation at the higher levels of society, or artificially boost black participation through quotas (formal or informal). Quotas aren't futile from the point of view of their beneficiaries, to whom they are preferable to the loss of wealth and status which would result from a purely meritocratic system... snipping the rest for brevity[/QUOTE]
I grant you, L, that it'll never be an easy sell. Too many people have way too much invested in it. But, ironically, the Republicans who are hardest on affirmative action have the highest totals of black support. Reagan was into the mid-teens where as Dubya got a pathetic 8%. Add in their strong sense of nativism, and a serious Republican could have a chance of making a difference. Remember, the key isn't to win over a majority of blacks but about 20% of them, which would crack the Democrats coalition. Karl Rove isn't wrong in his goal, but he's dead wrong in how to go about getting it.
Best, P
2003-01-15 00:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 14 2003, 16:35 ... If I have an intellectual lodestar, it would be Edmund Burke. The essence of Burke's writings was to accept the country as it was and try to improve it on those grounds. ...**
This view leaves radicals and other malcontents as the shapers of society. **
Can't we say the same of your viewpoint? You are, so to speak, radical, and I assume you are not content with the system
Conservatives are left on the sidelines perpetually praising everything the radicals did in the past and condemning everything they want to do in the future, until they do it. Not effectively defending anything, just moderating the rate of change.
No you do not have to praise past mistakes. Burke was an active reformer. The point is to work reform in manner that does the least amount of harm.
Best, P
2003-01-15 01:38 | User Profile
' To maintain characteristic Western cultural and political forms ('conservatism'), you must awake your kinsmen to the project of self preservation as a moral imperative ('white nationalism'). If you don't keep whites, then you don't keep the cultural forms that they naturally produce. Politics follows from culture, and our problem now is cultural, not political.........' --P. Gottfried
Thus we need to attempt to limit 3rd word immigration, and promote the idea that whites need to have many children (5 or 6 a family would be good) with other whites.
These goals ought to be the main objective of white nationalists. Beyond that, there is the need to end affirmative action and the welfare state, the first of which directly harms whites, the second of which does so indirectly by distorting family structures.
2003-01-15 02:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 15 2003, 00:10 **Actually, blacks improved economically at a faster rate before affirmative action than afterwards. I don't pretend that they'll do the same, but there's no reason that many of them can't work in honest low- to mid-level jobs. I work in the oil industry and the hardest workers around here are black guys. They know all the ends and outs of our test rig, and you go to them if you want things done. These guys aren't mooches. They have a sense of pride and a work ethic. **
I wasn't denigrating black workers (I know you weren't suggesting that). My point is that to the extent that a difference in levels of achievement is immutable, it will always work against the practical possibility of a race neutral meritocracy.
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 15 2003, 00:10 **I grant you, L, that it'll never be an easy sell. Too many people have way too much invested in it. But, ironically, the Republicans who are hardest on affirmative action have the highest totals of black support. Reagan was into the mid-teens where as Dubya got a pathetic 8%. Add in their strong sense of nativism, and a serious Republican could have a chance of making a difference. Remember, the key isn't to win over a majority of blacks but about 20% of them, which would crack the Democrats coalition. Karl Rove isn't wrong in his goal, but he's dead wrong in how to go about getting it. **
I'm surprised that 1% (an extra 10% of 10%(?)) of the the electorate is significant, although perhaps constituency boundaries amplify its importance.
2003-01-15 02:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 15 2003, 00:14 ** Can't we say the same of your viewpoint? You are, so to speak, radical, and I assume you are not content with the system **
For the most part I want to stop my managerially inclined rulers from doing what they've been doing, and undo some of their recent work, although as dictator I could think of a few novelties too. :)
2003-01-15 04:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 15 2003, 02:02 ** I'm surprised that 1% (an extra 10% of 10%(?)) of the the electorate is significant, although perhaps constituency boundaries amplify its importance. **
The effect is amplified by where blacks live: concentrated urban areas in big electoral vote states. They act as a solid base in places like New York, Illinois and California. If you erode that solid base, it kills the Democrats, who have to work that much harder among swing voters. That's why they're so senstive to voter turn-out.
Of course, in addition to increasing black votes, straight appeals to meritocracy and immigration cut-offs will increase the far more significant white vote. Steve Sailer ran some numbers on this. From memory, if Bush had increased his share of the white vote by only 3%, he would have won in an electoral landslide. In fact, Sailer also demonstrated that the GOP won in 2002 by largely appealing to whites. Rove seemed to have learned his lesson, though, he's loathe to publicly admit it.
Best, P
2003-02-01 16:45 | User Profile
I believe it's no coincidence that FRONT PAGE no longer offers its readers a regular Glazov column; that his spittle-flecked dementia, obsession with foreigners' weenies and pudendas, and scattershot demonizing of whites and Arabs both has been an embarassment -yes, even for the Karl Rove wannabes within Camp David Horowitz! - is hardly a nuclear secret. But his new function - as a sort of pugnacious game-show host moderating a series of neocon 'symposiums' - hasn't been as successful a damage-control tactic as originally hoped. Here, Jamie can't even 'neutrally' chair a think tank on The Rise Of White Nationalism without tainting the premise with the subheading "....and How to Defuse its Appeal". And he can't allow Jared Taylor an opportunity to speak without baiting/attacking him repeatedly. If this constitutes a right-wing meeting of the minds, then all I can say is 'POINT OF ODOR! ....have you no shame? At long last, Mr Moderator....have you no shame?'
2003-02-01 21:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 14 2003, 10:35 To the Jews. Yes, most of them support a lot of stupid programs. I don't think there's a group strategy involved because their policies are ultimately self-defeating (not much evolutionary use...
Was there not a "group strategy" in the "self-defeating" rebellions against Rome, even granted the factionalism preceding the event?
One fails to integrate Jewish paranoid psychosis (delusions of persecution/grandeur) into the analysis, as well as their ability to survive by metastasis.
2003-02-01 22:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jan 14 2003, 08:44 **Conservatives neither deny the reality of man's nature as do our Marxist enemies, nor do we equate man's nature with the good and just as did the Nazis.ÃÂ We conservatives avoid both of those extremes.ÃÂ We avoid the false utopias of both the far Left and the far Right with all their attendant horrors.ÃÂ Rather, we accept man with his animal nature and with hope in the "better angels of his nature," and we use our natural powers of reason in a never-ending effort to approximate justice on Earth.ÃÂ Conservatism is radically centrist in its orientation. **
And so the far Left is left to destroy the far Right - as the Center stands aside, where not complicit, and fatuously fantasizes its own "natural" ability to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized and to do a "justice" that has no definition. To equate as 'utopian' the absurdly anarchist "withering away of the state" and a merely Judenrein "Thousand-Year-Reich" is a prime piece of pusilanimous rationalization, so comforting to those who cannot face "horrors"- until such is nigh upon them and nothing is left to be done but submit. Conservatism is, rather, radically struthine in its orientation.
2003-02-03 10:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 1 2003, 22:30 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jan 14 2003, 08:44 **Conservatives neither deny the reality of man's nature as do our Marxist enemies, nor do we equate man's nature with the good and just as did the Nazis.ÃÂ We conservatives avoid both of those extremes.ÃÂ We avoid the false utopias of both the far Left and the far Right with all their attendant horrors.ÃÂ Rather, we accept man with his animal nature and with hope in the "better angels of his nature," and we use our natural powers of reason in a never-ending effort to approximate justice on Earth.ÃÂ Conservatism is radically centrist in its orientation. **
And so the far Left is left to destroy the far Right - as the Center stands aside, where not complicit, and fatuously fantasizes its own "natural" ability to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized and to do a "justice" that has no definition. To equate as 'utopian' the absurdly anarchist "withering away of the state" and a merely Judenrein "Thousand-Year-Reich" is a prime piece of pusilanimous rationalization, so comforting to those who cannot face "horrors"- until such is nigh upon them and nothing is left to be done but submit. Conservatism is, rather, radically struthine in its orientation. **
I regret that didn't understand that. Please amplify.
I've followed your posts. You write very well.
As a much younger man I too was much enamoured of your namesake.
How I loved to tout my "courage" to gaze unflinchingly into the maw of the eternal "abyss." But I realize now that this appealed to my "human all too human" instinct to preen and display my fitness to the girls. Young men find Dostoyevskian displays of daring resignation to Fate nearly irresistible. It's down right Byronic. It's cheap. It's easy. And it makes one appear very smart without having to do a lot of heavy intellectual lifting. It was a pretty good pose to strike for the girls at university, although I must say it didn't work nearly as well as finishing professional school, landing a good job and buying my first Armani suit.
I've come to believe that "realists" like Nietzsche are in fact not very "realistic" at all. The simple truth is that man cannot embrace the abyss and remain human - our evolved instincts to believe in the Eternal are as real as our instincts for food, sex and society. To deny that simple and verifiable fact of our own existence invites destruction of both the individual and of any society that would take him seriously. Exhibit "A" is your own namesake, who collapsed at the sight of a mistreated animal and died insane. The great novelists - Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Melville - illustrate this point beyond my impoverished telling in their eternal art.
Kirkegaard, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky anticipate and contain Neitzsche philosophically and artistically. The emerging science of evoutionary psychology reveals the appeal his truly great writings have for young men in terms of their evolved need for sexual display.
Enjoy the pose, my friend. I hope it gets you whatever you're looking for (uh, let me guess . . . ). After you've found that, why not join the rest of us folks wallowing around in the swamp of our own humanity.
The water's fine!
Walter
2003-02-03 15:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 3 2003, 04:23 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 1 2003, 22:30 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jan 14 2003, 08:44 Conservatives neither deny the reality of man's nature as do our Marxist enemies, nor do we equate man's nature with the good and just as did the Nazis.ÃÂ We conservatives avoid both of those extremes.ÃÂ We avoid the false utopias of both the far Left and the far Right with all their attendant horrors.ÃÂ Rather, we accept man with his animal nature and with hope in the "better angels of his nature," and we use our natural powers of reason in a never-ending effort to approximate justice on Earth.ÃÂ Conservatism is radically centrist in its orientation. **
And so the far Left is left to destroy the far Right - as the Center stands aside, where not complicit, and fatuously fantasizes its own "natural" ability to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized and to do a "justice" that has no definition. To equate as 'utopian' the absurdly anarchist "withering away of the state" and a merely Judenrein "Thousand-Year-Reich" is a prime piece of pusilanimous rationalization, so comforting to those who cannot face "horrors"- until such is nigh upon them and nothing is left to be done but submit. Conservatism is, rather, radically struthine in its orientation. **
I regret that didn't understand that. Please amplify.
I've followed your posts. You write very well.
As a much younger man I too was much enamoured of your namesake.
How I loved to tout my "courage" to gaze unflinchingly into the maw of the eternal "abyss." But I realize now that this appealed to my "human all too human" instinct to preen and display my fitness to the girls. Young men find Dostoyevskian displays of daring resignation to Fate nearly irresistible. It's down right Byronic. It's cheap. It's easy. And it makes one appear very smart without having to do a lot of heavy intellectual lifting. It was a pretty good pose to strike for the girls at university, although I must say it didn't work nearly as well as finishing professional school, landing a good job and buying my first Armani suit.
I've come to believe that "realists" like Nietzsche are in fact not very "realistic" at all. The simple truth is that man cannot embrace the abyss and remain human - our evolved instincts to believe in the Eternal are as real as our instincts for food, sex and society. To deny that simple and verifiable fact of our own existence invites destruction of both the individual and of any society that would take him seriously. Exhibit "A" is your own namesake, who collapsed at the sight of a mistreated animal and died insane. The great novelists - Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Melville - illustrate this point beyond my impoverished telling in their eternal art.
Kirkegaard, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky anticipate and contain Neitzsche philosophically and artistically. The emerging science of evoutionary psychology reveals the appeal his truly great writings have for young men in terms of their evolved need for sexual display.
Enjoy the pose, my friend. I hope it gets you whatever you're looking for (uh, let me guess . . . ). After you've found that, why not join the rest of us folks wallowing around in the swamp of our own humanity.
The water's fine!
Walter**
Walter,
Thank you for your thoughtful and provocative response. It will be a pleasure to assist you in refining an understanding of the issue that stands between us.
Let me first deal with the matter of "posing," which you mention in terms of your own youth and are now patronizingly projecting upon me. As it was the case that I discovered and came to understand Nietzsche's thought very late in life (I am now 52), I had no opportunity to employ, or even consider, this material in the fashion which you describe. I do not, even now, think of Nietzsche's work in these terms, and I find the perspective which you have brought to it here surprising and the occasion for the celebration of a bit of novelty granted an old Nietzschean.
Let me suggest to you that your youthful employment of Nietzsche was (otherwise than cheap-and-easily toward your vanity) the product of a failure to understand Nietzsche, as evidenced by your requirement, above, for an explanation of material central to N.'s political philosophy and which I have explored elsewhere at OD. As it happens, I had done a great deal of "heavy intellectual lifting" long before taking more than a superficial look at Nietzsche, and what I derived from his work impacted me not at all in terms of a "Fate" of which I was already well aware.
So, with this brief dismissal of your comforting and facile rationalization of the challenge which I offer, let us attack the substance and essence of that which you neglected to embrace as a youthful poseur:
In GM and BGE, Nietzsche discusses the limitations of justice and the implication thereof for the necessary, organic perpetuation of unjust aggression by those who thus stratify society and create civilization. As I have further explained, in terms which ought to be grasped by libertarians who reason in such terms, a formula for implementing the rightly-understood-interest (i.e., "justice" in layman's terms) of even a population of merely national dimension cannot be devised even in principle. Thus the attempt to "approximate justice" is a self-destructive fatuity for responsible collectives, whose persons and property would thus shortly become the spoils of conquest by polities not likewise given to "Conservatism". The failure to grasp these fundamentals of political philosophy accounts, in large part, for the present failure, by "Conservatives" among others, to realistically assess the illimitably aggressive nature and objectives of so-called "Communism," fatuously believed to have evanesced out of regret over unachieved objectives misattributed to it.
But I will not patronizingly assume that you have grasped nothing otherwise of what I previously wrote, so I will await your specification of any other problems for examination in more detail.
** I've come to believe that "realists" like Nietzsche are in fact not very "realistic" at all.ÃÂ The simple truth is that man cannot embrace the abyss and remain human - our evolved instincts to believe in the Eternal are as real as our instincts for food, sex and society.ÃÂ To deny that simple and verifiable fact of our own existence invites destruction of both the individual and of any society that would take him seriously.**
My own perspective is somewhat the opposite. The failure to confront the abyss - and thus to understand that men who are such must create their own "unjust" and "aggressive" national order in necessarily limited dimensions and amidst the contrary efforts of other nationalities - means that gigacidal anarchy is to be the consequence of the predictable breakdown to come of anti-nationalist utopian globalist aspirations and administration. Sentimental, self-styled "humans" will have made a prime contribution to this radical devolution from New/Jew World Order into a new Dark Age of inhumanity, for failure to discard their own universalist orientation toward "justice" and "humanity" which places them constantly on the ideological defensive and in retreat on the political front.
Cheerfully yours,
NeoNietzsche
2003-02-04 15:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 3 2003, 04:23 **As a much younger man I too was much enamoured of your namesake.
How I loved to tout my "courage" to gaze unflinchingly into the maw of the eternal "abyss." But I realize now that this appealed to my "human all too human" instinct to preen and display my fitness to the girls. Young men find Dostoyevskian displays of daring resignation to Fate nearly irresistible. It's down right Byronic. It's cheap. It's easy. And it makes one appear very smart without having to do a lot of heavy intellectual lifting. It was a pretty good pose to strike for the girls at university, although I must say it didn't work nearly as well as finishing professional school, landing a good job and buying my first Armani suit.
I've come to believe that "realists" like Nietzsche are in fact not very "realistic" at all. The simple truth is that man cannot embrace the abyss and remain human - our evolved instincts to believe in the Eternal are as real as our instincts for food, sex and society. To deny that simple and verifiable fact of our own existence invites destruction of both the individual and of any society that would take him seriously. Exhibit "A" is your own namesake, who collapsed at the sight of a mistreated animal and died insane. The great novelists - Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Melville - illustrate this point beyond my impoverished telling in their eternal art.
Kirkegaard, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky anticipate and contain Neitzsche philosophically and artistically. The emerging science of evoutionary psychology reveals the appeal his truly great writings have for young men in terms of their evolved need for sexual display.**
Walter,
Let's talk about what you think you know of Nietzsche's philosophy:
1) A "daring resignation to Fate" in Dostoyevskian terms does not characterize N.'s thought. "Amor fati" does. Nietzsche's orientation was an affirmation of all that had and was to happen, and he rejected Schopenhauerean pessimism, hoping to promote a return of the "ancient fire" - the aristocratic culture and polity of "the supreme rights of the few". Nietzsche optimistically anticipated a "self-overcoming" of Christianity out of Christian truthfulness, and the emergence thus of the kind of man "that Zarathustra wants" - one who "conceives reality as it is".
2) "Kirkegaard, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky anticipate and contain [Nietzsche] philosophically and artistically." A mere denunciation of this claim as nonsense would carry little weight, in that such would be toward the awkward proving of a negative. So I will challenge you to reproduce something from the Trio which corresponds to Nietzsche as I have employed him. To refer to Nietzsche in terms of "an evolved need for sexual display" is to display the rankest mis-appreciation of his courage and brilliance, and is to dismiss him by mere association with "young men" such as yourself who were not precocious in their grasp of his work.
Cheerfully yours,
NeoNietzsche