The nation is the most important unit, the state exists to serve the nation, but it is in the nation’s best interest for a man to put his family and community ahead of it because such is natural and provides the most happiness, stability, health, and efficiency – fewer tragedies of the commons. So in most cases the strength and level of importance of ties diminishes as it radiates out from the family to the nation and further perhaps to the civilisation.

In my opinion, some abstract choice between the survival of a barren/impotent spouse and the rest of one’s fertile nation might lead to a choosing against the spouse. Otherwise, perhaps it’s in the nation’s best interest for a man to prefer the spouse. Also, one might choose against a family member if said member is planning a serious attack on the nation or to commit murder, but otherwise it’s probably best not to rat on a family member.

It’s important not only to have a social community, but to also have connections to the past and to live on through the next generation. A nation is immortal in a sense, and sacrifices ought to be made in the present for the future.

Religion is the most important source for guidance and the foundation upon which a civilisation is established, so one must abide by Christian morality even when such is opposed to the nation, e.g. one may not commit atrocities against a competing neighbor. Christianity and not race is the religion after all. So it’s important that a Christian nation be designed to save as many souls as is possible.

The community level provides the social needs, and the nation provides the gene pool, or the bulk of the gene pool. Also, one can’t trust strangers, and yet one must rely upon strangers in large centralized states. So smaller than most modern states is preferred if possible. We bind into large alliances and states out of necessity or if forced, but at the family and community level we are bound by social ties and relation. “Large” and “small” are of course relative, and ideals will vary among nations.

Institutions can become corrupt over time. Great power such as large governments can be used for wonderful and for terrible things. If America was run by Christians, it never could have committed the immoral attacks on Iraq. If America was run by nationalists, it never could have acted so against America’s best interests. Iraq was mostly a war of greed, with Israel playing a small part as well. The American rebellion was against such abuses of power, and we have become ever worse than what we rebelled against.

—

“Your example only illustrates that there is no one true basic level of association that is inherently better than another”

Small is Beautiful

Some level of small, localised community is perhaps ideal. We’re social beings, and this is where we are capable of living the good life. Not only is such more enjoyable, we’re more apt to help others and to live a virtuous Christian life.

I suspect there will always be a great diversity of societies as there will be diversity of cultures and peoples, and it’s dangerous to get too dogmatic. The above is my particular ideal, which happens to be similar to Fleming’s, though we do digress.

—

Regarding Eastern Europe,

my ideal is the nation-state or a related-nations state like, say the United Kingdom or of course the South’s Confederacy. Member nations can form trade and security pacts at the least. I’m vague about how large such unions should be because such would vary and would require expert knowledge of an area. Some intermarriage might help to improve ties among similar nations, but such would also diminish the identity of the nations. Some balance between absolute transience and absolute isolation might needed, though absolute isolation might be best for a larger and more unique nation. If the South became the Confederacy, it would be a nation (or 2, mentioned later) divided into many states which would become sub nations. A fair amount of intermarriage would probably be allowed among the states; each is small and similar.

—

Diversity Crisis

The question of America is difficult I think. Over time a nation can absorb a few foreigners whose progeny over time become the same as if they had been born into the nation, perhaps also adding technology and wisdom though ideas can be spread without intermarriage. However, America has taken in large amounts of very alien peoples without even attempting to absorb them.

Perhaps America can hobble along as an imperfect state that allows in small amounts of immigration for some time. But if the US continues to import alien peoples, it will Balkanise. Perhaps perpetual war is planned by some of the neocons to keep us together, but even that will only do so much unless they manage to pick a fight with China… and returning American ethnic soldiers will have learned truths about fourth generation warfare we would not want potential ethnic gang members to have learned. Latino gangs might come to realize they can take on the American government with fourth generation warfare tactics, see William Lind for more information on 4th generation warfare.

However, the South (excluding Texas and Florida) has a lot of rooted citizens, and it’s easy for me to think of it as a nation. We could secede, and live as two nations (black and white) in several states fairly well, well each state would become a nation in a sense as well but would in the ideal probably continue to allow intermarriage.

If the two (black and white) couldn’t get along, then perhaps we could separate into two neighboring nations. If we lived amongst each other, we would slowly amalgamate into one nation over time of course, though such a nation would be an entirely new nation with characteristics of each of the former.

America is so terribly diverse than amalgamation is probably impossible. It is probably destined for conflict and Balkanisation, but it pretends diversity is a strength and makes the diversity crisis increasingly worse. It does this mostly out of greed of course: people make money off the cheap labor and during rapid change if in the right position.

—

Class

Above the divisions of mankind into civilizations and nations was discussed, and a related topic is the division of a nation into classes.

Whether planned or not, skilled aristocrats born to farmers would be trained as aristocrats, but over time fewer skilled aristocrats would be born to farmers as fewer aristocrats married farmers and the genes separated. With each pursuing its own function and evolving (microevolution) towards proficiency in its function, each subrace would grow increasingly distinct. Perhaps this is even the origin of the races? (a humorous attempt at providing a ridiculous additional theory to what can never be known.) I don’t like that class smells of slavery, but classes would inevitably arise to some extent, and vague subraces would develop within them. This is just another interesting facet.

—

One additional advantage to the nation state that I emphasize almost alone, others recognize it but fail to acknowledge its significance: it provides the identity necessary to defend against the temptation of genetic engineering. Richard Weaver wrote, “[Modern states] seem ready for extinction by the first rude barbarian who says, ‘I will.’” He wasn’t referring specifically to genetic engineering at the time, but nothing could so destroy a nation and a civilization as well as humanity itself as the reengineering of its people into human-like creatures with mere human creators and no identity.

Another way to consider this is that traditions, identity, and religion increase the chances that a nation won’t destroy itself. Technology is so powerful today that such a tendency is vital to man’s survival since we now how the power to destroy ourselves beyond being able to come back. Civilisations go through periods of rise and decline, and die as a result of suicide; the Orient knows this, but the Occident has become mistaken.

Such is an odd sci-fi ending that doesn’t help my case much, but my goal here is to make readers think and not to propagandise. I would organize this better if I had more time; it is also noncomprehensive even as a foundation though at least better than any of the previous essays. I suspect Dr. Taylor would give this a C, but this is only a mere writeback.

Also, you insist on speaking of nations when the basic unit of our current international (actually a misnomer) system is the state not the nation, whether one likes it or not. Yes, nations are based on ethnicity and kinship ties. States are not. States are about who governs; it is a legal, geo-political entity. The United States is a state in the international system, not a single nation. As states (for example in Eastern Europe) break up into smaller and smaller ethnocentric units, they do not necessarily do themselves any favors in terms of security or economics.

—

Common traits and a shared heritage are what unite Americans. Lacking a foreign threat, e.g. Cold War, American would divide along factions and then, lacking conflict there, into smaller, more natural community units. My view of this as a positive, might put me in the paleo category, but I suspect I’m something lower brow =p

Regardless, consider this:

American Jews and Israel and their role, among others, in pushing America to war has been a major topic of the right, left, center, and ambidextrous. Just as Jews tend to care for Israel and tend more to favor wars perceived in her interests, so too do Brits like myself (not an immigrant) care for Britain, Kurds for the Kurdish nation, etc. Indeed a part of those opposed to the America First movement against involvement in WWII were Anglophiles. That was all settled of course with Pearl Harbor.

In times of a massive war such as WWII, Americans would now find little unite over, not even language. Indeed the only truly American trait would seem to be that we all pay taxes. Presumably some American factions would side with an enemy and transients and those factions with weak ties would move to a safer haven if possible.

Such divisions are significant in times not only of war but also peace. Common traits and a common heritage can encourage an employer to buy and hire American, or at the least not lobby Congress to create an economic environment that rewards outsourcing and forces American companies to outsource or become less competitive.

Fleming’s Morality was suggested as reading material, and I would add Fleming’s favorites: Aristotle’s Politics and Ethics, which Dr. Taylor has obvious read.

Essentially what you are relying upon is that there will be no conflict; there will be a world state as I believe Filmer suggested in one of his quotes and that man will not divide over ethnicity and religion. However, as C.S. Lewis wrote in Abolition, I do not see such an ability in man.

Back to the topic, I’m no fan of Coulter, but on this one issue she’s right. She might be a supremist, though she has dated at least one black man, but her comments were not explicitly so. Really I suspect that if she’s anything, she’s an opportunist. That she, at least pretends to, prefer America to as it is rather than as it could be shows only that she loves her country. That she believes the white core *that identifies most strongly with the founders, the dead white men as they are now popularly called, and shares a common heritage with them* is important, shows she has some understanding of what a nation is and perhaps some knowledge of history.

That said… does Coulter have any qualifications that should make us sit up and listen to her opinions? I hate to take away from the woman I’m defending, but her views shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than Paris Hilton.

Anyway, in closing I’ll jump back to a comment you made in your original article: sarcasm “because there has never been a time in our history when a majority of whites ever abused the minority” /sarcasm.

Yes, of course we have! And if allowed to power, perhaps Coulter realizes whites will be a the mercy of a new majority. If we abused them, isn’t it possible that they will abuse us? Why should we trust another ethnic group, or coalition of ethnic groups, to dominate our nation?

Thank you for allowing me to comment, and I’d love to see you debate Filmer.

And whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the Coulter piece that started this brouhaha is making an inherent claim that America becomes less American if it becomes less White. And this was a view that was further gained approval at the CHT. That infers, to me, as assertion of superiority.

—

I’m sorry I know you’re talking with Filmer, and I’m actually only a mere reader of CHT, but why is this not akin to the woman who thinks her child best?

Why can Coulter not defend the European heritage of America without believing it to be superior? Upon what basis would one judge a race to be ‘superior’ anyway? Whites don’t seem to play basketball as well as blacks, and Asians seem to have a greater range of cognizance. We’re pretty mediocre and we burn in the sun.

—

Regarding WWII,

We interned Japanese-Americans to prevent their working against us. We became strongly anti-Kraut.

Americans were fighting to defend their homes, not for democracy against fascism. In fighting alien armies, our troops became racist. Admittedly, we went too far in the dropping of nukes…

Kennedy’s beloved INS Act of 1965 had not yet passed when WWII was fought though America already contained a variety of European nations.

Kennedy promised us, “…our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset….” (taken from wikipedia, first seen in Buchanan’s State of Emergency)

Thank you for the clarification, I will confess that I do understand where you are coming from, not that it makes me any more sympathetic.

And whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the Coulter piece that started this brouhaha is making an inherent claim that America becomes less American if it becomes less White. And this was a view that was further gained approval at the CHT. That infers, to me, as assertion of superiority.

And btw, I never accused anyone of frothing, for what it’s worth.

Thank you for the clarification on Christian Identity, which was what I was inferring by some of the various comments that were left.

Speaking of CHT, since you are editor, I would suggest that you might school your contributors on the notion that calling names is really a poor method of argumentation.

Regarding affirmative action, it can be terribly annoying to see the less qualified accepted over the more.

I went to an engineering school before transferring (partly due to a drop in market wages), and I saw affirmative action first hand.

However, it isn’t used there in regard to racial groups alone. Southerners are accepted in before Northerners to provide for more diversity since Northern schools are better.

My being a white Southerner, I was among those who benefited from affirmative action, though my SATs were above the school average so it didn’t apply to me personally.

—

My point is just that affirmative action can lead to surprisingly less qualified individuals being promoted over the more who then hold a grudge.

As America becomes increasingly diverse, I expect the squabbling minorities, including whites, to battle over such things as affirmative action and hand outs. Asians and seemingly Jewish whites (due to culture?) score better than whites in my experience btw.

And really, you people can call yourselves whatever you like. The idea that your arcane typology of conservative groupings is a mainstream language is rather egocentric, I must say.

If you wish to of yourselves are true heirs of the conservative tradition, more power to you. I frankly don’t care. But if it makes you happy, you have my blessing calling yourselves that if you like.

How exactly did you get a degree? What is a “Heritage Conservative”? Do you know basic terminology?

The conservatives over at Conservative Heritage Times are paleoconservatives, the authentic heirs of the conservative tradition.

I respect that you want this debate to end, but I just want to clear up a few loose ends.

Re. superiority and inferiority. You and your cohorts raised that issue and were the first to use those words. Neither I nor my cohorts used those words at all except Frank Lee who used them in response to you.

Superiority is a loaded term and you know it. Invoking the “white supremacists” term is a PC tactic often employed by SPLC types. (Along with the word “hate.”) It is meant to invoke people in hoods or goose-stepping in jack-boots. That is not what paleos are about and you know it.

Nor is this really about who is or can be a “good American.” Sure people of any color can be good Americans. This is about what America is. And America is a particular nation like all others (a British colonial nation, generally Protestant, etc.) We are not a universal or proposition nation. What America is is intimately related to our history, heritage, demographics, culture, religion, etc. In short our particularity. Change one of those elements and you change the whole. The proposition nation conceit is actually ridiculously simple-minded and beneath a serious academic. And why is conserving American particularity anything other than conservative?

Also, a quick lesson in conservative typology. Paleos are not nationalists. We are decentralist, regionalist, and localist. We generally denounce the post French Revolution modern nation state as a large part of the problem. Perhaps that is why Michael Hill posts at CHT occasionally. Or is pro-secession Dr. Hill some sort of nationalist?

Nationalists, often called White Nationalist, (some embrace that term and some don’t) agree with paleos in rejecting the proposition nation conceit and in decrying political correctness. But they are often quite different from paleos. They often accuse paleos of not being focused enough on race. Also, because they are modern style nationalist, they often oppose secession. Paleos view them as too friendly to the modern nation state, and as embracing an ideological commitment to race. Both “racism” properly understood and the rigorous anti-racism that rules PC land these days are unnatural ideological thought systems.

The regionalism of paleos actually allows for a lot more nuance re. race than you imagine. Paleos tend to view race as an artificial supra-category that is only an issue here because of the artificial importation of black slaves and modern mass movement of people/immigration. Before most Europeans ever saw a black person they were slaughtering each other on the basis of ethnicity. Look at how the Irish were treated by other white people. Is that “racism?”

There is also opposition arising to the proposition nation from the more mainstream pro-war right. They see the PN concept as a problem because they want to restrict Muslim immigration. Many of these folks are also Jewish and view the PN idea as imperiling the existence of Israel as a particular Jewish religious and ethnic state. I am pretty sure this is the position Robert Locke is arguing from, although I have no idea if he is Jewish. That is why his stuff appeared at Front Page Mag. Paleos have many disagreements with these folks as paleos oppose the Iraq War and foreign intervention, and a lot of this group are uber-hawks.

Also, paleos are almost all orthodox (small o) Christians. If you were trying to insinuate that we are Christian Identity or something like that then you are way off. For the record, I am a conservative Protestant who is also a paleo.

Re. Filmer. I used my screen name Filmer because I obviously came over here from Conservative Times, and I wanted you to know which poster over there you were dealing with. I agree with Filmer about much, but not all. I do not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. In fact, I think Paine made a very good argument that monarchy is not the Biblical norm, although Paine was not a believer. Most traditional American conservatives accept some degree of liberalism. We are, as Mark C. Henrie calls us, liberal conservatives by historical standards. (By contrast, neocons are conservative liberals.) I have meet a few Jacobite paleos, but most paleos are clearly more Roundhead than Cavalier. But I agree with Filmer that the family, not the individual, is the primordial political unit, that all authority does not rest on consent, and that “social contract theory” is philosophical nonsense. The only societies that come close to social contracts are small scale communes and such. Never in the history of mankind have people come together and contracted blah, blah, blah… America is more prone to this idea because of our status as a break-away former colony, but we broke away on ground that was already firmly laid and anchored in a real past/heritage. (Also Locke’s tabula rasa is utter nonsense, and is a very unconservative and un-Christian understanding.)

People with a view similar to Filmer’s re. the family and the generally inherent nature of authority are Althusius, Dabney, and Calhoun.

Think on this for a while. Your notion that everyone who rejects the PN ideas is some frothing at the mouth “racist” is way off base.

BTW, I would be more than happy to debate you publicly on the idea. I don’t live too far from Troy.

Have a good day.