This discussion marks the unwelcome return of the rude, ignorant, and stupid brownshirts. (To distinguish them from the intelligent, polite, and well-informed racists whom I have normaly encountered and with whom I am often happy to engage in discussion.) These people are giving bigotry a bad name. When I used to know the people from the American Renaissance, they never spoke this way. Such language is the mark of the proletarian would-be revolutionary. They used to sit in cafes. Now they don't have to get out of their little rooms.

Note to these people, if that is the correct word, posting on this site. Daily Worker language (such as cockroaches, vermin, etc.) is not permitted. By the way, Iranian peoples (including Scyths and Armenians) belong to the Indo-European language family. Indeed, they belong to the Indo-Aryan group, a name that ought to brighten the day of every little nerd in their Hitler Youth video-game club. They are caught on the horns of their own dilemma. Which is definitive, geography, or religion and ethnicity? If Christian Indo-European Armenians are not "European" by virtue of geography, then, presumably, Turks from Constantinople to Berlin are. Hatred, in depriving them of the manners their mothers must have taught them, has also robbed them of their wits.

Perhaps we made a mistake in setting up this website. I know that I can barely bring myself to look at it, much less contribute to it. Despite the lies these people love to tell, the way meth addicts love to destroy their brains, there is hardly a subject we are unwilling to discuss with rational and informed people, who have some idea of how mature human beings discuss serious questions. Debating ethnic and racial issues with the likes of the Squealers and Hollers is like debating the merits of Botticelli with a high school art teacher sculpting garbage on an NEA grant. If the main effect of the internet is to give the illusion of speech and power to the products of American education, then it is time to turn the field over to David Frum. He belongs here and we don't.

"I see too many petty fights among folks in political groups, and I’ve enjoyed reading Hawkins in the past. It kills me to see him act so immaturely, and I hate to see him drawn into the neocons. His view of the world will probably change and become perverted the longer he’s among them."

Indeed. Perhaps the fact that he's been writing for FrontPageMag.com since 2002 may have something to do with his recent behavior.

But there’s nothing truly conservative about nationalism, which always defines a people in opposition to the other, not in terms of itself.

That's interesting. I've heard such said of nationalism, and it would of course be preferred for patriots to embrace their nations out of extended love of real, lower levels.

However, modern society is fluid and interwoven - communities don't exist as they once did, and those that do like the remote Faroe Islands don't seem capable of retaining their young people.

The modern world is within a different paradigm as long as cheap fossil fuel abounds. Hawkins's view of geopolitics from a US nationalist vantage would seem politically expedient though exploitation of another nation is unChristian. Hawkins doesn't want to integrate the Iraqis into a larger American state but simply to take control of their oil. At least ostensibly, his desire isn't to build a larger American state to counter a rising China but to empower the US that he loves. He does wish for the world to be unipolar under the US, but this is distinct from the neocon desire of a world under one dominant humanist power (actually Israel might be their preferred dominator putting them in the same class as Hawkins, but for the sake of argument their true goals are ignored)

---

Is it possible to burn bridges once someone else has already burned them?

1. As long as his ego isn't bruised, he won't be opposed to returning or at least working with his (ideologically) natural allies once he realises where he belongs. 2. If it's ignored it becomes less of an issue.

If a juvenile says something terrible, he often isn't fully aware of what all he saying. So an adult is usually better off ignoring it, and the comment is soon forgotten.

I see too many petty fights among folks in political groups, and I've enjoyed reading Hawkins in the past. It kills me to see him act so immaturely, and I hate to see him drawn into the neocons. His view of the world will probably change and become perverted the longer he's among them.

If you don't like my private life, then don't open your big mouth about it: it's private, anyway, so what the f*ck do you know about it? Nothing!

As for me being a "leftist" -- you are wrong, my friend. Eliminating gun controls, abolishing ‘civil rights’ laws, restoring free enterprise, slashing [abolishing!] the welfare state, abrogating NAFTA and other globalist treaties, etc -- I am for all of those things, as I have written on many occasions.

"Is Hawkins truly leftist or merely misguided and unChristian?"

I didn't say that Hawkins was leftist; I said that extreme nationalism is a leftist phenomenon, as many true rightists have recognized.

That's not to say that the nationalist cannot have many, many conservative traits. Certainly, Hawkins does. But there's nothing truly conservative about nationalism, which always defines a people in opposition to the other, not in terms of itself.

"Under such a movement, Hawkins would probably be a natural ally unless he’s secretly a globalist. He would be an asset despite his rude behavior."

And that's why we had him writing for Chronicles, and why he was invited to take part in the JRC. But alliances go both ways. You can debate with allies over areas of disagreement, but if you stab them in the back, you can hardly be considered an ally anymore.

"Isn’t it better to overlook Hawkins’s article rather than to burn bridges; is anything gained otherwise?"

Is it possible to burn bridges once someone else has already burned them?

It just goes to show what many of us knew all along: Far from being “conservative,” the extreme nationalism of men such as Hawkins is actually a leftist phenomenon–and has been ever since it emerged during the French Revolution.

Is Hawkins truly leftist or merely misguided and unChristian? His loyalty would seem to be to the American people and not merely his state. The desire to exploit a neighbor and to acquire limited resources as vital as oil for the sake of the US nation seems to be his.

Anthony Cooney wrote regarding Chesterton:

Chesterton’s objection to Imperialism is precisely that it seeks to destroy all such peculiar customs which differentiate nations. Its aim is the cosmopolitan aim of a standardized humanity living in a standardized economy under a standardized law. It is not the existence of sovereign nations which is the cause of war. It is the policy of the Empires, British, French, German, Russian, and since Chesterton’s day, American, to expand and bring all peoples under their sway, which results in the clash of titans.

This sort of imperialist sentiment doesn't seem to apply to Hawkins.

Justin Raimondo,

you call Hawkins a neocon yet this is clearly not so. Was Hawkins a neocon, he'd want free trade and open borders.

Isn't it better to overlook Hawkins's article rather than to burn bridges; is anything gained otherwise? I disagree with him on foreign policy, but he seems to want what's best for the American nation. Tancredo too is unfairly labeled "neocon," though I do hope "paleocon" still means more than "one who opposes the Iraq War."

---
@all

We should be bound by a common desire to save our own Western nations and communities within; especially if demographics don't let up, Western Civilisation; and, yes Sid, whites (no disrespect intended). If the Netherlands fall to Sharia, do we sit idly by obeying paleo isolationist dogma? I’m not advocating centralization btw.

Under such a movement, Hawkins would probably be a natural ally unless he's secretly a globalist. He would be an asset despite his rude behavior.

---

An argument for secession:

One argument for Southern secession that I think Dr. Francis would like: it can bolster the patriotic identity by jettisoning the parts that are too diverse or corrupt. Also, we Southerners at least see a Southern nation, even if it's not politically expedient to secede.

---

Scott P. Richert,

I wasn't aware of the history of nationalism either, but when talking with folks if they're even aware of a distinction they tend to view patriotism as something disconnected from kinship consisting entirely of ties formed via acquaintance and Sid's view of cultural ties.

One who loves his nation then is a patriot, and one who loves his state is a nationalist?

What's the gain from everyone speaking English if they can't communicate using it?

Heck speaking of misunderstandings, I'm not entirely sure of just what a "right-libertarian" is and how a libertarian could even be on the right, though I've an idea but it would mean there's a great deal of diversity within the term right-libertarian. When I want info on the war I go straight to Raimondo, but I don't see him as right wing as I understand his views. No disrespect intended.

I just listened to the conference --- it was great. Both Srdja & Raimondo brought up some good points.