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.

Nazis dancing on the head of a pin

May 1, 2017 § 36 Comments

My post The Products of Inception deliberately evokes the modern morally sanitizing euphemism “products of conception,” which refers to the post mortem object of the abortionist’s ministrations: the dismembered remains of her human victim.

There can be all sorts of personal motivations, as with murder more generally speaking, when it comes to murdering (or contracting the murder of) one’s own child.  Liberalism (in its feminist aspect) isn’t always and necessarily what motivates individual choices to abort.  Sometimes it likely isn’t a significant factor at all.

What feminism does is construct a social world in which abortion is considered a right, and is deemed necessary in many cases in order to carry out the imperative of female emancipation.

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.

Liberalism considered purely in itself, as an abstracted idea to which nobody is committed even as a kind of default, doesn’t cause mass murder.  What causes mass murder is the crushing impact of the liberal commitments of governing regimes , ruling classes, and whole populations as these social forces come crashing into reality.

Folks who like to think in terms of academic ideas isolated from reality, clinically examined in the laboratory of the mind, sometimes object that – despite express commitment to freedom and equality of rights among the herrenvolk – nazis and other moderns don’t really fit the “liberal” label.

I’m OK with that.  No, really.  Debate over whether mass-murdering modernist regimes are all forms of “liberalismstrictly speaking, as opposed to the perfectly understandable (and inevitable) results of liberalism crashing into reality, itself represents a radical pullback from the real world and into an abstract mind laboratory.

So feel free to insist that nazism and communism are not forms of liberalism, strictly speaking.  From my point of view this is just counting nazis dancing on the head of a pin.

Maybe our fried ice can help reduce the fever

February 27, 2017 § 134 Comments

I’ve argued before that there are no free societies: that when people use the term “free” or “freedom” in a political context what they really mean is that the “more free” society puts the right sort of people in prison.  “Less free” societies put the wrong sort of people in prison; so “freedom” in the political motte has become a way of expressing the speaker’s approval of that society’s rules and customs, while tyranny has become a way of expressing disapproval[1].

It is sometimes objected that the USA really 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 liberalism without any further thought or argument required.  (It has even been suggested, amusingly, that my refusal to see political freedom as something ontologically distinct from the constraints implied by every “right” makes me a positivist).

What is good in any given society is as much attributable to what that society forbids and sanctions, in the particulars, as it is to what that society “permits” (which is itself another way to say what a society supports, enforces and destroys opposition to through informal and formal structures of law and custom). To the extent the USA is better than North Korea that is as much or more a function of what isn’t accepted and permitted as it is of what is accepted and permitted. Restrictions on arbitrary confiscation of private property by Communists are, well, restrictions. Every right which empowers carries inextricable corresponding restrictions; in fact each and every single empowerment gives rise to a plenitude of constraints. So the very notion of an abstracted political “freedom” – divorced from the myriad restrictions implied by adopting one set of rules and customs versus another – is nonsense.

One might as well complain that I refuse to concede that the USA is more round-squarian than North Korea, and has more and better fried ice. When one makes an intrinsically nonsensical assertion the only truthful response is that the assertion is – and I mean this quite literally – nonsense. It may seem like it isn’t nonsense on the surface; but that only works as long as we refuse to think about it any further.  That one thinks the USA puts the right sort of people in prison and North Korea puts the wrong sort of people in prison may be true enough, but labeling that difference in the details freedom, as if these “freedoms” were one-sided coins which imply no corresponding restrictions, is just self deception.

Whatever one thinks of USA under its current variation of liberalism and North Korea under its current variation — keeping in mind that liberalism isn’t everything — these intramural conflicts between which kinds of liberalism are “better” or “worse” are in my view a pointless exercise, or worse. More immediately benign forms of liberalism (to the extent we even buy that there is such a thing) cultivate, protect, spread, and give rise to more virulent forms. This is the basic problem with “conservatism”, about which much has already been written: what it conserves these days is, for the most part, merely earlier and more larval stages of liberalism.

Is it better to have symptomatic carriers of virulent disease in a quarantine, or asymptomatic carriers wandering around spreading the illness? Even if we grant the premise for the sake of argument, showing that not-yet-symptomatic disease carriers are “healthier” than symptomatic disease carriers – in a truncated and temporary sense – doesn’t have the positive implications that the term “healthier” implies.

[1] Regular readers might be concerned that I am drifting into the vicinity of claiming that freedom and tyranny are anti-concepts.

You may rest easy though: tyranny is a perfectly meaningful concept, and freedom is a perfectly meaningful concept.  In fact if freedom were not a meaningful concept at all then it would not be possible for freedom-as-a-political-priority — liberalism — to be self-contradictory.  “Round square” and “fried ice” wouldn’t be self-contradictory if the constituent terms had no meaning.

As always it is important to be aware of qualification-into-vacuity.  A retreat into “freedom” as vacuously meaning exercise of authority when it is good to do so and not when it is bad to do so is the tautological motte into which the more assertive forms of liberalism creep away to hide from the burning truth of daylight.

The election outcome as a product of racial hatred

November 22, 2016 § 22 Comments

I think there is some truth in seeing the recent election result as a product of racial hatred; but not in the way that many people think.

As previously observed, middle American white people are not very racially conscious. Working class Rust Belt whites elected Barack Obama twice.  This may not reflect well on their overall intelligence or self interest, but it does demonstrate that they are not reluctant to vote for a leftist nonwhite president.

The racial tolerance and live-and-let-live attitude of middle America though is not at all shared by coastal elites. Coastal elites contemptuously despise middle American white people specifically as white people. Breathing while white is racist, the absolute worst thing to be — unless you’ve washed away your original sin through spirit cooking, surgical sexual transformation, regular acts of sodomy, or some other leftist baptismal act of atonement.

Sure, some actually productive and functional people of nonwhite races are also wrecked by leftist policy.  But you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.  The important thing is the utter destruction of the Basket of Deplorables: the Final Solution.

That is why the candidate of the leftist coastal elites rejected her husband’s advice, to appeal to Rust Belt working class whites, as outdated.  Getting along with the redneck racist sexist homophobic white people who voted for Obama twice is so 90’s.  Expecting The Her to ask working class whites for their vote was like expecting Communists to ask Capitalists 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 Current Year.

I doubt that even this has managed to start some process of turning middle American whites into a racially conscious tribe though.  It is entirely possible that racial hatred has simply been bred out of most of us. Anti-racism was our creed in the first place.  It would take generations to inbreed it back out of us, I think.

But as Cane Caldo observed in the comments below, I do expect that middle American whites are going to stop caring quite so much about the racial grievances of other races. You were given your chance, with eight full years of a very liberal black President, for crying out loud. Rather than ushering in a new age of two-way racial tolerance to replace the old model of tolerant white people resented by people of color, what the Lightbringer brought us was ramped up racial hatred directed against the most racially tolerant group of human beings to ever exist in all of human history: American white people of generically European descent.

Hate letters from coastal elites to middle American whites

November 21, 2016 § 72 Comments

Peter Woit is the physicist who wrote the book Not Even Wrong, which I highly recommend if you are interested in the subject matter. The Pauli quote in my masthead/sidebar comes from Woit’s book. I keep him in my blogroll so that I remember to check in on what he has to say now and then. Woit projects a compulsive honesty in expressing his own views that I can’t help but appreciate in fellow human beings, even when my own substantive understanding of a particular subject is a universe apart.

I’ve never noticed him writing about politics before, but the recent Presidential election was apparently traumatic enough to bring him out of his shell. For the most part that is probably not a good thing: people who talk about their political views almost universally end up lowering my overall estimation of their personal wisdom, which I suppose shouldn’t surprise any of my regular readers. One of the many deleterious effects of liberalism is that it tends to make everyone falsely believe that their own uncultivated political opinions are worth more than flatulence particulates embedded in a couch cushion.

Woit’s honesty, however, is valuable.  He describes one of the motivations of middle American white people voting for Donald Trump:

You’re angry at well-off coastal elites who you feel look down on you and your culture, and you want to spit in their face by voting for Trump. If so, you are quite right to feel the way you do. From a lifetime spent among such elites I can tell you that, yes, they do look down on you. Most people here in New York City probably do think you’re an ignorant racist. Your problem though is that Donald Trump is one of us. He’s a well-off New Yorker through and through, looks down on you every bit as much as others. If elected he will govern in the interest of his tribe, not yours. If you think otherwise, you’ve been conned. All you will accomplish by a vote for Trump is to convince people in New York, Washington D.C. and California that you really are even more ignorant than they thought, a racist fool taken in by an obvious con.

Coastal elites by and large hate, hate, hate middle American white working people. If you are part of the middle American white working class coastal leftists really do blame everything that is wrong with the world on 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 away from keeping the lights on and the toilets flushing, continue to screw up the emergence of universal egalitarian emancipation.

All forms of liberalism require a Final Solution, and the Final Solution has to be carried out as an unprincipled exception: in this case, the mass extermination of despised middle American 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 oppressor-untermensch who fell outside of the protections provided by freedom and equality, precisely because the subhuman oppressor class was – as it always is – a contemptible impediment to the emergence of the free and equal new man.

The Final Solution for destroying the middle American white working class was and is supposed to be mass third world immigration.  Leftist elites absolutely know[1] that mass third world immigration is a poison designed to utterly destroy middle American whites and salt the earth upon which they used to live. Europe is a proving ground for the efficacy of this particular Solution. The following comes from an email received by Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta from a regular correspondent, as published by Wikileaks (reformatted for clarity):

Unlike the Multikultis, the German working class cannot block out or distort awful reality and needs to live in the real world.

For example, I have a hunch that there are precious few Multikulti converts to be found among German bus drivers. In another clip, a German bus company spokesman explains that even immigrant pensioners beat up bus drivers.

Let me also show you images of a 78-year-old German female shopkeeper hit 50 times in her face by a 14-year-old Bosnian. The young robber belongs to a family granted asylum by Germany. Heart-warming, don’t you think?

The coastal elites in the USA are counting on it.

[1] Hat tip to Evolutionist X.

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.

Search Results

You are currently viewing the search results for Inbred liberalism.