Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Why the left doesn't care

I used to wonder if white leftists ever had pangs of conscience over their policies (if carried on for long enough) imperilling the existence of a whole race of people.

But then I realised that if you look at the world through a left-liberal mindset that you're unlikely to register the fact of white decline.

Why? The official end goal of liberalism is a world of "equal freedom" - which means more specifically a world in which individuals are equally autonomous - which means more specifically a world in which no-one is impeded in carrying through their individual life aims by predetermined qualities like their sex, race, ethnicity, sexuality etc.

But liberals have to recognise that qualities like sex, race and sexuality do affect life outcomes. An example would be lower average incomes and educational achievements of black Americans compared to white Americans, or lower lifetime earnings of women compared to men.

So liberals are confronted with a world they see as immorally ordered. And they have to explain why such an immoral order exists.

They are not likely to argue that different outcomes occur because of the differing natures, interests, talents, capacities or life aims of the sexes or races. They would see this as a pessimistic view, one in which the immoral ordering of society was inevitable.

Instead, liberals "optimistically" stick with the idea that society is progressing toward a more moral social order and that the continuing distinctions between the sexes and races are socially constructed and can therefore be reformed.

But why was society constructed immorally to begin with? This is where left-liberals, as distinct from right-liberals, take a particular path. They believe that one group of people organised themselves as a false category in order to "other" and oppress everyone excluded from that false category. The whole system of society, the theory goes, was structured to maintain the supremacy (the unearned privilege) of the false category group.

So who exactly are these people running a false category scam and morally disordering society? Unfortunately if you are a straight white male like myself, the do-badders identified by left-liberals are whites, males and straights.

That left-liberal theory has some very unfortunate consequences. First, it means that white society is treated as being exceptional in a negative sense. If a non-white group does well it can be explained in terms of hard work or a stable family life. But if whites do well, it is due to an unearned privilege. Similarly, left-liberals can look sympathetically on the expression of non-white cultures, whilst taking a hostile view toward a similar expression of a white culture (since the white culture only exists to assert an unjust privilege).

That's why left-liberals are quick to label a white person who takes pride in his culture as a 'supremacist'. That might seem illogical to the average person, but if you are a left-liberal and you believe that whiteness was created for the purpose of maintaining supremacy over others, then someone identifying positively with a white culture will be assumed to be supporting "supremacy".

And a final consequence of the theory? Left-liberals are unlikely to recognise the seriousness of the position that the white peoples of the world find themselves in. After all, the left-liberal theory is that inequality continues to exist because whites are a dominant power oppressing the non-white other. So your whole focus will be on white privilege and dominance in the world rather than vulnerability.

I recently saw an example of this kind of thinking in a comment to a story in the left-liberal Salon magazine. It began with a more conservative commenter challenging the Salon readers with a question: why is it that the solution to the race problem is thought to be mass immigration into Western countries, a measure that if continued will lead eventually to the genocide of whites, whilst Asian and African peoples are allowed to continue their own existence?

A Salon reader responded with this:
Nobody is advocating the "genocide" of white people. It's laughable how you equate a moderate decrease in the economic and cultural influence of whites as some kind of spectacular genocide.

But when you've been privileged for that long, I guess you do lose all sense of perspective.

The Salon reader simply hasn't registered the real position that whites are in. He or she is still fixated on the idea on the idea of whites being privileged, and as such can only recognise a "moderate decrease" in the position of whites. There are no pangs of conscience from the Salon reader because:

a) The focus is on whites being privileged and so nothing more than a "moderate decrease" in the position of whites is recognised


b) It is implied that this "moderate decrease" in the position of whites is a moral thing, a taking away of privilege rather than an assault on historic human communities.

What can be done to challenge the left-liberal position? Plenty of things.

i) The left-liberal position thrives when it goes unchallenged. The more non-liberals we get into the political class, the less room there will be for unexamined assumptions on the left.

ii) We can point to the fact that the system doesn't work to privilege whites the way that the left-liberal theory assumes it to do. For instance, whilst blacks do worse than whites in certain areas such as income and education, Asian-Americans do significantly better than white Americans, i.e. it is Asian-Americans who are, on average, the most privileged and not white Americans.

iii) We can point to other explanations for group distinctions. Among them are differences in IQ, in other inherited traits, and in deeply rooted aspects of culture and family organisation.

iv) We can challenge the underlying assumptions on which the whole edifice of the left-liberal approach rests. Is a well-ordered society really one in which predetermined qualities are not allowed to matter? Does that really lead to the freedoms which are most important to people? Does the use of the state to suppress group distinctions really create a free society? And aren't there other important goods alongside freedom which contribute to the moral ordering of a society?

v) We can point to the injustice in regarding whiteness as exceptionally immoral, for instance, when the success of migrant groups is attributed to hard work and determination, whilst that of whites is attributed to unearned privilege.

vi) We can point to ways in which it is obvious that whites do not occupy the oppressor role, for instance, the trends in interracial crime in which whites are more likely to be victims rather than aggressors.

vii) We can personally reject liberalism to the degree that we no longer give it moral authority. And, following from this, we can attempt to organise our own non-liberal networks, institutions and, perhaps one day, communities.


  1. Don't waste your time talking to them.

    They've "othered" us, and they're winning. An Other's request for sympathy or understanding is always seen as a plea from weakness, which feels like a confirmation that you're doing everything right.

  2. Anon, maybe.

    In the Salon thread, a few more conservative commenters kept pressing the issue and it did lead to something of a more defensive attitude by the left-liberals ("it's all capitalism's fault anyway for wanting cheap labour").

    Some of these guys have possibly never been challenged in their politics before. They've never been asked to justify their political positions.

    I remember years ago in a very beautiful suburb of Melbourne getting into an argument with a left-liberal. He threw the standard line at me "What is Australian culture anyway?"

    I pointed around us to what Australian culture had created. It seemed to throw him - he didn't know how to answer. I'd guess that he belonged to a milieu in which nobody ever expected him to have an answer.

    However, I agree with you inasmuch as my own preference is:

    a) to attack liberal philosophy at its root


    b) to go ahead regardless with traditionalist projects, i.e. asseting traditionalist values and beginning the task of creating networks and institutions

  3. Why the left doesn't care? For them, good is evil and evil is good. When they do evil, they think it good.

  4. The key point to remember is that the left considers itself not only more rational, but also more *moral*, based on its worldview of history being the story of the privileged constructing a world designed specifically to put one over on everyone else. This is an important point, because if the leftist view of history were to be correct, then they would be quite moral in trying to "deconstruct" it.

    This is why the difference of "opinion" is really a fundamental difference in worldview, including the moral implications of such worldview. This is why, for example, leftists don't see trads or conservatives as being simply incorrect or having the wrong opinion, but rather as being fundamentally immoral or, rather, as having a retrograde, outmoded moral perspective based on a false worldview. It seems odd to most on the right that the left sees the right as immoral (because the right is accustomed to seeing the left as advocating any number of things that do violence to traditional morality), but, in fact, leftists tend to see themselves as being more moral, and having a more "enlightened moral sensibility".

    The difference is not a slight one, but a large one, I think, and a durable one as well, because a worldview is no small thing to change, and is something that has a cascading importance to many other things, including one's moral vision.

  5. Of course for the left liberal elite isn't actually affected by this "moderate decrease" in white power.

    Take affirmative action. An Ivy league or oxbridge graduate is unlikely to have to make way for an affirmative action hiring, or have to compete in the semi-skilled job market with third world immigrants.

    Most of the actual sacrifices in terms of lower wages, higher unemployment etc have to made by working and lower middle class whites.

    The only sacrifices higher income whites have to make is learning a few politically phrases, and the odd word of Chinese or Samoan.

  6. Great article, Sir.

    I particularly like the fact that you offer a plan for how traditionalists can organise. It's refreshing to read a conservative who doesn't just complain about the 'progressives' but shows how they can be stopped.

  7. This is one of those posts that is excellent, yet depressing.

    It's weird that we have to de-brainwash our own people.

    But just a warning Mark, not all of these gentile liberals can be saved. And that is soul-destroying when you meet one that you want to help and they just bite your hand like a dying animal.

    Also, I think in the Anglo countries there's a real misunderstanding of Nordic Socialism.

    Being a traditionalist doesn't mean you are a cheap labor importing, off-shoring capitalist establishment Republican.

  8. Thanks, Mark. I think that this was an important post.

  9. Mark,
    The problem I see is that left liberalism is an emotional reaction. There is so much cognitive dissonance in their position, and so much brainwashing through the schools and media that making rational arguments generally aren't going to work.

    Personally I think it's better to pitch the approach towards those who are on the fence. Concede that they might have a point on something, but then throw something out that they don't expect without any sarcasm or snarkiness. Save those things for when you have to deflate someone's pretentions. Also try to have a wing man, so that you don't come across as a sole objector to the leftist consensus.

  10. Liberalsim has so deeply infected the Western both spiritually and politically that we no longer have the ability to see the danger. It conceals itself in both the name of equality and capitalism. They put their host peoples to sleep, paralyzing their defensive abilities. This insight into the matter should make us realize that cooperation between international plutocracy and international cultural Marxism was not a contradiction, but rather a sign of deep commonalities. The West is in deadly danger.

  11. Its fascinating watching this leadership spill with K Rudd. As part of his leadership pitch he's taking a more conservative line on policy including a review and likely lowering of the carbon tax and a resolution of the border protection issue. This echoes the 2007 election where he sold himself essentially as "Howard lite" to the public. When Gillard took over in 2010 she also made conservative pitches such as the not wanting a "Big Australia", and righting the government that had "lost its way etc". Both immediately after being elected, however, took off in left wing directions. Julia Gillard for instance announcing with a colossal grin the new carbon tax and partnership with the Greens only a week after winning the election, whcih of course was famously not flagged in the election campaign.

    This conservative platitudes left wing policy implementation, seems a phenomenal con job which appears to repeatedly work or else it wouldn't be so frequently done. So does the public actually want conservative politics then? The biggest line used by Labor in its attacks on Liberals is the "Tony Abbott" line. If you vote Liberal you'll get this horrible social conservative and it is this public perception which is the cause of animus against him, (its largely irrelevant at this point whether Abbott actually classifies as a social conservative or not as this is the perception). Despite Abbott's strong standing in the polls there is a general view that he is the Liberals biggest weakness and that someone like Turnbull would be "more electable".

    So in order to soften this view blokes like Abbott feel compelled to adopt various left wing positions in order to soften their public image. Abbott became a supporter of the aboriginal apology and I would half suspect he would likely support some change to the constitution in favor of aborigines. Abbott unlike Turnbull would likely not be a true believer of these positions but would go along with them to get along. The upshot is a consistent general tilting of the political equation to the left. The Labor party talking conservative at election times but implementing left wing policy and the Liberals generally feeling obliged to adopt left wing stances in order to be considered "fit for civilisation". There are a few notable exceptions to this such as Abbott's, fairly remarkable and possibly politically unique in the Western world, line in the sand on the carbon tax and climate change.

    So there is support for conservative positions in the public, as evidenced by the frequent use of conservative language and platitudes, but I suspect its weak support and can be easily deflected or diffused. In this environment liberalism is very dangerous because its the great "turning inwards". Under liberalism everyone looks at the political landscape as an othered thing that they try to minimise their exposure to it, rather than something they feel connected with. Politics becomes individually focused eg what's in this or that policy for me, and people are also fairly isolated and therefore vulnerable to being morally singled out by the left eg "You're not a climate change denier are you??!".

    So all in all there's a lot of work to do to change the political dynamics.

  12. ""I would half suspect he would likely support some change to the constitution in favor of aborigines. ""

    You would be right; he has flagged his support for such a change.

    ""Abbott's, fairly remarkable and possibly politically unique in the Western world, line in the sand on the carbon tax and climate change.""

    He is still paying lip service to the church of AGW; Harper in Canada is probably ahead of him on the issue but to be fair Harper is the PM of his country.