I’ve argued that contemporary liberalism is the flowering and not the corruption of classical liberalism. Once people accept the primacy of freedom, the basic principle of classical liberalism, what we have now naturally follows.
How far can that line of thought be taken? Liberalism, with its emphasis on the freedom and dignity of the individual, is evidently an outgrowth of Christianity, and many have argued that the same is true of modern natural science and therefore of modern rationalistic secularism. So are those things the natural consequence of Christianity? The European New Right, after all, claims that Christian monotheism leads naturally to imperialistic and intolerant liberal universalism and no doubt other bad things.
It seems to me the ENR position is wrong. The result of rejecting a fundamental principle of a way of life and thought is not its flowering but its transformation into something different. At all times liberalism has viewed liberty as its highest principle and been unwilling to give any substantive good priority. The consequences of taking human will as the measure of all good, and rational equal satisfaction of desire as the highest law, may therefore be attributed to liberalism. Those consequences include the managerial liberal state.
Christianity, in contrast, is explicitly based on both monotheism and the Trinity, on God-made-man (which by itself might lead to radical individualism and secularism) and God’s ineffability and transcendence, on universality and on the particularity required by the notion of incarnation. It can’t be converted into anything like liberalism or scientism without ripping out the greater part of the doctrines that have always explicitly and emphatically been treated as fundamental. To all appearances, the reduction of Christianity to this-worldly rationalizing hedonism wasn’t required by anything basic in Christianity, but by rebellion against Christianity—the desire to reduce it to something that could be managed and controlled—and by the pragmatic success of scientific rationalism.
Christian élites and thinkers need to clarify a few things
From the log entry:
“[Christianity] can’t be converted into anything like liberalism […] without ripping out the greater part of the doctrines that have always explicitly and emphatically been treated as fundamental. To all appearances, the reduction of Christianity to this-worldly rationalizing hedonism wasn’t required by anything basic in Christianity […].”
Individual Christians may feel that opposition to government’s totalitarian race-replacement schemes violates the virtue of Christian self-abnegation. (What makes today’s race-replacement schemes totalitarian is the government’s invariably ignoring, stifling, or arbitrarily striking down and invalidating all directly- and indirectly-expressed opposition on the part of the people to local and national race-replacement—on the part of those people, at any rate, who do not feel bound by some gross misunderstanding of Christian self-abnegation.) In this and in other ways that are wrong, Christians may resolutely join the ranks of those pushing for destructive leftist policies. Jimmy Carter and George Bush are Christians of this sort—they’ll actually destroy society, destroy their country, out of a confused inner conviction that whatever feels self-abnegating must be more moral. Self-abnegation is fine if you can handle it but handling it requires a bit of wit. These two—Bush and Carter—haven’t the wit to handle it; haven’t the wit to grasp what’s wrong with this pop-Christian, this faux-Christian, outlook.
One could wish today’s theologians would hurry up and formally, publicly, and VERY LOUDLY clarify for confused Christians everywhere, of all races and nations, that Christian self-abnegation does NOT impose indifference toward, welcoming of, or rejoicing at their own race’s or nation’s destruction, and that actively resisting such destruction does not in the least imply immorality. In short, a gaping lacune in Christian theology is its lack of an unequivocal affirmation of the right of all races, nations, and nation-states to self-preservation as races, nations, and nation-states.
______________________________________________________________
“No wisdom is, no prudence is, no counsel is against the Lord.”
“The community shall be glad in the multiplying of just men; when wicked men have taken princehood, the people shall wail.”
Proverbs 21:30, 29:2 (Wycliffe’s translation)
Preservation? Of What?
Would Mr. Scrooby please explain what positive actions—beyond objecting to the “totalitarian race-replacement schemes” he detects in certain government programs—should be taken to preserve the race, nation or nation-state as such? Exactly what is being proposed here?
In a recent entry, Mr. Kalb observed that libertarianism is often disfigured by a “one simple principle correctly resolves anything” quality. I would like to point out that traditionalist conservatism is often disfigured by an excessive focus on dubious concepts like race, nation and nation-state.
I don’t know if productive debate is possible
Could the correspondent signing as “Mysterious Stranger” today at 12:17 identify his pen name in his next post? (Knowing whom one is speaking to sometimes facilitates the crafting of replies.)
Second, after seeing the following comment of “Mysterious Stranger’s” I don’t know but that he and I shouldn’t simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. He refers to “dubious concepts like race, nation and nation-state.” Can someone who views race, nation, and nation-state as real debate immigration policy with someone who dismisses them as “dubious concepts”? My experience suggests not.
_______________________________________________________________
“No wisdom is, no prudence is, no counsel is ayens the Lord.”
“The comynalte schal be glad in the multipliyng of iust men; whanne wickid men han take prinshod, the puple schal weyle.”
Proverbs 21:30, 29:2 (Wycliffe)
I’m sure that if we try, we can find some common language
Mr Scrooby wonders whether it is possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is skeptical about concepts like race, nation and nation state.
Perhaps if he would respond to my request for a more concrete description of the policies he proposes, we might find some room for agreement.
If a race or nation or nation-state is something which has a right of self-preservation, what does this “right” entail? What actions would be permitted if this right is recognized, but prohibited if it is not? What other actions would be prohibited as constituting a violation of this right?
— Cato in the West
A debate bound to center on race-denial is not for this forum.
Sorry, Cato—debating the racial aspects of excessive incompatible immigration, the PC thought control apparatus as it pertains to formerly-viewed-as-harmless-but-now-strictly-forbidden-and-harshly-punished racial acts and thoughts, and the rest of the government’s policies aimed at submerging the white race in this country against the will of majorities and finally driving it to extinction—discussing these topics with someone who in his opening statement declares himself to be a race-denier is a fool’s errand, to be sure. Spending the next three months at this site arguing the equivalent of “whether or not races exist” isn’t my cup of tea, frankly. The race-deniers (a minority in the scientific community, incidentally, but a noisy and pugnacious one), having shouted everyone else down for purely political reasons, are simply being quietly bypassed by molecular anthropology, gross and microscopic anatomy, human biochemistry and physiology, human genetics, and so on. Those are where the action is. So, no—I’m not taking the bait.
Too bad, it might have been a productive dialogue
Mr Scrooby writes of “formerly-viewed-as-harmless-but-now-strictly-forbidden-and-harshly-punished racial acts and thoughts”. Presumably he would want to rescind, forbid or otherwise prevent the punishment of such “racial” acts and thoughts.
For example, he probably wants to rescind all so-called hate crimes legislation. So would I! But I think individual liberty and equality before the law is sufficient reason for my position. I don’t see why we need to drag in odious talk about the “self-preservation of the white race”.
Outlaw “sensitivity training” or at least return it to optional status? Yes, please. But again, individual liberty is sufficient ground for this, and is likely to be more persuasive in the community at large.
Unfortunately, Mr. Scrooby doesn’t give any other concrete examples of the changes he would like to see. He vaguely mentions other government policies which he thinks have the undesirable effect of “submerging the white race in this country against the will of majorities and finally driving it to extinction”. But since he doesn’t clearly identify those policies, I can’t say whether or not I would join in him in wanting to see them overturned.
Close the borders? Deport illegal aliens? You bet. But I see this more as a matter of defending the economic interests of those who are already here. In other words, I would base my argument on property rights rather than the defense of something like a race, a culture, a nation, or—God forbid!—a nation-state.
I don’t deny that race, nation, and nation-state all denote something real. I simply don’t think they’re a very interesting part of reality. For example, I don’t see why I should feel more kinship with a white man whose ideas and lifestyle are completely different from mine, compared to a black man or woman with whom I largely agree. I haven’t found race or nationality to be a reliable guide when it comes to finding the people with whom I would like to associate.
— Cato in the West
Not much disagreement so far
Cato writes,
“Close the borders? Deport illegal aliens? You bet.”
Welcome aboard, then.
“I simply don’t think [race, nation, and nation-state are] a very interesting part of reality.”
That’s fine. Leaving aside how “interesting” they may or may not be, others feel they’re important in various ways they strongly consider legitimate.
“I don’t see why I should feel more kinship with a white man whose ideas and lifestyle are completely different from mine, compared to a black man or woman with whom I largely agree.”
This is everyone’s view. No quarrel from me on this, or from anyone at Turnabout, I dare say.
“I haven’t found race or nationality to be a reliable guide when it comes to finding the people with whom I would like to associate.”
If “reliable” means “infallible,” everyone agrees. If it means “having any relevance,” few can say this.
Once more into the breach, Mr Scrooby
Interracial marriage? I have no problem with it, since it follows from the freedom of association.
Laws against discrimination in housing or employment? I’m in favor of them. I think that once you’ve offered a basic good in the marketplace, you shouldn’t be allowed to refuse it to certain customers simply because they’re not the sort of people you want to associate with. `
(But a landlord or employer retains the right to insist on certain behaviors which preserve the value of his building or business. I suspect that there will be some disagreement about what sort of behaviors are included in this. Can a landlord forbid the playing of salsa music, or cooking an ethnic cuisine different from his own? Must all his tenants speak English?)
Quotas for admission to college or for hiring? I’m against them, since they are just another form of the discrimination I opposed in the preceding paragraph. Anyone who has the prerequisite experience and submits an application in time, should be admitted or hired, after a fair competition with other applicants.
Apartheid? I’m against it.
So I put to you again, Mr Scrooby: what positive, concrete actions or policy recommendations follow from your belief that race and nation have a right to self-preservation? When you ask Christian leaders to proclaim that right, exactly what kind of things are you asking them to endorse or condone? What do the concepts of race, nation and nation-state bring into play which aren’t already implied by our traditions of liberty?
— Cato in the West
The 1965 Immigration Holocaust Bill: one of history’s true evils
Cato asks what policies I favor in regard to the right of populations not to be subjected to unwanted local or national race-replacement. I favor the following, for starters:
1) The scrapping of the evil 1965 Ted Kennedy/Emanuel Celler Immigration Holocaust Bill;
2) The restoration of the national-origins immigration quota system in place from 1924 to 1965;
3) The expulsion of all illegal aliens;
4) A program of generous financial inducements aimed at bringing about the voluntary departure of incompatibles here legally but in excessive numbers thanks to the 1965 bill.
Cato inquires what I am asking Christian leaders to endorse. I’m asking them to declare loudly and in no uncertain terms that Christianity does not require populations to acquiesce in their own unwanted race-replacement on the local or national level, but recognizes a Christian moral right to peacefully protest it and struggle non-violently against it. I’ve said this already a number of times in other posts which I believe Cato has read. It’s clear as a bell to people who both understand that different races exist and see importance in them for aspects of spiritual life as well as in other ways. If Cato can’t grasp what is clear as a bell to these others it may be because, as he’s alluded to, he doesn’t see the existence of different races or can’t see what importance they have. If that is so, further discussion wouldn’t seem likely to settle anything, so I won’t engage again on this topic.
“What do the concepts of race, nation and nation-state bring into play which aren’t already implied by our traditions of liberty?”
Had the Founding Fathers ever in their wildest dreams conceived of the racial attack against whites which has been underway since the 60s they would have put measures intended to protect against it into our founding documents. What’s going on with respect to today’s wholesale race-replacement (going on throughout much of the West, in fact) is essentially unprecedented in history.
“I have no problem with interracial marriage.”
Me either.
“I’m in favor of laws against discrimination in housing and employment.”
Whom I employ, take as a tenant, or sell my home to are no legitimate business of government’s except under rare circumstances.
“I’m against quotas for admission to college or for hiring.”
It needs not much moral fiber or brain power to be against the denial of jobs, business contracts, college admissions and so on to white men, in order to give them instead for purely political reasons to less-qualified non-white men (often far less qualified) just because they aren’t white, and to less qualified women (often far less qualified) just because they aren’t men.
“I’m against apartheid.”
Forcing racial or ethnic groups apart or together is no proper function of government’s. People have tastes in people. Group self-segregation or self-integration are private and none of government’s business. Government nevertheless sticks its nose in when a particular race, ethnic group, religion or social class (or some of these in combination) finds itself with an opportunity to use government as a tool for harming, weakening, punishing, or wiping out a hated rival race, ethnic group, religion or social class or for profiting financially in some way. Much of what we see going on around us—PC thought control, and so on—amounts to instances of this.
_________________________________________________________________
“No wisdom is, no prudence is, no counsel is against the Lord.”
“The community shall be glad in the multiplying of just men; when wicked men have taken princehood, the people shall wail.”
Proverbs 21:30, 29:2 (Wycliffe)
More questions for Mr Scrooby
Mr Scrooby proposes a “program of generous financial inducements aimed at bringing about the voluntary departure of incompatibles here legally but in excessive numbers thanks to the 1965 bill.”
Who are the “incompatibles” of whom he speaks? Mexicans? Laotians? Pakistanis? What does it mean to say that they are incompatible? Incompatible with what? Supposing that they were to demonstrate a willingness and ability to conform to this unspecified something, would they then be encouraged to stay? Or is this something beyond their control? Is it their race or original nationality which makes them “incompatible”? How so?
Mr Scrooby also proclaims that “Whom I employ, take as a tenant, or sell my home to are no legitimate business of government’s except under rare circumstances.” This nearly absolute denial of the legitimacy of regulation surprises me; Mr Scrooby might be more of a radical libertarian than I thought. Would he, to draw out the point, see no need for regulation forbidding a lender to set two different interest rates, a lower one for members of his favored race, and a higher one for the disfavored? After all, the lender is merely selling the use of his money, which is his legitimate property…
But then there are some areas where Mr Scrooby apparently would like to see the government interfere in private transactions: “It needs not much moral fiber or brain power to be against the denial of jobs, business contracts, college admissions and so on to white men, in order to give them instead for purely political reasons to less-qualified non-white men (often far less qualified) just because they aren’t white, and to less qualified women (often far less qualified) just because they aren’t men.”
Setting aside public universities or civil service agencies, where government and hence political “interference” is inevitable, Mr Scrooby seems to be saying that he is opposed to private colleges or employees adopting a “diversity” approach to admissions or hiring. But how does that opposition translate into action? Obviously, Mr Scrooby would repeal any laws requiring such practices. Would he also favor laws forbidding them, or would he limit himself to moral persuasion?
“Forcing racial or ethnic groups apart or together is no proper function of government’s. People have tastes in people. Group self-segregation or self-integration are private and none of government’s business. Government nevertheless sticks its nose in when a particular race, ethnic group, religion or social class (or some of these in combination) finds itself with an opportunity to use government as a tool for harming, weakening, punishing, or wiping out a hated rival race, ethnic group, religion or social class or for profiting financially in some way. Much of what we see going on around us—PC thought control, and so on—amounts to instances of this.”
What are we left with? Asked to explain why or how race matters, Mr Scrooby declines. Instead, he offers this libertarian paean to the right of free association. But that right was never in question. I began this discussion by suggesting that concepts of race, nation and nation-state are dubious. I later expanded on this by saying that I found them to have little utility. Mr Scrooby’s responses, couched as they are in the language of individual rights, show that he agrees with me.
Race and Liberalism
The rejectance of the concepts of race and nation is untraditional. Actually trying to destroy them is self-destructive. You cannot have traditionalism without loyalties. Do we reject the concept of parent because it is race-related? Do we reject America because it is a nation? Slavery and oppression do not necessarily follow from the beliefs that races and nations have great value, so the idea that race or nation is pernicious is fantasy. The question to a nontraditionalist is not why does race matter but why does race not matter. Why do gender and people matter? We could easily have a purely female society and soon, a society of clones.
Individual rights only has meaning in the way it is used, implemented. Freedom and individual rights conflict, so basing a society on both requires conflict. None of us is free; we are all slaves to reason, to emotion, and to religion. So if we are going to discuss the superiority of freedom and individual rights over race and nation, we need to give examples.
Ordering a society solely around the concept of race is probably erroneous, and declaring that such an ordering has been proposed here is an exaggeration of another person’s concern about race. P. Murgos.
I agree with Mr. Scrooby that
I agree with Mr. Scrooby that such clarification is desperately needed. I expect that some of our problems – those pertaining to liberalism’s agenda to annihilate the traditionally Christian nations, along with the race which gave birth to those nations – stem from the exapnsion and perversion of Christianity’s inherent universalism.
Thus, when a traditionalst tries to explain to the desirability of preserving races, nations and nation-states to many Chrsitians who are socially conservative on issues like abortion, the homosexualist agenda, etc, a common response is that this is a racist thought which must be repented of – or that race and nationhood don’t really exist and are unimportant in any case. They will then typically argue the myth of how the invading Mexicans are devout Catholics whose importation will help shore up our side in the culture wars. Under the radical universalism now advocated by Catholics and Protestants alike, created particularities such as race and nationhood are to be abolished, and all people melted into the universal Christian brotherhood. This idea is surprisingly similar to both the Islamic and Marxist models of universalism.
Apparent;y, the only form of Christianity that still allows for the existence of nationhood would appear to be Orthodoxy. This is a superficial observation on my part, as I know nothing of Orthodoxy’s theological treatment of national particularity.
I agree with Carolus
Carolus refers to:
“liberalism’s agenda to annihilate the traditionally Christian nations, along with the race which gave birth to those nations”
To see that this is indeed an agenda, not some irresistible force of nature like the ocean tides, propose to a liberal or to a self-abnegating Christian “conservative” that analagous policies be applied to races and nations other than white-Euro ones. You’ll see instantly that—contrary to the way “impersonal forces of nature” operate—what’s sauce for the goose here most definitely IS NOT sauce for the gander (I don’t suppose anyone has any doubts about who the goose is in this case…)
“the […] perversion of Christianity’s inherent universalism.”
Christianity exempts us explicitly or implicity from all sorts of potentially very stringent Christianity-based restrictions on the way we lead our ordinary everyday lives—otherwise, for example, we’d all be living like monks in a monastery or something, which, since that’s an unworkable arrangement, would bring about Christianity’s collapse of course. Christianity’s “inherent universalism” reduces to nonsense—to nihilism, actually; to nothingness—unless allowances be made for the metaphysical truth that men can’t lead perfect, godly lives since men aren’t gods, and if the broad populace tries inordinately to accomplish that, in the mistaken belief that no limits on Christian universalism, Christian charity, etc., exist but the demands of these are infinite, what come to the fore are utter failure, hypocrisy, hatred, meanness, envy and resentment, despondency, and other vices. Let it finally be made clear once and for all, by those in authority, that included among the other limitations on Christianity’s “inherent universalism” there are those dispensations that permit mankind to retain, wherever a portion of mankind wishes to retain, its spontaneous divisions into races, ethnicities, and ethno-cultures, and of course the communities, nations, and nation-states that are built thereon.
Carolus writes,
“Thus, when a traditionalst tries to explain to the desirability of preserving races, nations and nation-states to many Chrsitians who are socially conservative on issues like abortion, the homosexualist agenda, etc, a common response is that this is a racist thought which must be repented of—or that race and nationhood don’t really exist and are unimportant in any case.”
OK then, “turnabout is fair play.” Propose to them that race-replacement in the opposite direction be put into effect—that white-Euro populations start massively displacing and replacing non-white-Euro ones. See how they like putting THAT in their pipe and smoking it a while… Of course their foolishness or their hypocrisy will quickly show.
“They will then typically argue the myth of how the invading Mexicans are devout Catholics whose importation will help shore up our side in the culture wars.”
Mexicans qua Mexicans aren’t on our side in the culture wars, and can’t be on our side, because they have a different culture. I’m Catholic but also American—and the United States is not a Mexican country. It’s not even a Catholic one. I, a Catholic, have no problem with that whatsoever. I defend this country’s right to remain Protestant and to repel a Catholic invasion just as I defend, say, the province of Québec’s right to remain Catholic and to repel a Protestant invasion or Israel’s right to remain Jewish and to repel a gentile invasion.
“Under the radical universalism now advocated by Catholics and Protestants alike, created particularities such as race and nationhood are to be abolished […].”
Race was not created.
______________________________________________________________
“No wisdom is, no prudence is, no counsel is ayens the Lord.”
“The comynalte schal be glad in the multipliyng of iust men; whanne wickid men han take prinshod, the puple schal weyle.”
Proverbs 21:30, 29:2 (Wycliffe)
Classical Liberalism Properly Understood
Mr. Kalb writes:
“At all times liberalism has viewed liberty as its highest principle and been unwilling to give any substantive good priority. The consequences of taking human will as the measure of all good, and rational equal satisfaction of desire as the highest law, may therefore be attributed to liberalism.”
Insofar as this interpretation conflates the political doctrine of liberalism with the moral philosophy of utilitarianism (or some closely-related philosophy), it is mistaken. Rothbard, for example, would not disagree with Matthew Arnold’s observation that it is one thing to say that a man is free to do as he pleases, and quite another to say that what he pleases to do is good.
The main issue between classical liberalism and conservatism is whether and to what extent government power should be used to force people to be good—where what is “good” is decided by the ruling elite. Using government power in this way is not too much different from the way the medieval Church (or more recently, the Taliban) used its temporal power to enforce orthodoxy.
Modern liberalism, like conservatism, wants to use government power to force people to be good. The difference is that, for modern liberals, the good is understood as diversity, tolerance and fairness.
Classical liberalism, at least, did not take the human will as the measure of all good. Its emphasis on freedom arose from the observation that if one is coerced into an action, one cannot be held responsible for it—i.e., one can neither be praised nor blamed for doing it. Good deeds are praiseworthy precisely when the doer was free to do otherwise. Classical liberalism is not a shallow hedonism; it is a moral and political philosophy of responsible life and of striving for excellence (virtue).
As such, classical liberalism is quite compatible with a Christian viewpoint acknowledging the ineffability and transcendence of God, and with a natural law of morality.
Is modern liberalism, with its stubborn refusal to acknowledge any transcendent power and its view of man as a lawgiver unto himself, the result of a rebellion against Christianity? Yes, of course. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that. At most, we might need to note that many of its founders were also rebelling against traditional Judaism—but that’s almost a minor detail.
Pickwickianly understood
I am of course aware of the liberal claim that their system is purely procedural and has no substantive content. That claim is made in connection with both classical and contemporary liberalism. It seems to me it makes no sense though.
Liberalism of any sort makes abstract freedom — the right to do as one will — the highest political principle. As the highest political principle it is the principle that gives legitimacy to the state, an institution that to exist at all must claim the right to obedience that overrides personal interest, loyalty that extends to matters of life and death, and on occasion extreme sacrifice.
The claim that a principle that can be relied on to carry that weight can be purely “political,” with no necessary connection to particular judgements as to moral realities, seems silly to me.
Does Cato in the West claim that liberalism as a political principle has in fact been unconnected with a more general social and moral liberalism?
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
Reply to Mr Kalb
“Does Cato in the West claim that liberalism as a political principle has in fact been unconnected with a more general social and moral liberalism?”
No, I would not make that claim. But I would say that subsequent misinterpretations of an idea have no bearing on the merit of the original idea.
The fact remains that the classical liberals saw freedom as a necessary condition of virtue. To describe them as essentially akin to libertines is to muddle the truth.
It’s hard to know how to deal
It’s hard to know how to deal with this kind of question in a way everyone will find satisfactory. My inclination is to say that all liberals make freedom trumps, at least for public life, and are unwilling explicitly to subordinate it to any substantive good — any particular understanding of virtue, for example.
It seems to me that the result of that fundamental decision is a series of decisions of particular issues that does end in libertinism. In order to avoid that result at some point you have to be willing to say “in this case our understanding of the good, beautiful and true trumps freedom” and have an overall understanding of man and social life, and a public rhetoric, that makes that stand seem clearly the right one. I don’t think that’s possible with anything that can be reasonably identified as liberalism.
The basic point, I suppose, is that classical liberalism, however sincere and in some ways admirable, depends on unstated inherited assumptions as to what’s good and virtuous that in the long run it can’t sustain. I go into a long account of this in my Traditionalism and the American Order.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
classical liberalism and libertinism
Classical liberalism’s insistence on freedom would permit but not condone libertine behavior.
It would oppose the hedonistic philosophy of libertinism on moral rather than political grounds. It would energetically attempt to persuade the libertine to mend his ways, but it would not force him to do so.
Ultimately, it would leave us all free to be as sinful or as foolish as we like. Or as good or as wise as we can be. God will judge our choices.
If this is what Mr Kalb means when he says liberalism is unwilling to subordinate freedom to any other substantive good, then I agree. I do not agree that this inexorably leads to a position where the liberal must condone vice. I do agree that, historically, the understanding of liberalism has drifted to the point where it is doing exactly that. This is both unfortunate and unnecessary.
How did liberalism come to this? Not as a result of its political philosophy, but by abandoning its moral philosophy and Judaeo-Christian faith. In place of those anchors it has adopted materialism, utilitarianism, egalitarianism, positivism and most of all the nihilistic idea that whatever a man wills is good. The classical liberal and traditionalist conservative have common cause in opposing those pernicious ideas.
classical liberalism and libertinism
To my mind, the question is whether it’s possible to carry on government without taking a position on basic issues regarding the nature of man, God, the moral order and whatnot. I don’t think so. Government is government because it has the right to demand sacrifices and obedience in matters of life and death. How can it get to that and stay there if its basis is simply procedural?
Also, it seems to me that government can’t decide what interests to protect or what gives way to what without a pretty full understanding what is legitimate and valuable in human life. For example, I have the right not to be annoyed in certain ways, but how? Do I have a right not to be punched in the nose even if someone else finds me intolerably annoying? To be free from noisy parties next door? From defamatory falsehoods? A sexist working environment? Church bells at 8 a.m. Sunday? Public indecency? Blasphemy? Is it OK for government to run schools or proclaim public holidays? If so, what understanding of life and public ideals will motivate those things?
Such lists could be extended. The problem with liberalism, as I see it, is that it has to pretend it’s not addressing such issues because it wants to claim that it leaves questions of value up to individual decision. That can’t be done, so what happens is that the highest value is determined to be following one’s own will simply as such. In other words, libertinism becomes the established moral outlook.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
The Catholic Cardinal of New Zealand doesn’t think so either.
Mr. Kalb writes,
“To my mind, the question is whether it’s possible to carry on government without taking a position on basic issues regarding the nature of man, God, the moral order and whatnot. I don’t think so.”
It appears the leader of New Zealand’s Catholics agrees. Here, he weighs in on “The Spiritual Bankruptcy of Liberalism”:
“Relativism and permissiveness have been deliberately promoted, and morality reduced to purely subjective preference. Our failure to protect basic values and rudimentary citizenship is fast converting our country into a moral wasteland.”
( http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2004/06/cardinal-condemns-liberalism.html )
__________________________________________________________________
“Rightfulness raiseth a folk; sin maketh peoples wretches.”
Proverbs 14:34 (Wycliffe) ( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro14.htm )
classical liberalism and libertinism
From Mr Kalb’s [Conservatism FAQ]:
3.4 What role do conservatives think government should play in enforcing moral values?
Since conservatives believe moral values should be determined more by the traditions and feelings of the people than by theory and formal decisions, they typically prefer to rely on informal social sanctions rather than enforcement by government. Nonetheless, they believe that government should recognize the moral values on which society relies and should be run on the assumption that they are good things that should not be undercut. Thus, conservatives oppose public school curricula that depict such values as optional and programs that fund their rejection, for example by subsidizing unwed parents or artists who intend their works to outrage accepted morality. They believe the state should support fundamental moral institutions like the family, and oppose legislation that forbids discrimination on moral grounds. How much more the government can or should do to promote morality is a matter of experience and circumstance. In this connection, as in others, conservatives typically do not have high expectations for what government can achieve.
While there is some disagreement over the value of theory in determining moral values, classical liberals would agree with the practical recommendations made here.
I should note, however, that Mr Kalb is curiously reluctant—here and elsewhere—to be more specific about what government actions he would recommend in order to “support fundamental moral institutions like the family” or “promote morality”. I find many examples of legislation or judicial rulings he would like overturned, but very little about what he would like enacted. I am therefore left with the impression that, practically speaking, there really isn’t much difference between his position and the classical liberal’s. Both of them “typically prefer to rely on informal social sanctions rather than enforcement by government.”
Turnabout is not, unless I’m mistaken, a policy wonk site.
Cato writes,
“I should note, however, that Mr Kalb is curiously reluctant—here and elsewhere—to be more specific about what government actions he would recommend in order to ‘support fundamental moral institutions like the family’ or ‘promote morality.’ I find many examples of legislation or judicial rulings he would like overturned, but very little about what he would like enacted.”
To demand the specific program details of a policy fully worked out is not an argument where the discussion centers around the broad principles. Once the broad policy principles are agreed on, specific details of implementation can be worked out step-by-step. After it was agreed by certain thinkers that a federal consumption tax was preferable in principle to a federal income tax the details of implementation and the full implications of a consumption tax were gradually worked out (and can be found at http://www.fairtax.org , incidentally). There has never been a movement in the history of the world where the policy-detail wonks came first. The ones who come first are they who seek consensus on the general principles of the thing. Later come the policy wonks. When the left first decided, some time around the end of World War II apparently, to eliminate the white race in this country, they didn’t immediately dot all the i’s of their plan and cross all the t’s, but just boldly forged ahead, knowing the details would gradually fall into place one-by-one as they were encountered. Today, of course, we see the fruits of their hard labor—in the very near future, thanks to decades of careful planning and dedicated work, the white race will have been replaced as this country’s majority, the first step in its ultimate elimination altogether, except as an insignificant tiny minority with no role or visibility (as has been accomplished in the former Union of South Africa). Had someone requested, soon after World War II, the policy-wonk details of exactly how the left intended to pull off such a massive and at that time inconceivable undertaking as the replacement of the white race in this country, they would not have been able to give specifics, but would have replied simply, “There aren’t many details worked out yet. We intend to just keep plugging away at it, until we’re successful. It may take years, it may take decades—but we’ll get there.”
Get there they did. There’s a lesson here for those who intend undoing the evil which the left has wrought.
This is my final comment. Cato can have the last word.
Replying to Cato’s post of 6-27, 1:27 pm: Cato writes,
“Who are the ‘incompatibles’ of whom Mr. Scrooby speaks?”
The 1924 immigration reforms strove in part to preserve this country’s traditional racial proportions (and in part to do things like defend wages, etc., etc.). The main aim of the 1965 bill was to undo them. To the extent it has succeeded its ill-effects should be rectified by the restoration of those traditional racial proportions through all humane means. (And the 1965 Immigration Holocaust Bill should be scrapped, of course, and measures put in place seeing to it that extermination of the white race can never again be attempted by the U.S. federal government.)
“Would Mr. Scrooby see no need for regulation forbidding a lender to set different interest rates for different races?”
No. Such a policy would shift business to that lender’s competitors, incidentally, likely putting it out of business in the not-too-long run.
“But then there are some areas where Mr Scrooby apparently would like to see the government interfere in private transactions.”
I’m not a libertarian but a normal person, one who favors giving primacy to normalness. What I oppose are those who favor giving primacy to degenerateness, who are mainly the left. To give some examples: It’s not normal for government to attempt to extinguish the white race against the wishes of the white race’s majorities, to ban the posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of a court room in the United States, or to attempt to force women into men’s social roles and vice-versa. These are things that are opposed by people who are normal and people who give primacy to normalness and supported by people who are degenerate and people who give primacy to degenerateness. The Democrat left and Republican left support these, and to that extent support degenerateness. It’s not normal to kill a baby who is ready to be born by punching a hole through its skull and sucking its brains out with a vacuum cleaner, or to attempt to force the U.S. population to approve of “marriage” between two male or two female sexual perverts. The Democrat left supports these and the Republican left opposes them. Here, then, the Dems favor degenerateness and the GOP normalness. It’s not normal to favor the paving over of the entire United States into one giant asphalt parking lot, citing as justification that that might increase the value of stock portfolios in this or that way, or to torture and kill prisoners of war together with mere civilian suspects 80% of whom are thought to be innocent. In both these instances the GOP opposes normalness and the left supports it. In the same vein, I oppose the U.S. government’s attempts to exert direct or indirect pressure on institutions having as its ultimate aim the replacement of white Christians with some other kind of people. It’s not normal to do that.
“Asked to explain why or how race matters, Mr Scrooby declines.”
People who do not feel race matters or who feel it is “a dubious concept” are people who have not thought things through, perhaps because they lack certain cognitive or moral equipment. Discussing race-related issues with such people is like discussing Shakespeare with someone who can’t read—can be done only extremely tediously, at best. Also, Turnabout wasn’t created as a platform for someone signing as Cato to interview someone signing as Mr. Scrooby. I’m not Turnabout’s center of attention. If Cato is interested in my opinions on race and wants to do his homework he can read Turnabout’s archives, those of View From the Right ( http://www.amnation.com/vfr ), Steve Sailer’s archives at http://www.iSteve.com , those at http://www.Vdare.com , and, let’s say, any number of the links at Steve’s site, such as La Griffe du Lion and Professor Rushton’s site and archives. (Those would be for starters.)
I’ve now explained myself enough for anyone having understanding. Cato is welcome to the last word.
___________________________________________________________________
“No wisdom is, no prudence is, no counsel is against the Lord.”
“The community shall be glad in the multiplying of just men; when wicked men have taken princehood, the people shall wail.”
Proverbs 21:30, 29:2 (Wycliffe)
Cato is inconsistent himself
I note that Cato states that the laws banning miscegenation were wrong due to the fact that they violated the constitutional principle of freedom of association. Fair enough. Though I personally oppose miscegenation most of the time, I also don’t think that state control should extend to such an extent, because race, though important, simply does not trump all factors in determining who is compatible and who is not. I share much more in common with Alan Keyes (even though he is of a different race) than I do with John Kerry. Even so, there IS a legitimate need for the state to recognize the primacy of tradtional marriage and therefore discriminate against those who wish to re-define marriage as whatever they wish it to be.
So we both agree that there should be some form of freedom of association. Yet in the very next paragraph, Cato advocates the use of raw state power to violate people’s freedom of association by applying anti-discrimintion laws to private individuals and organizations. This is where we part company. If a black business owner wishes to hire only his fellow blacks, that is his right under freedom of association. Of course, Cato knows as well as I do that a black business owner can discriminate all he wishes to in today’s Clinton-Bush perversion of America, irrespective of what the civil rights laws state. After all, if the government itself can twist such “anti-discrimination” laws to dsicriminate against one particular group (Grutter vs. Bollinger), why wouldn’t a member of the preferred oppressed/übermenschen be able to do the same privately? Didn’t ol’ dishonest Abe Blumrosen show us the way, Cato? Mr. Scrooby is right – If you can’t see the agenda behind all of this, you are truly living in fantasy land.
Ultimately, it all comes back to transcendent truth. John Adams stated it quite well: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, (or lust, idolatry, and murder for that matter) would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Insofar as an immigrant or prospective citizen meets this requirement, they are compatible with our society and should be eligible for citizenship provided that they pledge their loyalty to this country. This is not what is happening today, with the state-endorsed religion of “multcultiralism”, which is merely a code word for legitimizing every culture save one. While some would argue that Mohammedans are a “moral and religious people,” their bloody history of jihad, and the resultant dhimmitude of those who don’t convert to the “religion of peace” – one of the most profoundly idiotic utterances in history – rule them out as a genuinely moral and religious people. That’s why the pre-1965 immigration law was there – to preserve the common morality of the American people. This law naturally favored those nations most compatible with the moral traditons and culture of those who founded the nation. It also had the effect of encouraging the wave of immigrants who arrived before the 1924 law to assimilate into American culture. While usually celebrated as a great success, it was really only partially successful in this regard.
This country is rooted in a Christian, Anglo-Saxon tradition. That’s the moral foundation Adams was referring to. A prospective citizen is compaitible only insofar as he or she assents and adopts to this particular moral system. The great and possibly fatal problem lies in the collapse of this culture through the endless propaganda of popluar “culture” and uncontrolled immigration. There is no longer a commonly undrestood moral system to restrain the behaivior of anyone already here – much less new arrivals. Thus, the whole system falls into ruin. Unless there is a serious repentence from liberalism, the United States will descend into either a totalitarian regime or a civil war along racial lines.
I agree with Carolus but also feel race itself is a factor.
I’ll just clarify that for me, “incompatible immigration” refers not only to the way Carolus defined it (how well foreigners can fit in—though that’s also part of it, obviously), but also simply to race. The immigration reformers of 1924 said they used the 1890 census as one guide in helping them determine what proportions to permit each traditional source-nation to continue to add to our population through immigration, on the (one-hundred-percent legitimate) grounds of seeking to preserve the traditional ethnic-racial mix (within the traditional dominant Anglo-Saxon matrix). ( http://vdare.com/misc/macdonald_1924_immigration.htm .) Without even consulting that 1890 census certain things are obvious: Brit immigration (meaning actual British, not non-white British like Pakistani, Jamaican, Nigerian, and so on) has zero incompatibility, while Oriental, Mexican, African Negro, Subcontinental, Southeast Asian immigration and so on would have high incompatibility.
(Disclaimer: I have no Anglo-Saxon or British ancestry—no English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or Scots-Irish/Northern Irish ancestry, or any Protestant ancestry. I’m a mixture of Eastern and Central European by ancestry, my Russian and Austrian grandmothers were Jewish, I’m Catholic, and have somewhat dark skin for a white person, especially in summer.)
A community wanting to preserve its race needs no justification. No community needs to give reasons why it should be considered all right for it to preserve its race, but it’s enough for it merely to say, “Because I like it.” Maybe the people of that community simply like the way they look better than the way other races look. That’s reason enough. They just like it. So, leave them alone. On the contrary, the ones who need justification are the race-replacers, the ones who say, “We’re going to change your community’s (or your region’s, your nation’s, or what-have-you) race, whether you like it or not. Too bad for you.” The reason the view I express here isn’t “racist” (“racist” is a Marxist word not really having a meaning but I’ll use it for convenience here)—the reason it’s not racist is the same reasoning applies to all races. No one should replace the Icelanders with African pygmies against their will or the African pygmies with Icelanders against theirs. No one should replace the English with the Irish Catholics against their will or vice-versa. And so on. If people vote unanimously to undergo race-replacement, that’s one thing. But the American people express opposition to undergoing race-replacement in poll after poll. Why is it necessary for them to undergo it, then? Who, exactly, keeps pushing it on them?
Since Mr Scrooby invited me to have the last word, here it is
Mr Scrooby and Carolus should know that I share their concern about people being dispossessed. But I continue to think that alarmist talk about “race-replacement” is an unnecessary and unfortunate disfigurement of traditionalist conservatism.
A “racist”, as most people understand the term, Mr Scrooby, is someone for whom the concept of race is a central element in his thinking and view of the world. This overemphasis is considered pernicious precisely because it tends to result in the kind of overheated, intemperate remarks you have contributed to this thread. Really, sir, you are over the top.
Christians who explicitly reject liberalism and name its defects
Mark Richardson has a new essay up at Conservative Central, “The Cardinal & the Liberal” (I couldn’t find the article’s permalink, but it’s on the site’s home page now: http://www.ozconservative.com/ ). It was prompted in part by criticism of recent very frank remarks about liberalism made by New Zealand’s Catholic Cardinal Thomas Williams.
What ever happened to “vive la difference”?
Mr. Richardson’s piece mentions a proposal in France to make any “incitement to discriminate” on the basis of gender or sexuality punishable by a year in prison. So it seems you can get jugged for a year if you say you think it’s a good idea for a gentleman to open a door for a lady. France is definitely going down the tubes.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.