Note the insistence that a nation is not an aggregate of standardized and interchangeable individuals. I was reminded of the relevance of this when reading about comments made recently by Bill Kristol, a leading American neoconservative. During a debate on the difficulties being experienced by the white American working-class, Kristol took the view that rather than trying to help them by limiting low skilled immigration, they should instead be replaced via open borders:
Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in? Seriously, you can make the case—this is going on too long and this is too crazy, probably, and I hope this thing isn’t being videotaped or ever shown anywhere. Whatever tiny, pathetic future I have is going to totally collapse.
You can make a case that America has been great because every—I think John Adams said this—basically if you’re a free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled—whatever. Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th century.
This is a rampantly ideological position to take. Although it is no doubt true that some migrants do work hard to establish themselves, the statistics clearly show that many immigrant groups are far more likely to be welfare dependent than the natives. Consider this:
In 2012, an average of 41.6% of African Americans received means-tested benefits each month. About 18% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 13% of whites received benefits each month. Thirty-six percent of Hispanics of any race received government assistance.
Bill Kristol has things exactly the wrong way around. White Americans are far less likely to be "clipping coupons" than the wave of immigrants from Mexico. And yet Kristol calls white Americans "decadent, lazy, spoiled" and believes that they need to be race replaced by "waves of people" from Mexico.
Kristol's attitude is also rampantly ideological in the sense that he sees people as interchangeable units, with those best fitted to the needs of the market being the ones who can justify their place in society. In theory, the liberal take on society is supposed to uphold the rights of the individual and to promote "individuality". But look at what happens in practice. Individuals are stripped of those qualities that tie them to a particular place, people and tradition, and are instead standardised as part of an anonymous mass serving the market, and can therefore be readily replaced.
If you can be so readily replaced on the grounds of lacking dedication to the market then you cannot claim to have much standing as an individual in society. You have value not on the grounds of your individuality but rather on your utility.
Kristol wants to replace the white American working class
ReplyDeleteI have a better idea. Why not replace the American elite class? They're definitely "decadent, lazy, spoiled."
Yes, yours is a better idea.
Delete(((Kristol)))
ReplyDeleteI had to look up what those brackets mean. Yes, he is Jewish. Yes, that might make him identify less with the mainstream tradition in America. It's OK to point this out, but it can't be the last word because, let's face it, mainline Christianity is also generally in favour of open borders these days too. As are leftist whites whether secular or religious. As are the big corporations.
DeleteIf there are white Americans who ought to be patriotic but who are stuck in a right-liberal view of society that keeps them at the "I am only allowed to defend individual rights rather than assert the larger good of upholding my own tradition" - then we have to spell out what is wrong with the right-liberal view.
"You have value not on the grounds of your individuality but rather on your utility".
ReplyDeleteThat is the definition of slavery. And that does not apply just to the working class but also the middle classes and professional classes. All white classes are being replaced by ethnic minorities who are more docile and useful to the elites.
This is the covert agenda of liberalism, the overthrow of the old European order based upon Church and Monarchy, so aptly represented in the capital of Spain with Cathedral and Palace on the hill and Parliament below. Liberalism with its cries of "human rights", "equality" and "fraternity" was the pretext for the overthrow of this order and its replacement with oligarchy. Oligarchy is based upon materialism and not ethnicity or culture.
The USA and the other British colonies were founded by avaricious men who sought to seize land and natural resources and build industries and then import excess labour from Europe "the huddled masses". These were never European countries in terms of culture or constitution. They were always oligarchies controlled by a small number of rich, ruthless, greedy men. Initially the labour class was European immigrants. However as the industry was outsourced to China, the oligarchs had no need for the white working class and then sought to destroy them with unemployment, drugs and junkfood.
They are not stopping at the working class but are also seeking to destroy the middle classes. Their aim is the destruction of Europe and Christianity. However Europe is in a better position to survive that its colonies as their is still tradition there. The old families and attachment to land remains and there is hope for recovery of the old order. For the USA it is difficult as there never was tradition, just a bunch of immigrants pushed by wars and famines to escape to the new world where they lost their land, traditions and bloodlines. One of the big problems of Americans is that they know not who they are. Most are a mixture of bloods, a quarter this and that. A man who does not understand his past has no future.
Anon, I agree with some of that. I think it's true that the elites do not want a cohesive white working class, nor for that matter a cohesive white male working class, but would prefer a more "diverse" and therefore docile working class instead. I think it's true as well that much of the middle class will not escape unscathed from what is happening.
DeleteHowever, a couple of things for you to consider. The first is that ideas have consequences. I think it is overstated to say that liberal theory is merely a pretext for the materialistic ambitions of the elite. The vision of society that is adopted by the political class; the vision of what a good man is and does; the vision of the telos of life; the vision of what makes thought and belief authoritative - all of these are critical to the way a society develops - though I would agree as well that the economic interests of the elite is another critical factor. It's important to consider both.
The other issue is the colonies. I can't speak for America, but I don't think it's true that there was never a tradition here. Australia was isolated for a long time (imagine living in a country town here in the 1800s or early 1900s); there was actually considerable idealism amongst the colonists about how Australia should develop; my own city Melbourne was developed with beautiful terraces, garden suburbs, churches, town halls, public parks and so on. And until the later 1900s there was a strong, deeply felt sense of national identity and tradition here (just not amongst the political class post WWII).
I think it is overstated to say that liberal theory is merely a pretext for the materialistic ambitions of the elite.
DeleteThe trouble with the elites is that their ambitions are not materialistic. They are not interested in securing greater wealth because they already have so much wealth they're practically choking on it.
What they want is absolute security against any challenge to their position. Any group or institution that is even a mild potential threat must be entirely destroyed. There must be no possibility of any coherent focus of power or loyalty forming outside of the elites themselves.
Their motivation is fear. They know what happened to other elites in the past - the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc. When elites become as vicious and selfish as our elites have become they have a very clear idea what will happen to them if they ever lose their grip on power. Madame la Guillotine will be busy once again.
Their fear is of course quite rational. If they lose their power they really are likely to end up being lined up against a wall and shot. The fact that so many of the elites are Jewish naturally adds another layer of paranoia to an already fearful worldview.
What we're seeing is a revolution by the elites against every other class, with the aim of concentrating power even more completely in their own hands.
The USA and the other British colonies were founded by avaricious men who sought to seize land and natural resources and build industries and then import excess labour from Europe "the huddled masses". These were never European countries in terms of culture or constitution.
DeleteThere is no resemblance at all between the USA and countries like Australia and New Zealand. Until the 1970s Australians had a very strong sense of their British heritage. Our culture was Anglo-Australian. We did not consider Britons to be "foreigners" in any sense. Everyone else however was definitely a foreigner.
Unlike the USA Australia did not reject its British heritage. There was no Australian Revolution. We were not foolish enough to adopt a republican constitution.
I think you're correct on the subject of the USA. It never seems to have had any really coherent common culture except at a very superficial level (such as Hollywood). And American popular culture has always been mostly anti-American (especially Hollywood and this was true of Hollywood right from the start). America was a culture at war with itself, or perhaps a collection of cultures at war with each other. American elites hated and despised ordinary Americans right from the beginning.
America could have been half a dozen or so quite successful independent countries. As a unified whole it is merely a ramshackle empire, a bit like the Habsburg Empire.
Until the 1970s Australians had a very strong sense of their British heritage.
DeleteI can confirm this, having been a boy in the 1970s and then living through the changes.
Australian culture at that time combined "looking back to the UK and a UK heritage" with "pride in being Aussie" - it embraced both things. For instance, at my primary school there was an heroic mural of the landing of the First Fleet and many of the books I read were "boy's own" type books from England or historic novels set at some time English history. Most cultural references were still English.
But at the same time there was a pride in the achievements of Australia and a sense of something to live up to as an Australian man. There was a palpable sense of a national culture, an "Australian dreaming," that would be difficult to describe to a person who has never lived within a longstanding ethnic/national culture of their own. It helped to vivify many aspects of life, including a sense of connection to land and landscape and to history.
dfordoom, I expect you're right that American culture was more regional than it was here. My understanding, though, is that in the earlier 1800s there was a belief that there was a special destiny/divine providence for WASP America to bring classical liberalism to the continent. So the identity was contradictory: on the one hand it reinforced the ethnic identity of WASP Americans, but it did so at the cost of committing these Americans to an ideology which also contained within itself a belief in open borders, which undercut the existence of WASP America.
So, in one sense, it might be true that a classical liberal focus on "man in the market" was more prominent in America than elsewhere in the West (though it existed in all the Anglosphere countries) but it combined a belief in ethnic identity/relgion/civilisation - and so was not just about materialistic self-interest.
"The other issue is the colonies. I can't speak for America, but I don't think it's true that there was never a tradition here. Australia was isolated for a long time (imagine living in a country town here in the 1800s or early 1900s); there was actually considerable idealism amongst the colonists about how Australia should develop; my own city Melbourne was developed with beautiful terraces, garden suburbs, churches, town halls, public parks and so on. And until the later 1900s there was a strong, deeply felt sense of national identity and tradition here (just not amongst the political class post WWII)."
DeleteThe descriptions of Australia amuse me. You think they are British but does any British person agree? The answer is NO.
Australia may have retained the monarch as head of state but it does not have an aristocracy to head the social order. Australia is an oligarchy which is similar but more isolated that the USA and many years behind it in development but nevertheless on the same trajectory.
When an Australian looks back to his British heritage does he have property, land or business in Britain. Does he maintain his close relations with extended family in the UK? Does he visit the UK at least once per year? The answers to these questions are in the negative for all but the exceptional. Compare the Greek or Italian immigrants in Australia. They milk money in Australia to invest back home. They own land, property even farms and businesses back home. Their family ties are extensive with home. They may be physically in Australia but their heart is in Europe.
Your reference to the "Australian dream" confirms the country's ideological framework. Like the "American dream" this is an enticing fantasy, not a truth. There is no "Greek Dream" or "Italian Dream" just the continuation of centuries old tradition which is the responsibility of each member of the tribe. There is no "British Dream" either and to mention it in Britain would arouse suspicions of madness.
The imitation of a culture and architecture does not transmutate that culture thousands of miles away into a different landscape. The land of Australia is not the land of England or Europe and the culture of Europe can never be borne on alien soil.
"but it combined a belief in ethnic identity/relgion/civilisation - and so was not just about materialistic self-interest."
DeleteThe USA culture is based upon Calvinism, the religion of its founding fathers and a theology which has given rise to American exceptionalism and pursuit of full spectrum dominance ie global hegemony in military, economic and cultural spheres. This is about total control of the world's resources.
This ideology weakened ethnic identity, religion and civilisation within the Anglo sphere and displaced the existing weak culture with an oligarchic power structure based upon wealth. When wealth is the prime indicator of social status, materialistic self interest is the dominant force within society.
The descriptions of Australia amuse me. You think they are British but does any British person agree? The answer is NO.
DeleteWe were talking about Australia up to the 1970s. I think you'll find that in those days there was a sense of a shared history and a shared culture, on the part of both Australians and Britons.
Obviously such feelings have now almost entirely vanished.
British people who visited Australia or New Zealand even in the 1970s never considered these countries to be British in any way. There was the same language spoken with a different accent, some superficial similarities but there were big differences which meant that these countries were never Britain and never quite home.
DeleteAnon, that's too strong a statement. I was a boy in the 1970s. If a British person had visited Melbourne they would have found enormous swathes of suburbia populated by people of British descent, with British institutions, with considerable British cultural influence (TV, books etc.). The relationship was close enough back then for there to be a (usually) friendly rivalry. I can understand your statement that Australia might have felt like "never quite home" to many Britons and the same would have been true of many Australians visiting Britain. But I personally felt that the British were like cousins and that the two countries had a special relationship.
Delete"British people who visited Australia or New Zealand even in the 1970s never considered these countries to be British in any way."
DeleteThis is the curse of the antipodes. You toil away at the end of the world for your Empire and then are cast aside by an aloof and self-conscious 'Britishness.' Those that see Australia and New Zealand as not 'British' in any way at all are demented and callous, as both the countries are literal British colonies populated with settlers and immigrants from Britain. Go back to snogging your treasured EU, where a nation who slayed thousands of your countrymen not long ago are busy running things into the ground.
I was just thinking of the aspect of Protestant history when you wrote about WASP America. My guess is that the wild frontier ethos matched well with liberalism in our development, and that when things began to settle down (late 19thC) those liberal values acted as a social binding agent. Combined with the admixture of people in America it is no wonder that ethnic identity faded, something we seem to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteAn Anglo-Australian identity even in modern times (1960s-1970s) is very different from an American culture that is based almost solely on ideas. There is much to be grateful for in having the freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity based on those ideas but we have forsaken much in defense of valuing them ahead of other goods.
"However, a couple of things for you to consider. The first is that ideas have consequences. I think it is overstated to say that liberal theory is merely a pretext for the materialistic ambitions of the elite. The vision of society that is adopted by the political class; the vision of what a good man is and does; the vision of the telos of life; the vision of what makes thought and belief authoritative - all of these are critical to the way a society develops - though I would agree as well that the economic interests of the elite is another critical factor. It's important to consider both"
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is the point of this comment? Politics and economics are two sides of the same coin. Politics is about power, and in a democracy, is about the interests of those with the greatest economic power. Wealth controls the media, politics and the Law. As Rothschild so famously said "if I control the money supply of a country, I care not who makes its laws". And that is precisely the point. In an oligarchy, wealth is power and wealth buys the politicians, media men and judges it wants (and can eliminate those refusing to go along nicely).
The concept of the common good is a moral issue. In Europe, morals were defined by Christianity. Until the reformation Europe was a Christian theocracy ruled by Church and Monarchy.
The events of 1517, 1717 and 1917 - the Reformation, The establishment of Freemasonry and the Russian Revolution - were the three major events which overthrew European Christendom. Liberalism was the ideology developed for the specific overthrow of the old order and its replacement with atheistic oligarchy. Liberalism has nothing to with the common good or "what the good man is and does". That was already defined by religion. Liberalism's slogans of tolerance, human rights and equality are pretexts to seduce the naive into following the covert agenda, the programme devised by elites and unfolded cautiously so as not to cause alarm lest the serfs may wake up to the fact that they are being lead into slavery.
Many people need a larger structure of belief. So what the structure of belief is, is important. Ours is a secular liberal structure. You can't understand the specific forms of development of the West without comprehending liberalism. Nor can you shove politics out of the liberalism it is fixed to, unless you clearly explain to people what liberalism is and what it leads to.
DeleteYou are just confusing the issue. You fail to explain the origin of liberalism and its relationship to socialism and communism and the origin of all three in atheism. Understanding the fact that all three atheist ideologies are revolutionary ideologies developed to overthrow the old Christian order is crucial. All three ideologies are not intended to work hence developing a microunderstanding of these is irrelavant for the average person. People need to know that the slogans of these ideologies are false and lead to dehumanisation and enslavement. There is nothing for the common good to be achieved by revolt against Truth and the normalisation of deviancy and perversion.
DeleteLiberalism is not consistently applied in politics. The latter being about power uses the ideologies which produce the desired result in specific instances. Banks liberalise and deregulate markets then socialise losses to give just one example.
Anon, my father and two brothers are all liberals. You can't just say to them "the slogans of your ideology are false". If it were that easy then we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.
DeleteYou have to show that the moral claims of liberalism are not to be taken at face value as being simply "the way of moral thought" but are instead based on ideological assumptions, and that the logic of these assumptions leads to both contradictions and to unwelcome outcomes.
It's also important to spell out the nature of liberalism carefully so that those who sense that there is something wrong in the modern world order are able to break free of it in a consistent, principled way, rather than simply objecting to a particular policy whilst maintaining an allegiance to the underlying philosophy.