Friday, September 9, 2016

Response to Guillaume Durocher

It seems Guillaume Durocher has gone full Pagan:

The Occidental Observer : Plato’s Racial Republic
Guillaume Durocher : August 29, 2016

Egalitarians have argued that notions of nation and race are largely modern constructs. Marxists in particular have typically claimed that Western ruling classes invented these ideas to consolidate the power of bourgeois states or as a mere pretext to divide the working class along (supposedly imaginary) racial lines and to oppress their colonial subjects.

I do not know how many times "race" has been the criterium for diverse rights or duties in colonialism.

It was certainly the case in the thought - not sure how much became law - of Jules Ferry.

It is then important to look at the actual record of discussion of tribe, nation, and race in our European tradition. In fact, hereditarian and ethnocentric themes have been present in Western thought from the beginning. An example of this would be Herodotus, the very first historian, who 2,500 years ago already defined being part of the Greek nation through four criteria: common religion, common blood, common language, and common custom.

I agree that not having a common religion is an obstacle to being really the same nation, just as - on a deep level, not merely that of superficial divergences - having different laws is.

However, as a Christian, as a Catholic, I believe there is one religion which should be common to all of mankind.

For nations, race heritage is indeed a significant contribution - but a contribution.

Greek laws about race as meriting citizenship in one case (namely pure Athenian) but in another case (not pure Athenian) as meriting exclusion from valid legal marriage and in yet another case (pure Dacian or Thracian) as meriting slavery were Pagan and totalitarian mistakes.

In this article, I will give an account of racial and ethnic thought in Plato’s monumental philosophical treatise, The Republic, which is widely recognized as the founding text of the entire tradition of Western thought.

It is not "the" founding text of Western thought.

Even on a purely political level (not counting Timaeus or Aristotle's Physics, I think book VI), you have also to reckon with Aristotle's Polotics, with Plato's Laws, with Cicero's De Republica (a rip off of The State in general outline, but not necessarily in political detail), his De Officiis AND with ... let us not forget ... Christianity.

The point however is the principle: given the reality of heredity, improving the gene pool (or the breed or the race) is a moral good. Plato thus argues powerfully for regulating sex and reproduction, and not leaving such matters to the animalistic whims of individuals: “undisciplined sex (or undisciplined anything for that matter) is a profanity, and the rulers won’t allow it” (458d-e).[7] This program also justifies the state in drafting the youths it raises into the regime: “We’ve bred you” (520b).

Well, that is not Western, that is Nimrodean. It is a state ("city" as the word is used in Genesis 11) acting as slave owner to the citizens.

It is a moral good to opt out of and even to actively oppose a state making such claims. Because, a state doing so, is playing God. It becomes "a mighty hunter before the Lord" and "before" has been glossed, in Hebrew terms, as "in the face of" or as a preposition semantically synonym to the participle "defying". God owns man. State does NOT own man.

There is a reason why, when National Socialists started to apply these evils, the Catholic bishops resisted them.

Plato also argues for negative eugenics. This radical subordination of individual interest to the community seems extreme and unjust to our time. But the ancient Greeks lived far more difficult and violent lives. As a result, virtually all Greek city-states regarded excess population as undesirable and took measures against this, including the practice of infanticide. The most systematic in this respect were the Spartans, who would leave deformed newborns to die. Plato argues that children of the worst parents and those who are congenitally disabled should be segregated[8] from the elite, “otherwise our breed of guardians will become tainted” (460c).

One can say that this prejudice about banishing "base stock" from ... the élite ... has had an echo in politics even in Christian times. But hardly a full scale consistent application or even serious attempt at such.

Obviously, banishing base stock from overall people or from being born at all is a heinous crime beyond this recommendation of Plato.

Casti Connubii was condemning the more recent and more thoroughgoing applications.


Plato argues that enforcement of these eugenic measures could be achieved through religious education or myth. The parenting of low-grade children would become a religious taboo (my emphasis):


We’ll say he has sinned against both gods and men by fathering a child who (if the matter goes unnoticed and the child is born) will not have been affected by the rites and prayers which the priestesses and priests and the whole community pray at each wedding-festival — for every generation of children to improve on their parents’ in goodness and value — but will instead have been born under the influence of darkness and dire lack of self-control (461a-b).

Ah ... "we'll say" ... men deciding, for their wisdom and reasons, what to say about "the gods".

A kind of compliance which Hitler asked of Church men in general and got from Deutsche Christen - but not from the Catholic Church.

That is why, since my later teens, I have been distancing myself consistently from the Hitler régime, and preferring other Fascisms, Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, Franco and Salazar, and certain years of Il Duce himself (but not the Salò Republic, which a French speaker could call "bien nommée" due to La Riziera or - even before - Carta della Razza, and not his foreign policy against Serbs and Ethiopians). I have a horror for this modern stuff. And even if it happens to be rehashed ancient stuff, it is not traditional stuff.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Our Lady's Nativity

No comments: