How Liberty Dies

Outrage of the week last week was the shutting down of the American Renaissance conference by anti-racist activists.

It impacted my schedule. I was planning to attend the conference (which was scheduled for Feb. 19 to Feb. 21).

It would have been a first for me. I’ve been a subscriber to the AR magazine since the mid-1990s, when I read Jared Taylor’s 1992 book Paved With Good Intentions.  Jared is the moving spirit of American Renaissance (and a former National Review contributor). I debated — as in: took an opposing point of view to — him in 2006 at an event since made famous by 14-year-old Trotskyist Max Blumenthal, who knows absolutely everything about the world. The transcript of my address is here. You can hear a recording of the entire event here.

I’ve encountered Jared half a dozen times since then, and had dinner with him once when he was in New York. I like the guy a lot. He’s terrifically well-read and well-educated. Quite a good orientalist, too: he grew up in Japan — I think his parents were missionaries — and we once spent a happy half-hour comparing the odd semantic shifts between Japanese kanji and the ancestral Chinese ideograms. He’s also fluent in French: studied at the Sorbonne, I believe. I visited at his home once: Jared was raising his younger daughter — she was four years old at the time — to speak French. She chirruped “Bonjour, Monsieur” at me when I met her, with a very authentic accent. I consider Jared a fine American gentleman and patriot, with the exquisite manners of the old South, and the strong devotion to his family that a man should have.

My fondness for Jared notwithstanding, I don’t really think of myself as an American Renaissance type. For one thing, there is that ethos of the South, which I don’t really … get. I wonder if a foreigner ever can get it. It’s as odd and particular, in its own way, as Tibetan Buddhism.

For another thing, there is the antisemitism of the AR followers, which rubs me the wrong way. I fall in line with the long tradition of British philosemitism (Cromwell, Victoria, Lloyd George, Maggie Thatcher), and just have no patience with the other thing. I’d excuse Jared from that: in several hours of private conversation with him, I’ve never caught a whisper of antisemitism. The only remark I ever heard him make on the subject, to a third party, was: “They look white to me!” He has in fact taken pains to get Jewish writers and speakers into AR. His enemies say this is cynical “covering,” but my best guess, from my acquaintance with the man, is that it’s sincere. (My car-pool ride down to the AR conference, by the way, was to have been with Bob Weissberg.)

I had therefore turned down Jared’s invitations to the AR conference (which is held every other year). I wasn’t planning to attend this year, either. Then I read on one of the paleocon websites that the conference hotel had canceled AR’s booking after harassment by some hostile activists.  I thought this was very shocking. Whatever you think of the AR ethos, they are genteel types (including a lot of academics, like Bob) who would no more think of burning a cross on someone’s lawn than they would of garotting their own grandmothers. They are people with opinions, that’s all — opinions, furthermore, that were perfectly mainstream 40 or 50 years ago. Well, they found another hotel.

In a fit of righteous indignation on hearing of the first cancellation, I had signed up for the conference & been duly registered. I set up the car pool with Bob and told Mrs. Bradlaugh I’d be away for the weekend. Then on Tuesday of the week of the conference, I got an email from AR saying the new venue had also canceled, after more intimidation from the anti-“hate” thugs. The email said AR would refund our conference fees, but I donated mine to AR in disgust.

The next day another email came saying that AR had found yet another hotel and the conference was on after all. This new hotel (we were assured) would stand up to any threats. In the event, they didn’t, and the conference was finally and thoroughly off. Jared set up some sort of truncated event, with some of the speakers, but by the time I found out about it, it was too late to go down to Virgina. He put out a press release through one of the regular services, but only Breitbart seems to have picked it up.

It is a shameful thing that the AR conference was shut down — an ominous thing too, in that this is the first time it’s happened. We may be losing our freedoms of speech and association, as they have in Britain and Europe. So much for American exceptionalism.

And just as shameful as the success of the anti-racist bully-boys is the utter silence of the media. I haven’t even heard one of those “First they came for American Renaissance …” admonitions. It’s as if the AR people are utterly beyond the pale. Yet why should they be? If they are wrong, why not expose their error in open debate, as I tried to? Isn’t that the civilized way to do things? (When I took on Jared in that 2006 debate, the organizers told me they’d invited a number of conservatives, but all had backed out when they heard they’d be sitting in a room with Jared. What on earth is the matter with people?)

AR’s position, in a nutshell, is that if it’s OK for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. to organize in defence of their group interests, and to promote pride in their ancestry, why isn’t it OK for white Americans to do the same? It seems to me there is no very satisfactory answer to this question.  The one usually given (by the aforementioned Blumenthal wunderkind here, for example) is that whites are a majority and the others are minorities, so it wouldn’t be fair. But this is already untrue in four states, and by 2042, according to the Census Bureau, will be untrue of the entire nation. Will American Renaissance be respectable then ?  If not, why not?

My own strong preference, as I argued in that debate with Jared, would be for everybody to shut up with the race business. There doesn’t seem to be much prospect of this happening, though, so it’s not hard to see the AR-ers point of view. In any case, I say again, whatever you think of that point of view, it’s a point of view. It shouldn’t be shut out of the public square; and if it is so shut out, by goons phoning in death threats to hotel employees, there ought to be a fuss made. Well, here I am on Secular Right, making a fuss as best I can. Freedom of speech! Freedom of assembly! Liberty! Liberty!

Posted in Conferences, culture | 83 Comments

The Church of Climate Change (Again)

Here’s the Sunday Telegraph’s Christopher Booker:

As the roof continues to fall in on them, in an endless succession of scandals, the beleaguered defenders of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have at last managed to mount a riposte by coming up with a “scandal” of their own. Under the headline “fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist”, The Independent recently trumpeted that a quotation attributed by “climate sceptics” to Sir John Houghton – one of the IPCC’s founders and long a key figure in the production of its increasingly alarmist reports as chairman of its scientific Working Group I – was an invention. Sir John was now insisting, as he again did in a letter to last week’s Observer, that he never said it or anything like it.

The sentence the former head of the UK Met Office now denies ever using – although in the past four years it has been cited unchallenged more than 100,000 times on the internet – was “unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”. In what looked like a concerted operation, Sir John’s disclaimer was circulated to sympathetic journalists across the world, along with demands for corrections and apologies issued to various prominent “climate sceptics” who had publicly quoted the remark…

…But what also came to light, thanks to that admirable expert on “risk”, Professor John Adams, and Professor Philip Stott, who for years was almost the only voice critical of climate hysteria in the British press, is an interview Sir John gave to The Sunday Telegraph in its “Me and My God” slot on September 10, 1995. As a fervent evangelical Christian, Sir John claimed that global warming might well be one of those disasters sent by God to warn man to mend his ways (“God tries to coax and woo but he also uses disasters”). He went on: “If we are to have a good environmental policy in the future, we will have to have a disaster”.

You can see a PDF of the quote here.
To repeat again, none of this ‘disproves’ climate change. What it does do, however, is shed a most interesting light on the nature (for some) of their belief in it.

Posted in Science & Faith | Tagged | 2 Comments

Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll

Boos as Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll. Paul 31%, Romney 22%, Palin 7% and Pawlenty 6%. Obviously straw polls don’t matter. The only reason this is news is because the enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters carried the day again in a circumstance where intensity trumps genuine broad appeal, upending expectations. So perhaps someone who knows more about political organization can explain this to me: why don’t they just rig straw polls so that no one is surprised and the establishment is happy?

Posted in politics | Tagged | 28 Comments

Historical contingencies of civilizational ideologies

Reading An Introduction to Confucianism, which is not the typical historically linear treatment (i.e., Confucius → Han dynasty State Confucianism → Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism, etc.), and is also more comprehensive than most introductions (it’s over 350 pages). In case, the author notes that before the Han dynasty Confucianism was simply one of many contesting schools. It was during the reign of Hanwudi that Confucianism was integrated into the administrative ideological apparatus of the unified Chinese state, resulting in State Confucianism. It is famously known that the Legalist school, which was brought to preeminence by the students of the Confucian sage with the most “tragic vision,” Xunzi, attempted to expunge Confucianism during the Chin dynasty. The Chin dynasty is reviled throughout most of Chinese history (with the Maoists being an interesting exception) for its espousal of Legalism and rejection of the humanistic ethos at the heart of Confucianism, but, it is also acknowledged by modern scholars to have set the foundations for the dynastic system which fostered a resurrection of a unified Chinese imperial state after every political collapse. The Chin united China in a manner which set the template for all of Chinese history; by comparison, the Zhou dynasty which the early Confucians idolized was a primitive and feudal polity.

Many modern scholars would argue that the practical structural scaffolding of the Chinese state between the Chin and the early 20th century, a span of over 2,000 years, owed much to Legalism, even if the symbolic ideological core of the state was generally Confucian. And yet I can not help but wonder if China would ever have been unified, and its local identities subordinated to the center, if not for the blitzkrieg which was the Chin Legalist state. Like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China it seems likely that the Legalist phase had a “sell-by” date, the Chin dynasty collapsed almost immediately after the death of the First Emperor. A China where Confucian ideology marginalized Legalism early enough may have been one where China, like India or Europe, developed into a civilization of states, instead of a state which was coterminous with the civilization. State Confucianism may never have developed, and become entrenched as the foundational ethos of the bureaucratically oriented literati. The Confucian Age in China may have been an ancient period before the rise of Buddhist monarchies.

Addendum: Also recommended, The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han.

Posted in history | Tagged | 3 Comments

Spirit Quest (or Something)

The appeal of going on some sort of spiritual voyage has always eluded me. I’m happy where I am, paddling in the spiritual shallows. Today’s New York Times piece by Charles Blow had a beginning that was, therefore, unlikely to draw me in:

 I recently met a young woman who was just back from a monthlong Costa Rican vacation. She said that she had gone in part to connect with her spiritual self, to shed the moral strictures of her youth and to find her place of peace as an adult. In her mind at least, it had been a successful trip. She was a new woman, spiritually awakened.

 Oh, good grief.

 Nevertheless it is worth persevering with Blow’s piece, which is a useful reminder of the fact that the need to embrace some sort of religion (call it what you will) is a very widespread human characteristic. To assume a secular future continues, I think, to be a mistake.

 Blow writes:

 In fact, on some measures, the data suggest that these so-called millennials may be more spiritually thirsty than older generations. According to a Knights of Columbus/Marist poll also released this month, being “spiritual or close to God” was the most selected of any other “primary long-term life goal” among those 18 to 29 years old (other choices included “to get married and have a family” and “to get rich”). The rate at which they selected it was significantly higher than other generational groups, and nearly twice that of Generation X.

 The print version of Blow’s article is illustrated by some interesting charts: Apparently, 58 percent of  “religiously unaffiliated” Millennials (aged 18-29) believe in miracles and 42 percent in angels and demons.

A well-named generation, it appears.

Posted in culture | 14 Comments

Pur et Dur

As (effectively) a call for unity among America’s conservatives the “Mount Vernon Statement” is, on the whole, fairly anodyne stuff. Fair enough. If there is to be any chance of defeating Obama in 2012 the various tribes of the right will have to work together. 

But then senior Republican Senator Jim DeMint came up with this:

A prominent conservative senator said that Washington political leaders should “be replaced” if they do not back a document of conservative principles signed Wednesday. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) deemed it necessary that politicians endorse the Mount Vernon Statement, a document outlining a vision of “constitutional conservatism” backed by a number of right-wing activists.

This is the same DeMint who once said this:

“I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

To (shamelessly) quote myself from last year:

 If it comes to a choice, I’d rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters [That was then] to see off a Democratic majority, so be it. 

 As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms “limited government” and “free people” in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

No Cliché Left Behind

Pitchfork Pawlenty’s condescending cultural stereotyping doesn’t just include Brie. Chablis is, apparently, unacceptable too:

“When you listen to the elites and the pundits talk about the Tea Party movement, or they talk about us as conservatives, they may not always say it explicitly,” he said. “But implicit in their comments are, you know, maybe they’re not as sophisticated, because a lot of them didn’t go to the Ivy League schools. Or you know, they’re from places like the heartland, not — you know, they don’t hang out at our Chablis-drinking, Brie-eating parties in San Francisco.” “And the implication is, you know, we’re kind of bumpkins,” Mr. Pawlenty said.

In fact, if anyone is calling anyone a bumpkin it is Pawlenty.

Don’t get me wrong. Neither Chablis nor Brie is a definitive indicator of bumpkinhood or, indeed, its absence. What Pawlenty is trying to do, however, is paint a patronizing portrait of the Tea Party people that ignores the reality that (as an emailer to me over at NRO pointed out) many of its supporters are drawn from the managerial classes with, I suspect, aspirations, ambitions and tastes to match. In a country once famous for its belief in upward mobility that ought to be just fine. But not, it seems, to Pawlenty.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Passed on Without Comment

Via The Corner, the latest from Creationist Tim Pawlenty:

Pawlenty also made a strong pitch for the support of the religious right. “God is in charge,” he said, criticizing the “naysayers who try to crowd out God.” If God is “good enough for the Founding Fathers, it should be good enough for us.”…

…To wrap up his address, Pawlenty appealed to the tea-party movement, calling its critics “brie-eating” elite from “Ivy League schools” who don’t like “Sam’s Club Republicans” who “actually like shopping at places like Wal-Mart.”

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | 23 Comments

Christopher Beckwith against modernism

A few months ago I reviewed Empire’s of the Silk. I focused on the historical scholarship, but Lorenzo Warby puts the spotlight on the more normatively charge jeremiad against “modernism” interlaced throughout the book.

Posted in culture | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Building A Better Nation The Labour Way

While we are on the subject of national population development, this new Janet Daley piece from the London Sunday Telegraph makes some interesting claims. Here’s a key passage.

So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The “open door” was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in the British class system.

But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

Now what was it again that Bertholt Brecht once said about electing a new people?

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | 11 Comments