The Acceptable Enemy by James Lawrence
A Chinese perspective on the problem of White pride
I suspect most, if not all, of what he says about Chinese nationalism is true.
1 hour ago
To be a republic in the classical Aristotelian one has to have self-government in what ever form that may be; the rule of law and a demographic and territorial scale in which common traditions, customs and habits can determine the common good as far as culture or social order is concerned.
Self-government does not mean even representative government in the sense that representatives are elected by any popular means and certainly not democracy. It means that the polity expresses the traditions, customs and habits lived out by real people in a real place, whatever the mechanism of that expression. To govern against the lived out customs and habits in a real place is to be a tyrant, whether one is a dictator or a democratic majority.
The rule of law does not mean a strict adherence to some “due process” and the statutory laws from which it springs; it rather means that statutory law, however, it is made is in harmony with the prevailing traditions, customs and habits of the social order. Thus, Creon is a tyrant when he refuses to allow Antigone the tradition duty of burying, in her case, Polynices. Anglo-Saxon jury nullification is predicated on an awareness of traditions, customs and habits, embedded and lived out in the people, with which even the king’s law can be nullified.
There is little chance of there being commonly held traditions, customs and habits which define the common good, the expectations of polity and the rule of law if a given territory is too large or if the population is too large.
Now, one can can an aardvark an ant; or one can call an abstract corporation with a monopoly on coercion, with the ability to define the limits of its own power and with the impetus of a power will, be that one of a dictator or a democratic majority, ruling a massive territory with millions of people a republic; however, but an ant “ain’t” an aardvark; and a Hobbesian state “ain’t” a republic. At least the old Soviet Union was less disingenuous than Mao’s China. The Soviets at least made a pretense in that they named their Hobbesian state the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics whereas Mao’ named his The People Republic of China.
We were once, before Lincoln and the Republicans “these United States,” a union of constitutionally federated republics. Today, we are a Hobbesian state, consolidated and centralized. Our President, in a post-election speech spoke of “this colony,” in the singular, gaining its independence from Great Britain. Once there were thirteen colonies and King George, in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, named each of them. He did not make peace with the American people in the aggregate, with the Continental Congress, with the so-called “Founding Fathers” or with some overarching government. He made peace with thirteen unique and sovereign republics.
But clearly something has changed. Hitchens is hardly practising class war these days, and the Mail has never exactly been hospitable to the practitioners of revolution. He explains: “During my life, the establishment that I imagined I was fighting in the late 1960s and early 1970s was already dying - in fact it was really already a living corpse.”
For Hitchens, the 20th century has been the story of the death of the old British establishment - indeed, of Britain itself - and its replacement by a new, more liberal elite. His writing is shot through with the theme of moral decline. His new book, though it concerns mostly drugs, includes a chapter sternly entitled ‘The Demoralisation of Britain’ and from the earliest pages he thunders that the worship of a new hedonistic creed, the lamentable trilogy of sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, is responsible for many contemporary social ills.
“What all this is really about is the collapse of Protestant Christianity as the dominant system of thought and belief in modern England over the course of a century”, he elaborates, dating the start of the rot at the beginning of the First World War. “In many cases people have found the constraints and what they would call the repressions of Protestant Christianity irksome, and taken the opportunity to throw them off in many parts of life.”
I shall be content to use it, here, in a basic etymological sense as that which belongs to us (proprius is a Latin adjective meaning one's own), but not (even though a case could be made for such usage) including our physical or mental attributes.
Property, as Aristotle observed, is natural because it is essential to human functioning and thriving. We have to eat and shield ourselves from the elements, hunt animals with weapons and grow food with implements. I am going to postpone an extended discussion of property until later because I do not wish to lose the thread of this albeit simple argument.
Property is universal in human societies and claims to the otherwise, put forward by Marxist and feminist anthropologists, can only hold up if we insist that property be defined in Anglo-American terms. It is true that in a tropical climate a hunter-gatherer people needs little property: privileged access to watering holes, spears to hunt with, perhaps baskets to store the nuts and berries our women gather, but anything a man makes or improves or finds can be (though it is not always) property, even if he is expected to share its use with his relatives.
Traditionalists and radicals alike have deep reservations about the bureaucratization, rationalization, and consumerism of American life, and lament the damage such forces are doing to local communities and to families. But while these groups formulate very similar critiques of the current order, they arrive at those crituques by very different intellectual paths. I wonder if that will always prevent them from making common cause with one another
It is AMAZING how women in some dirt-poor village in Mexico or Honduras, or some poor town in Eastern Europe, are acutely aware of the fact that their fertility and their ability to attract interest from quality men will decline quickly after a certain age, yet women in the USA are “shocked.” The word “amazing” is overused, but in this case it’s accurate: this state of affairs would be enough to amaze a rational, neutral observer. Women whose families have spent hundred of thousands of dollars to educate them at the best schools, women who have been raised so carefully and with such constant attention, are more ignorant about basic biological facts concerning the human body THAN WOMEN WHO ARE RAISED WITHOUT ELECTRICITY OR RUNNING WATER.
At the time, Hanna Rosin noted that what these men did was "deeper" than chivalry. It was heroic. I agree. But heroism and chivalry share a basic feature in common—the recognition, a transcendent one, that there is something greater than the self worth protecting, and that there is something greater than the self worth sacrificing your own needs, desires, and even life for. If we can all agree that the kind of culture we should aspire to live in is one in which men and women protect and honor each other in the ways that they can—and not one in which men are pushing past women and children to save their own lives—then that is progress that women everywhere should support.Writers in the androsphere will talk about the breaking of the "social contract" between men and women, and protest that men should not be held to older standards of behavior when women are not held to that same set of standards. I think that is a useful analytic tool in talking about expectations men and women have for one another, and the laws and customs that they advocate and follow. Nowhere in this article does the author repudiate feminism (in whatever form). She does think that men and women should be civil and respectful towards one another.
Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be.
If women today—feminists and non-feminists alike—encouraged both men and women to adopt the principles of civil and chivalrous conduct, then the standards of behavior for the two sexes would be the same, fostering the equality that feminists desire. Moreover, the relations between the sexes would be once again based on mutual respect, as the traditionalists want. Men and women may end up being civil and well-mannered in different ways, but at least they would be civil and well-mannered, an improvement on the current situation.
As I've mentioned before, the superiority of debate in the British House of Commons to what we're used to in American politics can be startling to an American observer. This is a social construct of the highest order. The British have crafted a society over many hundreds of years that emphasizes sport as a nonlethal, even potentially friendly form of male combat, and parliamentary debate as the highest form of sport.
Similar attitudes were reflected in the written spheres. A century ago, G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw, say, could go at it hammer and tongs like the intellectual sportsmen they were.
It's not surprising that Americans have never quite attained this level of intellectual sportsmanship. Nor is it surprising that the British masculine model is fading, both here and in Britain.
The 20th century was the century of ideologies – Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, all of which failed. The 21st century is the century of identities. Indeed it is the very substance of the European people that is threatened by the steamroller of globalization, invasion-migration and multiculturalism. Sovereignists have missed the boat by a longshot: it’s no longer the power or sovereignty of nation-states that’s in jeopardy; it’s the very identity of our friends, our families and our kinfolk. On the ethnic scale, because of the effects of migrant submersion on demographics, and on the cultural scale, because of the uniformization of different ways of life. In addition to this, European nation-states, prime inheritors of the Jacobinist ideas of the French Revolution, were the first agents in the destruction of popular traditions, deep rooted cultures and spiritual mass movements which fortified and irrigated European societies. No ideological recipe forcibly applied by these nearly extinct fossils can protect us anymore. The people have to take their fate into their own hands: time to wake up!
What's next, you might ask? It depends. Most of these signatories likely are not really revolutionaries or even serious secessionists. But they are frustrated and rightly concerned about the future. They know, instinctively and viscerally, that the America they once knew or the one they hoped to see is no longer there. It has been hi-jacked by those who care nothing for its past or its foundations. They see a bleak future for themselves and their progeny.