The One, the Many, and the Battle Zone

My columns this month have to do with good fences, good neighbors, the One, the Many, and inclusiveness (that’s the one at Crisis Magazine), and with carrying on the battle: we’re not going to be able to slide through the current situation by lying low until it all blows over. The issues are too basic.

About these ads

30 thoughts on “The One, the Many, and the Battle Zone

  1. Pingback: The One, the Many, and the Battle Zone | Reaction Times

  2. Re: fences, your Pontiff has already declared that his Catholic homeland should welcome Muslim immigrants. As Europe becomes Muslim, Rome, like Istanbul</strike Constantinople and Beirut Antioch, will be a Christian See, surrounded by mosques, supported by remittances from the Americas.

    Re: carrying on the battle, or what…we’ll write angry blog posts?

  3. One point made in the first piece is that high Church officials have said ill-advised things and that’s bad. As for what to do about it, the second piece goes into that. You start by getting clear on what’s going on. Then you stop lying about it, start telling people about it, and live in the best way you can under the circumstances in which you find yourself. You have a better plan?

    • You have a better plan?

      He doesn’t. Anyone who defends capitalism simply cannot complain about open borders.

      As Europe becomes Muslim, Rome, like Istanbul</strike Constantinople and Beirut Antioch, will be a Christian See, surrounded by mosques, supported by remittances from the Americas.

      Well then perhaps the Pope should start studying the rich Eastern “orthodox” history of being the puppets of Muslims Caliphs. By the way Islam will likely take over “Holy” Russia faster than even Western Europe, despite “symphonia” and Putin’s supposed revival.

      • You realize the great thing about private property is it means people get to draw their own borders? It is the demotist State which decrees open borders. Of course, at this point I’m already committing crimethink.

        I have devoted plenty of words to the backflips which Orthodox hierarchs have done for Islam and Ba’athism. But that’s not the point I’m addressing. Mr. Kalb writes as if there are tools at hand for traditionalist Catholics to deal with the West’s slow conquest by r-selected, Third World culture. There are not. Well, there are but we can’t discuss them.

      • You realize the great thing about private property is it means people get to draw their own borders? It is the demotist State which decrees open borders. Of course, at this point I’m already committing crimethink.

        That’s nice. Apparently the good free-marketers at Reason and the Von Mises Institute don’t see it that way. They are at least consistent- for the free flow of capital AND people across borders. Isn’t the common Austrian argument for why we shouldn’t build a border wall is because such a wall would act to keep people in? Not to mention the hundreds of corporate ceos, the chamber commerce- all very pro-immigration. Maybe its time conservatives rethink their alliance with free-marketers?

      • I am ambivalent about the free market stuff. Mises and his rational way of defending free market drew me away from my postmodern disregard for reason and I am thankful for that. Without it I wouldn’t be reading this website or appreciate philosophical arguments for theism.

        Moreover, I think Mises is basically correct in his considerations about human action but overestimates importance or place of his own field in the greater scheme of things. It’s also true that not all free-marketers are excited about immigration and open borders like another Austrian economist H. H. Hoppe. Unfortunately, he arrives at the radical conclusion that stateless society is solution of immigration problem. That’s not rare among “Austrians” so tendency to extreme rationalism and disregard for empirical counter-evidence seems to be a weak spot of that school.

        I work for a company that hires employees from foreign countries esp. for low-paid jobs and it’s not an exception around here. In my country it is not such a problem as in the US now but I believe that’s just matter of time. For me it’s an empirical proof that unrestricted market economy leads to open borders. EU is another example and conservatives like Thatcher helped to create it for the sake of united market. I am not sure how would she like the outcome so ISE is right about rethinking alliance of conservatives with libertarians.

        I am not sure about the place or limits of free market within society. Perhaps Moldbug is right with his combination of inside free market and outside protectionism. It’s just not the option under current circumstances.

      • Dunno what TAG has in mind with the “tools at hand” business. There are always tools at hand to better a situation. That won’t matter if people won’t recognize the situation, what’s wrong with it, and what would be better. Also, there are lots of good things about private property–it’s a “tool at hand”–but none of them will come about if people don’t know what to do with it or the social cooperation isn’t there to maintain the institution.

      • The embrace of open borders is not a necessary stance for those who also embrace capitalism. It just so happens that many of those who advocate capitalism also advocate open borders; it seems they are primarily libertarians, i.e., hippies of the right. While they might have been forgiven their misconceptions when the idea was relatively new, now, that the fruits of open borders are clear for all to see, they cannot.

        Capitalism works best within the framework of a moral society that values its own existence. Since neither of those conditions are in place now, it is only natural that capitalists/capitalism should be working towards the destruction of our society. The solution is not, therefore, the replacement of capitalism; it is the reinstatement of morality and belief in our intrinsic value and that the society our ancestors have wrought.

        Which is the point of the Orthosphere, as well as many of Lawrence Auster’s writings.

      • Wm Lewis,

        I agree that we need a moral society that values its own existence and it is for this reason that I say we ought to dump capitalism. I realize of course I know this is not realistic in the short term and I could settle for something along the lines of Pat Buchanan’s Hamiltonian nationalism, as a start: close the borders, raise tariffs, repeal NAFTA, all laws favor indigenous Americans remove the troops from overseas bases ect. That would be a good start and such a platform I think could resonate across a broad spectrum enough of spectrum to win some political victories and forestall the national decline. But in the end such common sense solutions are opposed by the super rich, who really have no loyalty to any country or place. I share your aversion to libertarians as well, I think they’ve been accorded too much influence on the Right at the expense of traditionalists. Unfortunately the open borders promotion and the libertarian phenomena on the right are all traceable to the big money interests. All of these billionaires and CEOs like Sheldon Adelson could care less about middle-class and blue collar conservatives.

      • I do not see how “dumping capitalism” is a necessary condition for our renewal. I do, however, agree with your other ideas: closing the border, raising tariffs; repealing NAFTA (and refrain from joining TPP); rewriting laws so that native/indigenous Americans (not to be confused with American Indians) are favored; pulling many of our troops home (certainly all of them out of the morasses of Iraq* and Afghanistan, the latter being the land of the boy-buggerers); and similar common-sense measures. We also have to expel the Mexicans—naturalized, native-born, or otherwise—from our midst.

        *Unless we build a base out in the desert with a one-mile kill zone around it. Convenient as a launching pad for destroying the next regional anti-American regime that harms or threatens us. Used only for two-month missions to eliminate such regimes.

      • We also have to expel the Mexicans—naturalized, native-born, or otherwise—from our midst.

        That’ll do little save provoke a bloody race war. Besides Hispanic civilization existed in many parts of the US before the Protestant English came, I see no justification for uprooting them.

        Are you for ending dual citizenship? What punishments would have you in mind for CEOs and policy makers who primarily responsible for this mess?

      • > I agree that we need a moral society that values its own existence
        > and it is for this reason that I say we ought to dump capitalism.

        There are no alternatives to capitalism which work. If there is any, could you propose one? Your “Pat Buchanan’s Hamiltonian nationalism” list is capitalist too. It is not free market capitalism, but instead a protecionist capitalism, but is still capitalism.

      • I don’t know what punishment is appropriate for those who made this mess.

        Dual citizenship should be ended immediately for those who have reached the age of majority. Dual citizenship, along with things like multilingual ballots, bilingual signs, and racial preferences, have the combined effect of destroying the nation, destroying our sense of peoplehood.

        As Jeffersonian discussed in his peaceful separation articles, the Mexicans have implacable revanchist views that are incompatible with being in America. Regardless of the presence of Mexicans in what is now American territory before it was American, they were less than 1% of the population in 1960 or thereabouts. As Lawrence Auster observed, the first step to righting the problem is stop making it worse. In the case of illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Mexican, first we have to stop allowing them in. The next step is to enforce existing laws; this will cause many illegal aliens to self-deport. Rewriting our insane jus soli laws is another important piece of the solution. Eventually we can reach a state where further restrictions on Mexicans will not result in any sort of race war because there will be too few Mexicans present in America to mount such an effort.

        Finally, I suspect your seeming sympathy for Mexicans, and lack of concern for the “Protestant English”—you know, those pesky people who actually founded and built this country, and whose decendants are still the majority, if just barely—is due to your Roman Catholicism. Would the Protestant majority have let so many Roman Catholics in had they known that the descendants of those immigrants would do so much to undermine America?

        (Yes, I am aware of the existence of perfidious WASPs, etc.; the evil of liberalism knows no bounds. But Roman Catholics are amongst the most extreme supporters of open borders, sanctuary cities, and other nation-destroying policies, driven in part by their greater concern for the welfare of ostensibly Roman Catholic Mexicans than for native Americans (and I don’t mean Indians when I say “Native American”).)

      • > As Jeffersonian discussed in his peaceful separation articles, the Mexicans
        > have implacable revanchist views that are incompatible with being in America.

        come on, how many mexicans you met that that hate whites? I don’t doubt that there are such people, but that’s probably quite rare. Mexicans are either white or mixed, and mixed people don’t tend to hate part of their heritage. I’d go even further, there are probable less mexicans that hate whites then whites that hate whites, and I’m quite sure a lot of “progressives” hate whites.

        Now how many blacks you met that hate whites? I met already quite a lot. Some threatened to kill me. For a good example, read wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation

        There are a series of black religious organizations teaching that whites are devils to be destroyed. And you say that mexicans are the problem?

        That pesky hispanic Zimmerman trying to destroy America by patrolling the streets =) Not to mention those horrible mexican cleaning ladies which leave everything shiny.

        Those black gangsters and rapers? Nope, not a word will be said about them. Because we are too pussies to even dare mention in the internet that they could be the real problem and the real source of evil, saying that would be the worse crime any white person can commit (and only whites can commit it), the crime of being “racist”. It seams that only Lawrence had balls among thinking right-wingers.

      • Felipe, Auster did not identify blacks as “the real source of evil.” He always qualified his observations on black savagery by saying not all, not even a majority, but a significant percentage, of blacks were responsible for black criminality.

        As for Mexicans, while the majority Mestizo are mixed, there are still many pure Indians. Based on my observations, it seems that people with a high percentage of Indian ancestry are common, even predominant, among Mexican illegal aliens in America. White Mexicans, being the elite, have little reason to leave Mexico.

        You seem to be unfamiliar with Mexicans’ desire for the reconquista of the lands they lost to the United States and their dreams of Aztlan. Mexican education inculcates them with the belief that because America “stole” land from Mexico (i.e., took land in a war), a significant portion of American soil is rightfully theirs. They come here to occupy and colonize, not to assimilate and become good Americans. (Even if they assimilate culturally and linguistically, the only way they can assimilate racially is to intermarry with whites until the Mexican element is so small as to be insignificant; this is not what most people want for their posterity.)

        More fundamentally, Jeffersonian observed that neither Mexicans nor their descendants will identify with our Anglo-Saxon culture; many are actively hostile to it. It is for this reason and those adumbrated above that he proposed that no Mexican citizen, or child of one, could ever acquire citizenship in the American Federal Republic (i.e., the non-liberal country that would secede from the liberal USA).

        This is not to denigrate Mexicans; it’s just that they are not part of our nation or culture. They have the sense to realize it; too many Americans do not.

      • Well citing Jefferson makes me more inclined to side with the Hispanics. Jefferson disliked the Hispanics for the same reason he hated old Europe, he hated the Hispanics with the same liberal disdain, a modern left-liberal looks down on us. Not to mention a bit ungrateful as the Spanish had helped American win its war of independence. I guess we have that in common in with Spain- helping to liberate a country that later turns on us.

        I wish American conservatives would look to the better aspects of their English and yes Protestant heritage. I wish conservative Protestants would look more towards the social order that existed here prior to the liberal constitution of 1787. A confederation of theocratic towns that proliferated New England in the 17th and early 18th centuries are much more ideal social orders than the liberal republic that came afterward. I’ll even grant that the American revolution when it started was conservative in the sense it was rooted in Reformed ideas of the common good, and English law. Somewhere along the way it was hijacked by a liberal Whig elite which in turn foisted on the country the liberal order we have now.

        This return to roots also includes Hispanics, who I wish would look more towards their Spanish ancestry than to modern identity politics.

      • You misread me, ISE. I wrote “Jeffersonian,” the proposer of the idea that secession in the US be by county, rather than by state. He guest-posted on the Orthosphere a couple of times, as well as at View From the Right.

        Yes, we can wish that Hispanics would identify more with their Spanish roots than with identity politics. We can also wish that a group of flying yellow-and-green checked octopuses would selectively descend on every unredeemable leftist in the country and cause them to flee to Canada.

        The odds are about equal on those.

      • You misread me, ISE. I wrote “Jeffersonian,” the proposer of the idea that secession in the US be by county, rather than by state. He guest-posted on the Orthosphere a couple of times, as well as at View From the Right.

        Ideas like secession and county based government I believe reflect the ideas of the actual Thomas Jefferson. So I wasn’t entirely incorrect on that. If what the commentator means is that Hispanics are ill-suited to a polity based on the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment, then I guess he is right. You’d have to count me and a lot of others in that category as well.

  4. The root of the problem for Occidental conservatives is they think this is a battle of ideas. It’s not; it’s a battle of people. Bruce Charlton is on your blogroll and is a classic example. Have you seen his plan of action? Can you identify any specific, concrete action there?

    To use one example, Europe is experiencing a Muslim/African invasion. (That’s what the mass, transnational movement of peoples across borders into already occupied territories is). They assume these people will become European. They will not; they will bring the Middle East and Africa with them. So if you don’t want Europe to become the Middle East/Africa, then you have to get rid of the Middle Easterners and Africans and stop more from coming. What are your proposals, other than to lecture people that good fences make good neighbors? They don’t agree, they’ve already torn down the fence, and they’ve imported lots of other people who agree with them. The problem is even further along in the US, which has scrubbed its official narrative into a “nation of immigrants.” That single phrase instantly fixes the debate, shutting down all discussion. America is NEVER to be a nation of natives, but must always invite ever more exotic, unassimilable immigrants and print up money and hand it out to keep everybody pacified. How long do you think we can keep that up?

    You are not going to persuade r-selected Third Worlders of the merits of transparency and the rule of law. All you are doing is providing a safe haven for them to exercise the low-trust practices in which they’ve engaged for generations. So if you don’t want a Third World society, you’ve got to expel it, and keep it from crossing your borders. I have some thoughts on how to do this, but it should not take much imagination to see that we are already in the realm of “unmentionables.” Historically, even currently, multi-creedal societies end in violence.

    • So if it’s not a battle of ideas, and it’s just a matter of taking action, why are you commenting here? Why not just take the action and solve all our problems?

      The reason of course is that nobody agrees with you on the problem and the solution. If people agreed with you I expect your solution (whatever it is) would be easy to carry out. So you think the real problem is in the realm of ideas. People don’t agree with you, and they don’t want to hear about it.

      • Perhaps he meant mere ideas or throwing them around will not win the war. Good arguments are necessary but persuading people takes more than that esp. in the world of Sophist.

      • Sure, but no one thinks good arguments about the imprudence of mass immigration or the badness of deliberately attempting to dismantle one’s country thereby are sufficient to somehow stop the mass flow of immigration. As in theology, right knowing is prior to right willing, and getting people to know rightly requires arguments.

    • The root of the problem for Occidental conservatives is they think this is a battle of ideas. It’s not; it’s a battle of people. Bruce Charlton is on your blogroll and is a classic example. Have you seen his plan of action? Can you identify any specific, concrete action there?

      I agree with you that Charlton is clearly not a traditionalist. Including him shows a real lack of seriousness and it dilutes any kind of coherent traditionalist position.

    • The idea that we cannot live closely alongside r-selected, third world populations and preserve our culture and society is false. Both the US and South Africa did it for centuries, no problem. Implicitly, you are assuming that we must live in a universal suffrage, liberal democracy. But, we don’t have to live in a universal suffrage, liberal democracy. We can live in an apartheid monarchy, for example. And this idea is no more outre than the genocide I assume you are hinting at.

      I sympathize with you. There is something horrifying about watching the Catholic Church set itself on fire, cozy up to gasoline salesmen, and pitilessly beat anyone who walks up to her with a bucket of water. There is similarly something horrifying about watching whites set themselves on fire, cozy up to gasoline salesmen, and pitilessly beat anyone who walks up to them with a bucket of water. People have been saying “let me dump water on you” for a while now, in both cases, to no avail. It’s hard to see what to do.

      • A few years ago there was a valuable discussion at View From the Right called Limiting the Franchise: A Proposal. The basic idea is that only married men with children who are net taxpayers should be allowed to vote; the justification for those qualifications, as well as a lively discussion concerning its merits and demerits, as well as modifications and counterproposals, follows. It’s well worth a (re-)read.

        As Auster put it, “A Right that simply accepts, without question, the universal suffrage of all persons, including women, wards of the state, felons, persons with sub-normal intelligence, and 18 year olds, is not a serious Right.”

        Restricting the franchise is less repugnant than genocide, and can be implemented with less carnage. Implementation must wait for the fall of the current liberal order, but some sort of reasonable restrictions must be imposed. The present morass, where even being required to produce identification to vote is regarded by some as an egregious affront to “human rights” and dignity, is unsustainable.

      • There is no need for a universal criterion. The franchise may also be restricted on racial basis.
        Some races get the franchise by default-all married men, for instance. For other races, they need to show some significant achievement, such as a property criterion.

      • > We can live in an apartheid monarchy, for example. And this idea is no
        > more outre than the genocide I assume you are hinting at.

        Just do what is currently done in the post-modern world and works fine: Do like Israel & Saudi Arabia are doing: The police will round them up and send them home. For example:

        http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/meast/israel-deports-immigrants/

        But this is not a question of knowing the answer. The liberal elite is not dumb. Any white country which would do such a thing would be immediately attacked relentlessly. One without nuclear weapons would probably be immediately bombarded by the USA. Wierd that no-one cares that the Saudis are doing it, white muslims get a free pass on deportation I guess.

  5. “the great thing about private property is it means people get to draw their own borders”
    The statement is entirely absurd and is based upon a fallacious conflation of national (or tribal) territory and private property.

    Private property is what is held with arguments, the kind of arguments that are made in courts of law.
    National territory is held with brute force.

  6. Regarding Kalb’s second essay and perhaps overall theme, it reminds me of the financier saying, ‘we find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.’
    As the Left (?) presses its points across the board, it becomes necessary, and perhaps even easier, to determine and orient oneself toward true principles. If unmentional avenues are ever explored, they will be less than useless if one does not know what one is really about.

    To cite a relatively innocuous case in point, it should become more and more evident that the nature of the gay “marriage” debate is a change in meaning and institution.

    This debate has involved from our side, babbling about freedom of religion and what is ‘good for the children,’ but I think it is dawning upon more and more people that these are self-delusional, counterproductive canards; they might have been useful in a different time when the Establishment still represented a little of reality. Not now.

    [I mean, REALLY? Are we REALLY having a serious DEBATE about whether two men can MARRY one another? If this is a real political question, then the problem is catastrophic and obviously much deeper.
    A sensible political topic should be, when are we going to repeal the Civil Rights Act?]

    Today, people are realizing that the marriage debate is one of two definitional routes:
    The Establishment holds marriage to be a right rooted in affection and self-fulfillment (i.e., preferences).
    Man holds marriage to be a regulation oriented around reproduction. And the community’s interest therein, was a concern about communal lineage.

    Kalb’s point may be that there is no value in continuing to burble and obfuscate. Rather, one should find and declare essences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s