RIGHT-WING FRENCH politician Marine Le Pen opines: There is no more Left or Right. There are only Globalists or Nationalists.
I think she is right, no pun intended. But those labels are another, fresher way, of saying Left and Right.
The key issue is multiculturalism, the diversity thing. It you favor it, you’re on the Left, a Globalist. If you oppose it, as I do, you’re on the Right, a Nationalist.
Multiculturalism has been the rage in elitist, left-wing circles for decades, and its heavy hand inspired the backlash that has Donald Trump heading to the Oval Office. Perhaps he can knock a little sense into our heads.
Multiculturalism was seeded in the 1960s, a hippie thing. It’s Utopian, idealistic, lovely to imagine, dreamy-eyed, and totally unworkable. Like socialism-communism.
It birthed the curse of Political Correctness.
In the real world, people embrace their differences, their individuality, with a vengeance. We love what separates us, what makes us think we’re better than others.
Obama’s a Globalist. Trump’s a Nationalist. The next eight years will be fun as Globalists collide with reality.
(For a long spell, since turning my politics rightward about a decade ago, I have been a bit perplexed by my aversion to some elements of traditional conservatism.
(This column clears it up for me. It was written by two young men, Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described “dangerous faggot,” and Allum Bokhari, a Breitbart correspondent who lives in London. Yiannopoulos is also British-born.
(You may have heard of the Alt-Right, the alternative right. There are two versions of the Alt-Right, the extreme and the moderate. The latter makes sense to me. The former does not. Fortunately, the moderate wing is far more populated.
(I am pleased to come out as a “natural conservative” and, it appears, a moderate Alt-Righter.)
* * * *
NATURAL CONSERVATIVES are mostly white, mostly male, middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.
In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe.
Noted social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.
The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism.
Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity.
They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.
An establishment Republican, with their overriding belief in the glory of the free market, might be moved to tear down a cathedral and replace it with a strip mall if it made economic sense. Such an act would horrify a natural conservative.
Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.
For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.
Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the Alt-Right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.
Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the United States.
These attempts to scrub Western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the Alt-Right, who in addition to the preservation of Western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.
This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of Western history and literature curricula.
An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behavior as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.
In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the Alt-Right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t.
Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for president since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
The rise of Donald Trump suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
Alt-Righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving Western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”
Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the Alt-Right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.
The Alt-Right do not hold a Utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritize the interests of their tribe, they recognize that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – do the same.
As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.
You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in Alt-Right online communities: that’s because many instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows.
In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “Kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.
The Alt-Right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.
The Alt-Right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.
A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to Alt-Righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
Some Alt-Righters make a more subtle argument.
They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.
Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the Alt-Right.
It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades.
Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad.
In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.
For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting.
Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment.
Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.
There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the Alt-Right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash.
National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”
Although the Alt-Right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathizes with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the Alt-Right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.
In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.
It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.
For decades, the concerns of those who cherish Western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist.
The Alt-Right is the inevitable result.
No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the Alt-Right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere.
As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.
In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either.
You see it in the growing strife across the United States. The Trump-Hillary conflict is at heart a conflict between multiculturalists and nationalists.
The antonym of multiculturalist is nationalist.
As Europe is bludgeoned into multiculturalism by screwball governments, you see growing strife there too.
People of different religions, beliefs, languages and race do not sit comfortably in the living rooms of their opposites. In a perfect world, they would sit there comfortably, sharing tea, crumpets and conversation, but that world doesn’t exist.
Borders have always existed.
Tearing them down is a fool’s endeavor.
The Iliad Institute, formed after the suicide of a French nationalist named Dominique Venner, made the above video, which celebrates the distinctive history of Europe.
It’s a mindset that America should encourage.
Mexico does not celebrate multiculturalism. We celebrate Mexicanism. We are nationalist. That’s good.
Hillary is a demonstrable crook, yet to be tried and convicted. Weepy Barry goes to a memorial for those cops killed in Dallas to push unconstitutional gun control and scoot along the edge of actually blaming police for the officers’ murders.
He’s a class act and Peace Prize winner!
While Hillary is the likely Democrat candidate for president, over on the opposite end we have the combed-over egomaniac whom I support due to his being the only other option.*
The United States continues to ignore my sage advice that promoting diversity invariably leads to bad stuff.
But don’t think that black folks are all dimwits because they certainly are not. Too many of them are, and so are a lot of whites who live in places like New York, Wisconsin, Oregon, California and San Miguel de Allende.
I invariably voted Democrat during Reagan’s times, and I wasn’t a fan of his due to being duped by the left-wing news media of which I was a card-carrying member. Oh, the shame!
But the dawn of the 21st century, my move to Mexico and my higher tortilla intake caused my intelligence quotient to soar, and Reagan now makes perfect sense.
This is one of those countless things from the past that seem so relevant today. The speech was delivered during Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. Reagan was simply stumping for Goldwater, but this speech put Reagan on the path that led to his own win of the presidency in 1980.
It is a famous speech with reason.
One wonders what Reagan would make of the tragic societal disintegration occurring in the United States as a result of political correctness and the glorifying of multiculturalism and its resulting and increasing bloodshed.
The Soviet Union did not threaten the United States half as much as “Black Lives Matter,” Weepy Barry and — on the horizon but creeping closer — savage Mohammedans who are endlessly discounted by America’s ruling class.
* * * *
(Note: There is a White House petition under way to formally name “Black Lives Matter” as a terrorist organization. Go sign right here.)
(The adulation of “diversity” and multiculturalism is a given in high-end Western society. Schools, corporations, clubs, you name it, all bow daily to the Goddess of Diversity. This Goddess also goes by the name of Multiculturalism.
(For years I have pointed out that multiculturalism is a problem to be confronted in the kindest way possible. It is not something to be pushed and promoted. A multicultural society is a troubled, often violent, society. This is patently obvious today in the United States and Western Europe.
(In spite of my frequent mentions of this, I don’t recall even one person passing by here who touched on the subject negatively or positively. It is a no-go zone enforced by fear. To question the glories of multiculturalism is to risk banishment from polite society and your gainful employment too.
(A recent example was Diversity’s Paradox. There were 27 comments and not one soul touched on the topic at hand in spite of my mentioning that no one was addressing the topic.
(The mailed fist of the Left enforces this stance with the same ferocity that Adolf Hitler compelled hatred of Jews.
(No matter. It is nonsense. Here is a guest post by Walter E. Williams, who is black so he gets a small, temporary, pass from Polite Society for his horrendous opinions.)
* * * *
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has “utterly failed,” adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could “live happily side by side.”
The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.
Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.
That’s unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value?
Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan.
In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed.
In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?
The vital achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, which saw its birth with the Magna Carta in 1215. The idea emerged that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Individuals do not exist to serve government; governments exist to protect their rights.
But it was not until the 19th century that ideas of liberty received broad recognition. In the West, it was mostly through the works of British philosophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
Personal liberty implies toleration of differences among people, whether those differences are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Liberty also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways.
This is not the vision of the new immigrants.
In some parts of Britain, Christians are threatened with violence for merely handing out Bibles. Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is seen as a hate crime. Women are accosted by Muslim men for “improper” dress.
Many women are sexually assaulted. In many European countries, no-go zones where civil authorities will not enter, in which Sharia is practiced, have been established.
According to the Express, “London, Paris, Stockholm and Berlin are among the major European cities that feature on a bombshell list of 900 lawless zones with large immigrant populations.”
Both in Europe and in the U.S., multiculturalism is a leftist elitist vision with its roots in academia. The intellectual elite, courts and government agencies push an agenda that is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a live-and-let-live philosophy.
Instead, multiculturalism/diversity is an agenda for all kinds of conformity — conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what’s politically correct thinking.
Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another and all cultures and their values are morally equivalent.
Western values are superior to all others. But one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values.
By the way, it is no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person.
There’s an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living.
There is also indisputable evidence that we in the West are unwilling to defend ourselves from barbarians. Just look at our response to the recent Orlando massacre, in which we’ve focused our energies on guns rather than on terrorists.
* * * *
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
HAVING HAD IT up to here with little Pakistans and Syrias in their cities, the Brits have chosen to wrest control of their borders from the knuckleheads in Brussels.
This leads me to address the basic paradox of multiculturalism, specifically promoting multiculturalism.
Since the dawn of history we have lived in a fascinating multicultural world where nations, societies, whatever, have existed fairly intact behind borders — borders defended with stones, knives, pistols, moats and boiling oil.
You often could visit these other cultures to experience multiculturalism, but you needed permission first. This age-old system guaranteed diversity of cultures.
Flash forward to the last half century.
Left-wingers, old Flower Children, their kids and grandkids, have taken it upon themselves to promote multiculturalism! As if it were something new.
The road to multiculturalism, they say, is to dismantle borders so everyone can mix it up. This will not lead to more multiculturalism but to less. It is foggy thinking.
Of course, we would, in time, have a uniculture as the separate cultures lost their bearings and fused into one.
But there is a second path, one often taken. When separate cultures inhabit the same space, they clash. This is happening in the United States and in the European Union.
This is human nature that no Kumbaya will ever cancel.
This is also why borders are a good thing if you want to promote multiculturalism — and avoid bloodshed.
* * * *
A notable exception to the uniculture trend are Mohammedans. They do not want to assimilate. They do not want to be like you. They want you to be like them — or die.
This is a powerful argument for well-armed borders.