Inbred liberals

December 4, 2015 § 23 Comments

Consider the difference between Nazism and liberalism. They both share the same core beliefs: Nazis are through-and-through liberals in the sense that they are strongly committed to political liberty, which begets equality, from both of which proceeds fraternity.

The difference lies underneath ‘fraternity’. Most liberals believe in creating the master race through outbreeding. Nazis are liberals who have become disillusioned by this and want to create the master race through inbreeding.

“I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.”

“The National Socialist state knows no ‘classes,’ but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights and accordingly equal general duties, and, alongside of these, state subjects who in the political sense are absolutely without rights.” – Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Basically, Nazis and white supremacists more generally are inbred liberals.

§ 23 Responses to Inbred liberals

  • Zippy says:

    Nonwhites can probably accurately think of liberals as nazis who want to sleep with your women / breed with your men. They would rather screw you than kill you; but if you won’t let them screw you they will kill you, eventually.

  • CJ says:

    I’m thinking our esteemed host has gotten into the egg nog a bit early.

  • […] Source: Zippy Catholic […]

  • Svar says:

    CJ, agreed. What exactly is wrong with liberty or fraternity? To be honest, there is nothing wrong with equality either as long as it’s amongst true equals.

    Aristotle: The greatest form of inequality is making two unequal things equal.

    And liberty, as the old Greek concept (which the Early Republic of Rome and of America), of the freedom to attain one’s natural ends, is a good as well.

    This just sounds like some more of the “Lieberals are the REAL racists” or “Lieberals are the REAL fascists” dreck.

  • Alex says:

    @Zippy

    “The difference lies underneath ‘fraternity’. Most liberals believe in creating the master race through outbreeding. Nazis are liberals who have become disillusioned by this and want to create the master race through inbreeding.”

    Zippy, please do correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it backwards? I mean, didn’t the outbreeding follow the inbreeding? As I understood it, race wasn’t a very important aspect of liberalism until recently. I guess there is a pervasive desire to overcome cultural barriers in it, a desire for universality. But I thought that an actual racial worry only showed up on the 19th century, with people becoming progressively more worried about eugenics and such concepts. I thought the current view of interbreeding appeared as a kind of repudiation of those ideas.

  • Alex says:

    @Svar

    I think Zippy’s point is against the “liberal” view of those ideas, such as what can be seen in the french revolution. What does “fraternity” mean as an ideal? In the Christian view, fraternity means something rather specific. It means that by being adopted by the same God, all men should regard each other as brothers.

    Yet, how far should this be taken? Well, if we are inside the context of Christianity, then my brother should be respected as such as long as doing so is in harmony with the respect of the God that made us brothers. So, for instance, a person is justified, and in fact required if she is able, to stop a would be killer from hurting an innocent, even if it means killing his brother.

    This might seem obvious, however, that wouldn’t be the case, necessarily, for either a nazi and the garden variety liberal, at least if they take their own ideology seriously. The nazi sees race as the defining aspect of fraternity. Only those who have the same race as his are his brothers. Thus, if the guilty party above was an aryan (or whatever his own race happens to be) and the victim wasn’t, it would be ludicrous to act this way. He might reprehend his brother for excessive violence, but shooting to stop him would be out of question.

    On the case of the modern leftist, the criteria for brotherhood is more open. It is what I understand Zippy to mean when he talks about the free, self-created supermen. However, in the name of tolerance, if the perpetrator happens to be someone who is considered to be oppressed,
    the liberal might balk or even refuse to hurt him. In more extreme cases, even random acts of violence might be seen as “justice”. But even the more mild cases might make the liberal hesitate and let the perpetrator get away with his crime.

    Of liberty, I think Zippy is specifically talking about liberty from right authority, which is perhaps the common thread between all forms of liberalism (or at least what I understand Zippy is talking about when he uses that word). It might seen weird to say that nazism, or even dictatorial communism, would be about fighting authority, but that is why I use the word “right authority”. Yes, a hippy might fight authority because he believes that all authority is bad, that it is all simply a form of slavery. And the modern libertarian might believe that authority should be as centered on each person as possible, But a (certain kind of) communist sees the creation of a monolithic state as a liberation from the badly used authority of the earlier government, of the church and even of the families! They believe they will achieve freedom by putting all authority inside their ideal, which is physically represented by the party.

  • GJ says:

    Svar:
    CJ, agreed. What exactly is wrong with liberty or fraternity? To be honest, there is nothing wrong with equality either as long as it’s amongst true equals.

    The problem with Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité in Modern times is that they have been fetishised and idolised, twisting them from possibly useful servants to corrupted and corrupting visions.

    What you’re doing is what any self-aware libertarian does: they try to preserve the vision/myth of the Unholy Trinity as Goods in the face of reality and seeing some of the contradictions/incoherencies of liberalism, so unprincipled exceptions have to keep being made until the society envisaged resembles greatly the commonsensical view (like Aristotle’s): that the many types of liberties, equalities and fraternities are the clichéd knife and guns for many in the right hands and in the right situations they can do good and vice versa, with each having to be individually evaluated and considered instead of unthinkingly going with the liberal Zeitgeist that Liberté/Egalité/Fraternité is Gooooood.

    To restate the point once more, we do not condemn all forms of liberty, equality, or fraternity just like we do not condemn all forms of sexual love. We do, however, condemn how Eros has become an idol, a corrupted vision that itself corrupts and destroys. And the solution cannot be to add more and more unprincipled exceptions while maintaining the false idols; it must start with repentance and the seeking of a better vantage point with which to live, think and view the world.

  • Zippy says:

    GJ:

    Well said.

    Liberalism is simply making freedom a political priority, within any scope at all. I’ve explained ten ways from Sunday how this is self-contradictory and what that self-contradiction does when situated in actual reality — gives rise to an imperative for equal rights (also self-contradictory) and divides humanity into the superman (fraternity) and the subhuman oppressor (who gets in the way of liberalism and, because all men are equal, must be less than human).

    But round and round the racetrack we go. What could possibly be wrong with freedom, equal rights, and the universal brotherhood of man as political priorities?

  • Zippy says:

    Alex:

    But I thought that an actual racial worry only showed up on the 19th century, with people becoming progressively more worried about eugenics and such concepts. I thought the current view of interbreeding appeared as a kind of repudiation of those ideas.

    That seems reasonable, though I’ll have to think about it some more. Part of the problem with the subject of race is that every time I try to think about it my mind glazes over. I have a built-in prioritizer in my head that pushes less relevant subjects into the background, and I’ve never been able to understand the relative importance (relative, not absolute — it could be quite important in absolute terms without being a priority relative to other things) of race to so many people. Race is certainly much, much more important to liberals and certain right wingers these days than it is to me.

    But as I’ve mentioned I am perfectly open to the possibility that this is because of flaws in my thinking or even my constitution.

  • Zippy says:

    The question, to restate it, if I have it right, is whether liberal outbreeding is a 20th century repudiation of eugenics or if it has deeper roots.

    But I’m not sure that is relevant to the thesis here.

    As modernity mashed people of different races into close proximity it was inevitable that liberals would see people of other races (or people with different ancestry than themselves) as either members of the fraternity of emancipated free and equal self-created superman or as impediments to the superman’s emergence.

    Whether other races are less than human or brothers would depend on circumstances, but in America black slaves were formally only considered 3/5 of a person in a compromise reached between different liberal factions from different regions. It also may be of note that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with at least one of his slaves.

    So I am thinking that the inbreeding/outbreeding tension was present in liberalism from the beginning. Nazism / white supremacy represents the path taken by inbreeding, while liberalism takes the path represented by outbreeding. Nazism chooses to screw themselves, while liberals choose to screw everyone.

    But both represent eugenic Solutions to the problem of the superman – the master race – at the biological level; a problem created by the embrace of political liberalism.

  • CJ says:

    As modernity mashed people of different races into close proximity…

    This is a big reason I’m having trouble following you here. People have been outbreeding as long as there have been Eurasiafrican empires. Ephraim & Manasseh, Stilicho, St. Augustine, were all mutts. To employ a Zippy-ism, what’s the specific difference with modern outbreeding?

  • Zippy says:

    CJ:

    To employ a Zippy-ism, what’s the specific difference with modern outbreeding?

    Liberalism: the creation of the master race of politically free and equal supermen, self-created through reason and will.

    Keep in mind that I am not saying “outbreeding is liberalism”, any more than I was saying “hard currency is liberalism” in this post. I am attempting to explain how an underlying commitment to liberalism drives inbreeding by Nazis and outbreeding by liberals. I am attempting to explain why race is so bloody important to moderns.

    Why is inbreeding so important to Nazis, and outbreeding so important to modern liberals? Why, more generally, is race so important to moderns? Because of their underlying commitment to liberalism. How can this be when inbreeding and outbreeding are mutually contradictory ‘solutions’ to the same problem? Because liberalism itself is incoherent: the principle of explosion, etc.

    I remember when I was a kid all the liberals tut-tutting about how eventually humanity would be all one big mulatto race, and good riddance to all the different races (especially the white race). (We were one of those big Catholic families with a few non-white adopted and foster kids, so that may be why I heard this tut-tutting more than some of the rest of y’all may have).

    The reason liberals want there to be one big master race is the same reason that Nazis wanted one big master race: because of their liberalism.

  • Zippy says:

    To liberals (and Nazis, if you consider them fundamentally different from liberals), the creation of a master race encompassing everyone who is considered fully human represents emancipation from biology and biological ancestors: freedom and equality at the material level, just as democracy represents freedom and equality formally at the procedural level, and destruction of all authority in religion represents freedom and equality at the level of tradition and custom.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    “Nazis and white supremacists more generally are inbred liberals”
    Nazis were particularists while Progressives long for the world state.
    Thus, it is natural for a progressive to deprecate nativism and encourage outbreeding.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    “Why, more generally, is race so important to moderns”
    More than ancient Romans or Homeric Greeks or Hindus?

  • […] personal experience – is different. Multigenerational American whites are, as a matter of actual physical outbreeding, a hodgepodge melting pot of different paleface European ethnicities.  We are palefaces, sure; but […]

  • […] whites has to be implemented in some way which does not challenge liberalism itself.  Even Literally Hitler insisted upon absolutely equal rights among the Herrenvolk: it was only the subhuman […]

  • […] for their votes, or expecting Nazis to ask Jews for their votes.  Subhuman oppressors aren’t even supposed to matter politically.  Currying favor with contemptible middle American white people was simply unthinkable, in the […]

  • Terry Morris says:

    “Nazis are liberals who have become disillusioned by this and want to create the master race through inbreeding.”

    I read right past this yesterday when I followed your link at the Orthosphere. But, yes, this sums up nicely what I was trying to get at in the earlier comment under the other entry. Disillusionment with the natural progression of liberalism is written throughout Hitler’s book, as well as the Nazi propaganda leading up to and during the war. It is freightening how closely the good ol’ US of A resembles, in so many ways, pre-war Nazi Germany.

  • Zippy says:

    Marxism can also be understood as a new iteration of liberalism, disillusioned by the failure of its precursor (classical liberalism) to produce the free and equal new man.

  • […] his post entitled “Inbred Liberals” the Traditionalist named Zippy argues that Nazism is a form of Liberalism and not (as is […]

  • […] more free than countries which live under different variants of liberalism, such as North Korea or Nazi Germany.  This is just obvious, it is thought, and refusing to concede it invalidates my understanding of […]

  • […] Nazism, likewise, isn’t always and necessarily what motivates rounding up undesirables into camps and exterminating them.  Nazism merely constructs a social reality which makes doing so necessary. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Inbred liberals at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: