Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
YWC Members Chalk ‘White Pride’ on University Sidewalks
A few eyebrows and a few hackles were raised at Towson University last week when members of the campus Youth for Western Civilization (YWC) chapter chalked messages on university sidewalks that included the words “white pride” at several locations. The messages were left March 3, a Saturday, and discovered the following Monday, angering some students and resulting in a debate days later that was attended by some 400 students.
Matthew Heimbach, president of the Towson YWC chapter and a junior at the Maryland university, told the Baltimore Sun that members were indeed responsible for the sidewalk markings. But he said the group is “only promoting traditional conservative values and is not racist.” He also told that Sun that he is “advocating pride in his culture,” and not “white power.”
Really? YWC members have long-held problematic associations with white nationalist groups and ideologies. Heimbach is no exception.
Heimbach attended the July 2011 gathering of the neo-Confederate League of the South (LOS), which has advocated a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans,” run by an “Anglo Celtic” elite. In a video in which Heimbach appeared with another LOS member at the conference, he discussed what he would like to do with YWC at Towson, including bring in guest speakers like Pastor John Weaver of the LOS, who instructs members on how to use firearms, and Maryland LOS chaplain David Whitney, who says churches should help arm and train people in self defense.
In a January 2012 blog at the YWC site, Heimbach decried “white genocide” in South Africa. The original post included an image of a poster that called for the hanging of Nelson Mandela, but the photo was later removed. In that piece, Heimbach extolled the virtues of white South Africans, saying that “they gave years of selfless sacrifice to the world … and gave an honest chance to the black majority to help build a republic that respected all human rights.”
In his end-of-the-semester report at the YWC website in January, Heimbach wrote, “No longer will the homosexual, Muslim, and black supremacist groups be allowed to hijack our campus. … Youth for Western Civilization is preparing to take our campus back, all we need is the help of people like you to make it happen.” He then referred to YWC’s opposition as “disgusting degenerates” and assured his enemies that “we always be [sic] on the attack.” As if that isn’t clear enough, Heimbach’s current profile photo on the YWC site shows him aiming a rifle.
Other YWC members also have ties to white nationalist organizations or ideologies. In April 2011, the group’s founder and then-national president, Kevin DeAnna (who announced this February that he was stepping down), sent out a fundraising appeal accompanied by a cover letter written by Jared Taylor, a racist ideologue who is editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance.
In the cover letter, Taylor praised DeAnna and YWC’s work, and reminded backers that “race and race conflict” are at the core of the problems the West faces. DeAnna boasted in his letter to the magazine’s readers that he had “defended western culture” against the “far left” that is trying to “destroy our people and culture.”
DeAnna has also spoken at the H.L. Mencken Club, known for its white nationalist participants, and at a writing conference sponsored by the anti-immigrant Social Contract Press, headed by longtime extremist Wayne Lutton. In addition, YWC chapters at Vanderbilt and Providence College have hosted Richard Spencer for campus talks; Spencer is the director of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank.
on March 13th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Mathew is just a nice Catholic boy. Here’s a link to his Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/matt.heimbach1
on March 13th, 2012 at 9:19 am
In a January 2012 blog at the YWC site, Heimbach decried “white genocide” in South Africa. The original post included an image of a poster that called for the hanging of Nelson Mandela, but the photo was later removed.
I’m not a supporter of the death penalty, but it is hardly surprising that those who are would want Mandela to be hanged. This is after all, a man who by his on admission “signed off” on the Church Street bombing, which killed 19 people and wounded 217 more. For that alone, he should never have been let out of prison.
on March 13th, 2012 at 9:28 am
‘White Pride!?’ That’s hardly racist, is it? No, that would be something those damned Eurasians would do. And everyone knows Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.
on March 13th, 2012 at 9:31 am
He’s Catholic? Well a Catholic can’t be a loyal American! At least that’s what the defenders of Western Civilization used to say.
on March 13th, 2012 at 11:25 am
B. B. do you also understand why proponents of the death penalty might want to hang Harry Truman, who “signed off” on the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed hundreds of thousands? Or do you only think that black men should be imprisoned or hanged?
on March 13th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
You know you’re getting old when you see a headline like this one, and your first reaction is, “I’m shocked at those nice young ladies!”
on March 13th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Of course, Horthy and a couple of other Axis allies thought the YMCA and YWCA were (in their minds) commendably anti-Semitic groups.
on March 13th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Mitch,
Careful with your condemnation of Truman. While the destruction of the cities was indeed reprehensible, the alternatives would have potentially made the battles of the Somme and Verdun look comparatively mild.
All I’m going to say is that if you have an academic interest in the end of the War in the Pacific, you should be careful which authors you look to. Though they are regarded as experts by many, Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird present evidence and statistics that are grossly innaccurate. If you’d like, I can post the annotated bibliography from my papers regarding the proposed American invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.
(Please forgive my long-winded and horribly off-topic screed above. It results from a combination of lack of sleep and strong personal interest in Operation DOWNFALL.)
on March 13th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
The A-bombs could have been dropped on military targets rather than major cities. Moreover, the A-bomb had little to do with the reason they surrendered anyway.
on March 13th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
At Michigan State University the Young Americans for Freedom chapter carried a sign that said “Straight Power” in opposition of a human rights ordinance.
http://statenews.com/index.php.....ts_protest
This is the same story playing out again. The students simply need to organize against them.
BTW, has the SPLC formally labeled them a hate group yet? Seems the evidence is stacking pretty high.
on March 13th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
A case could be made for the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb, though the Japanese could likely have gotten the point just as well, with far less cruelty, if it had been dropped off the harbor. There was no excuse for Nagasaki, which city was not even a target of choice, but of opportunity, when the initial target was socked in.
At least it made a sufficient impression on us and others that no one has ever dropped another one, though all the spent uranium dropped on Fellujah wasn’t better- only sneakier.
on March 13th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Aron my comment was not intended to imply that Truman should have been imprisoned or hanged although, in my opinion, the use of the atomic bomb was reprehensible. My point was that, in the course of war and revolution, acts for which one might otherwise be hanged or imprisoned, become celebrated acts of heroism. If Truman should not be hanged for killing hundreds of thousands surely BB’s suggestion that Mandela should be condemned for “the Church Street bombing, which killed 19 people and wounded 217 more” smacks of racism.
on March 13th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Mitch,
You’re right. I over-reacted, and I’m sorry. I really should have vented my spleen at the other poster. Not you.
And Ruslan, the bombs were a huge factor, even the largest factor in the Japanese surrender. There was an attempted coup against Hirohito the day he broadcast his appeal for a ceasefire.
I highly recommend reading William Craig’s ‘The Fall of Japan,’ as it provides, I feel, the most objective non-military history of the War’s endgame.
on March 13th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Chalk on a sidewalk? You people are pathetic. Oh well, as long as those donations keep pouring in!
on March 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Uh oh watch out. People putting White Pride in “chalk” on the side walk. There is a problem with that? No one complains when gays go around with Gay Pride Flags or Puerto Ricans on Puerto Rican Pride Day. Nothing wrong with that right? But if it involves Whites then all of a sudded Pride becomes Power. There is nothing wrong with White Pride. It is a Constitutional Right. Remember that thing called the 1st Amendment?
on March 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Really sounds like the splc has resorted to using ad hominem attacks, is the let’s focus on whether or not being proud to be white is racist or not. Of course it isn’t just as black brown or yellow pride is not racist.
on March 13th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
so here is my issue you say your open minded but when i wear a shirt expressing my pro life stance i get physically attacked the story goes as follows i wore a shirt to my local school that said quite simply envisioning a world without abortion it then had a picture of a woman looking down which was formed by a bunch of pictures of children who were supposed to be aborted i walk in to the bathroom and some turns and says i find your shirt very offensive i reply i find abortion very offensive she proceeds to give me a black eye. so now i ask if people can wear shirts that say proud to be pro life why cant the moral conservative voice their opinion without being called racist i say GO MATT. another thing anybody who actually studies history knows that the civil war was not about blacks being slaves it was about states rights and i love the south and support them !!!
on March 14th, 2012 at 1:42 am
Next time write Black Pride or Gay Pride on the sidewalk. Less hassle that way.
on March 14th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Or better yet, write “Power” in white chalk. lol ^_^
on March 14th, 2012 at 8:25 am
“No longer will the homosexual, Muslim, and black supremacist groups be allowed to hijack our campus.”
Matt sounds like he (thinks he) is directly facing opposition from other culturally oriented groups. Is this actually true, and are those groups really supremacists? And is Matt’s group supremacist?
Supremacism is unfair as it implies that one world view is more correct than another. Every world view is exactly as ‘correct’ as another. Nothing is wrong with having pride, but declaring supremacy is just hilarious. Sounds like Matt is afraid of death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....ent_theory
on March 14th, 2012 at 10:44 am
“another thing anybody who actually studies history knows that the civil war was not about blacks being slaves it was about states rights ”
To what states’ rights do you refer, lexi? Do you mean that the right of states to impose slavery was not a major point of contention? Please elaborate.
on March 14th, 2012 at 10:54 am
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
You can read the entire document at http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e.....ssippi.cfm. If you have any doubt that the civil war was about slavery (or if you are interested in American history at all) I suggest you read The Civil War: The First Year Told by Those Who Lived It (Library of America #212) which consists of original sources.
on March 14th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
At this writing the Youth for Western Civilization website is down for the third time in six weeks. The first time the site went down, the placeholder stated that it was for “malware issues.” Both subsequent times the site was down, the placeholder said it was for “site redesign.” One might wonder whether they have an “admirer.”
on March 14th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Lexi, if you are really, as you say, in school, and yet that’s all the better you can write, I despair of your learning anything.
on March 15th, 2012 at 12:03 am
It’s pretty sad if the only thing you have to be proud of is that you are “white.” Poor bastard.
on March 15th, 2012 at 12:20 am
Cain Velasquez of the UFC has a tattoo on his chest which reads Brown Pride. I feel that is more than fine and would never deny him the right, or criticize him because he wants to display his ethnic pride so prominently. Of course the SPLC has no problem with Brown pride displays but anything having to do with white pride is wrong. SPLC= Hypocritical, greedy corporatists
on March 15th, 2012 at 8:40 am
To be honest Chris, slogans like “Brown pride” are kind of stupid because plenty of Latinos are not “brown” at all. But ideas like black or “brown” pride have a very different history than “white pride”(in fact the concept is rather new, even younger than the concept of “white” in the first place).
See, white dominated society for a long time made others feel inferior on the basis of being black or brown. Society demanded that second-class citizens “know their place,” and constantly reminded them that they were “colored.” Hence, a reaction to this appeared in concepts like “black pride.” It’s not pride in the sense of “I’m BLACK and I’m proud of this fact.” It’s more like, I’m not going to be made to feel ashamed or inferior just because I’m black anymore. That’s about as far as I can go into this concept because I am after all, a white dude.
“White pride” is something quite different. For one thing, “white” does not denote an actual ethnicity or nationality, nor is it a culture. People who claim that European culture equals “white culture” are ignorant and ironically they by definition, multiculturalists. As for black Americans, they had their history and traditions pretty much stolen from them, so it makes sense that they have to rally around the identity of “black” or African American. Groups of European immigrants who became “white” over time typically knew their origins, but over time there were many changes in America and Europe so that the “white American” has far more in common in a practical sense with a black or Latino American than someone from his ancestors’ nation.
on March 15th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Brown pride, black pride, white pride, etc. are all things I don’t get. How can you have pride in something you had no hand in creating? Pride is for personal accomplishments like getting a college degree or starting a business. Being born with a certain skin color or in a certain country or in a certain class or in a certain ethnic group are not personal accomplishments. They’re things that happened by chance. I find it sad that the only thing you are proud of about yourself is something that happened by chance, something you had no hand in creating or deciding. But hey, whatever floats people’s boats.
on March 15th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Funny to me how a Jewish group, and others sit here talking about ww2? always every comment must go back in time.
Today the AIPAC crowd is pushing the USA to bomb, fight, dismantle all nations hostile to the Jewish state. Every day I listen to TV news, radio shows, and see print media foaming at the mouth how Iran must be stopped? Stopped from what? This endless war the US govt has been tricked into is bleeding American’s finest, and costing us billions, we don’t even have to spend it’s all borrowed. WAR is expensive and it’s effect long lasting.
on March 15th, 2012 at 11:09 am
isn’t this the kinda thing those group do?
on March 15th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Ruslan,
To paraphase your comment, perhaps the message “White Pride” simply means, ” I’m not going to be made to feel ashamed (about myself or my heritage) just because I’m white anymore.”
The end of white guilt is terrifying to behold, isn’t it.
As they say, anti-racism is just code for anti-white, and “fighting racism” is only a more polite way of saying, “let’s blame whitey, it’s always his fault anyway”.
It is easier to riot if the crowd is chanting “no justice, no peace”, right?
on March 15th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Hey Woland, nice job chanting The Mantra! That was mighty original of you. Maybe you explain just what constitutes ‘anti-White’ so we can move on?
on March 15th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Ruslan “Brown Pride” might not be entirely accurate but “Hispanic Surname Pride” doesn’t have much of a ring to it.
on March 15th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
“To paraphase your comment, perhaps the message “White Pride” simply means, ” I’m not going to be made to feel ashamed (about myself or my heritage) just because I’m white anymore.””
“White” is not a heritage. The heritage of “white” is bound up with the oppression of others.
“The end of white guilt is terrifying to behold, isn’t it.”
No, it’s pathetic to behold people whose only accomplishment in life was to be born “white.”
“As they say, anti-racism is just code for anti-white,”
Yes, I have noticed that morons say that.
“and “fighting racism” is only a more polite way of saying, “let’s blame whitey, it’s always his fault anyway”.
It is easier to riot if the crowd is chanting “no justice, no peace”, right?”
Questions:
1. Do you acknowledge that people were oppressed based on race at any time in American history.
2. Would you admit that people are, perhaps not oppressed, but at least treated very unfairly due to their race? (Before answering keep in mind there is plenty of data to show this happens in America even in recent times)
3. If yes to either or both questions, what “race” is responsible for that state of affairs?
Figure out this riddle and you might understand where “blame whitey” comes from.
on March 15th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Matt, I’m not Jewish. I don’t really ask about the religious affiliations of people I associate with, either, unless there is some need to know if they’re allowed to eat this or that.
on March 16th, 2012 at 3:34 am
BB said: “I’m not a supporter of the death penalty, but it is hardly surprising that those who are would want Mandela to be hanged. This is after all, a man who by his on admission “signed off” on the Church Street bombing, which killed 19 people and wounded 217 more. For that alone, he should never have been let out of prison.”
To shamelessly paraphrase a common saying, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Best example: Reagan said – when he met with them – that he considered the Taliban leaders the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers”. When they were fighting Russia, they were “freedom fighters” – the US supported, trained & armed them; now that the US is fighting them, they are “terrorists”.
Mandela led a fight against a minority government that treated the vast majority of SAfricans as cattle, & the SA government screwed up when they made him a martyr figure.
on March 16th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Ruslan, it still doesn’t matter. Having pride based on something you had no control over makes no sense. Yes, love yourself, love who you are and where you come from, but pride is something totally different.
Pride is for actual accomplishments, not how and where one was born. All that black pride and brown pride and whatever pride talk is silly, in my opinion.
on March 16th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I totally agree, A.D.M., I just think the concept of “black pride” or “brown pride” had a lot more to do with dignity rather than pride. “White pride” was basically what mainstream society promoted for a couple hundred years in the US. It still does, albeit in different ways.
on March 17th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Good point, Ruslan.
on March 17th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Ruslan and other thoughtful commentators: Hopefully moving beyond the not so helpful “they must simply be idiots to believe what they do” comments tossed at the usual suspects, why do you think the far right is growing, and increasingly attracting members of the intelligentsia to its ranks? It should be obvious when reading GRECE or other publications and writings, that these guys are well educated and articulate about their opposition to neo-liberalism.
on March 18th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Deep Ecology,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment regarding the “gossip” style commenting and blog posts on this site as well as others. This is exactly why the movement is growing with intellectuals both in America and abroad. However, good luck in elevating the content and style of the SPLC, etc. it will never happen, it will only get worse.
on March 18th, 2012 at 11:42 am
The far right is growing for several reasons:
1. A very weak left in the US which was confused and co-opted due to identity politics and liberal influences.
2. Stagnation in real wages and an economic crisis, both of which lay the foundation for resentment and backlashes against designated scapegoats.
3. The right-wing has far more money on its side, thus it controls media, numerous think tanks, etc.
4. In general, no matter how you dress up reactionary politics with intellectual-sounding language, it will typically blame some group of people for society’s woes. People prefer an ideology that puts a human face on their problems, even if the side-effect is being afraid or angry all the time.
on March 18th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Ruslan, since the far right (US) and New Right (Europe) fundamentally differ in content as well as context, why do think the far right in the US is largely marginalized in the political process but the European New Right is increasingly influential on numerous national levels within the EU?
on March 18th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Deep Ecology,
I feel that the right in the US is marginalized by the political process as far as the mainstream right is concerned, (republican party, fox news echo chamber etc.) However, the European new right has an identity in america that is growing feverishly, just look at the popularity of Richard Spencers Alternativeright, or Greg Johnsons Counter Currents, as well as Arktos media (which is based in India but does a significant and growing by the hour amount of business in the US) This coupled with a growing desire outside of the cities to connect with ancestral spiritual beliefs and tradition is fueling a desire to part ways with progressive liberalism. I personally was raised in an extremely left wing family and was as fervent a fighter for progressivism until around the age 30.
on March 19th, 2012 at 8:46 am
Well, Schultzie, when you get over rebelling against your family, you might actually learn to think.
on March 19th, 2012 at 9:33 am
“European new right has an identity in america that is growing feverishly,”
No it doesn’t, because the European New Right tends to be anti-American. It’s ideas will never take root with a sizable amount of American conservatives, who spurn book-learnin’.
“White” Americans are not European, and have an extremely hard time dealing with European traditions. As for ancient religions and Pagan traditions, what is the use of all that? Maybe if these people would pull their heads out of their asses and pick up the business section of a newspaper once in a while they would understand what’s really wrong with the world.
on March 19th, 2012 at 10:23 am
For Chris Schultz, my journey too began from a progressive liberal family. However, my interest in the New Right coincided with a move from mainstream environmentalism to the more radical Deep Ecology movement. American conservatism is absolutely bankrupt and bereft of any new ideas, Progressive thought and the evolution of neo-liberalism and globalism has been a consistent and growing threat to biodiversity, both human and among the earth’s flora and fauna.
The two competing systems of economic organization, capitalism and communism, while structurally different, have the same ultimate end in mind, the utilitarian exploitation of nature to support material well being, usually along an exponential assumed growth curve.
The neo-liberal model is literally a death sentence for unique indigenous cultures around the world.
on March 19th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Ruslan,
We do understand that capitalism and the progressive ideology (which includes mainstream conservatives/rightists) which tacitly support the rise and dominance of capitalism. If I recall, the OWS crowd had a moment of silence during their hypocrisy rally to honor Steve Jobs when he died. In addition, I believe Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, David Geffen, Jeff Imelt, Lloyd Blankenfeim, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk,……. just to name a few are ardent supporters of capitalism as well as egalitarian and progressive causes
on March 19th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Ruslan, you are correct in that what passes for American conservatism is a far cry from the European New Right, which in general sees the American system, political, cultural and economic as a threat or at the very least, a competing system with Europe.
You are also correct in stating there is no ethnically distinct white American culture. This was brought home to me in a very real way after living in Europe, reconnecting with family roots there and seeing and feeling first hand the strong ethnic cultural ties Europeans have with one another.
However, how do you explain the growing interest in the European New Right among disaffected American conservatives, radical environmentalists and former progressive drop outs?
on March 19th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
“However, how do you explain the growing interest in the European New Right among disaffected American conservatives, radical environmentalists and former progressive drop outs?”
They are interested because it is something novel. Many are disaffected with mainstream conservatism because the mainstream doesn’t seem to preach to them. The problem is, however, that most of these groups will rush to conservatives at times like these when a Democrat is in the White House and the conservatives start talking radical. When Republicans get in office, conservatives tend to tone down the radical rhetoric which leaves some of these groups out in the cold. In any case, none of this makes the European New Right’s ideology correct. It’s childish romanticism plus scapegoating.
More importantly, the New Right’s claim to opposing capitalism is weak at best. When asked about their opposition to capitalism, the best most of these “Third Positionists” can manage is “Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin!” This doesn’t cut it. Some try to take this further, stating that both are “materialist” ideologies or something along those lines, not taking into account non-material, spiritual things. First, this is akin to attacking them because neither deals with the affairs of unicorns or elves.
Second, capitalism is not an ideology, it’s a mode of production. Property relations and means of production don’t have anything to do with spiritual issues. You can live in a capitalist society and do pretty much whatever you want. Communism is technically not an ideology but a mode of production as well, though one can call it an ideology if used to refer to Marxism. Of course most Marxists wouldn’t use the term “ideology” so readily to describe Marxist theory. In any case, so-called Third Positionists and New Rightists have, as far as I have seen, failed to articulate what sort of mode of production they would support beyond “what is good for the race and environment.”
@Shultz
” In addition, I believe Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, David Geffen, Jeff Imelt, Lloyd Blankenfeim, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk,……. just to name a few are ardent supporters of capitalism as well as egalitarian and progressive causes”
There are plenty of people who support egalitarian and progressive causes and DON’T support capitalism. What is your point here? The same people might argue as to whether these people actually support real progressive causes, or causes which are merely said to be progressive. Furthermore, there have often been capitalists which supported progressive causes simply because they were seen as a viable alternative to revolution, expropriation, and execution. If you read the work of Soros, it is clear that he fears that out of control neo-liberalism will lead to a backlash against what he calls the “open society”, better known by the technical term “bullshit.”
on March 19th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Ruslan, you are at your best (and appreciated) when intelligently engaging in the give and take of ideas.
I will respectfully disagree that economics doesn’t fall under ideology. Politics (how shall we then live) as well as economics (how shall we then eat) are explicitly interwoven. Add in culture (ethnicity, language, heritage, spirituality and soil) and you have the three basic pillars upon which man organizes and makes sense of his existence.
The European New Right is an altogether different animal than what passes for American conservatism. In America, both conservatives and liberals by and large support the neo-liberal corporate-capitalist welfare state, its continued growth and evolution into the managerial state. The issues that divide them are largely trivial and unimportant in the larger picture, LGBT rights, gay marraige, prayer in public schools, etc. These issues are literally dwarfed by the more serious issues (which are not dealt with DESPITE the evidence of their impending seriousness and impact, the continued degradation of the biosphere, the looming energy crisis and the next financial meltdown, the debt bubble.
While the conservatives and liberals in America heartily debate the gender of angels, the largest migration of human beings from the south to the north, not seen on this scale since the end of the Roman Imperium continues unabated (with unknown consequences), peak oil looms, another acre of farmland falls to development per human added to earth’s exploding population, and the dominant theme among our new social justice shallow environmentalists is that we can’t talk about population control because it infringes on women’s fertility rights.
At least the Euro New Right is talking alternatives to our current structures that embrace both values of the past and providing a radical, revolutionary solution to how we should live in the future.
The popular economic model is the Steady State Economy by the way, supported by both the New Right and many Deep Ecologists. Pan Nationalism, the right of any people anywhere to self-determination unopposed or interfered with by the neo-liberal managerial state and its insatiable desire to incorporate them into its globalist material model.
Finally, the societal model they imagine is not one that is reductionist but instead wholistic, placing not the individual as supreme but the culture and its well being as supreme, and the individual as subordinate to that well being.
on March 20th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Sorry but “Pan-Nationalism” will not work. First of all, the nation-state is largely an outgrowth of capitalist development. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, many “nations” were in fact created from groups which did not previously consider themselves linked. Many “nations” are historically multicultural and it is only natural that conflicts will arise.
I don’t know were you got the idea that I think politics and economics are not linked, since no Marxist would dare make that claim. I also don’t see why care for the environment would be served by nationalism. Nationalism inherently leads to war, and war is extremely bad for the environment.
Moreover, your claim that both mainstream right and left support neo-liberalism is simply false. There are plenty of people, both conservative and liberal, who support Keynesian economics. Austrian schoolers like Ron Paul can’t be compared to neo-liberals since neo-liberals tend to contradict their dogma when it comes to things like protectionism and subsidies. And the idea that only the European New Right are coming up with solutions(which nobody is listening to) is simply false- have you heard of these “Communist” parties which exist all throughout Europe?
As for this “Steady State Economy”, you’re going to have to explain that in detail, something which most New Rightists I’ve talked to refuse to explain. In fact I have met New Rightists who were fans of Austrian schooler Murray Rothbard, which would make them extremely opposed to any state intervention in the economy. Not to mention it doesn’t help when every “nation” is claiming the right of self-determination no matter how tiny.
The New Rightists can dress their fascism up in all the pseudointellectual garments as they wish, but in the end they still just hate immigrants and want to sound revolutionary and “left-wing” by piggy-backing on to environmentalism. This can be traced back to the work of Povl Riis-Knudsen of Denmark. Threatened with revolution in the interwar period, some governments resorted to fascists to secure their power. Since the war, the nature of imperialism has changed, to the point where traditional fascists simply aren’t of use to the elite. Now they exist without patrons, and thus form the “Third Positionists” or “New Right.”
on March 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am
I have shamelessly copied a meta-analysis of the similarities between capitalism and communism that is succinct and to the point.
Fundamentally, both systems see man in a purely economic or materialistic sense, with humans being interchangeable with each other as long as productive work is accomplished in the most profitable fashion for whomever is in charge. The very term “Human Resources” used in so many corporations spells this out pretty clearly. Aesthetic, historic, evolutionary and spiritual aspects of humans aren’t considered by either system except insofar as they affect production and the maintenance of control by an elite.
All economic systems, no matter whence derived or their ultimate motivation, are run by humans; and will tend to take on the character of the humans running them.
Deep Ecology rejects a purely materialistic motive for life, and insists on a wholistic approach to the man-nature existence/meaning question. In this paradigm, man the individual, his wants or desires, are subordinated to the community and its well being, that community being indivisible from the health of the natural enviroment within which it exists.
on March 20th, 2012 at 11:20 am
For Ruslan,
“Second, capitalism is not an ideology, it’s a mode of production.”
My point was that it is an ideology and linked with politics.
Most of our disagreement hinges on our respective world view. Both sides of this debate, individual versus collective, local versus transnational, spiritual versus materialistic, etc. struggle endlessly to find common ground and synthesis, when in fact they represent thesis and anti-thesis, thus no common dialectic synthesis is possible.
However, at the very least, you and I can avoid the easy trap of stereotyping our opponents and peel back the layers of our arguments to reach the foundational values/ideas that separate us.
Within Deep Ecology we have broad agreement on what needs to be done, but fervently debate the particulars. Most New Right proponents are genuine environmentalists, reject a purely utilitarian vision of nature, and believe the natural world and its well being and health to be central to human well being and health.
Space does not allow a full discussion of steady state economics, but please refer to the website for a brief overview. A reading/resource list is provided if deeper understanding is desired.
on March 20th, 2012 at 11:27 am
to Ruslan and Deep Ecology,
I am overwhelmingly pleased with the conversation here. I can sincerely say that many of Ruslan’s points are valid and some I disagree with, nonetheless, it is a substantive conversation based upon real ideas, which in my opinion is a far cry from much that is presented on SPLC as well as the comments (mine included) that are pure gossip and childish attacks. Anyway, Thank You.
on March 20th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Sorry Deep, but if you can prove the existence of something beyond the material realm, we might take it into consideration. Till then, we will remain materialist. Capitalism and its apologists however, are typically idealist. This often contradicts with the raw numbers which dominate capitalist society, but idealism is necessary to defend such a system.
And again, how does nationalism compliment environmentalism?
on March 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Something tells me that Deep is more likely to be a houndawg than a properly-credentialed ecologist. A number of right-wing types are likely to use that as cover.
Note that during all this time of introducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the only nexus he has ever stated with ecology is that furriners are bad for it, especially the dark ones.
on March 20th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Ruslan, I can offer no proof based on the scientific method (observation) of an existence or force outside of our material existence.
The question comes down to Being and Beginning/Origin. We can choose three models: 1. Existence sprang from Non-Existence 2. The Universe is Eternal, has always existed and from Time plus Chance we have evolved into Being and Awareness. The physical world we live in is a “closed”, completely self-contained. 3. The Universe came into existence through the Will/Action of a Being outside of time/space, and that the physical world we inhabit is not a “closed” system but can be acted upon from an outside Intelligence/Being.
A strict, pure materialist is forced to choose option 1 or 2. A person who believes in a transcendant spiritual plane believes option 3 is the origin model.
Capitalism had its theoretical origin not in Utopian thinking but practical application, private property rights plus the profit motive overseen by a government that protected and encouraged both was seen as the model which most effectively distributed goods and services throughtout society.
Socialism/communism I would argue is largely Utopian, and a critical response to the evolution of capitalism and its inherent inequity.
The evolution of the nation-state from feudalism has had its positive and negative influences. Deep Ecologists advocate a modification of the nation-state to regions not united based on politics and economics alone but one that includes the biosphere. The concept was articulated in the early 70′s by leading Deep Ecologists and called bio-regionalism. The argument being that most problems are local and best solved by the population that has the most to gain or lose by unwise use. I became a firm advocate of it after seeing the effects of decisions made by far away entities (corporations and governments) that dramatically affected the lives of the people who live there and depend on the local environment for their livelihood and quality of life.
The Aral Sea disaster is a textbook example of how the Soviet Union mismanaged a precious resource to the great harm of the local inhabitants and the bio-region.
Capitalists fare no better, with corporate exploitation of resources for profit destroying local communities. The profit motive devoid of spiritual content/meaning/values effectively exploits primary resources but has no interest in the future or quality of life. People are just another resource to use, no different in form or function than a tree to cut down or resource to extract, process and sell.
on March 20th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Your comments about materialism are basically a false dichotomy. Materialism posits that all that exists is matter, and that there is such a thing as objective reality, which can be known and understood.
Socialism and Communism are not at all utopian if we are speaking of Marxist socialism. The idea that the Aral Sea disaster can be attributed to Marxist theory is ridiculous, and in any case that theory had been long abandoned by the USSR at the time. Whatever mistakes the Communists made during this time, it is clear that only a true socialist system, where production is not governed according to the profit motive, can be used to preserve the environment.
And I still don’t see how nationalism and the idealism which goes along with it is necessary for such environmentalism.
on March 20th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Ruslan, this forum is too limited for any thorough discussion of your questions, both the steady state economy model and bio-regionalism are well discussed on reputable web sites and in the literature.
I bring up the Aral Sea disaster because we use it as a textbook example of central planning and its environmental consequences, there are numerous others, within socialist/communist models (China, Soviet Union) and capitalism.
My point is that neither system has proven itself capable of regulating human behavior in such a way as to insure sustainablity.
Philosophy, and a true indepth look at alternatives to our curent political/economic model will have to be at another time.
You were quite correct in that many in the European New Right are a little sketchy about alternatives, mostly because they focus on opposition to the system versus providing a viable alternative.
on March 20th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
“I bring up the Aral Sea disaster because we use it as a textbook example of central planning and its environmental consequences, there are numerous others, within socialist/communist models (China, Soviet Union) and capitalism.”
Well I would suggest you stop using it because there is a logical disconnect here. Only with the development of large-scale industry did the problem of environmental impact become clear, something which occurred long after the foundation of the USSR. Only a planned economy, as opposed to one based on profit motive(with the property relations that entails), can take into account long term environmental impact. The fact that some existing planned economies(China is not a planned economy) didn’t is irrelevant here.
The reason why the European New Right is so sketchy about alternatives is because when you strip away all the philosophical or environmentalist rhetoric, it comes down to plain nationalism or xenophobia. Believe me, I’ve had private discussions with members of this movement.
on March 21st, 2012 at 8:13 am
The idea is that the environment is supposed to be improved by removing all the low-albedo people. If you try to get beyond that, people like Deep Ecology couldn’t keep an aquarium balanced.
on March 22nd, 2012 at 8:47 am
Reynardine, I was not going to respond because I don’t believe a rational discussion is possible with individuals who cannot get beyond their own predisposition to frame every disagreement over an assumed position.
Without asking or caring, you assume a position I don’t take. Deep Ecology is a multi-ethnic movement, in all countries and heavily represented in academia. Some of the more prominent academics are non-white, from India and Africa. Deep Ecology is HIGHLY critical of Western Civilization, with its emphasis on a utilitarian approach to nature, reliance on technology, and destruction of traditional societies.
The New Right in Europe, formulated by GRECE, has been heavily criticized by elements of the far right for its embrace of the third world and traditional societies, including Islam. Where you can find traditional racism in that stance is beyond me, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
My position is exactly as stated: Deep Ecology, embrace of traditionalism (pre-enlightenment) and a non-Western approach to harmonious man-nature interaction.
on March 22nd, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I’m sorry Deep Ecology, but first of all, the Deep Ecology movement and the New Right are two different things. Second, I’ve discussed things at length with members of the New Right, and their ideology is far from something about the environment. When you speak about “embracing” other cultures’ traditional way of life, it brought up something one New Right supporter told me about how it was bad that Western countries allowed Third World countries to acquire modern medical technology, as it allowed them to survive more(I’m not going to debate the factual basis of that claim right now).
As for embracing “traditionalism”, the problem here is that you look at these “traditional” ways of life in a metaphysical, and I would dare to say romantic manner. Many times when people speak of traditions, the practices they speak of are in fact not traditional at all, and in nearly all cases they are ignoring the material conditions which gave rise to those traditions. They see culture and traditions as a product of different people themselves. This goes against basic history. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with enlightenment values such as liberty and equality, the problem, from the point of view of Marx, is that liberal society, an outgrowth of capitalism, failed to deliver its promise of liberty, equality, and brotherhood.
on March 22nd, 2012 at 2:06 pm
I might also add that the reason that capitalism causes environmental damage has nothing to do with the values of individual liberty, equality.
on March 22nd, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Deep, I have been to enough faculty cocktail parties to know the smell of intellectual methane. If you were actually concerned about ecology you would be on a different blog, dicussing different subjects. You have not demonstrated enough foundation in the biological sciences to be trusted with a tank full of goldfish, and your only demonstrated nexus between your stated field and anything covered in this blog is to assert that low-albedo people are especially bad for the ecology. Your alleged enormous academic and professional credentials have never been identified. In my view, your best contribution to the ecological balance would be to go back to the fraud pond and find yourself a lily pad.
on March 23rd, 2012 at 8:39 am
Reynardine, my stated field is geography, cultural. I am not nor claim to be a hard science academic.
Please cut and paste any comment I have made that claim darker skin people are the source and cause of all our environmental ills.
I frequently contribute to blogs that focus on the environment, however, without a fundamental change in our worldview, our environmental problems will not be solved. Hence why Deep Ecologists look at the bigger picture of values, human organization, world view and appropriate goals. I am an advocate of bio-regionalism, steady state economy, population reduction world wide and opposed to the neo-liberal state and corporate capitalism, in fact any economic system that assumes infinite growth within a finite resource base.
This is my last attempt to civilize our discourse. Ruslan and I have been engaged in the give and take of ideas without rancor or assumption. I respect him tremendously, agree with some but not all of his ideas and appreciate his intelligence.
If you insist on defining not only your own position but mine, then we very little to talk about that would be meaningful in any way.
on March 23rd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Ruslan, you are correct, Deep Ecology is not part of the New Right, but shares the environmental and spiritual elements. It is profoundly idealistic versus materialistic.
Some Deep Ecologists have also adopted reformulated fascist authoritarian elements but most have not. Most acknowledge the near impossibility of dismantling our capitalist industrial base and advocate instead for the steady state economic model and bio-regionalism. Some anticipate a collapse and crisis that will be replaced by a return to decentralization and a local economy.
There is much internal discussion about these and other issues in the community. Traditionalism is embraced by almost all, and is as you say, a romantic-idealist return to a pre-industrial/pre-enlightenment world view. It profoundly rejects materialism as a satisfactory basis for forming human communities.
We observe that ANY economic model that assumes a materialist basis for human well-being, exponential growth to accomodate increasing human population and a global infrastructure model is inherently unsustainable within a finite resource base.
Hence I accept the New Right’s proposition that both socialist/communist systems and corporate-capitalist models are inherently unsatisfactory and carry the genesis of their own demise and collapse.
Also, I am not a neo-pagan, but traditional Christian.
on March 23rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm
My, Deep, you do shift ground, don’t you? I reiterate: you’re a fake.
on March 23rd, 2012 at 4:55 pm
For Reynardine, another reason I neglected to mention about why I branch out into blogs other than environmental is the “echo chamber” problem. Learning is minimized if all you do is talk to yourself.
Our community, be it new right or deep ecology, needs to engage other communities, Ruslan is one of this blogs sharpest commentators, with a wealth of ideas and a different perspective that is refreshing. I constantly learn from him, and even if not in agreement, it makes me look at my own ideas from a different angle.
Both the new left and new right have incorporated a concern for the environment into their platforms, and I work with both.
on March 24th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Deep, you should know.
on March 24th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Let us note for the record that Deep has acknowledged having no credentials in the hard sciences, claims expertise in a field which has little academic recognition, and admits working with the New Right. The statement about the Aral Sea was cretinous enough to support his admission that he is without scientific background. Indicative, Watson.
on March 26th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Reynardine, you have found me out. Everything I admit to in print you have investigated and discovered to be true.
Our discourse has been unprofitable since I lumped you and Ruben among the lunatic fringe that sees a conspiracy under every rock and believes the give and take of American electoral hijinks herald the Fourth Reich.
Sorry man, but the steady thrum of those black helicopters outside your window at night has unhinged your reasoning.
on March 26th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Hey Deep,
I think you went a little too far on that one. In spite of his polemics against you, I don’t think he has ever once ‘jumped off the deep (ha! It’s funny because it’s part of your username) end’ into conspiracy-land.
He has called you on what seem to me, as an outside observer, to be perfectly rational points. Yes he has mocked you out of frustration. Yes, he has ridiculed you. But you must admit, you are represent a very obscure area of geographical studies. You cannot be surprised if others view your ideas with mild suspicion.
That being said, I am finding this tête à tête interesting, so please continue. As I wrote before, while I often find myself disagreeing with your viewpoints, they are always enough to give me pause for thought.
I can also be reasonably sure that you’re not Jason Smith. Because your writing style seems to be above that of the average fifth-grader.
on March 27th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Aron, it WAS unkind, and the moment I submitted it I realized that my response had descended to his level.
Trolls who are dishonest and disengenous frequent all blogs. I have endeavored to be honest, never shy away from disagreement, (but not allow that disagreement to become personal, well most of the time anyway) and spend enough time outlining alternative ideas to leave no doubt as to where I stand.
Most people focus on the effect and ignore the cause or in philosophy, the prime, first premise. So often we shout about the details, and ignore foundational thought as the basis for the particulars we embrace.
I am above all an idealist versus materialist, within Deep Ecology, almost without exception, we all are. Transcendent spiritual values are placed above purely materialist concerns for life, we are opposed to a man-centered view of existence and hold that nature has value in and of itself, not dependent on the value it holds for man’s use.
The only movement that consistently embraces this ecological view of life is the European New Right, as opposed to American conservatives or the authoritarian far right. However, as a traditional, orthodox Christian I reject their neo-paganism.
Democracy and technology are twin gods that have failed to deliver on their promises, despite the best of intentions of the enligtenment philosophers. I am in agreement with the early Greek philosophers on their criticisms of popular democracy and believe like other historical examples, it carries the seeds of its own future collapse.
Ruslan’s and Reynardine’s rejection of the Aral Sea environmental catastrophe mystifies me. It is THE textbook example of what happens when a fragile region is subjected to industrial agriculture, water stress and collapses. The Russian’s began an attempt to restore part of the Aral Sea in 2005 and the project is ongoing. The scientists publish their progress frequently and these can be accessed online (in English) .
My special interest is geo-strategy, the nation-state, and ethnic conflict. I teach basic world and human geography but not at a Tier 1 school. I came to teaching late after a long career in the military. Thus, am no giant in the field of ethnic conflict but stand in the shadow of many great scholars.
Race is just another part of culture, and I reject white nationalism because biology and biology alone does not constitute a civilization. I think the WN’s miss this fact, but the Euro New Right does not. There is no such thing as an individual who exists outside a community or social group. The very idea of liberty and equality (esp as it unfolded during the French Revolution and re-emerged with the evolution of the neo-liberal state) is at its heart counter to how we as humans organize and make sense of our existence. Equality does not exist in nature and it is a profound conclusion to assume that somehow we exist outside of and separate/distinct from our environmental beginning.
So, I am openly opposed to most of progressive thought and the neo-liberal corporate-state. I comment here to keep lines of communication open and exchange ideas.
on March 27th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
As a final aside the back and forth of superior culture versus inferior culture is self-defeating. When progressives decry Western Culture, Europeans or whatever, and a European or white American defends it, with lots of nasty asides, accusations of this or that, the point of what constitutes a “superior” culture is missed. A superior culture is your culture, not anothers. It was this salient observation, after years of travel and living abroad in both Asia and Europe, that I began to appreciate the sheer diversity of the human experience, and became a devoted pan-nationalist.
Neo-liberalism, the corporate-capitalist global state and progressive thought devours unique cultures in a drab conformity that is relentless in its pursuit of a universal solution to mans inherent differences, nevermind the right to pursue those differences. And please, if you don’t believe this is true, just do a little research into the declining numbers of indigenous peoples fighting their last battles to save their living space, language, spiritual beliefs and tribal ways of life against this monolithic threat.
There is simply no such thing as universal human rights, that is pure non-sense, and that stance, be it criticism of China or Islam, tramples on a peoples right to shape and define the pursuit of their own destiny, no matter what we or anyone else thinks of the choices they make to organize and make sense of their lives.
Ok, that was full disclosure Reynardine, sound the alarm bells to all.