One Lutheran pastor: Civil war served cold by Russell E. Saltzman
The financial shenanigans of the 1%? The populist reaction to identity politics? The war being waged by cultural Marxists and SJWs? The collusion of the deep state with the reigning duopoly against Donald Trump? He sees none of this?
Meanwhile, T. Beale talks about white nationalism and reiterates his prediction about the break-up of the US.
Showing posts with label white nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label white nationalism. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Sunday, April 02, 2017
Greg Johnson on Reality Calls
TM is cute but the American "Valley Girl" way of talking has made its way over to Great Britain. How said...
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Saturday, October 01, 2016
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Monday, May 02, 2016
The Popularity of Vikings?
The show on History channel -- what explains its popularity? Do some watch the show because of some neo-pagan/alt right attraction to the Vikings? A post-Christian white racialism? Does the show have the same sort of viewership as Sons of Anarchy? Maybe some think it isn't so PC, because it focuses on white people and there aren't any anachronistic minority characters. But the depiction of shield maidens as warriorettes should be repulsive to them. Does the show remain popular? Or is it losing viewership because of this?
I find the Vikings as they are depicted on the show to be savages and not people to be identified with -- maybe the French king and his knights are shown in a poor light as well, but one need not celebrate the other extreme in opposition to them.
I find the Vikings as they are depicted on the show to be savages and not people to be identified with -- maybe the French king and his knights are shown in a poor light as well, but one need not celebrate the other extreme in opposition to them.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Jack Donovan on Vanguard Radio
The Lost Tribes of Europe
Jack Donovan joins Richard to discuss some of the themes of NPI's upcoming conference, including the dissolution of the current American-led order, the potential return of tribalism, and taking the path less travelled.
Jack Donovan joins Richard to discuss some of the themes of NPI's upcoming conference, including the dissolution of the current American-led order, the potential return of tribalism, and taking the path less travelled.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
"Natural" Societies
The Loss of Reality by David Hamilton
The Ideological Caste and its Tyranny
Shared ancestry is not enough - societies grow when these members co-operate and live with one another in friendship. Those who have the same set of ancestors and a shared history will have a closer affinity than those who do not, this is true. But shared ancestry is not a necessary prerequisite for the "organic" development and perpetuation of a community, though it has a place in the history of that community and in human history in general. What is more important is what I just wrote above, plus intermingling through marriage and the production of offspring who succeed their parents. In this way can outsiders be fully integrated into a group, once they have adopted the culture and group as their own. (One can imagine the survivors of a shipwreck, each belonging to different ethnicities though all knowing English, eventually hammering out a new society on some island, if they know there is little or no chance for rescue.)
The Ideological Caste and its Tyranny
There is a distinction between natural and artificial societies. Natural societies grow organically within a group of people with a shared ancestry. This is why patriotism is natural – it grows from emotional relationships and does not need a theory or ideological underpinning. There is more to human nature than reason and the act of bonding with your people and territory is a process of feeling, instinct, intuition and other human qualities.
Shared ancestry is not enough - societies grow when these members co-operate and live with one another in friendship. Those who have the same set of ancestors and a shared history will have a closer affinity than those who do not, this is true. But shared ancestry is not a necessary prerequisite for the "organic" development and perpetuation of a community, though it has a place in the history of that community and in human history in general. What is more important is what I just wrote above, plus intermingling through marriage and the production of offspring who succeed their parents. In this way can outsiders be fully integrated into a group, once they have adopted the culture and group as their own. (One can imagine the survivors of a shipwreck, each belonging to different ethnicities though all knowing English, eventually hammering out a new society on some island, if they know there is little or no chance for rescue.)
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Gimme That Old Time Manly Religion
Why I'd Be a Pagan by Scott Locklin
An essay representative of the alt right's attempt to reappropriate pre-Christian religion as being part, if not the basis, of "traditional European" culture.
Well, something could be said about the decay of human religions since the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the result of creating gods in the image of fallen man. We hear the echoes (from Nietzsche?) of the criticism that Christianity is for the weak. In actuality, Latin Christianity teaches us that grace perfects nature and enables men to become great men in and through Christ, full of strength and virtue, even though their works may seem small and humble to the world. But what sort of convincing defense can we muster at this time, when the Roman Catholic churches of the West are in such poor shape and the needs of men are neglected?
Leon Podles has written his genealogy attempting to explain the emasculation of Christian culture. Why not blame excessive Marian devotion, as represented by the Western Christianity's adoption of the Rosary? (In contrast to the importance of the Jesus Prayer in Orthodoxy.) This is one cause, if at all, and not sufficient to explain the phenomenon in question. What factors were at work, and when did the problem first arise? There are doubtless many factors that are older - the lack of a vernacular liturgy leading to the replacement of a proper liturgical spirituality (dependent upon the intelligibility of the prayers and texts) with something else, the rise of the nation-state and the erosion of community, further exacerbated by industrialization and the centralization of political and economic power, turning men into wage slaves with very little political identity. The full exercise of citizenship may not be necessary for the Christian vocation, but one needs to be able to live the order of charity with one's family, neighbors and fellow men (his brothers in the community) and this has gradually been lost to many of us.
Still, I am reminded of this interview with the Orthodox monk Gabriel Bunge:
The Pauline reform of the Roman rite is not without problems, but at present I am concerned with the texts of the ordinary form, but with the style of worship that accompanied the reform, the '60s sensibility that plagues our parishes. One noticeable aspect of this is contemporary "Catholic worship music," but we can also consider the introduction of women as lectors, cantors, servers, and extraordinary eucharistic ministers. Women should be allowed to sing in the choir or schola, but when they speak as lectors, their vocal performance of the text distracts and is annoyingly artificial. (The same can be said of males, but women are worse because their voices do not naturally command attention.) The readings for the liturgy should be sung, but having a woman sing would not solve this latter problem.
OF worship can thus be said to be more "feminine," with contemporary music that has origins in the Romantic Era and is characterized by sentimentalism. What we should have is liturgy that engages men as men, rather than pandering to exaggerated female sensibilities; both reason and the senses should be involved, but reason is acknowledged as having priority. Truth and intelligible beauty cannot be replaced by emotion without severe consequences. A more "traditional" form of liturgy would appeal to women as well, since they seek order and truth as well. Appealing to their senses and emotions does nothing to foster an authentic Christian spirituality for them.
Can you think of any examples of contemporary Catholic worship songs that are consonant with manly singing? (Even Gregorian chant may not be enough, or certain interpretations of it!) Men do want to glorify God in song, not sing superficial, narcissistic, sappy or stupid songs that end up drawing attention to the self rather than God.
Despite the open-mindedness of Benedict XVI and John Paul II and the apparent numbers of its members, I think for the reasons given above that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a dead end - it is just the NO cult or worship style taken to another level (understandable, as it promotes a form of spirituality that generally relies too much upon sensible manifestations).
And now a comment about the implications of a feminist-dominated Church on the "real world"...
An older seminarian recounts that one of his teachers, an American nun, harshly and repeatedly rebuked him in class (i.e. in the presence of his classmates, then). He didn't say it was emasculating but I have no doubt that it was. St. Paul's stricture on women teaching or being in authority seems to apply outside of the temple, as this is one negative consequence. That sort of dynamic also is probably not a good one for men and women in general. A woman may be acceptable as a teacher of those who are young; she is just a mommy figure. But after puberty, having another mommy figure is not appropriate. This seminarian probably can't even talk back, since she has a position of authority and there could be negative consequences. How many women respond well to criticism of abuse of authority? In this case, it really would be personal. If men were to abuse authority in such a manner, they would lose respect and standing among men, both their peers and those who are subordinate to them. But a woman? She can get away with this without any consequences.
Even if a man is reasonably rebuked by a woman, it smacks of being scolded by mommy. If a man is reasonably rebuked by a man that he respects, it is different. He hopes to earn his respect one day, perhaps even be treated as an equal by him. But a man cannot be an equal to a woman because of their sex differences. A female may try to ape male leadership, don't she doesn't know the nuances and the principle that one must lead by example, first of all - how can you really be an example to men if you are a woman?
Should students be more like apprentices, not just learning a specific skill or techne, but learning from moral exemplars and mentors as well? We are used to over-specialization and the compartmentalization of life. Still, a teacher is not a spiritual father to one's students, despite the age difference, but more of a brother or fellow citizen. He can offer fraternal correction, but it seems out of place for him to act like a father figure, unless that is what the student seeks. (Even then, that may be a rather perilous position to assume.) As a teacher he is not a supervisor of the entirety of a student's life, though he will supervise the limited good of the proper functioning of the classroom setting as well as a student's study habits, though indirectly. (Should corporal punishment be limited only to those who exercise a role with respect to moral training? If a teacher acts in loco parentis or in place of the community, then they may have the right to punish in that manner. But if a teacher is only safeguarding the good of the learning environment, then the most he can do is to expel a disruptive student.)
*I missed this when I read the interview with Fr. Gabriel the first couple of times: " He has been living in the Skete of the Holy Cross in Swiss canton Tichino since 1980 following the ancient typicon of Saint Benedict." I do not doubt that the Rule of St. Benedict can be harmonized with being in the Byzantine rite; after all, isn't this what some of the monks at Chevetogne do? (Fr. Bunge was originally from that community.) But can one be a hermit and still be said to be following the Rule of St. Benedict? I would like to see Chevetogne one day, to see how one can be an Eastern Benedictine.
An essay representative of the alt right's attempt to reappropriate pre-Christian religion as being part, if not the basis, of "traditional European" culture.
These aren't the gods of narrow backed poltroons, or dastardly over civilized urbanites; these are the gods of real men who carved a raw living from the earth, and by hacking gobberts of gore from their enemies' living flesh. They were not smarmy urban stock brokers, vegetable fetishists, or grubby cube-dwelling software developers. For that matter, they weren't even soldiers; they were freebooters, farmers, and hunters. I suppose the original gods of the Vedas and of the Greeks were something very similar to the gods of the Norsemen, but, through the mists of time, they have been corrupted. Certainly, the way the gods are spoken of in Homer is much like enormity of the Norse gods. The stories of the Greek gods are transmitted to us and filtered by centuries of perfumed city-dwelling degenerates, so we now think of Jove as a semi comedic fellow who had sex with a duck and a cow in his attempts to get away from his shrew wife, Hera. Alas the urban thunderer. But with Thor, we get the raw, unexpurgated, red-bearded, wild eyed, hammer wielding original item.Jack Donovan writes that this essay had a great influence on his own thinking.
Well, something could be said about the decay of human religions since the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the result of creating gods in the image of fallen man. We hear the echoes (from Nietzsche?) of the criticism that Christianity is for the weak. In actuality, Latin Christianity teaches us that grace perfects nature and enables men to become great men in and through Christ, full of strength and virtue, even though their works may seem small and humble to the world. But what sort of convincing defense can we muster at this time, when the Roman Catholic churches of the West are in such poor shape and the needs of men are neglected?
Leon Podles has written his genealogy attempting to explain the emasculation of Christian culture. Why not blame excessive Marian devotion, as represented by the Western Christianity's adoption of the Rosary? (In contrast to the importance of the Jesus Prayer in Orthodoxy.) This is one cause, if at all, and not sufficient to explain the phenomenon in question. What factors were at work, and when did the problem first arise? There are doubtless many factors that are older - the lack of a vernacular liturgy leading to the replacement of a proper liturgical spirituality (dependent upon the intelligibility of the prayers and texts) with something else, the rise of the nation-state and the erosion of community, further exacerbated by industrialization and the centralization of political and economic power, turning men into wage slaves with very little political identity. The full exercise of citizenship may not be necessary for the Christian vocation, but one needs to be able to live the order of charity with one's family, neighbors and fellow men (his brothers in the community) and this has gradually been lost to many of us.
Still, I am reminded of this interview with the Orthodox monk Gabriel Bunge:
There are two types of mysticism in the Catholic Church: restrained (inner work) and ecstatic. Both schools are rooted in the monastic tradition. The first school that originated in Sts. Macarius, Anthony, and Evagrius is the inner mysticism, “inner work.” But St. Macarius’ Homilies contain the other school too, more affective mysticism. Therefore he is traditionally considered to belong to the softened or semi- Messalianism, that is a kind of ecstatic monasticism. I think, that here we could see just two different spiritual temperaments that confront one another. That’s why it’s difficult to find a common language. The follower of the inner work could say to his opponent, “You are too sensual,” and the latter could reply, “You are too reasonable. You don’t have any inner experience.” And both these opinions would be wrong.I want to focus primarily on liturgy in this post, and not on living the order of charity towards a man's neighbors.
However, I have to admit that in the Middle Ages there were purely women’s mystical movements on the West that seem strange to me and are beyond my comprehension. I belong to a different school. I don’t have anything that could help me to understand or feel deeply that affective, ecstatic mysticism. The main rule of any spiritual life for me is restriction and lack of exaltation because exaltation itself is a ground for demonic prelest. This experience we can find today in charismatics. To avoid mistakes that Evagrius calls imitation of spiritual and mystic states, we have to be very careful, wise, and to possess simplicity and purity. Today it is called a self-suggested condition, that is, an imaginative mystic (spiritual) condition.
St. Theophan the Recluse, who is very popular in the West, by the way, understood the matter of western mystics very subtly. Once he exclaimed: “Oh, these Western people, they cannot distinguish between psychic and spiritual!” And really, when I talk to people who come for confession, I see how often they mix these things. One has to teach and help people to see the difference between their feelings and true spirituality from God. People quite often feel something deep inside and think “Here it is, here is that true spirituality.”
The Pauline reform of the Roman rite is not without problems, but at present I am concerned with the texts of the ordinary form, but with the style of worship that accompanied the reform, the '60s sensibility that plagues our parishes. One noticeable aspect of this is contemporary "Catholic worship music," but we can also consider the introduction of women as lectors, cantors, servers, and extraordinary eucharistic ministers. Women should be allowed to sing in the choir or schola, but when they speak as lectors, their vocal performance of the text distracts and is annoyingly artificial. (The same can be said of males, but women are worse because their voices do not naturally command attention.) The readings for the liturgy should be sung, but having a woman sing would not solve this latter problem.
OF worship can thus be said to be more "feminine," with contemporary music that has origins in the Romantic Era and is characterized by sentimentalism. What we should have is liturgy that engages men as men, rather than pandering to exaggerated female sensibilities; both reason and the senses should be involved, but reason is acknowledged as having priority. Truth and intelligible beauty cannot be replaced by emotion without severe consequences. A more "traditional" form of liturgy would appeal to women as well, since they seek order and truth as well. Appealing to their senses and emotions does nothing to foster an authentic Christian spirituality for them.
Can you think of any examples of contemporary Catholic worship songs that are consonant with manly singing? (Even Gregorian chant may not be enough, or certain interpretations of it!) Men do want to glorify God in song, not sing superficial, narcissistic, sappy or stupid songs that end up drawing attention to the self rather than God.
Despite the open-mindedness of Benedict XVI and John Paul II and the apparent numbers of its members, I think for the reasons given above that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a dead end - it is just the NO cult or worship style taken to another level (understandable, as it promotes a form of spirituality that generally relies too much upon sensible manifestations).
And now a comment about the implications of a feminist-dominated Church on the "real world"...
An older seminarian recounts that one of his teachers, an American nun, harshly and repeatedly rebuked him in class (i.e. in the presence of his classmates, then). He didn't say it was emasculating but I have no doubt that it was. St. Paul's stricture on women teaching or being in authority seems to apply outside of the temple, as this is one negative consequence. That sort of dynamic also is probably not a good one for men and women in general. A woman may be acceptable as a teacher of those who are young; she is just a mommy figure. But after puberty, having another mommy figure is not appropriate. This seminarian probably can't even talk back, since she has a position of authority and there could be negative consequences. How many women respond well to criticism of abuse of authority? In this case, it really would be personal. If men were to abuse authority in such a manner, they would lose respect and standing among men, both their peers and those who are subordinate to them. But a woman? She can get away with this without any consequences.
Even if a man is reasonably rebuked by a woman, it smacks of being scolded by mommy. If a man is reasonably rebuked by a man that he respects, it is different. He hopes to earn his respect one day, perhaps even be treated as an equal by him. But a man cannot be an equal to a woman because of their sex differences. A female may try to ape male leadership, don't she doesn't know the nuances and the principle that one must lead by example, first of all - how can you really be an example to men if you are a woman?
Feminism is not about equality, it's about women usurping men.
Appended:
Should students be more like apprentices, not just learning a specific skill or techne, but learning from moral exemplars and mentors as well? We are used to over-specialization and the compartmentalization of life. Still, a teacher is not a spiritual father to one's students, despite the age difference, but more of a brother or fellow citizen. He can offer fraternal correction, but it seems out of place for him to act like a father figure, unless that is what the student seeks. (Even then, that may be a rather perilous position to assume.) As a teacher he is not a supervisor of the entirety of a student's life, though he will supervise the limited good of the proper functioning of the classroom setting as well as a student's study habits, though indirectly. (Should corporal punishment be limited only to those who exercise a role with respect to moral training? If a teacher acts in loco parentis or in place of the community, then they may have the right to punish in that manner. But if a teacher is only safeguarding the good of the learning environment, then the most he can do is to expel a disruptive student.)
*I missed this when I read the interview with Fr. Gabriel the first couple of times: " He has been living in the Skete of the Holy Cross in Swiss canton Tichino since 1980 following the ancient typicon of Saint Benedict." I do not doubt that the Rule of St. Benedict can be harmonized with being in the Byzantine rite; after all, isn't this what some of the monks at Chevetogne do? (Fr. Bunge was originally from that community.) But can one be a hermit and still be said to be following the Rule of St. Benedict? I would like to see Chevetogne one day, to see how one can be an Eastern Benedictine.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Jared Taylor at Towson University
L. Auster has posted a reader's link to a talk by Jared Taylor at Towson University. Counter-Currents has posted the video taken by American Renaissance.
Monday, September 24, 2012
"Traditionalism" of the "New Right"
Articles on two of the sources:
Nietzsche the Visionary by Keith Preston
A Reflection on the Nature of a Civilization Guided by Nietzschean Values
Beyond Prudery and Perversion by Keith Preston
The Sexual Aesthetics and Metaphysics of Julius Evola
MacIntyre discusses Nietzsche as a response to liberalism in After Virtue and subsequent works. Is our choice between the "Benedict option" or the "way of the gang"? Or is that a false dichotomy? If you set aside the ethnonationalism which is not essential to it; those who are actually related by blood and of the same ethnic group may have a strong sense of ethnonationalism, and skin color is a consideration when people associate with those who are like them. But intermarriage between members of different ethnic groups who are then aware of being related through such ties can also bring about solidarity, if they possess a common cultural core and do not have a fixed identity rooted only in skin color, but an identity that takes family genealogy and historical ties into account.
Jack Donovan, "A Church of Whores" (see also his "Draw the Line," which was published yesterday)
Also via Counter-Currents: Alex Kurtagić, “Collapse Scenarios in the West & their Implications”
Nietzsche the Visionary by Keith Preston
A Reflection on the Nature of a Civilization Guided by Nietzschean Values
Beyond Prudery and Perversion by Keith Preston
The Sexual Aesthetics and Metaphysics of Julius Evola
MacIntyre discusses Nietzsche as a response to liberalism in After Virtue and subsequent works. Is our choice between the "Benedict option" or the "way of the gang"? Or is that a false dichotomy? If you set aside the ethnonationalism which is not essential to it; those who are actually related by blood and of the same ethnic group may have a strong sense of ethnonationalism, and skin color is a consideration when people associate with those who are like them. But intermarriage between members of different ethnic groups who are then aware of being related through such ties can also bring about solidarity, if they possess a common cultural core and do not have a fixed identity rooted only in skin color, but an identity that takes family genealogy and historical ties into account.
Jack Donovan, "A Church of Whores" (see also his "Draw the Line," which was published yesterday)
Also via Counter-Currents: Alex Kurtagić, “Collapse Scenarios in the West & their Implications”
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tom Sunic Interviews Andrew Fraser
The Sunic Journal: Interview with Andrew Fraser, Part 1 - mp3
From the program description:
Here is a discussion with Kevin MacDonald [VDare] of the American Third Position Party - mp3.
From the program description:
Tom Sunic interviews Professor Andrew W. Fraser. Topics include:Part 2 - mp3
- Fraser’s thesis that WASPs surrendered identity based on ties of blood and faith in favor of civic-nationalist pseudo-religion;
- How loss of ethnic identity has made WASPs victims of the successful states and corporations that they created;
- The internationalism of the papacy, and the excesses of American Puritans and revolutionaries;
- How the Anglo-Saxon “spiritual disease” has been imposed on Europe and the rest of the world;
- The orthodox Anglican Church’s potential to bring about spiritual revival for Anglo-Saxon “tribes” around the world.
Here is a discussion with Kevin MacDonald [VDare] of the American Third Position Party - mp3.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Hate or anger?
Begun on June 9.
In a recent show (May 11) of the Paul Youngblood Show, the men of the Rockford Institute were discussing identity politics. At the end of the second hour, Aaron Wolf was describing the mission of the institute and of Chronicles Magazine as an antidote to identity politics, enabling people to learn about American culture and traditions and to recover an American identity that will unite them once more. Dr. Fleming added that this course of action would prevent people from falling into the white power fantasy or the men's rights fantasy. He included these with other [special interest] groups and movements, like that for blacks, Hispanics, and gays -- all of these movements are based on hate. Is his characterization of the motivation of the people in either group correct? Are they just "hate groups," as the SPLC and other liberals would have us believe? (Of course the SPLC would deny this of the other groups while maintaining that it is an accurate characterization of white nationalists and the MRM.) As the show ended at that point, he was not able to elaborate. I have not listened to any of the following episodes yet, so I do not know if he clarified his point. (Edit. I don't believe he has.)
We need to distinguish between the emotion of hate (and the associated emotion of anger) from the act of the will, which is evil in itself. MRAs (and perhaps WNs too) are reacting at injustices that have been done to them or to those they know. They are not seeking preferential treatment or favoritism, just justice. (I do acknowledge that the homosexual lobby does make the same claim.)
Can the MRM be characterized as emotion-driven? I think there is a keen sense that the [legal] system is unjust and misandric. Now, anger and the emotion of hate can lead to problems if they are not subordinated to reason or if one lacks love/charity. Some men associated with the MRM may be bitter towards women or even misogynistic in their words and such; that much is obvious if you look at some comments on androsphere blogs. Wouldn't it be better to just say that certain attitudes are not beneficial to themselves or others or to warn them against indulging in anger rather than seeking some positive outlet? I think Dr. Fleming is still too dismissive of the movement and its goals of correcting the legal system. The effort may be futile, but it is not opposed to the sort of localism that he favors. How do we take the state out of marriage and the like and return power to the churches? And if the church (i.e. ecclesial community) is thoroughly feminized can it be trusted to look out for the interests of the family and of men? If a couple takes a vow only in church while eschewing the civil license, can the man still be held responsible by the state and its divorce laws if they do decide to separate? If so, then what would be the point?
Finally, is preference of one's own identity group always accompanied by hatred of people who fall outside the group? Does Dr. Fleming believe this or is he making an exaggeration in order to make a point? Men should be welcome those who want to join them, but trust has to be earned and newcomers have to prove themselves. If people wish to separate, let them go their way, but one should not exclude others simply because they are of a different race or ethnicity. They have to actually show that they do not want to be part of the community. (In which case they should be warned and then accorded a different social status?) The ethnonationalists would hold that ethnicity/race/skin color is a legitimate distinction in the order of charity. "It is natural to prefer one's own kind," they say. I would maintain that love of the community and its members (civic friendship) is paramount, and ethnic origin should not be a consideration if all members of the community are truly members. One may try to justify such a preference on the base of genealogy (and hence "family" ties via genetic proximity), but I think this is a rather weak reason. Forming new alliances through marriage in order to strengthen the family and the community is better than excluding new "blood." Affinity through blood should matter only when you are actually aware that such a kinship exists, not when it is based on a DNA test.
Then there is the claim that one "naturally" wants children "who look like me." Even if that is your desire, by what right can you prevent someone else from marrying someone of a different ethnicity? Are you really going to ostracize such a person, even if he's lived up to his duties to you and the community? Are you really going to accuse him of being immoral because he does not want to keep the race "pure"? Some even say that the differentiation into races is divinely-ordained, and that God does not want interracial marriage. (Did those who supported anti-miscegenation laws make the same sort of argument?)
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Going too far in defense of the West?
Oz Conservative: Did Western colonialism create economic inequality?
The defense makes use of GDP as a measure, but isn't it an unreliable measure of prosperity? (Certainly it is a bad measure of happiness.) What about GDP as a function of access and use of energy? What did the whites bring? Some would argue that it is a better legal culture that ensures prosperity, or a better ordering of the political economy that makes prosperity possible. Then there are the technological advantages of the West that were brought to other countries. Are these changes to the political economy sustainable? How much of this relative difference in current prosperity is sustainable?
Also, what about the continued dominance of "developing" countries by corporations (albeit with the willing cooperation of the elites in those countries)?
If colonization on the whole was unjust, why should those who see them as a part of the West stoop to defending it by pointing out its benefits? Can we just not admit this and move on with the conversation? Or do some think that this admission of moral wrong-doing or guilt would be a sign of weakness?
The defense makes use of GDP as a measure, but isn't it an unreliable measure of prosperity? (Certainly it is a bad measure of happiness.) What about GDP as a function of access and use of energy? What did the whites bring? Some would argue that it is a better legal culture that ensures prosperity, or a better ordering of the political economy that makes prosperity possible. Then there are the technological advantages of the West that were brought to other countries. Are these changes to the political economy sustainable? How much of this relative difference in current prosperity is sustainable?
Also, what about the continued dominance of "developing" countries by corporations (albeit with the willing cooperation of the elites in those countries)?
If colonization on the whole was unjust, why should those who see them as a part of the West stoop to defending it by pointing out its benefits? Can we just not admit this and move on with the conversation? Or do some think that this admission of moral wrong-doing or guilt would be a sign of weakness?
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
White rule
The Fulford File | More (Coordinated) Attacks On John Derbyshire, And VDARE.com
John Derbyshire:
I actually think ‘White Supremacist’ is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.
Whig nationalism? (Does it share certain assumptiosn with liberalism about the nature of society and community?) It is undeniable that "white" civilization has achieved much materially and technically in the last two centuries, while the rest of the world has been trying to catch up to varying degrees of success. But is this attributable to race? Or to the modern nation-state making use of an intellectual advantage?
White nationalists may be part of a Whig Industrial Complex, unwilling to question their assumptions, their economic and political principles. How many would spurn the material benefits of "civilization" as they know it (or the use of cheap energy)? But traditionalist conservatives should look at an earlier period instead: medieval civilization, though one must still tease apart the good from the bad: communal life, agrarianism. Can one do this with industrial civilization? Can the claim that what is good in modern Western civilization is founded upon medieval and classicla antecedents (a claim advanced by certain American conservatives)? The rule of law and the Western legal system? Pat Buchanan, for example, would agree that Anglo-American political and social institutions are better -- better suited for Anglos and Americans than other forms, if not better absolutely. But these, and culture in general, do not find their source within genetics. (White nationalists seem to be crude materialists in their explanation of culture. This seems to be the case with the strident believers in HBD.)
It seems possible to have a healthy "white" identity without adhering to reductionism, recognizing the value of the traditions one has received from preceding generations. If whites have been able to rule themselves better it is also because of their moral education. Culture, paideia, and Christianity all pertain primarily to the spirit. The sort of white nationalism that is founded upon disordered and erroneous pride in one's bodily inheritance offers no way to preserve Western civilization, even if they are correct that there is no Western civilization without the peoples who embody it.
John Derbyshire:
I actually think ‘White Supremacist’ is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.
Whig nationalism? (Does it share certain assumptiosn with liberalism about the nature of society and community?) It is undeniable that "white" civilization has achieved much materially and technically in the last two centuries, while the rest of the world has been trying to catch up to varying degrees of success. But is this attributable to race? Or to the modern nation-state making use of an intellectual advantage?
White nationalists may be part of a Whig Industrial Complex, unwilling to question their assumptions, their economic and political principles. How many would spurn the material benefits of "civilization" as they know it (or the use of cheap energy)? But traditionalist conservatives should look at an earlier period instead: medieval civilization, though one must still tease apart the good from the bad: communal life, agrarianism. Can one do this with industrial civilization? Can the claim that what is good in modern Western civilization is founded upon medieval and classicla antecedents (a claim advanced by certain American conservatives)? The rule of law and the Western legal system? Pat Buchanan, for example, would agree that Anglo-American political and social institutions are better -- better suited for Anglos and Americans than other forms, if not better absolutely. But these, and culture in general, do not find their source within genetics. (White nationalists seem to be crude materialists in their explanation of culture. This seems to be the case with the strident believers in HBD.)
It seems possible to have a healthy "white" identity without adhering to reductionism, recognizing the value of the traditions one has received from preceding generations. If whites have been able to rule themselves better it is also because of their moral education. Culture, paideia, and Christianity all pertain primarily to the spirit. The sort of white nationalism that is founded upon disordered and erroneous pride in one's bodily inheritance offers no way to preserve Western civilization, even if they are correct that there is no Western civilization without the peoples who embody it.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Rod Dreher continues his criticism of Ron Paul: What racism means.
Those who would be race "realists" versus those who want to make a statement against racism. Yawn.
Those who would be race "realists" versus those who want to make a statement against racism. Yawn.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Ethnic Nationalism
Rod Dreher: WaPo: Ron Paul approved racist newsletters
Someone else I know has said that if the allegations about Ron Paul are true, then it is worse than mere racism; it is racism as opportunism. I have not read the newsletters in question; I've only seen snippets here and there and they seem more politically incorrect than "racist," with content or a focus that might approach what you would find in a white nationalist publication (crime committed by members of minorities, etc.). Can valid generalizations be made at all? Will there be any honest discussion of these sort of issues? This sort of chiding by Mr. Dreher is evidence why some readers believe they have cause to worry about the direction of The American Conservative. Should AmCon become a white nationalist magazine? I don't think that is likely and I still believe that white nationalism as a political program cannot be reconciled with traditional conservatism, if we believe assimilation is the goal - it violates the precepts of charity and justice. I do not think that having a preference for a member of the same race is part of the ordo caritatis, and it is detrimental to the well-being of a community - that we are members of the same political community is of greater import. To prefer someone merely because he is of the same race would vitiate the shared understanding that we are one community, one people. I would say the same of any other ethnic nationalism. There is some sort of natural affection towards one's own, but race is a rather weak constituent of identity and only comes into play when one perceives division along racial lines. But common opposition alone doesn't create solidarity or trust.
Of course, one rejoinder would be that "one community, on people" is not really true at any level in California.
What should be the response to members of other ethnic/racial groups promoting ethnic nationalism in the U.S.?
Someone else I know has said that if the allegations about Ron Paul are true, then it is worse than mere racism; it is racism as opportunism. I have not read the newsletters in question; I've only seen snippets here and there and they seem more politically incorrect than "racist," with content or a focus that might approach what you would find in a white nationalist publication (crime committed by members of minorities, etc.). Can valid generalizations be made at all? Will there be any honest discussion of these sort of issues? This sort of chiding by Mr. Dreher is evidence why some readers believe they have cause to worry about the direction of The American Conservative. Should AmCon become a white nationalist magazine? I don't think that is likely and I still believe that white nationalism as a political program cannot be reconciled with traditional conservatism, if we believe assimilation is the goal - it violates the precepts of charity and justice. I do not think that having a preference for a member of the same race is part of the ordo caritatis, and it is detrimental to the well-being of a community - that we are members of the same political community is of greater import. To prefer someone merely because he is of the same race would vitiate the shared understanding that we are one community, one people. I would say the same of any other ethnic nationalism. There is some sort of natural affection towards one's own, but race is a rather weak constituent of identity and only comes into play when one perceives division along racial lines. But common opposition alone doesn't create solidarity or trust.
Of course, one rejoinder would be that "one community, on people" is not really true at any level in California.
What should be the response to members of other ethnic/racial groups promoting ethnic nationalism in the U.S.?
Monday, November 07, 2011
Relying on the past as cultural parasites
Or as vultures? What would be a better metaphor?
The trailer for the movie Hugo by Martin Scorcese reminded me of older movies and dramas about WW2 Britain.
(Apple)
It is similar to Harry Potter in that sense, which depends upon memories of the glory days of British schools -- many stories recall the joys of the past while rejecting and subverting the remnants of tradition. (I won't go so far as to say that tradition was solely responsible for the apogee of material culture; it was the destruction of traditional life that made it possible. But what civilized life there was depended in the adhesion of the people upon traditional morals.) It turns out that the movie, based on a children's book, is actually set in 1900 Paris - the language of the movie threw me off... still, for some, it was the heyday of European civilization before the Great Calamity.
At one extreme there are the leftists, who seek to subvert traditional Western culture through multiculturalism and other programs. At the other extreme there are those who identify culture solely with race. For example, this comment at Alternative Right is a manifestation of a kind of crude materialism:
What constitutes a people is also determined by questions of lineage and marriage and how the group choses to identify itself. Are there lines of descent to the first ancestors? (And how far should one take this, since Christians usually believe that Adam and Eve are the first parents.) Are white nationalists therefore making an idol out of races and their origin, whatever the causes of the differentiation may be? Is the (epi-)genetic "distinctiveness" that separates one race from another so significant that it must be preserved above all else through miscegenation laws and what have you?
Related:
VDare: Farah On Immigration And The Bible: Love Our Neighbor—Not Give Him Our Country
(I should find a copy of Fr. Bascio's book.)
Steve Sailer, Your ancestors more likely to be pioneers than stay-at-homes
Was the American pioneering spirit a contributor to its downfall?
The trailer for the movie Hugo by Martin Scorcese reminded me of older movies and dramas about WW2 Britain.
(Apple)
It is similar to Harry Potter in that sense, which depends upon memories of the glory days of British schools -- many stories recall the joys of the past while rejecting and subverting the remnants of tradition. (I won't go so far as to say that tradition was solely responsible for the apogee of material culture; it was the destruction of traditional life that made it possible. But what civilized life there was depended in the adhesion of the people upon traditional morals.) It turns out that the movie, based on a children's book, is actually set in 1900 Paris - the language of the movie threw me off... still, for some, it was the heyday of European civilization before the Great Calamity.
At one extreme there are the leftists, who seek to subvert traditional Western culture through multiculturalism and other programs. At the other extreme there are those who identify culture solely with race. For example, this comment at Alternative Right is a manifestation of a kind of crude materialism:
Asians can not assimilate to Native Born White American culture because they are of a different racial kind...Nations are race-based-blood and guts entities...everyone understands this obvious point..by the way..even if every Appalchian White was replaced by a Sihk..and if the Sihks spoke with southern accents and played and composed Appalchian Celtic based fiddle music, it would be an Appalachia withput White Appalachian people...and there is no reason why Appalachian Whites should be in favor in this..for it is obvious genocide..now let's be honest the probability of Sihk Appalachia being 100 percent culturally and socially Appalachian White is exactly 0....Punjabi society would be the dominant culture in Appalachia.Even if they wanted to, could Sihks (or Indians in general) become Appalachians? The thought experiment is misleading because it is rather impossible to achieve. The disappearance or replacement could not be instantaneous.What if some Sihks moved in, adopted the native culture (and gave up their religion), and married whites? Would the children of such marriages be Appalachians? Or would they forever be outsiders?
What constitutes a people is also determined by questions of lineage and marriage and how the group choses to identify itself. Are there lines of descent to the first ancestors? (And how far should one take this, since Christians usually believe that Adam and Eve are the first parents.) Are white nationalists therefore making an idol out of races and their origin, whatever the causes of the differentiation may be? Is the (epi-)genetic "distinctiveness" that separates one race from another so significant that it must be preserved above all else through miscegenation laws and what have you?
Related:
VDare: Farah On Immigration And The Bible: Love Our Neighbor—Not Give Him Our Country
(I should find a copy of Fr. Bascio's book.)
Steve Sailer, Your ancestors more likely to be pioneers than stay-at-homes
Was the American pioneering spirit a contributor to its downfall?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Mark Richardson on identity
Developing identity
He links to a blog post by an Eurasian.
Some of the commentators reduce culture to race/ethnicity, as if marrying a woman of another ethnicity is a betrayal of tradition. Maintaining "genetic purity" with respect to race in and of itself is not a moral obligation.
He links to a blog post by an Eurasian.
Some of the commentators reduce culture to race/ethnicity, as if marrying a woman of another ethnicity is a betrayal of tradition. Maintaining "genetic purity" with respect to race in and of itself is not a moral obligation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)