A country, not just an economy

In my previous post about Mark Krikorian’s article on John McCain as a multiculturalist, I failed to note this remark by Krikorian:

It’s true that McCain has taken liberal stances on other issues—greenhouse emissions, free speech, judges—and those are all bad. But they don’t strike at the coherence of the American nation [as do McCain’s stances on immigration and multiculturalism].

“The coherence of the American nation.” That is remarkable. For years Mark Krikorian studiously avoided any discussion of American culture and nationhood as it was affected by immigration. He and his organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, rigorously focused on the utilitarian aspects of immigration as related to the economy, welfare, crime, government expenditures, population, and so on. To appeal to the “coherence of the American nation” is to treat America as a concrete, organic entity to which we belong and which forms our very being as Americans. It is to step outside the abstract language of liberalism and neoconservatism and to return to a traditionalist understanding.

I would also remind readers that the domain name of this website, amnation.com, is short for American nation.

- end of initial entry -

I thought I was saying something positive about Mark Krikorian’s remark on American nationhood, that I welcomed it, since he was saying something that I obviously think is important and that I’ve been working for for years. After all, American nationhood is what I think should be at the center of our politics.

Here’s someone who see my post on Krikorian not as positive but as negative. Christopher Roach (a.k.a. mansizedtarget—see his attacks on me from the recent Rod Dreher blog discussion here.) must have changed his e-mail address in order to get past my e-mail filter.

Christopher Roach writes:

What is it with you being such a sanctimonious prig every time someone changes their mind to agree with you, viz, your latest tirade against Kirkorian. Do you want everyone to bow down and say, “You were right first, Larry. You’re a genius. If only I knew first like you did (though long after other conservatives figured it out when you were smoking weed in the 70s)”

Look you were a Liberal at Columbia in the 60s doing God Knows What to destroy this country before you dropped out and went to Canada or whatever you did. So maybe you should show a little Christian Charity once in a while. Or is everyone that hates you—and that’s pretty much everyone you’ve come in contact with in the Conservative movement (including paleoconservatives and folks as racist as you)—just wrong, and you’re right, and only you know how to behave and act. Your manners suck; it’s like they’re straight out of the Kiev Kosomol meeting by way of Brooklyn. Then again, that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Paul Nachman writes:

Looking back at what you wrote,

“That is remarkable”

.. I can see how it might be misconstrued as being snide. If you’d written it, instead,

“This is both welcome and remarkable,”

or perhaps even better,

“This is worth remarking on—and very welcome!”,

then I doubt there would have been such a reaction.

LA replies:

Paul Nachman, who is eminently a rational person, is assuming that Christopher Roach is rational. While that is hardly the case (as Roach’s linked comments above attest), let’s say for the sake of argument that in this case his comments to me were rational, and that because I wrote about Krikorian’s article, “That is remarkable,” instead of, “This is worth remarking on—and very welcome!”, I somehow brought on Roach’s attack on me, meaning that in some sense Roach’s attack on me was deserved. I would ask Mr. Nachman to consider how tentative and cautious I would become in everything I say if I had to second-guess myself to that degree.

Ironically, even as I’m being told that I brought on an attack on myself which I could have avoided if I had changed my wording slightly, another commenter, Jeff in England, is chastizing me (in a friendly way) for being too self-doubting. I just posted a comment of his in another thread:

From: Jeff in England
Subject: EITHER YOU’RE TOO SENSITIVE OR ELSE YOU’RE GETTING SOFT

What’s going on with you? Your criticisms of both Spencer himself and Katya were spot on. They will benefit from those criticisms (the criticisms of their positions) if they don’t take them “personally.”

Your last comments in particular come across almost as if you are apologising for your views. Tone is half the game.

I know a lot of people have attacked you recently but being hesitant and apologetic sounding in your writing is a big turn off. Reminds me of Richard Pryor, my fave comedian, after he stopped using the term “nigger.” He became a lot less funny.

Let Auster be Auster.

So, if I congratulate Mark Krikorian for affirming American nationhood, I’m told I’m glorifying myself and putting down Krikorian. If I argue directly and clearly on the subject of Darwinian evolution, I’m told I’m “mindlessly abusing” and “furiously browbeating” other people. If I make extra efforts to assure a commenter that I meant no offense, I’m told I’m losing my edge and becoming soft. Of course, one should listen to well-intended advice. But if I had followed what other people have told me to do over the years, I never would have written anything that I’ve written.

Another point. I don’t think that I try to make VFR be about me. I try to make it be about the things that I and VFR readers care about. But other people, e.g. Ian Jobling and mansizedtarget, often get riled up about me personally, and then that becomes the issue.

LA continues:

I just want to say this. American nationhood, the belief in America as an actual people and not just a collection of procedures, ideas, and values, is the single concern, politically and culturally, that is closest to my heart, what I think is the most important thing politically, and it is the loss of it that I see as the main cause of our undoing. So naturally, when I see people affirm American nationhood I get excited about that and I praise it.

But, according to Christopher Roach, if I simply praise the thing I care most about, I am only glorifying myself and putting down others. Which comes down to saying that for me to care about what I care about, for me to be what am, makes me a vile, hateful, sanctimonious egomaniac, which is the way he describes me. Objectively, then, we can say that Roach hates me for what I am. And when we combine that with his lurid fantasy about my supposed roots among Jewish Communists in Brooklyn (!!!), we get a clearer sense of the precise nature of that bigotry.

Terry Morris writes:

I’m still trying to figure out what “tirade” of yours Roach is talking about. I see Roach’s two paragraph tirade against you, but where in this entry is contained your tirade against Krikorian?

LA replies:

Keep trying to figure it out!

You’re seeing an expression of pure hatred and projection. That’s why I posted it. It’s instructive. I mean, I’m the guinea pig, which is not fun, but there’s a lesson for everyone here.

Terry Morris replies:

Well, what you stated about Krikorian, from a traditionalist conservative perspective, sounds very flattering to me. I don’t get the whole “tirade” thing at all. I mean, it’s not like you were attacking Krikorian’s character for not speaking the truth about immigration in the past, calling him a liberal multicultist coward or whatever.

I can only conclude that you’re right in your assessment of Mr. Roach. He simply has a deep irrational hatred of you for whatever reason. But I was shocked when I read his comments, thinking I must have missed something in the original entry.

Jeff in England writes:

I suspect many e-mags “on the intelligent fringe” attract these sort of people. My friend’s e-mag is often sent letters by similar sort of idiots posing as “rational” critics. They are probably substituting strong editor figures (you, my friend) for their own parents and the hatred which they are targeting you with is probably meant for them (parents). Or something along those Freudian lines.

Certain people use strong authority figures (or even weak ones such as George Bush) as focal points for their own screwed up psychological (masking as political) agendas. As the taboos against disrespecting authority have fallen by the wayside, we too often see nasty personal attacks on people such as yourself and my friend. I doubt these nasty personal attacks on political magazine editors happened let’s say 50 years ago. Plus of course the Net offers a type of anonymity.

The scary thing was the likes of Rod Dreher, supposedly a greeny nice conservative, allowing this guy to comment at his site. Greeny nice types under the surface can be very aggressive and even nasty people. I know this from personal experience. NEVER TRUST A GREEN, or at least NEVER TRUST a GREEN’S subconscious. I’m not kidding. There is often a lot of resentment and hatred there.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 24, 2008 03:27 PM | Send