Bon sang ne saurait mentir. With these words Guillaume Faye ended his spirited post-prandial address to attendees of the 2012 American Renaissance conference. The words are true: Good blood cannot lie. Individuals and, indeed, entire races who are of good blood, though they may think it unseemly to boast, nevertheless produce a shower of blessings that are there for all the world to see. The reverse, I conceive, is also true: Mal sang ne peut que mentir. Bad blood cannot but lie. In denial about the inferiority of themselves and their kind, those of bad blood become of necessity liars. Indeed, they must come up with really extraordinary lies in order to convince us that the multiculti shower of bastards they are foisting upon us is actually a shower of blessings.
Trouble is the liars are legion, and the people, by and large, believe their lies. The truths which AmRen members defend are 1) that human quality is determined more by heredity than by any other factor and 2) that European peoples have received from their ancestors a unique bio-cultural heritage, which they have a right and a duty to preserve.
Defending these truths is a challenge today not because factual evidence for them is wanting, or because they are counterintuitive. On the contrary, evidence for these claims abounds, and they are nothing if not intuitive. The problem, as many of the speakers pointed out, is that these basic truths are perceived to be immoral in themselves, or at least fraught with immoral consequences.
Therefore, if we wish to have any success, the first thing we have to do is learn how to make moral, rather than scientific or libertarian, arguments. This, as Alex Kurtagic said in his speech, is how the Left managed to sell its poison to the masses, by claiming moral high ground. We must do the same.
With all due respect to Jared Taylor, whose talk was otherwise erudite, witty, and at times rousing, his formulation of a pro-European identitarian-hereditarian morality left much to be desired. “We have a right to be ourselves and to be left alone. What could be more moral than that?” he said. The fact is, that according to our opponents we do not have a right to be ourselves, for we are the incarnation of evil. As Carl Schmitt has taught us, those who view their opponents as hostis generes humani (the enemy of the human race) will not abide by the maxim of “live and let live.” To ask our enemies and their millions of willing dupes to leave us alone is to say “Dear friends, would you be so good as to permit us to persist in being our evil selves? We solemnly promise not to become any more evil than we have been heretofore.”
Kurtagic, I say again, has the right idea. The adoption of a defensive, reactive stance is always a losing strategy. We must ignore the categories of the Left and formulate a positive moral doctrine of our own, based on the principles of difference, quality, beauty, and good breeding. And we must demonstrate that, judged against the principles of our moral doctrine, the present order is profoundly, revoltingly immoral.
Good breeding, or eugenics, is probably the hardest idea to sell in the present cultural climate. Our society recoils at the idea of blaming individuals for inadequacies for which they themselves are not responsible. This reflects an ancient European notion of justice: it is immoral to kill or otherwise punish one who is guilty of no crime. So be it. But this does not mean that “merciful” social policies designed to help the stupid and inadequate of the world are above moral reproach. It is just to show mercy to the stupid. But can it be just to maintain a social system that multiplies the stupid and the incompetent, and depresses the numbers of the intelligent? Can a social system be just, which provides perverse incentives for the mass breeding of bastards and imbeciles who, in default of hereditary advantages and a suitable upbringing in a two-parent family, are likely to bring nothing but grief both to their parents and to society as a whole? Is that social system just, which encourages every intelligent woman to pursue a high-powered career in, say, advertising, so that she finds herself childless and full of regret at age 40, and the rest of the nation deprived of whatever talents or wisdom her children might have contributed to it? A social system such as this is not just, but criminal! It facilitates heinous crimes against quality. It is also hardly compatible with the goal of human happiness. Should not parents be afforded the joy of raising children who will make them proud, or at least spared the anguish of nursing future drug dealers and murderers?
Such are the “moral” arguments for good breeding that occur to me. Very likely there are better ones. One could, no doubt, be “nicer” in one’s choice of words. In any case, moral arguments must be advanced for all of our principles. The U.S. supreme court justice whom Richard Lynn quoted in his speech was certainly thinking morally, when, ruling in favor of Virginia’s law for the sterilization of the mentally retarded, he declared: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The social systems and policies which we would remove are going to stay unless and until they be found guilty in the court of public opinion of crimes against difference, quality, and beauty.
As I mentioned privately to several other attendees in the tea and coffee intervals, there was one word that seemed to me to be very much in the air during the speeches, though it was never actually pronounced. ARISTOCRACY! Historically, the principles of difference, quality, good breeding and others that the “alternative Right” seems poised to embrace have not been the preserve of any nation taken as a whole, much less of humanity as a whole, but of a particular class within certain nations.
Difference and quality are values peculiar to hereditary aristocracies. If one reads Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, one will immediately understand why democratic man trades tradition and quality for equality and quantity. The democratic man is rootless. He is not tied to any place, he has no memory of an earlier time. Day after day, he expends all his energy merely reacting to the exigencies of the present. Such a condition of life is not conducive to the formation of taste, discernment, knowledge of and reverence for one’s ancestors, or care about one’s descendants. Indeed, Guillaume Faye gave a perfect example in his speech of the characteristic short-sightedness of our bourgeois party politicians. Commenting on President Sarkozy’s pre-election remarks on the surfeit of foreigners in France about which something ought to done, he said “Monsieur le President, you have been in office for five years. Only now this enters your consciousness?”
At his best, the hereditary aristocrat, owing to his station in life, is one who, in Tocqueville’s words “almost always knows his ancestors and respects them; he believes he already perceives his great-grandsons and he loves them. He willingly does his duty by both.” Freed from the drudgery of the field, the factory and counting house, he has time to refine his taste, to study the words and deeds of his forebears and to learn judgment and far-sightedness. For the hereditary aristocrat such modes of thought are habitual. For the bustling bourgeois internationalist masses, they are not, and cannot be. One therefore needs an hereditary aristocracy to impose its judgment, its reverence for ancestors, its belief in the necessity of good breeding and its far-sightedness on the rest of the nation. Long before Tocqueville’s time our European ancestors understood this.
Were I to be by some great stroke of luck appointed Minister of Education of an Anglo-Saxon Ethno-State of the kind Sam Dickson alluded to on Sunday morning, my first official act would be to order all copies of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government to be burnt by the public hangman! Government is based on a contract between free and equal individuals, you say? Rubbish! Into the fire with you, with the curses of all honest men!
Instead I would have our young men read a book by George Lawson called Politica Sacra et Civilis (1660). Lawson never imagined a state of nature in which all individuals were “free” and “equal”; indeed he dismissed this as an ahistorical absurdity. All human communities, he said, were composed of different orders. And this inequality was “consistent with an imparity of birth, parts, estate, or age: for this is from nature or providence.” Nations had commonly had three classes of citizens: virtual members, full members, and eminent members. The virtual members were women, children and servants. They had no direct role in politics; their interests were looked after by their masters. Full members were “males of full age, free, independent, have the use of reason, and some competent estate.” In England these were the free commoners who could elect knights and burgesses to the House of Commons. The eminent members he described as “such, who by reason of their descent, estates, parts, noble acts, are not once members, but somewhat more, as being fit for honour, offices and places of power, if once a commonwealth be constructed.” In England these were the Peers of the realm.
For Lawson it was essential that only the fit and the independent be allowed to judge concerning the affairs of the nation. And the most fit, those from families of the best birth and parts who had served the nation well before, should have the most power and influence within the framework of the ancient constitution. These lessons were not lost, I think, on an English nation that had watched the quasi-egalitarian constitutional experiments of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate fail one after the other.
Ultimately, the peace, prosperity, and freedom of a nation depended on two things. First, on the good affections of citizens, one towards another, which Lawson thought were based on common blood, language, religion, and laws. Indeed, this is the point we on the alternative right harp on so much. As Sam Dickson put it: “Only in an ethno-state can there be true tolerance, because when people are all of one stock, naturally occurring diversity poses no threats and truly can be celebrated.”
There is no question, ethnic homogeneity is one of the greatest blessings a political community can have. But even ethnically homogeneous compatriots will come to blows with each other if they lack sufficient guidance. According to Lawson, the second factor upon which the prosperity of a nation depended was “the number of just, wise and eminent persons amongst them, who are fit, not only to be the matter of the state, but to model it, and order it once constituted.”
An hereditary aristocracy was a ready source of such men who had “the best education” and “sometimes participate in some measure of the noble spirit of their ancestors, whose rare examples may do something to inspire them.” Those who wish to form a White ethno-state in North America should first get to work on breeding an aristocracy fit to rule it!
I should like to conclude with a couple more remarks on the speeches of Guillaume Faye and Richard Lynn. Faye offered a useful analogy for the diagnosis of our problems. A people is like tree. A tree has roots, a trunk and branches. The first correspond to the biological substrate of the nation; the second, to its culture; the third, to its civilisation. The branches and the trunk, he said, may be damaged, but so long as the roots are not killed, the organism may recover. Culture and civilization may be damaged, but so long as the biological substrate remains intact, the nation may still be reborn.
All of this is no doubt true. Yet it seems to me that the main problem at present is that the trunk of the tree, the culture, has been burnt to a cinder, and that is the only reason why the roots are being poisoned. If we could but restore the culture, all the damage that has already been done to the roots by Third World immigration and the welfare state could be undone over time by a combination of positive and negative eugenics. We could appoint Richard Lynn Minister of Racial Hygiene and start mending the roots tomorrow were it not for our sick, blighted culture.
Moreover, I am doubtful that, should European peoples finally destroy themselves beyond all possibility of recovery, the torch of civilization will be passed to the Chinese as Lynn predicts. He is certainly right that European peoples have become “too nice.” But that does not mean that the authoritarian oligarchy of East Asia, however stern, would embrace difference and quality. Asian oligarchs are derived from the same pestilential scum as Western liberal politicians. They are concerned only with material prosperity, the branches (civilisation) in Faye’s analogy of the tree. Human biological quality and culture are of no interest to them, and therefore they will ultimately lead their people down the same path to suicide.
It is not democracy or oligarchy that we need, but aristocracy. Revival can come only from an aristocratic revolution in culture.