A reasoned reply to Ronald Bailey

I received a mail this morning from one Frienderick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey.  Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science.  But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.

It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history.  Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos).  Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion.  But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel.  One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.

Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance.  It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant.  Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race.  In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.

I have responded to Frienderick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument.  Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know.  But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.

I doubt it somehow.

My reply is reproduced below the fold.

I am English, but the dispossession and dissolution of my English people is occurring at about the same pace as that of white Americans. The same is happening from Sweden to Spain, and throughout the West. It is deeply troubling to any sane European. It is a race-replacement process, and in the historical sweep is as final as any genocide (indeed it meets the definition of the Convention).

Mr Bailey’s claim that concern for our peoples and our race is “silly” or “historically outworn” is anti-Natural and anti-moral - and, of course, completely inadequate to the gravity of the subject.

I do not castigate him for this, because the struggle against the European struggle for existence has become the very meaning of liberalism, and, plainly, most folks are caught up in it. But the struggle for existence is the only human right guaranteed in Nature (all others are contingent). Expressed as self-defence from colonisation it is morally unimpeachable. There is no counter-veiling moral right to remove the right to self-defence ... to call it “racism” or “hate” ... to shout it down and pathologise it.

Ah yes, the liberal will reply, but the category “European” does not exist as an absolute and definable entity. It has fuzzy edges. Its relatedness is not only to itself. Etcetera. But this line of argument is easily overcome by the universality of the struggle for existence.

From an evolutionary perspective, the right to [struggle for] life is the right to struggle for genetic continuity. Obviously, genetic continuity for Homo sapiens implies the transmission of genes distinctive to us as a species, in addition to the genetic material we share with other primates, mammals, vertibrates and living organisms. But distinctive genes (and distinctive genetic structure) also exist at the intra-human level, and these, too, are important to genetic continuity since they are the carriers of fitness to environment - without which there could be no evolution and no life beyond the simplest cell.

Distinctive genes (and structure) are the cutting edge of evolution and the key to Nature’s subsistent function. They do not belong to us individually, but ethnically. It is the ethnic group, therefore, which possesses - in full - this Nature-given right to (struggle for) life. That struggle is conducted both at the level of selection and as the struggle for the land and resources which guarantee survival. But, of course, there is no right to succeed. An ethnic group which loses its territory loses control over its own security of existence.

Applying this universal principle ethically, since all groups have the right to struggle for life, they have that right in full because between life and death there is no stable middle-ground. Existing as an English people, for example, in an endlessly globalising England is not life for the English, but a dying-process. One must be clear about that, or the life of which we speak will have no meaning, and one will be saying the opposite to that one thinks one is saying.

Further, the rights which support the right to struggle for life must, in turn, obtain. A right to life cannot be upheld without recourse to the rights of consent and of self-defence. Then, the rights to those things which directly support life itself must be granted. For example, let us suppose that you granted a people the right to life but not living space, water or food resources. You would be acting disingenuously (and genocidally). You must grant everything together or the right to life is not extant.

There is no rejoinder in liberalism to the ethic of life. Mr Bailey’s constructed denial, founded in the fuzziness at the edges of white America, argues for its immersion in the bottomless seas of the Third World and, therefore, for its extinction. Well, white America exists. White Americans know they are not Mexican. White Americans have a natural right to choose life for their race, and to be deeply concerned both by the present demographic trend and by Mr Bailey’s ethno-masochistic and mistaken carelessness for that life.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 07:42 AM in Immigration,  Liberalism & the Left,  Thread Wars
Comments (3) | Tell a friend

Comments: