Ohio’s Rejection of a Western Democrat

I have been concerned with the fate of William Allen, lifetime Democratic politician and governor of Ohio from 1873-75, since it was announced that there was a movement to remove his statue from the National Statuary Hall in the Capitol building, where it has stood for 113 years. Each state is entitled to place in the hall two statues of

deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services such as each State may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration….

Allen’s statue joins that of President James Garfield in representing Ohio. Unfortunately, Allen held views that now mark him as “racist,” an unforgivable crime in our society today. Since there appear to be no extenuating grounds, he will have to go, forcibly deported to his home state, where hopefully there will be a few supporters left in his one-time residence of Chillicothe to take him back.

In classic liberal-bureaucratic problem-solving mode, a committee of lawmakers is soliciting names for a replacement. Thomas Edison seems in this article to have the most support (though he doesn’t seem to have lived in Ohio after age 10), and the Wright Brothers are strong candidates, but count on Jesse Owens and Annie Oakley to leverage the “diversity” factor and make a strong showing.

Allen was one of the memorable politicians of his time, a skilled orator, scrupulously honest and loyal, and a Jacksonian Democrat deeply devoted to his constituency. It is true that he does not emerge as a truly great figure. As his biographer wrote, “He was not the equal of Daniel Webster in scholastic acquirement; nor the peer of Henry Clay in oratory; nor the rival of John C. Calhoun in the subtlety of debate.” (1) As a  senator he won renown for his speeches attacking the national banking system on behalf on Van Buren and for supporting U.S. annexation of the entire Oregon Territory. He emerged from retirement at age 70 to be elected governor of Ohio on an anti-corruption platform, and succeeded in lowering taxes, but fell out of public favor for his support of the inflationary policy of printing “greenbacks.”

All in all, an interesting and mixed legacy. However, the real problem for him today is the position on slavery he took as a “Northern Democrat” during the Civil War.

As a Democrat Allen believed in the policy of non-interference with the slavery question. He could not approve either abolition or the rising tide of free-soilism that was already invading his own section. Occupied in the past few years with foreign affairs, he failed to perceive that slavery had become the absorbing question of the day. He did not wish to yield to the slave owner nor to interfere with the latter’s property rights. He opposed all agitation on the subject. (2)

Allen initially supported the Lincoln administration in the Civil War, but “as the war progressed and abolition of slavery rather than the restoration of the Union became the evident objective, he changed to an uncritical [i.e. unconditional] opponent.” (3) His views were identical to those of a vast number of Northerners. His misfortune today comes from the fact that he expressed them in dramatic speeches.

In 1862, responding to the first Emancipation Proclamation, he conjured to his audience his horror at what liberation of the slaves might bring about.

“Every white laboring man in the North who does not want to be swapped off for a free nigger should vote the Democratic ticket,” commenced Allen. “He regarded the policy that the mad abolitionist fanatics were endeavoring to fasten on the country as destructive of the Constitution, the Union, and of the white man’s interests…. Suppose that the contemplated emancipation should be inaugurated successfully. Seven or eight hundred thousand negroes with their hands reeking in the blood of murdered women and children would present themselves at our Southern borders demanding to cross over into our state as Ohio’s share of the freed negroes – seven or eight hundred thousand negroes without money, without food, and without personal property of any kind, who, in virtue of nature’s law were compelled to eat and be clothed. Then would come the conflict between the white laborers and the negroes. The negroes would enter into such competition with the white laborers that the latter would have to abandon the field of labor here – make way for the negroes – or maintain their ground by waging a war on the negroes that would result in driving them from the state, or in their extermination.”

Allen added that “None of these fanatics who claim to be acting in behalf of philanthropy…would consent that their sons and daughters should intermarry with the negroes.” He imagined that the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued by Lincoln under pressure from the fanatics in the Republican party at an impractical time, “to teach the radicals that the measure could result in no good.” (4)

Allen obviously comes off here as someone appealing to the fears of his white constituents, not as someone moved by compassion for negroes; nor could his imagination extend to anticipating the nuances of how a black migration to the North would take place or what its consequences would be. In truth, he seems not to have grasped the unsustainability of the slave system, or why there was such bitter opposition to it. Still, we should not be too quick to judge him for his prejudices. Was he wrong to fear black migration to Ohio? It was to have consequences for places like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo that would have stunned Allen and his “section.”

Allen’s 1925 biographer tempered a general admiration for his subject with the conclusion that:

To the author, William Allen is an example of the leader who appeals to the emotions of his constituents rather than to their reason. He played upon their national passions, their unreasoning antipathies, their inherited prejudices and their unthinking desires. He seldom, if ever, tried to formulate their longings on the basis of calm, balanced judgment. He strove to discover and satisfy their wants with the blind devotion of the servant rather than the wisdom of the ruler. His career discloses vividly the power of public opinion, for good and evil, in the working of our government. When this public opinion is partly molded by leaders that strive to arouse the intellect, it is apt to be a thinking public opinion; but if the leader plays only on the emotions, these alone are likely to be stirred. The latter was Allen’s general procedure. (5)

Ironically, Allen’s limitations were grounded in his Democratic principles, and the appeal the early Democrats made to the intemperate desires of voters certainly has its echoes in present-day politics. It may be that someone can be found who is qualified to replace Allen in the statuary. The problem, though, is that we are not qualified to replace him. With our mindless march to the tune of “diversity,” we cast aside the memory of our forebears, condemning them to be replaced by a collage of predictable figures – black athletes, proto-femininists – that reflects the fantasies of a society in decline. I suggest to Ohio that they give Allen an extension. Fifty years, perhaps, would be enough time to see whether his proposed replacements stand the test of time, or whether even greater men emerge.

Notes

(1) Reginald McGrane, William Allen: A Study in Western Democracy, Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer (The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society), 1925, p. 259.

(2) Fred Haynes, Review: William Allen: A Study in Western Democracy, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (March 1926), p. 604.

(3) Ibid, p. 605.

(4) McGrane, p. 157-159.

(5) McGrane, p. 260.

Another Weekend Over….

I’m reading interesting things but have been foiled from composing the planned essay by various demands on my time.

I have no intention to see Avatar unless it is at the dollar theater. But I happened upon some revealing comments on it by a liberal/left type of person which I will try to share shortly.

Dhimmitude: Happening at a School Near You

Back in 2006 the anti-jihad blogs circulated an article on a school in St. Paul, Minnesota, which had decided to modify its art classes to satisfy prohibitions against making portraits of humans and animals in Islam. The reason for this was that about 70% of the students were “Muslim immigrants from eastern Africa.” The Executive Director of the school, one Bill Wilson, applied the liberal-bureaucratic approach to solving the problem: hire “experts” to provide rational solutions to conflicts between social entities with competing value systems. Mr. Wilson was pleased to find an apparently satisfactory solution to the problem. It turned out that the requirements of the art curriculum could be technically satisfied without transgressing Islamic law.

The escape hatch was found in the Minnesota Academic Standards for Arts K-12, published in 2003. To be precise, according to the curriculum of the St. Paul school, the goal for elementary school education was for pupils to learn to “understand the elements of visual art, including color, line, shape, form, texture, and space.” So, you see, there was never any actual requirement that students draw human faces and figures, even if this has always been considered a fundamental aspect of art in the Western tradition.The incident was an excellent demonstration of the smooth interaction (meaning: attack on one side, and absolute, immediate capitulation on the other) between the absolute, supreme dictates of Islamic law and the hairsplitting, rationalistic tools of liberal administration. Assuming these standards were not designed as a response to Muslim parents’ demands, we find that the goals of art education had already been drained of specific cultural and spiritual content, abstracted as if to create the illusion of an education which is not culture-specific. To continue with our example, art turns out to be not about the beauty of nature or the human form, or about conveying truths about man or God. It can consist, rather, of  “cutting out shapes to make into cardboard pouches,” or “taking photographs and mapping the neighborhood around the school” (Yikes!). The local Imam was even generous enough to point out that it was all right for students to draw outlines of their hands. If I were an administrator, though, I would advise teachers against assigning this activity. Teachers might get carried away and encourage the students to make the hand outlines into Thanksgiving Turkeys. And I can see our Muslim brethren having all kinds of objections to that.

Today’s educators and “experts” apply the tools of rational deconstruction to their field of choice, breaking it down into the smallest possible components, recording and speculating on every nuance and exception, and draining it of its soul. Confident in their knowledge, they become less and less tolerant of popular, traditional views the general public holds on the same subjects. When push comes to shove, their well-honed principles become tools for the enemies of our society. Never in history has a civilization been so educated, and so foolish.

But never has the time been better for capable thinkers and leaders to stand up in defense of that slighted and exploited public.

How Not to Fight a War

Henry VI, Part I, I.i: messengers bring news to the English nobles of the calamitous loss of numerous territories of France, recently won by the now deceased Henry V.

Duke of Exeter:
How were they lost? what treachery was us’d?

Messenger:
No treachery, but want of men and money.
Amongst the soldiers this is muttered–
That here you maintain several factions:
And whilst a field should be dispatch’d and fought,
You are disputing of your generals;
One would have lingering wars, with little cost;
Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings;
A third thinks, without expense at all,
By guileful fair words peace may be obtain’d.
Awake, awake, English nobility!
Let not sloth dim your honours new-begot.
Cropp’d are the flower-de-luces in your arms;
Of England’s coat one half is cut away.

Penrod

The shelves of the literature section at my local university’s library are packed with novels that were once loved and talked about but have long since been forgotten. Who now reads (the American) Winston Churchill or William Gilmore Simms? These days, I look to such books to learn more about those aspects of our past that have been suppressed by our progressive ideals. They may have more to tell us than the books which are still in favor.

I learned about Penrod (published in 1914) at Mencius Moldbug’s site – Mencius seems to read an astonishing number of these forgotten books – where he recommended it for a portrait of America before progressivism. Neither the odd-sounding title, which is the name of the 12-year-old boy protagonist, nor the fictional-sounding name of the author, Booth Tarkington, meant anything to me. After a few pages, though, I was hooked. I usually write about books to make some other point, not as a reviewer. But you really should read this book. It’s an American classic. And, blessedly, Penrod, and its first sequel, Penrod and Sam (1916), are in print, published by the Indiana University Press, (1) and available online on Project Gutenberg.

Penrod is a chronicle of the misadventures of Penrod Schofield, a boy growing up in a Midwestern town who, like Tom Sawyer, is constantly getting in trouble as a result of his boyish energy and mischievousness. The novel starts with Penrod being dressed by his mother and sister in a ludicrous homemade costume as the Child Sir Lancelot for a “Pageant” to be performed “for the benefit of the Coloured Infants’ Betterment Society.” Penrod’s humiliation at being forced to recite lines describing himself as “gentle-hearted, meek, and mild,” and his mortification at the discovery that the trunks are made from his father’s old long underwear, lead to a desperate remedy which, as you might imagine, unleashes chaos on the Pageant. Penrod goes on, undeterred, to other schemes, such as a setting up a “drugstore” using discarded medicines and tonics which he and his friend Sam induce another boy to drink; and exhibiting people and animals in a “museum of curiosities.” The “curiosities” include Penrod’s two black friends, the brothers Herman and Verman (one has a missing finger and the other a speech impediment) and the son of one of the town’s aristocratic families who shares the same last name as a famed murderess. For these and other activities Penrod is regularly whipped by his father. He goes through a period of hero-worship of a crude bully, and gets in the way of his sister’s suitors. He is in love with Marjorie, a pretty, haughty girl who usually disdains him, but is won over by her jealousy of another girl and Penrod’s indifference to her at a party (a lesson for students of pick-up techniques?). In the end she is calling him her “bow” (as she spells it).

The book is delightfully and often roaringly funny, with the humor frequently deriving from the incongruity between the even-toned, cultivated musings of the narrator, replete with literary references, and the absurdity or crudeness of the events being described. This type of humor would be hard to achieve today. For instance, Penrod’s practice of hoisting his dog, Duke, in a basket up into a compartment in the stable that serves as his hideout, is described thus:

“Eleva-ter!” shouted Penrod. “Ting-ting!”

Duke, old and intelligently apprehensive, approached slowly, in a semicircular manner, deprecatingly, but with courtesy. He pawed the basket delicately; then, as if that were all his master had expected of him, uttered one bright bark, sat down, and looked up triumphantly. His hypocrisy was shallow: many a horrible quarter of an hour had taught him his duty in this matter.

“El-e-vay-ter!” shouted Penrod sternly. “You want me to come down there to you?”

Duke looked suddenly haggard. He pawed the basket feebly again and, upon another outburst from on high, prostrated himself flat. Again threatened, he gave a superb impersonation of a worm.

“You get in that el-e-VAY-ter!”

Reckless with despair, Duke jumped into the basket, landing in a dishevelled posture, which he did not alter until he had been drawn up and poured out upon the floor of sawdust with the box. There, shuddering, he lay in doughnut shape and presently slumbered.

Penrod apparently became thought of as a “children’s book” to be read in school, but the novel’s very adult commentary on middle-class American life, with reference to social problems like alcoholism and adultery and to issues like commercialism, religion, class, and race, is aimed at a mature audience. Further, the author presents to his readers a somewhat progressive view of child psychology, articulated by Penrod’s ninety-year-old (progressive?) great aunt Sarah, quiet supporter and defender of the “Worst Boy in Town.” According to Sarah, boys are naturally selfish, wild, and generally uncivilized, and parents need to accept this. She asks his mother:

“I suppose Penrod is regarded as the neighbourhood curse?”

“Oh, no,” cried Mrs. Schofield. “He–”

“I dare say the neighbours are right,” continued the old lady placidly. “He’s had to repeat the history of the race and go through all the stages from the primordial to barbarism. You don’t expect boys to be civilized, do you?”

“Well, I–”

“You might as well expect eggs to crow. No; you’ve got to take boys as they are, and learn to know them as they are.”

Aunt Sarah elaborates on Penrod’s parents’ misunderstanding of their son. Penrod’s mother, says Sarah, thinks Penrod is a “novice in a convent,” and his father thinks he is a “decorous, well-trained young business man.” “[W]henever you don’t live up to that standard,” she tells the boy, “you get on his nerves and he thinks you need a whalloping.” But neither the feminine cajoling by mothers nor the masculine punishment by fathers does much good. In Sarah’s view, Penrod will turn out just fine, though the road to adulthood is bound to be bumpy. As a twelfth-birthday gift, she saves Penrod from his next whalloping by giving him his father’s old slingshot and the story of why she confiscated it from him thirty-five years before. Penrod’s father, we see, has forgotten that he himself was once a boy.

This is not to attribute an overly serious message to the book. It is comedy above all, with Penrod’s selfishness, impulsiveness, and lack of “sense” gloriously exaggerated (he seems to me younger than twelve). The society portrayed in Penrod has long since vanished (as Mencius remarks), with many elements very foreign to our experience, from formal dance parties for children, to casual cruelty to animals. Yet in many ways the childhood experience it portrays will feel familiar to most middle-class Americans who grew up until the 1970s or so. With almost all mothers living at home, and with discipline and order sustained cooperatively by parents at home and by teachers, policemen, and other authority figures outside, children could – paradoxically – run wild in their neighborhood, exploring, fighting, and creating elaborate games. Penrod’s world was not without danger – bullies, dogs, illness, falls, and (in Penrod and Sam) loaded guns in drawers at home. But, by and large, Penrod has it well, and we feel sure that he will grow into a respectable pillar of the community like his father. The author celebrates childhood’s barbarism, and criticizes the upper middle class of regional towns for their class snobbishness and their attempts to over-cultivate and over-discipline their children. Yet a reader today should be struck by how good the results of that order were. The town, in a way, is like the boring, narrow-minded town of Sinclair Lewis’s Main Street; yet how much life and love one finds there!

Incidentally, over Christmas vacation, I also read Tom Sawyer, which must have been one of Tarkington’s models for Penrod. I won’t say Penrod is the greater work, but it was a lot more fun to read. The main reason we don’t read it now is that Penrod portrays black Americans in ways that are completely unacceptable in America today – something duly noted in the Introductions to both volumes. This is true of Mark Twain, too; but Twain’s severe criticisms of the society and politics of his time, and his apparent higher “anti-racist” purpose in Huckleberry Finn, bring him continued respect today. Tarkington, basing his tales in Indiana, is probably no more prejudiced than Twain, but while Twain attacks slavery and lynching in the South, Tarkington accepts the gentler, informal segregation of North. It is probably this, more than the particulars of his treatment of black characters, that renders him disrespectable today. It is thus very fortunate that Tarkington’s status as an Indiana author has brought him a home in the Library of Indiana Classics series. My copy has the words “Regional” and “Children’s” as keywords on the back cover, but I can’t imagine anyone reading Penrod to their children today!

I have left the issue of race for last because it is, first of all, an injustice to this work to make its portrayal of race the main issue. Penrod is about white middle-class life in the early 20th century. “Coloured” persons were a regular part of life but were confined to a certain subordinate position and were not part of the presumed readership of the novel. Therefore, Penrod portrays black people as they appeared to most white people at the time. In that context, I would argue that Tarkington’s portrayals of the brothers Herman and Verman, though admittedly clownish and certainly dated, are done convincingly, with a sense of fairness and compassion. There is also the matter of the casual comments and generalizations about “coloured people” made by the author from time to time. This is a subject for a separate discussion, but for now I will just say that many of these generalizations, positive as well as negative, still recognizably refer to black Americans today, at least as experienced by most white people. Whether that fact shows merely that the author was “racist” and that white people today continue to be so, or whether it indicates some deeper, enduring differences between the races that are not under the control of whites, I leave to the reader to decide. But to me, an America that has banished Penrod is not an America I care to be a part of. Let’s bring the kid back. He may break a few windows – by accident! – but he won’t burn down the house.

Notes

(1) Booth Tarkington, Penrod, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985; and Penrod and Sam, Indiana University Press, 2003.

Christmas, 1776

Image from http://www.CurrierandIves.info/

My family used to cross the Delaware River – by car – once a year on a trip to relatives back East, and we would drive through towns that were the sites of famous events in the American Revolution. Despite being close to the source, though, I was never that clear on what Washington’s crossing was about, though of course I was familiar with the painting by Emanuel Leutze. For this reason I decided to read David Fischer’s 2004 Washington’s Crossing, which provides an excellent explanation of the circumstances and significance of the event. (1) While the book has a flaw common in contemporary popular works on American history – that of sacrificing narrative focus in favor of giving a comprehensive account from a variety of perspectives – it is certainly impeccably done, positive about its subject, and full of fascinating information.

As a matter of fact it was on Christmas day, December 25, 1776, that Washington moved the Continental Army across the river to attack Hessian troops in Trenton, New Jersey. The battle occurred the next day, bringing a miraculous and much-needed victory to the Americans, who had been badly defeated in Long Island, Manhattan, and elsewhere. Prior to the battle, they had been camped on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River, expecting the British to cross from occupied New Jersey as soon as the river was sufficiently frozen. The majority of enlistments were due to expire at the end of the year, which made it particularly urgent that positive progress be made in the war. Washington wrote to Robert Morris:

It is in vain to ruminate upon, or even reflect upon the Authors or Causes of our present Misfortunes. We should rather exert ourselves to look forward with Hopes, that some lucky chance may yet turn up in our Favour. (p. 207)

The victory at Trenton, in which the Americans captured about 1,000 Hessians with only two fatalities of their own, certainly involved some of the wonderful good fortune which convinced Washington that the American cause was aided by divine Providence. The terrible snow and sleet of that night delayed the completion of the crossing until daylight, but also concealed the Americans from the enemy until they were nearly upon him. The Hessian commander, Johann Rall, was misled by a belief that the town had been surrounded, when a convenient line of retreat was in fact still open. His general contempt for the capabilities of the American forces had been enhanced by false reports from the spy, John Honeyman, who had convinced him that the Americans were in utter disarray.

There are  certainly advantages to reading comprehensive accounts such as this one, which provide a remedy for oversimplified and biased views. Fischer devotes considerable space to a description of the British and Hessian forces, showing their impressive competence and complex motivations and backgrounds. In the Battle of Trenton itself, while it is true enough that the Hessians were taken by surprise, they were by no means engaged in drunken revelry as the traditional accounts have had it. They responded promptly and professionally to the attack. On the other hand, many American soldiers engaged in drunken revelry after the battle. The low American casualties do not appear so low when deaths due to disease, hypothermia, and other factors are taken into account.

Still, after the myths have been addressed and corrected, the importance of the Battle of Trenton in American history remains undiminished. Above all, the victory was a moral one, galvanizing support for the American cause and bringing about massive re-enlistment in the army for the following year. Further victories followed at Trenton again on January 2 and at Princeton on January 3. Defeat at this juncture may well have meant the failure of the American Revolution and a completely different destiny for the English-speaking people on the American continent. Captain William Hull expressed the joy felt by many when he said:

The Resolution and Bravery of our Men, their Order and Regularity, gave me the highest Sensation of Pleasure…. What can’t Men do when engaged in so noble a cause? (p. 259)

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

Notes

(1) David Fischer, Washington’s Crossing, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 207.

In No Particular Order….

Some thoughts pursuant to the discussion we had before Thanksgiving of possible strategies and directions for an ethno-conservative movement (see “A Type of Protest I’d Like to See” and “Non-Radical Revolution and Separation“):

1. A Gramscian strategy of working from the bottom up to leadership positions in our social institutions was suggested. Actually, I have not read Gramsci before, although last week I took a look at some of his letters from prison. At one point he claimed to be reading “a book a day.” I find this enviable. Maybe I need to go to jail. But I don’t think my intellectual vigor matches that of Gramsci.

2. A good case was made for “non-radical revolution,” something I agree must be tried, despite the serious and growing demographic obstacles to such a movement, which at some point threaten to become insurmountable. (Many say they are; but since we have no choice but to live in whatever circumstances are given to us, I wonder if it even matters. And anyway, I remain convinced the problem is largely within our collective spirit. It is not as if we face a genuinely formidable, superior enemy.)

3. My problem with the non-radical approach is that rising to the top in most of the institutions of our society requires the actual promotion of the current liberal agendae of diversity, non-discrimination, globalism, feminism, and the like. So is one supposed to just pretend to accept these things until one reaches the top, and then do an about-face? The case of Lawrence Summers shows that you are not safe at the top. Even the Pope has (or acts as if he has) no real power to oppose Islam. And one cannot really thrive if one has to wear camouflage all the time.

4. But maybe politics (among other fields?) is a special case where, at least in areas with large remaining middle-American conservative constituencies, a skillful figure working at the local level can actually be a leader, channeling the public’s healthy instinct for self-preservation into political form. Tom Tancredo did an admirable job of this and he seems to be evolving into a genuine ethno-conservative leader (were it not so, he would not be consorting with Buchanan). If a Tancredo is doomed to be drummed out of politics then there is little hope in this sort of endeavor, but what if we could get 10 or 20 Tancredos in office in the next decade? That seems possible. Such a coalition could have serious influence on our politics, if not much “power” in the conventional sense.

The point here would not so much be gaining actual legislative power as it would be forcing issues into the public discourse, and providing genuine representation for the interests of heritage Americans.

5. As I suggested in my discussion of “Gay Pride” marches and civilian trials for mass-murdering terrorists, another productive approach is to support single-issue movements in which the opposition’s position is so outrageous that persistent, articulate support of a traditional or conservative position is bound to gain significant public support. Immigration restriction remains the big issue we can’t let go. Anti-jihadism remains a core issue.Traditional marriage, gun rights, food labeling (who the heck got the laws repealed that required disclosure of what country foods come from?), English-as-official-language-movements, and protection of police officers are a few good causes that come to mind. Certain such causes  could be taken over by ethno-conservatives in time, though it’s not possible now.

6. Is there a way to work within the Republican Party for traditionalism? When I see who rises to the top in that party, it seems highly unlikely. But what about at the local level?

7. We must support, quietly, or loudly, the few people and publications who openly advocate race realism. Stand up for those whose livelihood and well-being suffer because of their views – whether they are professional or just inadvertant realists. In general, we should not publicly criticize people who are “to one’s right,” unless they are absolutely over the top. And even then, we must ask whether such criticism might not be more harmful than beneficial to one’s long-term goals. Black people don’t criticize Al Sharpton. Why should we have to apologize for our Al Sharptons? (If there are any.)

8. What role might local, discreet groups who meet in real life for social or activist purposes serve? I originally intended this website to help serve that function, but I confess that I have backed away from it. First, of course there is risk involved in mutual disclosure of identity. Second, the numbers seem too small. Ian Jobling’s White America has a meet-up page and there doesn’t seem to be much happening there, although that could change, and I hope it will. Third, I think meeting needs to have a clear purpose. It would certainly be fun to meet and talk with like-minded people from time to time, and it could be spiritually and intellectually fruitful. However, most of us are probably so busy with our families, jobs, and non-political social lives that it would be hard to make a big commitment to some group of fellow ethno-conservatives. So, what purpose would meeting serve? (This is not a rhetorical, but a genuine question.)

9. Most meaningful political and social activity must be directed towards our own people. Praise and support those of our own who do what’s right (even if they do not welcome our praise and support). Vilify, obstruct, intimidate, trick those of our own who betray us. We have little ability to influence those outside of our ethnic group. We shouldn’t try to court favor with black, brown, yellow, or purple people. Those who offer their respect and goodwill should receive it; those who act as enemies should be treated as such.

The winter will pass, so let’s stay warm, and be careful out there!

Best Wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving!

I am receiving an embarrassment of wonderful comments. Thank you all, and especially Mark for his latest one. I will be back at this blog after the holiday, aiming for Friday Dec. 4 or so, but maybe with an earlier follow-up to our last discussion.

Enjoy your time with family and the sense of gratitude which is so important.

Non-Radical Revolution and Separation

Last week, I departed from my usual culture-centered article to ask the question, hardly a new one in my circles on the Internet, about what we ethno-conservatives (I’ll use that term this time around) can do, politically, to further our cause. I was honored with several wonderfully thought-provoking essays from Howard Harrison and Mark (I’ll refer to them by first names for convenience although the Heritage American likes formality). Both, if I recognize Mark rightly, are experienced commentators on our National Situation and friends of this blog. I would indeed like to post their responses separately but since that does not seem likely to clarify anything for the reader I’ll simply recommend that you please give the comments a careful reading. There remain in my mind a few principles I’d like to put on the table concerning activism (that horrible word), but that will have to wait for a subsequent entry.

The reality of the spirit of resistance

Although I am regularly discouraged by the unwaning devotion of my liberal relatives and colleagues to their accustomed political beliefs, I hold at core a firm belief that “the spirit – of nation, of freedom, of social restoration –  lives underneath” the dismal surface of our public discourse. There is much intuitive evidence for this. I am occasionally jolted by a very non-liberal outburst from the most politically correct person; and among less educated whites like the gentleman who replaced my water heater recently and reported first-hand what it is like to work in black and immigrant areas of Detroit, there is almost nothing to prevent support for an ethno-conservative position except that no one has ever presented it to them as an option. (The technician confused me by talking about someone named Bomma who wants to take away our guns, and I’m not sure if it was a deprecatory nickname or just his natural pronunciation of our president’s name.)

In the virtual world of the Internet, the ethno-conservative movement is alive and well; new blogs appear constantly, some very good, and a few organizations have come into being as well. One could spend the entire day, every day, just following news and events from that perspective. That perspective is largely unrecognized and entirely misunderstood by the mainstream media, and it still lacks real power; but no one who is acquainted with it can fail to sense its very real – dare I say it, revolutionary – potential.

Because of that I am not impressed by the writer of this article, who though he gives the Tea Party movement fair treatment seems to be engaged in wishful thinking when he considers the possibility that it is falling apart because of internal bickering. This is the shallow liberal view that holds conservatives to be motivated by petty insecurities and petty self-interest and sees them as doomed one day to fade from the scene. I have no idea whether the Tea Party movement itself will endure, but I do know that the spirit behind it comes from the heart of the people of Middle America, who are motivated by a genuine concern for the future of their country and people.

Tea Partiers Turn on Each Other

After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become embroiled in internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money and is at risk of losing its momentum.

The grass-roots activists driving the movement have become increasingly divided on such core questions as whether to focus their efforts on shaping policy debates or elections, work on a local, regional, state or national level or closely align themselves with the Republican Party, POLITICO found in interviews with tea party organizers in Washington and across the country.
…

Now the disagreements and the sense of frustration they have engendered could diminish the movement’s potential influence in state and national politics.

I think the real division in the “conservative movement” is between those who hold to certain bottom-line conservative values (those once held by 99% of the American population) and those who accept the political triumph of modern liberalism and want “conservatism” to become a more patriotic, business-friendly “brand” of liberalism. The exponents of modern liberalism would like to think conservatism is falling apart, but what is really happening is that it is rediscovering itself.

Non-radical revolution

The question that arose in the comments was whether to work within the existing power structures or whether to abandon this as hopeless and work entirely outside the system to create an alternative society, possibly one physically separated from the rest of the historical country (for us, America). Howard argues persuasively, even inspiringly, for the first option, what he calls a non-radical revolution, while Mark expresses the view, certainly one I have shared, that it may be too late for this and that we need to begin doing groundwork for an entirely separate future society.

I am moved and impressed by Howard’s proposals and ideas. He envisions a long-term Gramscian “march through the institutions” over a period of decades, and thinks, based on a spiritual sense similar to mine, that ethno-conservatism is growing and that liberalism is far weaker than it currently appears. (I would only ask that he continue inform his readers of whatever concrete signs he has discovered of change in our favor. I spend too much time in a very liberal environment and it sometimes is overwhelming.)

How, indeed, can we say this non-radical revolution cannot work when it has not really been tried? We might indeed bewail the fading away of people like Pat Buchanan, and think that if he could not succeed, the younger generation, in so many ways inferior to Buchanan’s in education and understanding, could not possibly do any better. Yet Buchanan worked in a different era, when America may have not been ready for his message, when he himself may not have fully seen where things were going. His successors may find ways to operate within the system in ways we cannot as yet imagine.

Separation

At the same time, in one way or another, spiritually, physically, or both, there will have to be some kind of white separation, as Mark points out. From the perspective of our present society this is a radical agenda indeed, and the demographic factors do result in a situation which may not be adequately addressed by the idea of a “non-radical revolution.” I have never, at the individual level, wished for complete and total separation of white Westerners from other races and ethnic groups. But the assault on our society by mass non-white immigration does force us to stand up for our racial group. Questions which one would prefer to keep in the realm of individual choice, like interracial marriage, become fraught with social and political significance, like it or not.

I thus find nothing objectionable about Mark’s statement that “The goal is a nation for my people and my people alone. We can’t share a nation with other people without this same problem eventually arising one way or another, and so every proposed solution short of separation is actually a non-solution.” I might not put it this starkly myself, but I find the truth in what he says undeniable. It is not a matter of “whiteness” being a goal or ideal in itself. Rather, it is a matter of working backwards from the question “what kind of society do I want to live in and my children to inherit?” I see no escape from the conclusion that such a society must be largely white. This is the thought we need to make it acceptable to express – among whites.

Patience, patience….

A personal admission: people who know me would probably describe me as a patient person, since I seem to be steady and deliberate in what I do, but in fact I have probably been hindered in life by my impatience, by the desire for quick results, more than anything else. I was reminded by this by a comment by Howard on my last entry, where he pointed out something indisputably true about the ethno-conservative movement: “It will take us fifteen to thirty years to build power” and “I can afford to take the long view. Can’t you?” Well, I thank him for his reminder to keep a healthy perspective, something always found in his own writing. We ought to counsel patience to ourselves every day. Howard’s estimate may even be on the short side, but he is surely right in setting fifteen years as a minimum. So let’s get to work, for that time will pass like a summer dream. Isn’t that the point? We want to be a part of something that will last a thousand years. And he who works for the future lives in it today.

Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. (Ps. 37)

A Type of Protest I’d Like to See

I like to think that what I write in this blog might have the effect of influencing a person or two of liberal, or mainstream conservative, persuasion by helping them to see some of the non-politically-correct truth of what is happening to their country. Yet I recognize that in reality most of my readers are already sympathetic to my perspective. Consequently, much of my writing reads like part of a conversation among like-minded people. That has its own legitimate function, of course. We traditional patriots (if I may be so daring as to apply such an epithet to such a shadowy group and further to include myself in such honorable company) need the encouragement, the intellectual stimulation, even the entertainment that largely anonymous Internet formats currently provide better than any other. And if we keep striking flint to steel we may eventually get fire. So be it. For now.

Yet my mind returns again and again to the question of what I can do to contribute to the cause of my people, or, if that sounds grandiose, to at least be part of a functioning movement. The traditionalist conservative, or ethno-conservative, or nationalist, movement has as yet no real power in our society. In America we have scarcely even begun to define ourselves as a people in any other than universalist, liberal terms. The most “conservative” among us are unable to explain why it would be wrong to reduce whites to 1% of the population, though even the most liberal of us must see that there would be something wrong with this. There seems to be no base on which to stand to fight. I myself work for a liberal bureaucratic institution and would quickly become persona non grata were my views to become known to my co-workers. (I do anticipate taking that risk when the time is right, but that does not seem to be now.) Perhaps it might be better to enter a more “conservative” field, where this would be less of a problem. But lo, I look all around and there is nothing but liberal bureaucracy in every area of society, even in the military, even in the churches – and it’s getting worse all the time. What to do? Sometimes I fantasize about getting together with some friends and forming an Amish type of community separate from the larger society. But that hardly seems practical either.

Oh, sure, I send money to a few causes, call my elected representatives once in a while, write letters, things like that. And these are worthwhile, even essential, things to do. But there is no power in them. The powers that be allow the expression of opinion. Almost on a daily basis letters to the editor appear in the local paper expressing solid, middle-American values. But this opinion is carefully filtered out from the actual decision-making bodies, leaving only lifeless printed words that are remembered by none.

And after all, expressing opinion is nothing in itself. For in truth – as some have said – what is going on is not an argument but a fight. A war, which requires the use of force. I am not talking, of course, literally about battalions of troops shooting each other, but I am talking about pressure, coercion, compulsion, strategy, propaganda, and even (as Mohammed knew well) deceit.

We have very little force at our command except for a few fine, brave thinkers. And, on the other hand, all that remains of the spirit of our nation in the hearts of the people.

Now, our society is so rotten, so corrupt and weak in so many ways, that there ought to be numerous weaknesses that we traditionalists can exploit. The very passivity, lack of clear thinking, lack of loyalty, and venality that lead our politicians and businessmen to roll over and surrender to invaders who are largely inferior in ability to their hosts (or victims) and without exception dependent on the largesse of those hosts, ought to be exploitable by those of us who are tired of living under the conditions they set.

Yet for me, a clear path for action has yet to emerge.

One small thought I’d like to throw out today concerns the possibility of protests. Conservatives, of course, don’t much like protesting. Left-wing theatrics, George Bush paper-mache dolls on stilts, stupid chanted slogans, are embarrassing to us. Mob activity is repugnant, the antithesis of the type of politics practiced by a free people.

And yet…we have reached the point where things so outrageous and abominable as to have been inconceivable only a few years ago are being presented to us as normal and beyond question. (Read any issue of the New York Times for examples. Or, on second thought, don’t.) In some cases, I believe the supporters of these causes and activities have become careless, assuming they have already won a struggle that is still far from decided. Why not figure out some areas where selective protest might catch its targets off guard?

For instance, Gay Pride parades. These have become elevated to mainstream events in recent years. I witnessed one in Columbus, Ohio, a few years ago. At first glance, they look like a normal sort of summer festival – floats, music, a big turnout, neighbors on their porches watching the show while enjoying drinks from coolers. Then you look more closely and you see the aged transvestites, the flashes of nudity, the free packets of sexual lubricant tossed from a float, and you begin to feel ill. Then you see the small children who are being exposed to the filth and start to feel that a crime is taking place.

Then you see that Chase Bank (or some such pillar of the community) is a sponsor of the event.

Could a group of citizens not organize themselves to follow these events and, without actual violence, disrupt them? Even if the event could not actually be stopped, it would surely put a crimp on their fun, would it not? One would, of course, have to attune the signs, slogans, and actions to the values of real, average citizens. None of this “God Hates Fags” stuff which one suspects is actually planted by the opposition to convince the public that only foaming-at-the-mouth “haters” oppose these events.

Would this not possibly embarrass Chase Bank just a bit? Are the homosexualists really that powerful and do they really enjoy that much support? Or is their “pride” more like an inflated soap bubble that could be easily pricked? And, if the government or police go too far in supporting them, won’t this undermine them in the eyes of much of their constituency? Yeah, we know about free speech and all, but are you actually arresting people who don’t want this in their neighborhood?

Then there are the atrocities carried out by Muslims on U.S. soil and the craven and dead response of the media and other authorities, up to and including the current President of the United States. The demonic fiend and enemy alien who probably planned the mass slaughter of Americans in Washington and New York is going to be given a civilian trial in New York with our best lawyers arguing that evidence against him gained by “torture” cannot be admitted? Given a platform to terrorize Americans and rally the Muslim enemy through grandiose speeches given while sporting the bin Laden lookalike stinking beard and turban we’ve allowed him to assume as his “human right”? The type of non-human being who makes me realize that even my deep opposition to lynching and torture has exceptions?

Why not have a large and continually replenished group of dignified (but obtrusive) protesters with signs saying “Death to Jihadist Murderers”? Why not set up some of the same outside Fort Hood or wherever the “fair trial” of that creature is supposed to take place? There would need to be enough present for a long enough time that even if the media chose to ignore them they would be seen by thousands of people in person. Again, if such protesters are arrested or forced to move, what will that do to the credibility of the authorities?

Well, I probably should apologize for raising the grand question of What To Do and then offering just another limited, conventional sort of action, of the sort which is indeed being conducted from time to time. But my point is that we need to examine the structure of our liberal society as a whole and identify the weaknesses that might be exploited to undermine it – and the areas (for instance, at present, the Internet) that can still serve as bases for strategic actions.

Since hostile readers will have little to say on this question, I invite my friendly readers to share their insights on this question.