Via WorldNetDaily we have Ann Coulter in all her glory: Bush’s America: Roach motel in which she rants about immigration.
The grandest irony in the piece is that in the second paragraph she ponders:
I don’t know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists.
She then launches into an incoherent argument that Ted Kennedy personally decided to change American immigration policies so as to increase the number of Third World natives in the US to affect “a dramatic chance in the nation’s demographics.” And his goal was to
radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback’s a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!
Coulter’s entire argument is wholly predicated on calling up bogeymen. First is the notion that this is all about Ted Kennedy, perhaps the member of Congress least liked by hardcore conservatives; and second the idea that there is some grand conspiracy to change American demographics (i.e., race). The almost nonsensical reference to the Daughter of the American Revolution is clearly an attempt to label this change as somehow a reversal of American ideals.
What this is based on, however, is rather unclear. I may not be a fan of Ted Kennedy’s, but the notion that he has been on some kind of subversive anti-American crusade since 1965 is beyond ludicrous.
However, the really amazing thing about Coulter’s piece is that despite the protestations about how awful it is that she feels like she is being called a racist is that fact she engages in blatantly racist argumentation in the column. To wit:
In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2024. Other estimates put that day much sooner.One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been [because there has never been a time in our history when a majority of whites ever abused the minority-Ed.]. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.[Because it is--to claim this is to be claiming a falsehood for the express purpose of stoking fear--it is simple race-baiting-Ed.]
If one frames the “problem” as a decrease in the number of white people, then it would seem that one is saying that the “problem” is the increase in the number of not white people. It would seem, therefore, that one is arguing about race.
I do not lightly use the term “racist” but she is blatantly making her fundamental argument on the issue of the amount of melanin one has in one’s skin. If one is primarily concerned with skin color as a defining feature of the nature of a person then that is, by definition, racism. This is especially true if one ascribes to a given color of skin superior abilities or if one believes that certain cultural traits are created by/carried by specific races.
Coulter, like Pat Buchanan, is making a clearly racist argument: that we have to stop immigration because darker skinned people can’t be as American as white people. What else can this be called than racist?
And what about the title of the piece–likening immigration reform to turning the US into a “roach motel”–that’s nice. There’s certainly nothing offensive about likening Latin America immigrants to roaches. Very classy.
I found this piece because of an unsolicited e-mail I received from the Conservative Heritage Times blog which lauds the Coulter piece–as do a number of commenters which include Michael Hill of the League of the South (a neo-Confederate movement) who sees stopping immigration as “a matter of survival for our people” by which it is pretty clear he means white people.
So while I think it is true that there are those who oppose immigration reform for various good reasons, it is also clear that a goodly number of those folks are nativists and racists. I don’t like saying it, but it as plain as day when you read their own words.
Further, Coulter and her ilk, which allegedly in the past haven’t like racial categories (e.g., in affirmative action or in the census or the like) are now wholly buying into the notion of racial categories. Yet the truth of the matter is, these categories are largely constructs.
Latin Americans easily underscore this fact: it is possible to meet someone from Mexico or elsewhere in the region who may have very light skin. Indeed, they might even *gasp* appear white! Image that! So, are those European-descended Mexicans able to come here and be “American” in Ann Coulter’s world? Is there a sliding scale where the darker you are, the less “American” you can be? Middle Son and my Youngest Sister both tan better than the rest of my family, are they less “American” than the rest of us pale folk?
And what are we going to do with Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Elaine Chao, Linda Chavez, Alberto Gonzales, Clarence Thomas, Mel Martinez, Michael Steele, Carlos Guiterrez, Alphonso Jackson, and any number of other Not White People? By Coulter’s own logic, it would seem that they can’t be real Americans, now can they?
What about all those hard working American who are of African, Asian or Latin descent?
This whole situation is, quite frankly, sickening.
It is one thing to think that we need border controls, it is yet another to spout off about how America’s whiteness is being threatened. The ideals that founded and sustain this country are not color-specific, despite whatever abuses have been perpetrated in their name. And for people like Buchanan and Coulter to assert that America will die if whites become a plurality is to say that those ideals have no power unless they are wielded by the white man, which is to then be saying that whites are morally and intellectually superior to other people groups. And that, as I have already said, is racism–pure and simple.
Update: To simplify my entire post: if one doesn’t want to be accused of being racist, don’t make arguments based on race. More to the point, don’t make arguments predicated on the idea that one race is inherently superior to another.
June 8th, 2024 at 6:18 pm
E-gad. That’s pretty blatent. And yet, her defenders will say how she’s really not being racist because *insert really lame and probably blatently racist excuse here*.
June 8th, 2024 at 8:03 pm
Thanks for linking to our website, Conservative Heritage Times. Having a PC enforcer as our enemy is a sign we are doing something right.
So let me get something straight. Wanting to preserve the demographic makeup of the country is inherently “racist?” Where exactly is the hate, or is hate not required? If the Chinese want to maintain the demographic make-up of China Town would that be racist, or can only White people be racist?
Why is wanting to preserve (conserve) the demographic makeup of the country not inherently conservative? Why is trying to dilute that makeup not inherently radical?
And yes the 1965 Immigration Act was SPECIFICALLY designed to dilute the demographic core of America. I can provide you with a huge number of quotes from supporters of the 1965 Act to prove that if you would like.
June 8th, 2024 at 8:16 pm
BTW, we love a good argument. Why don’t you come on over to Conservative Heritage Times (formerly Conservative Times) and make your case. And bring some more PC academics with you. It would be good fun. You will find that we are from the not squeamish branch of conservatism. We don’t run for the tall grass any time some member of the PC thought police yells the r word without justification.
Your first post will go into moderation, but after that you can post at will. Hope to see you there. Surely it would be more fun than yelling the r word in some liberal academic echo chamber.
June 8th, 2024 at 9:26 pm
You will note that your first comment didn’t go into moderation, but was available from the get go.
And you are free to make your case right here, if you like.
Feel free to explain how claiming that America is threatened if it become less white and then explain how that isn’t quintessentially racist.
And btw: isn’t poking your head out from your site, taunting me and then running back to your site the very definition of running for the “tall grass”?
June 8th, 2024 at 11:05 pm
I just wanted others to join in on the fun. I have no problem discussing it here, but I hope it is OK if I invite some others to watch the festivities.
The only reason we have moderation of the first comment is because we get an enormous amount of spam.
I really don’t know whether something is “quintessentially racist,” because I don’t know what “racist” means. I know what the PC thought police say it means. It is any time a white person has an unapproved thought. But it doesn’t seem to apply to other groups.
Case in point: you say “…if one doesn’t want to be accused of being racist, don’t make arguments based on race.” So any consideration of race is de facto racist? Race is a totally illegitimate and irrelevant factor? So I guess La Raza is “quintessentially racist” then. Since I see from your CV that you specialize in Latin America and speak fluent Spanish you don’t need me to translate that for you. Have you condemned La Raza?
If the English language means anything, then the word “racism” should mean hate or ill-will of some sort. Not preference for one’s own which is as old as man and completely natural and unobjectionable.
The term “racism” is of relatively recent origins, and was popularized by neo-Marxist of the Frankfurt School type. The definition of the term has undergone a metamorphosis to reflect modern politically correctness.
So maybe we could start this little conversation by you defining “racism.” Specifically if you could address a few things. Is hate or ill will of some sort necessary? Can some things be racism if a white person does it, but not if someone else does it? Is La Raza (the group and even the concept) inherently racist? Is race ever legitimate to consider? Etc.
June 9th, 2024 at 12:10 am
No real conservative would accuse someone of being a “racist.” This charge is only 100 years old (see the OED), and it was largely popularized by neomarxists (Frankfurt School) to undermine Western Civilization. To call a Westerner a “racist” is to commit a soft form of terrorism against the West.
June 9th, 2024 at 1:03 am
Dan,
I don’t think Dr. Taylor is claiming to be a conservative, but I may be wrong.
June 9th, 2024 at 7:21 am
“My point is that a human being is a human being and all are equally capable of being fully American and adhering to the ideals of America. Further I am arguing that America will be no less America if over time it were to become less “White.”"
This is left-wing proposition nation nonsense.
Under a traditional, conservative concept of a nation, blood and soil, kith and kin, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe) are very important. Remember, both the Roman Republic and Greek democracy were predicated upon a tribal system, where ancestry ruled the day.
A conservative notion of nation, as the Latin nascere suggests, implies link by blood.
June 9th, 2024 at 10:54 am
Nate, Filmer and Dan,
Here’s a nice left-wing response for you:
Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I bring this up not as some fait accompli, or even as the main basis for my position. However, the notion that the universal kinship of all humanity is some new-fangled Marxist-based notion is utter nonsense.
Much of what has been posted above are arguments about what you want words to mean, such as “that’s not what a real conservative would say”—well, perhaps by your definition I am not a “real” conservative–indeed, I don’t want to be a real conservative by your definition. For that matter, I don’t recall asking for your imprimatur.
References to the OED or to the Latin root of words doesn’t change the basic discussion: Coulter, and by extension the three of you, are arguing for the superiority of human beings based on their skin color and further arguing that certain philosophical principles are better furthered by lighter skinned persons versus darker skinned one. I would call that “racist” but you can called it whatever you like. If you want to call it “real” conservatism” or some kind of reasonable nationalism, I disagree, but again: you can call it what you like.
You are also trying to deflect what I have said by trying to argue about by discussing what the word “racist” or “racism” means and then instead of even really engaging that you try to basically call names by asserting that it is about the great specter of Marxism.
However, it seems that you make my argument for me, and I suspect that we will remain at an impasse. When you state:
Not preference for one’s own which is as old as man and completely natural and unobjectionable.
That phrase “preference for one’s own” is rather loaded and I think that if that what you mean is White America for White Americans, then it is, by definition, racist. You are appealing to race as a legitimate and necessary (indeed, the main) division of humanity and one that ascribes superiority of one over the other. It is rather convenient for you that you happen to be in the better race, I guess.
In regards to La Raza, I agree that they have spouted their own fair share of racist rhetoric. I find it odd that you feel that that somehow justifies, or indeed requires, you to do the same. Bringing up La Raza, or other groups, is irrelevant, however, in terms of Coulter or your own arguments.
And this one made me laugh out loud: To call a Westerner a “racist” is to commit a soft form of terrorism against the West.
That’s rich.
BTW, no one actually even attempted to answer my question.
And since you have such a hard time with the word “racist” I will re-ask the question: “How is America less American if it is less White?”
June 9th, 2024 at 12:36 pm
First of all, the Scripture reference has to do with salvation. Salvation through Christ was being extended to all, but the verse was not intended to obliterate Greekness and Jewishness. If that is the case then it was also intended to obliterate maleness and femaleness, but Paul clearly argues later for gender roles. And in fact, advocates of gay marriage have used this verse to support their position. That is one of the most abused verses of the New Testament in modern times.
Second, Nate is entirely correct. You are arguing pure left-wing proposition nation nonsense. Do you disagree that that is a left-wing idea? Do you disagree that that is a relatively modern idea? Do you disagree that it can be traced directly to the left-wing Jacobins of the French Revolution? As a trained political scientist, I suspect you don’t because they are easily demonstrable facts.
Do you consider yourself a conservative? I had assumed you didn’t based on the article and your easy use of the r word. I figured the conservative sites in your blog roll were places you were mocking. Maybe I am wrong.
But the whole proposition nation issue is one of the core neo vs. paleo debates. You can’t just assert that America was founded on ideas. You have to back that up. Some quotes from the Founders spouting multicult dogma would be nice. But as I am sure you know, very few if any quotes such as that exist. Because people back then didn’t think they way. So instead we get modern liberal egalitarian ideas imposed in hindsight, and the simple assertion that America was founded on ideas.
Well the simple facts of history are that that assertion is patently absurd, and no amount of Jaffaesque historical revisionism will ever change that.
June 9th, 2024 at 1:09 pm
You are arguing, then, that while Christ came to save all of humanity that He would nonetheless endorse the notion of the racial superiority of whites. An odd interpretation of the New Testament, I must confess.
Even if you want to deal with the passage as being solely about salvation, how do you deal with the fact that the plain reading of the New Testament argues that all who come to Christ are His adopted brothers, making all Christians part of the same “kin group” (a term you and your compatriots are fond of, based on the above comments). How do you deal with the notion that all Christians, white, black, Asian, whatever, are brothers and sisters and there part of the same tribe and nation? Surely in the seeking to be with one’s own kind, that Christian brotherhood would trump race by a longshot.
Back to politics:
I honestly have no idea what “left-wing proposition nation” is–it doesn’t even read as grammatically correct.
In regards to “left-wing” I would submit that that notion of whether something is “left-wing” or “right-wing” is not especially helpful analytically and tends to be relative to the position taken by the person using the term as a description. The assignment of either term is also used usually a way to try and deflect an argument by tagging an idea or concept as being “bad” because it is “left-wing” (or “right-wing”).
I suspect that from point of view that the notion of the universal equality of humanity is a left-wing idea. So be it. Your labeling of it as “left-wing” is irrelevant. It certainly isn’t an argument against the notion.
You state: You can’t just assert that America was founded on ideas.
What else was it founded on? What is any system founded on?
You have to back that up. Some quotes from the Founders spouting multicult dogma would be nice.
I was unaware that I was asserting anything about the founders and mulitcultural dogma.
Although I suppose you aren’t too fond of “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?
I call that an ideal–and one that Jefferson as a slave owner did not live up to. Nonetheless it is an ideal and a founding one at that.
And the tenents of classical liberalism do not spring forth from the Jacobins. I suggest you read some John Locke or perhaps some John Stuart Mill.
Even if we assume that these ideas all came from where you say they came from–pointing out their origins is not an argument for whether the ideas themselves are good, bad or indifferent.
And, I would not consider myself a conservative in the same way you consider yourself one, no. In the broad dichotomy that is US politics, by most measures I fall in the very broad conservative camp.
The notion that the definition of “conservative” is that one can never assert that racism exists is a rather unique definition.
Quite frankly you seem far more interested in labeling things than you are about the substance of the argument.
And still, you have not addressed my question about America and Whiteness.
June 9th, 2024 at 1:18 pm
“Some quotes from the Founders spouting multicult dogma would be nice.”
Try this on for size – the author of the Declaration of Independence referring to the forerunner of our Constitution’s First Amendment:
“[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67
June 9th, 2024 at 1:30 pm
As a black man, you should support keeping the current racial make-up of the U.S. Negroes are being hurt badly by illegal immigration. Jobs that were traditionally held by negroes are now being stolen by lower paid Mexicans, thus leaving the negroes unemployed. According to Roy Beck, wages for negroes have dropped since 1965, the year we started to flood our economy with cheap labor.
June 9th, 2024 at 1:45 pm
Steven L. Taylor:
You need to take Logic 101. Your statements do not even follow each other. You sound like some left-wing MLK soundboard. Do you know anything that is not a left-wing cliche? Can you engage in basic reasoning?
I would be shocked, but I can see that you were accepted both into UT and U of C – Irvine based on affirmative action, not academic merit. Big surprise. You are not very bright.
June 9th, 2024 at 3:05 pm
Paleo,
Again: all you are giving me in name calling.
Where’s your argument? If you feel my logic is in error, how about showing us all how, rather than just trying to be insulting.
And btw, you and Tyrone are rather amusing as you don’t do very good research.
June 9th, 2024 at 3:31 pm
So are you saying that affirmative action played no role whatsoever in your acceptance into any undergraduate or graduate institution? Do you any proof?
I don’t believe it. Even though you only have a proletarian degree, you still do seem intelligent enough to have acquired it by academic merit.
Paleo is right. All you do is spout left-wing cliches. “Oh race don’t matter.” “Let’s just all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.” “Don’t be a hater!” “Let’s just have a big multiracial proposition nation!” Give me a break. Even the Nation doesn’t spout as many left-wing cliches as you do.
June 9th, 2024 at 3:58 pm
I can’t believe I’ve been missing out on all the fun. Exams always come at the wrong time…
Good stuff, Dr. Taylor. You are absolutely right. But you are being far too polite to these people.
Regards.
June 9th, 2024 at 4:20 pm
I’m curious, did Paleo, Tyrone and Nate actually read the entire original post? Just curious. LOL!
June 9th, 2024 at 5:16 pm
Wow. When I made that comment above, I had no idea the the VERY NEXT COMMENT would pretty much prove me right.
I guess my main question is this: how do we decide which demographic make up best makes up America? Why does the current status quo have to be preserved, anyway? I know a lot of Latinos, descendants of Latinos, as well as many of Asian decent and other ethnicities. In my circles, each and every one of them is a plus to this country, not a minus. I currently live in the Washington DC metro area. It is amazing to me how white my hometown is, and when I go home, while I simply love where I grew up, I REALLY miss the diversity we get around here, and while I’d love to move back for other reasons, that’s something I’ll actually think about before moving.
Dr. Taylor, I love the verse you brought out. There’s also the verse where it talks about people from every tongue, tribe, and nation being in Heaven. If heaven is going to be like that, I’m having trouble seeing why keeping some sort of racial purity standard is so important.
June 9th, 2024 at 5:57 pm
Wow, Dr. Taylor, you certainly attracted some interesting ones this time, didn’t you?
By the by Tyrone, please refrain from being a spokesperson on behalf of our race. I am not threatened by the immigration issue at all and have no desire to take a job that an immigrant–illegal or otherwise–is prone to take because too many “Negroes” fought and died for me to have the opportunity to pursue college and get a better life.
June 9th, 2024 at 6:32 pm
Wow. We have Steve Doggie-Dog James as Mr. PC Enforcer. If anyone violates the protocols of political correctness, don’t worry, Mr. PC Enforcer will jump in to rebuke them.
Boys and girls, make sure to mindlessly follow the strictures of political correctness, or else Steve Doggie-Dog James will castigate you.
Nevermind that the modern notion of ‘equality’ existed neither in Greek or Latin. “It don’t matter” (As Stevie Dog would say). It’s all cool. Nevermind that the Bible no where condemns the institution of slavery. “It’s fly. I’m down with my homies!”
Now, boys and girls, don’t be a hater! And never, never, violate the strictures of political correctness.
Ain’t nuttin but a G-Thing Baby….
June 9th, 2024 at 8:32 pm
Nate,
You simply prove that you are arguing from a tenuous position and that you are jumping to conclusions and really don’t know what you are talking about, although you accusations regarding affirmative action are rather amusing.
However, I hate to break it to you, but I am as white as they come.
Dare I say you show your true colors (if I may use the phrase) when you automatically started making assumptions about me based on what color you thought I was. Thanks for making my argument for me in regards to racism (i.e., judging people based on their color). Good job there.
And to Nate and all who came over the “Conservative Heritage Times” blog for illustrating that all you all seem capable of is calling names. It really doesn’t speak to well of your position that you feel that is how you should make your case, such as it is.
Still, it is all quite illustrative.
June 9th, 2024 at 9:00 pm
I don’t know about them, but what they say is correct. You are a shill for the left-wing PC industry. All you are is a political correctness enforcer.
As a true conservative, I value kith and kin, blood and soil, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe).
And as a true conservative, I reject the left-wing proposition nation nonsense that you are trying to peddle.
echei gar tên autên dunamin hê phrugisti tôn harmoniôn hênper aulos en tois organois: amphô gar orgiastika kai pathêtika: [dêloi d' hê poiêsis]. pasa gar bakcheia kai pasa hê toiautê kinêsis. malista tôn organôn estin en tois aulois, tôn d’ harmoniôn en tois phrugisti melesi lambanei tauta to prepon. hoion ho dithurambos homologoumenôs einai dokei Phrugion. kai toutou polla paradeigmata legousin hoi peri tên sunesin tautên, alla te kai hoti Philoxenos encheirêsas en têi dôristi poiêsai [dithurambon] tous Musous ouch hoios t’ ên, all’ hupo tês phuseôs autês exepesen eis tên phrugisti tên prosêkousan harmonian palin. peri de tês dôristi pantes homologousin hôs stasimôtatês ousês kai malista êthos echousês andreion. eti de epei to meson men tôn huperbolôn epainoumen kai chrênai diôkein phamen, hê de dôristi tautên echei tên phusin pros tas allas harmonias, phaneron hoti ta Dôria melê prepei paideuesthai mallon tois neôterois. ~ Aristotle
June 9th, 2024 at 10:10 pm
I reject the left-wing proposition nation nonsense that you are trying to peddle.
Good. Does that mean you’ll go back to your cesspool now and stop polluting this fine blog? I really, really hope so.
June 9th, 2024 at 10:14 pm
Would someone please tell me what “left-wing proposition nation” means anyway?
June 9th, 2024 at 10:20 pm
Dude, PaleoConservative – this is America, speak English!
(I couldn’t resist that one, too easy.)
June 9th, 2024 at 10:23 pm
Of course! Its a left wing nation that uses propositions all the time! Especially proposals to bring in all these immigrants that seem to be the root of all evil.
June 9th, 2024 at 10:24 pm
[...] I am honestly not sure what several of my “guests” were trying to argue in the thread about my Coulter post from yesterday, but part of it was taking issue with my assertion that Coulter was being racist in her column. [...]
June 9th, 2024 at 10:47 pm
Dr. Taylor, don’t you think my screen name of Filmer is a pretty good indication that I am well aware of Locke and his arguments?
I actually use left-wing and right-wing instead of conservative and liberal because left-wing and right-wing are anchored at a point in historical time, the French Revolution. So they are not entirely relative. The notion of nations being founded on ideas instead of by a particular people, the primordial belief, is clearly left-wing.
And I highly suspect you know what we mean by “proposition nation.” That is not an obscure debate.
I will provide some quotes and historical evidence to back my point up.
BTW, I think the reason some thought you were black is because of the Fuantroy picture that is on the side. I didn’t make that assumption.
June 9th, 2024 at 10:59 pm
It has been asserted that America was founded on ideas (propositions), and not by and for a particular group of people. The paleo position is that America is not a proposition nation but that we are a particular nation like all others. The proposition position would have been news to the Founders, and it is counter-intuitive even. The only reason people spout that kind of nonsense is because it has been brow-beaten into them. Here goes.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” – emphasis mine
John Jay from Federalist Paper #2. Pretty authoritative source don’t you think? Jay was a strong Federalist. I actually think he overstates the case for homogeneity. New England and the South were not all that similar “in their manners and customs” and that is why we later had problems. But this still makes my point even stronger than I might make it.
Dr. Taylor et al, what does “descended from the same ancestors mean?”
June 9th, 2024 at 11:02 pm
Here is Ben Franklin fretting about German immigration.
“Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together, establish their Language and Manners, to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”
Yeah that Ben Franklin was a real PC multicult.
June 9th, 2024 at 11:05 pm
“It’s a cliché of contemporary debate that America is a unique “Proposition Nation,” not one of those nasty ethnically-specific nation-states in Europe. Anyone can become an American by subscribing to a set of abstract principles, etc. etc. Quack quack.
In Alien Nation, I pointed out that this would have been news to the Founders, and indeed to pretty well all Americans before World War II. They were highly conscious of America’s specific ethnic and cultural heritage, i.e. national identity. And they thought it was very important – the reason, Jay said in The Federalist Papers, why the experiment of federal government could be made to work at all.
I also pointed out that, in fact, many European intellectuals had similar delusions of “Universal Nation”-hood. The most obvious example: France, where assimilating Africans and Arabs to French “culture” was actually official policy for a while.”
Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation.
June 9th, 2024 at 11:11 pm
“Smitten by a mythical organic past, these paleoconservatives were trying to separate American conservatism from its New World and modernist foundations. The neoconservatives, who were standing up for postmedieval political institutions, were fighting these rabid reactionaries in a war that had not yet been decided.
This line of argument, or something closely resembling it, has come up each time the “respectable” conservatives look rightward, toward those they hope to remove from the political discussion. In March at a CPAC conference and in his online commentary National Review- editor Jonah Goldberg, who is too young and obviously too ignorant to know the origin of this dispute, pointed to the French counterrevolutionary Joseph de Maistre (1754-1821) as the theorist whom American conservatives should want to fight the hardest.
In his polished, aphoristic dialogues, Evening Conversations in St. Petersburg, Maistre had noticed that it might be more useful to try to understand people as Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, or members of other national or ethnic groups than simply as human beings. Such a conceptual perspective, according to Goldberg, goes against conservatism, which is about the spread of “human rights.” Since Maistre did not believe in such rights, or in the universalist assumptions that they presuppose, he therefore made war against something Goldberg calls “conservatism.”
What Goldberg is really pushing is a form of leftist imperialism reaching back to Robespierre and Jacobin France. Goldberg has dusted off the platform of the French revolutionary Left and misnamed it conservatism, while taking a once renowned conservative, Maistre, and assigning him to a neocon version of eternal perdition. It might be properly asked why anyone would mistake the bearers of this view for certified conservatives.”
Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College
In all these the emphasis are mine, btw.
June 9th, 2024 at 11:13 pm
Irving Kristol, the Godfather of neoconservatism wrote:
“large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.”
Did you catch that? Irving Kristol thinks America is an ideological nation just like the Soviet Union.
Here is the late paleo Sam Francis dismantling this nonsense.
“But most of all, they believe “national interest” is more than geography. It’s also ideology, because “large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.”
It’s fascinating Mr. Kristol thinks the USSR and the United States are the same kinds of nations—”proposition countries” or “credal nations.” They aren’t, because that’s not what the United States is, as every real conservative knows. The Soviet Union was, which is why it was a tyranny.“
June 9th, 2024 at 11:27 pm
This is the last post for now. Please read these two essays, especially the first one, it brutally dismantles “propositionism.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article…ble.asp?ID=1232
The first one is from a very interesting source, FrontPageMag which is David Horowitz’ website. The reason this is interesting and a bit surprising is because FPM has been one of the leading voices on the “right” demonizing paleos as “racists.” But FPM wants to restrict Muslim immigration, and I think they find that the PN idea stands in the way of that. So that may be why this passed their usual PC screening muster.
The article is brilliant, although there are parts I disagree with. I disagree with the assertion that the Constitution is more “conservative” than the Articles, but that is for another day.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/lipsky.htm
The second is from a usual paleo suspect, the late Sam Francis.
Since I know most will not read the article I will excerpt small parts.
“Furthermore, if one appeals to American history, and in particular to the founding, as a source of information concerning what propositions are essentially American, one will dredge up things not to one’s liking that no one wants to even talk about. Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right (that would be folks like yours truly). Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid. (I have defended right of conquest in another article) . Liberals fear that admitting that these things are the basis of our great nation will legitimate these things; conservatives that their perceived illegitimacy will undermine respect for our great nation. This fact is in itself quintessentially Straussian: society represses certain truths, either by never mentioning them or by ingeniously explaining them away, as insalubrious for public consumption. The idea that America was founded foursquare on liberty and inalienable rights is the Platonic noble lie of our republic, and as such is entirely appropriate for schoolchildren and most of the rest of us. It is not, however, the truth. I challenge anyone to deny these bald historical facts with a straight face.” italics obviously added by me
“Of course, one can quite easily dismiss these moral monstrosities by appeal to our modern, more advanced, understanding of right and wrong, but this abandons the idea that the propositions on which America is based are wholly good, and therefore one cannot argue in favor of things on the grounds that they represent American propositions. American propositionism is just a way of dressing up contemporary liberal or neoconservative preferences in the respectable garb of national antiquity in order to claim that these preferences are conservative of something. Propositionists can reply that they believe in what America is based on now, but this just makes their position a matter of contemporary political preferences, which are objects of dispute, not historical grounds upon which disputes can be settled.”
“The most offensive thing about propositionism is that it attempts to subvert conservatism by passing off liberal ideas as conservative, rotting out the conservative mind from within. Propositionists argue in favor of their preferences by invoking our duty to our history and national character, but are blazingly uninterested in these things when they don’t agree with them, or in any concrete form. They are utterly cavalier about tradition and nationhood when asked to cherish these values in non-ideological form. They would reduce this rich, complex, historical, actual nation to an ideological skeleton.”
This paragraph is especially important regarding immigration.
“There is one final question: if America is fundamentally an idea, why bother having a country at all? There is no fundamental reason to cherish America, only its historically contingent role at this point in time as a promoter of certain ideas. It is a disposable instrument of an ideological agenda, and it is thus no secret that some people seem to be keen to dispose of it. Since propositions are not limited by geography, propositions imply the desirability of a world state to realize them. Propositionism is thus inherently globalist and nation-liquidating, no matter how much its exponents may deny it.”
“Note: Just to show how deep the rot has gone, here is a partial list of nominally conservative writers who appear to subscribe to propositionism: Dinesh D’Souza, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Murray, Ben Wattenberg, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Fareed Zakaria, Newt Gingrich, George Will, Lowell Ponte, Jamie Glazov, David Brooks, Paul Johnson, Jonah Goldberg, Bob Bartley, John Fund, Rush Limbaugh, Linda Chavez. Here is a partial list of those who have spoken out against this notion: Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Jr, Phyllis Schlafly, John O’Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Peter Brimelow, Joe Sobran, Paul Craig Roberts, Scott McConnell, Lawrence Auster, Chilton Williamson, Donald Livingston, Clyde Wilson, Stephen Presser, Howard Sutherland, J.P.Zmirak, Paul Gottfried, Don Feder, Bill Murchison, Michelle Malkin, Debra Saunders, Ilana Mercer. My apologies in advance to anyone whose position I have misunderstood or over-simplified.” emphasis mine
I highly suspect that Locke, the author of the first piece, is not a paleo. I suspect he is a certain type of somewhat authoritarian nationalist, but that is political science typology that many here probably don’t care about, although I suspect Dr. Taylor knows what I mean.
June 9th, 2024 at 11:31 pm
Well, in that case, I would like to go back to the garden of eden where we all walk around naked and have direct communion with God. Is that retro-conservative enough for you?
Maybe our common ancestor means our true common ancestors, Adam and Eve. If you want to look backward, honey, let’s look backward. Why stop at the Greeks and the Romans?
June 10th, 2024 at 4:29 am
Is this guy Filmer for real? Amazing that he can type that much and not say a anything. And he still did not answer the question concerning Ann Coulter. All I have to add for everyone that has made a comment here is that no matter what color your skin is, if you can’t speak spanish, you had better learn soon!
June 10th, 2024 at 6:53 am
Neighbor,
Not say anything?
I just dismantled the proposition nation conceit?
Please argue for it if I have said nothing. And please deal with those “bald historical facts” as Locke calls them.
June 10th, 2024 at 9:28 am
No, actually cutting and pasting a lot of quotation doth not an argument make. It passes for such in pseudo-intellectual circles, I will grant. Indeed, when it comes to essays handed in to my classes, a quote-dump probably garners a “D”.
I do at least now understand what you mean by “proposition nation.”
I state that you have a rather over-inflated view of the importance of the French Revolution and, quite frankly, the notion that “left” and “right” is to be understood wholly and totally in that context is utter nonsense. I am well aware of the origins of the terms, but to assert that all of human thought can be captured and categorized by those events is simply empirically untrue and analytically ridiculous.
You clearly pick and choose what you want to be true so as to fit your worldview.
Quite honestly I had ignored you pseudonym, because I really find the whole exercise of adults hiding behind fake names while engaging in public discourse to be rather childish on balance.
If by choosing Filmer you are asserting in some obtuse way that you support the Divine Right of kings then you are not a conservative, but, indeed, a reactionary (properly defined as one who seeks to return things to a previous state of being). Indeed, the evidence that that is your basic position is quite clear in your constant desire to anchor your arguments in your own version of the past.
Further, while I wouldn’t necessarily call myself “Lockean” I will say that his point of view rather substantially informs my own (as well, btw, did it many of the Founders) given that Locke criticized Filmer quite roundly in his more famous works, then clearly we find ourselves in conflict over some basic principles.
But of course, if I understand your “proposition nation” business, then clearly you reject all aspects of contract theory. Indeed, you ultimately have to eschew the notion of popular sovereignty in general because really what matters to you is the whole “kith and kin” business which may, or may not, have much of anything to do with democracy.
I am not entirely sure why you even bother quoting anybody or referring to anyone. Surely you must ultimately believe that whatever governmental structure that evolves is fine and dandy so long as it is primarily made up of persons of the same basic people group.
June 10th, 2024 at 9:33 am
And Jan:
Depending on precisely what “Filmer’s” views are on Robert Filmer’s work, he does go back to Adam and the notion that he was the first King and that his descendants are therefore kings.
I suspect, though I do not know for sure, that he almost certainly assumes Adam to have been White and for the darker skinned persons to have emerged because of God’s punishment, likely arguing that the “mark of Cain” is darker skin.
My first assertion is based on his pseudonym, the second is based on my general knowledge of White supremacists, especially of the so-called “Chrisitan” variant.
June 10th, 2024 at 12:48 pm
I must confess, it was late and I was feeling a little silly when I wrote my last comment.
And I have heard that “dark skin as punishment” nonsense before as well.
It is obvious that his argument, if you can call it that, is not so much conservatism as reactionary, as you pointed out. However, as you have pointed out before, if you are conserving something, you are a conservative. His whole argument that “real” conservatives are one certain group that wishes to conserve one certain social arrangement (or whatever) is just ridiculous.
June 10th, 2024 at 10:09 pm
[...] My recent encounter with some “heritage conservatives” led to an encounter with a term I had not heard before, which is “proposition nation.” To be honest, when it was first introduced into the message thread (here) I actually thought it was a typo, as it didn’t seem to grammatically or syntactically track (”propositional nation” might be better, but that’s as nevermind). [...]
June 10th, 2024 at 10:12 pm
A great race war does approaches. Each race will fight brave. Each race will fight for own survival. But in the end only one race will survive.
The white man had day in sun. Its now Age of the Brown Man.
By 2110 either from war or intermarriage not a single baby will be born with blond hair and blue eyes.
June 10th, 2024 at 11:06 pm
Ok. Came back to read it and am very sorry I did.
Geeze. I have always been pretty conservative, and now I know why a lot of people hate anyone that calls themselves conservatives.
I guess I am not a “true conservative,” which — as far as I can tell — means “one of the half dozen people that agree with the speaker.”
Please excuse me. I must go shower now.
June 10th, 2024 at 11:17 pm
Geeze. I have always been pretty conservative, and now I know why a lot of people hate anyone that calls themselves conservatives.
Yep-that thought occurred to me as well.
And yes, the shower is well advised.
June 11th, 2024 at 12:56 am
On supremacism (disclaimer) and proposition nations,
The problem with a proposition nation is that man will not fight for or sacrifice his self interest for capitalism or democracy or some other abstraction. Without attachment he pursues self interest on his own; force and fear are necessary in communist countries to ensure individuals do not pursue self interest at the expense of the state. Without particular ties, a general tragedy of the commons exists.
Men defend their homes because of attachment. The unique soil, culture, edifices, and people of a community are what men love and what they defend and strive to improve. Self sacrifices are made as men work to better their communities and nations.
That’s not to say every (or most) patriot is a supremacist. A mother loves her child over any other, but such is not the same as believing her child superior to all others.
Likewise, a community will care for its own people more than it will for perfect strangers, even perfect strangers who are better suited for the environment than, say, the village idiot, who is cared for despite his meager contribution to the society as a whole, with the community depending on the larger society. Didn’t Augustine tell us to take care of our own?
Nationalism and genophilia will exist as long as man exists. Indeed they can be positive influences since they encourage man to sacrifice his self interests, to a degree – I’m no socialist, for those he cares for.
—
Different peoples will have different ideal societies depending on their culture (incl religion) and, yes, genetics. Such does not suggest that one society or people is superior to another.
That said, I prefer the US to Mexico. However, importing Mexicans into America will surely change America. Objectively such changes are perhaps neutral, but I view them as negative. I have been in Mexico and I know of its corruption and I know of its alien culture and people; I prefer America as it is and not as it exists in the minds of half-crazed neocons, troskyites, and the other such extremists who desire ideological nations.
Speaking of neocons, if the neocons view America as a proposition nation and welcome in foreigners, including Iraqis, while viewing the slaughter of innocent Iraqis as worthwhile in bringing about democracy; then it follows that they believe the slaughter of Americans is worthwhile in bringing about democracy or some other change in our system as well.
Note: I’m opposed to such slaughter, even if it is a slaughter of foreigners. I’m a Christian after all.
—
If diversity is such a positive, then why can the Sunnis and Shia not cease fighting? Why can the Palestinians and Israelis not embrace peace? Do we really want to import diversity and fierce ethnic conflicts?
—
On the Declaration,
Wasn’t that a denouncement of aristocracy? That is to say, weren’t the signers insisting an English aristocract is no better than any other Englishmen and not that whites are no better than blacks? Slavery was around at the time as has been said.
—
Jan,
The definition of conservative is important if the word is to be used.
The definition I was given in one of the few political courses I took was conservatives desire slow change and liberals rapid change: both towards the same end.
Regardless, assuming a conservative just conservatives:
if someone is conserving a culture that still exists, then he is a conservative in that sense. If someone is conserving a progressive government that is working to undermine said culture, then he is a conservative with reference to the government. I believe this is the dispute over the term.
—
Minich,
I cherish a diversity of nations. However, if there is a constant movement of people, at least while cheap oil is around
, then these nations and the diversity they lead to will cease to exist.
Note: Diversity will arise again just as it after the flood.
I realise the next thought is to what I said of the Shia and Sunnis, but this is the result of the two occupying the same territory. If they can be separated, then they can learn to live peacefully.
Also, there is the argument I presented of the importance of nationalism since it leads individuals to sacrifice self interest for the community and nation. Without such, fear and force are needed to control a populace.
That is to say that while war among nations is terrible, a world of nations is the best possible world, as Voltaire might mockingly say.
However, I do hope Christianity can bring peace to the world: Each nation will learn to respect the other, separate but at peace. Not that I have much faith in man’s ability at achieving peace, but I do hope for such.
For those who need a more positive world view, even if such is founded in fantasy, consider that even in the Soviet Union there was infighting. Under the fierce rule of a world government, man will still fight. The actual result of a world government is less desirable than my imperfect alternative of a world of nations as it has always existed and as it will very likely always exist.
—
Singh,
as Dr. Steven Taylor would say, your comments are quite illustrative.
I suspect many who praise the fall of the West and the rise of global humanism are really praising the conquest of the West by their own people. Heh, it’s simply nationalism of another type in the guise of globalism. Just as the white Marxists of South Africa were thrown out of power, so too would the white globalists of America be thrown out if they gave power to the Mexicans.
—
A reminder: Such debates as this one are about the pursuit of truth and not a battle for a win.
I hope something in there helps. There is more I could say, but perhaps less is more (a joke, I’ve said too much =p)
June 11th, 2024 at 1:53 am
Since you deleted my longer post, may I at the least post this: Ann Coulter is not necessarily a supremacist. A mother loves her child over any other, but such is not the same as believing her child superior to all others.
I have posted the longer response in the CHT forums, but I’m uncertain as to whether you’d accept a link to it. Admittedly I never referred specifically to Ann Coulter, but I did refer exclusively to the topic and to the trackbacks albeit in 5500 words =)
June 11th, 2024 at 1:55 am
I’m sorry, it has appeared above now. Thank you very much, and I apologise for these 2 extra posts, which I’d appreciate your deleting though it’s ok if you don’t =)
June 11th, 2024 at 6:05 am
[...] Stevie quotes Aristotle on his webpage, but seems to be unaware of the classical notion of a nation, one based in blood and soil, kith and kin, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe). ‘Nation’ as the Latin nascere suggests implies link by blood. This has been the norm throughout all of history: Ancient, Medieval and Modern. [...]
June 11th, 2024 at 8:03 am
1) You see a world that doesn’t exist: one made up of clearly delineated tribes.
2) You have heard about WWII, haven’t you? Or Vietnam or any number of other conflicts wherein men and women of different colors, ethnicities and religions have died for this country, have you not?
And really, the most integrated institution in the US is the military. There are even *gasp* immigrants in the military.
Regardless, please take your tripe and return back to your enclaves where you are free to define your words however you like.
June 11th, 2024 at 9:34 am
That’s “Dr. Stevie” to you.
Honestly, the influx of commenters should probably diassociate themselvesf with this whole argument.
Free Hint: “You must have gotten through school on affirmative action” is *not* (repeat, NOT) the best way to defend *anyone* suspected of racism.
Your best course now is to delete all trackbacks and claim that someone is spoofing your account.
June 11th, 2024 at 10:19 am
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
Pope Pius XI
Mit brennender Sorge
June 11th, 2024 at 1:28 pm
Dr. Taylor,
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.
June 11th, 2024 at 1:50 pm
Steve,
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.
June 11th, 2024 at 1:54 pm
In this context I using the phrase to refer to the folks coming across the ether to PoliBlog from the “Conservative Heritage Times”–I don’t think it was all that hard to figure out what I referring to. Further, the site and its denizens seem obsessed with “kith and kin” and such, so the term was a useful shorthand.
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.
June 11th, 2024 at 1:57 pm
Dr. Taylor,
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.
June 11th, 2024 at 1:59 pm
Filmer,
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.
June 11th, 2024 at 2:33 pm
Quote:
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)
June 11th, 2024 at 4:39 pm
Just curious, Prof. Taylor. Do you reject the conclusions of such books as Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and IQ and the Wealth of Nations? If so, on what scientific grounds do you reject them? As a scholar, you can’t reject them just because they go against anti-racist dogma. If you accept them, then what implications does that have regarding immigration? What impact does that have on the creedal nation debate you are having? Had America been initially inhabited by sub-Saharan Africans, all other things being equal, (which is logically impossible but please play along) would we have the same America we have today?
June 13th, 2024 at 5:16 am
I’d like to make one last effort at an explanation; I regret that I entered this discussion late.
—
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.
June 13th, 2024 at 1:07 pm
Frank,
As I said over at the other site, I agree that people will identify with different groups at different levels under different circumstances. Your example only illustrates that there is no one true basic level of association that is inherently better than another, as they will all break down under the right circumstances, even the basic family unit.
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.
June 15th, 2024 at 10:11 pm
That’s an excellent response.
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.