The shocking truth: To assimilate into America means to accept the laws and culture of white people
(Note: this was originally posted May 28.)
That it is not to say America is only for White Europeans. But it is to say that America is only for people who are willing–without question or complaint–to live under laws written by White Europeans.
– VFR commenter Joseph C., in this entry
Larry G. writes:
I just noticed Joseph C’s comment in the Sonia Sotomayor thread, your reply to him, and his followup comment. All three are jewels. The two of you should consider expanding this into a joint essay and publishing it.
Since Joseph’s comments go well beyond the topic of Sotomayor, I’m copying the exchange here. (My initial reply to Joseph is the same comment that a Randian blogger said was the definitive proof that I’m a racist, as discussed here
Joseph C. writes:
The abomination of Sonia Sotamayor to the Supreme Court, while disturbing, is not surprising to anyone who has followed Barack Hussein Obama’s career path and paid attention to his statements. What does surprise me is how the Republicans are “shocked, shocked” at some of her views.The error that many faux conservatives make is one of omission. They state that a judge should apply “the law” evenly, that a judge should “interpret the Constitution” impartially, should not read their personal preferences into “our jurisprudence.” Of course, they never complete the thought–whether discussing affirmative action, judicial philosophy, etc.
The missing part of the statement, which many “conservatives” believe goes without saying, is that “the law,” “the Constitution” and “our jurisprudence” does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of an Anglo Saxon culture from the dawn of the American Revolution times. Sadly, this does not go without saying, because unless it is said–and said again and again and again and again–it will not be understood. And true conservatives should not only state this but embrace it.
Yes, the role of an American judge is to interpret laws according to the Constitution–the Constitution written by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s. Yes, judges should apply the law–the law as written by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s, and as subsequently amended by a more diverse (but still predominantly white ) majority culture. True, a judge’s personal preferences have no place in our jurisprudence–meaning that nobody is qualified to be a judge if they are not going to follow the jurisprudence established by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s and maintained by a white majority culture.
When Obama speaks of “empathy,” what he really means is he wants a judge who will not be bound by a white man’s Constitution. In his words, he wants someone who understands what it is like to be a single mom, a minority, gay, handicapped, etc. What this translates into is that Obama wants a judge who knows what it is like to be a minority in a culture ruled by a majority, and will interpret the law from the viewpoint of a minority. Someone who will ignore the rules because they do not feel bound to uphold the white man’s rules. And when liberals speak of “institutional racism,” what they mean is that it is not enough for everyone to be judged equally according to “the law” because “the law” was written by only one segment of the population (in this case, white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s).
Earlier in this thread, Larry G. asks:
“What exactly is this ‘richness of [Latina] experiences’ of which she speaks? Being beaten by a husband? Being impregnated and abandoned by a boyfriend who also molested her daughter? Living ten persons to an apartment with relatives who all entered the U.S. illegally? Failing an employment test and knowing–just knowing–that she was rejected because of her race, and not because she couldn’t correctly answer most of the questions? Or does it all come from knowing how to make enchiladas for dinner?”
The answer is–all that and more. Her experience consists solely of being a non-white viewing the law written by white people through the prism of a non-white. That was her prime qualification. In fact, I would guess it was her only qualification.
If there is one question worth asking this cretin during her confirmation hearings, it is this: “Judge Sotamayor, you took an oath to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution was written by people of a different gender, background, and experience than your own. Do you feel that you could uphold laws written by people so different from you, regardless of the impact of those laws on you and people like you? Do you, a resident of a white majority culture, feel obligated to uphold laws written by dead, rich white men, even though you are not white nor a man?”
This is an original comment. Many conservatives would be horrified by Joseph’s argument, and would cry out, “Our law has nothing to do with race!” But Joseph is not saying that our law has to do with race. He’s saying that the left and the minorities are saying that the law has to do with race. He’s saying that they are hostile to our laws and Constitution, and seek to overturn our laws and Constitution, because our laws and Constitution were written by white men.His comment thus brilliantly pinpoints the combination of concrete particularism and neutral proceduralism that characterizes America. Yes, this country was formed by whites–specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And they formed, over generations, an impersonal, non-tribal justice system under which people of all backgrounds would be treated equally under the law. But the fact that the law is procedurally neutral and race-blind, doesn’t mean that the conditions that allow for such a system to exist are race blind. Change America into a brown and black country, and that new population will not only not have much regard for that impersonal, non-tribal system of justice, because they themselves are tribal, but they will seek to overthrow that system of justice, along with all other historical aspects of America, because they were made by whites whom the nonwhites are now replacing. From which it follows that to maintain its universalist and impersonal system of justice, America must remain a particularist, predominantly white country.
Joseph C. replies to LA:
Thank you–as always–for your kind words.Though my comment deals with the Sotomayor nomination and what it says about America as a white majority culture, it is–in a larger sense–relevant to all cultures. Any peoples that form a society will as their first order of business establish rules and customs which govern that society. At bottom, all societies are institutions whereby people come together and agree–voluntarily–to be bound by certain laws and customs. This is true of Europeans in Americans, villages in China, tribes in Africa, English in Australia, etc.
As peoples migrate–either in search of opportunity or to escape undesirable conditions in their fatherland–they find themselves in other societies, societies which were created by peoples different from them. In some cases, very different. They soon find their options limited because they are being forced–in the words of Obama–to “play on another man’s court by another man’s rules.” Eventually, when they are joined by enough of their own kind, they form their own alliances and start agitating for change, meaning that the host society–which they voluntarily joined–should change its rules and customs to allow them to achieve equality of result. They are not willing to be judged by the same laws as everyone else, because those laws work to the advantage of the majority population.
In more backward societies, their claims are either ignored or rudely suppressed. In advanced societies–like the U.S. and other Western nations–their claims find a sympathetic ear among the existing majority. The majority goes along at first to maintain comity, but eventually the demands become so great–and the population so diverse–that the majority surrenders its very identity.
I do not say this to argue for the primacy of one culture. Indeed, I acknowledge that any outsiders would find themselves at a disadvantage trying to advance in an alien culture. Imagine, for example, if a person from a middle class background in Western European country, or a Japanese businessman, were transported to Tanzania, given a wooden spear, and asked to take down a Cape Buffalo. They wouldn’t last five minutes–not because they are inferior or stupid, but because their background was ill-suited to hunting the most vicious animal on the planet. What would they do? Form a political action committee and ask the tribal elders to give them a head start, on the grounds that it would be unfair to expect them to hunt as well as the native? Ask the Cape Buffalo to give them one free shot? If that sounds ridiculous, imagine how ridiculous I think it sounds when I hear people–of any background–complain that the American culture reflects a white, male, European perspective.
I have often heard liberals complain that “the law” is an artificial social construct, erected by the majority to suppress those out of power. And to that I say “of course. All societies choose how to govern themselves, and it is entirely proper that those choices will reflect the preferences of those that established the society in the first place. In America, that is the Anglo Saxon, Protestant, Northern European culture. ” (As an aside, I write this as a non-Anglo Saxon Catholic.) The existing population built the society, wrote its laws, established its customs, and in many cases they (or their ancestors) fought and died in its wars. Who else has any right to decide how that society should be governed?
I firmly believe that people have a right to govern themselves as they see fit–and, to expect others who join their society to consent to be governed by their rules, no questions asked. Even blacks, many (though not all) of whom came to the U.S. involuntarily, owe their ultimate freedom and subsequent advancement to the values of the white majority American culture. Certainly anyone else who comes here–for whatever reason–should be bound by our culture. That it is not to say America is only for White Europeans. But it is to say that America is only for people who are willing–without question or complaint–to live under laws written by White Europeans. And, accordingly, the immigration debate will always have a racialist component. Demography is destiny–and in a representative society with universal suffrage the only way to maintain one’s culture is to limit membership to those who are naturally inclined to the culture in the first place.
To put the question to the neo-cons and love-the-world Americans bluntly: Do you really believe that you can allow anyone in the world to come to America, given them the right to vote, and that they will continue to elect politicians that enforce the cultures and standards of White Europeans? Larry, what would horrify many conservative about my comment would not be the racial aspect, even if they understood the impersonal justice that I advocate. What horrifies them is the term “our culture.” Liberals (and most conservatives) do not believe any society has a right to exist, that any people has a right to call a part of the earth “theirs,” to write laws, exclude others, etc. They understand the implications of my posting all too well. THAT is what troubles them.
LA writes (May 28):
Here I think is the key passage in Joseph’s followup comment:
That it is not to say America is only for White Europeans. But it is to say that America is only for people who are willing–without question or complaint–to live under laws written by White Europeans. And, accordingly, the immigration debate will always have a racialist component. Demography is destiny–and in a representative society with universal suffrage the only way to maintain one’s culture is to limit membership to those who are naturally inclined to the culture in the first place.
This is very good. Also, it reminds me of an article I wrote for Academic Questions in the 1990s (unfortunately not online at present), “America: Multiethnic, not Multicultural,” in which I said that the key to maintaining a common American identity was identification with the original Anglo-Saxon people who formed America.The article was a response to Diane Ravitch, who had criticized radical multiculturalism from the point of view of what I called moderate multicultulalism. The trouble was that Ravitch defined the common American culture in terms of pluralism and diversity, and thus still left us without a common culture. Defining the common culture in terms of an idea, as the neocons did, was also inadequate. How, then, to understand American culture as a concrete thing, and not as an abstraction nor as diversity? The answer, I said, lay in America’s Anglo-Saxon roots and history.
Terry Morris writes:
Great exchange between you and Joseph. And I think Joseph has made an excellent case for something I’ve argued for years, re-establishment of the federal principle in America to the extent that states determine who to admit to the rights of citizenship, and who not to admit.
Richard S. writes:
The irony is that white Anglo-Saxon law–in its aspiration to impartiality–is the least tribal, the least exclusionary law any society could possibly fashion. It offers a non-white the best chance to obtain level playing field justice; that is if a level playing field were desired. White law, by design, is a constant affront to those who seek ADVANTAGE as opposed to equal treatment.
Jonathan L. writes:
This discussion reminds me of a PBS documentary I once saw on the Old West. In a segment on Chinese immigrant laborers, the documentary described an important Supreme Court case in which the city of San Francisco had used an ordinance against the operation of laundries in wooden buildings to target Chinese laundry operators. What I remember most about the case (which with some research I have tentatively identified as “Yick Wo v. Hopkins”) [LA replies: yes, that's a famous case] was the unambiguous manner in which the jurists recognized both the alienness of the Chinese laundry operators (I remember phrases such as “white man’s country” or “white man’s laws” being used) AND the universal applicability of American notions of liberty and equal protection.The Wikipedia entry on the case notes that a San Francisco public school has been named in honor of, of course, the Chinese plaintiff.
Below are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision , written by Justice T. Stanley Mathews:
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. By the third article of the treaty between this government and that of China, concluded November 17, 1880, it is stipulated: ‘If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the government of the United States will exert all its powers to devise measures for their protection, and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.’ The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws…When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power…
But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws…
No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood; and while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them, and from 200 others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, 80 others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is therefore illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution.
While I have not read Yick Wo, my impression from the excerpt is that, unlike much or most of 14th Amendment jurisprudidence since then, this 1886 decision, taking place less than 20 years after the ratification of th3 14th Amendmemt, comes within the proper meaning of the Amendment. The stated purpose of the Amendment was not to protect all possible civil and political rights from violations by the states, but to protect fundamental human rights, such as the ability to move about, to own property,. to conduct business. A enforcement of a local ordinance that was race-neutral on its face against members of only one race would seem to be a violation of the Amendments’s mandate that all persons shall be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, as relates to their fundamental human rights.
What an Asian-American reader thinks about America and whites John Liu writes from the West Coast:
I happened upon your interesting website. It seems to me you are a bunch of fantasists. As someone has so rightly noted, the “settled states” of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were originally non-white.It would seem for instance, that a person like yourself, whom I presume is only about 2nd or 3rd generation American, has no right to demand that non-whites such as Hispanics–many with ancestors in the Americas stretching back tens of thousands of years, be denied their right to America. Or even other non-whites from around the world. A tad hypocritical don’t you think?
As the proportion of non-Europeans grows in Europe and in the United States (and also in Canada and Australia) and eventually become majorities, the intelligence of the populations will fall. The strength of the economies will equally inevitably decline to the level of developing nations.
Well of course the obvious solution is for whites in the places mentioned above return to Europe, allow the “settled” states to revert to being non-white, and then whites may have some moral authority about limiting the influx of non-whites.
Whites are the only racial group, which continues to be settled largely outside of their historic borders. For instance there are about 40 million Italian derived people settled outside of Italy (more than the total amount of overseas Chinese), about 80 million Irish descended people outside of Ireland (many more obviously than in Ireland). Of course the same can be said of Germans, and English.
So whites had no moral qualms about displacing other peoples from their homes. Why should anyone care then that whites may become a majority in say, England?
Perhaps if most whites took the lead of the Jewish people, and returned to ancestral lands, then the problem would be solved overnight.
Don’t waste my time with such moronic arguments as that the U.S. was originally a nonwhite “state.” The U.S. was created by whites.By your idiot reasoning, every country on earth not currently populated by its earliest population from tens of thousands of years ago has no right to exist.
Don’t bother me again.
John Liu writes:
The problem is we are not talking tens of thousands of years ago. Up to about 200 to 150 years ago, most Asians lived in Asia, whites in Europe, blacks in Africa. [LA notes: in his first e-mail, John Liu said that Hispanics' "right to America," meaning their claim of a right to enter en masse and take over the United States, is based on their ancestors' presence in the Americas going back "tens of thousands of years."]It was white people who changed this demographic balance and moved people around the globe like so many pieces on a chessboard. Now they find themselves aghast that they find themselves in contact with non-whites.
You write: The U.S. was created by whites.” Well by your “idiot” reasoning, China invading the Americas and establishing a Chinese flavored polity, would have every right to rid themselves of the white population?
If I steal your house, renovate it, add a balcony, re-paint it–it is somehow then mine?
Face it Mr Auster–you are an anachronism, your cause was doomed from the start–not least because of its inherent immorality. May I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time?
Good day to you,
Thanks for confirming everything I’ve been saying for all these years about what immigration is really about–deluded whites opening the doors of the West to resentment-filled nonwhites and empowering them to get back at the white man and destroy white societies.
- end of initial entry -
Robert B. writes:
Some of my ancestors came here in 1740–one such produced a needle point to celebrate it. As such, handed down from one generation to the next, is the reality of what they found when they got here–I have books that are 150 to 200 years old, history books.What the “white man” found when he got here was appalling to his sensibilities. There was no myth of the “noble savage” here at the time, only reality. They found a people who lived in (relatively speaking) small tribal units that preyed upon one another in the most savage ways–taking women and children as slaves after killing off the older ones and warriors for such petty things as animal hides. The truth is, is they all attempted to use the white man for his advanced abilities as a means of gaining advantage over one another. What the Euros found was a people that one might have found living in Europe 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. A people living in the stone age with stone age superstitions. They were incapable of harming the land because they had no technology–they did, however, set forests and prairies on fire in order to drive herds into kill zones where they would gorge themselves until the meat rotted. Then they would take the hides and leave the carcasses to rot. Today we know that there was a great “kill off” of species around 5,000 years ago–including the native horse population. Simply put, they ate everything in sight.
It is a common modern myth that the white man forces modern day Indians to live in abject poverty on their reservations out West. This is a falsehood. This is the way they choose to live–I have seen it many many times with own eyes and know once “pie in the sky” individuals who went to these reservations to educate and uplift these people–just like some of my ancestors tried to do 250 years ago. Just as then, they learned that the teaching was not wanted nor appreciated–they want to live the way they do and have no desire for “the white man’s ways”. Their “towns” are filthy with garbage everywhere. Abandoned cars, refrigerators, stoves, you name it, are everywhere on the streets and yards. They live in the midst of the most beautiful land in the world and this is how they care for it.
There was nothing here when the modern white man got here. “We” collectively made this nation, a great and thriving place, at least as it once was. It was our Protestant Work Ethic that transformed a rugged wilderness into the world’s foremost economic, military and technologically advanced nation on earth in a mere 250 years (1690-1940) while “great nations” such as China languished in a medieval stupor. Let us not even compare the 10,000 years that others were here with no discernible progress whatsoever.
They are all jealous–all of them. They hate us for doing here what the rest of the world could not do in a thousand years. And thus, you are right, we never should have let them in. The Founders knew and understood this–it is why, up until 1965, none but Europeans were allowed into this country or its predecessor colonies–save (the great mistake) of the African slaves. And they knew that some day, there would be a reckoning for having done so–that two peoples so different could never occupy the same space in peace.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
John Liu seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the immorality of large numbers of people settling in places that are not their homes, unwanted. He suggests that the problem could be solved overnight if whites returned to Europe, and allowed America to becomeâ€¦nonwhite?Might I remind Mr. Liu that the place Europeans found when they settled here was not simply non-white, it was distinctively and exclusively North American Indian. There were no Chinese here either. The way he frames his grand “solution” is not that the land become entirely Native again, but that the whites–and only the whites–leave. Notice that he folds his political interests in with all those who are non-white. This reveals what he is, and what liberalism is: anti-white to the core.
(By the way, it’s notable that whites are East Asians’ only serious competition in the high-achievement sweepstakes in multicultural America. Imagine it–the political benefits of being a minority in liberal society plus the highest native IQ of any single group. Not a bad situation, I must say.)
You’re absolutely right, and that would have been a good argument to use with himThe flagrant irrationality of what he’s saying is explained simply by the fact that he’s out to get whites, and he’ll pick up any argument he can find, no matter how absurd or contradictory, that will enable him to do that. It’s pure animus. And how many belief systems are there today that boil down to the same? Of coursre, that’s what the left says about us.
Not to mention the anti-Semites. While the left and the nonwhites say that everything I do is motivated by animus against nonwhites, the anti-Semites say that everything I do, is motivated by animus against whites.
Yeah, it’s a really mentally healthy world out there.
Philip M. writes:
I see you have had the misfortune to be discovered by John Liu. John normally posts these type of arguments at the American Renaissance site, and has done so for years. Most recently he has started a similair argument at that site under the thread from 26th May under the heading “rioters arrested after Luton protests turn violent.” I once got into a similair argument with him that ended with me having to block his e-mail address when he started sending me taunting (over the fact that he has a white wife, something he wrongly thought would annoy me) and abusive e-mails. He claims to be non-racist, yet when you scratch the surface he reveals his animosity against whites for the Chinese opium trade and colonialism. His claim that only whites are living outside of their historic homelands carries with it the inference that we are somehow uniquely rapacious and greedy and must be made to redress some cosmic balance for the sake of an arbitrary “fairness” which is to be decided by non-whites such as himself.John Liu says we are a “bunch of fantasists” whilst at the same time calling for the three-hundred million-plus whites living in North America and Australia/New Zealand to “go home.” He must realise that this is not going to happen, it is a ludicrous idea–there is not even the space in Europe for this. It is not an achievable goal, so you have to question his motivation for suggesting it. It is not a serious or construcitve starting point for a debate and he knows it. There is little point getting into discussions with him, so I think you were right to take the approach that you did by dismissing his claims, and seeing them as perfect examples of the anti-white animus that motivates many racial minorities that live in the supposedly “post racial” America, and which manifests itself with ever greater confidence the more concessions whites make to other races. Would a Chinaman in ’50′s America have demanded that all whites leave the USA? Probably not, but the election of a black President and the constant appeasement of non-whites is rightly seen as a sign of weakness by other races, whose strident claims culiminate with John Liu’s demand. He is in effect taunting whites for their weakness, which is why he searches out white-interest sites where he feels his comments will irritate the most, and have the most impact. He would not bother making such comments on left-wing sites where whites would probably limply agree with him. He clearly has issues with whites, whatever he pretends.
I would suggest to Mr Liu that it is white liberals who are the true fantasists, as they are the ones who honestly believed that non-whites would be grateful for the opportunity to live in America, and who tell us that different races can live in harmony, when his comments suggest otherwise.
I closed out his e-mails after his second comment so that they don’t arrive at my computer. In my post of my second reply to him, above, I left out the second paragraph. Here it is:
Now that you’ve shown what you are, don’t write to me again. Any e-mails from you will be delivered to the void, where they belong.
As for his claim that he’s not anti-white, yes, of course: he just believes in justice, as all men do. And it just so happens that whites are uniquely immoral and so they deserve to lose everything they have.
Consigned to the “Laurentian abyss” where his suggestions belong!:)Whats the betting that if all whites did return to Europe John Liu would be following shortly behind you? In reality he would not enjoy living in a black/Mexican America any more than you would. Shame he can’t use his debating skills trying to persuade the greedy and rapacious Chinese to get out of Tibet.
Leonard D. writes:
A few thoughts I had on reading your exchange with John Liu.When I hear that kind of rights-talk, applied against states, I have to laugh. That is the sort of jejeune reasoning I expect of a child, or perhaps a very young man. (Which reminds me of Churchill’s alleged quip.) But here’s the old man’s truth: states do not have to recognize any rights, because they are states. You cannot force them to do anything. The USA, Mr. Liu, can do just about whatever it can summon the will to do, and nobody will stop it because nobody can stop it. This certainly includes actions like controlling immigration, which every state in the entire world does hold, and has always held, that it has the right to do. Indeed, the people whom American immigration restrictionists are most concerned about excluding, namely Mexicans, have established very strict immigration laws themselves, for Mexico. Exactly where is the hypocrisy here? For a man named “Liu,” perhaps China would be a better example. China does not even seem to have the concept of naturalization; you can get a green card, and that is all.
The answer to Liu’s analogy is easy enough. If you steal my house, Mr. Liu, and manage to defend your claim against all those who would fight on my behalf to restore the initial property situation, then yes, you own it. You don’t have to fix it up to own it, or do anything else; you do in fact own it, by the fact of your possession of it. (Look up what ownership means.) And you know what? If you did manage to take ownership in this manner, you probably would be well-served not to allow me to “immigrate” freely back into your house. You never know what can happen late at night.
As for what is “right,” meaning what is righteous (which is the religious concept that Mr. Liu is actually talking around), well, everyone is entitled to his religion. However, he ought to examine the wikipedia entry for right of conquest. The reason why the USA does (not should; does) own this chunk of land north of the Rio Grande, is that our ancestors conquered it, while avoiding being conquered in turn. This was perfectly OK by the international law of the time. But why did that law say that? Two reasons. First, there is no way to right earthly wrongs against the dead. Those Indians who the USA lied to and dispossessed and killed and whatnot? Dead, every one of them. Second, righting wrongs that states disagree about means war, and war is a very nasty thing. Minor injustice is better than war, Mr Liu. Our European ancestors learned that at tremendous cost; you would do well to learn from history on this one, rather than experience.
But let us consider Mr Liu’s religion seriously for a minute: perhaps it is the written, in some platonic lawbook in the sky, that “no person is illegal.” If so, then USA is being unrighteous, by failing to throw open the borders to all two billion humans who would like to immigrate here, but are unrighteously being kept out. I am curious what Mr. Liu thinks the penalty for all this flagrant unrighteousness will be. Will a progressive God (or gods, perhaps, or Goddess) send the USA to hell? Perhaps after minorities fully capture the government, whites should be tried for crimes against humanity, if it were proven that they had been, or ever voted for, Republicans?
Mark P. writes:
The only way white Americans should leave the United States is by “leaving” it as we found it.Everything that can be moved and carried should be moved.
Everything that can’t be moved should be torn down and rendered inoperable.
Salt the earth…destroy the major cities…and then go…
Screw the rest of the world.
Alan Levine writes:
Read the exchange with and about John Liu with some interest. I was mildly surprised that some of the commentators seemed too ready to enter into some of this creep’s fantasizing. Just how does this man think that China became Chinese? The Chinese civilization expanded the same as the Western, from a relatively small nucleus in the Hwang Ho valley, by a process of conquest, assimilation, and colonization, which, in the case of Taiwan, was simultaneous with the white settlement of North America. I was also intrigued by his complaint that whites moved themselves around the world. Does he regret that some Chinese moved to colonial Southeast Asia? Should they be chased from there “back” to China?
Kilroy M. writes from Australia:
I’m a little dismayed. John Liu writes that “As someone has so rightly noted, the “settled states” of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were originally non-white.” Obviously this is a reference to my prior discussion of “settled states” as compared with “ethno states.” I was not saying that settled states were non-white.
To the contrary, the Old Empire’s settled colonies were of course built by Anglo-Celts. The countries that have evolved from these colonies are therefore a product of white people and their culture. The line Liu draws is arbitrary: the ancestral fathers of the Indo-Europeans originally came from Central Asia. So, does Liu suggest that we all return to Northern India and Tibet and ask the Asians there to move back to Africa, and the blacks there to go where?
The present settled states have no relationship to the indigenous populations they replaced/subsumed in any way other than being geographically located over the same land. For all intents and purposes, whites are indigenous to the states of North America as well as Australia, New Zealand, and even places such as South Africa and Rhodesia (where the black populations were unsettled/nomadic, or in some cases totally absent, being attracted to the region due to the industry created by whites.) Liu is just driven by a hatred that he would probably claim motivates us for merely wanting to preserve our homelands.
Must we be a Ponzi nation?
Carol Iannone writes:
On Tuesday morning I heard economist Robert Samuelson on William Bennett’s radio show. He was speaking in support of a government stimulus package and he insisted that it had to be spent by the government and not given to individual taxpayers to spend as they see fit. He said 70 percent of our economy is consumer spending, and, what with the financial crisis, consumer spending has gone way down. People are actually saving, they are spending less, charging less, incurring less debt, because they are feeling somewhat insecure about the economy. In order to counter that, he says, the government needs to pour money into the economy so that people will feel secure and start spending and buying again. Bennett wondered why the money shouldn’t be given to individuals to spend as they see fit. Samuelson replied that that would not be good, because, given the feeling today, many would save it rather than spend it. So all these things that we’ve heard all these years, about how Americans should save more, charge less, not have too much debt, curb extravagance, practice thrift, all of that is evidently bad for the economy. The economy works only with huge amounts of spending, which in turns often requires huge amounts of borrowing and debt. And this is a conservative leaning economist saying this. This does not seem healthy. In fact it seems a picture of hell. When an individual hits financial straits, he lives more modestly, cuts back some, pays off his debts, saves where he can. But our country cannot do that. When a recession hits the country, circumstances would seem to demand some of the older fiscal virtues and some scaling back and some Aristotelian moderation. One would think that these would be seen as good things. But instead the experts demand that the government pour money into the economy in order to make people feel confident enough to spend more. It’s like one of the circles of Dante’s Hell where the greedy sinners are doomed to grit and groan as they try to push around big bags of weights for no particular reason.
* * *
Miss Iannone’s culturally alarmist angle on Samuelson, as well as the title I gave this entry, may not be entirely fair to Samuelson. In an article published the day before his appearance on William Bennett’s program, Samuelson makes it clear that spurring economic activity by debt is a necessary evil, a temporary measure to get economic activity going again, not a sustainable basis for the U.S. economy:
[T]he stimulus remains a stopgap. The present crisis represents a fundamental break in the recent pattern of American economic growth. For the past quarter-century, the economy has advanced on an ever-rising tide of personal borrowing that supported expanding purchases of consumer goods–contributing to U.S. trade deficits–and a housing boom. But lending became reckless, and many households overborrowed. In its simplest terms, the “stimulus” substitutes the federal government’s superior credit for damaged private credit.But this cannot continue indefinitely. Rapid rises in the federal debt–much faster than in recent years–would threaten a further loss of confidence that might prolong today’s financial crisis or, someday, trigger a new one. A growing federal debt burden would also compound the problem of paying the staggering retirements costs of aging baby boomers. So: neither rising household nor government debt provides a plausible foundation for future economic growth.
He goes on to say that, contrary to the impression he gave on the Bennett program, he does not see the future of the U.S. economy in ever expanded consumer spending:
What the United States needs is export-led growth. The rub is that many other countries want that too. Just as large U.S. trade deficits signified American overspending, large trade surpluses in China, Japan and other Asian countries signified their oversaving. In China, consumption spending is 35 percent of GDP, notes economist Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute. That’s half the American level.The future of the U.S. economy depends on finding new sources of productive demand. That is partly a domestic exercise, but it also requires that other societies reduce their oversaving and reliance on exports. This is a tall order. Our fate is not entirely in our hands–or Barack Obama’s.
Further, it’s not clear that the government spending Samuelson regretfully supports is aimed at increasing consumer spending per se. He writes:
The stimulus qualifies as a necessary evil, a parachute against an economic free fall. Conventionally, the economy is sliced into four sectors: consumer spending; business and housing investment; net exports; and government spending. The first three sectors are weakening. Consumer confidence is at a record low, according to a Conference Board survey conducted since 1967. Only 6 percent of Americans think jobs are plentiful; 41 percent think there will be fewer jobs in six months. Housing construction has collapsed; businesses are fearful of making new investment. Exports suffer from faltering foreign economies.If government doesn’t prod the economy, what would?
Consumer spending is one of four sectors of the economy, government spending is another. Vast New Deal-type government outlays on domestic works projects such as Obama proposes is not consumer spending, though one of its goals is to prop up general economic activity, including consumer spending. I gather that what he meant in his answer to Bennett is that at least one of the sectors of economic activity needs to increase, and, since consumer spending is not about to increase in the immediate future, government spending must increase.
However, it seems to me that while Miss Iannone may have been incorrect on the specific point of whether Samuelson is seeking to increase consumer spending, her larger concern remains valid and thought-provoking, especially from the point of view of cultural conservatives. In a time of economic downturn, it is natural for people to retrench, and, in the process, return to virtues of thrift and investment so that they’re not living in a bubble of credit. Samuelson seems to be precluding that return to economic virtue, or, at best, he is offering no path to get there. For example, he suggests that our industrial production and our exports are too low and need to be increased; but how would vast government spending on works projects increase them? The point is that the U.S. is addicted to a model of lavish consumer consumption funded by private and public debt that is both morally bad and practically unsustainable.
A call for conservatives to secede from the “Body Snatcher” West
Independently and simultaneously over the last few months, several traditionalists have been working on various manifestos and proposals aimed at developing practical ideas for white Western survival. Two days ago I read a draft of a traditionalist manifesto by a VFR reader on how to defeat liberalism that was magnificent. I hope to share it at some point.
And here is yet another manifesto. Writing at Brussels Journal, Takuan Seiyo argues that conservative whites who believe in the historic Western civilization need to separate themselves from the present dominant Western culture,–which he describes as “Body Snatcher society” led and populated by “Pods”–in order to recreate traditional Western society. This restoration cannot be done within the currently existing West, he writes, as the Body Snatchers are completely in control. We, the “anti-Pod” people, need to separate ourselves. In a key passage he says:
This civilization is now being killed by its custodians. For a resurgence to occur, there has to arise a movement spanning the entirety of Europe and of the Anglosphere, asserting the basic unity of the Euro-peoples, and resurrecting pride in their culture and heritage….The tribe I imagine is a sort of ethno-conservative and culturally reactionary white ummah stretching from New Zealand to Alaska, the way the Muslim ummah spans from the remotest islands of Indonesia through Bosnia to British Columbia, but without the negative baggage. In each nation, people who have not yet morphed into Body Snatchers already know how to define themselves as a local ethny, but a universal component is needed as well.
In order to make the article more easily accessible for readers who want to get to the main ideas, I’ve taken the liberty of abridging it from its original 4,500 words down to 3,100 words, and copied it below. (Due to an oversight on my part, this abridged version lacks the character formatting and hyperlinks of the original.)
From Meccania to Atlantis–Part 4: Tribe
From the desk of Takuan Seiyo on Fri, 2008-12-12 11:12…The white people not yet turned into Pods cannot survive except by separating themselves from the Muslims. It’s just common sense, no vilification is necessary. Simply, the twain shall not mix–and every East European knows it at the age of seven. To their credit, Muslims know this too; only idiot white Pods don’t. Which is one reason why the white Antipods’ need to separate from the voluntary white dhimmis,…
It’s probable that nothing else can save Western Civilization but its wise and steadfast application by a dedicated and still Unsnatched minority of its ethnic heirs, exiting Body Snatcher society …
The exodus ought to lead to a formation of communities where the still-healthy would be the dominant majority, able and willing to control who is in the City Hall, what is being taught in schools, which channels are available on the local Cable TV system, what people are allowed to wear in public, and how teenagers are to address their elders. Moreover, and that is the difficult part for citizens in Pod nations, such communities ought to be able to define themselves in the same way as the West’s nonwhite minorities do: strength in non-diversity, ethnic kinship, ethnic nepotism, preference for endogamy, high value placed on heterosexuality and on marriage as the basis of group survival….
During the Dreyfuss trial, Theodore Herzl witnessed multiple incidents of deep Antisemitism, including mass rallies in Paris where crowds chanted “Death to the Jews!” So assimilated that he had been deeply involved in a German unity movement, Herzl came to believe that a real assimilation of Jews in Europe would never be possible. Thus Zionism was born.
Returning to the land of their ancestors, Israel, was not an idea that came immediately to the early Zionists. [Herzl's novel] Altneuland did much to reorient them toward their ancient homeland.
In this novel, Herzl told a story of two friends on a long journey, stopping in Palestine and finding it a depopulated, backward and destitute Turkish sand patch, as it was at the end of the 19th century. 20 years later the friends stop in Palestine again, on their way back to Europe. This time they find it a modern industrial state, with thriving industry and commerce and all the democratic freedoms that Europe itself was still struggling to attain. As Wikipedia’s synopsis puts it, “In the two decades that have passed, European Jews have rediscovered and re-inhabited their Altneuland, reclaiming their own destiny in the Land of Israel.”
In a way, this is what people have to do who have not yet lost their brains and souls to Podism. Rediscover and re-inhabit their Altneuland, the land where they were born and where their ancestors lived, a land that was snatched from them by their traitorous leaders and Body Snatcher sickos, and handed over to Somalis and Moroccans, Aztecs and Bosnians, militant homosexuals and in-your-face transvestites…
Assimilation among the Body Snatchers is no longer possible. The few still-unsnatched remnants have to stop what they are doing, and stop running, and stop praying that the Republican Party win, as its win is worthless, and stop wishing in vain that the European Commission rediscover the meaning of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Self-Determination. Instead, this is where they might start:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Who are we?
This is being published in a Flanders-based conservative webzine that has a significant readership in Western Europe and in the United States. Judging by snippets of biographical detail and names revealed in readers’ posts, significant portions of active readers are Dutch and other Northwest Europeans, and American. All seem to be Christian or post-Christian, with sometimes acrimonious posts of Protestants against Catholics, either one against the Orthodox, and vice versa. A wide range of conservative persuasions seems to be represented.
In contrast, I am an ex-Eastern European, half-Slav and half-Jew. My character-forming influences have come from a traditional Polish upbringing, from being a 3rd generation victim of Nazism and 2nd generation victim of Socialism, from American paleoconservatism, from pre-1968 France and pre-multiculti California, from pre-1850 Japan and from a long executive career that has taken me to many countries for prolonged periods. I live mainly in Japan and often look at the West from the Oriental angle. I am a lapsed Catholic and an incomplete practitioner of Zen. This is a C.V. quite deviant from the mean in Western or any other kind of society. So who am I that I should say, “we”?
The “we” that I use, however, is not a ploy to insinuate myself into the position of opinion leader and spokesman of a willing, let alone unwilling, readership. Rather, it’s a shortcut referring to a heterogeneous stratum of millions of people from all countries of the West who see themselves not only as members of their nations’ ethnies but also as heirs and keepers of the Western tradition and its cultural expression grounded in the Jerusalem –Athens –Rome triangle. I call these people Antipods–the ones who find Pod society abhorrent–and I identify with them. [LA replies: I think this is exactly right. The key thing is that one feels oneself to be a member and heir of the historic Western civilization. As I've written, "My guiding principle is, those who have an instinctive love of Western society and Western man, within the bounds of morality and reason, are our allies." See further quotations below.]
In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series I listed some additional common denominators of this still-unemerged group. To reprise in digest form, and expand:
1. Opposition to whites’ disfranchisement, marginalization and impoverishment by the whites’ own ruling elites in government, media, education, culture and business.
2. Attachment to a racial, ethnic and cultural identity as Europeans or descendants of Europeans. It does not call for disparaging other such identities but does entail assertiveness with respect to protecting the interests of our own ethny in our own lands.
3. Resistance to mass immigration. Not as xenophobia but as realism that sees the actual marginal utility of “diversity” reach zero at about a 4% -5% ratio of foreign-origin residents, even when they are assimilable.
4. Unqualified opposition to any immigration by people so dissimilar–e.g. Muslims and all but few outlying Africans–that there is no possibility of finding and maintaining a true common denominator.
5. Unqualified opposition to the West’s ruling elites with respect to their importation of tens of millions of Muslims to the West. Awareness that this has been a catastrophic mistake without precedent in history since the fall of the Roman Empire.
6. Unwillingness to accept PC’s veil of silence about black crime, Muslim terrorisms, and other grave dysfunctions that nonwhite minorities have spread in the West. Anger at the authorities’ cowardice in handling these problems.
7. A conservative, Burkean disposition, which comprises:
7.1. Detestation of high taxes and wealth-transfer programs, and of social and economic “justice” theories and their application by semi-sovereign judges for the benefit of their favored “victim” classes.
7.2. Rejection of Western governments’ out-of-control public spending, excessive regulations, legal system abuse, suppression of free speech. invasion of personal freedoms and privacy, particularly as this is being done to control social dysfunctions that Body Snatcher state itself has caused through its reality-averse policies.
7.3. Rejection of the current form of Conservatism and its two predominant mutations: Texas “hold’em” (i.e. poker) yahoo capitalism and New York Wilsonian neoconservatism. Return to Conservatism’s European roots: Austrian economics, Germanic Protestant work ethic, Roman-Catholic cultural genius, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic concepts of liberty, and more.
7.4. Adoption, as part of the definition of true conservatism, of Samuel Francis’s dictum that conservatism is “The survival and enhancement of particular peoples and their institutionalized cultural expressions.”
8. Reaction. Conservatism is good when there is much to conserve–but by 2008 Conservatism is not enough anymore, except if it be defined as permanent defeat, forever trying to shore up a once-magnificent edifice that’s now sand, slipping through the fingers. Reaction implies moving toward the past. How far back is arguable….
9. Steadfast opposition to and rejection of all supranational bodies and globalism in all of its political and commercial expressions, yet without losing a friendly disposition and intellectual openness to the rest of the world.
10. Desire to build and sustain an anti-liberal community. Members should be willing to forego the unlimited superficial freedoms that individuals enjoy in Body Snatcher society in order to regain the deeper freedoms that the BS society has nullified. Give up the benefits of “diversity,” i.e. cheap strawberries and a profusion of ethnic restaurants, to gain social capital and mutual trust. Renounce rap, bling, metal, grunge, disco, porno, TV entertainment, footie fandom for the sake of higher Western culture. Give up feminist “empowerment” and sexual promiscuity for the sake of family preservation. Give up abortion for the sake of the community’s survival. Change life’s focus from consumption to productive work and self-development.
11. Christianity. At this time, for the sake of a common denominator I’ll define it as “Cultural Christianity.” But the subject, given Christianity’s impact on the history of the West, its impact on present-day American Conservatism, and its current retreat before Islam, requires a separate chapter.
Each time I refer to “we,” the above is my reference point, plus many micro-details that will follow after this wide shot. But some aspects of this aggregation may still be more wishful thinking than a reflection of reality. In a second sense, therefore, I use the “we” as a plea.
It’s not a plea for myself to be accepted into the “we.” I am pleading for a “we” because I believe that every person born of European stock owes a great debt to his splendid civilization, to the great gifts it has showered on him, to its cultural giants that have furnished his brain and his soul–or could, if he’d but let them, and to his ancestors that endured over the ages to bring him, or her, to this point.
This civilization is now being killed by its custodians. For a resurgence to occur, there has to arise a movement spanning the entirety of Europe and of the Anglosphere, asserting the basic unity of the Euro-peoples, and resurrecting pride in their culture and heritage. Pride without arrogance or sense of supremacy but also without the apologizing, groveling, and open, incessant retreat that characterize the mea culpa Body Snatcher society.
The tribe I imagine is a sort of ethno-conservative and culturally reactionary white ummah stretching from New Zealand to Alaska, the way the Muslim ummah spans from the remotest islands of Indonesia through Bosnia to British Columbia, but without the negative baggage. In each nation, people who have not yet morphed into Body Snatchers already know how to define themselves as a local ethny, but a universal component is needed as well.
The British National Party’s constitution defines BNP’s constituency as “indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain.”
Good definition, but one day it will be nice to see a phrase added that asserts solidarity with a list of similar parties in 40 other countries. For now, the vehement Fascism of Body Snatcher society is such that by merely mentioning the BNP I am subjecting this website to criticism …
As a past subject of commie commissars, just reading about the sustained persecution that BNP members are subject to in the archPod state of ex-Great ex-Britain makes me angry. So a big portion of the remaining chapters of this essay will be devoted to suggesting ways for avoiding such mistakes as BNP committed at its inception and for repulsing the onslaught of Body Snatcher society on the dissenters of Meccania who hold views roughly similar to those of BNP.
BNP’s term “European Race” and its stand against miscegenation pose moral and practical problems that are greater in some countries than in others. Are Jews a European race? There might be sincere and well-informed views that differ on this. No matter the answer, what sense does it make to exclude from the “we” a people that has lived in Europe for 2400 years, in great numbers so since having been brought to Rome as slaves after the Great Revolt’s defeat in 70 CE, and with a considerable mingling of the DNAs over the centuries? Not to mention the origin of the creed that’s inseparable from the “European Race,” Christianity.
The reason the great majority of Jews would not be in the Antipod community is not their race but their politics. There is a heavy statistical distribution of Jews on the political left, all the way to its extremes….
The mental exodus required to form the Antipod community is so important that membership ought to be conferred only upon interviewing candidates and having them sign letters of acceptance of the community’s principles, followed by a lengthy process of structured acclimatization. Something between joining a private golf club and becoming a naturalized Swiss citizen–which is possible only upon the examination and adoption of a particular candidate by a particular community. And typically Jewish–and by now typically European–social attitudes are one shibboleth that should disqualify anyone from joining.
However, white-supremacist and Antisemitic views should be another shibboleth. The Antipod “we” I propose excludes the holders of such views.
Many, perhaps most of the pixels in the picture I am painting agree with the platforms of “far right” parties in Europe and private associations in the U.S. But every such organization attracts to its fringes sympathizers who don’t merely dislike Jews or the nonwhite races but traffic in Holocaust denial, grand Jew-conspiracy theories, whitewash of Adolf Hitler, wholesale denigration of the black race, and white supremacy.
The political inconvenience of such views is obvious–a rabidly racist and hateful ideology serves as useful spotting coordinates for the overwhelmingly superior artillery of Meccania’s white-suppressing institutions. But such artillery will fire on Antipods anyway. The true reason Jew-hating and other white supremacist convictions are objectionable is that, ultimately, falsehood bordering on monomanical madness shall not stand.
It is demented to cling to Holocaust-denial views merely half a century after the Holocaust…
Yet the current situation among some Body Snatcher resistors is such that a visitor to an otherwise-worthy website like Majorityrights.com will be transported in a click of the mouse to Holocaust denial, David Duke adulation and Zionist–conspiracy theories. A participant in the conference of such an otherwise-excellent institution as American Renaissance will have to sit next to American Nazis differing little from the original model. Maybe there is a way to shine some light into those brains, so that they can become useful allies rather than an embarrassment.
That Jews are disproportionately represented among the chief Body Snatchers is one thing, and it calls for a rational critique and repudiation. But to falsify history, to engage in a blanket smear of an ancient people that constitutes 0.25% of the world’s population but has given the world not only Jesus but also 178 Nobel Prize winners and many of its best doctors, most illustrious artists and seminal conservative thinkers––that is evil. It also condemns to failure any group holding this evil view, as it did the best organized and most powerful group in modern history, the German Nazis.
The issue of the nonwhite inhabitants of the West is more complicated. In Body Snatcher’s Meccania, the Antipods have only one choice: separation. The news today informs, from Melbourne:
“DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.”
In this world-gone-mad, whites must play racial politics, or else they will end up in the cellar of the house they and their ancestors have built. As long as Antipods have to live as a reviled minority in Body Snatcher society, the “we” has to remain a whites-only club, no different in principle from a black college fraternity or an Indian reservation. But this does not imply troglodyte attitudes and wholesale animosity toward other races and nationalities.
But should the West ever again regain its senses, if a whole country could be run on Antipod principles, there is no just basis for denying a nonwhite minority full participation–if they and generations of their ancestors were born there, if they are fully assimilated, if they have abandoned tribalism for citizenism, if they cannot become a majority, and if they be judged by the same criteria as whites without multiculti obfuscation, cowardly manipulation of negative data, or racist discrimination for or against them.
It would be a cop out to fail to mention that such a principle of race-blind equitability cannot possibly lead to a multi-racial coexistence on the present scale. There are enormous social problems with blacks as a group, with violent crime rates at least 7 times those of whites, and other antisocial traits such as serial fatherhood, illegitimacy, pimp culture and disdain for work similarly overrepresented.
At the same time, there are no easy solutions, when most blacks can trace their American lineage farther back than most whites can, but are still unable and unwilling to assimilate in white society after 400 years. Integration is not possible except by hoisting the white flag, as white Body Snatchers do. But separation ought to be possible, and is likely to occur in the future….
… Contemporary Western civilization is, in reality, surrender to black, brown, Muslim and dhimmi supremacy, guided by a cabal of white Body Snatchers. Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture….
Saving Western Civilization must entail as well separation from Muslims and from Third World Latinos, which these groups already practice toward whites. How to separate without cruel and unjust policies is an issue beyond the scope of this discussion, as it requires a fully-informed consideration of the specific circumstances in each Western country separately.
What is clear is that the fault for the disaster of bringing to the West tens of millions of unassimilable Muslims, tens of millions of subliterate Mestizo laborers, millions of chaos-generating Africans, lies not with such Muslims, Mestizos and Africans but with the crazed Body Snatcher elite that has brought them–by naïve intention and by purposeful inattention, both. The separation therefore, cannot be guided by animus toward such immigrants, who have done what comes naturally, but toward those who have brought them to the West.
Ultimately, it comes down to unteaching the evil one-world, one humanity, one-God, one-social class, one-gender Body Snatcher propaganda….
This is the only way a human being, or a group, can gain a hold in life, have a chance at a good life, and not be wiped out from the pages of history…
[end of abridged Seiyo article.]
- end of initial entry -
Here are two further statements on the question of what defines “us”:I wrote to John Fonte in 2003:
Several years ago I was discussing with a friend what it is that conservatives have in common, that makes them, despite their differences, conservatives. He said it was “an instinctive love of Western man and Western civilization.” The moment he said that, it hit me with the force of truth. And you are saying a similar thing here, when you describe patriotic conservatism as an instinctive love of America.
And from a discussion in 2006:
But the Jewish question and the secularist question show that it’s not just inter-Christian unity and identity that is needed, but a broader Western unity and identity. Which leads us to a central point of traditionalism. Western civilizational survival and recovery require Western civilizational consciousness. Christianity is of course central to the West, but is not the whole of it. Whatever our different backgrounds and beliefs, the key to our survival is an instinctive love for Western civilization and Western man. And of course the key to the current Western suicide has been the loss of that instinctive love for our historic civilization and peoplehood, indeed, a positive hatred for our civilization and an increasingly open desire to see it destroyed.
Clark Coleman writes:
I emailed you, several weeks ago, an analysis of the trend towards flight, isolation, secession, etc. that I was seeing in comments from many VFR readers. It was not published at that time. I will dig it up and re-send it, because I think it is vital to counter this trend.In the meantime, let me observe one thing about the call to gather ourselves together into places where we dominate who is in City Hall, etc.: It is voluntary gerrymandering of the sort that usually has to be imposed by an enemy. When one party has control of a state legislature during a redistricting, and seeks to gerrymander the districts to its advantage, they do not group their supporters together into an overwhelming majority anywhere. They do the opposite. The supporters of the rival party are grouped together as much as possible, which causes them to dominate a few House seats and leaves the majority of seats somewhat less dominated by the party doing the gerrymandering.
Let me take an example from my state of Virginia. Back when we had 10 House seats (we now have 11), the Democrats grouped as many GOP strongholds as possible into four districts. So, even though the state at that time was probably about 50/50 on party voting for House seats, the GOP got four seats where it would get about 65 percent of the vote. Democrats often failed even to contest those races. But (do the math here) that leaves an average of about 40 percent GOP voters in the remaining six seats. 6-4 advantage to the Democrats. If it were possible to create three 70 percent GOP districts, the Democrats could have had seven districts that were only 41-42 percent GOP. 7-3 advantage for the Democrats, even though the state is split 50/50 in votes!
This is what conservatives are unwittingly proposing when they talk about conservative enclaves. Create some places where conservatives rule at the local level, thus diminishing their power at the national level and probably making them powerful in a minority of states as well.
This is Clark Coleman’s unposted e-mail from November 10 that he mentioned above.
Mr. Coleman writes:
Re: “Why a retired Army officer gave up on America,” I have been meaning to write about this subject for some time, and this entry, along with recent discussions about whites gathering in certain states and seceding, etc., serve as a convenient impetus.Conservatives need to do some serious soul searching to understand their quitter’s mentality. For example:
1) Let’s give up on America and retreat to some collection of almost entirely white states and then prepare to secede.
2) The universities have been taken over by leftists, so let’s start building new universities from scratch (several have been founded by conservatives in recent years).
3) The globalists are going to ruin the economy, so we better just stash some money overseas in case we have to abandon ship and live in some cheaper place after the good jobs run out and social chaos ensues (I have seen this kind of discussion at immigration sites like VDare).
4) This church is getting liberal; let’s leave and start a new church.
5) American churches are hopeless, but (romanticized) Third World Christians are so genuine and authentic that some day they will be the saviours of Christendom; we can let our churches decline and die because rescue is on the way from elsewhere. (Many evangelicals seriously talk like this.)
6) The Republican Party is no good any more; let’s build a new conservative party.
Notice the asymmetry here: Our enemies don’t go build new colleges or new countries or new churches or new political parties. They try to take over the existing institutions. As soon as they have some success, we issue the cry to abandon ship and go somewhere else.
We have to recognize the futility of our defeatist approach, as well as understand why we think this way. The futility can be demonstrated by noting the expense and/or impossibility of some of the proposed flights. Secession has not happened successfully in this nation’s history, for example. I don’t think I am going to count on the federal government and the military forces under its command allowing it to happen, and I don’t think I am going to bet the future on accomplishing secession by force. Building new colleges is very expensive. They start out with no endowment, just debt, and no reputation. The nation already has too many colleges and must import foreign students to fill spots, yet we are building new ones. There is only one institution of the military, and we cannot build a parallel institution from scratch, so we have no choice but to fight to preserve it. Making a third party successful is a much bigger uphill battle than reclaiming the GOP. Abandoning a church means abandoning a building, a location, a heritage and reputation and exposure in the community, etc. Why should we constantly leave accumulated wealth to the Left in all these cases?
Understanding the impulses behind this mentality is also important, so that we can change our thinking and become political and cultural successes rather than failures. I see two explanations:
A) Conservatives feel a love for the significant institutions of their heritage. They do not see their alma mater, their church, their country as just political pawns, as the politicized Left sees everything. As a result, a deterioration in an institution or country is felt as a betrayal. The wayward institution is now perceived in the same way as a wife who ran away to work in a brothel. Rather than hunt her down and try to redeem her, you wash your hands of her and find a new wife.
B) Christians in particular are heirs to a certain bunker mentality that I call Faithful Remnant Syndrome. Our spiritual heritage has lots of persecution, the faithful remnant of Israel being protected by God while the rest of Israel is condemned, Athanasius standing alone versus the world, the church surviving in hostile nations for centuries and emerging to grow again after nations and empires pass, etc. Faithful Remnant Syndrome causes many evangelicals and fundamentalists not to care about Western Civilization per se; after all, there will always be a church, even if civilizations come and go, right? It also leads to a flee to the hills and live in a bunker mentality, rather than an attitude that this is the only country we have and we had better fight for it and preserve it.
Christians need to appreciate the relationship between Western Civilization and Christianity. Judeo-Christian morality is interweaved into the fabric of Western Civilization. Planting Christianity in Asia and Africa means, in many ways, having to fight against the cultural fabric rather than building on it. It also means that Christianity in such places is often syncretistic and heterodox, and we had better stop our noble savage Rousseauian romanticization of Third World Christianity and realize that the world needs Western Christianity to be revitalized and restored.
Rick Darby writes:
Takuan Seiyo has stated the theme and goals well, particularly in making important distinctions–for instance:”That Jews are disproportionately represented among the chief Body Snatchers is one thing, and it calls for a rational critique and repudiation. But to falsify history, to engage in a blanket smear of an ancient people that constitutes 0.25% of the world’s population but has given the world not only Jesus but also 178 Nobel Prize winners and many of its best doctors, most illustrious artists and seminal conservative thinkers–that is evil.”
I can take aboard about 90 percent of what he has written here, and appreciate the effort and care he’s put into this plan. What bothers me?
Well, take this:
“The exodus ought to lead to a formation of communities where the still-healthy would be the dominant majority, able and willing to control who is in the City Hall, what is being taught in schools, which channels are available on the local Cable TV system, what people are allowed to wear in public, and how teenagers are to address their elders.”
I’m not going to quibble about the word “control.” In any society, some group is going to control what is taught in school and so forth. But he needs to clarify how much freedom and difference of viewpoint will be allowed under this control. There need to be limits, but where will those limits be set? A very rigidly defined traditionalist conservative blueprint for public behavior and expression of opinion would be aesthetically more pleasing than the negativity and anti-traditionalism that surrounds us now, but good behavior and uplifting artistic culture, if authentic, should arise naturally from good values rather than being imposed, insofar as possible.
“The mental exodus required to form the Antipod community is so important that membership ought to be conferred only upon interviewing candidates and having them sign letters of acceptance of the community’s principles, followed by a lengthy process of structured acclimatization.” That’s quite a sourball. Who are these paragons of virtue who will do the interviewing?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What is “structured acclimatization”? If you are pure enough to pass the interview, why do you need structured acclimatization and why should a free person submit to it? Sure, individual freedom can be expressed in ugly ways (“rap, bling, metal, grunge, disco, porno, TV entertainment, footie fandom”), but how can any genuine virtue be created except by individual choice?
The biggest issue, which Seiyo doesn’t even touch on (at least in your abridged version), is, “Where is OUR version of the ‘depopulated, backward and destitute Turkish sand patch’ on which to build the New Jerusalem?” Even the Jewish Zionists didn’t exactly found a peaceful land of milk and honey.
Where, in an overpopulated world, is an economically viable and sparsely inhabited place for the Antipods?
Maybe Seiyo would say Antipodia isn’t a geographical place but a state of mind, but that won’t do. If Antipods live in a place, or places, ruled by Pod People, then they will be subject to the laws of the Pod People. I don’t think the latter will tolerate the Antipods; if they did, an Antipod culture might not be necessary.
This geographical puzzle does my head in. Such Antipods as exist today are widely scattered and live side-by-side with the Pod People. Where are they going to create their own society?
The foregoing notwithstanding, I think Seiyo has made an important contribution to the discussion, and I thank you as well for giving it much more of an airing than it would get otherwise.
I also am not clear on where he sees these new communities forming. On one hand, he speaks of a world wide community (uses the Islamic word umma) of white conservatives, spread through all the continents and countries; on the other hand, he seems to be speaking of a physical exodus from the present societies to a new-old land, such as happened with the Zionist Jews leaving Europe to resettle Palestine.
Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
I spent some time reading Seiyo’s article, thanks to your posting it and editing it a little.While I was doing so, these thoughts came to my head:
There are many writers these days like Seiyo, non-Christians (whether they be atheists or as Seiyo himself practice another religion, or follow some spiritual path) who declare themselves defenders of the West and its traditions. Mostly such non-Christian Western advocates are atheists.
You have written many times that Christianity is a fundamental part of the West, but not an exclusive part.
But, everything in the West existed with Christianity, with men and women who were Christians. Who, I think, couldn’t foresee a world where people pronounced themselves as complete unbelievers.
How can atheists have a profound understanding and attachment to the West if they are not spiritually moved by Chartres and Chichester Cathedral? If they have no transcendental feeling of God–not some generalized transcendental feeling–in response to Handel’s Messiah, especially the Hallelujah (which is exactly how I feel when I hear it in a concert)? And even scientists like Newton who, despite his stumbling towards his Christian faith, still believed his work was a discovery of the creations of an eminent being? And the many pomps and ceremonies from crowings of Kings to wagings of wars which include formal religious elements?
What happens to the children of these atheist Westerners? Who will instill in them these feelings–let alone the stories that bring about these feelings (I really don’t think atheists will sit with their children and read a child’s version of Jesus’ parables; they always seem engaged in some intellectual, very adult conversation about “the historical value of the Bible”)?
How, if they love the past accomplishments, based on the particular Western men, and their particular religion, do they hope to build the future, without that particular ingredient, Christianity?
As I was thinking these thoughts, and about how Christianity always seems relegated to the 11th place (at least in Seiyo’s classification), I read your earlier entry on the assault on Christianity which included this comment:
But the fact remains that the West in its deepest core is not about democracy and capitalism; it’s about Christianity….Now I didn’t become a Christian in order to become a member and defender of the West. The conversion was something that came to me. But an important practical result of that conversion was that I began to have a feel for the historic West that I had not had before.
One cannot make people into believers. But, with so many open doors and accommodations, these self-proclaimed staunch supporters of the West are actually doing the opposite. They may have great admiration for the past, but they are short-changing the future a good deal.By the way, I think Seiyo is reading your posts. This seems to show in the context of this article although unfortunately not in its length.
Van Wijk writes:
For Mr. Coleman, secession is out and we must retake what we have lost. Does he have any ideas on how we can make this happen?
[The next two posts were sent on the 13th and are just being posted on the 15th.]
“Jan Sobieski” writes:
Body snatcher post:The only effective defense against the pods that we have is one we are already using–the family, Church and to a much lesser extent our community. Takuan Seiyo’s suggestions, though adding to the discussion cannot and will not be adopted for the reasons already mentioned in the posts above. We will not dominate in the polls for the foreseeable future. Total societal collapse and/or civil war is the only possibility from our current unalterable trajectory.
There will be remnants who will maintain the legacy of Western Civilization and out of the ashes Western Civilization will once again arise. If the forces of Islam completely dominate eliminating all vestiges of resistance and all remnants then the world will be doomed until it collapses under the weight of Islam. Hopefully, then civilization will once again emerge.
Because of the evils of multiculturalism, relativism and nihilism, for which we have no effective anecdote, the living organism of Western Civililized Man shall die unless, in our death throes, we manage to come to our senses. The forces of multiculturalism, relativism and nihilism are so powerful that they even overwhelm our survival instinct.
Clark Coleman writes:
I think the most critical thing is to learn a hidden lesson from our defeat of the recent amnesty bills. Most conservatives think that we have won a great victory. After all, the talking heads and elites made amnesty sound like some sort of inevitability (an old leftist rhetorical trick, quite a bit overused these days). It seemed as if the leaders of BOTH parties opposed us, yet we won through faxes and emails and phone calls.But what was the result? The status quo continues. A radical new idea was defeated, but that is not progress.
Retaking the West will only occur when conservatives deluge Congress with faxes, emails, and phone calls in support of new legislation that changes the anchor baby policy, or requires employment verification for all new hires via the E-Verify system, or removes the corporate income tax deductibility for wages paid to employees whose Social Security number and name do not match, or all of the above. If you talk to those who work in conservative organizations, they will tell you that this NEVER happens. Conservative voters are defensive reactionaries. Propose some major new harm, and they get motivated to defeat it. Then they go back into their private lives. Propose some minor new harm, and they might or might not defeat it. But undoing existing harmful policies is not on the radar screen. If this can be changed, we can save the West. If it cannot be changed, we are only controlling the pace at which the West dies.
Is the economic crisis the West’s salvation in disguise?
Jeff in England writes:
A left wing view of things to be sure but its core point may be correct: American will have a substantial drop in living standards for some time to come if not permanently. How this will affect immigration remains to be seen. Taking that point a bit further (which I already have done in an entry at VFR), I reiterate that I think a severe financial collapse in America and the West would have an impact on Hispanic and Third World immigration. Or would the Third World countries have an equivalent or even greater financial collapse and not be worth staying in or going back to? The ideal situation in regard to immigration would be for American and the West to collapse while the Third World countries stay reasonably stable. Of course that scenario is unlikely to happen. I am joking of course. I see this financial crisis as the “calvary” in regard to the immigration situation. Whereas a reversal in immigration to the West was near unimaginable before, it is now conceivable though still unlikely. In addition, financial collapse might destroy the West even if it slows immigration as well.
The Ugly Truth: America’s Economy is Not Coming Back
by dlindorffPresident Barack Obama and his economic team are being careful to couch all their talk about economic stimulus programs and bank bailout programs in warnings that the economic downturn is serious and that it will take considerable time to bounce back. [cont.]
- end of initial entry -Gintas writes:
I believe Jeff in England may be right. Liberalism is a giant sucking parasite attached to our backs, and it feeds on luxury and on the loss of Christianity. James Burnham in Suicide of the West touched on the cause of decline oh so briefly, basically one sentence: it’s either loss of religion or excess wealth (or both). Brief as he was, he got to the heart of it. An economic collapse would take care of one angle. There is certainly no guarantee that an economic collapse would cause a restoration of Christian faith, but do you recall in the Old Testament the warnings given to Israel, that with prosperity in the promised land, they should not forget God? Certainly the pattern in the Old Testament was that, when Israel had turned from God, God didn’t give them more prosperity, ease, and peace. He made things hard on them. That didn’t always work (see Jeremiah), but it was the way God did it, so I figure there’s real merit in it. Of course, America really isn’t today’s equivalent of old Israel, but the former pervasiveness of Christianity in the West gives me hope that the parallel isn’t entirely off.
Terry Morris writes:
I don’t think it matters that much what happens to the economies of Mexico and other third-world countries. If the economic crisis proves indeed to be a long-term, serious crisis in the U.S. that severly lowers our standard of living for years to come, then I tend to think that Americans will begin to come down from their high-horses, recognizing the additional and unneeded drain that third-worlders are on the economy, and will act accordingly. It’s easy to be “generous” to the less fortunate when you’re loaded. But when you ain’t in much better shape than they are yet you’re still having to take care of them, well….
Terry Morris writes:
I linked to your article in a new post on the subject at my blog, “Is the impending economic crisis a Godsend?,” where I took my argument a bit further arguing that in addition to dealing properly with the immigration issue, highminded liberals would also be awakened by such a scenario to the nuttiness of our out-of-control domestic entitlement spending; that not only might the economic crisis be a Godsend, but the election of Obama and the socialist Congress in the midst of a brewing economic crisis might be a Godsend.
Ron L. writes:
No more than 9-11 was. It could have been, but that would assume better leadership, organized nationalists, and an elite not still bent on profiting from our destruction. Just as 9-11 has accelerated the Islamification of the West, this will lead to our Third Worldism.First off, I disagree with the economic prognosis. Today, we are looking at three years of recession, 20-24 months of pain with little growth followed by a relapse caused by inflation. Of course, the Democrat economic program will probably extend this for another year or two and lower growth rates for a decade.
The Obama regime, which has a 64 percent approval rating, will use the economic emergency to speed up the death of America. Already in the stimulus bill, we have seen new aid to immigrant families with “American” children, with no provision that they must be here legally. ACORN and other leftist groups will also get their due. Obama will push for either phased or quick legalization of illegals using the economy and healthcare as justification. Obama has already reached his hand out to the Organization of Islamic States and supports Turkey’s admittance into the EU.
Mexico, which is already unstable, may be pushed over the edge by the recession, especially if oil prices remain low and remittences drop. If this happens, my past use of the Goths crossing the Danube will be an even better analogy.
While there is resistance in Europe, its leaders face risk of arrest. The only glimmer of hope is the unorganized strikes by Brits against companies that are hring foreigners. If only we had that here.
Ron L. continues:
I forgot to mention the downside of our econmic problems, our enemies are buying us out. Muslim Sovereign Wealth funds are purchasing large stakes in American companies and our financial companies are setting up Sharia-friendly finance divisions. Chinese companies continue to target American companies.
Ray G. writes:
I get the impression that many of our friends in England, France, Italy and many places around the world are smiling smugly due to our current economic woes (note: not “crisis”).First many around the world have an unrealistic image of the US, gained from movies, television shows and even television “news”. Will Americans suffer a great reduction in their standard of living? The vast majority will not–the Illuminati and aspiring Illuminati may. Most Americans are working. Most Americans are paying their mortgages (and other bills).
I for one think the constant 24/7 “the sky is falling” cry in the news-media is being done for political advantage, namely to help liberals expand the scope of Big Government. I believe we’re in a recession. They occur every 10-15 years and usually last a year or two. We’ll come out of this one as well.