Ron Unz, Unzism, and American Decline | Conservative Heritage Times

[Update: see article]

51 Comments »

51 Responses to “Ron Unz, Unzism, and American Decline”

Captainchaos on 26 Jan 2010 at 3:08 am #

Not to mention the article published in the Amerikwan CONservative written by Peter Hitchens (yes, brother of that other Hitchens) critical of the BNP. Of course you guys are aware that Ron Unz is a Jew, aren’t you? Of course in your world, I’m sure, that is merely a coincidence.
Burt on 26 Jan 2010 at 3:27 am #

I remember a prominent paleoconservative saying upon Ron Unz’s purchase of TAC: “yet another good publication just bit the dust.”
The Western Confucian on 26 Jan 2010 at 9:18 am #

Mr. Unz, Jew or not, is wrong about “Hispanic” (the term was invented by the Nixon Administration) crime, but right about bilingual education.

I work in the English-as-second-language field, so stand to benefit if bilingual education is eliminated, but conflict of interest aside, I disagree that with your second proposition that “[w]e should support bilingual education.” That “they will simplify and degrade the adopted language” is beyond the point.

When we talk about “bilingual education” we are talking about taxpayer-funded bilingual education. If legal immigrants want to start their own private schools in their own languages that is their business (like the “Hangul Schools” at Korean churches, which aim to provide supplemental language skills), but what were talking about here is public schooling for legal and illegal immigrants in languages other than English. I’d rather not pay that money in taxes in the first place.

Most legal immigrants I know from Asia want their kids growing up speaking English. Koreans continually find ways of sending their kids to our schools so they can learn English. Many Asian parents are proud their kids don’t know their “mother tongue.”
Bede on 26 Jan 2010 at 2:14 pm #

I agree with WC about the costs of bilingual education. We should not even have the classes be bilingual. Just let them learn everything in Spanish.
Weaver on 26 Jan 2010 at 2:42 pm #

Were they free to choose at the local level, many’d probably choose Spanish. End the Department of Education, and the problem’s solved.
RonL on 26 Jan 2010 at 4:25 pm #

Ron Unz may be Jewish, but there is nothing Jewish about his position. As Stienlight, Dan Stein, Auister and others have shown reducing immigration would be better for American and Jewish intersts.
Besides, The American Conservative has been fist and formost pro-isolationists and anti-Israel since its founding. Immigration has been a back burner or non-issue to them.
Weaver on 26 Jan 2010 at 5:35 pm #

Anti-Israel, how so? Opposing a senseless war and aid doesn’t make one anti-Israel.
RonL on 26 Jan 2010 at 5:51 pm #

“Anti-Israel, how so? Opposing a senseless war and aid doesn’t make one anti-Israel.”
Please go back and reread everything written by Scott “Jesus was a Palestinian” McConnell. Go reread Buchanan’s piece “Cui Buono”. Take a look at the persistent protection of Iran’s nuclear program. Their support for all nationalist parties, except those in Israel.

I don’t remember any opposition to aid to Egypt or other Arab states, so Israel is being singled out. If they opposed aid in general, I’d support that. Instead they support aid for Hamas.
And do you really want me to start with their coverage of issues like the “wall” or the Gaza and Lebanon wars.
Burt on 26 Jan 2010 at 6:34 pm #

An email exchange between Ron Unz and Peter Brimelow:

[Ron Unz:]

Peter, I’ve gotten some quite interesting responses to my American Enterprise piece, which raised certain thoughts in my mind.
Given the fact that you and I very strongly agree on certain issues and very strongly disagree on other issues, I’ve become curious regarding the relative weights of your views. If, say, there were a measure on the ballot which would

(1) completely outlaw current ethnic affirmative action;
(2) completely get rid of bilingual education; but
(3) freeze into law current (relatively) high levels of immigration, maintaining the current ethnic/skills mix,

…would you vote for or against such a measure?

For the sake of this thought experiment, you can assume that affirmative action and bilingual education really would permanently disappear, while immigration really would permanently remain as currently.
And how do you think most of your fellow-travelers would react to this same mixture?

Best, Ron

[Peter Brimelow replies:]

Dear Ron: sorry about delay.

First, I really must stipulate that I don’t believe any such deal could be struck, nor do I believe that, even if struck, it could be sustained. These tendencies flow inexorably from social diversity a.k.a. division. They are part of the reason one is forced to wonder if a diverse society can be truly free.
Second, of course I would vote No. For at least two reasons:

a] Why should public policy second-guess the American people on population size? Why should the population be 400-500 million in 2050, whereas absent immigration it would only be 250-270 million? It’s not a matter of projecting national power: what matters there is quality not quantity, and anyway much of the current inflow is unmistakably forming a new underclass. We could reorient to more skilled immigrants, but you’re not proposing that. At the very least, this is an amenity issue. California will no longer be the Golden State: it will be the Golden Subdivision.

b] Why do you want to drown the American nation – the historic ethnocultural community – as it had evolved in 1965? This is clearly what you want to do, since you specify that the current “ethnic” mix, 90% non-traditional, must be unchanged. Maybe you’ve got a good reason. But what is it?

I’d guess my “fellow-travelers” would reject your deal too. How about your fellow subversives?

Best, Peter

[Ron Unz replies:] Thanks…I was curious…

http://www.vdare.com/letters/ron_unz_question_&_answer.htm
Weaver on 26 Jan 2010 at 6:50 pm #

Ron,

The wars involving America are the majority of what you just said, though yea there’s more to it.

The desire for Iran to have nukes isn’t so it can nuke Israel but perhaps so America and Israel won’t be able to continue to meddle with it. Once a country has nukes, it has enough power to scare off threats. Lacking a weak Iran, perhaps America would go home. I don’t personally know where to stand on nukes and Iran other than I don’t think it’s worth going to war over.

Some libertarians who truly do oppose Israel will call for its end, but then they want the same for America.

AmCon mag is surely not pro-most nationalist parties. Only some of the most conservative writers are likely so. AmCon mag isn’t as conservative as you seem to believe.

Instead they support aid for Hamas.
And do you really want me to start with their coverage of issues like the “wall” or the Gaza and Lebanon wars.

I’m doubtful there’s any support for Hamas in there, unless it’s motivated as against Israeli aggressions (white phosphorus was too much) or else from libertarian anti-nationalism.

I’d be interested in hearing your take on Lebanon. It seemed very much like unnecessary Israeli aggression to me.
Weaver on 26 Jan 2010 at 10:25 pm #

The mainstream of the US today is so far left that moderates are seen as “far right”. When a libertarian writes for AmCon mag, he can’t be assumed a supporter of nationalist parties.

-

And Israel’s aggression doesn’t make it popular. You can’t expect nationalists who are on the defensive to support an aggressive nationalism, even if some (not all) of it is justifiable. I’m not referring to the settlements but to the wars and recently the threats at Iran. Likud is more than nationalist; it’s nuts.

Just because one’s on the Israeli team doesn’t mean one has to support every action. Sometimes constructive criticism is true support.
Captainchaos on 27 Jan 2010 at 4:04 am #

I’m one to cut to the quick of the matter, Ronnie. So here it is: [removed by editors] the White race is most assuredly in a fight for its survival.

From editors: CC, Stop threadjacking! This thread is not about the Holocaust!
PK on 27 Jan 2010 at 5:04 am #

“California will no longer be the Golden State: it will be the Golden Subdivision.”

An excellent article about this, from Alex Alexiev.

“One myth is that because America is a country of immigrants and has successfully absorbed waves of immigration in the past, it can absorb this wave. But the argument neglects two key differences between past waves and the current influx. First, the immigrant population is more than double today what it was following the most massive previous immigration wave (that of the late 19th century). Second, and much more important, as scholars from the Manhattan Institute have shown, earlier immigrants were much more likely to bring with them useful skills. Some Hispanic immigrants certainly do integrate, but most do not. Research has shown that even after 20 years in the country, most illegal aliens (the overwhelming majority of whom are Hispanic) and their children remain poor, unskilled, and culturally isolated they constitute a new permanent underclass.

Perhaps the most disingenuous myth about illegal immigrants is that they do not impose any cost on society. The reality is that even those who work and half do not, according to the Pew Hispanic Center cannot subsist on the wages they receive and depend on public assistance to a large degree. Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion half the state’s budget deficit.

The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens as existing statutes demand and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants. This would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries. Instead, with President Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, an amnesty for the country’s 13 million illegal immigrants may be soon to come.

Milton Friedman once said that unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix. Must we wait until California catches up with Mexico to realize how right he was?”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023
Weaver on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:11 am #

Stop f** us over, that’s really all we ask.

CC,

Ron’s not a supporter of mass immigration & cultural Marxism in the US, though he and I don’t seem to connect on Israel. It could well be that I don’t understand fully what’s going on there…

I can grasp the need for settlments and a wall to carve out a nation, but I can’t grasp the warring.
JW on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:46 am #

Nice response to Ron Unz’s article. I had no idea that the publisher of The American Conservative was a neo-liberal. I still thought that The American Conservative was one of the leading magazines of the paleoconservative movement. But I see now that that is probably no longer the case.

I agree with Bede that we shouldn’t support teaching illegal immigrants English. For one thing, as Bede mentions, they will simplify and degrade our language. But in addition to that teaching them English will also make assimilation easier as well. Any proponent of the idea that America is a white nation should view assimilation as a bad thing.
Weaver on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:49 am #

Ron,

The point of nationalists working together is to resist globalism, not to help each other attack other nations… Israel’s expanding. It isn’t defending itself from globalism.

Israel’s seeking to take a cosmopolitan people and remake them into a nation-state. I find that goal laudable, though I of course don’t like that where one nation springs up another has to give way. It’s having to displace the natives.

I’m all for Israel resisting outside immigration at least, but that’s about the extent of my support. I wouldn’t favour a trade blockade over Israel’s refusal to, say, import Haiti.

-

And I’ll prob stay on topic from now on.
Bede on 27 Jan 2010 at 3:07 pm #

Christopher Roach on Unz:

http://mansizedtarget.com/2010/01/27/et-tu-amcon/
Patroon on 27 Jan 2010 at 7:08 pm #

TAC does not exist in a vacumn. It exists because Ron Unz pays for it, just like every other opinion magazine or online publication.

So yes, this does affect its views on immigration. If you don’t like it, you are free to read other publications or websites. VDARE.com awaits your pageviews.

However, TAC also publishes Pat Buchanan’s columns. To my knowledge his views on immigration have not changed. Some publishers would not be so charitable. There are also many other articles in TAC that many can agree with an are also thought provoking compared to the “GO TEAM!” mentality that covers most of opinion journalism, especially on the Right.

It also should be pointed out we here at CHT have had our own issues with posters who think we’re the paleo branch of Stormfront. Sorry to disappoint you but that’s not going to happen. It’s one thing to preserve one’s culture and ethno-nation, it’s another to pine for paganistic socialism. We’re not going in that direction either.
Bede on 27 Jan 2010 at 7:08 pm #

Patroon,

They run Buchanan’s op-ed pieces, but does he still actually write for the magazine? See this.

To TAC’s credit, they still publish Steve Sailer.

I hope that TAC will allow someone like Peter Brimelow to write a rebuttal to Unz’s piece.
Reginald on 27 Jan 2010 at 7:16 pm #

Much like a magician sawing a lady in half, Ron Unz and Razib Khan have created an illusion by making it so we only see a misrepresentative part of what is actually there.

The basic issue is that because Hispanics are much more likely to be in the Country Illegally, an offense that falls under the purview of Federal Law Enforcement, they are far more likely to have the crimes they commit go to a Federal Court.

And this applies even for those of their crimes that aren’t immigration related.

So often, an Illegal Immigrant will only be taken into custody by the Feds because he committed a Violent or Drug Related Crime, as opposed to being taken in by the Feds just because he was in the Country illegally.

So guess what Unz does in his study?

He deliberately excludes people incarcerated for Crimes they were convicted of in Federal Court, instead only looking at people incarcerated for Crimes they were convicted of in State Courts.

Thus he rejects the far more valid technique used in The Color of Crime, which involved combining those convicted in State Court with those convicted in Federal Court to get a comprehensive and unbiased sample.

For this reason the American Conservative Article can be described as nothing more than a damned lie, carefully designed to dupe the gullible and weak minded.

There is not a single particle of validity in the Unz Study, it is nothing less than a perversion of Statistics, and it demonstrates with sickening clarity how motivated Anti-Whites can be in their quest to create something that looks reality based, but is in fact no such thing.

The Color of Crime found that in the overall prison population in 2001, Hispanics were overrepresented relative to Whites by +190%.

Ron Unz found that in the State prison population in 2005, Hispanics were overrepresented relative to Whites by only +80%.

The reason for the disparity is that Ron Unz’s sample only looked at a part of the prison population that is disproportionately Non-Hispanic. It isn’t that for some bizarre reason there was a massive decline in the Hispanic Crime Rate.

Really, you don’t have to be very smart to see that if you have two studies saying very different things, you should believe the study based on a comprehensive and representative sample.

In other words, you should believe The Color of Crime, and its finding that Hispanics are nearly 3 times as Crime Prone as Whites, while discarding Unz’s study into the trash bin like the worthless piece of garbage that it is.
RonL on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:52 pm #

Weaver,

“The desire for Iran to have nukes isn’t so it can nuke Israel but perhaps so America and Israel won’t be able to continue to meddle with it. Once a country has nukes, it has enough power to scare off threats. Lacking a weak Iran, perhaps America would go home. I don’t personally know where to stand on nukes and Iran other than I don’t think it’s worth going to war over.”

That’s backwards you know. We don’t randomly attack every country or Islamic one. It is their concurrent support for terrorism including that aimed at US servicemen, calls for the destruction of the US and Israel, and building of nukes that has made them a target. We dopn’t screw with Syria, because it is not a threat, not because it is weak.

Weaver:

“I’m doubtful there’s any support for Hamas in there, unless it’s motivated as against Israeli aggressions (white phosphorus was too much) or else from libertarian anti-nationalism.

Please see the 2/27/2006 edition
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/feb/27/00009/
“The administration’s primary goal should be to encourage Hamas, using all the means at its disposal, to maintain the ceasefire. Both because of our commitment to the security of Israel and our opposition to the use of terrorism, the United States cannot be expected to deal with a Hamas that either perpetrates or supports terror. At the same time, we do not want to come down so hard on Hamas—by cutting off all aid to the Palestinian people, for instance—that we push them into an even tighter embrace by Iran and Syria. People in Israel or the United States who argue for policies that would increase Palestinian suffering as a means of paying them back for voting Hamas will only make terrorism, and a renewed intifada, not only possible but likely.”

Or here we have Pat Buchannan calling for the US to aid Hamas
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48605

“I’d be interested in hearing your take on Lebanon. It seemed very much like unnecessary Israeli aggression to me.”
Hizbullah terrorists crossed into Israel and kidnapped an Israeli. They also started to shell Israeli farms. Israel responded by by first targetting artillery and then with a limited invasion. What would you have Israeli do?

Weaver
“The point of nationalists working together is to resist globalism, not to help each other attack other nations… Israel’s expanding. It isn’t defending itself from globalism.”
Expanding? Assuming that you were born after 1971, It has been shrinking for your entire life!
It has given up the Sinai for a cold-peace, and Gaza for war. Israel gave up territory to Jordan to formalize peace with the Hashemite ruling 3/4 of “Palestine”.
But for Syrian support for Hizbullah and new claims beyond the 1949 ceasefire line into the Galilee/Lake Tiberias, Israel might have given up the Golan Heights.
Aside from 2 political parties (National Union and Jewish Home) with 7 of 120 seats, all political parties agree, in principle, in trading land for peace. The issues are what parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank are negotiable and whether the Pa needs to abide by past agreements before beeing given more of the West Bank.

“Israel’s seeking to take a cosmopolitan people and remake them into a nation-state. I find that goal laudable, though I of course don’t like that where one nation springs up another has to give way. It’s having to displace the natives.”
Not as much as they claim. 3/4 of Palestine was set aside exclusively for the Arabs in the in 1922, in what is now Jordan. Between 1890 and 1946, more Arabs than Jews migrated, and this is not even counting the resettlement of Circassians from Russia and Muslims Slavs and Albanians by the Ottomans. Most “Palestinians” have no historic ties to the land. They are used as pawns by the Arab states to destroy Israel.
RonL on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:57 pm #

CaptainChaos,
To be fair, should I drop by IQ by a standard deviation when dealing with you?
Seriously, though taking the side of the Arabs, who are also invading Europe, because you are angry at Jews is treason against the white race.

“Stop fucking us over, that’s really all we ask. C’mon man, is that too much to ask? Seriously.”
I’m all for expelling illegals and anchor babies, and reducing legal migration. I would expell every non-indegenous Muslim from Europe if i could. The court Jew sof media-supported Jewish organizations ignore or attack Jews with these or far less extreme positions.
Captainchaos on 28 Jan 2010 at 12:21 am #

But wait, I thought the topic of this thread was the piece published in The American Conservative regarding Hispanic immigration to America, not the demographic and territorial history of the Israeli state. I’ll await the censorious chopping of RonL’s post with patience, though certainly not with bated breath. I suppose it would be different in my own case if only I would confine myself to discussing where to place the deck chairs, instead of why the ship is sinking, or even that it is sinking. Hopefully those that post here will at least have the good taste NEVER to complain of de facto censorship by the MSM in its refusal to grant coverage or voice to certain issues in their attempt to MANAGE the behavior of the populace via the shaping of their mental lives, that is, unless, hypocrisy is no longer regarded as shameful.
Weaver on 28 Jan 2010 at 4:12 pm #

CC,

just so you know no one here supports conquest of N.A., secretly or otherwise.
Weaver on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:59 pm #

CC,

existence doesn’t = conquest of N.A.

Ron was involved at a conservative group in Columbia that did more than merely defend Israel. He’s possibly part of a rising group of Jews who’ll depart from the last century’s tradition of Jewish leftism. Perhaps something will come from that, perhaps not.

Obviously he’s biased on Israel… I’m biased on the South.

And let it be said, certainly with the stakes this high

Get off your high horse…
Captainchaos on 29 Jan 2010 at 3:42 am #

Weaver,

I know as I have seen with my own eyes that most Jews are also lemmings and none too bright. So it’s usually never personal with me, but the on average psychological characteristics of Jews generally that make them troublesome,and the interaction of those at the group level, you cannot deny. Just what is the more humane course, intervening to interrupt the natural rhythms of the Jewish collective life, or separation? Neither courtesy would they dream of paying us on their own (not to interfere with us, and failing that, bugger off), btw, not one chance in hell. But that’s all right, it would only be, what, the umpteenth time they were expected from a country?
seadragonconquerer on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:57 am #

That’s too bad about ACM. How did Ron Unz get hold of it? I mean, who is the (anglo-saxon) twit that sold it to him? And why does this keep happening with one piece of “conservative” media after another?
Weaver on 29 Jan 2010 at 7:30 pm #

What they do amongst their own people, in fact what becomes of them, I do not give two damns about. That is their problem, I want a divorce.

Common interest between the two increasingly exists even if the two are conflicting atm.

Sure, the overlap isn’t 100%, but it’s there.

I don’t pretend to be a politics wiz, but I don’t currently see a benefit to demonising Jews as you do.

And recently a TOQ article on Francis demonstrates one reason why: Francis / Burnham’s managerial critiques are thrown out the window in favour of “blame the Jews”.
JW on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:01 pm #

“And recently a TOQ article on Francis demonstrates one reason why: Francis / Burnham’s managerial critiques are thrown out the window in favor of “blame the Jews”.”

That article was terrible. But I’ve never viewed Edmund Connelly as someone worth listening to.

But he did make one interesting point in that article, however, when he said this:

“(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)”

http://www.toqonline.com/2010/01/sam-francis-on-the-jewish-question/

Did Sam Francis ever address why the managerial revolution hasn’t yet caused Japan and some other Asian nations to embrace mass immigration?
Matt Weber on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:07 pm #

With Amcon now championing Mexican immigration (or more accurately having no focus at all beyond hating the mainstream conservatives), Chronicles lapsed into complete ennui, and Takimag full of gibberish, what is the future for the paleoconservatives?
Filmer on 30 Jan 2010 at 12:26 am #

I haven’t written off the three magazines/websites you mention, but the future of paleoconservatism is here at CHT.
Weaver on 30 Jan 2010 at 4:58 am #

JW,

I don’t recall him addressing East Asia. However, you have ASEAN.

And an arch-paleo might argue that Korea, Japan, and China have centralised into nation states and should be expected to internationalise next. China’s looking at empire.

The Koreans and Chinese are still mad at the Japanese over WWII. And Japan is mad at the US. That opposition probably bolsters nationalism and prevents those from combining.

Korea is very traditional (and racist lol) still, but Japan has slowly become more liberal it seems to me (though still very racist). Over time all 3 seem to be adopting more liberal views on sex. And I’m a believer that it’s all related. Japan still holds regional divisions though, and I think that’s a bulwark against singular nationalism.

That’s not to say I oppose nationalism, but I think it needs to exist within a hierarchy, with ties existing below the nation. Community and national ties though get in the way of managerial efficiency.

I’m not an expert on Japan. I learn about it from online anime / manga and other cultural sites on occasion.

-

NS Germany too was a managerial state.

In Franco’s managerial Spain we saw attempts at melting the (white) Canary Islander and Basque nationalities down into Spanish. And some seem to be dreaming in the US of melting us all down into a Latin nationality.

Interchangeable cogs are highly efficient.

-

Jews are relevant to the managerial state in the US. I just don’t think the theory should be tossed out like that. The managerial state is problematic, and Francis did truly believe that.
Weaver on 30 Jan 2010 at 5:01 am #

I mean I talk with Japanese and Koreans at online sites. The only manga / anime I follow regularly atm is Naruto, though I’ve read / watched a few others.

Ah, I follow it partly for pleasure, but I’m interested in possibly using it or learning from it for culture war use.
Captainchaos on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:59 pm #

Thanks for deleting that last post of mine! (sarcasm)

What’s that? Yeah, more drivel recited with Pavlovian faithfulness about the “managerial state.” Not the survival of the race, not doing what must be done to see to it that the race survives, as always, the larger concern, placed front and center, is big gubmint. Pardon me while I laugh. (Yes, I’m laughing now.) Why is it that every time things get bogged down in the muck of petty talking points that I have to personally come and put a boot in contact with rear ends? A mystery too deep for any one of us to fathom.

As you were (no, not really).
More on Ron Unz’s Pro-Immigration Article – Hispanic Gangs | Conservative Heritage Times on 31 Jan 2010 at 2:46 am #

[...] Ron Unz, owner of The American Conservative and author of a recent article in favor of Mexican immigration (titled “His-Panic” copying the title of Geraldo [...]
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 5:27 am #

CC,

You clearly do not grasp the managerial state. You write:

placed front and center, is big gubmint.

Not the survival of the race

Managerial = death of race. Big business & big government (both run by managers of strangers and others’ property) are the managerial state.

This is not a petty talking point. It’s the cutting edge explanation for our society’s decline. It’s simple, but most of the theories out there start simply. I’m not going to do it justice by speaking on merely what I recall from Francis, and it would be wonderful if someone (perhaps I) put up a study guide. That wouldn’t be too difficult at all, though I’d need to gather all the relevant material to do him justice – actually all I lack I think is one or two articles that aren’t available online from TOQ… and maybe some of his speeches from Chronicles (I have the articles).

-

It’s nice hearing from you and seeing your ideas mature, but with all due respect you ought to give Bede a chance to go after Unz. And I acknowledge that you’re smart guy.
JW on 31 Jan 2010 at 5:36 am #

Weaver,

I guess Sam Francis didn’t have to address East Asia specifically then. As long as he wasn’t trying to argue that the managerial state always leads to cultural and demographic decline then the current resistance by Japan and some other Asian nations to mass immigration doesn’t pose any problems to his theories. A relevant quote from Sam Francis:

“If we could somehow take out the ideology, change the minds of those who control the state, and convert them into paleo-conservatives, the state apparatus itself would be neutral. What really animates its drive toward a totalitarian conquest and reconfiguration of society and the human mind itself comes from the ideology that the masters of the managerial state have adopted, a force that is entirely extraneous and largely accidental to the structure by which they exercise power.”

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol3no2/sf-gottfrieda.html

Also, according to Wikipedia:

“Francis, unlike some other paleocons, argued that the existence of managers alone is harmless. Rather, the multiculturalist ideology they adopted drives it toward tyranny. He said that “white, Christian, male-oriented, bourgeois values and institutions” are the principal restraints of managerial power, which this class seeks to undermine.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#The_managerial_revolution

But I’m not even sure that East Asian resistance to mass immigration will hold up for all that much longer anyway. Check out what Wikipedia says about Japan:

“According to Japanese immigration centre, the number of foreign residents in Japan has been steadily increased, and the number of foreign residents (excluding illegal immigrants and short-term visitors such as foreign nationals staying less than 90 days in Japan) were more than 2.2 million people in 2008.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Immigration
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 5:53 am #

If we could somehow take out the ideology, change the minds of those who control the state, and convert them into paleo-conservatives, the state apparatus itself would be neutral.

Well there you go. It sounds like I was misrepresenting Francis.

I do recall him saying that in the article though – maybe I’m guilty of pushing my views under Francis’s image.

That’s probably related to his Eurocentrism btw.

But I’m not even sure that East Asian resistance to mass immigration will hold up for all that much longer anyway.

That’s a real shame.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 6:01 am #

Francis writes here:

G. K. Chesterton, like his friend Hilaire Belloc, is today best known as a polemicist for Roman Catholicism, but both writers were also prominent in their day as social critics, especially of modern capitalism. Unlike the socialist left, they and their followers defended an economic system known as “distributism,” which promised a third way between the path of Marx on the left and von Mises on the right. Today, despite the quite dated references in much of their work on this subject, what they had to say is more relevant than ever, as what is called capitalism (which includes a good deal of socialism) lurches across the globe, wiping out traditional cultures, national boundaries, and racial and ethnic identities.

Distributism, unlike socialism, champions private property, but, unlike capitalism, it also rejects the unlimited accumulation of wealth and the centralization of economic power that attends it. The ideal for distributists is an economy in which the small firm (ideally a shop selling products its owners manufacture themselves) or farm owned and operated by the same persons is prevalent—the kind of peasant economy that prevailed in many medieval settings and has been systematically obliterated by the rise of modern capitalism and its twin brother, the modern centralized state.

The result is cultural and economic (as well as racial) dispossession of the bulk of the population, which is reduced to what is really a kind of proletarian status. Workers, whether in mass factories or mass offices, may retain a good deal of material affluence, but they have entirely lost their independence as they become locked into “career paths” working for giant, anonymous organizations often known only by a set of meaningless letters or fabricated acronyms (“Exxon,” “CVS,” “IBM,” “Amoco,” “Verizon,” “Cingular,” etc.). They thereby lose any ability to mount even the simplest resistance to whatever the masters of the state and the mass economy demand of them in either thought or action, and since the bureaucratized “culture” permeates their minds, any inclination to resist soon vanishes.

This process of proletarianization goes far to explain why virtually no one today dares to question those subjects the system does not want questioned or even discussed, and the end result of proletarianization, of course, is slavery— the “Servile State” that Belloc discussed in another book, the “Friendly Fascism” of more recent writers.
Captainchaos on 31 Jan 2010 at 10:10 am #

Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious, JW. Just another way of saying really, and according to the same logic, it ain’t guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people. Of course the guns clique is somewhat less than honest, in that it is MUCH EASIER to kill people, and more of them quickly if you are packing. And, despite the best intentions of masturbatory Liddite fantasies, that genie ain’t going back in that bottle. If you show up to a fight and the other guy has a gun and you don’t, best get one, or that means your ass. As Rousseau said, “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” One problem though, the lemmings apparently love their chains. And what is more likely, that the lemmings will cast them off or swing them to bludgeon their enemies? And, as stated above, best have some heavy duty metal to swing, because you know the next guy will.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 4:30 pm #

“Luddite fantasies”

I’m no Luddite. It’s a matter of molding the society into something that works and won’t blow up in your face.

Fools who think history is a straight line march “forward” are too simple minded to be listened to.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 4:42 pm #

One quote by Francis about supporting the managerial state doesn’t collapse the theory though.

There’s more to Francis – I’ve called for temporarily using the managerial state too, in order to build a better system. I no longer think that’s likely now though (now I lean towards secession). Temporary usage is possible, certainly. The state’s there, and it could be used. Calls for dismantling the state alone are obviously too simple-minded – never have I intended for such a one dimensional solution. This is not a libertarian or otherwise ideological site.

I simply don’t have time to look up Francis right now, so my intent with the previous comment is for JW to read it on his own and decide for himself. I understand the theory enough to make use of it myself, but I don’t remember it fully enough to say just where Francis stood himself. My interest has primarily been how it’s useful to me, and not where Francis stood.

Those who want to believe that our ancestors have nothing to teach us, that there is nothing better than what developed after capitalism, should be highly suspect as true nationalists. The true nationalist is proud of where he comes and honours his ancestors, and doesn’t mind learning from them. It’s not Luddite to listen to them; it’s nationalist.
Captainchaos on 31 Jan 2010 at 5:42 pm #

The managerial state can be used to blend seamlessly the ethnically homogeneous urban centers, small towns, an agrarian countryside and pristine wilderness. To make that happen in a sustainable fashion it must be managed. Do you get that? It is what every fascist program worth its salt has always included. The East was to be peppered by rugged German farmers who would be marinated in the conditions of rustic autonomy within their sphere, the kind that unto the ancient Romans we have always known develops character. There were to be garrisons on the Urals with each SS man expected to lay down the lives of at least two or three of his sons with one left over to carry on the family line for the protection of Europe and the Fatherland. Do not condescend to me when you know not of what you speak and in the process slander what could have been and still could be the absolute salvation – in every sense – of our race.
Captainchaos on 31 Jan 2010 at 5:54 pm #

Also, an SS man was expected to do his duty even if before no witness but himself, for love of the Fatherland, for love of his people – not because there was a Jewish commissar with a red star on his cap standing behind him with a gun. The Wehrmacht eschewed the use of ideological officers as enforcers. The moral chasm between the hideous monstrosity that was Judeo-Bolshevism and National Socialism is unbridgeable. But it is better to shrink from the truth in order to conform to Jewish lies that have captured the minds of our people than to reclaim our White manhood and the truth about ourselves, now isn’t it? If that what you, if that what those that blog here are committed to doing, then your manhood is forfeit.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm #

To make that happen in a sustainable fashion it must be managed. Do you get that?

The sort of managing you speak of would lead to ruin. It might be a great glorious ruin with flags unfurled and mighty guns blazing… but it wouldn’t endure 100 years. Rooted communities endure; a decentralised system of communities, extended families, and nations is needed.

With each empire nations are gobbled up and traditions lost. No empire long endures, so it’s all for naught.

You’d said NS ideology was needed to resist Russian communism, but the world is very different today. Those stuck in the past, fighting past wars and serving outdated ideologies, are destined to be left in the dust. Your views remind of that Latin Imperium group that’d accomplish nothing but the final blow to Europe. It’s right to honour ancestors, but we must learn from many historical phases and then apply the whole to the current situation.

The current need is for distributism and rooted communities and nations. The A3P party seems to embrace Third Position economics, and that’s essentially the same thing. Critics blur it together with your views of “fascism”, but clearly there’s a vast difference.

Anyway, there’s no sense in me trying to push my views. What’ll be productive is for me to post the great thinkers of the distributists, Southern agrarians, Machiavellians, third position, and comments on the managerial state – and letting readers decide from those.
JW on 01 Feb 2010 at 5:10 am #

Weaver,

After reading the article “Men against Leviathan” that you link to it appears to me that Sam Francis might very well have believed that the managerial state itself causes cultural and demographic dispossession. This would contradict the quote I got from Wikipedia which said that Francis believed that the existence of managers alone was harmless and that what really made the managerial state problematic was the ideology that it adopted.

You seem to have read quite a bit of Francis’ writings about the managerial state, Weaver. From what you’ve read do you think that Francis believed that the managerial state was inherently harmful itself or do you think that he believed that it was harmful only because of the ideology that it adopted? I’ll take your word over Wikipedia’s.
Weaver on 01 Feb 2010 at 9:30 pm #

Off-hand, I suspect it’s as you’d cited: he thought the managerial state could be used. He did oppose secession (1998) and proposed Eurocentrism (1995). But, there’s greater depth to his thinking than merely that – he’d have been open to other ideas I’m sure.

Francis probably then viewed the managerial state as something like a tool that could be used, possibly by a Middle American elite. He was a “Machiavellian” after all.

But I don’t personally like the tool. For me it shouldn’t be used except when absolutely necessary. It’s too dangerous to the user.

-

I’ll try to post something a little later on the main page. Apologies for any confusion I’ve caused – I’m hurried atm, and it’s been years since I’ve read anything by Francis. For the Machiavellian, politics is a battle of elites. The managerial elite is made up of those with the right skill set.
Weaver on 02 Feb 2010 at 4:16 am #

If you’re defending your forest from men with axes, you won’t necessarily use axes to defend it.

You might go after their supply line or contact the media… or you might grab an axe and chase them off. But while axes are very good for tearing down a forest, they’re not ideal for defending one.
Weaver on 02 Feb 2010 at 4:18 am #

A Middle American Radical elite’s state wouldn’t necessarily look the same as a white / Jewish cosmopolitan elite’s state.

Even if the two would be managerial, there’d likely be differences.
JW on 02 Feb 2010 at 5:01 am #

Thanks for your response.

I hope that you do decide to post more material on the managerial state on the front page. (Your idea of putting up a study guide on the subject sounds really good to me.) It’s a really interesting subject that I would like to learn a lot more about (and I’m sure others would as well). At present I’ve only sort of scratched the surface of Sam Francis’ views on the managerial state. However, I definitely find a lot of merit to his theory.

I also look forward to reading your promised blog posts about the distributists, Southern Agrarians, Machiavellians, and Third Position. In particular I would like to learn more about distributism. That TOQ article “Men against Leviathan” that you linked to got me interested in it. I’ve known for a while that Sam Francis was critical of capitalism. But I didn’t know that he was a proponent of distributism. It truly is a shame that TOQ only allows subscribers to read that article in its entirety. I would’ve really liked to have been able to read the whole thing.
Neoliberal Ron Unz’s Legerdemain | Conservative Heritage Times on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:30 pm #

[...] open-borders-advocate Ron Unz’s recent article in TAC downplaying mestizo crime, the Statsaholic has a new post [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Conservative Heritage Times

51 Responses to “Ron Unz, Unzism, and American Decline”

Leave a Reply

Search

Categories

Monthly

Pages