May 17, 2008
Some posts I came across today I figured I’d point out. At the Left Conservative there is a response to VDARE’s Arthur Pendelton on the “sellout” of paleolibertarians on race (which reminds me of MM’s charge that by linking to Greenwald Lew Rockwell is entering the “leftist fever swamp”). The interesting thing about the response is that it makes an argument under the assumption that race realists are right. I’ll note here that I agree with McMaken that the Mexicans are taking back what we stole from them whether we like it or not. Since I don’t live in the south-west I advise cutting our losses, handing it back, and building a fence. The call there for paleos to make common cause with black power types is also echoed for the goofy hippy types in Bill Kauffman’s review in First Principles of A Conservative History of the Left.
Moving then from race differences to gender differences, via TATP Charles “Rad Geek” Johnson points out the ambiguous nature of “spontaneous order”, which may mean either voluntary or unplanned. He uses Susan Brownmiller’s “Myrmidon theory of rape” as a non-benign example of unplanned order. I was among those “thin” types confused by Francois’ dismay at the anarchist implications of studies showing gender differences in monkeys, but Johnson’s post is still good. I was told Brownmiller was to blame for the ridiculous “rape is not about sex” theory, or at least its popularization, here. Further barely related linkery is below the fold.
Now I’m wondering why MM has never touched gender issues (though he has no inhibitions on race) when somewhat similarly minded folks like Steve Sailer, Ilkka Kokkarinen, Murray Rothbard, Lawrence Auster, Half Sigma and Vox Day seem to relish doing so. He at least gave a short explanation on why he doesn’t care about “the Jew thing” (those that do will lap up this). I’m closer to his point of view on that one than tanstaafl or n/a, but I still think he’s a bit deluded. Speaking of n/a he showed up to defend the reputations of New Englanders at UR. As one who is still a Puritan at heart despite my absence of God-belief, I was gladdened by that (as I was by Glenn Greenwald’s harking back to the anti-government conservatism of the 90’s in which I came of political age). Speaking of that, I found a site acceptable to paleo types via TDBM1 called The Remnant. The good name of New England is somewhat partially defended at Taki’s here. The author, Charles Coulomb, discusses his own New England located ethnic group (French Canadian) here. In other Taki-related news, at GNXP there is a discussion of Austin Bramwell’s definition of conservatism. The ever-interesting Bramwell previously attempted to find a definition of neo-conservatism, and found it to oppose neo-conservatism.
May 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Just to clarify, I am totally uninterested in whether the race realist are right or not, primarily because it tells us nothing about what their goals for society are.
One area where the race realists are obviously wrong is in their devotion to broad state powers to curtail the threat posed by “those people”. Not only is this immoral in my view, but it is also the sort of big government statism that would never be given support by them for any other reasons. The fact that folks like Lawrence Auster and Jared Taylor have no problem making common cause with David Horowitz and friends tells me all I need to know about them.
Personally I believe there are differences between races. Off the record I don’t know anyone who would deny this. I just don’t think its terribly important.
Dylan
P.S. My views on the so called “reconquista” are not terribly different from yours
May 18, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“I’ll note here that I agree with McMaken that the Mexicans are taking back what we stole from them whether we like it or not. Since I don’t live in the south-west I advise cutting our losses, handing it back, and building a fence.”
Can you honestly say you write those words without a trace of guilt? I am honestly curious. Mexico was formed in 1810 and the Gadsden purchase was made in 1853, what is it about that (at most) 43-year period of history which it makes it THE correct frame of reference? I think the only possible reason 1810-1853 could be a more correct frame of reference than any other is guilt; correct me if I’m wrong. I’d prefer it if the Aztecs would finally give back the land they stole from the Toltecs … some bird eating a snake on a rock doesn’t confer any rights.
Why do you think they can take what they want whether we like it or not? The treatment of the situation in the mainstream media pretty much indicates to me that “we” like it just fine. If the MSM wanted to change attitudes, they’d just report how the Mexican government feels about US sovereignty.
Do you think that surrendering various parts of the USA (presumably chosen by the people who control what we think of as the correct frame of reference) would be a demonstration of strength, or of weakness? I just can’t see why anyone would think national contraction would satisfy the appetites of the anti-Americans. Aren’t there anti-Anglo gangs in every major US city? In which cities is their attitude, “We’re guests in this country - it’s best we behave ourselves”?
Where do you think we should build the fence, and why would it be easier to defend that boundary than the current one? Would you draw the new border Ulster-style (as curvy as necessary) or Africa-style (as straight as possible)? Which method do you feel has more reliably led to peace?
And, finally, if the national contraction plan were to go through, and the southwestern Anglos that found themselves living in northwestern Mexico were to start carrying signs written in Spanish that said, “Hey asshole, we are in the USA!”, how many Mexicans would be writing to each other that Mexico needs to cut its losses and hand back the territory they had stolen, since of course the period 1853-2008 is the correct frame of reference?
May 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I removed the double-post.
Dylan, I am in general more impressed when an argument grants as many assumptions of their opponents as possible.
JUms24, I don’t feel any guilt for anything I didn’t do, which includes all that happened before I was born. We’re all living on stolen land. Even the Europeans stole it from the Neadertals (who we ate). I simply think that the facts on the ground make retaining the southwest unlikely. There are too many Mexicans there already who have attained legal status along with their descendants. Their high birth rates seem to assure that they will have a majority status, and under a democratic system that will give them political power. The alternative is something like the Spartan garrison state, which I discussed here. As long as they are U.S citizens they will have the right to emmigrate from California to greener pastures (as many whites and even immigrants have started doing). They will also have the same political clout as any other group of citizens of similar size, perhaps more because certain quotas apply to them but not other groups. That would not be an issue if the area was removed from the U.S.
I am not sure about the details of where the fence should be built. Nor am I sure about where the boundaries of a partitioned Iraq should be drawn. I still favor partition.
I don’t really care much about demonstrating strength. When we build a fence and block immigration that will be demonstration enough and desirable policy in itself.
I don’t really care how Mexicans handle northern Mexico. It would be cool if the northern parts of Mexico seceded, as some have hinted they desire to, but that would still be their business.
Cities held captive by gangs are leftover fears from the ’70s and ’80s. That’s why Death Wish was so popular while The Brave One is laughed at. Crime is down, in part because a lot of criminals got themselves killed or lockedup. Outside the southwest there is little danger of the underclass gaining majority status, and we can always use the Canadian immigration strategy of importing a mix of others to swamp them and produce a more genuine multiculturalism (mostly non-underclass) as opposed to the more typical and problem-ridden biculturalism.
May 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Okay, your thinking about this is much more sophisticated than I had feared. Let me think about this for a while.
May 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“Dylan, I am in general more impressed when an argument grants as many assumptions of their opponents as possible.”
In that case I’ll take the compliment.
I also agree with you on the demographic issue in the American Southwest making some sort of Hispanic takeover inevitable at this point. Cutting our losses is a good way of puting it.
May 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm
So, if we’re talking about a proposal to cut our losses by separating the US Southwest from the rest of the country, and then limiting immigration from that region, how do you think the MSM would portray that sort of proposal?
I think they would portray it as white nationalism. And they’ve already spent so much ink blurring the difference between WN and white supremacy….
I’m not saying you should care what the MSM thinks, I’m just wondering if you actually see greater chances for a separation proposal being enacted than an alternative: large-scale deportation combined with an abrupt end to poverty/childbirth subsidies.
I don’t really get the “VDARE, Lew Rockwell and the race obsessed paleo problem” article. (Even after I figured out that he’s sometimes on a first-name basis with Rothbard, even in an article mentioning Charles Murray.) He’s criticizing the WN and “race mongering paleos” because they haven’t considered small government separatism enough? By my reading it’s the main thing they’re pushing. And I haven’t heard anyone at VDare criticize anyone for being “pissed off”; they criticize the lumpenleftist attitude that being pissed off justifies violent crime.
Seems to me VDare is mainly interested in establishing and disseminating facts in preparation for a debate on solutions. That’s why they accept WN and citizenists and other philosophies among their writers.
I do think someone should put together a solid proposal for dividing up the US in some WN / Booker T. Washington sort of manner. (Don’t know much about the Amiri Baraka reference; I’ll look up his view on separatism, but for now I’m wondering where he’s going to get a supply of white girls to rape in his section of a divided nation.)
Explain what happens to the regional minorities. Explain what the response should be to people wanting to migrate across the new boundaries. Explain why economic refugees / transnational panhandlers won’t just end up in whatever region the WNs get and crowd all the emergency rooms.
I ask because there isn’t a chance in hell that any new additions to the country of Mexico will be run any better than Old Mexico. The refugees will not stop being generated until cultures change in ways they are likely never to change. I still don’t feel that this is or could possibly be about helping Mexicans. Only Mexicans can do that. It is about some way of ending once and for all the blank check conception of what it is the United States is thought to owe Mexico. Impossible? Maybe.
May 18, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I’m not all that concerned with the MSM (I think it largely just gives the people what they want) but since so many liberals have pointed out that we did steal the land from the Mexicans and many “anti-racist” Mexicans have expressed La Raza “Go back to Plymouth/Europe” sentiments, it would be hard for them to portray it as WN. I presume many WNs would be hostile to the plan, which would make it all the harder to sell that angle. Once we are separated both the professional multiculturalists and cheap labor interests in the state will lose political influence is the U.S to the east of them. Immigration enforcement then could be easier. Anti-immigration sentiment tends to be a mile wide but an inch deep, and giving up part of the country could make the issue more salient.
I certainly don’t expect Mexico to do a good job of running the place. I don’t live there, so it’s not really of my concern. If the quality of life does go down drastically, that could help prove restrictionist points about how unlikely most Mexicans are to leap into the forefront of the 21st century and how fragile our good fortune is. Of course, it is always possible that the existing elites will remain the elites and their influence will be tolerated by the governing authorities that depend on them for revenue. That is the case in many places whose economies are dominated by overseas Chinese, and I believe is also the case in the Bahamas.
Though it was written before Hispanics became a significant minority population, I like Michael H. Hart’s proposal for partition of the U.S because it realistically allows for the fact that most people are not racialists and will not jump at the chance to live in completely homogenous nations and so includes a multiracial nation. Of course, I would like to have far more nations for every kind of preference. It is my hope that seasteading will help accomplish that.
May 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Good article. Hart is obviously a fan of plan-language writing, which I admire, though I’m not used to it. It’s interesting that one of the points he talks about so much is how his plan differs from a two-way separation plan, even conceding that it is “much more complicated”. I don’t really agree, it’s a little more complicated, but the complexity of any separation plan pretty much dwarfs the difference. It’s a fine plan and it deserves a fair hearing.
“And finally, if possible, the BC should try to make each country a single, connected, compact territory.” A logical proposition. I still can’t figure out where the WSS would be, though - parts of New England, upstate New York, across the lakes through Michigan out to the non-Pacific Northwest. Which doesn’t fit that criterion at all. (I included New England because without it, I don’t see the WSS having any coastline.)
In reality, I think the BC would be a war zone.
May 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Actually the White Nationalist/Racialists crowd has flirted with big government statist like the FrontPageMagazine crowd consistently over the years. On top of that people like Jared Taylor have proposed drastic extensions of the federal death penality, a virtual militarization of society in order to combat immigration, and forced sterilization of various undesirables. I read Taylor and AmRen on and off and have been told that Taylor is now advocating a strict decentralist program, though the people who have told me that have provided no links or support. Naturally I am skeptical given the history of people with those ideas.
The VDare crowd not criticizing people who are “pissed off” is simply not true in my view, because they seem to be incredibly angry over Jeremiah Wright, which is really the root of a lot of this discussion. To my knowledge Wright is not Eldridge Cleaver, justifying rape as a political act or even a ghetto dweller robbing a white store to get even for “his people”. In fact most of the things conservatives and racialists are angry at Wright for are variations of things that have been said by white conservatives and nationalists (contrast the writings of Sam Francis on 9/11 to the language Wright used…there is virtually no difference). Even the explicit “blackness” of Wright’s theology is just the mirror image of the “Christian Western Civilization” coin consistently tossed out by racialists as a justification for why we need to bring back poll taxes. But Wright is wrong because he’s an “angry black man”, which to most racialists means he is an ingrate and a threat. It’s simply nonsense and I would and have said the same thing when roles were reversed (see my posts about the NAACP for example).
As for Baraka, I really wish more people would read up on him, Ishmael Reed and other figures in the Black Arts Movement. Along with Robert F. Williams they are probably the most interesting figures of the Black Power movement, faults and all.
May 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Actually the White Nationalist/Racialists crowd has flirted with big government statist like the FrontPageMagazine crowd consistently over the years. On top of that people like Jared Taylor have proposed drastic extensions of the federal death penality, a virtual militarization of society in order to combat immigration, and forced sterilization of various undesirables.
You should really find some links to back up the more damning charges along with the more nebulous charge of “flirting” with the “big government statists”.
In fact most of the things conservatives and racialists are angry at Wright for are variations of things that have been said by white conservatives and nationalists (contrast the writings of Sam Francis on 9/11 to the language Wright used…there is virtually no difference).
Sam was a serious man who dealt in analyis rather than schadenfraude. Wright is an exhibitionistic buffoon.
May 19, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I’m a big fan of Sam Francis. I could care less about Jeremiah Wright. That they came to many similar conclusions and said very similar things regarding the imperial state is pretty obvious though..if one is willing be honest..and that is a very big if.
As for the charges I listed..have you read Taylor’s book? If not you should. He argues all for all of the things I mentioned above. One of the local members of the CofCC got into a heated exchange with a local writer/paleo friend of mine just recently because he refused to endorse mass sterilization of welfare recipients. Pretending these ideas aren’t out there doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
May 23, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“I do think someone should put together a solid proposal for dividing up the US in some WN / Booker T. Washington sort of manner.”
Italians get New Jersey! We called it, right here, right now! You’re all witnesses! We shall make the Pinelands bloom…
Calls for partitioning the country along racial lines - which is not going to happen, but whatever - are short-sighted from a WN perspective. In the long run, blacks living in their own North American nation insulated from Euro influence are not going to keep their birthrates at their current low level. Their low birthrate is the product of our modern society, its values, and the opportunities it affords people who limit the number of their children. Modern society in America is provided and maintained largely by whites. Absent whites (or Asians, or even Hispanics), the existing infrastructure would take time to fall apart, but I think it would eventually if those IQ scores we’ve been seeing among blacks for the last 100 years have any truth to them. The black birthrate would subsequently rise, and the population of North American blacks would mushroom. A relatively rich white nation would not hold out indefinitely against a poor, burgeoning black one.
The status quo is much better for whites (not to mention blacks) than racial separation would be. That WNs don’t see this says something about the intellectual caliber of most WNs.
Italians should still get NJ though.
July 2, 2008 at 2:54 am
[...] were recommended to me by Mencius Moldbug, and given the last chapters of the last book I am even more surprised that he has not yet discussed gender issues at his blog. MM opposes institutionalization, [...]