The Jacksonians vs the Wilsonians: Who is to Prevail?

The mythical Conservative Swede has put an essay in the comment section of Compasses Anyone?. It was initially his response over at the Lawrence Auster post Is the Islamic takeover of Europe inevitable?.

Conservative Swede has it serve double duty as a response to Archonix’ remarks in this “Compasses” post at Gates of Vienna (as is often the case, the commenters are often better than the posters – a good dose of the humbles never hurt anyone).

Archonix was tracing the present situation back to its devilish beginnings; Conservative Swede picks up on it, and riffs on the same theme.

Here’s Archonix first:

…I agree that Sweden must have imported the multiculti idea from America, but I don’t blame the Americans for it. I actually blame my own people. Multiculturalism grew up in Great Britain and France, both former colonialists with a great deal of self-imposed “guilt” about their colonial past. From there it migrated to California, the incubator of just about every crackpot idea since the movie industry moved out there to avoid paying patent fees to Edison.

In the UK, our ‘guilt’ was imposed by the Labour party, who were definitely Marxists of the old school, but also influenced heavily by Gramascian ideas. The Americans adopted this colonialist guilt, for reasons that have never been clear — like Sweden they had no reason for it — and turned from a country that welcomed immigrants who could improve the national; fibre to a country that welcomed anyone who arrived on their shores. “Bring me your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to be free” lost the last clause. Freedom became anathaematic to the new multiculturalism. The fact that it’s largely a movement run and adopted by socialists simply made it easier for Sweden’s socialist leaders to adopt the same model.

In this case I can’t even use my favourite scapegoat of the French. The left in my country are responsible for it and they’re the ones you should hold responsible. No offence to our hosts…but the Americans were simply naive about the end results of this behaviour. Hell, maybe that’s a compliment. Naive optimism isn’t such a bad thing really… The US, even now, has a strange sort of hidden admiration for what the mother country gets up to, and a great many would have adopted just about any idea that came from these shores. It’s unfortunate. But there you go…

Our “naive optimism,” which de Tocqueville observed so tellingly, has often served us well. It is part of the Jacksonian heritage of America — though it was evolving before then — and that heritage can be traced back to our Scots-Irish DNA. It is impulsive, chivalric, and many of its descendants will be found in the military. Interestingly, most of the descendants seemed to have preferred the then-rural southern streams of our genetic pool.

The Jacksonian is easy to spot, especially when contrasted the more Wilsonian — i.e., Northern, or even bi-coastal — parts of our country. Look at the red-blue electoral configurations — but look quickly as they are rapidly changing. Blue state California is being abandoned as it morphs into Mexifornia. The native Blues are fleeing to contiguous Red states, but they carry their Blue Wilsonian ideas with them, thus re-coloring the map. Seeing the chaos and mayhem didn’t change their thinking, however. They’re still all for dialogue, but they want someone else to do it while they are safely far from the mess they permitted to happen as they talked and talked and talked. Wilsonians are addicted to the illusion that peace demonstrations bring about peace. In fact, it’s the only arrow in their tiny quiver.

Conservative Swede describes the Wilsonian effect:

It’s a Wilsonian delusion that political change happens through voting. Real political change never does. Real political power is not represented by a plurality of votes. It’s represented by having the greatest means to apply violence. It’s only when living under the protective wings of an empire—such as Europe have been living under the protective wings of Pax Americana the last 60 years—that peaceful political procedures make sense. The means to apply violence here represented by the mighty American army, providing the protective shield for the Europeans (however, and apple with a worm in it).

– – – – – – – – – –

But it’s when this is seen clearly that we can also see why the system of modern democracy—a Wilsonian invention—can never allow real political change, but is only of ceremonial value. You will not be allowed to transgress the (over)ideology imposed by the guarantor of your protective shield. Or you will be given the “Serbian” treatment.

The point is not that the Europeans lack the will to fight. They are, just as the Americans, lulled into a false sense of security. Westerners truly think that we still dominate the world (including our own countries), and have an unmoved sense of invincibility. They generally think that we are steamrolling the rest of the world to adapt Western values, and that there is just some friction on the way.

Just look at Sweden. Sweden is often brought up as the worst Western country in many ways. I invite everyone to come here and visit. You’ll find the most idyllic place, where you’ll feel safe walking in the streets after dark, etc. Do you remember the VFR reader who wanted to escape California and said he “felt more at home in smaller towns in Sweden”. This picture is not at all untrue. It takes many decades for the destruction of a country to come in effect.

It’s only if you’re a thinker, or you had bad personal experiences, that you will already now see how the current incarnation of the West is terminally ill. It doesn’t show, not in the ordinary life of common people. We are past the point of no return, but it still doesn’t show. It’s like that George Washington quote, that in a democracy people have to feel it before they can see it. And it doesn’t feel quite yet.

But we are headed for the moment when the perception of the idyllic order will break apart in Europe, followed by the illusion of the imperial protective shield along with the system of modern democracy. This will be a truly revolutionary moment. The awakened Europeans will not only have the Muslims against them, in this fight, but their own political elites, leftist storm troopers, and a Wilsonian Uncle Sam. Bush II would have reacted just like Clinton, had there been another Serbia in Europe. And so will Giuliani or Hillary (let’s hope for Tom Tancredo in 2012).

It will start with street wars, then civil wars in one or two European countries—maybe in England and Holland, where we have already seen unrest caused by “white hooligans”. It will spread like wildfire over most of Western Europe. Next we will see extensive migrations within Europe. White people will flee to countries such as Poland, while the Muslims will escape to countries such as France. Mid 21st century, Europe will look like a chess board, now in a situation of more conventional warfare. We will see Europeans building city walls around their traditional cities, but for the first time in history to protect the country side from the cities.

… I hope and pray there’s not another Wilsonian president in office when this get started.

It is already starting in the streets of California. Why do you think the state has become Mexifornia? No one stayed to fight; they simply moved to contiguous states to avoid the Armageddon they could see every time they looked out the window.

After 9/11 a New York City friend of mine told me proudly that his son was leaving then to take part in that first big “peace” vigil that was a response to war. It made me slightly queasy to realize that this very learned man, author of many books on the human mind, hadn’t the slightest clue about self-preservation. He thought his son was making a valiant effort to “preserve” things.

Maybe that kind of blindness is caused by living in a city that is larger than it should be for everyday face-to-face relationships to have real meaning?

The Wilsonians are suicidal; it is they who built the underclass which will destroy them…and perhaps us. It is they who control the press, academia, and the legislatures. They think words count more than actions, and that words can easily be re-written as they go along. For just one example, take their betrayal of so many hopes with the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. That doesn’t work? Why it’s back to the table for further dialogue and the Treaty of Lausanne.

And now? Now we have that nitwit Pelosi traipsing off to Tehran, and the American Congress inviting the Muslim Brotherhood in for tea and the British press condemning Israel. The Turks and Kirkuk are lobbing bombs and shoe bats at one another. Such is the diabolical and quite logical end of Wilsonian “dialogue.” Now we know from where the expression “the chattering classes” emerged.

The Jacksonians are our only hope. The question is, what proportion of them remains? For sure, you can’t make a Jacksonian into one of Wilson’s talking heads. But perhaps, in the interests of self-preservation, some of the Wilsonians will taste reality and condescend to put on Jackson’s façade, at least until the worst of the slaughter is over.

That is my hope, but I do not think it is the coming reality. Unless…

…unless we truly recognize that we are now on our own.

10 thoughts on “The Jacksonians vs the Wilsonians: Who is to Prevail?

  1. Thank you wonderful Dymphna to bring up my comment to a post of its own. I’m very honoured.

    I just wrote the following additional explanations to the first two paragraphs to Lawrence Auster, so I share them here too:

    1. It’s a Wilsonian delusion that political change happens through voting. Paul Belien is a Wilsonian. Therefore, when he now sees that the necessary change cannot happen through elections, he concludes that no change can take place at all.

    2. In ancient Rome political power was built upon how many legions of soldiers you had behind you, and/or on connections and riches in civil life (popularity among the people also played a role). Political representation was connected to real substance. So it was still in 19th century Europe (here the votes had meaning, since there was substance behind them). But the 20th century Wilsonian democracy meant giving everyone a free ticket to political influence (universal suffrage). It’s the same thing as the loony leftist idea of printing more money to give everyone an equal salary, but applied in politics. It leads to political inflation. There’s nothing behind it, it’s an illusive shell. And when this shell cracks, the naked power game of being able to apply violence comes up the the surface. In ancient Rome or 19th century Europe, the two side were integrated into each other, so it didn’t crack so easily.

    3. Such an illusive shell–i.e. the experiment of Wilsonian democracy, and its sensitive eco-system within the shell–can only exist if you’re protected by an empire. In this case Europe has been protected by American military power. But since this is the real source of the political power, it also means that the limits of possibility of European politics is set by America. If you transgress, the empire will use its power against you. Unfortunately, Wilsonian democracy has not been the only illusive idea imposed upon Europe by America. And the shell is therefore now cracking from within.

  2. Great comments CS. Very interesting.

    Political representation was connected to real substance…… It’s the same thing as the loony leftist idea of printing more money to give everyone an equal salary, but applied in politics.

    We really never criticize modern democracy per se do we?

    Radical egalitarianism has long been with us under the guise of mass sufferage. It has always bothered me that the education and informed have no more vote than the drunken, uninformed, unintelligent. Except through essentially underhanded means like using ones superior attributes to be elected, appointed or lobby the previous two. Hidden agendas are the defining quality of current democracy, and universal sufferage has lead to the theatre of utterly fringe pressure groups exerting more influence on politicians than does the electorate.

  3. That root back to the Thing is the *other* root of democracy that we are not told about, and yet it is the very basis for Common Law from the UK and the US. The cross-infusion of Viking outlook in the British Isles, parts of northern Continental Europe, as opposed to Scandanavia, and onwards is an important concept as it is the basis for putting an order on things on just *who* is responsible for actions: one self.

    The Jacksonian in the US has a different outlook and ethos about themselves and the actual view of what can and cannot be done by Nation States and still retain individual responsibility and accountability. The personal relationships amongst individuals are seen as scale-free from the personal all the way to the Nation State and are the main conception of Nation State accountability and reciprocity at the International level. Anything or anyone that tries to do *something else* must demonstrate that it works… FIRST. Andrew Jackson, himself, was not so convinced of the need for a central bank and it took Jacksonians in the US long, long decades to finally see that it was a ‘good idea’ just explained poorly from the outset. So the untrustworthiness of governmental institutions is a given and those above that are extremely untrustworthy as they are not accountable to individual Peoples and not even Nations. Those latter insitutions are Wilsonian in nature and their outlook has now bifurcated into Right and Left politics in the US to cause immobility by the US due to them on Foreign Policy.

    When looking back at those Nations that had the honorable Thing and All Thing, one also recognizes that Kings understood themselves to be accountable to that same gathering of the People. That basic outlook of accountability and responsibility is highly prized and cherished by Jacksonians as no political Elite is above it. The US Constitution encapsulates that entire conception in orderly manner and puts forth: Responsibilities, Just Methodologies, Rights to Uphold those things. That is the exact ordering and the use of ones rights must, first and foremost, uphold those responsibilities via just means. That is not only the way the Body of the Constitution is set out, but the entire document *itself* does this and sets out who is responsible for their Nation and what things they must do before any rights are given to them to get them done. Thus the Preamble has deep meaning as it is the outlay of the entire set of responsibilities taken up by the People, and when government fails them they are the ultimate keepers of the entire Nation. In Europe rights are managed by governments, in the US government is granted few rights by the People and all else retained by the People.

    And because of that outlay, Americans criticize deocracy… those that do not feel so disenfranchised by the political atmosphere that has been engendered by Wilsonian politics, that is. The dual views that trade trumps liberty and that Transnationalism trumps International Nation State Accountability have a cold death grip on US politics and are slowly eroding the Nation State system and the rights that it allows within these containers called Nation States.

    I write mostly about these things as NOTHING else ever purposed by anyone has worked so well as the Nation State system both in its outlook of religious rights *inside* Nations and the accountability of Nations to each other NOT to promulgate religion beyond National bounds with intent to subborn other Nations. The noxious concept of there being some *higher* International Law is one that is an assertion, not backed by any authority given to any body via democratic means. I certainly do not have a vote in them, therefore they are *not* part of the Nation State container system as there is accountability in that system and no one will hold Transnational institutions accountable for *anything*. There are Nation State to Nation State agreements that Nations sign up to. There is no international law as there is nothing to show that such is accountable to anyone… while diplomatic agreements have the full force and power of Nation States *behind them* and are thus self-accountable *between* those Nations. I write on these things as they are the BASIS for modern freedom and liberty… while Wilsonianism is the basis for modern disempowerment, apathy and erosion of rights and having *no* accountability built into International trade. The test case for trade freeing people has been disproven by the very first place that it was first put into place as a concept by Woodrow Wilson: The Ottoman Empire. The Middle East looks much worse off for that trade giving cheap arms that are more deadly to less accountable groups that want to tear down Nations and build Empire.

    I distrust it not only because of that but because it does try to move responsibility and oversight of rights from purview of Nations… that is patently *not* what America was founded on. Just the opposite, in fact. And so I write on those things and what it means to be a modern Jacksonian who, finding himself in a ‘small world’ then uses the exact same concepts of the local village and applies them to this global village. I don’t particularly like some of those neighborhoods with gangsters, killers, and such like… perhaps its time we band together as neighbors to *address* some of that mayhem, and maybe start up some way to *deal with it* and teach them that being civil has meaning to us. And if they point a gun at *me*, then they can expect a pack of trouble… because they have forgotten the Jacksonian warcry: “We did not start this fight… but we sure, as HELL, will END it.”

    Ask Japan about that, and about how Jacksonians then pitched in to help build a Nation that had honorably surrendered… and tried to make sure that racial Empire would not start there *ever* again.

  4. I should add here, just as I did at VFR:

    Lawrence Auster asked: “What is your basis for calling Belien a Wilsonian, other than the simple fact that he rues the growing power of Islam in European elections? Is it the fact that he treats that growing power as the proof
    of the inevitability of the Islamization of Europe, i.e., that he sees no way for the European nations to express themselves except through the current electoral order?”

    My answer:
    I’m a great admirer of Paul Belien, and have no reason to pick on him. And I’m sure he would be just as open as you to this discussion, if he would partake in it. My point was not at all to describe Paul Belien as the typical Wilsonian. On the contrary, my point is of the form: even Paul Belien displays this mindset! It’s my “backward” way of coming to insights. Quite as five years ago when I could see: “even moderate Muslims defend …!”. That’s the kind of moment when I come to insight of how predominant something really is.

    Furthermore, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Paul Belien I do not see as Wilsonian. He just happened to become the “victim” of one of my moments of inspiration. My post went into its own direction and is no longer about Paul Belien.

    And before I had written:
    The interesting question regarding Belien is whether he’s able to see beyond the present order. He might be, but may consider it “uncivilized” to write about it. Or he might think that what is seen on the surface of Western people and Western societies is it, and that Europe therefore is doomed to fall into dhimmitude as Bat Y’eor described it happening in Egypt and the Near East. And this is where the whole point of my description comes into the picture. What I do is to describe what constitutes the surface (the present order), and what is under that surface.

  5. Fellow Peacekeeper, thanks for your encouraging words.

    “We really never criticize modern democracy per se do we?”

    Well, what other modern democracy then the Wilsonian is there?

  6. California is so miserable that even the Mexicans are fleeing now. Soon the native-born will move back — there’s a lot of relatively cheap real estate available due to foreclosures on subprime mortgates, of which illegals were a major customer segment. We’ll clean it up and make it presentable again, and then the illegal, lawless Mexicans will want to come back, sigh. That’s their MO — move to a nice clean prosperous place, suck it dry, then move on to another nice clean prosperous place. You in the non-border states, your time is coming, let me warn you.

  7. adventuress–

    Our time is already here, it just hasn’t reached maximum flood level yet. People will ignore the flood waters swirling at their feet as long as they can still walk around.

    My hope is that there are enough Jacksonians in Virginia that the eventual reaction will not be to ignore the situation but to hold people accountable.

    It won’t happen in Blue Blobs like Charlottesville — which, with the help of most of the local churches is building a mosque (money is being raised out of town in CAIR country, northern VA– a humungous Blue Blob).

    But in the rural areas — and there are still plenty of those — I hope the response is more lucid.

    We are fortunate to have for our Congressman someone who wants The Wall built and our sovereignty respected…so it remains to be seen.

  8. Hi Adventuress!

    How are you doing? I’ve been commenting about your favourite, Bjorn Staerk, at VFR.

    Tomorrow there will be a debate between Sverigedemokraterna and Mona Sahlin on TV. I’m gonna load up with pop-corn.

Comments are closed.