Don’t hide your white privilege under a bushel

November 14, 2016 § 59 Comments

Heartland-raised American white people tend to be very racially unaware compared to everyone else, or at least that is what I am led to conclude from introspection and personal experience.  Europe is home to quite a few very distinct, more purebred, and often mutually hostile ethnicities which all sport a lighter complexion. But the American experience – especially the non-coastal non-urban experience, and certainly my 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 mutts all of us.  Paleface purebreds with whatever-American grandparents are minorities outside of urban ethnic enclaves.

(In college I remember being baffled when a first generation Italian-American girl was visibly disgusted by the fact that I thought a first generation Mexican-American girl – they looked like they could be sisters to me – was attractive. Go figure.)

Liberalism is the political philosophy of American white people and dominates global politics, despite the fact that white people have always represented a small minority of the global population.  As an insane, anti-real political philosophy liberalism requires a constant expenditure of economic energy to keep reality at bay. So far, in America, this has been supplied by natural resources: specifically by the endless frontier.  It may be impolite to notice the racial makeup of the American versions of Mogadishu; but you don’t have to say anything as you pack up the moving truck.

The phenomenon of white flight, of physical separation between the ideological cannon fodder classes and the liberal ruling class, represents the harvest of this economic energy. Functional liberal ruling and productive working classes require a frontier into which they can escape from the consequences of liberalism’s triumphs.

What cities like Baltimore and Detroit show is that even in America this is breaking down: instead of the head fake of ‘peak oil’ we have started to reach a real hard limit of ‘peak suburbia’. Whether or not there is an alternate economic energy resource available in the US to fuel liberalism’s suspension of reality is open to speculation, as is how much more can be squeezed out of the existing capacity.

But it does seem pretty clear that the resource which has actually fueled liberalism in America up to this point – relatively easy availability of white flight – is in fact threatened by mass immigration, because mass immigration materially reduces available white flight options.

This is why I conclude that right-liberal immigration restrictionism is an act of self preservation on the part of liberalism. If you want the golden eggs you can’t kill the goose, despite the fact that the more insane (a.k.a. “left”) liberals want to see white people disappear forever in some sort of plausibly deniable Final Solution brought about by consensual breeding choices.

§ 59 Responses to Don’t hide your white privilege under a bushel

  • Todor says:

    Well, it was a noble idea: given enough space, the protestant sects could live and let live instead of acting like Catholic Kingdoms who were forced to choose between mass expulsion or genocide. I listen to RAMZPAUL on PNR yesterday. He was asked about who should be expelled from the USA. The Blacks? The Muslims? The Latinos? No, he said, only the illegals. There you have it: they are still asking for just a little more space.

  • Well, what exactly IS the problem with saying that people here illegally should not, in fact, be here?

  • Zippy says:

    Malcolm:

    Is your question addressed to something stated in the OP?

  • TomD says:

    The whole point of unprincipled exceptions is they ground out reality to prevent disastrous rapid deconstruction of liberalism itself.

  • I guess my question is, if immigration restriction is now some sort of defense of liberalism…what isn’t?

  • Zippy says:

    Malcolm:

    The OP doesn’t say that immigration restriction in a truncated and abstract sense is a defense of liberalism.

    (That sort of abstract truncation works as a motte against almost any criticism: e.g. “voting isn’t intrinsically liberal”. A motte defense that “works” against virtually any criticism is a defense against no criticism. I’ve just taught you how to ‘win’ lots of arguments as rhetoric against interlocutors who are not intellectually equipped to see the truncation from concrete reality at work).

    The OP says that right-liberal immigration restrictionism in America concretely preserves the white flight frontier as a resource (an unprincipled exception) which concretely defends liberalism from its own triumph.

  • The OP says that right-liberal immigration restrictionism in America concretely preserves the white flight frontier as a resource (an unprincipled exception) which concretely defends liberalism from its own triumph.

    So how are we separating this from the immigration restriction that’s actually a good idea.

  • White men have bequeathed to America, Abortion, Usury, Oppression of the poor, Sodomy and the AMC Gremlin.

    Ethnos needs Logos is a sensible catch-phrase of E. Michael Jones and, everything else not being equal, Ol’ Mick would love to live in a country with a sizable majority of other faithful Catholics even though he was born into a white protestant nation – still about 90% white in 1960 – that at least seemed to be doing pretty well.

    If you read some popular alt right blogs/commentators it appears that conservatism is on the way out and white identity politics is on the way in.

  • Aethelfrith says:

    “My Race, right or wrong” is every bit as much an error as pretending race doesn’t exist.

  • Zippy says:

    Malcolm:

    So how are we separating this from the immigration restriction that’s actually a good idea.

    Again, that is a question which can be asked or challenge which can be leveled, in that truncated sense, against any exercise of authority at all.

    You are asking in effect “how can we coherently exercise authority in a principled way in this particular area of policy in 2016 America with enough political power to get it done, without repudiating liberalism across the board?”

    The answer is that we can’t.

    (If that isn’t what you are asking then I can’t make sense of the question/objection, since that means that the question is begged against the whole concept of liberalism sustained by making unprincipled exceptions).

    Joining in with right liberal defense of liberalism from its own worst excesses is just the very thing that those on the Current Year ‘alt-right’ call cuckservatism, applied to a 90’s ideal rather than a 50’s ideal. It is merely a new and improved cuckservatism which leaves behind pesky 50’s baggage like opposition to sodomy, abortion, etc.

    The Iron Law is pertinent.

  • It is Yuge how effective and corrosive liberalism is, believe me.

    I have tried to isolate it a bit by talking about sodomy and how it is now perfectly acceptable (it is a requirement really) to allow a sodomite to free himself from having to adhere to the universal objective moral code (UOMC) when it comes to his personal sexual sin of choice but he demands that those who object to his behaviors are required to accept the UOMC in its entirety, including tolerance, and so they must be silent with their objections about his sodomy.

    When I point this out to my friends, they stare at me as though I have just conked them on the head with a ten pound frozen cod loin.

  • You are asking in effect “how can we coherently exercise authority in a principled way in this particular area of policy in 2016 America with enough political power to get it done, without repudiating liberalism across the board?”

    I dunno. I’m asking something much simpler. I’m saying that people are here illegally. There is already a law on the books saying that it is illegal for them to be here. Is there a problem with enforcing that and deporting the people here illegally? Or does every possible option to get that done somehow mean we’re supporting or forwarding liberalism? Is every motive for “get the people here illegally out of here” inherently liberal just by virtue of being in America?

  • Zippy says:

    Malcolm:

    Every route to national political power in modern America is liberal, as a matter of concrete reality. Every material national power will be directed toward the preservation of liberalism, not repentance from it.

    Mick:

    The younger set might be forgiven for not seeing just how Yuge it is that Donald “I’ve been to gay weddings, Obergfell is settled law” Trump now represents such extreme right wingitude that he inspires leftist molotov cocktail parties in American streets. He is really well to the left of 90’s-Bill, when you think about it, at least as far as everything the public knows can show.

    But those of us who are old enough to remember the Reagan years and to have seen where all that right liberal optimism leads don’t really have that excuse.

  • Mike T says:

    The fact that right-liberalism helps keep liberalism alive does not end our obligation to support right-liberals when their actual proposals advance the common good.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    What we ought to do in various positive acts is subject to prudence.

    Once that has been acknowledged, see the Iron Law.

  • Mike T says:

    Support comes in many forms. Suppose Trump were to actually decide to appoint a candidate to the Supreme Court who is good and reliable on abortion and gay issues. Even someone like you could at least speak in Trump’s defense and urge people to call on liberal authorities to support his nominee. One need not vote to actually support right-liberals when they are doing something right.

  • Mike T says:

    BTW, not to bust on Sage, but I found this rather ironic:

    All that Trump would have to do, all he need ever have done, to earn the trust and presumption of good faith on the part of conservatives like Lydia and me, is to speak and act in a way consistent with a man of conservative conviction. That he is incapable of doing so and repeatedly evinces ignorance of, and even hostility to, any kind of meaningful conservatism, is an observable fact. He doesn’t deserve our trust unless and until he can give a remotely plausible accounting of his own ideas.

    I seem to recall Lydia’s reaction to his statements on abortion being those of a woman more inclined to claw his eyes out than high five him.

  • Mike T says:

    Step2 said something there about a Trump meme that needs some explanation. Since he comments here, hopefully he’ll see it as I am honoring their “ban.”

    The “God-Emperor” memes are not a cult thing at all. They are just Warhammer 40k references. In fact, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek irony if you read some of the Wiki stuff about the God-Emperor.

  • Mike T,

    That comment was a response to me. I think I gave one more response before rolling my eyes and ignoring them.

  • GJ says:

    Joining in with right liberal defense of liberalism from its own worst excesses is just the very thing that those on the Current Year ‘alt-right’ call cuckservatism, applied to a 90’s ideal rather than a 50’s ideal. It is merely a new and improved cuckservatism which leaves behind pesky 50’s baggage like opposition to sodomy, abortion, etc.

    And what we’re seeing at W^4 is the wailing and consternation that older right-liberals do when conservatism leaves them behind.

  • Zippy says:

    GJ:
    Agreed.

    Mike T:
    Neither you nor I have any influence over who is and is not appointed to the Supreme Court. You do have some influence – though it is still small – over whether folks in your immediate circle do or do not repent unequivocally of their liberal commitments; and any futile attempts at the former will impair and corrupt your at least conceivably efficacious attempts at the latter.

  • itascriptaest says:

    I seem to recall Lydia’s reaction to his statements on abortion being those of a woman more inclined to claw his eyes out than high five him.

    Mike,

    Yeah that and she still insists on viewing Mitt Romney of all people as being prolife. What a joke.

  • Step2 says:

    MikeT,
    Thanks for the clarification. Still not sure how it isn’t a kind of sacrilegious thing from your standpoint, even granting it used ironically.

  • O, USA, thus has Trumped.

    Opression of the poor via usury and no living wage will not change
    Usury is settled American Tradition and Trump, of course, will name a Gold-Sachs Usurer to Sec. Tres
    Sodomy has become concretised with Trump having praised the convention for being so accepting of Mr. Thiel (sp?) and Trump will name a sodomite to the UN and Trump is jake with Faux-Girls using ladies rooms.
    A Abortion. The Stupid Party has control of the Executive and Legislative branches (this has happened before) and it could, if it desired (it doesn’t) remove all questions of abortion from the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. Who thinks it will?

    Those four realities are what we otherwise sometimes call the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance and yet we have been told that Trump is a big orange meanie and the republic has been saved.

    Lord have mercy…The rioting of the left illustrates how insane it is but the celebrations on the so-called right are just as weird because liberalism.

  • O, USA, thus has Trumped.

    Opression of the poor via usury and no living wage will not change
    Usury is settled American Tradition and Trump, of course, will name a Gold-Sachs Usurer to Sec. Tres
    Sodomy has become concretised with Trump having praised the convention for being so accepting of Mr. Thiel (sp?) and Trump will name a sodomite to the UN and Trump is jake with Faux-Girls using ladies rooms.
    AAbortion. The Stupid Party has control of the Executive and Legislative branches (this has happened before) and it could, if it desired (it doesn’t) remove all questions of abortion from the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. Who thinks it will?

    Those four realities are what we otherwise sometimes call the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance and yet we have been told that Trump is a big orange meanie or the republic has been saved.

    Lord have mercy…The rioting of the left illustrates how insane it is but the celebrations on the so-called right are just as weird because liberalism.

  • Mike T says:

    Step2,

    Still not sure how it isn’t a kind of sacrilegious thing from your standpoint, even granting it used ironically.

    It flirts with it, but a lot of it is a sort of “agree and amplify” directed mainly at conservatives. See, there was a strain of #NeverTrump that went around saying garbage like “go worship your orange God” to many of us who were on the fence about Trump. So there is a bit of amusement to be had in taking their rhetoric, amplifying it with a geeky context they won’t get and watching them go nuts. I’m sure a few of them are literally expecting us to form an imperial cult. Makes you wonder what the secret hand sign for membership would be, a hand palm up and fingers out?

  • Mike T says:

    Step2,

    In response to something you said:

    he mainstream media was truly awful, broadcast and cable news giving over $3 billion dollars in free airtime to the con artist to sell his snake oil. Furthermore, by categorizing a bunch of different but tangentially related issues under the singular title of “Clintons’ emails” they helped create the Achilles’ heel by which rogue FBI agents essentially killed her campaign. While the Clinton emails were a legitimate story and her actions deserving of severe criticism, by never fully explaining except in print media the timeline of events or the legal standards by which she could be reasonably charged for criminal behavior

    IANAL, so I cannot cite the specific parts of USC Title 18 that cover these, but she is guilty of several criminal acts regarding the classified emails. Moving classified data from a secure network to an unauthorized network alone is a criminal act. There are emails that came out where she also directed her subordinates to destroy classification markings. She is also guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI about her training on classified data handling because there were numerous cases where she applied classifications appropriately (Assange apparently proved this on Hannity’s show IIRC). The part where she even had a maid print out and hand her classified docs was just over the top even for Clinton.

    The statutes don’t require intent to prosecute. That is because they are designed for the prosecution of literally any inappropriate handling of classified data except honest human mistakes that a reasonable person might make.

  • PB says:

    Yeah Comey’s seeming redefinition of the requisite mens rea was odd.

  • Zippy says:

    PB and Mike T:

    Substantive mens rea is now a thing, supported even by (supposed) Constitutional strict constructionist deflationary-epistemology types on the “right”.

    “Primacy of conscience” from the world of Catholic liberalism has now overtaken secular legal theory. “He knew what he was doing, but he didn’t agree that it was wrong so he is innocent” will worm its way into Supreme Court jurispridence under Republican appointed jurists to join hands with its brother, substantive due process.

  • Step2 says:

    Mike T,
    As you know I’m not a lawyer either, but I’ll refer you to a legal journalist
    with extensive background in national security issues. He underscores how serious her offense was but also how legally difficult and unprecedented such a prosecution would be given the facts. Her explanation to the FBI of the email related to classified markings was that she was requesting an unclassified version of the talking points memo (which itself may have already been unclassified since a lot of unclassified material is sent through secure channels, but I digress) because the secure fax wasn’t working. Regarding the maid, the supposed “smoking guns” of two classified emails were part of the 2000 emails up-classified long after they were sent. Again, I agree with Comey she was extremely careless, but whether you like it or not she is entitled to a presumption of innocence and the case against her should meet the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. As mentioned previously, any assumption she must serve jail time is hyperpartisan nonsense that ignores the plea deal Petreaus got for deliberately giving classified material to his mistress.

  • PB says:

    Step 2: I didn’t really mean to comment on whether or not she should be in jail. Comey could have just said that he didn’t have enough evidence to reccomend prosecution. I could be wrong but I think his comments regarding intent seemed inconsistent with the mens rea element of the crime.

    Zippy: When I first read about substantive due process in high school I thought “wait that can’t be right.” I’m done with most of law school now and I still haven’t found a great explanation for it besides convienence after the more reasonable privileges and immunities approach to incorporation was deep sixed by the Slaughterhouse case.

  • Mike T says:

    Step2,

    I think a simpler way of looking at it is like this. If she were a 20 year old E4 in the Army with a Secret clearance, she’d likely be in prison for a few years just for moving classified data off of a secure system and into an email system under her control. In fact, what Petraeus did was very similar and he got probation, in part because the matter was deemed not particularly grave due to the specific nature of the data that was illicitly shared.

    We will never know, for many reasons, what specific data she had but unlike Petraeus, there is strong reason to believe a chunk of it was TS/SCI and SAP materials. If a civil service member or service member did that, they’d be in prison. Full stop.

  • Andrew E. says:

    SAP materials

    Indeed. Which means Hillary had someone on site smuggle this information to her. Why? Quite obviously, for sale to foreign powers. Doesn’t get more serious than that.

  • Step2 says:

    If she were a 20 year old E4 in the Army with a Secret clearance, she’d likely be in prison for a few years just for moving classified data off of a secure system and into an email system under her control.

    Well, I can trust your very experienced legal judgement in this matter or that of FBI Director Comey. If you’ve read anything about Comey’s report – which I’m starting to doubt – you should also have read the part where he stated there would have been administrative consequences (demotion/forced resignation/firing) and loss of security clearance for any government employee in a similar situation.

    In fact, what Petraeus did was very similar and he got probation, in part because the matter was deemed not particularly grave due to the specific nature of the data that was illicitly shared.

    Provide evidence to support your assertion about the specific nature of his data or I will not believe it. In Clinton’s case there hasn’t been anything to support the idea she illicitly shared classified material, contrary to Andrew’s unfounded speculations, which means her actions were not “very similar” to what Petraeus did.

    We will never know, for many reasons, what specific data she had but unlike Petraeus, there is strong reason to believe a chunk of it was TS/SCI and SAP materials.

    Petreus was CIA Director, nearly everything he touched in that capacity was classified material. Prior to that he was leader of USCENTCOM where most everything he dealt with was classified, albeit usually of lower classification. Clinton was Sec. of State and dealt with a greater mix of highly classified, classified, and unclassified materials. By “chunk” you mean about 16 emails with Top Secret info out of 45,000 total emails turned over and recovered, and further assuming all 16 were SCI and SAP. While it would be no less serious if it had been only one Top Secret email there is some perspective needed. Surely nobody here thinks she wasn’t routinely working with highly classified material over her four year tenure. Despite slanderous conspiracies about her motives like Andrew’s comment there is no reason to think she was trying to illicitly reveal any of that classified information. At most there is a case for gross negligence in mishandling the information, but that is what the FBI Director’s testimony addressed and based on legal precedent he didn’t think the case was strong enough.

  • Andrew E. says:

    Step2, if you call that slander. What do you have left to label my calling Hillary a demon-worshipping pedophile?

  • Step2 says:

    Unhinged.

  • Wood says:

    Not unhinged. Just unhelpful. I’ve seen a direct correlation between the desire to touch the bottom of the deep end of the Clinton cesspool and a fierce defense of right liberalism.

  • […] there should actually be a clamor to separate inside the states themselves.  Mike reads an essay, “Don’t hide your white privilege under a bushel”, on the Zippy Catholic WordPress site.  An […]

  • GJ says:

    As a postscript to my comment above, it has been eyeopening to see the right-liberal intramural conflict conducted so ruthlessly.

  • Mike T says:

    Step2,

    What Comey left unsaid is that while data spillages are not treated as a crime in most cases, that is because 95% of the time they are the result of human error that occurs in good faith in accordance with a valid operational goal. For example, some poor GS13 accidentally sends a TS document to a contractor in a batch of sample data to test a project off site. Moving official emails to a private server in your closet does not even remotely count as a valid operational goal. Emails on government networks are public records, not personal property.

    As to Comey in general, I find the mass desertion of agents and attorneys under him who did the investigation to be telling. Consensus may not be truth, but the fact that his underlings went up in arms and abandoned him speaks volumes about their view of his judgment. Now you can defend him like Al did and call them rogue agents or you can admit that if they were truly “rogue agents” they would have issued their own statements or done something to offer a contrary perspective. Fact is, they haven’t. Their character does not scream “rogue” in the least.

    Even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that no charge should have come, the fact is that under federal law and relevant IC regulations, her clearance would be revoked and you would have a legal and constitution crisis on your hands. IIRC, a President is given a pro forma clearance, including a polygraph. The problem is, we have never had a President who was not only previously cleared, but actually committed an offense for which the standard regulatory procedure is to shred the clearance and walk them out the building.

  • Step2 says:

    Link
    20. WHAT OPTION DO THOSE WHO HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED OR DENIED HAVE TO REGAIN OR ATTAIN A CLEARANCE?An individual whose security clearance has been denied or revoked by a central adjudication facility has the opportunity to appeal the decision. The process for doing so differs between military and civilian personnel and contractors. Executive Order 12968, “Access to Classified Information,” prescribes the process for military and civilian personnel. Executive Order 10865, “Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry,” outlines the process for contractors.

    For contractor personnel, the denial, revocation and appeal process is the responsibility of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The individual may request a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge in order to provide additional, relevant information and will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Upon completion of the hearing, the administrative judge will render a decision. If the decision is to deny or revoke the security clearance, the individual has the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board will review the case file and render its decision. This decision is final and concludes the appeal process.

    At the conclusion of the appeal process, an individual whose security clearance has been denied or revoked may not reapply for a security clearance for one year from the date of the final decision. The individual may reapply for a security clearance through his or her employing activity if there is a need for access to classified information. The individual is responsible for providing documentation that the circumstances or conditions which resulted in the denial or revocation have been rectified or sufficiently mitigated to warrant reconsideration. The central adjudication facility may accept or reject the reapplication.

    Emails on government networks are public records, not personal property.

    Granted, but she wasn’t using a government network. However, even emails on private networks (which are not supposed to be used for day-to-day operations) required her to turn over her work emails before she left office, which she failed to do.

    More info on PetraeusPetreus, who is reportedly in the running for some sort of top position in the Trump administration. It turns out there isn’t any clear evidence he lost his security clearance over that fiasco.

    I called them rogue agents because they forced Comey to act as he did because he knew they would leak to the press, and they did this in a way that was certain to effect the election. To make her emails the last major story of the campaign was certain to enervate Clinton’s supporters and energize Trump’s supporters.

  • Mike T says:

    Step2,

    Yes, an appeals process does exist. However, people who have their clearance revoked due to seriously negligent handling of classified materials do not win their appeal. Politics can aid people in specific, individual circumstances. Comey’s own public statements make it clear that if Clinton were an ordinary federal employee, contractor or member of the armed forces they could and probably would kill her career over what she did.

    One irony of this process is that the FBI actually cannot officially confirm the extent of the classified documents, their producing agenc(y|ies) and classification level. So both sides should admit that regarding the specific level of damage we’re flying blind until the Russians or Chinese dump the whole Exchange Server log onto Wikileaks.

    My guess is that at least part of the motivation for the FBI career employees being so pissed off simply has to do with the fact that she was an Original Classification Authority and behaved with complete and utter contempt for that role. For an OCA to disregard the rules like that is very serious because that is like a 1-4 star general openly showing contempt for OPSEC in front of their troops.

    Granted, but she wasn’t using a government network.

    Well the classified emails came from a government network. That much is a given at least.

  • IIRC, a President is given a pro forma clearance, including a polygraph.

    This is not correct. The President has the right to view any classified document by right of office. As a constitutional officer, they do not require a security clearance.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    Take a look at this when you get the chance. It’s the most open example of self-aware right-liberalism I have ever seen. What makes it particularly interesting is that Ben Shapiro not only denounces the Alt-Right for opposing right-liberal principles, but makes it explicit that what is generally called Western Civilization is not an actual civilization rooted in a particular block of actually existent ethnicities, but essentially liberalism. In fact, it is perception that the Alt-Right vehemently opposes “Western Civilization” in favor of explicitly demolishing it to restore a modern Christendom that makes his so opposed to it.

    Whether you disagree or not, it’s still interesting to see the right-liberals like Shapiro openly attack the Alt-Right for not just a little disagreement, but a perception that the Alt-Right is starting to generally oppose their worldview.

  • GJ says:

    Mike T:

    Whether you disagree or not, it’s still interesting to see the right-liberals like Shapiro openly attack the Alt-Right for not just a little disagreement, but a perception that the Alt-Right is starting to generally oppose their worldview.

    No, they’re fighting because the Alt-Right has been trying to take their place as dominant right-liberalism (which hasn’t been a particularly concealed goal). Both sides want to be king of a certain hill, and purge the other from the mainstream.

    MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN, yet even with the setback of Trump’s victory most of the older right-liberals like Shapiro will fight to the bitter end.

  • Mike T says:

    I’m starting to suspect the criteria for identifying right-liberalisms is similar to the “one drop rule.”

  • Zippy says:

    I’ve explained many times why the sort of nice tame liberalism desired by different kinds of right liberals is impossible.

  • PB says:

    Mike T: Well it’s one drop around here but grumpy hardassed consistency is why I read Zippy. IRL I imagine you would probably be thought of as an illiberal nut by most right-liberals.

  • Zippy says:

    The “one drop” business is similar to rejecting “slippery slope” arguments without further justification. Some slopes really are slippery, and a lot of what I have done on this blog is argue that liberalism’s slope is steep and slippery, if you will. Cthulu always swims left, Hegelian mambo, liberalism analogous to black hole, etc etc.

    Furthermore, this ought to be obvious from observing reality with blinders removed. But right liberals (like their Communist cousins) are always insisting that if only authentic liberalism were given a go, if we hadn’t been corrupted by all of those liberalism-professing tyrants who don’t really mean it, authentic liberalism would work and unicorns would defecate rainbows.

  • Zippy says:

    As for the self awareness of the dying generation of right liberals, it is normal for approaching death to increase self awareness. The post WWII neoconservative synthesis is dying. The new new conservative synthesis in which the alt right is a participant demonstrates the lack of self awareness typical of youth: the conceit that it is a big improvement over its contemptible and stodgy parents. This is the part where the new conservatism kills and cannibalizes the old.

  • Step2 says:

    Yes, an appeals process does exist.

    That wasn’t the important part. The important part is that even when they lose the appeal they are only guaranteed to be locked out for one year. After that they are eligible to receive a clearance again if they can show “the circumstances or conditions which resulted in the denial or revocation have been rectified or sufficiently mitigated to warrant reconsideration.”

    Politics can aid people in specific, individual circumstances.

    In her case the politics would have been winning the election. As ArkansasReactionary notes, her security clearance becomes a Constitutional right if she had won the election.

    So both sides should admit that regarding the specific level of damage we’re flying blind…

    Keep in mind that the number of contents actually marked classified when they were sent are unknown but were, according to Comey, a “very small number”. Whether that is single or double digits or more is debatable. Clinton claims that none of the emails were marked classified in the email headings but Comey didn’t confirm or deny her claim in that respect.

    My guess is that at least part of the motivation for the FBI career employees being so pissed off simply has to do with the fact that she was an Original Classification Authority and behaved with complete and utter contempt for that role.

    If she was completely contemptuous of that role there would have been a lot more emails found containing classified information. On average she was sending or receiving about 50 emails each day and 110 total were found to contain classified material. I guess our elections should be at the mercy of pissed off rogue FBI agents from now on.

    Well the classified emails came from a government network. That much is a given at least.

    Take your own advice about flying blind. The only thing Comey reported was that everyone she sent or received the classified emails from had a security clearance, which was likely one of the many factors involved in his decision, he didn’t say anything about what networks they were using.

    This is the part where the new conservatism kills and cannibalizes the old.

    Literally not figuratively.

  • donnie says:

    What makes it particularly interesting is that Ben Shapiro not only denounces the Alt-Right for opposing right-liberal principles, but makes it explicit that what is generally called Western Civilization is not an actual civilization rooted in a particular block of actually existent ethnicities, but essentially liberalism.

    Liberals and right-liberals have a penchant for equating Western Civilization to liberalism. But the falsity of this claim is obvious. Even liberal writers like Scott Alexander can see plainly that liberalism consumed the soul of Western Civilization a long, long time ago.

    (P.S. I recommend reading the linked article, it is well worth the time it takes to read.)

  • Mike T says:

    I am unaware of any sort of ancient history for the concept of “Western Civilization.” I could be wrong about that, but my hunch is that it arose as a way of delineating the civilization that forms the new empire of Liberalism.

    What I found interesting was that Shapiro is very self-aware that “old school conservatism” is the main body of right-liberalism and he stands in opposition to not only Christendom being restored, but those who position themselves as modern rebuilders of Christendom. In general, right-liberals position themselves as standing on an ancient tradition when they actually stand on a very new one that is opposed to most of their people’s history.

    As to the one drop rule thing, I have said for a while here that any movement away from liberalism itself will start out with a lot of liberal contamination. That should be obvious for the simple fact that early stage conversion of a society from paganism to Christianity always looks like paganism with Christian trappings. It takes generations of relentless reeducation and cultural revolution to make it go from just replacing the old pantheon with the Trinity to actually being a fully christianized society.

    What I see in the Alt-Right is not necessarily the movement that will move us in the right direction, but a movement that is willing to do more than drop one or two liberal ideas. It seems like a movement that is sufficiently different, even if still liberal in some respects, that mainstream right-liberals don’t fear it due to potential status loss, but seeing their worldview on the trash heap of history.

    I find it fascinating that Shapiro doesn’t regard it as flawed right-liberalism, but as something almost as alien to his view as Islam.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    As to the one drop rule thing, I have said for a while here that any movement away from liberalism itself will start out with a lot of liberal contamination.

    A political movement with ‘a lot of liberal contamination’ just is a political movement whose adherents, in aggregate, have a lot of strong liberal commitments.

    That is, it just is liberalism.

  • […] you, as ridiculous as that sounds. You are the Low Man. More than anything the elites wish for some Final Solution which can be carried out to utterly destroy these perfidious subhumans who, in their spare time […]

  • PB says:

    I do agree as to the one drop rule as it relates to movements/groups. I was thinking about it more on the individual level in my somewhat tounge in cheek response.

  • Zippy says:

    PB:

    Getting back to this, yes, the group-individual distinction is crucial, inasmuch as the commitments of individuals are really quite irrelevant to characterizing liberalism as a social force. I’ve explained why in a number of different ways, e.g. recently here:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/forging-the-hammer-of-tolerance-in-the-furnace-of-liberty/

    Liberalism is a virulent disease in the body politic, resting on an ultimately incoherent concept of authority that appeals to people for reasons described elsewhere in detail.

    If you want to survive cancer you don’t nurture your favorite tumors to which you’ve become sentimentally attached. You kill cancerous cells wherever you find them.

  • […] of these has dominated recent history in the USA, but conflict with actual reality has produced a perceived needperceived need to revert to other magical definitions while still preserving […]

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 Don’t hide your white privilege under a bushel at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: