Purim, Sharpeville, and First Things

Sharpeville Massacre, South Africa, 21 March 1960

March 21st marked Purim this year, the day when Jews the world over celebrate their deliverance from the hand of Haman, who "rose up against them and sought to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, on the same day, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions;" but the Lord "didst nullify his counsel and frustrate his intention, and caused his design to return upon his own head, and they hanged him and his sons on the gallows."

It was also the 59th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, which was the atrocity that pushed the Apartheid regime's cruel brutality onto the world stage, beginning a process that would lead to the liberation of millions three decades later, but only after an immeasurable amount of violence, torture, and oppression had been dealt out by that country's white supremacist government. In South Africa, it is called Human Rights Day.

Thus, on the confluence of two important liberation-centered holidays, it is somewhat perplexing that First Things, a publication that claims to be "the leading intellectual journal of its kind in the United States," decided to go down the Blood & Soil road in a manifesto styled "Against the Dead Consensus." As my friend Jeremiah Bailey observed, "First Things' metamorphosis into Breitbart-for-Catholics-that-went-to-College is finally complete."

Indeed, one might have seen this motion toward the alt-right in the offing back in February, 2018 when First Things published "Non Possumus" – a full-blown defense of the Vatican's 19th Century kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, a Jewish boy, to be raised and educated in the Catholic faith on the pretext that he had been secretly baptized by his nanny as an infant – followed by editor Rusty Reno's non-apology defending his publication of the subject in order have a more expansive dialogue about "things of the Lord" that "ennoble us" but "but often only after an agonizing process of conformity to his purposes, which are not our own."

And a deeper look will also show First Things' further propensity for publishing (at least) racially tone-deaf articles like this and this.

First Things, a project belonging initially to Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues, was founded to "confront the ideology of secularism." It has been around since 1989, and, along with the Acton Institute, has been a stalwart of the libertarianish-conservative culture-war Catholicism so ably represented by Robert Novak, George Weigel, Thomas Woods, Robert Sirico, and Neuhaus himself, among others.

Times have changed though, as the authors of this piece observe, and "There is no returning to the pre-Trump conservative consensus that collapsed in 2016. Any attempt to revive the failed conservative consensus that preceded Trump would be misguided and harmful to the right." Their answer to this conundrum? That's the troubling thing.  They propose, in essence, a cultivated Catholic identity politics; a kinder, gentler, and certainly more urbane, white nationalist authoritarianism than currently rolls out of the White House.

Or as Lillian Vogl so aptly put it, "Dammit, Donald Trump makes the patriarchy and nationalism so ugly, crude, and obvious! How can we reframe to make it look refined and principled again?"

Others have done a fine job of responding to the First Things document. Lillian's fine point-by-point response is included below. All I have is lamentation that, with a rich tradition of justice and liberation to draw from, these 13 men and one woman have chosen the path of a religious-integralist America-First ethnonationalism, a path that leads somewhere that, I assure you, we don't want to go.


Wisdom from another of my friends:

This is serious. 

Taking a stand for "the worker" (meaning, the worker of our nation / ethnicity only), in the interests of overt nationalism, combined with opposition to globalism / foreigners is exactly the core ideology of national socialism. 

It is intended to suborn the resentment of the working classes and direct it against the "other." 

It is not Christian, but it is a menace that has seduced Christians before, due to their obsession with "the west." 

Read this and see what's happening. If it looks innocuous or even pleasing, well, that's how this stuff always starts.

Of course, not everyone is unhappy about this. Zebulon Baccelli, of the American Solidarity Party's National Committee, had this to say:

About time! Everyone who feels this way should come to the American Solidarity Party and help us form a new political identity for Americans.

I can't argue with him. If this article reflects your political views, the integralist alt-right-lite element that makes up the ASP is just the crowd you should run with.

A Response by Lillian Vogl to "Against the Dead Consensus"

We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence.

[Cool, I do too. So we’re dismantling unbridled capitalism together, right?]

Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the intellectually competitive. Our policy must accommodate the messy demands of authentic human attachments: family, faith, and the political community.

[Okay, not focusing on the problems of capitalism then... Human attachments are good. What does “accommodate messy demands” mean, though? What if the “demands” are freedom to abuse others in the name of familial, religious, or community “principles”? And who is usually left “accommodating” the needs of the children, elderly, disabled, and other “unproductive” people, with no pay?]

We welcome allies who oppose dehumanizing attempts at “liberation” such as pornography, “designer babies,” wombs for rent, and the severing of the link between sex and gender. 

[Which of these things is not like the other? 🎶]

We stand with the American citizen.

In recent years, some have argued for immigration by saying that working-class Americans are less hard-working, less fertile, in some sense less worthy than potential immigrants. We oppose attempts to displace American citizens.

[Hmm, where have I heard the mantra “X will not displace us” before???]

Advancing the common good requires standing with, rather than abandoning, our countrymen. They are our fellow citizens, not interchangeable economic units. And as Americans we owe each other a distinct allegiance and must put each other first. 

[So we’re going with blatant nationalism in item number 2. Got it. I don’t blame anyone who stops reading here. I have a strong stomach and will keep going for the sake of opposition research.]

We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity.

In 2013, the Republican National Committee released an “autopsy report” that proposed compromising on social issues in order to appeal to young voters. In fact, millennials are the most pro-life generation in America, while economic libertarianism isn’t nearly as popular as its Beltway proponents imagine. We affirm the nonnegotiable dignity of every unborn life and oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification.

[So “human dignity” = the right to be born. But after that, you are who the dominant forces in society say you should be. How dare anyone “self identify” their place in the Order?!?]

We resist a tyrannical liberalism.

[“Tyrannical liberalism” is as oxymoronic as “dark brightness.” George Orwell gives you a Nancy Pelosi clap for this subheader.]

We seek to revive the virtues of liberality and neighborliness that many people describe as “liberalism.” But we oppose any attempt to conflate American interests with liberal ideology. When an ideological liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the result, at home and abroad. 

[Didn’t even try to explain what this could possibly mean, just asserted the specter of tyranny. No more claps for you. Oh wait, your fragile white male self thinks THAT is what “Nazi” means: Someone not giving you what you think you’re specially entitled to.]

We want a country that works for workers.

The Republican Party has for too long held investors and “job creators” above workers and citizens, dismissing vast swaths of Americans as takers unworthy of its time. Trump’s victory, driven in part by his appeal to working-class voters, shows the potential of a political movement that heeds the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. Americans take more pride in their identity as workers than their identity as consumers. Economic and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption. 

[On second thought, you get another Nancy Pelosi clap for this. This paragraph is absolutely correct. Would it kill you, though, to add one sentence saying “therefore, we should repeal the 2017 Trump/Ryan tax cuts that gave 20-40% tax cuts to business owners and exempted all but the top 1/10th of 1% of families from the generational wealth transfer tax”?]

We believe home matters.

[Is this about keeping women in their place? That seems to be where the headline is going. But wait! There’s more...]

For those who enjoy the upsides, a borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They can go anywhere, work anywhere. They can call themselves “citizens” of the world. But the jet-setters’ vision clashes with the human need for a common life. And it has bred resentments that are only beginning to surface. We embrace the new nationalism insofar as it stands against the utopian ideal of a borderless world that, in practice, leads to universal tyranny.

[What actually is this about? Are you seriously suggesting not allowing people freedom of movement? We’re embracing “new nationalism” and the opposite is “universal tyranny”? George Orwell’s corpse is seriously swelling to many times its original size with...something.]

Whatever else might be said about it, the Trump phenomenon has opened up space in which to pose these questions anew. We will guard that space jealously. And we respectfully decline to join with those who would resurrect warmed-over Reaganism and foreclose honest debate. 

[We thought Reagan was our friend, but his policies let women and minorities get ideas about their equality. No more! Trump has given us permission to not be “politically correct” anymore, so we can intimidate women and minorities again with impunity. We’re just asking questions! How dare anyone read sexism or racism into this list!?! That’s not “honest debate” because you can’t prove we have discriminatory intent in our hearts. No more libertarianism being categorized as an ally of the right. We’re ready to go full-on authoritarian, while calling the opposition to authoritarianism “tyranny” without batting an eye.]