Saturday, 8 July 2017

Trump: Does the West have the will to survive? Answer: This question is racist.


Reading liberal journalists fulminating about Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw in defence of Western civilisation makes it clear how important it was and that, for all his grave faults, he has the makings of a good, even very good, President. 

If he continues to listen to Steve Bannon rather than Ivanka or the Republican establishment.

Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, was very cross indeed. He asserted:

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white.
Trump’s speech, he thinks, was racist, because some Europeans are Muslim, and the term West excludes countries like India and Japan.
India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.
Charles Cooke commented on this article:
Trump finally makes a full-throated defense of NATO—is that code for “white people” too?—and this is the response? We’ve lost our minds.
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post:
The speech Trump delivered Thursday in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square might have been appropriate when Britannia ruled the waves and Europe’s great powers held dominion over “lesser” peoples around the globe.

It had nothing useful to say about today’s interconnected world in which goods, people and ideas have contempt for borders.
In fact, of course, you can easily have free trade without mass immigration. Great Britain had one without the other for a hundred years after 1846. But mass immigration is now a good in itself for the Left. Nations and national borders are deeply suspect. 

This is an excerpt from an article by Canadian Jeet Heer in The New Republic:
Trump’s alt-right speech in Poland redefined the West in nativist terms, eschewing democratic idealism in favor of “blood and soil” nationalism.In his address Thursday in Warsaw, Donald Trump returned to the stark, polarizing rhetoric of his campaign speeches and inaugural address, portraying America and its culturally similar allies as under siege by subversive forces both within and without. … “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” he said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders?” …
Later, he evoked Poland’s wartime resistance to Nazism and Soviet communism. … 
Such rhetoric is meant to conjure blood-and-soil nationalism. Here, Trump is defining the West not based on ideals like democracy and liberty, but atavistic loyalties to territory and shared kinship.

Steve Sailer quoted that extract in his blog and made this rather wonderful comment.

You know, when you stop and think about it, in his lack of deference toward Poland’s “territory” — lines on a map that were supposedly justified by Poles’ atavistic loyalties to territory and shared kinship — the man who was really kind of ahead of his time was Hitler. 
I mean, from the perspective of the Current Year, who were the real Nazis on September 1, 1939? Those who wanted Europe united under the leadership of a forward-thinking German Chancellor? Or those bigoted xenophobic Borats who wanted to be left alone in their own country? 
Sure, he did some bad things, but, unlike Trump, at least Hitler didn’t respect Polish borders.

Sarah Wildman in Vox in an article headlined Trump’s speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto

This morning in Warsaw, Poland, President Donald Trump issued a battle cry — for “family, for freedom, for country, and for God” — in a speech that often resorted to rhetorical conceits typically used by the European and American alt-right. It sounded, at times, not just like the populists of the present but the populists of the past. 

Drafted by Steve Miller, the architect of the travel ban, Trump’s speech used the type of dire, last-chance wording often utilized by the far right on both sides of the Atlantic: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”

So this is the stage we have arrived at in the putative decline of the West. For very many on the left, especially among academics and their students, the very concept of the West is laden with ideas of religious and racial superiority. 

Which to some extent it is, I suppose, going back to the days when Xenophon and Plato thought that Greeks were civilised and Persians not. 

It is not so easy to define the West as you might think. Is Latin America part of it? South Africa? Jamaica? 

But what is certain is that the West implies its antithesis, the East. And if Europe is populated by large numbers of recent arrivals from the East will it assimilate them to Westerness - what does that mean? - or become less Western?


  1. I'd say the antithesis is now the South.

  2. But every great civilisation thinks of itself this way, at times. The West is not unique in this.

    The West is Christendom and its derivatives. So that includes South Africa. But the West has its subdivisions too. Europe, Latin America etc.

    1. The West existed before Christianity. The glories of Greece and Rome were achieved without it. What makes the West unique is European genes forged through 10s of thousands of years of divergent evolution, not the Abrahamic desert cult that has free ridden on European Man's achievements for the past 2 milennia.

      If Christianity is what makes the West great then Brazil would be great places to live. It' not. It's a Jesus statue, arms outspread over a bay of raw sewage. That's Christendom and that's the future which awaits Europe if the Pope has his way. It's a post-Western future. A violent, chaotic, mongrelised mess.

      Our race is the most valuable thing about our civilisation not "our" religion. We had finally come to understand this truth by the end of the 19th Century as a result of evidence gathered from research and study in archeology, biology and linguistics. Since World War II it's as if we have been drawn back into an intellectual dark age where all this knowledge was thrown down the Orwellian memory hole for reasons that were entirely political.

  3. And here is the discussion:

    Paul mocks the idea that Trump's speech was racist: "So this is the stage we have arrived at .... For very many on the left.... the very concept of the West is laden with ideas of religious and racial superiority. "

    Meanwhile, in answer, we get comments that proudly and openly declare that racism:

    "Our race is the most valuable thing about our civilisation not 'our' religion." and the alternative is supposedly "A violent, chaotic, mongrelised mess."

    American political rhetoric is a language of codewords -- where many of the most powerful impulses dare not be spoken openly. (Hence the anger of white racists over "the political correctness" that forbids them to speak what is, to them, obvious.)

    Trump's codewords (about immigration, about law and order, about the global crusade of "the West") are easily understood -- both by his supporters and by those who are being demonized. It is, literally and precisely, the most overt expression of American white racism possible under these conditions.