Posted under Europe & Political Correctness
While thumbing through the new issue of the American Conservative (Feb. 2010), I came across a rant by Peter Hitchens, an emotional denunciation of the British National Party. While I’ve enjoyed Hitchens’ criticism of the war in Iraq, I was taken back by this recent piece.
Although criticism of any political party is warranted – I have complaints about the BNP – what strikes one when reading Hitchens’ piece is its vituperative tone. It’s the sort of politically correct diatribe one would expect from a Cultural Marxist, like Christopher Hitchens. But from Peter?
Hitchens, Peter that is, devotes much ink to claiming that the BNP is anti-semetic, and accusing its leaders of “Holocaust denial.” Revealing that he himself is of Jewish ancestry, he rattles off words like “Judeophobic,” “jackboot-loving,” “brutes,” and “fascists.” While Hitchens acknowledges that the BNP has a legitimate platform (e.g. opposing the war in Iraq and mass Third World immigration), he quickly tarnishes the party with the brush of anti-semetism. While reading his harangue, I was struck by its similarity to David Frum’s infamous “Unpatriotic Conservatives“:
“Having quickly decided that the War on Terror was a Jewish war, the paleos equally swiftly concluded that they wanted no part of it. It’s odd: 9/11 actually vindicated some of the things that the paleos had been arguing, particularly about immigration and national cohesion.”
If anyone digs enough, he’s bound to find dirt. But Hitchens obsession with anti-Jewish elements within the BNP is telling. The party’s primary animus is Third World immigration and Muslims, not Jews. In fact, as the Jewish writers Ilana Mercer and Paul Gottfried have noted, the BNP has actually given some support to Israel (albeit limited).
Throughout the rest of the article, Hitchens claims the BNP is:
- “sordid and disreputable”
- “based upon racial bigotry”
- “bigoted, ugly, disreputable”
- “Nazis and Fascists”
[It becomes redundant after a while, but you get the picture.]
It’s interesting that a self-styled conservative like Hitchens is so eager to throw around the accusation of “racism.” As Sam Francis has noted, the term racism, popularized by Cultural Marxists, is a tool to weaken the West. It’s unfortunate that Hitchens is aiding in this enterprise.
It’s also noteworthy that Hitchens’ diatribe reads not unlike neoconservative Jonah Goldberg’s childish hit-pieces on the BNP (calling them “British fascists”) or any of the sophomoric pieces by anti-Western neocon Ramesh Ponnuru.
Although acknowledging that the UK does have a problem with Third World immigration, it registers as a minor concern in Hitchens’ essay. He seems to be most concerned what the left in the UK thinks about the BNP, upset that the BNP may fit a leftist’s caricature of the right. Twice he mentions that the BNP opens up conservatives to attack from the left. Frankly, it’s troubling he should care what the left thinks at all. Does he want to save the UK or appease the left?
While reasoned debate about political parties is welcome, I fail to see what productivity can result when self-styled conservatives pursue an all-enemies-to-my-right approach, and adopt the language of the left accusing patriotic Englishmen of “racism”. According to conservative Englishmen I know, the reason the BNP has gained such popularity is because it’s the only party in the UK that deals seriously with the threat of Third World immigration, and, at the end of the day, what could be more conservative than actually wanting to conserve the traditional demographics of the UK?
Addendum: There is also the Jewish member of the BNP elected to the Epping Forest district council, Patricia Richardson, who spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference, alongside Peter Brimelow, Roger D. McGrath, Serge Trifkovic, et al. Conveniently, Hitchens fails to mention her.
Filmer on 05 Jan 2010 at 9:27 pm #
Two AmCon bloggers also attacked the BNP. What’s going on there? The BNP has worked hard to shed its openly anti-Semitic image, even winning praise from Lawrence Auster if I’m not mistaken.
Karl on 05 Jan 2010 at 10:34 pm #
What is up with the American Conservative? Is it just me or is it becoming painful to read?
Peter Hitchens is only tangentially connected to the right. For most of his life he was a Trotskyite and member of the International Socialists. Sound familiar?
RedPhillips on 06 Jan 2010 at 1:06 am #
I Googled Peter Hitchens and BNP and it turns out he has a long history of demonizing them. What is going on with Hitchens is obvious. He has a classic case of “I’m a conservative, but I’m not one of THOSE conservatives” syndrome. But why did AmCon chose to publish his article?
Tweets that mention On Peter Hitchens’ Recent Rant | Conservative Heritage Times -- Topsy.com on 06 Jan 2010 at 3:01 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MP Peter Lilley, Peter Lilley MP. Peter Lilley MP said: On Peter Hitchens' Recent Rant | Conservative Heritage Times http://ow.ly/16h8Ay [...]
Timothy Yung on 06 Jan 2010 at 5:47 am #
What’s wrong with calling a party that restricts membership to whites only racist? Before you guys accuse me of being a liberal I will say that I voted for Chuck Baldwin last election. I would even have voted for Pat Buchanan during the 2000 election had I been old enough to vote back then.
Russell Brand and Katy Perry Engaged, Have Their Love Blessed in India | Katy Perry Celebrity Monitor on 06 Jan 2010 at 11:34 am #
[...] On Peter Hitchens' Recent Rant | Conservative Heritage Times [...]
A Reader on 06 Jan 2010 at 3:11 pm #
Yung – the BNP now accepts membership from people of any race. Originally the BNP tried to mimic other organizations that restricted membership only to Arabs, Indians, Asians, Blacks, and others. Why is it acceptable for them to have restrictive organizations (they still have them today) but unacceptable for the indigenous population? Tosh!
James on 06 Jan 2010 at 5:49 pm #
For what its worth, and in case you didn’t pick up on it, the Gingrich excerpt is a satirical spoof. They did something similar to Victor Davis Hanson a while back.
Bede on 06 Jan 2010 at 6:56 pm #
James,
You’re right regarding Newt’s piece, which i didn’t read. After reading Hitchen’s rant, I was depressed and had to put the magazine down. (Now that I’ve read the spoof on Gingrich, it is amusing.)
I only wish Hitchens’ piece were a satirical spoof of a neocon.
S.L. Toddard on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:07 pm #
It’s online now, fyi:
http://amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00014/
Filmer on 06 Jan 2010 at 8:23 pm #
Timothy, if our language means anything, then racist should mean something along the lines of hate, malice, or ill will based on race. If that is the definition then no, restricting membership to a certain race is not necessarily racist. It might be called racially exclusive or something like that. It is no more necessarily racist than the NAACP, the Congresional Black Caucus, or other such organizations.
Hitchens makes some fair points about Griffin’s background and the background of the party. And I can see a point about them making it hard for non-BNP conservatives to shake leftist perceptions, but that would only count if there was some legitimate alternative that was struggling to gain ground and the BNP was holding back. But as best as I can tell, there is no such thing happening. The Tories are certainly not valiantly fighting the good fight nor is there as far as I know a significant faction within that is struggling to retake the party. The Tories are firmly in the hands of the multicults. The closest thing to an alternative I could see might be the UK Independence Party. So what exactly is Hitchens proposing as an alternative? More elitist writers like him who don’t want to get their hands dirty or sully their image pontificating?
Hitchens concedes that multiculturalism and mass immigration are problems, but then seems squeamish about anyone who actually wants to do anything about them. I get that there are real racist and that there are pleasant ways to say things and provocative ways to say things, but how does he propose getting there (defeating multiculturalism and restricting immigration) from here? This short of running for the tall grass and shrieking “eww… look at all the big mean racists” simply empowers the left. If there are unsavory elements in the Party then it would be better for the big boys like Hitchens to get involved and attempt to lead it in the right direction than it is for them to empower the left by dancing to their tune.
Bede on 06 Jan 2010 at 8:50 pm #
“If there are unsavory elements in the Party then it would be better for the big boys like Hitchens to get involved and attempt to lead it in the right direction….”
I second that.
Sean Scallon on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:46 pm #
The problem that the BNP has is the same problem many on the Right have, associations with Fascism and of that old bugaboo the Holocaust. Clearly the British people were not going to vote for a party whose leaders dressed up like Nazis and those in such parties don’t make it any easier on themselves if they keep bringing the issue up in writings (like Pat Buchanan does) or go into tangents about gas chambers and how many did they really kill or get baited into talking about it by the media.
What the Holocaust has become, sadly, is a cudgel cultural marxists use to beat up their enemies, much like “racism” is. If I was Nick Griffith and someone brought it up, I would say that there is no issue. There have been many mass killings and genocides in the world since World War II, it happened before I and many voters even born and there’s nothing political about. It was a horrible tragedy, what more do you want me to say, can we get back to talking about real issues.
This is what happens when the supposedly “conservative” party suddenly isn’t so conservative anymore. The BNP is filling a vacumn the major parties in Britain are not. They are asking question polite society is not asking. They ran off Enoch Powell so it’s only natural you’d get Nick Griffin. And until the politicians take notice then the BNP will continue to gain strength in those areas they represent and the Conservatives will only get weaker until they wise up. It may very be that the BNP is too toxic or limited to win an entire national election in. But their success only speaks to Tory failure. It may not be a party to hitch one’s future to, but one can’t dismiss it either just because they are who they are.
Kirt Higdon on 06 Jan 2010 at 11:33 pm #
Well, now that I have read the actual article by Hitchens and assuming that his factual statements about the BNP and Nick Griffin are correct (which no one seems to dispute), I would not disagree at all with his negative opinions of the BNP and especially his opinion that it is highly counterproductive to the goals of traditional British conservatives. As far as the advice that Hitchens should join the BNP and straighten it out, that is absurd. How many commentators here would join a party led by, for example, David Duke? Bede’s initial posting with its fragmentary out of context quotes gives a very distorted picture of the article. It is not at all a rant; it’s sound analysis.
Bede on 07 Jan 2010 at 1:20 am #
Kirt, I failed to see any “analysis” whatsoever in Hitchens’ article.
Sean, I largely agree with your analysis.
The fact is, it’s ridiculous that people are even talking about fascists at all. The European media and governments are obsessed with a handful of supposed “fascists” with no real power; all the while, the Third World is colonizing their cities. It’s almost surreal.
Bede on 07 Jan 2010 at 2:38 am #
Addendum: There is also the Jewish member of the BNP elected to the Epping Forest district council, Patricia Richardson, who spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference, alongside Peter Brimelow, Roger D. McGrath, Serge Trifkovic, et al. Conveniently, Hitchens fails to mention her.
Filmer on 07 Jan 2010 at 4:18 am #
Kirt, there was some analysis, but the overall feel was a lot of name calling and the sort of “eww … there be racists” PC grandstanding that empowers the left. It read like a dumbed down version of an SPLC hit piece. Anti-racism and anti-anti-Semitism are much bigger problems in the modern world than are racism and anti-Semitism. So why feed into that? Traditional conservatives shouldn’t turn a blind eye to true racism and anti-Semitism where it exists, but this sort of public PC preening is profoundly counter-productive. It amounts to a sort of preemptive public PC inoculation. “See, look at me. I’m not a racist. I’m saying bad things about the BNP.” The Cultural Marxist must be laughing at these tawdry displays because they know they have got people dancing to their tune. Why aren’t conservatives as afraid of being accused of pandering to PC as they are of being called racists and/or anti-Semitic? It speaks to the relative power of the left vs. the right. Refuse to play their game.
Hitchens’ essay overall is incoherent. He seems to concede that multiculturalism and mass immigration are problems that threaten England, but it’s just not polite to say so in any other than the vaguest way? With a wink and a nod of sorts. But what is the problem with multiculturalism and mass immigration if it does not have to do ultimately with keeping Britain ethnically and culturally British? I can definitely see wanting to avoid mean-spiritedness and practicing Christian charity and good-will, which maybe the BNP of new and old have failed at, but ultimately it is about race/ethnicity in the aggregate. Maybe not in every particular. Asians can be good British citizens the same way Asians can be good Americans, for example. But if England were to become majority Asian it would cease to be England in any meaningful sense. Ditto America. Just as Japan would cease to be Japan if it became majority Anglo. No one bats an eye that Japan wants to stay Japanese (they have very tight immigration controls). It is taken for granted. But English people wanting to keep their country English is supposedly the worst of all possible sins. This is Cultural Marxism. Ethnocentrism for me (non-whites), but not for thee (whites).
Kirt Higdon on 07 Jan 2010 at 4:53 am #
If “it is about race/ethnicity in the aggregate”, then I don’t quite see how Hitchens is wrong to use the term racist. And the attempt to achieve political power by a racially exclusive group is bound to be perceived as a threat by other groups. We are not talking after all about fraternal associations, but about political parties. That said, I’m really pretty indifferent to the BNP, since I am not British other than by partial remote ancestry and what happens in Britain is no more of my business than what happens in Iran. Less, in fact, because the rulers of the US are unlikely to attack Britain no matter who is in charge there, while many of them are eager to attack Iran.
Filmer on 07 Jan 2010 at 5:21 am #
“If “it is about race/ethnicity in the aggregate”, then I don’t quite see how Hitchens is wrong to use the term racist.”
Kirt, are the Japanese racists for wanting to keep Japan Japanese or can only white people be guilty of such? In fact, Hitchens hints at that he wants to see England remain English also. That is what is so incoherent about his essay. It is not racist for the same reason I explained to Timothy. Racism should exclusively mean hate or malice, not ethnocentrism which is totally natural and as old as man himself.
BTW, the BNP is a nationalist party and as such opposes Scottish and Welsh independence. Dissolution and secession are inherently preservative/conservative acts. As a Southerner I support both, although I don’t support the leftist agenda of the Scottish and Welsh independence parties.
If it really isn’t our business, which I don’t disagree with although I would certainly like to see Europe remain Europe, then why is AmCon obsessing over it?
Bede on 07 Jan 2010 at 6:18 am #
Filmer hits the nail on the head.
Anti-racism, not racism, is the problem.
The French philosopher Alain Finkelkraut recently wrote: “And this anti-racism will be for the twenty-first century what communism was for the twentieth century: a source of violence.”
Kirt Higdon on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:41 am #
Racism should not be equated with hate or malice because a person can be hateful or malicious for any number of reasons. What racism consists of is treating race as the principal or the only explanation for human activity and hence demanding that human society should be governed by mainly or exclusively racial arrangements. When this amounts to a demand that one racial group should have exclusive political power within a given country or jurisdiction, let alone that only members of that racial group should be permitted to live there, it is bound to be seen as a threat by other groups.
To draw an analogy, if I as a Catholic, decide to associate only with other Catholics, I’m mainly just hurting myself by limiting my life experiences. If I form a political party to which Catholics alone may belong and which has the objective of making the US a country where only Catholics are permitted to live, then non-Catholics would be justifiably alarmed should my party grow in power. Yet this would be less threatening than a racially based party because a person can change his religion, but not his genetic make-up.
And yes, people other than whites can obviously be racist, and yes the Japanese as a whole are racist. as is frequently noted by those who write of Japanese history or comment on their society.
Filmer on 07 Jan 2010 at 1:47 pm #
So Kirt, if Angloes were flooding into Japan and threatening to be the majority within a few decades, you would hold it against the Japanese if they became concerned about that? They should just say, “Oh well” and be perfectly OK with that? Amazing. Conservatism is supposed to be based on actual human nature and how the real world actually works (tempered by Christianity of course), not on ideological abstractions. There is nothing more ancient or primordial than kinship grouping and ethnocentrism. To consider that as some sort of pathological mindset based on some idealized raceless/ethnicless egalitarian society is rank liberalism.
BTW, I think the ethnic limitations on who can be a member of the Party are counterproductive and unnecessary. There is no reason a Christian English citizen of West Asian ancestry, for example, couldn’t see the benefit in keeping England Christian and not Muslim. But the benefits of policies directed at keeping England majority English are obvious. Even Hitchens recognizes this, he is just too chicken to say so directly.
Weaver on 07 Jan 2010 at 3:47 pm #
Mr. Higdon,
Japanese, Korean, etc. nationalism will resist the rising Chinese leviathan.
If their nationalism fails, those nations will just be eaten by Chinese nationalism, which will be even larger, transient, and more powerful.
The Japanese don’t mind tourists and don’t want war, so I admire their nationalism. It appears healthy.
Kirt Higdon on 07 Jan 2010 at 4:34 pm #
I am not threatened by Chinese nationalism and what the Japanese and Koreans do in their own homeland is no concern of mine. But racially and nationally mixed communities and families are also of long standing and a conservatism which considers only racially homogenous communities worth conserving and wishes to disrupt or destroy other communities is not a good thing. All of my life, I have lived in communities with other ethnicities and most of my adult life in communities where non-Hispanic whites were a minority. My own extended family includes two adopted immigrant Korean nephews. I certainly consider my own multi-ethnic community and family as worthy of conservation as a community and family which are mono-ethnic. There is nothing ideologically abstract about that. It is those who demand that all communities and families be mono-ethnic who are ideological and willing to sacrifice real human beings to their idea of how things should be.
JW on 07 Jan 2010 at 6:55 pm #
I’m curious as to why someone decided to delete the comment of the commenter who linked to the Steve Sailer article. Is it because you dislike what Sailer wrote in that article? If so, are you aware that you guys link to the very same article in your “Conservative Resources” page?
Bede on 07 Jan 2010 at 8:47 pm #
JW, it might have been an error. We obviously do not dislike Sailer. Please relink to the article in a new comment. I’m sorry that your comment was deleted. I’ll look again in the spam filter. What was the link?
JW on 07 Jan 2010 at 9:03 pm #
Bede,
No need to apologize to me. It wasn’t my comment that got deleted. Rather it was somebody else’s.
The article that the commenter linked to was this one:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm
He wanted Mr. Higdon to read that article.
Ernest on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:06 pm #
“”My own extended family includes two adopted immigrant Korean nephews. I certainly consider my own multi-ethnic community and family as worthy of conservation as a community and family which are mono-ethnic.”"
Korean?? Huh? What do you mean by Korean? What is a Korean? You don’t mean Korean as in unique identity do you? Nah you couldn’t mean that. Or is it only White Western Culture that is not unique and has no right to preservation?. Of course maybe you are suggesting that Koreans should be destroyed too? Become Borg?
“”But racially and nationally mixed communities and families are also of long standing and a conservatism which considers only racially homogenous communities worth conserving and wishes to disrupt or destroy other communities is not a good thing.”"
As opposed to purposeful government policy & invasion destroying White Western culture? You obviously care little about preserving that? Not to mention that neither do AA’s, Hispanics, Koreans nor any other ethnicity care about it but they sure care about their own i.e. LaRaza, Black Caucus, the APA and all the other race based political groups. Ironic too how you use the word disrupt as if this massive invasion, third world and otherwise, into America is not disruptive.
Weaver on 08 Jan 2010 at 12:56 am #
Mr. Higdon,
I’ve suggested before an ideology of just what you refer to:
. Few though will demand full purity, but it’ll still remain the ideal.
-
As Chesterton wrote:
Nations shouldn’t be undermined and order dissolved for the sake of a few who don’t fit in. There’ll always be cosmopolitan centers anyway for citizens of the world.
The Romans found nothing but
, and today all I see are “American” McDonalds and military bases… Vapid and without value. It’s not a question of absolutes, whether Brits are the best in the world, but whether Britain is to remain British.
There’s nothing wrong in loving Britain, only something wrong in not.
Weaver on 08 Jan 2010 at 12:59 am #
And truly it is a question of empire or not.
This is what true localism looks like: it’s bigoted and it values particularities, nation being one of them except perhaps when perverted into all-inclusive empire or over-centralised state.
That’s humanity. If it’s flawed, take it up with the Creator. Nations return to dust as with everything else and aren’t gods, but they make life more enjoyable as do families and heritage sites and every other particularity.
Weaver on 08 Jan 2010 at 4:05 am #
Mr. Higdon,
Chesterton says to understand patriotism, one needs to first experience the emotion. And perhaps the same is true of cosmopolitanism – I admittedly don’t understand where you’re coming from, possibly because I’ve never held a cosmo spirit.
Britain disappearing seems like a terrible loss; I don’t honestly comprehend the enlightened, higher view that makes it all alright. I dunno about Belloc, but Chesterton would have stood by Britain on this.
Britain is very important to me btw. As an American I get some of my definition from Britain, and I’d be lost without it.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Jan 2010 at 5:43 am #
Mr. Weaver,
Like Chesterton, I value the proximate and particular, which for me are my family, my neighborhood, my city, my parish church. Britain is far from me both in time and space. Some of my ancestors came from there, but some of my ancestors came from many different places. I am happy to leave Britain to the British, but would also enjoy visiting there some day if I get the chance. I do admit to a longing for the other; a cultivation of what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called the “romantic sentiment” in contrast to the “herd instinct”. It is the latter which we simply have in common with the animals; the former which causes us to long for the Divine and respond to Him. Besides that, I would be quite bored with a life in which everyone I encountered was just like me.
Bede on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:53 pm #
Kirt Higdon’s comment above in some ways mirrors the radical multicultist’s line in Europe: “Prior to the mass-immigration of the 1950s, Europe was too homogenous, everyone was alike. Ergo, Europe was boring. Europe only becomes interesting after the recent flood of non-European immigration.”
Kirt, I’m sorry if the last 2,500 years of European history are utterly boring for you.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Jan 2010 at 4:35 pm #
Bede, what you put in quotes is something I never said and I am not sure anyone has ever said it. If someone has, identify him and cite your source. Anyone who thinks that Europe has not received plenty of non-European immigration in the last 2500 years is clearly pretty ignorant of European history, which in fact I don’t find boring at all but full of the variety which makes life interesting.
Bede on 08 Jan 2010 at 5:59 pm #
Kirt, you should read Christopher Caldwell’s new book. There is a world of difference between pre- and post-1950s numbers of non-Europeans immigrating to Europe. I recently read an estimation that more non-Europeans have immigrated to Europe in the past 50 years than in the past 1,000 years.
Weaver on 08 Jan 2010 at 7:13 pm #
You can look at the DNA maps available. Especially in northwest Europe, it’s overwhelmingly homogeneous. This gives people distinction and connection with ancestors.
True diversity is of course diversity of nations. We can best appreciate East Asians, blacks, and whites by preserving these divisions, otherwise diversity is lost.
Weaver on 08 Jan 2010 at 7:14 pm #
You’re radically opposed to Chesterton in the overall. It’s not surprising for 2 Catholics to disagree, it’s bound to happen. But Chesterton encourages the very bigotry you denounce – he cherishes divisions, as do I.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Jan 2010 at 6:13 am #
Chesterton is not encouraging bigotry, nor did I denounce it. He is encouraging patriotism, which I encourage as well. I am patriotic toward my own family, locale, city and country and all of these include (horrors!) a variety of DNA. To define Europe by “DNA maps” and then restrict the definition of Europe to northwest Europe presumably because the rest of the continent contains too much non-European DNA is absurd and racially obsessed. On the non-political level, this is merely comical. On the political level, people are bound to be concerned if their failure to have the right DNA will not merely exclude them from political participation but may result in their expulsion from their homes. Of course this is most unlikely to happen in Britain as the BNP has about zero chance of ever taking power there.
As far as numbers of immigrants to Europe, sure there are a lot more these days; there are a lot more Europeans and a lot more people in the world in general. As a percentage of total population, I’m not so sure. Certainly Roman Europe was full of people of African and Asiatic origin who would not have measured up to the northwestern Europe DNA map. And these immigrants included a couple of near Eastern semites, Sts. Peter and Paul, who played a fairly important historic role in the Catholic Church to which I belong and to which Chesterton belonged after his conversion.
Weaver on 09 Jan 2010 at 12:18 pm #
I had said northwest Europe especially, and hadn’t written off the rest of Europe. Nevertheless America was founded mostly by northwest Europeans, and is Anglo-centric.
I’ll add some quotes later today from the piece I quoted by Chesterton – he’s directly opposite your views.
JW on 09 Jan 2010 at 5:19 pm #
Unfortunately the vast majority of white Americans are like Mr. Higdon. When it comes down to it they just don’t care about their race. And just like with Mr. Higdon there’s simply no way to ever convince them to care. You can argue with them until you turn blue in the face, but it isn’t going to make any difference.
What can I say? Human nature is ugly. That’s the main reason that we are in demographic decline and our culture is a cesspool.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Jan 2010 at 7:01 pm #
The entire world is threatened with demographic decline due to a steady fall in birthrates. I certainly have done what I could to offset that decline and my completed family of five kids (all with mostly those ever desirable northwest European genes and a few central European genes) is more than double what is needed for demographic replacement. My late uncle and godfather, who was as far as I am from being race obsessive, fathered nine kids, of nortwest and central European ancestry, who have in turn so far procreated an average of 4 kids each of the same ancestry and they are still adding to their families.
I have often recommended that the race obsessives quit complaining about those of other races and procreate more kids. The usual response I get from this are whines about the impossibility of competing with immigrants who are willing to work for less and the importance of preserving the environment. Yes corrupted human nature can be ugly and the culture is a cesspool but “we” are not in demographic decline. You may be, JW, but I am not.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 4:08 pm #
Demographic decline is only a threat to those who don’t keep out immigrants. Only those moderns who relish the idea of a world without nationalities say such absurd things about only a declining population caring.
It’s very clear that you revel in the idea of blurring nationalities, the very thing Chesterton railed against. Chesterton was an Englishman, not a man of the world.
You say you’re a man of localism, but you have no nationalism! You’ve totally misunderstood the emotion. You’re a modern in denial seeking to create a nationless world without national conflict but somehow without the anarchy of a nationless world. We are not gods; we oughtn’t attempt such modern experiments. And while on paper such a world appears perfect, in reality it will only lead to conflict.
If terrible ethnic conflict breaks out in the US, it will be fully on the shoulders of those who’ve encouraged immigration, and not on the nationalists. Good boundaries make good neighbors, and anyone who has read Aristotle knows conflicts are likely between two groups living together and sharing a separate spirit, and ethnicity involves spirit in this sense.
-
Quotes from Chesterton:
Mr. Higdon,
you don’t actually love your hometown in the patriotic sense of honouring ancestors and tying in to the ancient lands your blood ancestors worked and built upon. Surely you couldn’t if in the same breath you revel in immigrants entering your community! No, you relish in the mixing and cosmopolitan blurring of boundaries. You’re a modern; a Tolstoyan. There’s nothing modern about race. Space ships, nuclear bombs, battle ships are modern; race is ancient. Anyone who’s read Plato cannot honestly say otherwise; anyone with a lick of common sense though wouldn’t need to read Plato to know this obvious truth. It is a modern lie that race is modern.
Loving one’s local community is a very racist thing full of exclusive
particularlities and divisions, of honouring one’s exclusive ancestors and
praising the unique distinction his little tribe has from the rest of the
world. That is localism; it is even more exclusive, more racist, than nationalism. What you espouse is cosmopolitan. You’ve said before you support mass immigration, and you seem to revel in race mixing. Why deny what you are? It’s very curious.
I can readily accept that you’re a modern like the other 95% of the US, but I find it a great mystery as to why you praise Chesterton, who stands in favour of ancient nations. If I go to Britain, it will be a religious like experience – a chance to visit the fatherland, home of my ancestors. I’m doubtful you’d feel the same. I have ancestral land in SC too, but it is only mere hundreds of years old. Only an egghead would dream of a localism where a Carolinian doesn’t love Britain. Eggheads readily grasp complicated bookish ideas, but they don’t seem to grasp reality.
The error, the great evil, of what’s called American nationalism is it is too
expansive and abstract – it melts other nations into its pot. That is the modern disease that makes what’s called American nationalism wrong, not ancient, exclusive ties to race.
-
You come across as a nice man who has likely raised a happy family in a modern society the best way he knew how, so I hope you can accept my attack on your views without taking it personally. If the past is any example, you’ll likely be fine with this criticism. And for whatever reason, you seem to honour me by reading my posts here and perhaps not reading Chesterton’s great work. I’m honoured, though we’ll both agree Chesterton is better worth reading.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 4:44 pm #
Even Chesterton refers to the
So, don’t accuse me of a false god for accepting that love of nation requires a sort of piety. It’s not a false god but an piety towards creation and thus the Creator.
Also note, it is not simply size but diversity too that makes patriotism to the Roman empire impossible. Patriotism, nationalism, localism – these reject diversity within. Those who’ve experienced true patriotism will understand.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 4:51 pm #
One last point, this is just what I wanted to say and not a mistake. I hope it’s noted. And again, this isn’t meant to be personal but rather a battle of ideas:
That’s naming a popular and very dangerous leftwing paleo sentiment I think.
A nationless world without national conflict but somehow without the anarchy of a nationless world.
If you listen at some paleos, that’s just what they espouse. It’s Marxism without the chaos.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 5:07 pm #
This isn’t to say immigration has never happened in the past, but there’s nothing conservative about it.
And it’s to be expected that a child born of a mixed marriage would be somewhat excluded from a patriotic community, an unsettling idea.
Immigration happens in the same way paintings crumble. Nothing lasts forever, but there’s no wrong in loving them and wishing them to. Love is not an ideology; it is not a modern ideology to love one’s people.
And DNA is simply a way to look at believed kinship. There’s nothing evil about reality; DNA is still poorly understood, but it’s surely not wrong to look at it for signs of ancestry.
It is though wrong to tamper with it, I believe, and perhaps to try to understand it and thus to lower man to that of soulless machine. I’m admittedly wary of those who wish to design their own little race, though perhaps the cosmopolitan spirit takes comfort in the idea since nationalism would then truly be extinguished for good. Without the tie to the Creator and to ancestors, there is no nationalism. Racism dies.
And it is entirely necessary for there to be a connection to the Creator for nationalism. Darwinian theories of propagating one’s unique happenstance DNA for the mere purpose of a competition of survival of the fittest is not nationalist. That looks at the means of natural maintenance of Creation (genetics degrade over time) and declares it an end.
The Darwinist is a modern; he is not a nationalist.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 5:45 pm #
Was it Calhoun who said something along the lines of patriotism deriving from vanity?
If so, I think that is a dangerous liberal misunderstanding of patriotism. Patriotism is piety; it is serving one’s duty to that one ought to serve. Family pride is similarly taking pride that those one is in charge of, one’s children, stand tall in their pious service.
Another motive of patriotism is of course attachment, service to that one loves merely out of love rather than piety. And that love is admiration of another thing’s greatness, not one’s mere individual own.
America’s heritage of classical liberalism is a tradition I do not honour. We can dance and proclaim it the fault of the Reformation, but it’s an evil despite its source. And it is not an inevitable product of the Reformation. If it is, someone needs to explain it to me, with clear arguments and without mysticism if possible.
Weaver on 10 Jan 2010 at 5:49 pm #
It’s very humbling to be an American and descend from such low heritage of classical liberalism. Thankfully we weren’t purely such, the aristocratic South especially.
If there’s vanity in patriotism, it’s vanity in striving for honour in service of one’s duty. We stand tall when we serve as we ought, and that is surely more tolerable than standing tall for mistaken individual greatness.
If Calhoun is correct, someone will have to explain that to me as well, or perhaps I’ve misunderstood him and need to go back.
Robert E. Lee understood patriotism; he understood duty:
Lee understood the South.
I wonder what it says about Southerners today who honour their ancestors while hiding and ignoring what they’ve said to us? Why do we even care what the Marxists say in judgment? They’ll not fully approve until we’ve ceased being Southerners. There is no other pleasing them, and we shouldn’t care what the barbarians think anyway.
Occidental Dissent » Blog Archive » Far Wrong on 12 Jan 2010 at 9:45 am #
[...] has commented on the Hitchens article at Conservative Heritage Times. Most of the paleos over there had a similar [...]
Criticism of The American Conservative’s Handling of Joseph Sobran’s Death | Conservative Heritage Times on 04 Oct 2010 at 11:50 pm #
[...] around the web of manner in which TAC handled the death of Joe Sobran – many asking in what direction is TAC [...]
Has The American Conservative Gone Liberal? | Conservative Heritage Times on 25 Jan 2012 at 11:24 pm #
[...] have been other dust ups between TAC and the paleo right as well. TAC was criticized in paleo circles for running a very PC preening rant against the British National Party by Peter Hitchens, the more [...]