Part 1, The Vampire over Europe

Sean Gabb (UK, libertarian) spoke at the recent HL Mencken gathering, and his speech was full of the expected Truth that only a doom culture can accept and even applaud—Gabb, in the comment section, put it a little differently, but I cleaned it up. I will say a US of A version of Gabb has never been more required.

From a UK perspective, Gabb presents a Traditionalist view that the US of A is the great Satan as he critiques the movements in Europe and Russia, which he finds lacking.  For our folk, that would put us in the role of redeemer for our country.

Implicit in this outsider critique is the urgency for the US of A to play her role as an autarky, as an “isolationist” nation, that yes, does accept carefully determined immigrants, visitors, and other sundry exchanges of people–without bestowing bennies and citizenship, but does not get involved with the world beyond the discipline of commercial exchange. It should simply, stick to its own place, bogged down with trivial political issues about a tariff rate, and insure a decentralized government that will not wreak havoc on the world for it refuses to ever unite under a flag, or a mission of the messiah sort.  We are not Germans, after all.

This is our purpose, the only decent part of American Nationalism all can agree upon, all Southern Nationalism falls before it. We can split apart, say horrible things about one another, and still live under the myth of our founding—all at the same time. We were functional once, and young.

…to be continued

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Part 1, The Vampire over Europe

  1. redphillips

    Hmmm… interesting.

    First of all, I have never liked the term Southern Nationalist because I don’t think the average neo-Confederate or whatever is a nationalist in the way that term is usually used. They are decentralists and authentic federalists and republicans (small r). Interestingly, the big debate going on now within Southern Nationalist circles (whether everyone realizes this is what is going on or not) is between people who like the original American template (whether the Articles or the Constitution) but think it has been subverted and seek to restore it, and those who think the original template was inherently tainted by liberalism and seek not a restoration but a new illiberal order of some sort. There have always been those in our circles who think the original template was tainted (some traditionalist Catholics, some Reconstructionists, It was a Masonic plot types) but they have generally not been neo-Confederates, who are actually generally defensive of the founding. If England’s legacy is liberalism, as Gabb says, then its colonies here in America were obviously going to inherit some of that. The need is to recognize that it was a severely circumscribed liberalism that was moderated by tradition, Christianity, etc.

    Like

    Reply
  2. redphillips

    Also, it is too easy to Puritan bash. America’s religiosity was one of the main things that gave some illiberal balance to the liberalism. The problem with Puritanism, which is a debatable but orthodox expression of Protestant Christianity, as it was expressed in New England, is that it quickly morphed into Unitarianism. There isn’t really any theological reason to believe that Puritanism is any more likely to mind others business than is Baptistism, for example. (Perhaps there is but its complicated.) The Baptist South had blue laws up until fairly recently. You couldn’t buy alcohol in my county on Sunday until a few years ago, and my non-Puritan church fought that. But rather this more reflects the seriousness with which one takes their faith. The live and let live English elite were not known for their devotion. The Puritan attitude that continued once the faith was lost, is likely not so much an expression of Puritanism as it is a New England cultural attitude.

    Like

    Reply
  3. weavercht

    I was raised Presbyterian, but I increasingly like the Episcopalians. And my folks were originally Episcopalians, paternally anyway.

    The South has a healthier living culture than the North right now, and we have less recent-immigrant blood in us. That’s what Southern nationalism is based around. America is northwestern Europeans with an English core and new immigrants. Even Charleston has Coburg dairy (German), and I’m partly descended from Charleston French Huguenots. So, we’re certainly not exclusively British of course.

    Like

    Reply
  4. weavercht

    I’ve met some extremist Baptists. A friend who’d recently been converted to it told me he cares for all humans equally, doesn’t put his family before others. That scared me, but he was just going through a phase.

    Like

    Reply
  5. weavercht

    The English would do better with Third Position.

    But anyway, how is America to deal with its diversity? If we secede, I don’t have issue with conservative Europeans living in the US. What I have issue with are the barbarians.

    -edited my post to be less abrasive.

    Like

    Reply
  6. roho

    Gosh the British talk pretty…………….As if the Crown, Rothschild’s, and Bank Of England never had any influence in the USA?………LOL!

    Perhaps the only time that we were in control was during the Andrew Jackson administration.

    Like

    Reply
  7. weavercht

    Roho,

    Post-WWII, the US reigned. We are largely responsible for post-WWII Europe.

    Gabb’s piece is very good. I just don’t like libertarianism, especially not someone calling himself a “hard libertarian”.

    The English have a chance only if they toss such ideas. Otherwise, as you say roho, the Rothschilds will defeat them.

    The English have a handicap: vanity. So, I expect they’re going extinct. If the English are to survive, they’ll have to do it in one of the colonies.

    I also admittedly like this about America: “This is the country where, before about 1960, the war against licentious books and films and theatrical displays was carried to a degree unknown in England. It is the country where beer was banned, and where, in many States, smoking came close to being banned. It is the country where, in one place, Bizet’s opera Carmen could only be put on after the first act was resited from outside a cigarette factory to outside a dairy. It is the country whose government gave the world its present War on Drugs and money laundering. It is the country where, at least until a time in living memory, there were criminal laws to be found against adultery and “oral sodomy.””

    I embrace that heritage. I think it works better on a smaller scale though. The US is overlarge.

    Amerindian communities, some of them successfully ban alcohol, though it’s a constant struggle. Alcohol is a plague to them. They cannot thrive with it legal.

    Like

    Reply
  8. hawthornecht Post author

    W;

    Keeping in mind this was a speech delivered to Alt Righters and so forth, Gabb is a supporter of Hoppe’s efforts to get “libertarianism” or “classical liberals” in line with Tradition, to make it rightwing (a project Lew Rockwell has not been working on nearly as much as I would like.) Tactically speaking, it is understandable he point to the weakness in the rise of European ‘rightist/nationalist’ parties and the silliness of using Putin as a redeemer figure. Further, if liberalism–as defined by an ancient practice like say, jury nullification, is a product of English Civilization, Gabb is right to remind us “who we are” and for that matter–who we aren’t.

    The use of Puritans as a foil is fine for the purposes of a speech, though Red does a good job of exploring the characterization, but most of the schisms in Reformation Prots were about protecting family, ethnic and national interests and if that meant making up contrived disputes over esoteric readings of the Bible, so be it, in the ensuing chaos and many developed in the US of A of late-some successful, like the Mormons or the Baptists–some uniquely American crazy, like rattlesnake handling.

    Nathaniel Hawthorne would go along with his portrayal.

    Anyway…

    Weaver, I think Gabb is pointing out the “Third Position” has nothing to do with England; it’s imported and foreign. I feel the same way and, while American, probably agree with Gabb that for Tolkien’s English tribes, what we call liberalism in line with Tradition (hierarchy) is what we are after. Jefferson felt the same way for that matter–the horror of the Norman invasion, and the failure for Alfred’s England to come together, all of the tribes, to throw the Norman bastards back into the ocean.

    Like

    Reply
  9. weavercht

    Evola and Nietzsche are foreign. I don’t promote them. Nietzsche has some little value, Evola more value. But I don’t promote either. Third Position is like most political terms: muddled.

    GK Chesterton, Candour Magazine, and Nick Griffin are three British influences I’m familiar with and like very much, for the most part. I’m aware Griffin is unpopular currently, but it’s the BNP positions under Griffin I like. I mean I used to read BNP articles and books; they were part of my education, as well as Chronicles.

    Lately it seems like libertarianism is becoming popular again, partly due to groups I don’t like, partly due to populist heritage groups who glorify the past and are probably sick of conservatives who don’t really know what they want.

    I don’t believe Evola and Nietzsche are entirely antithetical to libertarianism even if they’d seem such. I’d probably be assaulted saying that at a less friendly site, but libertarianism allows for a wealthy elite to arise and do as it pleases. And the wealthy today tend to see themselves as elites in Evola’s and Nietzsche’s work.

    There are scenarios where I’d back libertarians temporarily as a “best for the current society” type thing.

    When I became politically aware, conservatives were just waking up to how they were conned by the Cold War. So, I oppose libertarianism partly for that. I’m rather angry at the Cold War dupe.

    Gabb, as you portray him, sounds like someone I would like, just as I like you. He does make good points.

    I just hope he keeps an open mind and isn’t too attached to his ideology.

    Clearly I need to do some serious study and rediscover the arguments against it from my side. Admittedly with time… the arguments get fuzzy. And there are a lot of different groups, like Burnham, the Agrarians, the Distributists, Paleos, Friedrich List, the classical thinkers, and erm some from the Old Right (the pre-paleos anyway) and some others. Conservatives aren’t such a simple thing like the Libertarians.

    Like

    Reply
  10. weavercht

    In the US South though, we did also read the classics. We weren’t entirely libertarian zealots.

    I don’t believe I’ve read R E Lee hinting at being libertarian.

    Ah, a book I have on Canadian Scots btw is very pro-English, or pro-AngloCelt I should say.

    They were loyal to the Crown and helped keep Canada British, kept it from becoming American. And many came voluntarily due to extreme poverty at home. That’s at least according to the one book.

    Like

    Reply
  11. redphillips

    The problem with Third Positionism for America is that it is foreign and antithetical to our heritage. The average American in flyover country is not hostile to capitalism per se. They are opposed to corporatism and perhaps globalist capitalism, but most Americans regard capitalism fondly and believe that it is still possible to work hard and get ahead. Heck, Southerners are even skeptical of Unions. If you embrace “limited government” to whatever extent, you get capitalism by default because there is no legitimate apparatus of state to enact Third Positionism.

    In my experience, extreme libertarianism is a uniquely American position. I don’t know where Gabb stands, but I suspect even his “hard libertarianism” is by European standards. Does he support the abolition of the Public Health Service for example?

    Like

    Reply
  12. weavercht

    The UK libertarians tend to like Hegel, Powell, and Thatcher – probably Adam Smith too.

    Third Position goals can be attempted to a degree without much change.

    It’s really the libertarians who make things impossible. A problem is when a Brit tries to, say defend a “Green Belt” around a city, a libertarian zombie will cry “that’s against the free market”. They’re nuts.

    We’re forced to develop ideas to counter blatant insanity on their part.

    Like

    Reply
  13. weavercht

    The BNP lists its economic position here: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/economics

    A libertarian would probably like that globalisation that saw Britain’s power shipped overseas. And libertarians don’t seem to want monopolies broken up. They want an integrated, cosmopolitan world order.

    The BNP approaches politics in this manner: What are our goals? How do we achieve them?

    And the BNP looks to examples that have worked. It wants to copy Asia’s success.

    The libertarian approaches politics in this manner: These are our policies, regardless of the situation. For every situation, one set of policies. That is a problem.

    Like

    Reply
  14. weavercht

    Something more extreme, distributism: OK, perhaps this is too extreme and won’t be efficient.

    But if it were tried and found wanting, it would be dropped. The US at least has such economy of scale that it could improve its wages via just protections. The UK at least has more scale than New Zealand…

    Unions in the US, my experience: they are corrupt and care little for their members. However, they’re one of the major powers in support of trade protections. And abuse of labour power is really no different from abuse of money power, which was probably more significant in the past. I believe they were helpful in the past, but I’m not sure they do much good today, perhaps because we have no communities today so they have little motive for helping their members and helping greater society. In theory they could fight outsourcing and mass immigration better, rather than demanding an increase in wages/benefits above market wage.

    Anyway, the libertarians believe that banning the corporate structure (corporation is not alive) would change things. If it didn’t, what then? They put a lot of faith in that position.

    Like

    Reply
  15. hawthornecht Post author

    Gabb is Rothbardian and Hoppian, consistently. On the continent, and in England, the term libertarian generally means a low tax, lots of bennies, social leftist, which does appear to be a different word in American political discourse. As a distinct system of thought, or intellectual trend, is does seem to be unique to the US of A around the Mises folks–not necessarily the works of Mises himself but the network he built in his time, it’s just that when you look at actual history–say the Old Right–you get the anti-New Deal/America First coalition which was not libertarian, but quite classically liberal as an American node. My understanding is Gabb is trying, as an intellectual entrepreneur to make a libertarian brand unique to England–starting from scratch.

    For Southerners (Prot and Hard Right) there is no question that the Reconstructionist association with Mises economics became part of a fairly recent but fair intellectual framework for Southern thinkers (though the first calls for protectionism came from the West and South, only to become a Northern Republican tradition after the War of 1812.)

    UKIP is “libertarian” but they have neither the baggage or the bother to associate with an ideology, as its just a political party in a more open system. The Far Right loathes the UKIP because it does not reach for higher ideals, but again, I think that is imported reaction as the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish are remarkably simple people. We get exhausted trying to think about the complexities in managing say, a large industrial socialist economy like Germany and figure its easier just to hire and fire people.

    The technocract Hoover, then FDR embraced ‘Scientific Socialism” as a ruling ideology (which the Soviet and Third Reich had done as well) was a foreign import, but can also be linked to changes in media distribution.

    Anyway, don’t get bogged down on the political labels. Plenty of people call themselves conservatives, but you scratch the sort a bit and while you might find some generic nationalism, there is little to no conservative ideas running through such a mind.

    Like

    Reply
  16. hawthornecht Post author

    W;

    BTW, I am not a libertarian, a conservative or anything but a generic Republican in this year of our Lord, 2014. I am Family First, but I enjoy politics and sports, and want my children, long after my sort are outlawed/crushed, to understand who their father was, and give them some functioning political apparatus that will help them understand the historic position of our people (speaking as an Anglo/Celt). Not “crazy”, but rather, the smartest guy in the room that could win anybody over to the historic position.

    What should Part 2 be about–I have it written, but not sure at the moment–it appears a response, a critical response, is required to Gabb. Part 2 — Are We the Vampire?

    Like

    Reply
  17. weavercht

    We are the vampire: DC & Wall Street imo. But London is ruled by the same international finance.

    What would happen if the UK implemented a no immigration policy, refused to join in American wars, and perhaps ended affirmative action? The US might actually raise trade sanctions against it.

    The BNP though makes it clear that it’s fighting against corporations, who are the major supporters of the Tories, and likely of Labour too. Whether it’s corporations or just big finance, globalisation is the side taken by the market powers. Libertarians say this will all change if they abolish the system of corporations, but American corporations would continue to exist unless that system were abolished here. If abolished in London, international corporations would still exist to influence London. And you’d still have China, the EU, and other state powers. If you lop off the head, you might find the beast just grows a new head, located somewhere else in the world.

    The US was everything post-WWII. Today, that power has diminished. The system is more international today, at least that’s my understanding. It’s a complex world.

    I don’t think we have a place for ideals such as libertarianism and the Constitution. We can either try to adapt and struggle to exist, or we can give up and accept our new masters. What I like about Third Position, or whatever you want to call it, is it at least attempts to adapt. It tries to deal with the world as it is today. I expect it is wrong on some things. Any adaptation, any revolution, is a risk.

    Like

    Reply
  18. weavercht

    One “American” power centre is the IMF. If Ron Paul were elected president and proceeded to dismantle what he could of the US, the IMF would likely find a way to exist without the US if necessary.

    When the US dollar collapses, which might happen in 2015 when banks begin lending their reserves (or maybe it’ll happen later), the IMF seems to want to replace the US dollar. James Rickards, author of “The Death of Money”, seems to want the IMF to replace the US dollar.

    I only know enough to be angry at libertarians. I don’t really have the answers.

    I like the BNP though. You can’t help but love a party that clearly wants to fight for its people. I doubt there are many other authentic nationalist groups in the UK.: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/bnp-policies-%E2%80%93-putting-britons-first-3

    Like

    Reply
  19. weavercht

    Ah, one addition:

    Japan doesn’t flood itself with immigration. At least it doesn’t yet. I expect Wall Street will ultimately win that fight. Wall Street seems to always win.

    And Iceland doesn’t flood itself, Finland, Denmark. We could perhaps endure too.

    In the US, secession seems like the best path towards dismantling the beast. Reforming the federal government would be difficult, but perhaps possible. The US is declining regardless. And it will have increasing “socialism” and debt to weigh it down.

    I was thinking it’d be possible to appeal to black and Latinos with a video of bikini-clad women and added-into-the-video pictures of past black/Latino leaders who opposed mass immigration and free trade, because of the damage they did to wages. You could throw Buchanan in too. Real people, real populists; uniting in reality against corporations. No more divide and conquer.

    If nothing else, it’d be fun to hire the bikini women for the video. I guess you’d get a theatre group, nothing perverse just enough to win viewers on YouTube and hopefully create something viral.

    Maybe you could then have another person submit a slightly different video as a reply, agreeing with the cause. Even blacks know their leaders are race-hustlers or bought. Anyway, it’s my election-night thought. I’m sure Savrola, if reading this, would chime in that I’m an idiot.

    Like

    Reply
  20. J. Keen Holland

    Let me stat with a disclaimer – an apologia, if you will – that I am unreconstructed Southron on my SC father’s side, while my mother’s people in Indiana were Unionists. My great-grandfather Benjamin Perry Holland, Jr. was too young for service in the War for Southern Independence, he only turned 15 the year it ended; but his four elder brothers answered the call. One died of wounds in battle, one died of disease in camp and the other two survived. According to genealogical research by one of my fathers cousins, no one in my paternal line ever appeared in the census (1790-1860) as a slave-holder. My mother’s paternal grandfather was a POW and had to walk home to Indiana at the end of the war.

    From my perspective, the point about nationalism in the early US context was never North vs. South. In the 18th and early 19th centuries it was your State vs. the Union. While the analogy is not exact, it is rather like the original popular understanding of the Common Market. A true “Southern” nationalism was a product of the War for Southern Independence. From all i have read, the only idea of a Northern nationalism divorced from mere Unionism was among hard core abolitionists of the sor who characterized the US Constitution as “a pact with the devil.”

    Like

    Reply
    1. hawthornecht Post author

      After the coup against the Articles, Southern Nationalism was nascent United States Nationalism, and was eventually crushed during the over reach of the expansionist War of 1812 the Southern War Hawks oh so wanted (to say nothing of Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase.) Still, there were some worthwhile elements. After the failure of that war, power shifted to the North, and the South reacted as such, but Southern calls for expansion (e.g. Cuba, Polk’s War) continued. This same attitude led to the South fighting a war, they weren’t sure they could win, which wasn’t good for anybody.

      Like

      Reply
  21. redphillips

    Hawthorne, the new guard Southern Nationalists I mentioned usually decry the Constitution because they don’t believe that the Union of North and South was wise, but the generally unspoken part is that they don’t like the nature of the Union anyway which they see as too liberal, so it’s not like they are yearning for the Articles instead. The point I have tried to make with them is that at the time, Southerners, especially the elite, generally felt like they got a good deal with the Constitution and were supportive of it. (Henry and other Southern anti-Federalist weren’t, but they were the exception.) In hindsight, it can certainly be argued that the union of such unlike parts was not wise, but you know what they say about hindsight. So there really was a feeling among Southerners prior to the War that it was the North that was attempting to subvert the Constitution to their ends, and it was Southerners who had remained true to the original design. The power of that quintessentially conservative argument is not available to the honest new guardians because they don’t like the original template.

    Also, I make no apologies for Southern hawkishness and expansionism, but would simply note that this (as with slavery) has to be examined in the context of the times. This was the time of empire and some Southerners saw a regional empire as necessary to compete with the big boys of Europe and also as a place to send slaves who they felt were potentially becoming a demographic threat in certain parts of the South. They saw what happened in Haiti.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  22. hawthornecht Post author

    Red;

    We aren’t in disagreement, I am just from the school that the conditions of the time fuel various myths. Making sense of these myths is the job of story tellers (bards) for the low culture, while an “honest” discipline like History explains things to the natural aristocracy. Obviously, one corrupts or colors the other.

    If the South was such a civilization, where is the Cooper or Hawthorne–mid level players? Why did they need to lose a war to produce the superior literature–though we’ll always have Lovecraft? And don’t bother claiming Poe- he was reactionary fatalist, son of traveling thespians, born in Boston–whom I love of course. This is just a part and parcel of the health of a middle class–the sort who have the time to read the middle brow short stories and books that define “pop culture.”

    New England suffered from books imported from England in an early pirating effort, and from local authors taking such books, and re-writing them. That forced a Hawthorne to do something different and “real.”

    But we digress.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s