« Linking to Amazon.com: just say no | Main | Neil Gaiman before the Seventh Circuit »

Why do paleoconservatives care about Serbia?

One of the many things that confuses me about paleoconservativism is this: if paleocons are isolationists, nationalists, and implacable opponents of an American empire, than why are they so interested in what happens to Serbia?

As Americans, why should they care? Why are the pages of the paleoconservative flagship magazine Chronicles loaded with articles on this small, distant part of the world?

This interest in Serbia seems so out of place with so much of what the paleoconservatives profess to believe.

Except. . . Except for the issue of race.

Racism is the heavy chain dragging the paleoconservatives down. Despite their vigorous denials, they can't seem to shake the criticism that their policies on immigration, and their calls for the repeal of the civil-rights laws of the '60s, are anything other than thinly veiled racism.

I'd like to believe the paleocons when they say that they aren't racist. Logically at least, it's possible to not be a racist and to also believe that the federal civil rights laws should be repealed. Paleoconservatism doesn't logically entail racism.

But if the paleocons aren't racist, then why do they seem so ready to take sides in a conflict halfway around the world between white, Christian Serbians and brown, Muslim Albanians? Why is it so easy for the paleos to care so much about Serbia while simultaneously brushing off all the genocidal wars in Africa? Is it because in this latter case, the combatants on both sides are black, and that's what blacks do, and we should just stand back and let them do it?

Paleoconservatism has its good points; most importantly its opposition to the neoconservative myth that America can and should spread American values around the world with force if necessary.

But the reason I'm not a paleoconservative is, among other things, that they stink of racism, despite their denials. And until a paleoconservative can explain their anomalous (for American nationalists) interest in Serbia as anything other than mere empathy for beleagured White Europeans faced with a threat from Brown Muslims, the paleos will continue to look like racists to me.


First, the Muslims in Albania are anything but "brown." They are decidedly Caucasian, and in fact look exactly like the Serbs, Croatians, Romanians, etc. Paleoconservatives have as one of their defining principles the defense of Christendom. The plains of Kosovo are consequently emblematic of all that the paleos are defending. It is here that the Serbian prince Lazar (an Orthodox Christian) was killed by the armies of the Ottoman empire. These borderlands were the bulwark of Christendom. Finally, the paleos were decidedly preoccupied with Serbia because at the time the US military was waging a "humanitarian war" against a civilian population in the name of universal human rights, a rather Jacobin state of affairs. You will find that the folks at Chronicles are much more interested in our similar adventures in Iraq these days (the article you link is from 2001). Finally, the accusation of racism, leveled at people who simply seek to preserve the traditional order, is evidence of how far we have fallen.

First of all, I agree with Nick about the race of the Bosnians and Kosovo. They are simply Europeans who converted to Islam during the reign of the Ottomans. However, I disagree with Nick's assessment of the Kosovo war. While there may have been better places to intervene, and while civilians (as in any war) got hurt, our war was no more against a "civilian population" than any other. We were trying to stop the atrocities of the serbian government neighboring Kosovo. And we succeeded -- the serbian people rose up and now the war criminal is in the Hauge Did the paleoconservatives really get upset because the target country was christian?
I am proud to be neither a neo- nor a paleo- conservative. As a non- Christian I probably wouldn't be accepted by the paleo-conservatives anyway.

I have to point out that the Muslim group in the area tends to blonds, the Serbs tend to be more slavic.

What you are really seeing here is an anti-blond bias by Glorfindel.

Why? Hmm, must be some sort of Howard Dean influence and general blond hatred.

Well, off to scan more blogs for blond hatred and the racism of envy it promotes.


Some paleocons are interested in Serbia because its people are (largely and historically) Orthodox Christians, currently engaged in a struggle with European Muslims- a struggle in which the United States has for the most part taken the side of the latter. "Isolationists" do not necessarily have no interest in the goings on of other nations and people, particularly those nations and people that share a common or similar religious/cultural heritage. In fact the isolationist who is first and foremost a traditionalist (as most paleocons certainly are) will be particularly concerned about the battles in the name of the same broad tradition wherever they are fought. The "isolationist" just prefers that the State under which he lives leave other nations and peoples alone (entirely or for the most part)- something the United States, clearly, has not done with regard to Serbia. For this and other reasons, non-interventionist is probably a better term than isolationist.

I would conjecture that Chronicles in particular has such a large volume of writing about Serbia because one of its most prolific writers is (1) a Serb and (2) very interested in the clash of Islam and Christianity. Secondly, Dr. Thomas Fleming, the editor, is very interested in Serbia because he, as a Roman Catholic, believes that Christian civilization depends on Catholics and Orthodox Christians coming together (voluntarily as individuals, not by compelling their governments to fight wars in distant lands).

Finally, Larry, I can think of at least one paleoconservative who is not a Christian: Paul Gottfried, a Jew who does not seem to make must of personal religious faith in his writings. And many of those held in high regard by the Paleo-right are/were certainly not Christians (or not orthodox Christians). Thomas Jefferson, Albert Jay Nock, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Michael Oakeshott come to mind.

I'd like to say that I'm a white paleoconservative. I read Chronicles. I live in Asia. My wife is Asian. And a foreigner to boot! My son is mixed! Oh the contradiction! There's no such contradiction: I oppose massive, uncontrolled, 'diverse' immigration to the USA for racial, cultural, economic and environmental reasons. A one or two foreigners on the block is OK; watching a whole neighbourhood become a foreign ghetto is quite another. We are a white, Christian nation. If we lose the battle to retain our European, Christian identity, America won't be America. We, almost uniquely in the world, retain the capacity to assimilate to our culture all sorts of people. That doesn't mean that we should. To accept immigrants blindly in huge numbers is plain stupid. And anti-American. And it destroys the reason why so many damn foreigners want to invade our nation.

The analogy I most like to make is between immigration and alcohol. A few drinks on Saturday night is fine. Unwind with good friends. But you don't down a fifth of Jack Daniels during lunch on Tuesday. Recipe for disaster. Up til now, our government has indulged in a 30-year binge that threatens to kill the whole body, ie, the USA. As has been said before, the venal government has decided to import a new people because the old whiteys that founded and built our nation weren't good enough anymore.