Going into 2008, it's apparent that the gap in the quality and quantity of blogging output between conservative bloggers in the English-speaking Commonwealth and their counterparts in the US, is showing little sign of narrowing.
Although the population of the US dwarfs that of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, the English-speaking Commonwealth still has a population of over 110 million from which to draw upon. However, we are still failing to produce many bloggers in the class of US traditional and scientific conservatives like Daniel Larison, Steve Sailer, Randall Parker, Jim Kalb, Lawrence Auster, John Savage, and John Press.
As well as being a regular blogger, Mr Press has also produced a substantial book Culturism, which tackles the weighty issue of western cultural survival. Steve Sailer's blog appears to attract the lions share of reader comments, although Auster and Larison also appear to be attracting significant web traffic. (Hat tip to Daniel Larison for being my best referrer, with Oz Conservative second, and mainstream NZ blogger David Farrar third).
Among many others worthy of mention include the lucid and entertaining Dennis Dale, and punchy empiricist Audacious Epigone.
The most consistent and accomplished conservative blogger in the British Commonwealth remains Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative, who is now into his 5th year of lucidly and persistently de-constructing liberalism. However, he is conspicuous for the being the only conservative blogger in Australasia to consistently produce quality commentary on a regular basis.
On this side of the Tasman I regret to report that the Internet scene continues to be dominated by libertarians who seems to think defending western civilisation goes no further than ranting about tax rates.
Canadian output is similarly limited. Immigration blogger Hogtown Front stood out for the quality and accuracy of his postings on Immigration in Ontario, but ceased blogging on a consistent basic earlier this year. Similarly, Vancouver blogger Kevin Michael Grace has been pretty quiet this year, although he is no doubt making a valuable contribution through his work with the American Conservative.
Britain is producing some good bloggers with a law and order focus, with Laban Tall of UK Commentators one of the best in this regard. Unfortunately though, there are few UK bloggers who are willing to offer serious, original analysis of the type that US writers like Kalb and Sailer deliver on a regular basis (a possible star in the making, though is teenager Sam Tarran, who is already producing some good posts at a ridiculously young age).
Although Continental conservatives appear to be preoccupied with current events concerning Islamic immigration (and who can blame them) there are a few European pundits like Fjiordman and Conservative Swede who are going the extra mile and producing some serious critiques of modern liberal thinking.
Perhaps 2007's most important site from a Conservative perspective though, was not a political blogger, but a non-partisan Internet lobbying site, Numbers USA, which played a vital contribution to the downfall of George Bush's unpopular illegal immigration amnesty.
Showing posts with label Western civilisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Western civilisation. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Culturism
With Internet debate heating up between ethno-nationalists and traditionalists over how to protect western culture from threats such as Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration and the excesses of post-modern liberalism, US academic and blogger John Kennneth Press has produced a timely work, Culturism: A word, a value, a future, which advocates a culturist approach to protecting western culture.
"Multiculturists say diversity concerns food and fashion, but deep down think all cultures are interchangeable. Culturism takes cultures and their impact seriously, " says Mr Press
While there have been a number of Internet articles on the subject of culturism, such as the series of exchanges between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor on the merits of "citizenism versus white nationalism," this is one of the first books I am aware of that specifically articulates a culturist stance.
Culturism is a pretty substantial and ambitious publication, which runs to nearly 300 pages and includes over 300 endnotes. Through the work, Press demonstrates how culturism can be found in fields as diverse as global history, anthropology, theology, philosophy, the natural sciences and evolutionary psychology, and provides some interesting insights into the cultural development of the United States.
He argues that the West has a relatively liberal and individualist culture, revolving around principles such as the separation of church and state, individualism, and free speech, which make it very different to those cultures, which have evolved in the Middle and Far East.
In contrast to individualistic western culture, Press sees Oriental culture as being defined by race and community, and Muslim culture as being defined by religion dogma and the union of church and state.
Taking his working definition of culturism as the "science and art of protection majority cultures," Press argues that cultures are locked in a competitive struggle with one another, and that people have a right and a duty to defend their culture.
"If we lose economic power to China are vocational opportunities will be undermined. If Islamic terrorists attack us we will lose even more basic freedoms."
While arguing that the West has a right to protect western values within its own borders, the culturist principle that others cultures have a right to protect their own cultures, within their own lands, counters the neo-conservative idea that the West has a right to promote western values by force. Subsequently, Press’s culturism ties in well with the principles of prudence and self-reliance, advocated by foreign policy realists, paleo-libertarians and traditional conservatives.
While asserting that the Unites States needs an overriding majority culture to function effectively, Press argues that the multi-racial make up of its population, make it dangerous and impractical to define the countries culture along racial lines. Contrary to left liberal thinking, Press argues that the US is actually one of the world’s least racist countries, and that culturism provides a means of promoting social stability and national solidarity, whilst avoiding ethnic conflict.
Culturism is a controversial and challenging book, which is likely to draw both praise and criticism from scientific conservatives and ethno-nationalists, to economic globalists and multiculturalists, whilst making an important contribution to the increasingly urgent task of defining and protecting western culture.
"Multiculturists say diversity concerns food and fashion, but deep down think all cultures are interchangeable. Culturism takes cultures and their impact seriously, " says Mr Press
While there have been a number of Internet articles on the subject of culturism, such as the series of exchanges between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor on the merits of "citizenism versus white nationalism," this is one of the first books I am aware of that specifically articulates a culturist stance.
Culturism is a pretty substantial and ambitious publication, which runs to nearly 300 pages and includes over 300 endnotes. Through the work, Press demonstrates how culturism can be found in fields as diverse as global history, anthropology, theology, philosophy, the natural sciences and evolutionary psychology, and provides some interesting insights into the cultural development of the United States.
He argues that the West has a relatively liberal and individualist culture, revolving around principles such as the separation of church and state, individualism, and free speech, which make it very different to those cultures, which have evolved in the Middle and Far East.
In contrast to individualistic western culture, Press sees Oriental culture as being defined by race and community, and Muslim culture as being defined by religion dogma and the union of church and state.
Taking his working definition of culturism as the "science and art of protection majority cultures," Press argues that cultures are locked in a competitive struggle with one another, and that people have a right and a duty to defend their culture.
"If we lose economic power to China are vocational opportunities will be undermined. If Islamic terrorists attack us we will lose even more basic freedoms."
While arguing that the West has a right to protect western values within its own borders, the culturist principle that others cultures have a right to protect their own cultures, within their own lands, counters the neo-conservative idea that the West has a right to promote western values by force. Subsequently, Press’s culturism ties in well with the principles of prudence and self-reliance, advocated by foreign policy realists, paleo-libertarians and traditional conservatives.
While asserting that the Unites States needs an overriding majority culture to function effectively, Press argues that the multi-racial make up of its population, make it dangerous and impractical to define the countries culture along racial lines. Contrary to left liberal thinking, Press argues that the US is actually one of the world’s least racist countries, and that culturism provides a means of promoting social stability and national solidarity, whilst avoiding ethnic conflict.
Culturism is a controversial and challenging book, which is likely to draw both praise and criticism from scientific conservatives and ethno-nationalists, to economic globalists and multiculturalists, whilst making an important contribution to the increasingly urgent task of defining and protecting western culture.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Thoughts on 300
War Nerd’s take on the new cartoon action epic 300, is that it’s essentially a neo-conservative propaganda piece that champions American values and takes a cheap shot at Iran.
While there is probably a lot of truth in this analysis, I do think the film’s critics have overlooked the significance of the Pelopennesse War in western culture.
Herodotus’s account of the Greek’s exploits in the war may well be one sided, but it seems to be an historical fact that in terms of numbers the Greeks thoroughly out fought the Persians.
The West has always been a labour poor civilisation, which has had to find ways to defend itself with inferior numbers. While Asiatic civilisations build up large populations through intensive grain farming, western nations, with less favourable climatic conditions, had to rely on low-intensity pastoral farming and seasonal grain crops. Such farming methods were not conducive to high population densities.
The resulting manpower shortage provided western civilisation with a strong incentive to develop labour saving technology and introduce a more individualistic social system. Democracy and citizenship were not so much about “self-actualisation” (as modern liberals assume) as about maximising each individual’s potential to help their city or nation state.
With fewer men, the ancient Greeks commanders had to use their manpower more resourcefully, and economically, than their Persian opponents and in doing so provided the inspiration for later audacious commanders like Alexander, Clive and Houston.
While there is probably a lot of truth in this analysis, I do think the film’s critics have overlooked the significance of the Pelopennesse War in western culture.
Herodotus’s account of the Greek’s exploits in the war may well be one sided, but it seems to be an historical fact that in terms of numbers the Greeks thoroughly out fought the Persians.
The West has always been a labour poor civilisation, which has had to find ways to defend itself with inferior numbers. While Asiatic civilisations build up large populations through intensive grain farming, western nations, with less favourable climatic conditions, had to rely on low-intensity pastoral farming and seasonal grain crops. Such farming methods were not conducive to high population densities.
The resulting manpower shortage provided western civilisation with a strong incentive to develop labour saving technology and introduce a more individualistic social system. Democracy and citizenship were not so much about “self-actualisation” (as modern liberals assume) as about maximising each individual’s potential to help their city or nation state.
With fewer men, the ancient Greeks commanders had to use their manpower more resourcefully, and economically, than their Persian opponents and in doing so provided the inspiration for later audacious commanders like Alexander, Clive and Houston.
Friday, April 21, 2006
In Support of Limited Immigration
Throughout the Western world limited immigration policies are seen as backward and reactionary by many educated people. Despite this, there are sound environmental and ethical reasons why large-scale immigration is no longer desirable. The rise of popular support for limited immigration should not be discouraged. It is the association of limited immigration with unrealistic policies of extreme anti-immigration, and indifference to Third World countries, that needs to be countered.
In Europe there is a clear need for immigration to be limited. Most European countries are densely populated and are struggling with high unemployment in the wake of deindustrialisation. Continental Europeans are environmentally conscious and increasingly aware of the superior quality of life enjoyed by those in less densely populated countries like Canada and Australia. Unfortunately, many of the European parties that support limited immigration don't appear to be interested in assisting poor counties. The neo-liberal policies of the IMF and World Bank have helped to weaken many states in the developing world resulting in increased anarchy and inequality. This is turn has increased the number of refugees and economic migrants pressing on the borders of developed countries. Developing countries should be given more leeway in managing there own economies and the West should should do more to reduce their indebtedness. We can't turn away refugees without doing something to address the causes of their displacement.
Many parts of the developing world are grossly overpopulated, yet industrialised countries are hardly underpopulated. Gareth Hardin rightly argues that states shoud be made responsible for their own population problems. Mexico, for example, shouldn't be permitted to deal with its populaton problems through immigration to the U.S - does the world need more people living an extravagant U.S lifestyle? However, a total ban on immigration from developing countries would be too austere to be accepted by most people and is probably unrealistic. Where possible, immigration from developing countries should be restricted to a small number of carefully screened refugees and workers.
In terms of population, the developed world is dwarfed by the developing world. Hence, rich countries could easliy be overwhelmed if immigration is not tightly restricted. Liberal economists argue that Third World immigrants in developed countries help their home countries through the money they sent back home. However, living costs in developed countries are much higher than in poor countries, Hence, it would be more cost effective to help the Third World directly through debt relief or aid.
Limited immigration shoud not be be based on perceived ethical shortcomings in the immigrants themselves- a point now acknowledged by the European 'New Right' intellectual movement. Refugees and economic migrants are often victoms of forces beyond their control which developed countries are partly responsible for. Affluent countries should provide aid to developing countries but on the condition that developing countries accept poulation control measures and limitations on military programmes.
Another important consideration in immigration is the fear among many people of European, Jewish and Japanese descend that they belong to dying races whose cultures are in decline. This is not a trivial concern- much of the tension in Palestine is because of the unequal reproduction rates between Arabs and Jews. Many Jews believe that the more numerous Palestinians will soon overwhelm them. In the coming decades such ethnic fears are only going to intensify if Western governments promote utopian ideas of large-scale immigration.
In Europe there is a clear need for immigration to be limited. Most European countries are densely populated and are struggling with high unemployment in the wake of deindustrialisation. Continental Europeans are environmentally conscious and increasingly aware of the superior quality of life enjoyed by those in less densely populated countries like Canada and Australia. Unfortunately, many of the European parties that support limited immigration don't appear to be interested in assisting poor counties. The neo-liberal policies of the IMF and World Bank have helped to weaken many states in the developing world resulting in increased anarchy and inequality. This is turn has increased the number of refugees and economic migrants pressing on the borders of developed countries. Developing countries should be given more leeway in managing there own economies and the West should should do more to reduce their indebtedness. We can't turn away refugees without doing something to address the causes of their displacement.
Many parts of the developing world are grossly overpopulated, yet industrialised countries are hardly underpopulated. Gareth Hardin rightly argues that states shoud be made responsible for their own population problems. Mexico, for example, shouldn't be permitted to deal with its populaton problems through immigration to the U.S - does the world need more people living an extravagant U.S lifestyle? However, a total ban on immigration from developing countries would be too austere to be accepted by most people and is probably unrealistic. Where possible, immigration from developing countries should be restricted to a small number of carefully screened refugees and workers.
In terms of population, the developed world is dwarfed by the developing world. Hence, rich countries could easliy be overwhelmed if immigration is not tightly restricted. Liberal economists argue that Third World immigrants in developed countries help their home countries through the money they sent back home. However, living costs in developed countries are much higher than in poor countries, Hence, it would be more cost effective to help the Third World directly through debt relief or aid.
Limited immigration shoud not be be based on perceived ethical shortcomings in the immigrants themselves- a point now acknowledged by the European 'New Right' intellectual movement. Refugees and economic migrants are often victoms of forces beyond their control which developed countries are partly responsible for. Affluent countries should provide aid to developing countries but on the condition that developing countries accept poulation control measures and limitations on military programmes.
Another important consideration in immigration is the fear among many people of European, Jewish and Japanese descend that they belong to dying races whose cultures are in decline. This is not a trivial concern- much of the tension in Palestine is because of the unequal reproduction rates between Arabs and Jews. Many Jews believe that the more numerous Palestinians will soon overwhelm them. In the coming decades such ethnic fears are only going to intensify if Western governments promote utopian ideas of large-scale immigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
