Print this post Print this post

Guatemalans are Not the New Puritans

Guatemalan Catholics, just like people you might have met in seventeenth-century Plymouth, right? RIGHT?

1,758 words

“Catholic migrants from Central America now have more in common with our Puritan forebears than do most Europeans.”

So argues Matthew Schmitz, a Catholic writer who supports Yoram Hazony’s “national conservatism.” He claims that a multi-racial nationalism is possible so long as it’s guided by Judeo-Christian faith. The argument sounds little different from Conservative Inc. nonsense, and proves that national conservatism does not represent actual nationalism.

Schmitz tries to differentiate the nationalism for which he and Hazony advocate from creedal and racial nationalism. According to the Catholic writer, creedal nationalism “defines America in terms of a common creed: all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Hazony’s nationalism is different because it emphasizes America’s Christian heritage – but there’s a twist. “In order to be an American one need not participate in that heritage, but one must respect it and be ready to defend it,” Schmitz writes. “Hazony’s view might be summarised as a multi-racial, ecumenical, and philo-Semitic Christian nationalism.”

I’m not sure our deist Founders would have declared philo-Semitic Christianity to be our unifying glue, but Zionists and Catholic integralists surely know better than us. Schmitz does not rely on the Founders to make this argument; he uses Martin Luther King! “In the 1960s, America belatedly chose its Christian identity – what Martin Luther King called ‘the sacred heritage of our nation” – over white supremacy.’” It’s strange that “anti-liberal” conservatives who loudly deride the 1960s want America’s national identity to originate from the liberal crusades of the 1960s.

Indeed, the National Conservatism Conference sought to more widely disseminate this “multi-racial, ecumenical, and philo-Semitic Christian nationalism,” but journalists still ruled it a racist event. That was largely due to comments made by University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax. Wax did not shy away from addressing race in her opposition to mass immigration. Schmitz joined the chorus of shrieking journalists in decrying her comments as White Nationalism. He wrote, “Wax would base immigration policy on the notion of ‘cultural distance’: First World countries, whose cultures are supposedly nearest that of the United States, would be given priority.”

Schmitz says this is wrong because racial nationalism has no viability in America, and our nation’s core is philo-Semitic Christians, not white people. Schmitz believes a real “culture distance” immigration policy would favor devout Guatemalans over secular Swedes. This is when he claims Central Americans are just like the Puritans:

[Central Americans’] Church still proclaims the bodily resurrection of Christ, still believes in original sin and predestination, still opposes the evil of contraception. These are things the Puritans professed but many Protestant bodies, and many residents of formerly Protestant states – including Wax’s favoured ‘First World’ countries – no longer believe. Central Americans should be favoured over Europeans under any immigration policy based on cultural distance.

After that ridiculous assertion, Schmitz finishes off his column with his opinion on America’s actual divide:

The greatest cultural distance is not between natives and migrants but between a religious, patriotic, multi-racial working class and a secular, progressive, and largely white elite. Our country’s opinion-makers hate faith, revile patriotism and contemn family. People loyal to what is most noble in the American heritage have less in common with them than with almost any migrant.

The column is obviously wrong on many fronts. America is hardly united by religion, and “trad,” multiracial Judeo-Christianity was never a thing. There is a divide between elite whites and all other whites, but lower-class blacks and Hispanics do not stand on the same side as working-class whites. The elites favor non-whites of any class over working-class whites, and use minorities to advance their interests. Race has, is, and will always be America’s great divide. Catholic Guatemalans have nothing in common with the Anglo-Puritan settlers and their descendants, and America should still favor secular Europeans over devout Africans.

This is why nationalism must address race. Ignoring it leads to this kind of silliness.

America’s elite liberals deserve no defense, but it is tremendously dumb to assert the shared connection between Middle Americans and Mayan-speaking Central Americans. They are both Christians, but their faiths are not the same. In contrast to conservative delusions, the faith practiced by lower-class Hispanics – the people actually coming to America – is heavily influenced by native practices and radical politics. Think tribal dances and mariachi masses rather than the austere, pre-Vatican II devotions. Evangelicalism is also popular among Hispanics, undermining the idea that the new arrivals are all good Catholics.

Evangelicalism’s popularity among Hispanics might seem to present a bridge between the new arrivals and white heartlanders, but this is true only on the surface. Hispanic evangelicals are more conservative than their Catholic co-ethnics on social issues, yet ethnic interests trump social conservatism. Latino evangelical leaders are more focused on increasing immigration than gay marriage. Hispanic Christianity expresses racial identity and fights for Hispanic group interests. It’s not a means for assimilation.

The social conservatism of Hispanics is also grossly overstated. Most Hispanics support abortion and gay marriage, and they still vote solidly Democrat. Much of this can also be said of black Christians. They may hold some conservative views, but it doesn’t impact their voting patterns, nor does it motivate them to link arms with working-class whites against the tofu-eating globalists. Their faith affirms their racial identity, and black pastors are some of the worst racial activists in America. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are ministers, for example. Black churches reinforce the idea that their congregants are different from whites.

Race is fundamentally important to non-whites, as seen by the overwhelming majorities of blacks, Asians, and Hispanics who say their racial identity is very important. And if Christianity was a unifying bond for the working class across racial divides, you’d think most churches would be diverse. In fact, most congregations in America remain voluntarily segregated by race. People prefer to worship with those who look like themselves.

The most ridiculous point in the column is the assertion that Central American Catholics are just like the Puritans. That might have been true if the Puritans had come to America to experience the Pequot’s welfare system, take jobs from their working class, and had had a notoriously corrupt political culture. Rather, the Puritans built high-trust, homogeneous societies that insisted on strict rules and social norms. They were industrious and created civilization out of the wilderness. Central American Catholics hail from notoriously corrupt societies with low-trust and even lower ethics. The ones who come here may be hard workers, but they lack the capability for higher civilization or forging a nation. The Puritan society was built on an English foundation and is inseparable from that heritage. There was far more to the Puritans than opposition to contraception.

Agnostic Swedes may not oppose contraception, nor be tormented by sin, like the Puritans of old. That still doesn’t make them any more distant from the colonial stock than modern-day Mayans. Whatever the faults of contemporary Swedes, they are still European and resemble the Founders genetically and culturally. The Founders would have recognized this. The first naturalization act did not stipulate that citizens must believe in original sin and predestination; it said they had to be free white persons of good character. Race has always informed our national character, and American icons as prominent as Thomas Jefferson believed that America could never work as a multiracial society. Jefferson himself would not be allowed in Schmitz’s fantasy America because of his deism and racialism.

National conservatives latch onto religion to avoid the racial reality. They imagine America can be united by a vague Christianity that worships Jews and magically revives Puritan religiosity. How conservative intellectuals will convince secular Americans to attend church again is left out of the discussion. It’s also not clear how the supposedly multi-racial working class will come together against secular elites. The Religious Right has always been overwhelmingly white, in spite of its strenuous efforts to recruit non-white Christian conservatives. It’s doubtful that Catholic pundits will do a better job than megachurch pastors in forging a diverse Religious Right coalition.

National conservatives seem smart enough to know that they can’t accomplish this. They revel in delusion because they are afraid of race. It’s better to blather on about white Latin mass attendees and Hispanic Pentecostalists being strongly connected.

Schmitz’s article encapsulates conservative delusions about Third World Christianity and how anti-elite bias becomes anti-white racism. Schmitz, like many conservative Christians, sees Third Worlders as the great hope for the West: They will restore traditional practice, reevangelize the West, and bring down the godless white elites. In reality, Third World Christianity coming into the West will be more like Camp of the Saints than a new crusade. But to tout their anti-racist credentials, Schmitz and others will claim that they’d rather have based Nigerians than atheist Danes.

At least he does not go as far as Harvard Law Professor and Catholic integralist Adrian Vermeuele, who argued in a recent article that America’s immigration policy should exclude whites in favor of non-white Catholics so that we can turn North America into the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe. To his credit, Schmitz believes America should still exist and not be turned into the launch pad for papist global domination.

America’s white elites are terrible, and their power should be challenged. But their problem is not due to latent Protestantism or some inherently tainted Northern European traits. America’s elite culture is no longer defined by WASPs; it’s ruled by the people who national conservatives fawn over. This is another area that the supposed nationalists won’t go near for obvious reasons. It’s far easier to bash Northern Europeans and lament our “WASP” elite than to mention Jewish influence.

National conservatism continues to prove it’s not interested in preserving the historic American nation. These intellectuals rail against liberalism, globalism, and the conservative movement, but don’t offer a serious alternative. Their ideology deploys new rhetoric to defend old conservative platitudes. For years, mainstream conservatives have claimed philo-Semitic Christianity is America’s core. How are the national conservatives any different? Their ideology is simply Conservative Inc. with a new, “illiberal” paint job.

American nationalism must address race and seek to defend white interests. Whites founded America, and the nation will not survive if we are no longer the majority. One cannot revive our nation with people wholly alien to our colonial stock, regardless of whether they believe in original sin. Only whites can preserve America.

 

17 Comments

  1. Alexandra O
    Posted August 1, 2019 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    We do not need a ‘multi-racial’ working class in the U.S. If we ourselves cannot envision a product and make it ourselves, then we do not need it. We are responsible for probably 75% of the products envisioned and created in the world in the last 200 years, and if we cannot continue our creativity and work production by ourselves, maybe it really is time for us to fade into oblivion. However, I would rather fight to regain our top space in the productivity game. We need to get off our duffs and get back to work!

  2. Rhodok
    Posted July 31, 2019 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    I do not think it possible to base nations around “what is inside your head”. We cannot establish what someone really believes, what really motivates him. We can only look at what they do, and how they look like.

    Based on that, race and fair judgement seems to be our only option.

  3. Muhammad Aryan
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    It must have been a rapturous development for St. Eugene Michael Jones.

  4. margot metroland
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Yes, let’s argue about a false premise. Surely, Central American Indians are mostly pagan? I’ve never met one who was even a low-church Anglican, let alone a practicing Catholic.

    I hear there are a lot of Evangelical bible-thumpers among the indios—lots of shouting and singing there—and I suppose they have cults that use Christian statuary for devil-doll rituals. But that isn’t Christianity; it’s just more magic and hoodoo. These savages can no more grasp the subtleties of Christian Doctrine than they can critique French symbolist poetry. It’s just not their thing.

    For centuries Catholic friars have built missions amongst them, with little to show for their trouble. They’re still trying to do missionary work down there. Doesn’t this tell you something? Helloo?

  5. Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    It would be a serious stretch to even compare the modern day Squatemalans to the Mayan/Toltec civilization that geographically preceded them. One was building pyramids and carving skulls out of quartz crystal. The other bases its’ civilization on leaving Guatemala to seek unskilled labor in America.

    The most accurate appraisal of any races’ value in the modern world would be how many Israel would be willing to let in – provided they can pass a mandatory DNA test.

    • Posted July 31, 2019 at 12:30 am | Permalink

      The Mayan, Toltec or any other indigenous primitives did not built pyramids or carve crystal skulks! They inherited a legacy civilization when the architects and builders moved on. Hence, zero similar feats since, and the primitives you speak of today are their eguals.

  6. Viv
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Painful, the contortions to avoid acknowledging biology.

  7. BroncoColorado
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    It appears that Christianity can and is being used to persuade the gullible and altruistic that abandoning any vestige of common sense is in some way beneficial to their prosperity, safety and survival. I have almost given up trying to engage in rational discussion and argument with Christians.

    • Posted July 31, 2019 at 12:36 am | Permalink

      No wonder with that verbose, self annointed language.

      • BroncoColorado
        Posted July 31, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

        Pretentious!…moi?

        • Posted July 31, 2019 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

          A tactless single word, rejoinder?
          An irrelevant non sequitur?
          Ignoble.

  8. nineofclubs
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    In Australia we’re now told that migrants from the Middle East and Africa are just like our convict forebears. You see, just like your Guatemalan – Plymouth settler comparison, our Sudanese gangstas came across the seas and have questionable backgrounds. They’re just like our own forebears!

    Except, not.

    Australian convicts were generally improved by the experience of transportation. Whether this is because of the strict discipline imposed by colonial authorities, or the fact that convicts were removed from corrupting environments in Britain and Ireland, or just that opportunities for crime were fewer in a colony where there wasn’t much to steal isn’t clear. But many studies (starting with Russel Ward’s The Australian Legend) show that transported convicts were renewed and improved – if not wholly made over to God – by the experience.

    By contrast, today’s migrants suffer no real physical deprivation. They aren’t flogged, put in irons, or hanged for infractions. They weren’t expelled by force from their homelands. They had the means, mobility and health to move around the globe – which would indicate that they weren’t among the most deprived in their communities. And from early indications, few are improved by the experience.

    Conservatives dislike the organic, racial basis of ethnic societies because it tends naturally to a communitarian outlook that they equate with socialism. Better to have a divided, atomised society of consumers paying homage to The Market, united by nothing else except a set of Christian principles.

    .

  9. Hubbub
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Guatemalans are Guatemalans and nothing more or less. They carry with them all the baggage that can be impugned to Guatemalans.

  10. James J. O'Meara
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    “[Central Americans’] Church still proclaims the bodily resurrection of Christ, still believes in original sin and predestination, still opposes the evil of contraception.”

    See, this is the problem with Christians. They will fixate on some theological point that means nothing politically, and then persecute citizens that disagree, while welcoming non-citizens who agree — or say they agree.

    The Czechs are the least religious people on Earth (some survey says) — they seem to be doing a lot better than the USA, White survival-wise.

    Guatemalan Catholics believe in predestination? LOL.

    • Altitude Zero
      Posted July 31, 2019 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      Yes, since when do ANY Catholics believe in predestination? It’s kind of beside the point, but that caught my attention as well. Also, as I recall, the Puritans fled Great Britain because they thought that the Anglican Church was crypto-Catholic, among other things. I doubt that they would welcome Schmitz’s embrace.

  11. Brooklyn Dave
    Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Except for a number of social issues like abortion and (at least on paper) homosexuality, Catholicism is liberal to the core. No, Guatemalans are not or never will be the “New Puritans – or for that matter Peruvians the “New Irish” or Mexicans the “New Polish or “New Italians”. Besides gleefully soaking itself in the cesspool of multiculturalism, the question has to be asked why are certain Catholics hitching their wagons to open Latino immigration. Do they really believe that it will give the Catholic faith a boost? I am not denigrating the personal faith of Latino immigrants, but there are certain things to look at. First of all, Latinos do no support a parish in the way whites (or for that matter Catholic Asians such as Chinese, Filipinos or Vietnamese) do. Secondly, Latinos were never a big source of vocations (Catholicism needs an ordained priesthood that involves years of study to survive). Thirdly, Latinos for whatever reason, are swarming to evangelical churches so that less and less are actually Catholic. I am not surprised a guy like Schmitz has these blinders on. Like a typical conservative, he is afraid to ask uncomfortable questions and face uncomfortable facts.

    • Posted July 31, 2019 at 12:42 am | Permalink

      Hey professor,
      Ask me any uncomfortable question or “fact” you want. Be careful. You’re fishing in a big pond without a pole.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance