Keith Windschuttle versus Alexander the Great

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 04 December 2004 11:19.

Keith Windschuttle is at it again. Not content to be merely the bad boy of Australian frontier history, this time he is going to earn the ire of Australia’s multiculturalists by defending the legacy of the White Australia Policy (WAP).

Speaking of immigration restrictions, I have found the work of two US libertarian theorists Hans Herman Hoppe (see here and here) and Murray Rothbard (see here) quite illuminating here, even if their libertarian theory seems a bit pie-in-the-sky at the moment. Still it does provide some useful thought experiments.

It seems to me that the rival ideas here reflect essentially two views of human nature and political community. On one side are the ‘universalists’ who acknowledge no legitimate human political entity other than the individual or ‘humanity’ and on the other side are the ‘tribalists’ who see as innate the human desire to club together into distinct (but usually dynamically evolving) intermediate associations. Some tribalists may praise these associations (“tribal idealists”) others merely warn that they are ignored at one’s peril (“tribal realists”).

The modern multiculturalists are members of the first camp, the universalists, they imagine that the democratic state (at least with them at the wheel) can rise above petty tribalism and rule wisely without fear or favour, thus bringing all tribes into harmony. Maybe the first advocate of this idea was Alexander the Great, or at least Aristotle. Despite this impressive beginning, that tag team duo still failed to escape from tribalism and instead pushed helenism uber alles. The link between universalism and imperialism is an idea to be put aside for later discussion.

These universalist pretensions may also account for current day multiculturalists, themselves predominantly white anglos, hostility to their own ethnic group. In order to beef up their universalist credentials they need to downplay their own roots, otherwise their dissimilar subjects may accuse them of bias. Paul Gottfried smells a rat. He argues that multiculturalism suits the interests of the modern managerial state to a tee and that the sectional class interests of the state managers are really behind all this. (See here and here). He labels them a multicultural theocracy.

In contrast WAP supporters, tribalists, see the Australian state as belonging to the ‘Australian’ people. Where the first seek universal rules where the second see the Commonwealth of Australia as an extended club designed for the benefit of it’s members. This split can be seen in the current vogue for ‘human rights’ versus the rights of Englishmen.

The history of marxism, especially the collapse of the First Internationale, shows that that doctrine, originally universalist/humanity-ist collapsed when exposed to the tidal force of tribal realism and failed ever to reconstitute itself, despite the overeducated blindness of Oxford dons in lauding Stalin.

All told my skepticism of the universalist project should be obvious. It would seem to me that blind freddy could see that a monocultural or monolingual society would have lower risk of internal conflict than a more diverse society, even if the restaurant choices are better in the latter. This is a simple common sense observation. Logically Australia’s long period of relative political stability to a certain extent rests on the back of nearly a hundred years of WAP. Indeed the relative success of our 25 year experiment in multiculturalism itself also rests on the legacy of the preceeding 100 years of WAP. Whether our current experiment in multiculturalism will still be considered a success 75 years from now is the moot point.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:15 | #

Tim:

I’ve read Windschuttle’s “The Killing of History” a great book.

Universalism has become a mighty weapon in the hands of the multiculturalists. They are using it to dismantle the truth.

Tim, a question for you. Despite all the “sound and fury” of the universalists I see tribalism re-asserting itself, Los Angeles, CA being one example.
Do you agree?

So many minds are captive to this idea. Enjoyed your post.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:20 | #

“It seems to me that the rival ideas here reflect essentially two views of human nature and political community. On one side are the ‘universalists’ who acknowledge no legitimate human political entity other than the individual or ‘humanity’ and on the other side are the ‘tribalists’ who see as innate the human desire to club together into distinct (but usually dynamically evolving) intermediate associations.” (—from the log entry)

As everyone knows, there are also the tribalists cloaked in universalist clothing who don’t believe in universalism for an instant but push it on rival tribes solely as a weapon meant to harm and, if possible, destroy them. In the States the most glaring example of this, as everyone also knows (but is too polite to point out), is Zionist Jewish tribalists such as David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol denouncing opponents of race-replacement immigration into the U.S. as ... (you’ll never guess this ...) ... yes, folks—as tribalists. [eruption of canned audience laughter ...] Another glaring example is Mexican activists in the States who resort to universalist language (what else! ...) when loudly denouncing white-Euro critics of race-replacement immigration but are actually Mexican tribalists working to advance Mexican tribal interests.

Thus does a portion of today’s apparent universalism point to precisely the reverse: the existence and strength of tribalism. (And of course there’s the opposite: universalists cloaked in tribalist clothing—the Bushes, père and fils, for example, whenever they’re running for election ...)

“It would seem to me that blind freddy could see that a monocultural or monolingual society would have lower risk of internal conflict than a more diverse society, even if the restaurant choices are better in the latter.”

True, but not central to the fundamental issue of people having the right not to suffer the racial and ethno-cultural erasure of the communities and nations they are part of by means of race-replacement immigration which no one wants but detached, alienated, unaccountable overlords impose out of crass motives of (falsely-perceived) personal and class self-interest. Even if there were more internal conflict in societies that retain their traditional racial and ethno-cultural identities people would still have the right to preserve their communities’ and nations’ races and ethno-cultures intact if they wanted (none in history have ever not wanted). We don’t need theoretical justifications for opposing forced race-replacement of communities and nations: it’s enough if we merely prefer not to be forced to change into the the way others look and act, or if we just happen to like the feeling of really being descended from our nation’s ancestors. Reasons beyond such as those are just icing on the cake: no further reasons are needed. Why doesn’t this amount to what liberals mean by the word “racist”? Because the principle applies to all races, communities, nations, and ethno-cultures.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:31 | #

I’ll be interested to see what’s really argued in the book when it’s released. I’d guess, though, that it will be a kind of right liberal argument, rather than a traditionalist one.

In other words, it will say Australia really wasn’t such a bad, racist place that we must look upon negatively, because the White Australia Policy wasn’t really about race, but was about protecting the living conditions of the working class.

Although it’s courageous to even make this argument in Australia’s intellectual climate, it’s not the same as arguing that it’s a positive thing to preserve the established ethnic identity of the majority of the population, by immigration restriction if need be.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:51 | #

By the way, there are tribes and at bottom that’s all there are: tribes. If things were otherwise there wouldn’t be multiculturalism, itself merely a tactic launched by tribes to deal with rival tribes, a tactic which certain short-sighted detached élites belonging to the target tribe latch onto as a means of increasing their own wealth and power in the short term.

Far from being something primitive, tribes and belonging to tribes are advanced, sophisticated things.

Tribes aren’t about to go away. What all this is about nowadays is fighting among tribes, and leftists and universalists will change nothing in that regard. What will emerge from all the fighting and jockying for position will be victorious tribes.

Universalist blogger Jason Soon not long ago called for as much immigration as possible from Asia into Western countries (meaning mainly the Anglosphere, I think) in order to Westernize the Asians or something harebrained like that. (If they want to get “Westernized,” by the way, let them stay home and simply read the Bible, Voltaire, and the U.S. Constitution or something.) Does anyone actually believe he’d support the principle of race-replacement immigration of that nature if it threatened the continued existence of the Chinese race and nation? Gee ... sorry, but ... somehow I sorta doubt it ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:57 | #

Mark Richardson’s comment above, by the way, was an excellent one.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:21 | #

Tribalism masked as Universalim. Sure, I can buy that!

Posted by jimjimjim on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 02:40 | #

Does anyone actually believe he’d support the principle of race-replacement immigration of that nature if it threatened the continued existence of the Chinese race and nation? Gee ... sorry, but ... somehow I sorta doubt it ...

I’m not sure he wouldn’t.
Mr Soon always struck me as sincere in his universalist lunacy. Is there anything you can point me to that might suggest otherwise, or do you believe that non-white racial nihilists are necessarily less sincere in their beliefs than their White counterparts?

“And frankly I don’t *want* China to succeed, I hope liberal democratic India kicks authoritarian neo Confucian China’s ass. The best thing that can happen to the world is for China to break up into various regions by spontaneous uprisings against Beijing “

Posted by: Jason Soon at August 3, 2003 02:46 PM

I find it difficult to believe that this kind of hostility is feigned.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:17 | #

What an interesting category of persons:

non-white racial nihilists are necessarily less sincere in their beliefs than their White counterparts?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:35 | #

“Is there anything you can point me to that might suggest otherwise, ...” (—Jim)

No, but the fact that the Chinese race and nation are not threatened with actual race-replacement as every Western and Central European country and North America now are certainly renders meaningless whatever indifference someone like him may affect toward the idea of this becoming China’s fate as well. “Talk is cheap,” as they say.

“The best thing that can happen to the world is for China to break up into various regions by spontaneous uprisings against Beijing.” (—from Jim’s post, quoting Jason)

I don’t know if the breakup of China into its constituent nationalities would be best for “the world” but it certainly would be best for the U.S., Europe, and the Anglosphere, because unless China is somehow broken up it will be an extremely formidable power now that it’s thrown off Karl Marx’s really brilliant invention of Marxism. If we can throw off George Bush’s really brilliant invention of changing the U.S. from a ninety-percent white-Euro country to a ninety-percent Afro-Asian-Mexican one, what we need to be doing right now is fomenting rebellions by China’s regions and nationalities against Peking. If we can’t get the Bush-Rove immigration yoke off our necks it’s curtains anyway, so makes no difference.

Posted by Matt on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 07:11 | #

Only Nixon would want to go to China?

Posted by Tim on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:19 | #

Geoff asked me to comment on the situation in California. I can’t really, it has been some years since I was there.

My main comment on current immigration policies, and most western nations seem to follow the same line here, is that there does seem to be a wide gap between the attitudes of the general public as revealed by the polls and actual public policy.

I outlined some of the numbers on my blog at the following link.
http://personalindependenceday.blogspot.com/2004/07/xenophobic-or-normal.html

I read this popular opposition to large scale immigration, especially when it is seen as a form of social-revolution-from-above, not so much as xenophobia (although there is an element of this), but a fairly typical behaviour when risks are imposed.

People who are willing to run all sorts of risks in everyday life, get very negative when risks are imposed on them from a remote authority. Even a benign remote authority.

I will quote myself:

“Risk perception research shows that imposed risks are often exaggerated in the public mind. This is why people happily smoke or jaywalk, and generally under-estimate the associated risks, but get quite concerned with (and exaggerate) the trivial risks associated with atomic power or GM soybeans. Despite the best efforts of experts and industry to dispel the myths, the skeptical public remains as stubborn as ever. So our ‘expert’ multiculturalists seem about as believable as a nuclear engineer at a Greenpeace rally!”

The unwillingness of the power elites to admit popular concerns here is what creates the window of opportunity for groups like Pauline Hanson‘s One Nation movement in Australia and similar populist outbreaks elsewhere. The elite response to these outbreaks has been to turn up the propaganda volume rather than admit any kind of popular legitimacy. This is really just sweeping the problem under the carpet.

If the public had more say over immigration policies, they may soften their attitudes. The powers that be are unwilling to take the risk.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 11:44 | #

Tim,

I think the political elite understands already that public opinion will harden as the “risks” become concrete fact. In terms of race replacement - at least a 100 year process, btw - there is a foot race on right now. It’s between the very gradual but still real awakening of a declining white majority and the numerical advance of the majority of the future.

This blog seeks a stable political resolution favouring the survival and security of European peoples everywhere. If we don’t find one there will come a point of racial balkanisation and conflict, and that’s when the chips will really be down for European Man. There is a grave risk that the “light” or “English” model of political resolution will be replaced by the “heavy” or “German” model of military resolution, with all the moral dangers that entails.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 16:30 | #

Tim’s original post dealt with the abstractions of multiculturalism, universalism, and tribalism. Quickly these were reduced into the concrete reality of immigration.

Disagreeing, perhaps, with G’worker: the majority of our elites are doctrinaire multiculturalists, lusting for more immigration; a small minority of elites actually relish the demise of European man and welcome our extinction. The people that think this way run our military, universities, and government, they are in power.

G’worker is right to advocate a light, or English model: managing an orderly immigration system. This is impossible given the situation described above.

To even suggest reducting immigration means asking uncomfortable questions. Multiculturalists aren’t interested in the truth - they are ideologues. They want to remake man and create a utopia - they will not part with their religion voluntarily.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:02 | #

The real powers you are fighting in this war of “multiculturalism,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “anti-racism,” and excessive incompatible immigration are not universalists but tribalists of one sort or another. When the fighting is over and the dust settled you’ll see them emerge as if from the mist.

“not so much as xenophobia” (—Tim, 12/5, 8:19 AM)

What’s the name for those who don’t wish to be xenophobic, who have a horror of xenophobia, who teach their kids not to be xenophobic, yet who also don’t want the race and ethno-culture of their own communities and nations literally, no joke, no exaggeration, but literally, lock, stock, and barrel, changed into another race and ethno-culture by means of imposed-from-above massive, overwhelmingly excessive immigration of a racially, ethno-culturally incompatible variety? Is there some name for those folk?

Are folk who want to avoid that fate—the actual, no-joking-around disappearance of the racial and ethno-cultural identities of their own communities and nations—being “xenophobic”?

I thought “xenphobic” meant being mean or unjust toward someone different from you who was sojourning or dwelling amongst your kind. Every sane, decent person on earth opposes that. No one supports that. If, however, it really means opposing the annihilation of your kind, it takes on a whole new meaning, one perhaps without the negative connotations we’d all been brought up to associate with it.

Does the word “xenophobic” even have a proper place in the immigration conversation at present? Or have things gone way beyond that now?

Richard Poe used to criticize what he called “the Race-First” faction among critics of (what I view as) the current reality of outright race-replacement immigration. He didn’t explain, however, what the middle ground was supposed to be. No one wants to put race first. We all want to put humanity toward our fellow man first, and things like religion first, and race somewhere further down the list. The problem is, while we wanted to relegate race to that lower status, others who did not wish us well saw our race as being of primary importance—as being “first”—and chose to attack us precisely there, in our race, leaving us no choice but to defend ourselves there, in our race.

How may someone put race second, not first, yet still not acquiesce in his own race’s destruction by means of excessive incompatible immigration? I suspect at bottom Poe’s stance implied either that biological race didn’t exist or that it had no particular importance to anything—essentially the position of the race-deniers. (By the way, can anyone imagine race-denial being made a criminal offense as Holocaust-denial has in many countries? Just thought I’d throw that out there—think about it.)

“Tim’s original post dealt with the abstractions of multiculturalism, universalism, and tribalism. Quickly these were reduced into the concrete reality of immigration.” (—Geoff Beck, 12/5, 3:30 PM)

All the abstractions named, together with all legitimate biological questions surrounding race, ethno-culture, community, and nationhood should have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction before massive race-replacement through excessive incompatible immigration was undertaken. They weren’t but race-replacement was undertaken anyway by, let there be no mistake, white-Euro-Christendom’s enemies in alliance with white-Euro-Christendom’s weak-minded and white-Euro-Christendom’s greedy. The task now lying before white-Euro-Christendom is to throw race-replacement off, utterly repulsing the race-replacement attack, throw race-replacement’s supporters like Bush, Blair, and Blunkett out, and into the trash bin of history where they belong, and redress the damage already done by means of humane repatriations that respect everyone’s human dignity but also restore the racial, ethno-cultural status quo ante.

Posted by Phil on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:22 | #

It would be silly for us to read anything into that comment. As Fred correctly notes, the Chinese are under ZERO threat from anyone from a Tribal perspective and the kind of scenario that Soon visualises is unlikely to ever materialise. India kicking China’s arse - yeah! I wouldnt hold my breath. See here:

http://www.exile.ru/2002-May-29/war_nerd.html

Its great stuff for people like Soon to engage in Universalism. There is tribalism involved in it. He’s a non-white in a white country. Universalism serves his interest. And he has zero control over any policy in China so it doesn’t matter. But what it does is give him the opportunity to lecture Europeans/Australians/White Americans or whoever on their evil racism.

In my personal experience the Chinese have come across as fairly racist people. Probably not as racist as the Japanese but its not too far off (Not that I think there’s anything fundamnetally wrong with being attached to your own kind).

Posted by tim on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:40 | #

I have had a chance to skim through Windschuttle’s WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY book. Much of the best material is in side arguments.

Here is a taste.

Windschuttle has a chapter on “Social Darwinism” in Australia in the 19th entury. He shows how it was really a minority intellectual phenomenon (of course!) but that it was the “collectivist” social darwinists, (eg Karl Pearson in the UK), often members of local socialist parties who were the main advicates of eugenics etc.

Windschuttle says these later day rationalist socialists were keen on eugenics / scientific racialism etc as they wanted to be ‘scientific’ and distance themselves from the ‘christian’ socialists. The racialist eugenic link was very much a ‘left / socialist’ agenda. It had little traction with the mainstream community or the generally liberal (JS Mill liberalism) political establishment in Australia. These mainstream forces regarded it with worthy suspicion.

That modern leftists would wish to hide and or distort their historical connection to proto-Nazi ideology is of course entirely self serving, and needs to be known by more people. (We are rightfully reminded never to forget the horrors of nazism as it may reoccur, but they don’t want to remember where nazism came from!)

I think Windschuttle’s discussion here would benefit from an examination of Herbert Spencer’s worldwiew in more detail. Spencer is usually condemned as a social darwinist [he was] and then hung by association with all the other Social Darwinists. This is unfair as Spencer was both a classic liberal and a Social Darwinist. He was a liberal before he was a Social Darwinist and the adoption of Darrwinism , if anything, softened his formerly radical liberal position. When the two came into conflict, he went with liberalism. So he opposed colonialism, imperialism, government enforced eugenic law etc. Yet these are the crimes the critics of Social Darwinism want to hang him for.

In contrast, the early fabian socialists, including Sidney and Beatrice Webb, H G Wells and Bertrand Russell, were enthusiasts for all these causes. Yet they are treated with kid gloves by their academic descendants.

Posted by Tim on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:57 | #

For some links on Bertrand Russell’s Strangelovian ideas, see here this post care of DISSECTING LEFTISM.