Pearl Harbor Day
The Pearl Harbor anniversary passed a few days ago. I remembered my father’s account of his walking downtown that Sunday morning in 1941 with the six-months-old Yours Truly in a stroller, when people began yelling and running.
Grandmother always pointed out that I and my cousins were not “war babies.” We were born before Pearl Harbor and therefore not products of some perhaps ill-considered and hasty wartime liaison.
I spent most of the war with Grandmother and followed the news with her daily. Some time late in the war, I must have been about four, I am told that I woke up every morning to ask whether I was yet big enough to go and kill Japs. I was precocious even then. Father and every one of the numerous uncles on both sides were somewhere at sea or overseas in the battle, and there was a large O.R.D. (Overseas Reserve Depot) adjacent to our property. The coloured officers visited and chewed the fat and drank RC Cola with Grandfather in his country store next door.
Of course I did not fully understand what the war meant, but it was an unavoidable presence. Grandmother and I were alone in the house when the telegram came announcing that Uncle Paul had been killed moving with Patton to plug the Bulge. I remember vividly her collapse.
I doubt if anyone under 60 even has a hint of what it was like in those days, or even in the Cold War days that followed, when we were taught to hide under our desks in case of an atomic bomb attack, which indeed we would not have been surprised by at any time.
Change is a constant in the life of men and nations, and old geezers going on about how it used to be are tedious. But our change in America has been, it seems to me, abnormally large and fast, excessive to the point that most of the population is literally cut off from the past. It may be argued that America has always been the land of change, but that is a half truth. The other truth is that Americans have through most of their history, until recently, sought stability. Pioneers moved west for opportunity—opportunity to recreate on new and richer land the communities from which they had come.
Some time in the late 90s, in trying to convey to college freshmen and sophomores some information and understanding about their country, I realised that a gulf had been passed with the result that most were quite unable to make any imaginative connection with their past, or indeed with any past. The written word no longer conveyed anything to them, it could no longer evoke any real response—words were just abstractions to be memorised. This was not ignorance—it was the absence of a capacity to grasp anything beyond a limited presentistic consciousness. This is as true of the Bible and great literature as it is of history, I think. We are a post-literate nation. Of course, the students' failures were not helped by endemic laziness. No effort had ever been required of them, apparently. By the time I retired, freshmen students were not capable of doing one third of the work that was normally expected when I began teaching in the early 1970s.
The young of today have grown up in unprecedented wealthy and security. Not only have they never suffered any want, any postponement of wants, being sequestered in the suburbs they have never even seen any poverty. No wonder they are gravely shocked and impatient of any situation or condition that does not meet the standards of a uniformly conformist, cushioned, and prosperous world. Their reality is virtual, fast-moving, colourful, and controllable. Young men no longer enjoy the freedom of risk and roaming and its accompanying scrapes, mental and physical, with the harsh reality and fragile contingency of human life. Young women have never even been told of the benefits of chastity nor of the downside of its absence.
Much of this flows from the dislocations of the war, which removed millions of fathers from the home, sent women to work, accelerated divorce, uprooted families to new and remote regions. The suburnanisation, the segregation of the growing affluent classes from unstructured reality that followed the war was perhaps even worse. The explosion of television and ever more sophisticated electronic devices have contributed to this. I doubt of most of today’s college students can even imagine what life would be like without cellphones.
Of course, and perhaps worst of all, has been the deliberate destruction of education and its replacement by collectivist utilitarianism and conformity. A college freshman can hardly be blamed for lack of information and energy if his experience of the previous twelve years has been regurgitating politically correct slogans. Or perhaps the worst is the government's ongoing campaign to replace the traditional American population with foreigners, mostly from the Third World. This is destroying the possibility of community and of any renewed connection with the legacy of Western civilisation.
This goes a long way toward explaining the dreamlike, virtual-reality course and outcome of the recent Presidential election, so I am inclined to think.
Entries(RSS)
"...a politics devoted to protecting white racial group interests is more important at the present time than any other rightist politics."
--Leon T. Haller
I guess Jared Taylor was right. The deafening silence that followed Leon T. Haller's exposition at posts 31, 32, and 34 indicates a paralyzing unwillingness on the part of many conservatives to deal with the issue of race and racial interests.
There's a lot to be said on this subject, and it is important that it be said. It's no longer possible to pretend that we can have a racially neutral conservatism, if by conservatism we mean a programmatic defense of our European heritage.
Conservatism is a political strategy -- that is, it functions in the field of power-relationships. And in power-relationships, your strategy either works or it doesn't. If it works you survive; if it doesn't you shift strategy or you perish.
To deny that Western identity is under persistent attack today is no longer plausible, and indicates an ostrich-like unwillingness to see things as they are. Such a stance would be similar to that of a black man in the America of 1890 trying to deny that a vast array of social and political obstacles faced him as he made his way through life. One symptom of oppression is the craven fear of admitting that you are being oppressed.
In the extraordinary situation of danger that the West now finds itself, religious conservatism is powerless. Attempting to build an effective political strategy on Christian ideals is self-defeating. It's not an adverse judgment on Christianity to say this, but a recognition that Christianity is an otherworldly religion, and therefore not particularly suited for providing one with real-world survival strategies.
It is also a universal religion. By its very nature Christianity offers salvation to all persons, regardless of their racial or cultural background. That's wonderful, but for this very reason an attempt to base a serious defense of the West and Western identity SOLELY on Christianity is doomed to failure. For after all, if the only thing that is important is the salvation of an individual human soul, what does it matter, ultimately, if that soul is freed from a miscegenated body?
Now those who are concerned with the issue of Western survival can have a number of reactions to this fact. One possibility is that they may reject Christianity completely as a useless impediment that does not take cultural identity seriously -- indeed, that deliberately prevents Westerners from acting in their own racial self-interest by preaching a culturally color-blind universalism. This was the position of Revilo P. Oliver, a very fine classicist at the University of Illinois and a student of religions. As he got older, Oliver became as profoundly anti-Christian as he was anti-Jewish, and he came to believe that both religions had the same root in alien parasitism on the West.
But there is another possible reaction that avoids such an extreme stance. One can be a Christian and still be a defender of white racial and cultural identity, by simply accepting the fact that everyone has the right to be concerned with his own interests.
Consider this example: I live in peace with my next-door neighbor. We are friendly and polite to each other, and on occasion I'll help him out if he requires some assistance. But -- and this is a very important but -- it's MY family that comes first in all vital matters. My neighborliness doesn't require me to sacrifice the well-being or survival of my own wife and children in order to help him promote his special interests.
Extrapolate this principle to nations, and you'll see that it is historically validated. Europeans were devout Christians in the medieval period, but their Christianity didn't prevent them from looking out for their own particular interests as Franks, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Scots, Welsh, Castilians, Lombards, or whatever subdivision of European stock they happened to fall into. Christians killed Christians in innumerable wars, and their Christianity was not neither compromised nor rendered hypocritical because of that.
Christianity isn't a suicide pact. It doesn't require that you surrender your cultural identity or your racial interests to the enemy. Stupid Christian liberals preach that, but it has no basis in either Christian doctrine or human history.
Religious conservatives seem to have a neural disconnect on this question. I once had an argument with one of my fanatical C.U.F. friends. He insisted that if the entire world were converted to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, we would be back in some prelapsarian paradise, living in perfect harmony with one another.
I said to him "At the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513, both sides were pre-Vatican II Catholics. They went to Latin mass, they were profoundly orthodox in belief, and they fully accepted the religious authority of the Pope. So why were they killing each other?"
Look at the Evangelicals. With their knee-jerk support of Israeli interests, their alarmist readings of the Apocalypse, and their obsession with the essentially private issues of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sexual behavior, and pornography, are they really of any use to us? Evangelicals remain what they were in H.L. Mencken's day: Low-Church Protestant crackpots whose primary concern is religious orgasm.
Here's the problem with religious conservatives: they fail to see that the question of an individual soul's salvation is basically irrelevant to questions of politics and national interest. One can be a very devout Christian, and still find it necessary to kill an enemy or play hardball in the arena of competition.
If we recognize this in the field of politics, why can't we recognize it in relation to the defense of the white community against its explicit enemies? This doesn't imply racial hatred or violence or paranoid isolation of ourselves from all others. Those things are stupid and counterproductive. It just means nurturing the self-interest and self-respect that every subsisting group should have. Why is that taboo for us?
I predict that the response of religious conservatives to this admittedly long post will be the usual burbling and incoherent pieties. Let's see if they can reply without using the phrases "end times," "God's Word," "born again," or "Fatima consecration."
@47 Gargi
Oyez! Oyez! I'll have to give Mr James a read.
I have puzzled over Deuteronomy chapter 28 for over a decade now, and am perturbed by a widespread poverty of spirit amidst today's material abundance. I have the misfortune of dealing with twentysomething MBAs from prestigious colleges who have the morals of baboons and the guts of butterflies. In some effort to please their superiors they somehow forgot good manners. Actually they were never taught any, since working couple parents let the telescreen raise their young.
A richer society would not mind running around the back 40 barefoot as they head for the fishing hole. And pulling the violin off the wall to saw out a new tune should be thought of as wealth.
@ 51 Joseph
A room filled with 10 tigers is dangerous. But a room with 4 tigers, 3 gorillas, and 3 giraffes will constantly squabble amongst themselves. It's easy to see the names of those touting open borders immigration. Somebody wants us fighting amongst ourselves as a distraction. Maybe Mexicans will eventually ask for their own water-coolers and park benches.
Etienne Gervaise @ 53
All political movements are, to some degree, alliances of convenience. But unless we ask ourselves WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TRYING TO DEFEND, and unless we clear the air on that matter, internecine squabbling will be inevitable.
#1"Conservatism is a political strategy — that is, it functions in the field of power-relationships. And in power-relationships, your strategy either works or it doesn’t. If it works you survive; if it doesn’t you shift strategy or you perish."
#2"By its very nature Christianity offers salvation to all persons, regardless of their racial or cultural background. That’s wonderful, but for this very reason an attempt to base a serious defense of the West and Western identity SOLELY on Christianity is doomed to failure."
#3Here’s the problem with religious conservatives: they fail to see that the question of an individual soul’s salvation is basically irrelevant to questions of politics and national interest. One can be a very devout Christian, and still find it necessary to kill an enemy or play hardball in the arena of competition."
#1A little learning is a dangerous thing.
#2 Yes but that doesn't effect the often misunderstood assertion that Europe is the Faith. Bread, Wine, Tables and Chairs are now part of the Christian tradition. There is little of the Western identity left that has not been baptized.There is a big difference between the pagans of old and the pagans of today. Plato's work was Augustine's and Aristotle is ever present in St. Thomas Aquinas. There is only one Tradition left in the West and as you observe, it isn't "working" as pragmatist like to say.
#3
Yes, religious conservatives should ignore politics as much as possible and conservatives posing as Christian politicos
should also be ignored as much as possible. Most of them fail miserably and some few have managed but only in extraordinary ways and with great difficulty--Tom Fleming, Joe Sobran, Brent Bozell, Frederick Wilhelmson, John Senior, Clyde Wilson,Mel Bradford, James Patrick and perhaps a few others. You seem to regret that one cannot be both a sincere Christian and a true socialist. But it is the only conservatism acceptable in America today and is called neo-conservativism. It is not possible for serious men of our Tradition to be at the same time republican power brokers and honest men.
Robert @ 55
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you are saying.
Let me try to put what I was arguing into a nutshell: We various types of paleocons can't just keep fighting on the same side if we're not fighting for the same things. I'm NOT fighting to make everyone a Tridentine Rite Catholic, or a born-again Baptist ready for the Rapture. I'm fighting to preserve Western cultural and biological identity! That's our war aim. All other matters are secondary, and in my view very distantly secondary.
And every time someone brings up another moralistic, sectarian, piety-laden point, whether here or at any other right-wing website, I say to myself "Oh dear Jesus, not again... more precious rightist energy wasted on ghostly matters!"
Mr. Haller, Mr. Salemi, and Mr. Taylor all have a strong position.
However, I question whether they may be exaggerating the current situation, and whether there are answers to their concerns that don't require a strategy of white nationalism.
As of the last census around 70 per cent of Americans self-identify as white, meaning they are still the significant majority
According to Mr. Taylor's excellent two-part series on integration on his website, these whites chose to live in their own neighborhoods, attend their own churches, and send their kids to white schools. Segregation has returned, and whites seem to be nurturing their own culture.
According to the census, whites are the least likely Americans to marry outside of their race, with only 1.9 per cent doing so. Only 1.4 per cent of Americans self-identify as mixed race, meaning white purity is being maintained.
Given this information, it would seem by focusing on many popular conservative and libertarian policy options to protect and enhance traditional white American culture are more to order than a white nationalist strategy. Sending illegals home and enforcing the border is a popular issue, as seen by the uprising when Bush and the Washington gang tried to institute amnesty. It stands to reason a legal immigration policy reflecting economic and cultural expectations would be a winner with the public. A Libertarian policy of getting the federal government out of areas such as education, welfare, housing, and ending wealth redistribution in all governments would level the playing field in the country. Whites and minorities willing to play fair would benefit hugely under this scenario.
I don't think white nationalism will sell with most white Americans. But there are ways to preserve and enhance white culture while being fair to all races.
Kuyper and VanPrinsterer successfully developed ideas used in both predominantly Protestant and Roman Catholic nations. Their ideas of spheres were as well successful in mixed countries for a hundred years, leaving only details to work on (such as pillarization), even leaving behind remnant political parties in postchristian countries long later!
Leaving God out of the picture is what has always led to Reigns of Terror, whether in France, Russia, Cambodia -- or Abu Ghraib. One cannot forget God any more than he can forget right and wrong. If one believes his cause is righteous, then he automatically places a standard of behavior above himself.
If each of our presuppositions about life and how to conduct politics is in our selves separately, then effectively, we are each hissing Revolutionaries. Shall we guillotine those whose reason we personally find distasteful?
Now on race, the question is: did God make man? Should we respect God's order?
In practical terms, the current official ideology of the world is defined as race. As a lonely man somewhere in the South named Whitaker says, the solution to the race problem is to flood all white countries and only white countries with the Third World – which is inevitable genocide. Does God really wish for us, his creation, to cease to exist?
The one fundamental of our official ideology is race. That is why everyone who dissents from that ideology is always called the 'R'-word. The ideologists believe that he who is not for us is against us. Thus they have created their own countless opposition of anonymous people who are 'R'-words.
Who then make up the biggest audience of dissidents?
How big an audience out there is made up of people who do not know what the real issue is?
How how long would Chronicles last if all say they are conservatives, but agree with the ideologists on the one fundamental?
Why does that Jared Taylor above appeal to such a big audience? (Look at the responses.)
If one believes in God, then he believes in something greater than himself. If one has faith in the Savior, then that faith gives him the courage to withstand lions, to burn at the stake – or be called the 'R'-word. So far our government has not burned anybody, so why are we so afraid even to discuss obvious things?
Are we really living righteously or are we just living?
I have always found the following pericope from Hebrews exciting (why doesn't Chronicles cite Scripture?):
Read that! Isn't that great? Who can't see the value of faith for producing clear thought and righteous acts?
To Mr. Salemi @51:
Excellent post! Brilliant, learned and wise. It is refreshing and wonderful to meet or discover other racial dissidents, especially when they are articulate, and relatively obscure (are you a poet or poetry teacher by chance?), at least in the world of race-realism.
I am going to try to respond later today to some of the issues you raise. I do believe that a new racial awareness, rightly shorn of unnecessary Nazi associations or accretions, is really rising throughout the European world, and will start to be influential in the next ten years or so.
"DIVERSITY": The God That Failed! Good riddance!
Yes, I am both a poet and a teacher of poetry.
I'd like to comment on this theme later myself.I would also like to remain in touch with Salemi and Haller,we need to exchange stimulating thoughts in a more suitable manner.Sound good to you two gentlemen?
Here,for those who read Italian, is a most worthy and insightful essay by Silvio Waldner that touches upon many of the themes discussed in this thread:http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/immigrazione-extracomunitaria-e-denatalita-europea.html
If anybody is interested I will translate it for you.
Joseph@56 writes:" I’m NOT fighting to make everyone a Tridentine Rite Catholic, or a born-again Baptist ready for the Rapture. I’m fighting to preserve Western cultural and biological identity! That’s our war aim. All other matters are secondary, and in my view very distantly secondary.
And every time someone brings up another moralistic, sectarian, piety-laden point, whether here or at any other right-wing website, I say to myself “Oh dear Jesus, not again… more precious rightist energy wasted on ghostly matters!”
Yes, I agree that there is a dangerous and revolting sentiment when folks start wearing piety on their sleeves. I am more of a crook than a saint, so you may regard or disregard anything I post as a matter of course. I am not fighting to make anyone a Tridentine Catholic. I have been one since my early youth and would not wish that experience in this century on anyone else. I am, however , fighting daily and familiar battles which is a much more mundane and secondary affair than fighting to save Western Culture. I am behind you all the way -- both literally and figuratively. Go, Joe, Go !!
I'm not against genuine religious piety, which is a wonderful and precious thing. What I am against is religious chin-music.
"What I am against is religious chin-music." Oh I know, and me too. Last weekend I attended a training for assisting teen mothers to raise their children or place them for adoption instead of aborting them. Every time we took a break there was this silly, sappy, music that started to play. I thought to myself that no woman, regardless of her background and crimes, deserves that kind of sentiment. Much of what you write is quite good and the questions you raise are excellent, I just think the answers provided are like that God-awful music --- full of feeling but "un --informed"That is to say, without much essence, not fully formed, lacking in substance and most of all in the one thing necessary.
@salemi
Interesting discussion. Interesting for me to read who is neither Christian nor European.
Just because you look white does not mean you are 100 % white. Many Americans have all kinds of mixtures in them such as Jewish, American Indian, Black etc. etc. Many do not. Nothing wrong with trying to preserve your your biological and cultural heritage. The Brahmins in India tried it for more than 3000 years with quite a bit of success. But now even they are gradually vanishing. What you will not be able to control is people's preferences in matters of marriage and such in the modern world--. Why all these doomsday theories about the end of the white race and how they are being attacked? If you are angry about people coming here that do not make an effort to assimilate then change the immigration laws. Do something positive. Many people such as blacks who are accused of not assimilating were brought against their will from my reading of American History. History is not so simple. The Mongols overran Russia but Russians are not Mongols.
It is more of a matter of preserving a dominant civilizational ethos.... All creative cultures preserve just this--a dominant civilizational ethos. It is this perhaps that is endangered in America--- Just because you believe history will go in a certain linear direction does not mean that it actually will--- And I doubt that white nationalism even stripped of "Nazi" belligerence will accomplish what you want.
Indeed, from my reading of German history, Germany before the World Wars possessed a superior culture (a true aristocracy of the mind) which valued education and intellectual achievements--this seems to have come to an end after the Nazis and the culture has never quite recovered in producing the same quality of great men.
Gargi @ 65
Of course you are correct about "race" in the genetic sense -- everyone is a mishmash of different genetic strains that have come together in the course of many centuries. I myself, as a Sicilian, am probably a witches' brew of Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Norman, Byzantine, Visigoth, Saracen, Spanish and whatever else happened to hit the historically unfortunate island of Persephone.
But the fact is that people do recognize and categorize each other by physical appearance and/or physical expectations. Indeed, the entire "affirmative action" racket depends upon that visual identification. It makes perfect common sense (if not strict scientific accuracy) to speak of someone as "black" or "white."
And yes, "preserving a dominant civilizational ethos" is crucial. The larger question, however, is whether that can be done in complete separation from the gene pools out of which that ethos first arose. I don't know the answer to that question, but I know this -- once the gene pools in question are obliterated, THAT'S IT. You don't get any do-overs.
If German high Kultur has collapsed, it probably has to do with the overall cultural degeneracy of the Western world as a whole in the wake of two suicidal and unnecessary world wars. You cannot sustain several hundred million dead and not have a generalized, horrific malaise settle on your culture. This is true for all white countries, and not just Germany.
@Salemi
When a culture is fragmented and there is no dominant guiding force, it is dangerous, and I think it is what is happening in the West and also in the East where anything that can be called remnant of "culture" is left.
Cultures usually exist in relative isolation-- with the globalization all that has changed. Coming from a close, tight knit group with no intermarriage for millenia, I understand only to well how important a sense of cultural belonging is and when you lose that, it is a big loss. What is tragic is that the East blindly follows the West without realizing that the West is also uncertain of itself...
But I am hopeful because America is capable of adapting and transforming...I think Ludwig Wittgenstein almost 50 years ago put it well in an introduction to one of his books where he captures well the disenchantment felt by many after the War and by many today:
"This book is written for those who are in sympathy with the spirit in which it is written. This is not, I believe, the spirit of the main current of European and American civilization. The spirit of this civilization makes itself manifest in the industry, architecture and music of our time, in its fascism and socialism, and it is alien and uncongenial to the author. This is not a value judgment. It is not, it is true, as though he accepted what nowadays passes for architecture as architecture or did not approach what it called modern music with the greatest suspicion(though without understanding its language), but still, the disappearance of the arts does not justify judging disparagingly of the human beings who make up this civilization. For in times like these, genuine strong characters simply leave the arts aside and turn to other things and somehow the worth of the individual man finds expression. Not, to be sure, in the way it would at a time of high culture. A culture is like a big organization which assigns each of its members a place where he can work in the spirit of the whole; and it is perfectly fair for his power to be measured by the contribution he succeeds in making to the whole enterprise. In an age without culture on the other hand forces become fragmented and the power of an individual man is used up in overcoming apposing forces and frictional resistances; it does not show in the distance he travels but perhaps only in the heat he generates in overcoming friction. But energy is still energy and even if the spectacle which our age affords is not the formation of a great cultural work, with the best men contributing to the same great end, so much as the unimpressive spectacle of a crowd whose best members work for purely private ends, still we must not forget that the spectacle is not what matters.
I realize then that the disappearance of a culture does not signify the disappearance of human value, but simply of certain means of expressing this value, yet the fact remains that I have no sympathy for the current of European civilization and do not understand its goals, if it has any. So I am really writing for people who are scattered throughout the corners of the globe...."
@salemi
"I don’t know the answer to that question, but I know this — once the gene pools in question are obliterated, THAT’S IT. You don’t get any do-overs."
I fail to see how the gene pool is being oblitereated. And I doubt that the current problems in the West is largely a result of the world wars. Peoples and cultures are much more adaptive than you think. Perhaps the Western world is getting rid of its Semitic fairy tales and will go back to its true Greek heritage--the classical Western culture is great and also the modern European heritage after the Renaissance, but I have always thought the "so-called" Judeo-Christian' heritage to be largely overrated....
"You cannot sustain several hundred million dead and not have a generalized, horrific malaise settle on your culture. This is true for all white countries, and not just Germany."
Again to think that what is happening is a result of the World Wars is a gross over-simplification. Moreover, the Western world has been not been uniformly creative. Some parts have been more creative than others depending on the historical background.
"I have always thought the “so-called” Judeo-Christian’ heritage to be largely overrated…"
I think you'll find it isn't "so-called" (i.e. "Judeo"-Christian) around here.
You're awful quick to give up on something that even Nietzsche relied on: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_old_right_and_the_antichrist/
What Salemi probably means and what Sam Francis said is that we've little reason to believe that Chinamen, Africans and Mexicans will walk in our ways. We're not doing of good job of that either, but as Mr. Salemi indicates, it is in the process of changing from improbable to impossible.
@Bruce
Do not misunderstand me. Whatever I may think of the "monotheisms" arising in the Mid-East, I very well know and respect the place that religion holds for people, whatever my religious views are--even though we are not Christians, my parents always had a Christmas tree for us when we were little so we would not feel left out...And it is sad there are no lights in the City. But what to do? I am certainly not those people who want to ban things such religious music in schools and such. The heritage of the West is Christianity, whatever one may think about it....I believe in respecting and not disrupting the majority culture and heritage...
#68: Gargi
"...but I have always thought the “so-called” Judeo-Christian’ heritage to be largely overrated…."
You are absolutely correct, if you consider it a term that is very misleading. Although the term goes back to the beginning of Christianity with reference to those Christian Jews (Nazarenes, who rapidly disappeared after the fall of Jerusalem) who continued to practice circumcision and observed the Mosaic law, or to the Judeo-Christians, called Ebionites, who were heretics, it is not at all traditional to say that a Christian's morality or principles are Judeo-Christian. The Catholic Church has in fact succeeded the Israel of the Old Testament, as being the true people of God. Present-day Jews are not a part of this heritage, nor are they my older brothers in the Faith, as Pope John Paul II has, alas, stated. They do not have the true Faith, the Faith of the Catholic Church, for they explicitly reject and refuse to believe in Christ, the Son of God made man, despite the fact that He fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament. By refusing to believe in the Holy Trinity, they refuse to believe in God as He has revealed Himself. They consequently have not had the faith of Abraham, who believed everything that God revealed to him, since Christ revealed this mystery of the Trinity. How can this term be used when the vast majority of Jews have no problem with euthanasia, abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, and even the elimination of God, and love towards our neighbor from public life, politics, education and the courts?
The modern, liberal, ecumenical idea of a Judeo-Christian heritage dates back to Vatican II in the document Nostra Aetate, wherein it is claimed that Christians and Jews share a common spiritual heritage, without explaining what that is. If is is meant that we share that part of sacred Scripture that we call the Old Testament, it is partly right. Other than that, we share nothing in common with the Jews, spiritually, speaking.
The term Judeo-Christian heritage is now a politically correct term, but in its political correctness, it is deliberately ambiguous, liberal, favoring indifferentism and ecumenism, and not at all orthodox.
As far as your statement, "the classical Western culture is great and also the modern European heritage after the Renaissance..." goes, my reading of history indicates that the Renaissance was the beginning of secularization or re-paganizing of the West, what with its stress on humanism, sensuality in the arts, and nationalism (national glory). Somehow, I am unable to describe these developments as great.
@ 69, make that "walk in OUR ancestors ways."
@Bruce
Also, I would not write off peoples so easily. It is true, China has always been a very self-absorbed culture and others find them hard to understand. But it is nevertheless a great civilization....They always thought they were the center of the world, and with the way things are going who knows...
As for Mexicans, it is true there is a lot of illegal immigration and they have a lot of children. But is it not better to try to bring people who are alienated into the fold and make better immigration laws than to ignore the problem? I do not think that this will be so hard because they are Christians. Have everyone learn english and make responsible immigration policies...
As for the inner cities... when I travel outside the city, I see an entirely different world...How long can these areas can be written off as unassimilable ...Is it not better to try to bring everyone into the fold without compromising the cultural ideals that have made America? The mark of a great civilization is also how much you can also make OTHERS walk in your "ancestors ways" as you put it....
To some of you loquacious gentlemen: For all I know your discussions may be very wise and important, but as far as I can see they have no relation to what I wrote.
Ah, but Dr. Wilson, they do. You began this thread with a meditation on and memoir of Pearl Harbor, and of our entry into the Second World War. That very naturally segued into a discussion of the current plight of European civilization and the white races. Can you honestly say that you don't see a connection?
Dr. Wilson:
Comments online could be better if we thought of commenting more like a university discussion section. But without grading to enforce on-topic comments, custom has produced something more like porch-talk with sweet tea and treats.
But maybe it could be made better if Chronicles' webmaster changed "Leave a reply" to "Comment on the Article."
It is easy to interpret "Leave a reply" as a suggestion to reply to the last commenter's thought and drift away from the article's original topic. Custom varies from website to website, so a brief guideline or suggestion at the top of the form field for comments would be helpful.
#76
It is true that these discussions often drift off topic, but sometimes this adds to a discussion. Sometimes it does not. Personally, I like the freedom of these discussions and if they get too far afield, Dr. Fleming or Dr. Wilson usually step in and get things back on track.
@Wilson
the loquacious ones are not all gentlemen;-)
"As you say, Dr. Fleming, “whiteness” does not provide anything sufficient to live for or to die for. People can be rallied by religion, kinship, culture—they cannot be rallied by a physical characteristic. The ills of the West, as you suggest, are all in ourselves, not caused by others, though others may take advantage of them."
You have put it well Dr.Wilson. I like to hear this being said because it is true...
gargl-
You are right. The ills of places like Los Angeles is in the people that used to live there fifty years ago, not in the people who live there now! The country will be much better off when it is just like LA or Mexico City.
To Gargi, who has contributed a lot to this discussion:
The hispanics should be given their own fold and their own nation.
They earned it by making the mullatto grovel before Hillary in a television debate.
H: "Yes, illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans, I even talked to a black in Georgia who told me how he lost his job due to that."
m: "I'm not going to get involved in dividing people"
The exchange was so weird to me that I didn't really understand it, and I didn't really think upon it since then.
But now I realize that it was because the m groveled before Hillary when there was no need for him to, that later he was made to grovel before her like a faggot of a whore.
@Pch
Any rational person can see there are large parts of this country which are no longer the beautiful neighborhoods they used to be as many old people I know tell me. Of course people who used to live in these areas when they were good neignborhoods are angry and have the right to be. However, I am not a politician nor have I caused the neighborhoods to be in such a state. So do not get angry at me....
@Bob Johnson
"The hispanics should be given their own fold and their own nation."
I do not have easy answers to these kinds of issues. What is the point of calling Obama names? You are not responsible for what you are born as. Your parents are. Some people were brought here against their will historically, they have had civil rights since the sixties. I wonder why large portions of the country are not "assimilating" ? Do you know why and what answer do you have? Make the areas that do not "assimilate" a separate nation? I am just stating what I see without making a moral judgment. Instead of complaining about how people are flooding the country and not "assimilating", why not devote energies to making responsible immigration policies and securing the borders?
Gargi,
"Some people were brought here against their will historically, they have had civil rights since the sixties."
Most of them had civil rights long before then: they were allowed to vote, allowed to go to their traditional churches, allowed to make a living in satisfying fields that usually involved interaction with solid objects and other human beings, and allowed to express themselves culturally through the use of highly interesting musical forms such as the delta blues.
The Civil Rights movement was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, and the ultimate and utter proof of this is that it even made the blacks worse off.
"I wonder why large portions of the country are not 'assimilating' ?"
I think it's because most of the minorities who are here for no other reason then the greed of cheap labor lovers (e.g. the blacks and hispanics) had enough sense beaten into them as children that they, at least on some gut level, know what the score really is.
This was never really their country, and getting on the case of those blacks and hispanics quick witted enough to understand this is height of stupidity and a complete waste of time, money, and breath.
"what answer do you have? Make the areas that do not 'assimilate' a separate nation?"
That is a truly excellent question. No offense to anyone, but you have exceeded in your wisdom all others on this site.
The most important thing to understand is that this isn’t really a question of assimilation at all.
Back when White Southerners were intelligent and brave enough to keep the blacks under control, there was really very little downside to keeping them around without regard to such trivial questions as whether they assimilated to how white people were acting.
My personal view is that the test of which people does or does not deserve a nation should be decided by nothing but tests of strength.
La Raza has EVERY right in heaven and earth to try and take over California, and once they take it over, they can keep it for all time as a tribute to their strength and cunning.
Arizona is far more difficult question, as there the white gentiles showed some signs of life in their support of Gov. Napolitano’s decision to stand up the REAL ENEMY of whatever decency might be left in this country: The Chamber of Commerce and their mindless, souless, bloodless allies in the mass media.
The thing is though that La Raza is a lock to take over Arizona within a not very long period of time, just because of birth rate differential.
And thus you sure as hell won’t see me breaking my back to protect the whites over there.
New Mexico is even more hopeless, and should be incorporated with Arizona and California when the time comes.
Texas is another matter, as much as they ought to dig up LBJ’s remains and do to them what the worthless cowards of Yale did to Geronimo’s corpse.
With Texas, I would favor a partition of the state, with Mexico getting whatever parts desire reunion with the nation that spawned them and then proceeded to spit them out.
"...Why not devote energies to making responsible immigration policies and securing the borders?"
Good question.
Ever since he made a truly idiotic attack on Lou Dobbs in Florida and Lou stood up to him, the one that shall head the Federal Government has been cagey beyond belief on this issue.
Thus in the extreme short term I think it would be a mistake to risk actions that might tend to provoke him toward his most radical advisers.