Speaking of Nazis

The left doesn’t actually care about nazis, because there are no nazis. They care about destroying you. Your history, your culture, your traditions, your future, your family, you. That is their operational principle. Even their own are capable of recognizing it in other forms—and yet so many of you are not.

So stop bleating about not being racist to enemies who racially attack you. Stop believing that colluding monopolistic corporatism equals free enterprise. Stop believing that legal immigration won’t swamp you just the same. Stop applauding wildly wasteful military misadventures on behalf of Our Greatest Ally. And finally, stop thinking that a government instruction pamphlet is the basis of civil Western society. There’s only so many maladaptive mistakes a side can make before it is defeated with finality. No one is going to praise your virtues once that side is yours.

Maybe you are a freedom-loving equality-before-the-law liberal yourself – which is what makes you a good and respectable person.

This will not save you, nor will it save anything or anyone that you love, from utter destruction. Conservation of the things you love requires the unapologetic exercise of authority. Exercise of authority under liberalism is always sociopathic, carried out via unprincipled exceptions, because of the way liberalism frames the question of authority.

There are no Nazis. There is only you.

Why different kinds of liberals think each other are Nazis

Liberalism is a theory or understanding of the just exercise of authority.  It is specifically commitment to political freedom and, concomitantly, to equality before the law.

Commitment to political freedom is commitment to rights, that is, to the empowerment of certain people or claims; empowerment always and necessarily achieved via authoritative discrimination against other people or claims.  I’ve used the metaphor of a coin with a pretty side and an ugly side as an image of how liberalism approaches the question of authority: both sides of the authority coin are always present, but liberals see only the pretty side – the empowerment side that they personally like – of their own coins.  Liberalism is thus ultimately a mechanism for people to beg the question in favor of their own preferred exercise of authoritative discrimination.

Picture liberal society, then – the whole society as opposed to individual liberals – as composed of liberals carrying around their coins held high, gazing raptly at (what they personally believe to be) the pretty side. Other people walking along with them in the same direction holding similar coins (where the coins represent each person’s understanding of the just exercise of authoritative discrimination) also see the pretty, empowering side.

When groups of liberals come across other liberals walking a different direction, though, they see the ugly, authoritative side of each others’ coins and accuse each other of being tyrants: of being the Low Man. Each sees the other as inauthentically liberal, as selfish, sick, insane power hungry tyrants who mouth the words of freedom and equal rights but don’t really mean it.

---

Note: this was originally a comment, but I’ve had to search for it and reference it enough times now that I thought it deserved promotion to its own post.

Undemocratic racist kill ratios

I don’t know if the sleeping Anglo-European white warrior will ever really reawaken. It doesn’t seem that likely to me, frankly. It certainly isn’t something to hope for: if he does, the world should tremble. No other creature has ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence that we have within us.

One of the things that I find interesting about man-hating white-hating politics though is the democratic political assumption: the assumption that once the white man is a ‘minority’, the POC-SJW coalition of freaks will have him right where they want him, because – wait for it – they will be able to outvote him. Tremble at the power!

These folks don’t seem to have taken stock of actual historical kill ratios when small handfuls of US marines have taken on large groups of more pigment-challenged enemies.

Liberalism as a non-authority theory of authority

Liberalism treats the question of what authoritative discriminations in particular are just, as if it were a question of whether authoritative discrimination in general is just.

Freedom means putting the right kind of people in prison

To say that Bob has the freedom to do X is to say that Bob has the authority to do X.

To say that Bob has the authority to do X is to say that anyone who acts in a way contrary to Bob doing X may be punished or face consequences for that interference.

To say that anyone who acts in a way contrary to X may be punished or face consequences is to constrain people through authoritative discrimination: to classify people along some attribute or behavior and discriminate against them based on that attribute or behavior.

So freedom means constraining classes of people through authoritative discrimination.

The dawning of opposite day

The phrase “equality before the law” sociopathically frames the question of how the law should authoritatively discriminate as if it were a question of whether the law should authoritatively discriminate.

Why all the negativity?

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. – Veritatis Splendour

Abstractly speaking an authority can take either a “whitelist” approach to property exchanges (only approved transactions are endorsed and enforced) or a “blacklist” approach (transactions are presumptively endorsed and enforced, but exceptions apply).

As a practical matter though the latter is the only real possibility for actual finite human authorities. Any attempt at the former proposes to actualize a potential infinite, and thus in practice would become a perverse and sociopathic version of the latter.

So blacklists it is. There is good reason why categorical commandments take the form “thou shalt not.”

(Originally a comment here).

Self diagnosis, or, the nosology on your face

You can tell that you are still suffering from liberal commitments when you find yourself suggesting that modern liberals, left liberals, or whomever are distorting a good tradition of political freedom: that left-liberals have a deformed or inauthentic understanding of political freedom and equality before the law. If this is you, you are almost certainly a right-liberal.

Enforced question begging

Despite its unwieldiness I prefer the phrase “decline to enforce usurious contracts” over the phrase “prohibit usury,” because the latter begs the question¹ of authority in favor of usurers.

Begging the question of authority is pervasive in modernity, because modern people raised on liberalism try very hard not to believe in the reality and real legitimacy of authority.

---

[1] As usual I use the phrase “beg the question” in its classical sense, where it means assuming the very thing one sets out to demonstrate.  In this case the phrase “prohibit usury” assumes that by default those in authority should enforce usurious contract terms and frames declining to enforce them as “prohibition”.

At least one party gets screwed

Our society positively celebrates and encourages fornication, to the point where any undesired consequences of fornication – even consequences to which the perpetrator has explicitly agreed ahead of time in writing – are considered merciless tyranny; the perpetrator, a victim.

At the same time, modernity views consent as what determines justice.  Because of this, precisely (and only) because of the absence of consent, rape is still considered a terrible crime (as long as women are not spending millions of entertainment dollars fantasizing about it).  And of course the scope of “consent” continues to expand, to the point where any foreseen or unforeseen regret for making a free choice, or any subjectively perceived pressure at all to choose one way rather than another, is thought to retroactively nullify consent.

This leads many conservatives to join forces with sexual libertines when it comes to campus rape hysteria, #metoo, and the like.  Because when consensual sex that the woman later regrets is defined to be rape, at least one party to fornication – the man – suffers real consequences.