Celebrating America

I think OneSTDV’s latest post Ron Paul perfectly highlights a larger divide.

Here’s are some snippets of One’s argument:

I criticize Paul for not celebrating white Christian America . . .

I don’t celebrate white Christian America either. If you’d like the long explanation of why I don’t, read this post and this post. In short, the parts of American society that I don’t like (see e.g. multiculturalism) are the inventions of . . . white Christian Americans. Indeed, one could make the case that nothing may be a better representation of "white Christian America" than progressivism. (There may have been a separate Southern tradition of white Christian America with which many alt-righters (myself included) sympathize, but I’m pretty sure this dispute was settled rather definitively a while back).

More highlights of One’s argument:

The alt-right Paul-bots ignore the fact that Paul has said essentially nothing positive about white America, thinks vague liberty is more important than traditionalist culture, opposes federal efforts for finding illegals, opposes a border fence, and has a pretty bad record on immigration, including an F from NumbersUSA.

This argument, of course, disqualifies all politicians (as holding these beliefs would put a politician out of work). Anyway, what truly separates the reactionary from the conservative is that the reactionary has an understanding of America (including white America) that is not based on propaganda. One lists the following things as being potentially American:

"Economic and personal freedom" and "states rights" – that’s America, huh? No "apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet"? No southern hospitality and northern Yankees? No pre-colonial Ivy League colleges? No Bible belt football? No Paul Revere’s midnight ride, Pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock, Washington’s cherry tree or crossing the Delaware, or Franklin’s kite? No Boston Tea Party, California Gold Rush, or Pony Express? No Whitman, Twain, Hemingway, or Fitzgerald? No Leave it to Beaver, the quiet suburbs, the close small towns of the Midwest?

These things are part of the conservative idea of America, but puritanism, incredible violence toward non-Progressive causes, communism, progressivism, radical leftism in general, the bureaucratic state, and wildly interventionist foreign policy also have deep roots in American history.

Indeed, virtually all the ideas that alt-rightists oppose are ideas that are well-founded in the beginning of American history. All these ideas can also be traced back to white Christian Americans.

The immigration policy issues are a side-show. In order to fundamentally change US immigration policy, you’d have to fundamentally change the way the American government works. There is no chance that any candidate for President will do this. Therefore, regardless of who is elected in this or any subsequent election, there will be no wall built along the border with Mexico, the government will continue to actively subsidize illegal immigration and NumbersUSA will continue to publish meaningless grades. If you want to change the immigration policy of USG, you’ve got to essentially destroy the modern incarnation of USG.

Paul at least wants to destroy the modern incarnation of USG. Unfortunately, it won’t happen.

One sort of seems to recognize some of the points I’ve made when he says:

I agree with Sailer here that whites will not just stand up and shake off 50 years of cultural programming from media, academia, and the elites.

But I don’t think he sees of the full extent of what he’s up against here. It’s not 50 years of programming that must be undone. One wants a puritanical country to become anti-puritanical. He wants a progressive country to become anti-progressive. And, perhaps most weirdly, he wants all this to happen while simultaneously celebrating puritanism and progressivism.

9 Responses to Celebrating America

  1. Simon Grey says:

    Well said. One’s complaints about the anti-white pathology among the elites conveniently ignores the fact that whites themselves caused/allowed this to happen. As such, there seems to be little point in saving “white culture” since there appears to be a high degree of probability that white culture will lapse into self-loathing,

  2. BnG says:

    We Southerners have said all along that puritanical Yankees are the root of all this cultural rot. The fact that they and the basically conquered the world, or at least the parts of it that didn’t go to the Communists, after WWII is why the rest of the West follows their lead to mass-suicide. Jewish immigrants and their children contributed a great deal as well.

    “Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind, from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics.”

    -Alexander Stevens, Vice President of the Confederacy

  3. rob@yahoo.com says:

    However large the grains of truth involved, this post is rank sophistry/bullshit on the whole — the whole truth is what it isn’t. “Very tendentious indeed” I’d say if I were better-bred.

    I’ve had my fill of thinkers that twist themselves in such a way, so off I go.

  4. icr says:

    Not that I know what to make of it, but there *was* that peculiar period between the wars when Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant were major cultural figures:

    Far more important for framing these battles were Darwinian theories of race. The early part of the 20th century was the high water mark of Darwinism in the social sciences. It was common at that time to think that there were important differences between the races ‑- that races differed in intelligence and in moral qualities. Not only did races differ, but they were in competition with each other for supremacy. Schooled in the theories of Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Henry Pratt Fairchild, William Ripley, Gustav Le Bon, Charles Davenport, and William McDougall, this generation of U.S. military officers viewed themselves as members of a particular race and believed that racial homogeneity was the sine qua non of every stable nation state. They regarded their racial group as uniquely talented and possessed of a high moral sense.

    But, more importantly, whatever the talents and vulnerabilities of their race, they held it in the highest importance to retain control over the lands they had inherited as a result of the exploits of their ancestors who had conquered the continent and tamed the wilderness. And despite the power that their race held at the present, there was dark foreboding about the future, reflected in the titles of some of the classic works of the period: Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under‑Man.

  5. Handle says:

    Paul mostly wants to eliminate large parts of government. There are parts he may want to simply replace – and even do so in the root-and-branch way required to accomplish anything – but with what (more to the point, with whom) would he replace it with? Random groupies?

    Does he have a shadow-government, a competent hierarchical organization with own own Army of Bureaucrats ready to step in and obey his orders when he acquires power? Some separate but large society that has been preserving the only refuge of “Red-Government” legitimately-alternative culture (and a substantially “White-Christian-America” one at that) distinct from the Puritan-Progressive monolith? Where would he find such a strange, impossible thing?

    He wouldn’t use it even if he found it.

  6. The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    Jerry Pournelle writes much more succinctly than Mencius Moldberg, and his stuff is much more readable as well 🙂

    His Iron Law or Bureaucracy is applicable to the USG.

  7. […] Yesterday I criticized OneSTDV for suggesting that that white Christian America was somehow non-hostile to the reactionary cause. Mangan made a similar suggestion. He noted that certain ideals were American and European, while failing to mention that the ideas he had condemned in the previous paragraphs were . . . American and European. […]

  8. spandrell says:

    Yes there’s this floating meme that Americans were all earnest good-ol’ cowboys who own guns and did low taxes, until Jews came over and imposed socialism on them. So all you need is to be a Good American.

    Narratives are always easier if you map ideologies to ethnic groups. Makes it easier to fight.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: