“As president he would push this country farther left than his predecessor, a likelihood that his stand on affirmative action strongly suggests.”

Great article as always, but I fail to see how this disproves your son’s argument that McCain would be less dangerous president than his Democratic opponent. As you stated, Obama has come out for full-blown quotas and if he does succeed in winning the White House, I fear we will see far worse.  McCain’s support of affirmative action is motivated by guilt, idealism and an excess of self-righteousness, but Obama’s position is driven by something far more dangerous—racial affinity. If anyone thinks Obama has even come close to truly sharing his grand design for America, than they are a fool. Obama is a politician, a crafty one at that, and he will SAY anything to win the election.  What he will DO upon achieving office is quite another story. At the end of the day, he is a black man unwilling to condemn the cultural failures of his people. So long as inequality persists, Obama will blame, tax and persecute evil white men until a social equality of the races is achieved.

I’m not the least surprised McCain is lukewarm on this issue.  Like many military men, McCain has served well and comfortably with qualified minorities.  He’s probably only dimly aware that every minority in the military has been IQ screened (and, let’s face it, McCain himself was a bit of an old-fashioned legacy affirmative action baby himself, people in glass houses and all that). His military experiences not only affect his view of foreign policy but also of domestic possibiltiies.

Militaries are often successful multicultural and multiethnic institutions; they are held together effectively by the natural strictness of military discipline.  National armies, such as Frederick the Great’s, in fact have served to grind down regional differences and create a new national identiy. Some of the best militaries have united men from many lands, such as the multi-ethnic hordes of Genghis Kahn and the polyglot Red Army of World War II. Even among the Nazis, the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS drafted Cossacks, Turkistanis, Ukrainians, and other ethnic minorities into the ranks of “Aryan Supermen.”

Among ourselves, we see more and more citizenship ceremonies taking place among American soldiers. McCain see a touching melting pot coupled with the beauty of order and unity. Far from being touched, I’m disturbed.  It’s a short step from these ceremonies to a military made up largely of mercenary immigrants that have nothing in common with the great mass of the American people.

McCain’s romantic warrior views, nostalgia, and his lack of ease with the give-and-take of civilian political life color his views on all matters domestic.  The American military of today is only partially a conservative institution.  While the military has physical courage, organization, discipline and effectiveness in spades, it’s also a land of affirmative action lectures, group-think, censorship, semi-socialism, lack of ties to geographic space, socially engineered and successful ethnic mixing (born largely of front-end ASVAB testing), and extraordinary comfort at every level with big government and big spending. McCain has both sides of the ledger; it’s, at best, Bismarkian authoritarianism coupled with late 20th Century white guilt.  Not exactly a formula for holding the line against the problems of our age.

I may have to agree with your son - a reasonable argument can be made that McCain would be less bad for the country than Obama, not that McCain would be good, but only less bad.

Now whether McCain or Obama would be better for conservatism in general, I think there Obama might actually be better in a sort of “wandering in the desert” form of purification and revitalization of the movement.

Bush and Cheney have already done the majority of the nail driving, but a McCain presidency would be the last nail in the coffin for the GOP. Under McCain, a strike (and likely resulting war) against Iran is almost inevitable, which means there would be no withdrawal from Iraq, and the already disastrous Iraq war model/enterprise would be escalated. McCain is just megalomaniacal, crazy and delusional enough to believe he could successfully pull off such a stunt through sheer force of will and personality alone.

Having an insular, frat boy dunce who thought he was gifted in the Oval Office for eight years was bad enough; imagine the damage a full blown tyrant with delusions of grandeur and anger issues could do.

Great post Chris! Wish more people would see it your way. Dunce was elected because he was the lesser of two evils, and guess what? We got the devil himself, with a potential disciple in the form of McPain, or McBush. While I saw in Obama a new direction for the country, I now think he’s sold out himself. Both candidates are bought and paid for. By the way, I’m a Republican thoroughly disgusted with my party.

Currently, there’s no reason to assume that McCain will be different in any single way whatsoever than Bush.

And since when are the past actions of a politician (or most people for that matter) any indication of his future actions? How do supposed “experts” keep falling for this?

Moreover, are people still- at this point in time- enamored with the false idol of “leadership”? We are not electing a monarch but a team of people and McCain has got all the Bush rejects on his team. No man has the vision to solve each of America’s problems in a unique way. Each candidate follows the party’s manual. And for some astonishing reason, Republicans are still adopting the Neo-cons manual.

At best, McCain is the Bush Team’s third term. At the worst he’ll bring about the annihilation of America.

Christopher Roach’s comment above is very interesting.

The American military of today is only partially a conservative institution.

The bottom line is that for many Americans “conservatism” is identified with authoritarianism. Since the army is authoritarian, it is seen as conservative.

The core of fascism is the complete identification of conservatism with authoritarian militarism.

Besides his stance on the Iraq War (which is softening by the way) and the dream that an Obama presidency will awaken this country from our current liberal/neocon nightmare, why would anyone on here really vote for Obama?

Actually I agree with most of these comments about which of these egregious
candidates would be worse in what ways. Chris Roach is of course correct that the
American military has become a major advocate of radical social change even while
inculcating traditionally virile virtues such as courage in battle. McCain is a typical
product of this military culture.

Prof. Gottfried and Mr. Roach,

Don’t be so sure about the military being a multicultural paradise.  They seem to have as much as trouble with incompetent favored groups as the rest of us do.

http://amren.com/ar/2008/01/index.html#cover

Well said, Mr. Roach.  I don’t think I’ve read a more succinct, accurate description of the military than the one provided in your comment above.

Funny how we seem to have less to fear from our standing army than we do our standing government.

I see the Obama of late as increasingly Clintonian, and as increasingly likely to govern in the (Bill) Clinton fashion. Domestic policy-wise, McCain might be slightly better, although even that is questionable (for example, their positions on amnesty are close, and would likely be implemented nearly identically).

Foreign policy-wise, McCain is just too much of a Neocon loose cannon to take the risk, whereas Obama, again in the Clinton fashion, will likely be more conservative (relative to the Bush/Neocon radicals), throw a few bones to the foreign-policy Jacobins, but generally calm things down.

McCain’s appeal to the authoritarian/military conservatives is worrisome, because most of them are fairly ignorant of his radical Neocon streak/team of advisors. It would be akin to the Czar’s army getting behind the Bolsheivks: the potential for earth-shattering, country destroying disaster is just too great to chance.

Obama may be distasteful, but in terms of easing us back from the brink, it’s not even close.

“Bush has been simply mealy-mouthed about such matters, while nominating federal judges who have leaned right here”

Well, hold on.  The Bush Administration actively supported AA in the Michigan case.  Gonzalez was an open supporter of race preferences and he changed Olsen’s briefs to preserve the diversity rationale.  O’Connor took the cue and worked it into her decision, actually strengthening the rationale that had until thin only existed in Powell’s Bakke opinion.  I think Robert Novak reported that Olsen never got to make his case to Bush, who just backed Gonzalez. 

In his own statements Bush has taken what is really the standard elected Republican line now: increasing diversity is good, just not with quotas. 

And of course, according to just about everyone, Bush wanted to put Gonzalez on the court.

Obama is a dissater waiting to happen.
Posted by top on Jul 08, 2008.

You guys really really want to keep the neo-cons [The crazies as Powell called them] in power?

Sorry, but I have to agree with Gottfried, McCain would start more wars and royally screw the economy, hes an angry loose cannon.

“However, the difference between Obama and Clinton is the Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping the brakes on his proposals.”

Remember, Clinton started out with a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1992, which was lost (for the first time in forty years) in 1994 after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Hillary Care.

Any overly radical domestic policies initiated by Obama are likely to garner a similar electoral backlash, and Obama knows it. He’s going to be the first black president, a historical achievement in and of itself. He’s unlikely to throw it all away by grossly pandering to a bunch of Marxists.

Besides, he’s going to have his hands full cleaning up Bush’s utter foreign policy incompetence.

I enjoyed Paul’s atricle however there are two points that should be mentioned.

The Republicans had two candidates who could have gotten between 20 to 30 percent of the Black vote Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo.  Though it has been forgotten now Tom Tancredo was given several standing ovations at the NAACP convention in Detroit for reasons which are obvious.

Secondly it is important not to forget that whatever his recent voting record in terms of the neocon agenda the fact remains that he understand the patriotic traditions of the US NAVY going back to this nation’s founding. And also that his grandather was an advocate of the forward thinking tradition of the US NAVY’S pacific fleet, as was his father and all that that tradition entails. To the degree that the Senator would return to that tradition and repudiate the neocons that would be positive for the country’s foreign policy.

And McCain got the nomination in part by surrounding himself with a bunch of “ex-Tryotsyite” Neocons. I doubt he’ll turn his back on them. (Besides, McCain has already admitted he knows next to nothing about economics.) Since one of two Marxist-affiliated or warmed-over Trotskyite candidates is going to be the next president, I’d rather vote for the one who is the lesser warmonger. McCain’s plan for more foreign policy social engineering is just more money down the rat hole.

Mr. Roach,
Yours is one of the best explanations of McCain, I have ever read.

Professor Gottfried and other soft-on Obama conservatives

There are two reasons to vote for McCain

1) Obama is an assimilated foreigner, whose main ties to america are his red-diaper mother, and his associations with communists like Frank Marshall and later with the Gramscite Academic culture. Given the choice he has consistently chose his father, Malcolm X, his resentful wife, and an anti-white cult over any semblance of being an American.

2. McCain does nto exist in a vacuum. The other Republicans running for election and re-election, many of whom are more conservative than McCain, will be damaged. The result is an Obama presidentcy with a fillibuster proof Senate. Say goodbye to America.
Best case senario is that angry but rational voters will vote for Baldwin or Barr and then vote for the Republican for Congress.
Well the 2006 debacle and new leftward tilt in American politics should teach us that the American electorate is neither informed nor rational, and there is no reason for disaffected conservative to jump off the cliff with the stupid masses.

Since both candidates are so horrible, I will probably vote for Ron Paul as a write-in or for the Constitution Party.  Obama X has California locked up anyway, so I might as well “waste” my vote on someone I can think would represent my interests.  Though both candidates stink, I hope that Obama doesn’t win just to keep the Hollywood Left out of the White House for another four years.

To continue my comment above:

So Bush cannot easily be classified as either Right or Left, at least superficially; that is, if one accords equal weight of importance to all of the various policy strands classified as ‘Right’. But to do so would constitute a philosophical as well as pragmatic error.

To understand why, we must develop some idea of the essence of Left and Right. Perhaps there is no core, but merely an ever-shifting set of political and economic interests, and attendant policy recommendations. But I don’t think so.

I believe there is a core to conservatism, though its practical expression varies with historical circumstances. Conservatism may be defined (OK, roughly) as “the disposition to defend, or increase the power or influence of, the existential particularities of one’s communally formed identity; that is, one’s people, nation, culture, psyche, way of life; within the bounds of universal, immutable moral law.”

In other words, the conservative “takes his own side”, unless his side is behaving in an unequivocally evil manner. The liberal, on the other hand, betrays his own communal identity, people, nation, etc., in the interest of his vision of an undifferentiated, globalized, ideologically abstract humanity. Many rightist commentators, from James Burnham and Revilo Oliver, to Anne Coulter and Michael Savage, have considered the essence of liberalism to be treason. Indeed, it is.

If my definition of the core of conservatism is correct, then obviously certain issues loom as far more consequential than others, and so a hierarchy of concerns must be acknowledged. Clearly, the mass immigration of persons who cannot, for deep biological reasons, assimilate to the communal identity sought to be preserved, in our case, Traditional America, is a far greater threat than, say, gay marriage, a practice demanded by relatively few people, who can mostly be avoided by the mainstream population (unlike the ubiquitous, ever-growing numbers of immigrants) . Therefore, while proper (American) conservatives would oppose both nonwhite immigration and same-sex unions, as both policies are inimical to the preservation of the historic America, they would devote far more effort and political capital to fighting the former than the latter. (That they, in fact, do not should tell you a few things: eg, about Christian conservatives, who are mostly politicized Christians, as opposed to political conservatives who happen also to be religiously Christian.)

What is that core American identity, the preservation of which is the political ‘sumum bonum’ of the true conservative? Putting the matter as pithily as possible, the real, historic America was “free, white, and Christian”. We conservatives therefore wish to keep America as racially white (demographically as well as culturally), as Christian (morally, culturally, and yes, legally), and as free (that is, we believe in limited, Constitutional government; delegated and enumerated, never implied, powers; states’ rights; individual liberties; private property, commodity money, free enterprise; private gun ownership; and an impartial rule of law) as possible.

I fail to see the point of Prof. Gottfried’s piece. Having been personally victimized by affirmative action, I am certainly second to none in my hatred of this evil and authentically divisive State practice. That said, it is hardly a ‘first tier’ issue from any rightist perspective. Even the Racial Right (so fearsome to timid John Zmirak) sees in mass nonwhite immigration an infinitely greater threat. I would gladly trade more decades of unjust affirmative action, restricted narrowly to unqualified American-born blacks (and I believe that determined conservatives could so delimit it), in exchange for 1) an indefinite immigration moratorium; 2) militarizing the US/Mexico border; and 3) deporting all illegal aliens from American soil.

Christopher Roach’s comments about the modern military, while interesting, well-articulated and true (although he left out the military’s ideological acceptance and advocacy of feminism), are similarly less than germane to the larger question of how to vote in the upcoming McCain/ Obama presidential race. The correct approach should be obvious to any rightist of even marginal intelligence: vote for a rightist third party candidate (I prefer Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party), but root for Obama to win, albeit by the smallest possible Electoral College as well as popular vote margins.

Obama is correct that McCain will represent a Third Bush Term. Is Bush a conservative? As I never voted for him (Buchanan ‘00, Nader ‘04), I believe I have more of a right than many to be disgusted by this most disappointing of administrations. I would like, polemically, simply to refer to Bush as a leftist, except that would not be quite accurate. Bush is a horrible ideological hybrid, as is his near-clone, on all the major issues, McCain, and therefore far more insidious than a clear-cut leftist.

Let us be fair and describe Bush/McCain thusly (if simplistically): they are 50% liberals, and 50% the wrong type of conservatives for this historical period. The Racial Right believes, as does Taki’s pal Pat Buchanan, that Bush should be impeached by the Senate, then tried in a court of law, convicted, and presumably jailed (or even executed) for treason, as evidenced both by his unwillingness to fulfill his Constitutional duty to defend the nation against foreign invasion (ie, numerically unprecedented mass illegal immigration - though advocacy or tolerance of legal nonwhite immigration at least morally, if not jurisprudentially, constitutes treason in the face of a ‘foreign invasion’ as well), as well as to honor his Executive function to enforce Federal law, specifically, to deport illegal aliens. Insofar as Bush’s inactions benefit the political and other interests of nonwhites at the expense of whites, he is not merely an abrogator of his Constitutional duties, but also a race-traitor.

The Libertarian Right likewise hates Bush, for his massive expansion of Federal domestic spending (his oxymoronic “Big Government conservatism"), as well as economic regulation; for his alleged dismissal of civil libertarian concerns (and the setting up of various dangerous, civil liberties-endangering precedents); and, most of all, for his reckless, immoral, expensive, and unnecessary warmongering.

There are some factions of the Right which do like him, however. Discounting the neocons, who are not really conservatives at all, the Christian Right still seems to support the President. Indeed, it can certainly be argued that Bush is sympathetic to Christian Right concerns, and that his policies have reflected that. Does opposing abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and gay marriage, without more, merit the designation ‘conservative’? I would say no, but such ‘social issues’ positions are obviously not those of the Left.

It could also be pointed out that Bush has made a number of conservative-leaning judicial appointments, to lower courts as well as the High Court - though we have Justice Alito only because of a groundswell of conservative opposition, including from neocons, to Bush’s original pick, the ideologically awful Harriet Miers. Bush has also been a fairly strong (but far from perfect) supporter of firearms freedoms.

Finally, how can/should we ideologically classify Bush’s militarism? If done for the sake of advancing leftist ideological causes ("human rights”, “democracy”, “female empowerment”, “sexual emancipation”, “protection of [nonwhite] minorities”, etc.), then such militarism would be leftist. But what if Bush actually invaded Iraq to 1)remove a genuine security threat; or 2) secure favorable US access to large oil deposits; or 3) launch a New Christian/Western Crusade against Islam; or 4) simply expand the sphere of American geopolitical hegemony (or some combination thereof)? Would any of the latter motives endear him to America’s regnant left-liberal political - media - academic establishment?

(This appeared out of order above - please disregard first appearance of this comment, read now.)

To continue my comment above:

So Bush cannot easily be classified as either Right or Left, at least superficially; that is, if one accords equal weight of importance to all of the various policy strands classified as ‘Right’. But to do so would constitute a philosophical as well as pragmatic error.

To understand why, we must develop some idea of the essence of Left and Right. Perhaps there is no core, but merely an ever-shifting set of political and economic interests, and attendant policy recommendations. But I don’t think so.

I believe there is a core to conservatism, though its practical expression varies with historical circumstances. Conservatism may be defined (OK, roughly) as “the disposition to defend, or increase the power or influence of, the existential particularities of one’s communally formed identity; that is, one’s people, nation, culture, psyche, way of life; within the bounds of universal, immutable moral law.”

In other words, the conservative “takes his own side”, unless his side is behaving in an unequivocally evil manner. The liberal, on the other hand, betrays his own communal identity, people, nation, etc., in the interest of his vision of an undifferentiated, globalized, ideologically abstract humanity. Many rightist commentators, from James Burnham and Revilo Oliver, to Anne Coulter and Michael Savage, have considered the essence of liberalism to be treason. Indeed, it is.

If my definition of the core of conservatism is correct, then obviously certain issues loom as far more consequential than others, and so a hierarchy of concerns must be acknowledged. Clearly, the mass immigration of persons who cannot, for deep biological reasons, assimilate to the communal identity sought to be preserved, in our case, Traditional America, is a far greater threat than, say, gay marriage, a practice demanded by relatively few people, who can mostly be avoided by the mainstream population (unlike the ubiquitous, ever-growing numbers of immigrants) . Therefore, while proper (American) conservatives would oppose both nonwhite immigration and same-sex unions, as both policies are inimical to the preservation of the historic America, they would devote far more effort and political capital to fighting the former than the latter. (That they, in fact, do not should tell you a few things: eg, about Christian conservatives, who are mostly politicized Christians, as opposed to political conservatives who happen also to be religiously Christian.)

What is that core American identity, the preservation of which is the political ‘sumum bonum’ of the true conservative? Putting the matter as pithily as possible, the real, historic America was “free, white, and Christian”. We conservatives therefore wish to keep America as racially white (demographically as well as culturally), as Christian (morally, culturally, and yes, legally), and as free (that is, we believe in limited, Constitutional government; delegated and enumerated, never implied, powers; states’ rights; individual liberties; private property, commodity money, free enterprise; private gun ownership; and an impartial rule of law) as possible.

“As late as 1995, McCain voted against federal funding that would have been used for affirmative action programs. Then in 1998 he swerved leftward, not only refusing to back a referendum in Washington that would have banned minority preferences in education and state employment but also stressing the need for such preferences as a useful tool. McCain defended them as a “means of leveling the playing field in education.”

I wonder what the time-frame is for the McCain’s adoption of their noticably dark-skinned child from (Malaysia?).  Certainly this was a very compassionate and loving action on their part, however, it almost invariably turns white families into multi-culturalists and multi-racialists.  We should not underestimate the effect of a non-white spouse or child in shaping one’s social positions.

Leon,

“Conservatism may be defined (OK, roughly) as “the disposition to defend, or increase the power or influence of, the existential particularities of one’s communally formed identity; that is, one’s people, nation, culture, psyche, way of life; within the bounds of universal, immutable moral law.”

I agree with much of what you have said, particularly in regards to the immigration of inassimilable alien elements. However, I believe your definition of conservatism is the very root of our problem because it fails to necessitate a Dual Code of Morality. A dual code of morality means having separate moral codes for the way we treat insiders and outsiders. Your definition declares that our actions must be conducted within the strict moral perimeters of some universal, immutable moral law. It is this understanding of morality more than any other that has been twisted and used against us.  I remember cringing when I heard Mike Huckabee announce to an applauding audience that he supported tuition assistance for the children of illegal immigrants because “We are a better people than that.” Better people indeed. We are too good. We are suckers. It is precisely because we are unwilling to put our interests above the interests of outsiders that we have become the Mecca of the scavengers of the world.  Until we turn off the welfare pipeline and until we quit subsidizing illegal immigration, we will continue to attract more and more scavengers of a civilization who are incapable of building or sustaining the American way of life.  Conservatism, true conservatism, means putting the interests above the interests of outsiders by practicing a dual code of morality. Our adherence to a universal code of morality has been the cause of nearly every single problem we face in this country at both the domestic and international level.

Holding my nose and voting for “the lesser of two evils” no longer strikes me as the right thing to do; the last time I did it was in 1996, when I voted for Dole. No more; I’ve voted Libertarian in the last two election cycles, and I expect I’ll do so again this year, because:

(1) The lesser of two evils is still evil; and

(2) the Republicrats and Demopublicans---Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber---are part of the problem; neither is part of the solution. A plague on both their houses!

Mr. Gavin:

I agree absolutely; indeed, I thought I was implicitly making that very point in my definition. Please excuse my inarticulateness. Of course, the West needs to recover its own traditional Dual Code of Morality, whereby we place our own interests ahead of others’, as all non-Western peoples do. My point was simply that such a dual code is not a license to do anything to “non-tribesmen”. I believe in the existence of a universal moral law. Each man has a certain set of baseline moral obligations to all other persons, merely because those other persons are fellow humans. But he does not have the same obligations to all persons. This is the essential moral fallacy of liberalism (and most of what passes for Christianity today).

Our obligations are varied and hierarchical. I owe much greater care to my children than to yours. But, because we are tribesmen, or fellow nationals, I owe greater obligations to your children than to African or Asian children. Indeed, I would argue that I owe NO POSITIVE OBLIGATIONS to such children at all. I am certainly under no duty to hand over my country, earnings, liberty, etc. to them. But would you not agree that I at least owe some traditional negative ones: eg, not to harm them, enslave them, steal from them, defraud them, etc.? That was my point.

I have decided to devote most of my free time, for the remainder of my life, to two activities: reading Occidental literature, for the sheer joy of it, and more relevantly, developing a theory of ethical nationalism by which the West might be saved. You will be hearing more about this in the future - no matter how much “conservatives” try to stop me. Remember: the future of the Right will belong to the Racial Right - if both our race and the Right are to have any future at all!

Leon,

If you are truly to spend the remainder of your life advocating ethical theories of racial nationalism, I ask that you consider something. No message will spread if it falls on deaf ears. Racial nationalism will not be accepted by Americans who have not first been prepared to accept these ideas. For the sake of argument, let’s say I believe as you do that racial nationalism is the solution. This belief would not stop me from adjusting my strategy to the contextual moral situation of our time. People are unwilling to accept, or even listen to arguments that challenge the equality of the races. To understand why, we need to look at the historical evolution of equalitarianism that has occurred since the 20th century. Beginning in the 1920s, the equalitarian movement formulated a new strategy within the Boas School of Anthropology. Boas and his followers accurately recognized that the contextual moral situation of the time would not permit them to seriously propagate equality in its purest form. So they began their communist quest for total equality by propagating the idea that cultural inequality explained the inequalities among men and that the colored races could be “equalized” if they were assimilated to the superior white culture. Although this watered down version of equality would still prove difficult to spread, it was far more palatable to the American public than the idea that all men were truly equal regardless of their culture, traditions or nationalist identity. This watered down version of equality also tied in nicely with the American ideal of meritocracy, that anyone can come here and have a good life if they are willing to work hard and become Americanized. Through a shrewd and manipulative effort, (See Kevin Macdonald), the cultural explanation for inequality took root in academia and was eventually proliferated throughout the rest of the nation and much of the Western world. Ironically, having saturated the American public with the idea that culture explains inequality, the equalitarians became more ideologically aggressive and began to propagate more fiercely the theories of cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Since all cultures are really equal, argue the equalitarians, the only explanation for inequality is unfortunate circumstances (poverty, bad luck, etc.) and Western thievery, both of which are sins against humanity that must be corrected by an expansionist Leviathan government. Amazingly, these ideas have taken root and many Americans actually believe that all cultures are equal. So Leon, if this is the moral contextual situation of our time, I ask that you adjust your strategy in accordance with what is achievable. Your message of racial nationalism is reaching too far and will unavoidably fall on deaf ears. Not unlike Boas and the anthropologists, you must first saturate the American people with the idea that culture explains inequality rather than unfortunate circumstances and Western thievery. Only when Western Man is willing to believe his culture is superior will he even consider that other explanations for inequality are viable.

Mr. Gavin:

Interesting points regarding the progression of egalitarianism through the US and the West in the past century, though I have a few quibbles. Boasian anthropology was hardly the only source of egalitarian ideology fighting for its place in the early twentieth century limelight. Marxism, democratic socialism, Fabianism, behaviorism, to some extent Keynesianism, American Progressivism, some strands of anarchism, Social Gospel Christianity, and many other movements propagated, for various, not always mutually inclusive, reasons, the egalitarian fiction.

Nor, to my knowledge, was Boas a communist (did MacDonald say he was? I can’t remember). Boas was a fairly standard 20th century secular Jew who, at bottom, wanted to break down the ethnic and racial cohesion of Western nations, in order to facilitate the growth of cosmopolitan societies in which Jews would be fully accepted as equal citizens, and, ultimately, in which Jewish ethnocentric clannishness would be materially advantageous. Needless to say, he succeeded, doubtless beyond his wildest dreams. At least with respect to the elites of all classes, and despite Boasianism lacking any scientific merit, we are all Boasians now.

Regarding my own work on behalf of theorizing ethical (white) nationalism, you err in supposing that such theories necessarily involve elaborate discussions of genetic inequality between the races (the usual context being white/black differences). This error was also made by Prof. Gottfried in his earlier, recent post on takimag devoted to white nationalism, in which far too much was made of white nationalists’ alleged reliance on statistically demonstrated IQ differences between the races, as though the sacred Cause of Western Man relies for its justification on the results of paper-and-No.2-pencil tests. Please.

White nationalists make use of hereditarian and biological inegalitarian arguments defensively; that is, to refute the very egalitarian arguments and strategies you’ve alluded to. If a political liberal blames black scholastic failure on some external (to the black students themselves) cause, say, such ‘mouldy oldies’ as inadequate school funding, or the Great Standby, (ostensibly all-pervasive) white racism, then it is important that white advocates (for at the bottom of all these arguments are preferences about the distribution of resources, as well as power) have the most effective weapons in the rhetorical arsenals - unless we don’t mind being relieved of our property, power, cultural influence, and ultimately, lives. In many cases, such forensic weapons involve the findings of the various social sciences, including psychometrics.

This point was made repeatedly and brilliantly by Prof Michael Levin in his seminal work, WHY RACE MATTERS. If we whites are being blamed for some problem, we have a moral right to prove that, in fact, we are not at fault. If we are being blamed for black scholastic failure, and moreover, being asked to shell out more money for black schools, sacrifice our own school admissions to favor less qualified minorities, etc., then certainly it is relevant for us to know whether there is not some other cause of the black failure, one for which we cannot be blamed. That is why white apologists refer to IQ tests, which clearly reveal that biology and not racism is the origin of inequalities in school performance. 

But to my own ethical nationalism, social scientific arguments are largely irrelevant. The right of whites to maintain their hegemony over their historic homelands does not depend on group characteristics. That is the whole point of ETHICAL nationalism. One cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. The crisis of the West, that whites are being demographically displaced, and will ultimately, without exclusivist, clearly demarcated territories, go extinct, taking Western Civilization to the grave as well, cannot be resolved empirically, but only morally. It must be demonstrated philosophically and perhaps theologically, that the white man has a right to survive communally, and therefore, first, to exclude nonwhite migrants from his territories, and second, and more controversially, to expel or repatriate nonwhite colonists, with force if necessary. These are very large moral claims, which need to be grounded at the most rarefied levels of moral philosophy as well as Christian theology. That work, to my knowledge, hss not been done yet. But don’t worry, yours truly is working on it ....

Leon,

You are correct that there were many other sources of egalitarian ideology, but I don’t think any of them were anywhere near as influential as the Boas School of Anthropology. And to my knowledge, most of the pivotal figures within the Boas School of Anthropology were affiliated with communist organizations. However, this political association was likely a means driven loyalty to facilitate what you call the growth of cosmopolitan societies in which Jews would be fully accepted as equal citizens. Macdonald does an excellent job demonstrating how Jews have historically abandoned their communist loyalties when these loyalties conflict with Jewish nationalist interests.
So…returning now to our major discussion. In my own investigation of the doomed fate of Western Man, I have been perplexed by the notion that we need a moral justification to survive and prosper. This seems to be an unnatural perception because all forms of life seek to survive and expand. So why then does Western Man alone among the peoples of this world need a moral justification for his own survival? Perhaps the need for this justification has much to do with what Nietzsche called the slave morality of our Christian heritage or maybe it has more to do with sitting on top for too long. Then again, maybe it’s all about demographics. Since we are no longer a growing population, we no longer feel the internal pressures for expansion. But regardless of why, the reality we face is that Western Man does need a moral justification to pursue his self-interest, particularly when that interest conflicts with others. I believe this is a conclusion you too have arrived at with the following statement:
“The crisis of the West, that whites are being demographically displaced, and will ultimately, without exclusivist, clearly demarcated territories, go extinct, taking Western Civilization to the grave as well, cannot be resolved empirically, but only morally.”
This is an interesting assessment that you make, but I must ask, are empiricism and morality really separate issues? This discussion reminds me of something Marx once said: “The philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways. The point however is to change it.” In other words, ideas mean nothing, consequentiality is everything. When we examine the world around us, we should not look at the intention of ideas; instead, we must examine their actual real world consequences. For instance, we can look at communism or Islam and easily argue that these are well intentioned ideologies, but in practice, they have been complete failures. The point is that ideas and morality cannot exist separately from the real world conditions they create. The empirical will always determine the true morality of everything. If this is true and you want to determine a moral justification for the existence, survival and expansion of the West, then you should look at all the real world accomplishments Western civilization has brought to mankind and contrast this with all the many failures of Non-Western people. Clearly the accomplishments of the West justify its existence, survival and expansion.  Clearly we have a manifest destiny to survive and prosper.

Mr. Gavin:

I am going to consider your comments more carefully after I wrap up some matters at work tomorrow. Meantime, I’ve posted something possibly relevant (or of interest to you) in the Comments section to J. Zmirak’s recent posting, VENGEANCE IS MINE.