A call for conservatives to secede from the “Body Snatcher” West

Independently and simultaneously over the last few months, several traditionalists have been working on various manifestos and proposals aimed at developing practical ideas for white Western survival. Two days ago I read a draft of a traditionalist manifesto by a VFR reader on how to defeat liberalism that was magnificent. I hope to share it at some point.

And here is yet another manifesto. Writing at Brussels Journal, Takuan Seiyo argues that conservative whites who believe in the historic Western civilization need to separate themselves from the present dominant Western culture,—which he describes as “Body Snatcher society” led and populated by “Pods”—in order to recreate traditional Western society. This restoration cannot be done within the currently existing West, he writes, as the Body Snatchers are completely in control. We, the “anti-Pod” people, need to separate ourselves. In a key passage he says:

This civilization is now being killed by its custodians. For a resurgence to occur, there has to arise a movement spanning the entirety of Europe and of the Anglosphere, asserting the basic unity of the Euro-peoples, and resurrecting pride in their culture and heritage….

The tribe I imagine is a sort of ethno-conservative and culturally reactionary white ummah stretching from New Zealand to Alaska, the way the Muslim ummah spans from the remotest islands of Indonesia through Bosnia to British Columbia, but without the negative baggage. In each nation, people who have not yet morphed into Body Snatchers already know how to define themselves as a local ethny, but a universal component is needed as well.

In order to make the article more easily accessible for readers who want to get to the main ideas, I’ve taken the liberty of abridging it from its original 4,500 words down to 3,100 words, and copied it below. (Due to an oversight on my part, this abridged version lacks the character formatting and hyperlinks of the original.)

From Meccania to Atlantis—Part 4: Tribe
From the desk of Takuan Seiyo on Fri, 2008-12-12 11:12

…The white people not yet turned into Pods cannot survive except by separating themselves from the Muslims. It’s just common sense, no vilification is necessary. Simply, the twain shall not mix—and every East European knows it at the age of seven. To their credit, Muslims know this too; only idiot white Pods don’t. Which is one reason why the white Antipods’ need to separate from the voluntary white dhimmis,…

It’s probable that nothing else can save Western Civilization but its wise and steadfast application by a dedicated and still Unsnatched minority of its ethnic heirs, exiting Body Snatcher society …

The exodus ought to lead to a formation of communities where the still-healthy would be the dominant majority, able and willing to control who is in the City Hall, what is being taught in schools, which channels are available on the local Cable TV system, what people are allowed to wear in public, and how teenagers are to address their elders. Moreover, and that is the difficult part for citizens in Pod nations, such communities ought to be able to define themselves in the same way as the West’s nonwhite minorities do: strength in non-diversity, ethnic kinship, ethnic nepotism, preference for endogamy, high value placed on heterosexuality and on marriage as the basis of group survival….

During the Dreyfuss trial, Theodore Herzl witnessed multiple incidents of deep Antisemitism, including mass rallies in Paris where crowds chanted “Death to the Jews!” So assimilated that he had been deeply involved in a German unity movement, Herzl came to believe that a real assimilation of Jews in Europe would never be possible. Thus Zionism was born.

Returning to the land of their ancestors, Israel, was not an idea that came immediately to the early Zionists. [Herzl’s novel] Altneuland did much to reorient them toward their ancient homeland.

In this novel, Herzl told a story of two friends on a long journey, stopping in Palestine and finding it a depopulated, backward and destitute Turkish sand patch, as it was at the end of the 19th century. 20 years later the friends stop in Palestine again, on their way back to Europe. This time they find it a modern industrial state, with thriving industry and commerce and all the democratic freedoms that Europe itself was still struggling to attain. As Wikipedia’s synopsis puts it, “In the two decades that have passed, European Jews have rediscovered and re-inhabited their Altneuland, reclaiming their own destiny in the Land of Israel.”

In a way, this is what people have to do who have not yet lost their brains and souls to Podism. Rediscover and re-inhabit their Altneuland, the land where they were born and where their ancestors lived, a land that was snatched from them by their traitorous leaders and Body Snatcher sickos, and handed over to Somalis and Moroccans, Aztecs and Bosnians, militant homosexuals and in-your-face transvestites…

Assimilation among the Body Snatchers is no longer possible. The few still-unsnatched remnants have to stop what they are doing, and stop running, and stop praying that the Republican Party win, as its win is worthless, and stop wishing in vain that the European Commission rediscover the meaning of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Self-Determination. Instead, this is where they might start:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Who are we?

This is being published in a Flanders-based conservative webzine that has a significant readership in Western Europe and in the United States. Judging by snippets of biographical detail and names revealed in readers’ posts, significant portions of active readers are Dutch and other Northwest Europeans, and American. All seem to be Christian or post-Christian, with sometimes acrimonious posts of Protestants against Catholics, either one against the Orthodox, and vice versa. A wide range of conservative persuasions seems to be represented.

In contrast, I am an ex-Eastern European, half-Slav and half-Jew. My character-forming influences have come from a traditional Polish upbringing, from being a 3rd generation victim of Nazism and 2nd generation victim of Socialism, from American paleoconservatism, from pre-1968 France and pre-multiculti California, from pre-1850 Japan and from a long executive career that has taken me to many countries for prolonged periods. I live mainly in Japan and often look at the West from the Oriental angle. I am a lapsed Catholic and an incomplete practitioner of Zen. This is a C.V. quite deviant from the mean in Western or any other kind of society. So who am I that I should say, “we”?

The “we” that I use, however, is not a ploy to insinuate myself into the position of opinion leader and spokesman of a willing, let alone unwilling, readership. Rather, it’s a shortcut referring to a heterogeneous stratum of millions of people from all countries of the West who see themselves not only as members of their nations’ ethnies but also as heirs and keepers of the Western tradition and its cultural expression grounded in the Jerusalem –Athens –Rome triangle. I call these people Antipods—the ones who find Pod society abhorrent—and I identify with them. [LA replies: I think this is exactly right. The key thing is that one feels oneself to be a member and heir of the historic Western civilization. As I’ve written, “My guiding principle is, those who have an instinctive love of Western society and Western man, within the bounds of morality and reason, are our allies.” See further quotations below.]

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series I listed some additional common denominators of this still-unemerged group. To reprise in digest form, and expand:

1. Opposition to whites’ disfranchisement, marginalization and impoverishment by the whites’ own ruling elites in government, media, education, culture and business.

2. Attachment to a racial, ethnic and cultural identity as Europeans or descendants of Europeans. It does not call for disparaging other such identities but does entail assertiveness with respect to protecting the interests of our own ethny in our own lands.

3. Resistance to mass immigration. Not as xenophobia but as realism that sees the actual marginal utility of “diversity” reach zero at about a 4% -5% ratio of foreign-origin residents, even when they are assimilable.

4. Unqualified opposition to any immigration by people so dissimilar—e.g. Muslims and all but few outlying Africans—that there is no possibility of finding and maintaining a true common denominator.

5. Unqualified opposition to the West’s ruling elites with respect to their importation of tens of millions of Muslims to the West. Awareness that this has been a catastrophic mistake without precedent in history since the fall of the Roman Empire.

6. Unwillingness to accept PC’s veil of silence about black crime, Muslim terrorisms, and other grave dysfunctions that nonwhite minorities have spread in the West. Anger at the authorities’ cowardice in handling these problems.

7. A conservative, Burkean disposition, which comprises:

7.1. Detestation of high taxes and wealth-transfer programs, and of social and economic “justice” theories and their application by semi-sovereign judges for the benefit of their favored “victim” classes.

7.2. Rejection of Western governments’ out-of-control public spending, excessive regulations, legal system abuse, suppression of free speech. invasion of personal freedoms and privacy, particularly as this is being done to control social dysfunctions that Body Snatcher state itself has caused through its reality-averse policies.

7.3. Rejection of the current form of Conservatism and its two predominant mutations: Texas “hold’em” (i.e. poker) yahoo capitalism and New York Wilsonian neoconservatism. Return to Conservatism’s European roots: Austrian economics, Germanic Protestant work ethic, Roman-Catholic cultural genius, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic concepts of liberty, and more.

7.4. Adoption, as part of the definition of true conservatism, of Samuel Francis’s dictum that conservatism is “The survival and enhancement of particular peoples and their institutionalized cultural expressions.”

8. Reaction. Conservatism is good when there is much to conserve—but by 2008 Conservatism is not enough anymore, except if it be defined as permanent defeat, forever trying to shore up a once-magnificent edifice that’s now sand, slipping through the fingers. Reaction implies moving toward the past. How far back is arguable….

9. Steadfast opposition to and rejection of all supranational bodies and globalism in all of its political and commercial expressions, yet without losing a friendly disposition and intellectual openness to the rest of the world.

10. Desire to build and sustain an anti-liberal community. Members should be willing to forego the unlimited superficial freedoms that individuals enjoy in Body Snatcher society in order to regain the deeper freedoms that the BS society has nullified. Give up the benefits of “diversity,” i.e. cheap strawberries and a profusion of ethnic restaurants, to gain social capital and mutual trust. Renounce rap, bling, metal, grunge, disco, porno, TV entertainment, footie fandom for the sake of higher Western culture. Give up feminist “empowerment” and sexual promiscuity for the sake of family preservation. Give up abortion for the sake of the community’s survival. Change life’s focus from consumption to productive work and self-development.

11. Christianity. At this time, for the sake of a common denominator I’ll define it as “Cultural Christianity.” But the subject, given Christianity’s impact on the history of the West, its impact on present-day American Conservatism, and its current retreat before Islam, requires a separate chapter.

Each time I refer to “we,” the above is my reference point, plus many micro-details that will follow after this wide shot. But some aspects of this aggregation may still be more wishful thinking than a reflection of reality. In a second sense, therefore, I use the “we” as a plea.

It’s not a plea for myself to be accepted into the “we.” I am pleading for a “we” because I believe that every person born of European stock owes a great debt to his splendid civilization, to the great gifts it has showered on him, to its cultural giants that have furnished his brain and his soul—or could, if he’d but let them, and to his ancestors that endured over the ages to bring him, or her, to this point.

This civilization is now being killed by its custodians. For a resurgence to occur, there has to arise a movement spanning the entirety of Europe and of the Anglosphere, asserting the basic unity of the Euro-peoples, and resurrecting pride in their culture and heritage. Pride without arrogance or sense of supremacy but also without the apologizing, groveling, and open, incessant retreat that characterize the mea culpa Body Snatcher society.

Tribe

The tribe I imagine is a sort of ethno-conservative and culturally reactionary white ummah stretching from New Zealand to Alaska, the way the Muslim ummah spans from the remotest islands of Indonesia through Bosnia to British Columbia, but without the negative baggage. In each nation, people who have not yet morphed into Body Snatchers already know how to define themselves as a local ethny, but a universal component is needed as well.

The British National Party’s constitution defines BNP’s constituency as “indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain.”

Good definition, but one day it will be nice to see a phrase added that asserts solidarity with a list of similar parties in 40 other countries. For now, the vehement Fascism of Body Snatcher society is such that by merely mentioning the BNP I am subjecting this website to criticism …

As a past subject of commie commissars, just reading about the sustained persecution that BNP members are subject to in the archPod state of ex-Great ex-Britain makes me angry. So a big portion of the remaining chapters of this essay will be devoted to suggesting ways for avoiding such mistakes as BNP committed at its inception and for repulsing the onslaught of Body Snatcher society on the dissenters of Meccania who hold views roughly similar to those of BNP.

BNP’s term “European Race” and its stand against miscegenation pose moral and practical problems that are greater in some countries than in others. Are Jews a European race? There might be sincere and well-informed views that differ on this. No matter the answer, what sense does it make to exclude from the “we” a people that has lived in Europe for 2400 years, in great numbers so since having been brought to Rome as slaves after the Great Revolt’s defeat in 70 CE, and with a considerable mingling of the DNAs over the centuries? Not to mention the origin of the creed that’s inseparable from the “European Race,” Christianity.

The reason the great majority of Jews would not be in the Antipod community is not their race but their politics. There is a heavy statistical distribution of Jews on the political left, all the way to its extremes….

The mental exodus required to form the Antipod community is so important that membership ought to be conferred only upon interviewing candidates and having them sign letters of acceptance of the community’s principles, followed by a lengthy process of structured acclimatization. Something between joining a private golf club and becoming a naturalized Swiss citizen—which is possible only upon the examination and adoption of a particular candidate by a particular community. And typically Jewish—and by now typically European—social attitudes are one shibboleth that should disqualify anyone from joining.

However, white-supremacist and Antisemitic views should be another shibboleth. The Antipod “we” I propose excludes the holders of such views.

Many, perhaps most of the pixels in the picture I am painting agree with the platforms of “far right” parties in Europe and private associations in the U.S. But every such organization attracts to its fringes sympathizers who don’t merely dislike Jews or the nonwhite races but traffic in Holocaust denial, grand Jew-conspiracy theories, whitewash of Adolf Hitler, wholesale denigration of the black race, and white supremacy.

The political inconvenience of such views is obvious—a rabidly racist and hateful ideology serves as useful spotting coordinates for the overwhelmingly superior artillery of Meccania’s white-suppressing institutions. But such artillery will fire on Antipods anyway. The true reason Jew-hating and other white supremacist convictions are objectionable is that, ultimately, falsehood bordering on monomanical madness shall not stand.

It is demented to cling to Holocaust-denial views merely half a century after the Holocaust…

Yet the current situation among some Body Snatcher resistors is such that a visitor to an otherwise-worthy website like Majorityrights.com will be transported in a click of the mouse to Holocaust denial, David Duke adulation and Zionist–conspiracy theories. A participant in the conference of such an otherwise-excellent institution as American Renaissance will have to sit next to American Nazis differing little from the original model. Maybe there is a way to shine some light into those brains, so that they can become useful allies rather than an embarrassment.

That Jews are disproportionately represented among the chief Body Snatchers is one thing, and it calls for a rational critique and repudiation. But to falsify history, to engage in a blanket smear of an ancient people that constitutes 0.25% of the world’s population but has given the world not only Jesus but also 178 Nobel Prize winners and many of its best doctors, most illustrious artists and seminal conservative thinkers––that is evil. It also condemns to failure any group holding this evil view, as it did the best organized and most powerful group in modern history, the German Nazis.

The issue of the nonwhite inhabitants of the West is more complicated. In Body Snatcher’s Meccania, the Antipods have only one choice: separation. The news today informs, from Melbourne:

“DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.”

In this world-gone-mad, whites must play racial politics, or else they will end up in the cellar of the house they and their ancestors have built. As long as Antipods have to live as a reviled minority in Body Snatcher society, the “we” has to remain a whites-only club, no different in principle from a black college fraternity or an Indian reservation. But this does not imply troglodyte attitudes and wholesale animosity toward other races and nationalities.

But should the West ever again regain its senses, if a whole country could be run on Antipod principles, there is no just basis for denying a nonwhite minority full participation—if they and generations of their ancestors were born there, if they are fully assimilated, if they have abandoned tribalism for citizenism, if they cannot become a majority, and if they be judged by the same criteria as whites without multiculti obfuscation, cowardly manipulation of negative data, or racist discrimination for or against them.

It would be a cop out to fail to mention that such a principle of race-blind equitability cannot possibly lead to a multi-racial coexistence on the present scale. There are enormous social problems with blacks as a group, with violent crime rates at least 7 times those of whites, and other antisocial traits such as serial fatherhood, illegitimacy, pimp culture and disdain for work similarly overrepresented.

At the same time, there are no easy solutions, when most blacks can trace their American lineage farther back than most whites can, but are still unable and unwilling to assimilate in white society after 400 years. Integration is not possible except by hoisting the white flag, as white Body Snatchers do. But separation ought to be possible, and is likely to occur in the future….

… Contemporary Western civilization is, in reality, surrender to black, brown, Muslim and dhimmi supremacy, guided by a cabal of white Body Snatchers. Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture….

Saving Western Civilization must entail as well separation from Muslims and from Third World Latinos, which these groups already practice toward whites. How to separate without cruel and unjust policies is an issue beyond the scope of this discussion, as it requires a fully-informed consideration of the specific circumstances in each Western country separately.

What is clear is that the fault for the disaster of bringing to the West tens of millions of unassimilable Muslims, tens of millions of subliterate Mestizo laborers, millions of chaos-generating Africans, lies not with such Muslims, Mestizos and Africans but with the crazed Body Snatcher elite that has brought them—by naïve intention and by purposeful inattention, both. The separation therefore, cannot be guided by animus toward such immigrants, who have done what comes naturally, but toward those who have brought them to the West.

Ultimately, it comes down to unteaching the evil one-world, one humanity, one-God, one-social class, one-gender Body Snatcher propaganda….

This is the only way a human being, or a group, can gain a hold in life, have a chance at a good life, and not be wiped out from the pages of history…

[end of abridged Seiyo article.]

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

Here are two further statements on the question of what defines “us”:

I wrote to John Fonte in 2003:

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend what it is that conservatives have in common, that makes them, despite their differences, conservatives. He said it was “an instinctive love of Western man and Western civilization.” The moment he said that, it hit me with the force of truth. And you are saying a similar thing here, when you describe patriotic conservatism as an instinctive love of America.

And from a discussion in 2006:

But the Jewish question and the secularist question show that it’s not just inter-Christian unity and identity that is needed, but a broader Western unity and identity. Which leads us to a central point of traditionalism. Western civilizational survival and recovery require Western civilizational consciousness. Christianity is of course central to the West, but is not the whole of it. Whatever our different backgrounds and beliefs, the key to our survival is an instinctive love for Western civilization and Western man. And of course the key to the current Western suicide has been the loss of that instinctive love for our historic civilization and peoplehood, indeed, a positive hatred for our civilization and an increasingly open desire to see it destroyed.

Clark Coleman writes:

I emailed you, several weeks ago, an analysis of the trend towards flight, isolation, secession, etc. that I was seeing in comments from many VFR readers. It was not published at that time. I will dig it up and re-send it, because I think it is vital to counter this trend.

In the meantime, let me observe one thing about the call to gather ourselves together into places where we dominate who is in City Hall, etc.: It is voluntary gerrymandering of the sort that usually has to be imposed by an enemy. When one party has control of a state legislature during a redistricting, and seeks to gerrymander the districts to its advantage, they do not group their supporters together into an overwhelming majority anywhere. They do the opposite. The supporters of the rival party are grouped together as much as possible, which causes them to dominate a few House seats and leaves the majority of seats somewhat less dominated by the party doing the gerrymandering.

Let me take an example from my state of Virginia. Back when we had 10 House seats (we now have 11), the Democrats grouped as many GOP strongholds as possible into four districts. So, even though the state at that time was probably about 50/50 on party voting for House seats, the GOP got four seats where it would get about 65 percent of the vote. Democrats often failed even to contest those races. But (do the math here) that leaves an average of about 40 percent GOP voters in the remaining six seats. 6-4 advantage to the Democrats. If it were possible to create three 70 percent GOP districts, the Democrats could have had seven districts that were only 41-42 percent GOP. 7-3 advantage for the Democrats, even though the state is split 50/50 in votes!

This is what conservatives are unwittingly proposing when they talk about conservative enclaves. Create some places where conservatives rule at the local level, thus diminishing their power at the national level and probably making them powerful in a minority of states as well.

This is Clark Coleman’s unposted e-mail from November 10 that he mentioned above.

Mr. Coleman writes:

Re: “Why a retired Army officer gave up on America,” I have been meaning to write about this subject for some time, and this entry, along with recent discussions about whites gathering in certain states and seceding, etc., serve as a convenient impetus.

Conservatives need to do some serious soul searching to understand their quitter’s mentality. For example:

1) Let’s give up on America and retreat to some collection of almost entirely white states and then prepare to secede.

2) The universities have been taken over by leftists, so let’s start building new universities from scratch (several have been founded by conservatives in recent years).

3) The globalists are going to ruin the economy, so we better just stash some money overseas in case we have to abandon ship and live in some cheaper place after the good jobs run out and social chaos ensues (I have seen this kind of discussion at immigration sites like VDare).

4) This church is getting liberal; let’s leave and start a new church.

5) American churches are hopeless, but (romanticized) Third World Christians are so genuine and authentic that some day they will be the saviours of Christendom; we can let our churches decline and die because rescue is on the way from elsewhere. (Many evangelicals seriously talk like this.)

6) The Republican Party is no good any more; let’s build a new conservative party.

Notice the asymmetry here: Our enemies don’t go build new colleges or new countries or new churches or new political parties. They try to take over the existing institutions. As soon as they have some success, we issue the cry to abandon ship and go somewhere else.

We have to recognize the futility of our defeatist approach, as well as understand why we think this way. The futility can be demonstrated by noting the expense and/or impossibility of some of the proposed flights. Secession has not happened successfully in this nation’s history, for example. I don’t think I am going to count on the federal government and the military forces under its command allowing it to happen, and I don’t think I am going to bet the future on accomplishing secession by force. Building new colleges is very expensive. They start out with no endowment, just debt, and no reputation. The nation already has too many colleges and must import foreign students to fill spots, yet we are building new ones. There is only one institution of the military, and we cannot build a parallel institution from scratch, so we have no choice but to fight to preserve it. Making a third party successful is a much bigger uphill battle than reclaiming the GOP. Abandoning a church means abandoning a building, a location, a heritage and reputation and exposure in the community, etc. Why should we constantly leave accumulated wealth to the Left in all these cases?

Understanding the impulses behind this mentality is also important, so that we can change our thinking and become political and cultural successes rather than failures. I see two explanations:

A) Conservatives feel a love for the significant institutions of their heritage. They do not see their alma mater, their church, their country as just political pawns, as the politicized Left sees everything. As a result, a deterioration in an institution or country is felt as a betrayal. The wayward institution is now perceived in the same way as a wife who ran away to work in a brothel. Rather than hunt her down and try to redeem her, you wash your hands of her and find a new wife.

B) Christians in particular are heirs to a certain bunker mentality that I call Faithful Remnant Syndrome. Our spiritual heritage has lots of persecution, the faithful remnant of Israel being protected by God while the rest of Israel is condemned, Athanasius standing alone versus the world, the church surviving in hostile nations for centuries and emerging to grow again after nations and empires pass, etc. Faithful Remnant Syndrome causes many evangelicals and fundamentalists not to care about Western Civilization per se; after all, there will always be a church, even if civilizations come and go, right? It also leads to a flee to the hills and live in a bunker mentality, rather than an attitude that this is the only country we have and we had better fight for it and preserve it.

Christians need to appreciate the relationship between Western Civilization and Christianity. Judeo-Christian morality is interweaved into the fabric of Western Civilization. Planting Christianity in Asia and Africa means, in many ways, having to fight against the cultural fabric rather than building on it. It also means that Christianity in such places is often syncretistic and heterodox, and we had better stop our noble savage Rousseauian romanticization of Third World Christianity and realize that the world needs Western Christianity to be revitalized and restored.

Rick Darby writes:

Takuan Seiyo has stated the theme and goals well, particularly in making important distinctions—for instance:

“That Jews are disproportionately represented among the chief Body Snatchers is one thing, and it calls for a rational critique and repudiation. But to falsify history, to engage in a blanket smear of an ancient people that constitutes 0.25% of the world’s population but has given the world not only Jesus but also 178 Nobel Prize winners and many of its best doctors, most illustrious artists and seminal conservative thinkers—that is evil.”

I can take aboard about 90 percent of what he has written here, and appreciate the effort and care he’s put into this plan. What bothers me?

Well, take this:

“The exodus ought to lead to a formation of communities where the still-healthy would be the dominant majority, able and willing to control who is in the City Hall, what is being taught in schools, which channels are available on the local Cable TV system, what people are allowed to wear in public, and how teenagers are to address their elders.”

I’m not going to quibble about the word “control.” In any society, some group is going to control what is taught in school and so forth. But he needs to clarify how much freedom and difference of viewpoint will be allowed under this control. There need to be limits, but where will those limits be set? A very rigidly defined traditionalist conservative blueprint for public behavior and expression of opinion would be aesthetically more pleasing than the negativity and anti-traditionalism that surrounds us now, but good behavior and uplifting artistic culture, if authentic, should arise naturally from good values rather than being imposed, insofar as possible.

“The mental exodus required to form the Antipod community is so important that membership ought to be conferred only upon interviewing candidates and having them sign letters of acceptance of the community’s principles, followed by a lengthy process of structured acclimatization.” That’s quite a sourball. Who are these paragons of virtue who will do the interviewing?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What is “structured acclimatization”? If you are pure enough to pass the interview, why do you need structured acclimatization and why should a free person submit to it? Sure, individual freedom can be expressed in ugly ways (“rap, bling, metal, grunge, disco, porno, TV entertainment, footie fandom”), but how can any genuine virtue be created except by individual choice?

The biggest issue, which Seiyo doesn’t even touch on (at least in your abridged version), is, “Where is OUR version of the ‘depopulated, backward and destitute Turkish sand patch’ on which to build the New Jerusalem?” Even the Jewish Zionists didn’t exactly found a peaceful land of milk and honey.

Where, in an overpopulated world, is an economically viable and sparsely inhabited place for the Antipods?

Maybe Seiyo would say Antipodia isn’t a geographical place but a state of mind, but that won’t do. If Antipods live in a place, or places, ruled by Pod People, then they will be subject to the laws of the Pod People. I don’t think the latter will tolerate the Antipods; if they did, an Antipod culture might not be necessary.

This geographical puzzle does my head in. Such Antipods as exist today are widely scattered and live side-by-side with the Pod People. Where are they going to create their own society?

The foregoing notwithstanding, I think Seiyo has made an important contribution to the discussion, and I thank you as well for giving it much more of an airing than it would get otherwise.

LA replies:

I also am not clear on where he sees these new communities forming. On one hand, he speaks of a world wide community (uses the Islamic word umma) of white conservatives, spread through all the continents and countries; on the other hand, he seems to be speaking of a physical exodus from the present societies to a new-old land, such as happened with the Zionist Jews leaving Europe to resettle Palestine.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I spent some time reading Seiyo’s article, thanks to your posting it and editing it a little.

While I was doing so, these thoughts came to my head:

There are many writers these days like Seiyo, non-Christians (whether they be atheists or as Seiyo himself practice another religion, or follow some spiritual path) who declare themselves defenders of the West and its traditions. Mostly such non-Christian Western advocates are atheists.

You have written many times that Christianity is a fundamental part of the West, but not an exclusive part.

But, everything in the West existed with Christianity, with men and women who were Christians. Who, I think, couldn’t foresee a world where people pronounced themselves as complete unbelievers.

How can atheists have a profound understanding and attachment to the West if they are not spiritually moved by Chartres and Chichester Cathedral? If they have no transcendental feeling of God—not some generalized transcendental feeling—in response to Handel’s Messiah, especially the Hallelujah (which is exactly how I feel when I hear it in a concert)? And even scientists like Newton who, despite his stumbling towards his Christian faith, still believed his work was a discovery of the creations of an eminent being? And the many pomps and ceremonies from crowings of Kings to wagings of wars which include formal religious elements?

What happens to the children of these atheist Westerners? Who will instill in them these feelings—let alone the stories that bring about these feelings (I really don’t think atheists will sit with their children and read a child’s version of Jesus’ parables; they always seem engaged in some intellectual, very adult conversation about “the historical value of the Bible”)?

How, if they love the past accomplishments, based on the particular Western men, and their particular religion, do they hope to build the future, without that particular ingredient, Christianity?

As I was thinking these thoughts, and about how Christianity always seems relegated to the 11th place (at least in Seiyo’s classification), I read your earlier entry on the assault on Christianity which included this comment:

But the fact remains that the West in its deepest core is not about democracy and capitalism; it’s about Christianity….

Now I didn’t become a Christian in order to become a member and defender of the West. The conversion was something that came to me. But an important practical result of that conversion was that I began to have a feel for the historic West that I had not had before.

One cannot make people into believers. But, with so many open doors and accommodations, these self-proclaimed staunch supporters of the West are actually doing the opposite. They may have great admiration for the past, but they are short-changing the future a good deal.

By the way, I think Seiyo is reading your posts. This seems to show in the context of this article although unfortunately not in its length.

Van Wijk writes:

For Mr. Coleman, secession is out and we must retake what we have lost. Does he have any ideas on how we can make this happen?

[The next two posts were sent on the 13th and are just being posted on the 15th.]

“Jan Sobieski” writes:

Body snatcher post:

The only effective defense against the pods that we have is one we are already using—the family, Church and to a much lesser extent our community. Takuan Seiyo’s suggestions, though adding to the discussion cannot and will not be adopted for the reasons already mentioned in the posts above. We will not dominate in the polls for the foreseeable future. Total societal collapse and/or civil war is the only possibility from our current unalterable trajectory.

There will be remnants who will maintain the legacy of Western Civilization and out of the ashes Western Civilization will once again arise. If the forces of Islam completely dominate eliminating all vestiges of resistance and all remnants then the world will be doomed until it collapses under the weight of Islam. Hopefully, then civilization will once again emerge.

Because of the evils of multiculturalism, relativism and nihilism, for which we have no effective anecdote, the living organism of Western Civililized Man shall die unless, in our death throes, we manage to come to our senses. The forces of multiculturalism, relativism and nihilism are so powerful that they even overwhelm our survival instinct.

Clark Coleman writes:

I think the most critical thing is to learn a hidden lesson from our defeat of the recent amnesty bills. Most conservatives think that we have won a great victory. After all, the talking heads and elites made amnesty sound like some sort of inevitability (an old leftist rhetorical trick, quite a bit overused these days). It seemed as if the leaders of BOTH parties opposed us, yet we won through faxes and emails and phone calls.

But what was the result? The status quo continues. A radical new idea was defeated, but that is not progress.

Retaking the West will only occur when conservatives deluge Congress with faxes, emails, and phone calls in support of new legislation that changes the anchor baby policy, or requires employment verification for all new hires via the E-Verify system, or removes the corporate income tax deductibility for wages paid to employees whose Social Security number and name do not match, or all of the above. If you talk to those who work in conservative organizations, they will tell you that this NEVER happens. Conservative voters are defensive reactionaries. Propose some major new harm, and they get motivated to defeat it. Then they go back into their private lives. Propose some minor new harm, and they might or might not defeat it. But undoing existing harmful policies is not on the radar screen. If this can be changed, we can save the West. If it cannot be changed, we are only controlling the pace at which the West dies.


Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2008 01:15 PM | Send
    

Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):