Counter-Currents
1,876 words
Give me racist liberalism, or give me death!
— Patrick Henry, probably.
To be in the Dissident Right is to be part of an informal initiatic society. There are various levels of being with it — there’s always another redpill to take. Kids on the internet keep talking about the “ultimate redpill.” I won’t pretend that I know what the ultimate redpill is, but one of the bigger rites of passage is the understanding that the principal enemy, the central organizing principle and state religion of the current Western elite, is liberalism.
There is a delicious irony of a movement consisting of former liberals (libertarians) finding themselves suddenly opposing liberalism. Naturally, they cast their eyes around for illiberal ideologies to serve as their central organizational principles. Some attempt to revive traditional religion and capital T Tradition. Some gravitate towards fascism and try to rehabilitate it. Others appreciate the value of fascist ideas, but understand that it was a product of its time and try to develop a more modern, illiberal Rightist ideology. Others still will gravitate towards Marxism, or at least shed their former allergy to the stuff. These are all valid ways of looking for a possible answer.
There is a group, however, which has taken to insulting those who’ve yet to take the illiberal pill as “racist liberals,” as well as those who are perceived to be insufficiently vigorous in fighting liberalism. Through a series of sophistic epicycles, the label of “racist liberal” is also applied to nationalists, because nationalism is a tool of globalism in Dickie Spencerland.
Now, far be it from me to defend any form of liberalism, but one must concede that the idea of racist liberalism could be quite appealing to a non-insignificant section of not only the Dissident Right, but also the broader Right-wing which is yet to articulate its unease with the current order. Whether we like it or not, many people came into this thing through libertarianism, and were conceptualized as “libertarians mugged by reality,” who understood that their preferred society of secure property rights and freedom from government interference would be best achieved in a homogenous white society under some form of authoritarian government. I vividly remember reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, and a certain something clicking in me, a certain something that’d transform into full-blown illiberalism, authoritarianism, and racialism some years down the line.
If there’s something that corresponds to racist liberalism, it is that stretch of the political spectrum that encompasses the paleocons, paleolibertarians, and American nationalists; basically a triangle with Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, and Jared Taylor as corners. But before we proceed, we must first understand where liberalism came from.
I’ve written at length as to why societies are not cars in the past. They do not break down like cars do, nor are they fixable with the same general method. When we criticize liberalism, we must understand that it wasn’t smuggled into our civilization by evil men, nor were the elite suddenly seized by madness and implemented this wrongheaded ideology. Rather, liberalism was the logical thing to do back then; for Europeans, at least. “All men are created equal” sounds far more real when we’re talking about whites. And lest we forget, we know from the work of Ricardo Duchesne that we Europeans are descended from warrior-aristocrats who did battle on the Pontic-Caspian steppe for pure prestige. We are creatures of honor; in each European, there’s a king waiting to rise.
The problem of each European being a king, or at least a king-in-waiting, is that you can’t well, rule Europeans in an Asiatic manner. Much of modern China is made possible because the normal, everyday Chinese have no sense of honor, merely “face,” which has been presented as the Chinese version of honor, but is more governed by society’s perception of one’s family than by notions of man’s place in the world.
Liberalism arose because it was a good political formula for governing white people, who are characteristically high in thumos and have a warrior spirit. It solved, at least for a while, one of the core problems of human status hierarchies — that while the difference between number one and number 100 is usually due to superior merit on the part of number one, the difference between number one and number two is usually attributable mostly to luck — randomness. This is especially salient when the status dividend differential is enormous, as in the difference between the king and his most powerful duke, or worse, the king and his kid brother. On top of everything, if number two has reason to believe that he could and should be number one, he usually has the power to press that claim.
One way to throw water on this powder keg is to have everyone share a religion and then chalk up luck and randomness to God’s will, explaining that luck is a function of God’s favor. The problem with this is twofold. First, there are only so many unanswered prayers a man can make before he starts wondering about God. Second, there are only so many lucky breaks that a wicked man can catch before the righteous start wondering about God. Most religions also have a prescriptive behavioral element, makes it tough to justify that someone who violates these prescriptions could have God’s favor. The Traditionalist is quick to condemn atheism and Gnosticism, but it is a fact of life that bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people, and that a bad-faith actor can win most games by defecting when the other guy cooperates. Atheism (there is no God) and Gnosticism (God is evil) keep cropping up because there are valid reasons for them to do so. Liberalism is a little bit of both, and also an attempt to mollify number two (here standing for the elite class not directly in power) and stop them from starting civilization-ending conflicts by leveling the playing field somewhat, taking into account (implicitly) that the reward in the next world might not be all it’s cracked up to be. It was a good enough solution for 2-300 years. It was the central organizing principle of Western civilization, and then it degenerated into the present horrorshow.
“But that isn’t real liberalism!” cry the classical liberals, aka libertarians, when I point out the errors of modern (and post-modern) liberalism. Indeed, they are right insofar as you define “real” as the ideology of white people back in the day, but it rings as hollow as the Trad Cath decrying what American protestants and Pope Francis are doing as “not real Christianity.” It may indeed be so; who knows? It depends on what you mean by “real.” I, for one, am of the opinion that you’re the same person in both May and December, no matter how much one protests that one “was quite a looker.”
The original sin of liberalism is the notion that all men are created equal. To put it bluntly, this meant in the end that the Jews, blacks, and Asiatics are equal to the white man. Now, this is a far taller order than all white men are created equal (which isn’t exactly true, but close enough to reality to make it work, at least for a time). Add to that the rather insipid notion that women are equal to men, and you’ve a cocktail for multiculturalism and feminism, ending in the Negrolatry and queef-sniffing characteristics of 2020. All the while, the elite which liberalism was meant to keep in check uses ethnic minorities and women as cudgels against the white middle and working class, who were promised at least nominal equality (or something resembling it).
Here’s a radical idea. How about we kept liberalism, but excised the egalitarianism? Literally, build a system of racist (and sexist) liberalism? Y’know, Hans-Herman Hoppe’s covenant community.
Article 1: No blacks. Article 2: No Jews. Article 3: Begone, thot!
Too extreme? How’s about we take up uncle Jared Taylor’s offer of reinstating that eminently liberal value of free association and dissociation (which would inevitably lead to Hoppean covenant communities as described earlier, but don’t tell the normies that)? How’s about this: Liberalism, but for whites, who are enshrined as metaphysically better and therefore worthy of the liberal society — something which is refreshingly well-grounded in the latest findings of neuroscience that whites, and in particular white men, have a certain je ne sais quoi that makes us more than just men, somehow closer to God than other races. The notion of our high cognitive fluidity seems to corroborate that. Our not-quite-yet understood link to the numinous, probably related to our ability to process alcohol, and a litany of other ideas which have arisen as the result of research and thought by Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, and others show that there is a qualitative difference between Europeans and others, and it would serve us well to recognize this in constructing such an ideology. We dodge the problem of despotism by proclaiming that all white men are theoretically created equal, and with a rudimentary redistributive scheme — perhaps not even governmental, just strong social incentives for the rich to share their wealth — we have a society that most, if not all, white men would be perfectly happy to inhabit.
Racist liberalism, the idea that all white men are free and equal (but others aren’t) can strongly appeal to both the normie and the Dissident Rightist. In fact, if there is a Caesarian restoration of Western civilization, it will probably take as its ideology something very much like racist liberalism. Naturally, we’re not gonna call it racist liberalism, but that’s a job for the PR department.
Now, I’m not a racist liberal, or indeed any kind of liberal. As for Caesarism, it is my belief that the West no longer has the biological preconditions necessary for a Caesarian restoration. I believe the will is lacking and that the last chance for restoration died with Huey P. Long. I further believe that even if such a restoration were possible, it would be a bad idea to do it under the auspices of racist liberalism, given that it has contradictions baked into it which would eventually lead to the unraveling of society in shorter order than normally.
All I can see is that “racist liberal” isn’t that effective even as a rhetorical trick. It doesn’t describe a particularly egregiously wrong position — in fact, it is a position that would gather at least a plurality of support by whites in the West if it were purged of loaded terms. Indeed, we see low-key racist liberals popping up here and there and having moderate political success. And it doesn’t sound all that bad, if I’m being honest. It’s not a hill I’m willing to die on, but it certainly isn’t a hill I would mind living on.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
42 comments
What is to say that the instauration of a vigorous and ennobled liberalism inexorably leads back to the present day? The past is prologue, and all that, but it isn’t self-evident that people won’t learn from their mistakes. It’s possible that the ordered liberty of Thomas Jefferson would and will always lead to prosperity and then decadence and so the animating force of a new ideology must be the isolation and abolition of those elements that, when added to property, necessarily lead to decadence.
Ayn Rand, like Hoppe, doesn’t seem too inspired by liberalism. The objective protagonists of capitalism in reality are shopkeepers and life insurance salesmen not Homeric heroes who would suffer and die for the concept of money. Incidentally, none of her characters ever seemed that interested in earning money.
Veneration of the excellent & classical standards of taste and talent, I think, unifies much of the right (even around the world) and a quality more immediately apparent in Gottfried than Buchanan or Taylor. But also some conservatives like Scruton
Just as in real life, the great entrepreneurs aren’t really motivated by profit, but by the idea of going further than anyone before. Rand, being Jewish and a woman, couldn’t quite understand this heroic Faustian dream.
This is all obviously true and very much reflects my own thoughts.
I haven’t watched Spencer for at least a couple of months since he started with the liberal racist/racist liberal crap. It’s unwatchable.
He discovered he could get a reaction out of it from the rest of the right, allowing him to still be controversial in a way that wouldn’t get him thrown off of youtube and give him the opportunity to fork the movement around him.
Personally I call taking a dump on your own side because of muh community guidelines faggotry.
If, after watching whites get beaten, attacked with knives, bricks, raped, terrorized, killed and civilization being torn down he’s still talking about ‘liberal racist’, as this article suggests he is, then there’s a question about his own appropriateness to this struggle. Perhaps next we should elect Joe Biden as the face of the alt right.
While Spencer intends ‘liberal racist’ to demean anyone on our side who ‘merely’ wants to get rid of blacks and not reshape everything, surely the term also encompasses another definition, that of the racist but to whom the trappings of bourgeois cosmopolitan neoliberal astro-turfed leftism have this nagging appeal. It seems to me to accuse someone of being the former, defines the accuser as the latter.
Spencer has actually said more than once that whites who are concerned about black crime, about our people being murdered are little more than unsophisticated bigots who are not really ‘serious’ or forward thinking enough, that they are ‘holding the movement back’, that the movement needs to ‘shed’ this.
The victims of black crime are a kind of inconvenience that gets in the way of him getting the ‘real message out’ – presumably him talking about a bunch of crappy old 80’s films with his low-IQ fantasist buttplug Mark Brahmin.
I’ve defended this guy in the past, including over HG, and look I understand his frustration at a movement that’s sluggish, ill funded, largely anonymous, and seems dependent on a handful of personalities and Twitter. But our methods matter, our words ought to matter to our own people. If we are not carrying the realities our people face and the crimes against them we are not part of this movement at all.
Today I wouldn’t even spit on Spencer in the street.
If I had to pick a leader of the white race between Spencer and Stefan Molyneux, I would pick Molyneux. I’m not even joking. Molyneux sounds more based than Spencer. Think of newbies coming in to this, and they see Molyneux talking about race realism, and then they see Spencer taking about ‘liberal racists’, what message does that send ?
Set the timer now folks. How long until Spencer does a Hiembach? He’ll be on CNN, “I used to be a racist, but I turned a corner in my life and now realize its poverty that’s the real issue”.
How many nazbol fuckwits retards living in their mom’s basement will he bring take with him ? It will be interesting to see.
I will add I have no problem with the idea of a Third Position, another term that seems to float around Spencer’s circle. We are all Third Positionists in some way by default, it’s not a revolutionary claim to some extreme and repulsive part of the political spectrum.
Yes the movement needs to put down the past, the things that are holding it back, and develop. That means facing the fact that Spencer is a spent force on the right today. It’s actually Spencer the movement needs to get over and move beyond now.
Extremely well put. I’ll add that some, especially in Dickie Spencer’s circle have used the third position as rhetorical cover to go full commie. Not full fash, but outright full commie. When we correctly point out that the free market is more efficient (while understanding that though important, efficiency isn’t always the only, or the most important goal), they screech autistically about how we’re nothing but racist liberals.
Ok thanks for that info. I had suspected as much sometimes. I would imagine TP is salvageable as a broad idea. Liberal racist isn’t.
There is surely a bona fide question re how much everything needs to be rebuilt – if or where it is based on faulty assumptions – and that can be discussed, but I never believed that’s what Spencer was pursuing. I just see someone trying to smuggle in the power that comes from using the term racist and getting a cheap thrill out of it at the expense of others in the movement who spend their lives on the sharp end of the term.
He started using the term racist against other whites before the term liberal racist when he used it to describe Trump’s tweets, where he could pass it off semi-ironically as frustration at Trump’s lack of action.
Subsequently he used racist to refer to people who complained about being murdered by blacks, and these lumpenprole were an irrelevant baggage and inconvenience to progress. ‘Progress’ – being whatever arbitrary obnoxious position both provides Spencer with notoriety, and is youtube safe.
So the question is how does this help any White person who’s really afraid or angry right now, or has been personally attacked by the mobs, or had their business destroyed and they are looking for answers ? What is it doing for them going on to youtube and being called a ‘liberal racist’ ?
At this point Spencer is just cancer.
First time I saw Spencer use rhetoric like that was when he called Vox Day “just a racist conservative” in a livestream.
Now, Vox is another obnoxious cult leader, but quite beside the point, one of Vox’s greatest contributions to our thing is a dismantling of free trade fetishism on the right. Racist conservative is not a label which applies to Vox.
Why not simply self-determination? Those who want to live with their own kind, do so, the others dito. Why not simply meritocracy? I don´t care if women do whatever profession if they do a good job. If men don´t want women in their crew: don´t hire them. The women are free to do their own enterprise.
Sorry I just don´t see the problem (and I don´t see a need to claim white supremacy. I couldn´t care less… why would I burden myself with finding proof for that? I just want to live with my own kind. The Gypsies want that, too. Do they claim Gypsie-supremacy? Sorry I just don´t see the problem).
I don´t care if women do whatever profession if they do a good job. If men don´t want women in their crew: don´t hire them. The women are free to do their own enterprise.
Fair enough, but consider that discrimination against women actually vindicates the feminist narrative and radicalizes women.
This is the bargain that most normal women want: You treat us equally and we won’t make a fuss about the fact that everything is male-dominated.
To the extent that the feminist movement asserts the contrary, they fail to represent their constituency.
I don’t see eye to eye with Nick Jeelvy on a lot of things, but he hit it out of the park with this analysis. “Racist Liberal” only came about as a term of insult in March 2020 in response to White Nationalists who were opposed to the COVID-19 shutdown. Basically, COVID exposed a schism between WN’s who support freedom and individualism vs. WN’s who come from a Leftist or even Communist background and thus are highly in favor of collective measures, which they justify under the guise that they are “protecting society.” Hunter Wallace, Richard Spencer, Matt Parrott, Keith Woods, Eric Striker, Marcus Cicero of Daily Stormer fame, and numerous Twitter accounts – especially the ones using fake Black People names – are all in favor of collectivism and “What’s Good For Society” over individual liberty for White men and White women. The term “Racist Liberal” was invented by these people.
I emphasis this because it must be understood that “Racist Liberalism” is a snarl term intended to shut down and deligitimize the opinions of those who aren’t interested in living in an authoritarian, collectivist society, the structure of which is fundamentally identical to what the Left and the Jews have in store for the White Race. Literally the only difference between Richard Spencer vs. a typical Antifa or DSA supporter is that Spencer hates Black people. “Racist Communist” is an unironic, accurate description of these spiteful little people.
The intellectual case against “Racist Liberalism” is based on several autistic fallacies, the most notable of which is the Slippery Slope fallacy: The Satanic/Masonic founding of the USA created Liberalism, which inevitably led to Abolitionism and the Civil War, which inevitably led to Feminism and Women’s Rights, which inevitably led to Civil Rights, which inevitably led to LGBT rights and the notion of “White Privilege.” The reason why you see collectivist WN’s grasping for everything from Monarchism to Fascism to Communism and every illiberal government in between is because they believe that the liberalism of the American founding needs to be rooted out and replaced.
I will admit, it’s a seductive form of reasoning, and many young White men have fallen for it, but it’s also just not true. At any point along the way, White men could have stood up and said, “we draw the line here, you don’t go further than this.” Indeed, it can be argued that White men did exactly this in the late 19th century, starting with the end of Reconstruction in the 1876 election compromise, and culminating in 1896 with the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision and the establishment of Jim Crow. This 20 year period can be seen as a collective (!) White backlash against the oppression of a despotic government. And although Jim Crow was formalized in the South, it existed de facto in the North as well until the Warren Court ended restrictive covenants in 1948, followed shortly thereafter by the Civil Rights era, which ended Freedom of Association once and for all.
Collectivist WN’s ignore all this as they desperately cling to their false narrative that 1776 inexorably led to 2020. They also cling to the Social Constructionist views of power that they learned from their Commie days, which compels them to believe that everything bad happening to the White Race is the result of “structural forces” arrayed against Whites from the top down. Individuality has no validity, or no meaningful effect, in their view of the world. I read one Nazbol on Twitter claim that culture is constructed from the top down, and that to save the White Race, “we” need to take power and impose proper cultural values on White people.
Every stereotype that was ever made of Puritanical Evangelicals wanting to impose their values on others applies to Leftist WN’s. They are against “Racist Liberalism” because in their minds, its unfathomable that Freedom and Liberty might be okay for most Whites, but not okay for most non-whites. I guess this violates some sacred principle to hold all races to the same standards. Well, screw that. Different races should be held to different standards based on their different abilities and temperaments. It’s only “monstrous” or “immoral” to assert that Liberalism works for Whites but doesn’t work for non-whites if you cling to the egalitarian mantra of “everyone must be treated the same.”
I know Jeelvy said this tongue in cheek, but since the last point is a sensitive matter in these circles, let me just say that whatever the WN Movement stood to gain from highlighting the bad consequences of feminism has long since lost its currency. Unless we somehow get thrown back to a pre-technological agrarian society, there simply is not a collective or societal need to “Keep Women In The Home.” Moreover, the kind of White woman who actually finds White Nationalism compelling isn’t the kind of woman who wants to be a housewife. The cat is out of the bag when it comes to Womens Rights, and I don’t ever see things returning to pre-19th Amendment days so long as the vast majority of White women don’t want to do so.
The White Race doesn’t need to “Return To Tradition” in order to save itself, unless by “Tradition” we mean the kind of things described in Richard Houck’s fantastic articles, in which case, absolutely, lets bring all of that back. But the task is the same as its been since 1945: There must be a collective racial awakening among normal, individual Whites, and we must then summon the will in our individual selves to assert and defend ourselves collectively. When that happens, things will start changing. Sovereignty and power, as always, lies with the people, NOT with “The Elites.”
Moreover, the kind of White woman who actually finds White Nationalism compelling isn’t the kind of woman who wants to be a housewife. The cat is out of the bag when it comes to Womens Rights, and I don’t ever see things returning to pre-19th Amendment days so long as the vast majority of White women don’t want to do so.
The cat is indeed out of the bag, and in fact, the idea of “sexist liberalism” will never be acceptable to Whites. It requires altogether too much in the way of special pleading, unprincipled exceptions, and hypocritical ifs, ands, and buts.
As to your second point, I’m not so sure. I love being a housewife, though I don’t much care for the term. Of course, even happy housewives are going to object to the idea that women shouldn’t have any choice in the matter.
If you don’t have any control over your own life, you are effectively a slave.
I’ve been blogging for a decade and I have always, constantly, been called “just a racist liberal” by various flavors of right-wingers.
I don’t run away from the label at all, in fact, embrace it. There are a number of bloggers in the so-called “Alt Left” – “the left end of the alt right” – that use the label or at least don’t really mind it, myself included.
Pretty sure the cat can be put back in the bag by removing restrictions on patriarchal sovereignty over the family, which is the natural state of man.
Pretty sure the cat can be put back in the bag by removing restrictions on patriarchal sovereignty over the family, which is the natural state of man.
And it was so patently and catastrophically unjust that White men (judges, fathers, and legislators) themselves began to willingly abolish it long before racist liberal Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a twinkle in her daddy’s eye.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol26/iss2/2/
And nobody cares about the natural state of man, anyway. White men don’t submit to nature in any other respect. The essential fair-mindedness of White men is precisely why you will never have your way.
1861 led to 2020. The real America, as it was originally constituted, was eclipsed in 1861 by liberals. The “America” of 1861-2020 is an ersatz America, and all laws and amendments since 1861 are illegitimate.
SRP,
I’m assuming you’re coming at this from a racial nationalist perspective as opposed to something stupid like “Da Sowth Wil Raaahs Again!” or nutty like “Sovereign Citizens.” So then, I ask you: How do you explain the rise of Jim Crow and Segregation, and the canceling of Reconstruction? How do you explain America producing accomplished racial scientists like Madison Grant and Harry H. Laughlin, who were influential in America passing the 1924 Immigration Act, as well as eugenics laws and sterilization laws? How do you explain the fact that an Austrian painter turned German leader explicitly said he looked to American law as a basis for Germany’s racial purity laws?
The fact is, America between 1877 and 1945 was pretty much explicitly a proud White country. In the 1920s, there was these “Eugenics Fairs” that took place in states like Massachusetts and Kansas every year where good-looking, healthy White families would show up and basically do a beauty contest for who is the most “genetically fit.” The first blockbuster film in cinematic history – Birth of a Nation – portrayed White Southerners defending their people from Negroes in an unabashedly positive light. There was a consensus from White Northerners that the Civil War was a big mistake, hence why Confederate monuments were erected to remember the South’s heroes, and why Confederate veterans received war pensions from the same U.S. government that they rebelled against.
Where America began going off the rails towards modern day liberalism/radicalism is when we joined WW2 against Germany, even though it was Japan who attacked us. I honestly don’t have a problem with the war in the Pacific, but that war against Germany was the greatest disaster to befell the White Race since the collapse of the Roman Empire. Everything you hate about modern day America can be traced to 1945, NOT 1861. We got over the Civil War within a generation, whereas we are paying the consequences for fighting the good guys in WW2.
But even then, I don’t think everything that’s happened since 1945 has been bad. The eclipse of the stultifying social conservatism of the 1950s replaced by the values of Free Speech and Free Expression, the birth of modern music in the 1960s starting with The Beatles and Elvis, the suburban culture that developed in the wake of White Flight, the rise of mass entertainment venues like Disney World, impressive advances in automobiles and computer technology…I consider all of these things to be good. Life in America in 2020 would be pretty nice if liberal progressives were marginalized, and if conservatives actually had a spine. I still don’t buy the slippery slope fallacy even as it pertains to 1945.
Take a white pill.
“Where America began going off the rails towards modern day liberalism/radicalism is when we joined WW2 against Germany, even though it was Japan who attacked us. I honestly don’t have a problem with the war in the Pacific, but that war against Germany was the greatest disaster to befell the White Race since the collapse of the Roman Empire.”
Note that Hitler declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. did not declare war on Germany.
The German declaration of war cited as causes various provocations on the part the U.S., and to be sure, it had committed some, acting under the influence of Britain, Jewish interests, and after Germany broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Soviet Union (FDR’s administration was shot through with communists). Even so, there was still considerable opposition in this country to entering the war in Europe, and it vanished overnight with the German declaration of war.
“How do you explain the rise of Jim Crow and Segregation, and the canceling of Reconstruction?”
Yes, Grant, eugenics, Klan, exclusion acts, Ford, Lindbergh – they all came-and went – after 1865. But how well did all that do to steer us from – enthusiastically and twice – participating in the destruction of Europe (while also saving the moth-eaten ass of our original oppressor, the British Crown, in the bargain)?
America was destined to be a weak link among Western nations, being a geographically remote colony populated by Westerners who resolved to “kick the soil of Europe” off their feet. A weak link, born with small internal flaws ripe for subversive exploitation.
We went off the rails long before 1941.
After the Civil War, while America was still being governed “above ground” by the conventions of the “original America”, there endured an “underground railroad” coalition of abolitionists, “progressives”, clergy, Marxists, proto-feminists and homosexuals in academia, art, church and theater, who from then to now, have been silently gnawing away within their respective spheres. The New Deal greatly accelerated this subversion process by putting these types literally on the government payroll. After 1933, the left went from broke to wealthy.
Now the corrosive work they have been patiently doing all these years is bearing fruit. For a while, America did chase after “commies” but that fizzled because we went after CPUSA and not the latter-day abolitionists, Quakers, Jews, beatniks and folk-singers who were quietly dosing out the real poison.
The socio-political rudder of “weak link” America has been biased to the left since 1865. It’s just coming out now.
“Every stereotype that was ever made of Puritanical Evangelicals wanting to impose their values on others applies to Leftist WN’s. They are against “Racist Liberalism” because in their minds, its unfathomable that Freedom and Liberty might be okay for most Whites, but not okay for most non-whites. I guess this violates some sacred principle to hold all races to the same standards. Well, screw that. Different races should be held to different standards based on their different abilities and temperaments. It’s only “monstrous” or “immoral” to assert that Liberalism works for Whites but doesn’t work for non-whites if you cling to the egalitarian mantra of “everyone must be treated the same.”“
Hello, I’m a newcomer here and am wondering if you could point me to these communities of WNs who hang onto an egalitarian/non-hierarchical conception of race. At this point in time, such positions appeal to me. Thank you!
I think people tend to overthink, overintellectualize these issues.
If WHITEs separate from Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians and don’t own slaves….many of our problems would self solve. It’s the presence of so many aliens that have cursed us.
Or at least we could defer the Strasserite debates until we have made some progress in the matter of ethno-cultural survival that has become plainly evident in recent weeks.
White ethnostate whatever > multi-racial .
Should say “white nationalist whatever > multi-racial (insert preferred ideology).”
“The original sin of liberalism is the notion that all men are created equal.”
But liberalism does not quite say that all are “created” equal, but rather that all can be MADE to be equal, by dint of environmental conditioning. Thus it is the blank-slate theory of man which is the FIRST “original sin”, the allure, the first commandment, of the liberal religion. Man as blank-slate logically precedes the assertion of human equality.
The only way to nullify the credibility of liberalism and its agenda, is to prove that the races of man differ, SIGNIFICANTLY, not insignificantly, in cognition, temperament and behavior, AND that these differences are genetic in origin.
Our hope is that people of all races will realize the above, and that liberalism is based on a false theory of man.
Such realization may be at hand: the inevitable failure of the upcoming storm of liberal socio-economic programs will force people to finally realize the falsity of the blank-slate theory of man.
But as liberalism is de facto the secular religion of our age, only a few of the faithful will ever be dissuaded.
“The original sin of liberalism is the notion that all men are created equal.”
What mischief has been committed by tearing this phrase from its original context! Jefferson, when he wrote it, didn’t believe, as modern liberals do, that all men were equal physically, intellectually, or morally, or that they could be made so by changing their environment. We need only read his “Notes on the State of Virginia” to find his unvarnished opinions about the innate character and intelligence of blacks and Amerinds.
The casus belli of the American Revolution was that there should be no taxation without representation. This had also been one of the principal grievances behind the English Civil War, an event to which the American founders were closer in time than we are to them. Charles I had attempted to levy by royal prerogative a tax called “ship money” in time of peace. That was contrary to the custom that taxes required the assent of Parliament. Ultimately this led to rebellion, and after it, the custom was explicitly written into statute.
The equality asserted by the Declaration of Independence was simply that English subjects in the colonies were equal to English subjects in England in their entitlement to representation in any decision to levy taxes on them. It was the condition of being taxed that gave them the right to be represented.
This understanding is the only one that can be supported by a careful reading of the entire document, as opposed to selected fragments. See for further details Mel Bradford’s essay “The Heresy of Equality.”
Liberalism’s political success was a function of expanding political power via the electoral franchise. ‘Equality’ was just a way of selling the demand for political power to the men of the lower classes, then women, then non-Whites. At each successive state, the sense of empowerment turned to disillusionment and fueled what are now revolutionary forces that deny ‘equality’ if it means a restraint on their now-ascendant political power.
This is why the political enterprise of White Nationalism needs to incorporate values (and policies) the appeal to Whites further down the status scale, not further up.
The idea of an imposed ‘aristocracy’ because ‘muh thumos‘ is strikes me a foolish unless you want another USSR (minus the Jews). The training of the vanguard — those with the most thumos — needs to instill the values of all three of the contributing populations that make up the people of the West (hunter-gatherer, Old European agriculturalists and Aryan pastoralists/war-mongers).
Is anybody else experiencing fatigue with uncritical recitations of Duchesne’s theory of European man’s primordial aristocratic egalitarianism? One would think that Jeelvy, closer to the Greeks than most of us, would evince some skepticism of Duchesne’s sociological fantasies.
As for the “racist liberal” meme, I agree with DP84, up above, that it originated as a term of insult during debates over the virus-lockdown. Although I am generally sympathetic to 3rd-positionist ideas of an authoritarian state, universal healthcare, continent-wide autarky & the common good — all positions taken by Spencer and, so far as I can tell, Greg Johnson — the anarcho-libertarian youtube commentator JF Garlepy prevailed over both thinkers on the question of COVID. As a scientist, Garlepy simply had a superior understanding of the facts. And I say this despite disagreeing with Garlepy on most other substantive issues. I remain a Spencer-Johnson man.
Gariepy made completely unfounded claims, to wit that everyone will get coronavirus, thus lockdowns are useless, which completely ignores the basics of epidemiology (no contact, no infection). He was passing off the consequence of his libertarian policy preferences as a fact. He also thought that pointing out that there is a higher percentage of vulnerable old people in our population today than in the 1960s was cause for minimizing corona’s threat rather than taking it more seriously.
The original idea of the quarantine was to prevent a clogging of hospital intensive care units and a sudden scarcity of supplies. To spread out the number of critically ill over time, so that even if everyone eventually does get it, it won’t strain the system all at once.
Maybe, but that simply reflects the globalist desire to maintain the free flow of goods and people rather than to prevent people from actually getting sick and dying.
What about the matter of personal susceptibility? I don’t want the whole world almost completely shut down because some people are more likely to “get” Corona Virus. I don’t want those hideous, mostly successful, attempts at teaching us submission by way of distancing, masks, no gatherings, etc.
What do you want – the most miserable, ancient, suffering people in old folks homes kept going forever? It used to be that pneumonia took most old people but nobody did a jig over that. It was accepted that life came to an end. Doctors did what they could and left it at that, knowing that no one can live forever.
Oh, it’s perfectly all right when your major organs to fail – they can’t get a cannibalized kidney, heart, liver or lung into you fast enough. But an infection – mein Gott! Becoming sick with that form of illness has become a crime. I know someone, an old woman, who got the flu. She was so scared of health officials showing up at her door. She knew that everyone around her would lose their freedom, not just her. And that’s just the beginning of “tracing”.
Two vaguely related points:
1. Let’s remember that in the US a disproportionate number of the elderly are white. This is significant because a) protecting whites (many of whom are our parents and grandparents, after all, so we have personal interests here) is a top priority in itself, at least compared to protecting disproportionately nonwhite “essential” (ie, fast food, delivery, and grocery store) workers from a mostly mild illness; b) many of these elderly whites are pre-60s psychically formed people, and thus repositories of old fashioned (ie, correct) racial attitudes, which we should want to remain around as long as possible; and c) many of the vulnerable elderly are still able to VOTE – and we need every vote for Trump that we can garner by November.
If my elderly and infirm mother gets COVID, she will die, almost guaranteed. But though she has lived a reasonably long life already (and in a far better time in history and America than I will be living in over then next 25-30 years until I statistically likely die), she might have another 5-10 years left. She remains highly intelligent as always, with not a touch of dementia, and she not only will vote (correctly) until she dies, she is so verbally adept and persuasive that she is able to influence others in her peer group. As I have driven a number of friends from conservatism to white nationalism, she continues to awaken people at least to reject the Democrats, and to embrace more authoritarian policies. She actually played a critical behind the scenes role recently in preventing our “blue city” from putting a new “homeless” {vagrant} shelter in her neighborhood. One can only imagine the problems and violence that housing such dirtbags in her nice, still Middle American neighborhood would have brought after the Floyd killing. We need hundreds of thousands of people just like my mother all over the country, doing what they can to knock sense into and generally shame our indoctrinated young people.
So there is a strictly pro-white case for these lockdowns.
2. OTOH, the notion that the stock market should tank even if the original estimate of approx. 2mil US dead had proven correct is ludicrous. I knew early on that most of the dead would be the already sick and the elderly. I don’t wish to appear heartless, but from a strictly economic perspective, how would their deaths translate into huge future economic losses (thus justifying a collapsing stock market today)? Elderly and chronically sick people are not the drivers of productivity and future prosperity. If 2 million elderly + gravely ill succumbed to COVID, that would go a long way to shoring up Social Security’s and Medicare’s very shaky finances – which meant that after the pandemic, the economy would likely be set on a much higher growth path.
Something to consider when assessing different economic projections based on different anti-COVID strategies.
OOOPS! Let me amend what I too hastily wrote. Speaking “statistically likely”, I have about 20-25 years left.
Not sure why my last reply not posted. Maybe because I provided a link, or perhaps this was in my own interest as I may have revealed too much personal information (in which case, thank you).
To restate: NYC has probably been close to herd immunity (70% of population) since April, once you combine symptomatic cases plus people with antibodies plus people who resisted by virtue of innate immune system & non-susceptibles.
Lockdowns probably had very little influence on the arc of the epidemic in Western Europe & NYC, while causing sweeping economic destruction. See Sunetra Gupta articles, Professor of Epidemiology at Oxford. See also study by University Hospital in Zurich, finding that Sars-Cov-2 specific antibodies are absent from the majority of mild cases.
In other parts of the USA, the virus has yet to run its course. But it will ultimately sicken roughly the same percentage and same segments of population as in NYC, though perhaps with a lower death rate as treatments become more effective.
If the science is controversial, the economic impact of the lockdowns is all too clear. It has meant the wholesale destruction of White small businesses and the White middle class. The globalist-capitalist class is consolidating its power at our expense. Other than on accelerationist grounds, I don’t see how we can support this. Far better policy options than blunt-instrument lockdowns are available.
We observe such aristocratic egalitarianism in the structure of the Greek polis, Xenophon’s march home, the hoplite phalanx, the organization of Phillip and Alexander’s armies and the very constitution (the manner in which it is constituted) of both the Athenian and Spartan states.
Classical civilization is distinct from Faustian (western) civilization, but it still springs from the same Indo-European roots.
First, as Alexander Jacob has argued on these pages, “the fragmentary archaeological and literary evidence that we possess from the fourth millennium BC can hardly be adduced to construct elaborate sociological theories of the cultures then extant.” Duchesne wants to trace all that is great & beautiful in Europe back to the Steppe, but he is dealing more in myth than fact.
Second, Mycenaean genetics owe very little to the Steppe. They were Indo-European, yes, but not by way of the Steppe. Laziridis et al showed that Mycenaeans derived roughly 75% of their ancestry from a Neolithic substratum (ultimately from Anatolia), with the remainder from Eastern European/Siberian populations (5 to 16%) and Iran/Caucasus populations (9 to 18%). These results do not determine whether the non-Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Mycenaeans was introduced by a single population that was itself a mix of the Eastern/Siberian foragers and Iran/Caucasus sources (i.e., Steppe is 50% EHG + 50% Iran/Caucasus, whereas Chalcolithic Armenian is Iran/Caucasus + Anatolian Neolithic + EHG), or by separate admixtures that reached the Aegean presumably from the north and east. In other words, how much of the non-Anatolian blood came from the Steppe (or by proxy in Eastern Europe) and how much came from Armenia (or to the east of Anatolia)?
In short, the Mycenaeans were probably 10% Steppe. Further, elite Mycenaeans did not differ genetically from Mycenaeans buried in common graves. This genetic make-up is consistent not with conquest by Steppe-derived groups, but with the absorption of some Steppe bloodlines by a more vigorous civilization. Cf Corded Ware people, who were 75% Steppe origin.
Spengler was indeed correct. Classical civilization differs from Faustian Europe genetically, at least down until the Romans. The original Romans had a high Steppe-component in their blood, and their leading haplogroup R1b-U152 was Steppe.
See in general https://phys.org/news/2017-05-populations-eastern-mediterranean-coast-genetic.html
And for a free copy of the Laziridis article ===
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310.epdf?author_access_token=E4JxhmOKVE0Zk7xCXmpm99RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OwLzzqUmCLV4d2G6bjGa7kiPBb7TTVpAsutKGfIQRMrq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9
And just to be clear: All Europeans derive by and large from the same source populations. Where they differ is in the relative proportion of each source population in their make-up, as well as in the routes these ancestral populations traversed.
It’s been over 12 hours, so I guess my reply to Jeelvy’s reply didn’t go through. Or maybe I need to stop including links?
First, as Alexander Jacob has argued on these pages, “the fragmentary archaeological and literary evidence that we possess from the fourth millennium BC can hardly be adduced to construct elaborate sociological theories of the cultures then extant.” Duchesne wants to trace all that is great & beautiful in Europe back to the Steppe. The truth is more complicated. Greek tragedy? Look to Minoan-Dionysian religion. The rise of the individual? Look to Christianity. Aristocratic rule down until Protestantism? Look to the dependence of aristocracy on a priestly caste above it.
Second, Mycenaean genetics owe very little to the Steppe. They were Indo-European, yes, but not by way of the Steppe. Laziridis showed that Mycenaeans derived roughly 75% of their ancestry from a Neolithic substratum (ultimately from Anatolia), with the remainder from Eastern European/Siberian populations (5 to 16%) and Iran/Caucasus populations (9 to 18%). These results do not determine whether the non-Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Mycenaeans was introduced by a single population that was itself a mix of the Eastern/Siberian foragers and Iran/Caucasus sources (i.e., Steppe is 50% EHG + 50% Iran/Caucasus, whereas Chalcolithic Armenian is Iran/Caucasus + Anatolian Neolithic + EHG), or by separate admixtures that reached the Aegean presumably from the north and east. In other words, how much of the non-Anatolian blood came from the Steppe (or by proxy in Eastern Europe) and how much came from Armenia?
If I had to guess, the Mycenaeans were probably 10% Steppe. Further, elite Mycenaeans did not differ genetically from Mycenaeans buried in common graves. This genetic make-up is consistent not with conquest by Steppe-derived groups, but with the absorption of some Steppe bloodlines by a more vigorous people. Cf Corded Ware people, who were 75% Steppe origin.
Spengler was indeed correct. Classical civilization differs from Faustian Europe genetically, at least down until the Romans. Armenia to Anatolia to the Aegean to the Southern Balkans and Magna Graecia was a bio-cultural zone with little-to-no debt to the Steppe. You need a different history than that on offer by Duchesne to get to Homer & Aristotle.
And just to be clear: All Europeans derive by and large from the same source populations. Where they differ is in the relative proportion of each source population in their make-up, as well as in the routes these ancestral populations traversed.
Main point —-> Duchesne’s construction of the Steppe as the primordial ground of European culture should be treated with skepticism. Instead, it is repeated reverentially in WN circles as though sent from on high.
This all sounds very interesting. Please do a longer and more structured write-up, preferably for counter-currents.
How odd that dalai_lama claims that my views about the aristocratic culture of pre-historic Indo-Europeans is “more myth than fact” on the supposed strength of Alexander Jacob’s argument that “the fragmentary archaeological and literary evidence that we possess from the fourth millennium BC can hardly be adduced to construct elaborate sociological theories of the cultures then extant.”
Jacob’s historical analysis, if we can even call it “historical”, is based on mythological accounts rather than on the most recent archaeological and linguistic scholarship about Indo-Europeans. Jacob thinks the “literary evidence of the Puranas, the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Avesta” is more solid than the current scholarship about the Indo-Europeans. It is one thing to rely on this literary evidence in order to understand the thoughts of these groups, it is another to think they contain adequate archaeological evidence to understand the origins and history of Indo-Europeans.
Re the claim that “Laziridis showed that Mycenaeans derived roughly 75% of their ancestry from a Neolithic substratum (ultimately from Anatolia)” I would suggest you check MacDonald’s reply to this very claim, which is consistent with what I said in Uniqueness: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341763711_Reply_to_Gerhard_Meisenberg's_Review_of_Individualism_and_the_Western_Liberal_Tradition_in_Mankind_Quarterly_60_440-445_with_Discussion
I addressed Spengler’s separation of ancient Greece and Rome from the West in Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age.
Nicholas, best essay to date and I salute your effort.
There is no liberalism but racist liberalism. What you want is openly/consciously racist liberalism for whites.
“…it rings as hollow as the Trad Cath decrying what American protestants and Pope Francis are doing as “not real Christianity.””
Incredibly, I had just responded to an article on another site stating that what Francis was doing was indeed not even Christianity. I say this not as any type of Catholic or Christian but as an observer. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of Christianity is that one must accept Christ as a path towards salvation. If Francis states that shamanism and everything else is also a path to salvation he is denying one of the central tenets of Christianity, is he not?
When a liberal asks that we’re censored, deplatformed, disenfranchised, that our right to free association is taken from us, that we are disarmed, are they not violating the central tenets of liberalsim?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment