Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Jeffrey S steps into the ring, does not last a round!

Credit where it's due. Jeffrey S's latest W4 post is a positive development. Or at least an object lesson as to why people like Jeffrey S are bound to either lose entirely, or swap out to the alt-right.

Check out the article. Basically, you have talk of writers who are starting to come around to this idea that America is... distinct. And rather distinct in terms of traditions, heritage, and even... *muttered, voice a little lower* *population* as well. A population which cannot be sacrificed or displaced without America itself being lost, or at least fundamentally transformed, in the process.

So, overtures are made to this simple and basic nationalism. And almost immediately, Shapiro and Goldberg are quoted to rain on this parade, insisting that nationalism means tribal, and loyalty to one's tribe is foul, wicked, and everything wrong with the world.

No one at W4 thinks of asking the obvious in reply - 'Wait, does that mean Israel is retrograde too? Should we shun tribalistic Israelis?'

Anyway, what starts out impressive on Jeff's part quickly turns pathetic. Having attempted to take a stand for the idea that a nation is a group of people (not mere abstract ideas), and that a group of people can be identified by a particular shared culture, language, and - even if things get fuzzy - lineage, the others at W4 move in for the kill.

A few quips about how it cannot *possibly* be the case that some people are more American than others, Jeffrey S remembers his place in the pack, and bows his head submissively:

I'll be the first to push back against a "tribal nationalist" who claims that my Japanese neighbor whose grandparents fought in WWII for this country, a third generation Catholic Mexican family in a southern Texas town, or a newly arrived evangelical immigrant from Kenya can't share American culture or values with me. It is always a question of prudence and careful control of numbers (and the actual process for getting in the country) not to mention the process of assimilation in the schools that helps these disparate groups from around the world become patriotic Americans.


From trumpeting the importance of kin and country, to be the first to defend a newly arrived Kenyan as being a True American. Poor guy. He didn't even last 24 hours.


Of course, Jeffrey S  tries to cling to at least some of his sentiment. 'Grandparents fought in WWII for this country' (love the qualifier!) 'Third generation Catholic Mexican family'. ... 'Newly arrived evangelical immigrant from Kenya'.

'Careful control of numbers'.

Sadly, I get the sense that Jeffrey S only has to be asked, in sarcastic tone, "Just how many blacks are too many, Jeff?" to have him panic, say "There's never enough!", and then ask David French for adoption agency brochures.

The problem isn't really his qualifications. Can a Japanese person assimilate and be American? I'd say so - though you may want to be careful about that. Can Catholics? I hope so, though at this point it seems like the Catholic Church has a lot to apologize for on that front, especially on the immigration topic. But by the time he's talking about newly arrived Kenyan immigrants 'sharing American culture or values with him', he's given the game away, and he's embraced de facto Proposition Nation talk. Because he's going to get called bad words otherwise, and kin and country aren't worth defending from that kind of ordinance.

Hell, why should that Kenyan even BE an immigrant, Jeff? Are you saying someone in Kenya is 'too African' to share your precious culture? ("David, hurry up with those brochures!!!")

And they wonder why they lose.

4 comments:

Mike said...

One of the things that I pointed out on Zippy's blog is that white nationalism must necessarily recognize the fact that the United States, like all Western nation states, has always been filled with minorities. France does not stop being French because of Corsican, Breton and Basque-speaking departments. However, conservatives like them would at least admit that there is being a French citizen and being French as a matter of ethnic identity.

A proper white nationalism would seek to do the same for the United States insomuch as it would say that "American," like French, refers to both a legal designation and an ethnicity. There is no reason for white nationalism to become white supremacy anymore than the French need to put down their minorities to remind them who is boss.

The problem is that Jeff is too committed to right-liberalism to see that the Kenyan cannot wish himself to be an American (ethnos) anymore than a white woman from the Midwest can wish herself to be one by marrying one, moving there and having a future President.

Crude said...

I think I largely agree. The goal here is not some kind of pure white ethnostate, and certainly not white supremacy. But I have every sympathy for white people who want to retain a white majority in the US - as well as enshrining cultural principles which are, in the eyes of so many, white principles. This can, and has, existed alongside minorities flourishing in the US. Accent on minorities. When people gleefully talk about America becoming 'white minority', complete with opining about the political vengeance that will be extracted when that day comes, we've got a problem. And we do, in fact, have a problem.

I don't think Jeff's committed to right liberalism. He's committed to not being called a racist. What I saw go on in that thread seemed every bit like a monkey creeping towards a tasty banana, and then having the others in the pack hoot and holler at him. It's not that the monkey doesn't want his banana - something else is going on.

Mike said...

You might be right about that, and that's one of the reasons why I have never understood why he posts what he does under his real name and has been so open about where he works. What he's written even there is sufficiently "offensive" that any SJW that actually cared could score an easy scalp. I think that's also why Sage doesn't really participate anymore. The only one who acts the brave warrior is Lydia, and that's frankly just because she's got the bravery of a woman who knows someone else's ass will cash the checks her mouth and keyboard write. (That someone else will probably be her husband and his career if she ever gets important enough for SJWs to want a scalp).

Mike said...

Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but I find their analysis of these issues to be rather shallow and binary. Take the issues they have with lineage. It is true that someone whose Irish ancestors came here 100 years ago is not descended from the native stock, but there are a few factors involved that they miss:

1. That person is genetically related to white Americans who are from the founding stock, even if indirectly.
2. That person is probably fully fungible culturally with them.
3. That person, if push came to shove, could easily impersonate someone who is.
4. The founders explicitly opened the possibility of that person being fully considered American in their own immigration statutes.

I would say that the same could apply to the Kenyan provided he marries someone from an ethnicity that is part of the original American stock. An evangelical Kenyan who wants to assimilate can easily do so by marrying a native black American woman and raising a family with her that follows traditional black American culture. The Mexican likewise can model their family on Tejano culture, not Mexican culture as Tejanos have been American citizens for over 170 years now. The Asians and Arabs are harder by virtue of the fact that they have much less of a claim to being part of that original ethnic mix.

Is that a barrier that cannot be surmounted? I don't know, and doubt that. However, one would have to understand that each different race/ethnicity outside of that group has to be handled differently and done so in a way that addresses the challenges to assimilation. Chinese-descended American citizens whose ancestors were coolies some 100-140 odd years ago are obviously going to have a deeper sense of being more American than Chinese than would be the case if you allow a community of Thais or Vietnamese to build up. (And even then, it is not entirely obvious that Chinese-descended citizens who live in Chinese enclaves are really that assimilated).

To me, the desire to equivocate between nation and country is the root of the problem. A country is a political region and a nation can span multiple countries. W4 seems to avoid any discussion of that because the obvious question about the national aspect is "what defines the American nation?" Obviously, white Americans if one goes on history. Even a black citizen whose ancestors were slaves 350 years ago will never be American in that sense, though due to the pecularities of our history they can be so American in every other sense that you wouldn't know they were not white if talking to them on the phone.

IMO, the only way we are going to prevent tragedy is to get people thinking critically about these issues and working toward a solution where we acknowledge certain natural, immovable barriers while keeping them in their proper context. The fact that black Americans cannot be "Americans" in one sense does not preclude them from being our peers in our own nation state. In fact, if anything, their cultural similarity would all but mandate that on a group-by-group basis they be first among equals at the start among minorities.