Monday, May 06, 2013

How does the liberal concept of freedom lead to statism?

A commenter in a recent post made this argument:
I don't agree with your long-running contention that modern liberals actually want maximum individual liberty and "autonomy" in the sense that classical liberals meant it (classical liberals being more akin to modern libertarians on that score). Modern liberals favor massive state intervention into every aspect of social, economic, and political life, which far from removing impediments to autonomy and self-determination, is necessarily the very death of autonomy and self-determination. Modern liberals want to crush the individual, and they are knowingly the enemies of liberty in the sense that classical liberals meant it.
 
In other words, the commenter is asking how modern liberals can combine the idea of maximising individual liberty (understood to mean autonomy) with a more intrusive state.

Let's look at an example, namly that of Nick Clegg, the Deputy PM in the UK and a leader of the Liberal Democrats in that country. In a speech entitled "Why I am a liberal" he argues that liberals don't like concentrations of power as that limits autonomy:
A liberal abhors excessive concentrations of power in politics and economics alike. I believe monopoly in the market place is as destructive of creativity and autonomy as is monopoly in politics.
 
He contrasts this liberal view with that of socialists, who he believes are more statist:
Socialism believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.
 
So you might think that this is a case of a belief in individual autonomy pushing someone to be anti-statist.

But as soon as Clegg begins to discuss policy, out comes the state. Here is a classic example:
My party has new plans to provide free childcare for all toddlers from the age of eighteen months. Childcare costs are a punitive burden for so many parents today, inhibiting the freedoms and choices which parents in other countries take for granted.

And currently there is no help with childcare costs at all until a child is three years old. If people want to work, let them. We would offer 19 months of parental leave… shared between mothers and fathers… So that - if they want to - men can stay at home with their children.

And - if they want to - women have more opportunities to get back into work.
 
The problem is that the logic of individual autonomy pushes toward these sorts of policies. If you really believe that there should be no impediments to choice, then why should a woman's sex stop her from choosing to self-create through a career? But how can you give her this "freedom" (from motherhood) unless it is heavily subsidised by the state (via childcare) and unless the state acts to overthrow the connection between motherhood and womanhood (by promoting unisex parenting).

And here's another example. Liberals don't like the idea that the things we don't choose might have an effect on the life path we determine for ourselves:
And I believe a liberal society is impossible if children are condemned for life – their education, their health, their economic well being – by the circumstances in which they were born.
 
But that implies that children have to have the same start regardless of what their parents do to support them. And if parents can't be relied upon to give all children the same start, then what force in society is going to? The answer is the state:
We are also developing new policies which would target extra resources at the most deprived children, especially in those crucial early years of education, and introduce significantly lower infant class sizes.

...Our plans would revolutionise the care and schooling provided to young children, so giving both parents and children peace of mind and opportunities that have been denied them.
 
Finally, Clegg is someone who dislikes the idea of a national state. And why wouldn't you if you follow a universalist philosophy? If you're a universalist, then there is no basis for discriminating in favour of the people of your own nation. You'll want to apply liberal principles globally instead. And so Clegg, despite all his talk of dispersing power, happily discusses the need for international government:
In exactly the same way we need international regulation to mitigate the worst excesses of our financial institutions, we need international regulation to protect our environment from selfinterested elites.

Global problems require global solutions. But only liberals truly believe in international governance. In pooling sovereignty at supranational level.
 
Finally, consider Clegg's pitiful account of solidarity:
The only way we will make it through the hard times ahead, the only way we’ll build a fairer, more cohesive society, is if we come together.

Not if we drive people apart.

Liberalism seeks to bring people together by recognising our own freedoms are dependent on the freedom of others.

I uphold your freedoms because you uphold mine.
 
That's the kind of thing a classical liberal like J.S. Mill was at pains to emphasise. It's the idea people will not intrude on the freedom of others because that then undermines the guarantee to their own freedom.

But it's a paper thin version of social solidarity. In effect, Clegg envisions a society made up of interchangeable autonomous individuals who express solidarity by being willing to recognise each other's freedoms.

But there is no recognition of the fellow feeling or loyalty that comes about through a shared history, culture, religion, language or kinship - no sense that people might form an ethny or a people.

But to summarise: Clegg does take "freedom as autonomy" seriously. It leads him on the one hand to wish to disperse power to individuals rather than to rely on a paternalistic state. But, at the same time, there is a logic by which the state is relied on to remove impediments to choice and to equalise conditions of life so that the things that aren't chosen don't determine life outcomes.

I understand that libertarians would disagree with the way that Clegg has developed a liberal politics, but what they need to understand is that there is a logic by which Clegg (and so many others) have taken liberalism in that direction.

78 comments:

  1. Movie actor Gary Cooper opposed Communism because he "didn't feel it was on the level". He was right about that.

    My opinion of political correctness is the same. Its results don't flow from is premises; rather it makes multitudes of exceptions, always in the same direction, and when the avowed principles and the exceptions clash, it's the exceptions that rule. In other words, the avowed principles are fake, and covert principles rule.

    Political correctness smashes families. That plunges people into the grip of family court, where the most intimate details of the lives of ordinary people are regulated by unaccountable judges, and children suffer great misery and reduced life prospects. What has that got to do with "I uphold your freedoms because you uphold mine.? It's a power grab for the bureaucracy.

    Politically correct restrictions on freedom of speech never end. What has that got to do with "I uphold your freedoms because you uphold mine.? It's a power grab for the bureaucracy, including tax-funded leftists.

    Racial and cultural diversity cause great conflict, and to manage this conflict calls for armies of bureaucrats to supervise and interfere with people in every way. Knowing this, and it's no secret, the politically correct import all the diversity they can, while building up the machinery of anti-white supervision as fast as they can. What has that got to do with "I uphold your freedoms because you uphold mine.? It's a power grab for the bureaucracy. And it's anti-white, which is not something the politically correct normally admit, but that's what their "anti-racism" amounts to.

    If someone says he's equalitarian, you may or may not believe him. If his actions are not guided by any principles of equality but by exceptions such as "nobody can own property, except for Bob the bureaucrat, who can own as much as he likes and therefore owns everything you have to suspect something is up. And when all the exceptions that dictate what really happens go in the same direction, you know that this is fake.

    For one example, London has (as some journalist said) undergone a demographic implant in recent years unlike anything experienced by a European capital city since the fall of Constantinople. In other words, this is a conquest - a genocidal conquest. Yet the cover story is that this is just a matter of pro-working class social policy! (From the Labor Party.) And the whole thing was organized secretly and undemocratically - the opposite of what avowed politically correct principles would lead you to expect.

    The stories that liberals tell about their motives don't match their actions, which go in different directions and are on a different scale. It's a total scam.

    Most liberals aren't consciously lying. They are following their leaders, and careless of truth in doing so. But their leaders are lying, or worse, so intensely biased against whites, especially Christian men, that they themselves can't tell when they are pursuing principles and when they are acting out of hate. In practice, either way, the system is a big lie.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's well-stated, Mark.

    I think in a few of the comments there has been a faliure to recognize that liberalism has deep roots, but has also morphed over time to become increasingly radical and take on other aspects in its pursuit of increased personal autonomy. It's quite true that the emphasis among left liberals on personal autonomy relies on some degree of equality, because without equality, some people will have more autonomy than others, which this branch of liberalism, currently the more dominant one, abhors -- because it means, de facto, that one has less autonomy than others. Removing these inequalities involves state power, which this kind of liberal is well willing to use to create a more equal field on which individuals can play out their respective autonomies.

    The right liberal is more comfortable with people having disparate access to expressing their autonomy more or less fully from the outset, probably because the right liberal thinks that these disparate starting points can be overcome with sufficient personal effort and enterprise, and prefers any remaining inequalities of autonomy to the use of the state to enforce more equal starting points.

    They really are two variants on the same theme of autonomy, but each has a different perspective on how important it is to try to equalize the starting point, and whether the state power should be involved in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can you take people seriously when they say they act on principle and their principles are about things like reducing domestic violence (which you would imagine meant that they would not import anybody from cultures where people go in for "honor killings"), but their deeds are things like reducing the British people, who've been continually the practically sole occupants of their island since the Ice Ages, to a racial minority in their own country in the space of a century? (And say hello to cover-ups of rape gangs and honor killings!)

    It's like someone who says he cares about nothing but his postage stamp collection, but whose actions all revolve around stalking and decapitating red-haired girls.

    There's an insane - or disingenuous and malicious - disconnect between what liberals say their principles about and what they do. The scale, the obsessions, the level of aggression - nothing matches.

    They're lying, or their leaders are so biased that they can't tell whether they are lying, which is worse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brendan, thank you - your own comment is very well said.

    Daybreaker, yes and no.

    Your point that the end result is not a happy laissez-faire, hands off tolerance, but increasingly intrusive rule by a state bureaucracy is true.

    But I don't think that we should discount the principles that liberals formally hold. They are part of the story.

    For instance, if you believe that individuals should pursue a private, subjective good and permit others to do the same, then the only reason you might object to London becoming a multiculture is a concern that some ethnic groups might not play by the rules. But otherwise, why would you object? Someone from Bangladesh can just as easily be one of those individuals pursuing their own subjective good as a native Briton.

    The liberal view is inadequate in its starting point - in its basic assumptions - and not just in the fact that its end result isn't as free as it claims.

    And when it comes to families? I agree that part of it is a tearing away of non-bureaucratic sources of authority in society.

    But liberals do also see the traditional family as an impediment to freedom. Many liberals, like Clegg, believe that "opportunity" means making something of ourselves through a career.

    That means that women have to be liberated from the motherhood role imposed on them by their sex.

    And yes, it's true that children outside the traditional family, on average, experience lower life prospects.

    But here liberals have a choice. They can either conclude that it's important to hold together the traditional family (and some do) or they can argue that it's wrong to discriminate between different choices of family life and that society should be arranged so that no child is disadvantaged regardless of the type of family they come from (the majority liberal view thus far).

    ReplyDelete
  5. the commenter is asking how modern liberals can combine the idea of maximising individual liberty (understood to mean autonomy) with a more intrusive state.

    No, I am NOT asking that. I know how they can do that. They do that because they are fscking liars, which is their hallmark. It is a complete waste of time trying to understand the statements of liberals such as Nick Clegg as if they represented honest truth, and it is a complete waste of time trying to defeat liberals on logical or philosophic grounds.

    Furthermore, the dishonest pro-statist arguments of 2013 liberals in no way establish that liberals from previous centuries would have agreed with them, or that the ideas of classical liberalism inexorably lead to the autonomy-crushing statism of today.

    The problem is that the logic of individual autonomy pushes toward these sorts of policies.

    No, it does not. This is absurd and self-contradictory. "The logic of autonomy inexorably leads to an all-intrusive state that extinguishes all autonomy." Good grief.

    When you tie yourself in knots, as you do, trying to justify the dishonest liberal program, then you become complicit in their dishonesty.

    You remind me of the liberal Christians who spend great time and energy trying to reinterpret the Bible to support 21st century liberal ideals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think that we should discount the principles that liberals formally hold. They are part of the story.

    Yes we should, because they are liars. They freely admit they do not believe in objective truth. Anything they say is designed to meet the immediate political needs of the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nah,

    I don't understand why you can't see the logic of what Nick Clegg is arguing.

    If you think the important thing is for women to have choices, particularly the choice to pursue a career to an equal degree that a man can, then one logical step for a liberal is to provide childcare places so that a woman is not impeded by her sex in doing so.

    And if the costs for a woman are prohibitive, effectively ruling out this choice? Then you subsidise it through state funding.

    Now, you might not agree with the way Clegg unfolds the logic of liberalism here, but surely you can recognise that there is a logic at work.

    A concern for autonomy leads in this case to the state taking over some of the function of the family.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark Richardson: "For instance, if you believe that individuals should pursue a private, subjective good and permit others to do the same, then the only reason you might object to London becoming a multiculture is a concern that some ethnic groups might not play by the rules. But otherwise, why would you object?"
    -
    But it's not a question of just not objecting. They're the ones doing it, in the face of popular disapproval, and actively smacking down any objectors by calling them bigots. It takes political capital to do this, and you have to violate various announced principles like open government, and your "opportunity costs" include all the things that the people of your own society that you are displacing and destroying could have done in the rest of forever. This is very much an affirmative act.

    If you confronted the supposed stamp-collector with his actions, he might reply: "if you believe postage stamps are everything, like I do, and never think about anything else, why would you object to someone going around decapitating girls?" But dude, you're the one doing the decapitating!

    The liberal story does not add up. The major achievements of liberal actions consistently resemble each other, as what has become of Detroit resembles what London is becoming, but they do not resemble announced liberal principles at all.

    Exceptions always in the same direction, in other words covert principles, trump announced principles.

    And they don't do so in a way that follows from predictable paradoxical effects. Instead, people are taking positive, affirmative action to do huge, irreversible, historically unique things that are completely not about what the liberal agenda was supposedly about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. but they do not resemble announced liberal principles at all

    It seems to me to be perfectly in line with liberal principles.

    In the liberal view, what matters is that I am not impeded in my own unique life path by things that I can't determine for myself.

    That includes my sex and my race. Discrimination based on sex and race is considered to be deeply wrong morally. I can show myself to be morally superior by my commitment to non-discrimination and anti-racism and multiculturalism.

    Furthermore, if I am a businessman I will appreciate the flow of both skilled and unskilled labour from overseas and if I am a partisan of the left I will welcome the new voting bloc that is represented by the immigrant groups.

    And how can there be effective opposition to this from within the political class when the starting point is the atomised individual in pursuit of his own subjective, private goods?

    And if the working-class objects? Well, that can be thought of as demonstrating "ignorance" or "fear" and as suggesting the higher status of the liberal view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If announced, abstract and impartial liberal principles affirmatively require that homogenous societies actively be transformed into multiracial ones, why is it Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, white countries for everyone?

    Shouldn't an impartial principle demand that African countries import massive numbers of non-Africans and force the blacks to intermarry with them until the black problem is solved? But it doesn't work that way.

    Shouldn't an impartial principle demand that Asian countries import massive numbers of non-Asians and force the Asians to intermarry with them until the yellow problem is solved? But it doesn't work that way.

    America, for one country, isn't shy about telling other countries when they are violating liberal norms. It even sends bombers off from time to time, for example in Libya, to force the natives to be free. But American liberals see no norms being violated when non-white countries remain racially monolithic.

    Yet (through some amazing paradox) announced, abstract and impartial liberal principles affirmatively require that white societies actively be transformed into multiracial ones via mass non-white immigration and forced integration.

    Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  11. From the side of the left, it is thought that whites created categories of race to gain privilege over other oppressed groups.

    Therefore, whiteness is associated negatively with racism, oppression, privilege and exclusion. The focus becomes to break down or deconstruct whiteness. Other non-white groups are associated more positively with resistance, liberation, authenticity and cultural diversity.

    It is right liberals who are more likely to want to apply the "race should be made not to matter" principle more consistently. Andrew Bolt is a good example of a right-liberal figure who carries through with this here in Australia.

    You can see the debate at work in the way that right-liberals are more likely to assert "I don't see race" whereas left-liberals want to push the idea "We want to force you to see race the better to deconstruct your privilege".

    You can see it too in the way that right-liberals argue that Aborigines should assimilate into the mainstream and in their celebration of high intermarriage rates when Aborigines move into larger towns.

    Left-liberals tend to be into the narrative of "precious traditional cultures bravely resisting white racism" - though they have left many isolated Aboriginal communities in a state of dysfunction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They do that because they are f[u]cking liars

    This smacks of conspiracy theory. The fact is that most liberals are sincere and are trying to implement sincerely held moral principles.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The fact is that most liberals are sincere and are trying to implement sincerely held moral principles.
    As a former liberal this is a lie. Most liberals with an IQ above 100 know what they are doing. They are attacking the west.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daybreaker:

    Liberals are usually sincere, but not necessarily very thoughtful.

    Illiberal immigrants are useful right now in undermining any specifically white or Christian culture, and that's all the liberal thinks about.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They are attacking the west.

    Yes, but out of sincerely held moral principles.

    ReplyDelete
  16. [W]hy is it Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, white countries for everyone?

    Liberals, like most people, don't necessarily think beyond what is right in front of their own faces. Most liberals live in white countries, so they attack the societies where they are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But American liberals see no norms being violated when non-white countries remain racially monolithic.

    I think in the abstract they would see norms being violated, but since all the goodies are here, denying third worlders access to first world goodies is the major injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Liberals are usually sincere,
    I have never found this to be the case.
    Also liberals on the internet their out of control Machiavellian behaviour is becoming very apparent to everyone.
    They will do and say anything to win in and not in an admirable way because their goal is to wreck, disarm and harm people all over the world.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is absurd and self-contradictory. "The logic of autonomy inexorably leads to an all-intrusive state that extinguishes all autonomy." Good grief.

    If you wish to understand reality, you must make your peace with paradox.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, but out of sincerely held moral principles.

    Sincerely held amorale principles. For instance they are the only state sanctioned political group with free-reign to discriminate by race as they please.
    They regard "racism" as the greatest evil in the universe.
    So much they have convinced people that its ok for a "racist" to be murdered or harmed.
    We all know that "racist" is such an ambiguous accusation. You can be called racist for simply existing as a "white" person (or otherwise) you just need the accusation thrown at you then the weight it carries is a death sentence in the liberals out of control mind.
    Liberals are just evil authoritarians that use emotional arm twisting to get themselves into the position they need to cause physical and emotional anguish to their victims.

    ReplyDelete
  21. use emotional arm twisting

    The problem is that you haven't explained why the arm twisting works, even assuming liberal leaders are just amoral psychopaths.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The problem is that you haven't explained why the arm twisting works, even assuming liberal leaders are just amoral psychopaths.
    Emotional black mail is very effective surely you know that?

    One group targeted relentlessly by socialists has been the western female. Susceptible to being played in an emotional way. Then there is many males that will risk life and limb to support the manipulated female.
    Affectionately called whiteknights by PUA/MRA.
    Most sinisterly children are targeted by liberals even more vulnerable to being literally brainwashed into thinking a certain way through peer pressure, social threats and simply not knowing any other ways of thinking.


    Thursday you sound like a liberal. Stop beating around the bush and just admit it. You are defending liberalism like any other liberal does on cue.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are defending liberalism like any other liberal does on cue.

    That you can say this just shows how much of an idiot you are, sir.

    Anyway, liberals succeed because they appeal to people's moral intuitions. That they are able to do this just goes to show that their ideas resonate with people.

    I'm doubtful of brainwashing theories. That's blank slate thinking, and ironically very . . . liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you wish to understand reality, you must make your peace with paradox.

    If you wish to understand reality, then you must understand that liberals are liars who do not deserve to be taken seriously.

    This smacks of conspiracy theory. The fact is that most liberals are sincere and are trying to implement sincerely held moral principles.

    Um, hello, are you sure you want to understand reality? Liberals do not believe in objective truth or in absolute moral principles. Their truths and their principles fluctuate over time. Therefore, what they "sincerely" profess to believe is of no interest to a rational person who has to deal with them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't understand why you can't see the logic of what Nick Clegg is arguing.

    It does not matter that Nick Clegg uses terms like "autonomy" to support his arguments for massive state intervention into every aspect of life, any more than some liberals also cite Bible verses in order to support their arguments for massive intervention into every aspect of life. These arguments are not honest. They are not using "autonomy" (or citing Bible verses) in the way that you and I would use them, or in the way that classical liberals or ancient Christians would use them.

    Nick Clegg is trying to befuddle you with plausibly logical-sounding dissimulation to mask his evil intent - and he has succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Liberals do not believe in objective truth or in absolute moral principles.

    I've heard this kind of accusation thrown around, but I don't think it is actually true.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If you wish to understand reality, then you must understand that liberals are liars who do not deserve to be taken seriously

    You're assuming what you purport to prove.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Any position which assumes that all your political opponents are amoral psychopaths, especially a broadbased movement like liberalism, is just a non-starter.

    As I've said before, even if many liberals are using moral spin to mask immoral motives like envy, the fact is that their moral appeals succeed because they resonate with people.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What is the political position of Nah and the other critics here, just out of curiosity? In some detail, please.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Brendan, good question.

    Thursday, thank you for making some good points in this thread.

    You wrote:

    Anyway, liberals succeed because they appeal to people's moral intuitions.

    That describes the left-liberals I work amongst. They are not intent on causing "physical and emotional anguish to their victims". They see themselves as high-minded humanitarians supporting the victims of oppression.

    Let me say too to those accusing liberals of being liars. Yes, some parliamentary liberals do deceive their more socially conservative electorate. As do activists at times at critical points of political campaigns.

    But in general liberals happily and openly discuss their beliefs. The Swedes are excellent in this regard which is one reason I feature them at this site - they are happy to explain the principles they are working from and what long range plans they have for society.

    Another point: Nah still hasn't accepted that Clegg's view is a logical working through of the autonomy principle. If you want to make a woman more autonomous of men, you make her financially independent of men and you liberate her from the impediment of her sex which ties her to a family role and this requires the state to heavily subsidise childcare and to promote unisex parenting in its parental leave policy.

    Nah won't accept this because he is so wedded to the idea that "less government = more individual autonomy". That is his "stopping point" when it comes to unfolding the logic of liberalism. But as we have seen over and over, liberalism is no respecter of such stopping points. If the logic of making women more autonomous requires state funding and a recasting of the family, then that is what is likely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Liberalism is about satisfying the desires of the free and equal superman, self-created through his own reason and will, unbound by the fetters of unchosen restraints such as socio-economic class, race, ethnicity, and sex. Liberals may or may not believe these things should be abolished, but they all agree that these things should be made to not matter as public policy.

    In practice, this is impossible. Distinctions between men and women, or between those with above or below average IQ, cannot be legislated away. Making them not matter necessarily requires a large and intrusive State to ensure that they don't matter. In the United States, for example, it means the government must involve itself more and more in education in order to close the Gap.

    Desires conflict and liberalism has no coherent way of resolving these conflicts, so it portrays itself as an impartial arbiter between competing worldviews. If it's going to be an arbiter though it requires more and more power to police these competing desires, and to crack down on those whose desires conflict with liberalism. Most liberals are not liars in the sense that they are deliberately professing something they know to be false. They simply don't see the contradiction between agnosticism on the existence of absolute truth and their belief in liberalism. To them, liberalism is synonymous with rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nah writes, correctly:

    "It is a complete waste of time trying to understand the statements of liberals such as Nick Clegg as if they represented honest truth, and it is a complete waste of time trying to defeat liberals on logical or philosophic grounds."

    Ah, but if you reject the notion of defeating liberals on logical or philosophic grounds, then you are logically compelled to find some other way of seeking to defeat them. Which means - horror of horrors - manning up and offering active policies.

    Let's just say that active policies (as distinct from motherhood statements of the "four-legs tradition good, two-legs autonomy bad, Swedish feminists very bad" type) are in extremely short supply in Mr Richardson's writing, partly because (as Nah has complained) he cannot and will not state exactly what tradition he is allegedly favouring. In plain English, what would Mr Richardson have us revive? The status quo (to cite an earlier Nah post) of 1517? Of 1688? Of 1789? Of 1933? Of 1965? Traditional Catholicism? Traditional Protestantism? Traditional Orthodoxy (which has ethnic pride to burn, but is not, shall we say, distinguished for its cognitive rigour)? With the best will in the world I simply have no idea whatsoever, and it's not for want of looking at this site.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The liberals are at their most hypocritical on gay marriage and abortion - both of which are powered by State intervention and tax payers.

    As if redefining our marriages and our promises to God against our will is not an aggressive act - in time they'll also redefine the concept of mother and father for us as well...to parent 1 & 2, as they've done in France and NZ...hardly sounds like 'liberal' behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  34. That you can say this just shows how much of an idiot you are, sir.

    No Thursday you are the idiot. As shown by your inability to counter my points. Your passionate defence of liberals, your typical liberal debating technique and your resulting to insults just like a liberal would.
    Don't forget you use an alias one I've been observing for awhile you are a liberal. Just admit it. It's already apparent. You idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Any position which assumes that all your political opponents are amoral psychopaths, especially a broadbased movement like liberalism, is just a non-starter.

    As I've said before, even if many liberals are using moral spin to mask immoral motives like envy, the fact is that their moral appeals succeed because they resonate with people.

    First paragraph you disagree with me. Second you agree with me. You understand they use moral appeal to forward an amoral agenda through amoral means.
    Just exactly what are you doing Thursday? Why do you fall into the liberal archetype so well?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I have policies, but I'm just a mother, and further, not a white mother (though I married a Nordic man before age 30 and my lovely children, plural, were born within wedlock), so obviously I fail traditionalism 4eva.

    I will note, again, that there are many women who 'do' the stay at home thing out of love, but there is practically no support from traditionalists for them to do it traditionally (with an army of helpers, paid or unpaid). Just dealing with that would go a long way toward persuading women that they could swap the fake-autonomy of liberalism for traditionalism.

    Or, to focus on men for a bit, traditionalists could bother to offer men better economic alternatives, seriously, and then you could get some traction there. I have policy plans, well-detailed and etc. But there is no writing them down whilst I have tiny kids to wrangle, as I am ending this comment to tend to.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A Lady, writing at 1:06PM, is correct. Preaching sermons is easy. Devising policies is hard. Implementing policies is harder. Imposing policies is the hardest of all.

    For Pete's sake, this blog has been, so far as I can tell, an active-policy-free (as opposed to sermon-free) zone for nine years!

    ReplyDelete
  38. traditionalists could bother to offer men better economic alternatives

    You see, I find it difficult to understand comments like this. I am in no position right now to offer men better economic alternatives. I have argued dozens of times for policies that protect husbands as breadwinners, but I have no more power to implement such policies as the people writing these comments.

    You have to understand also that policies flow from underlying political beliefs. A policy of defending the male breadwinner is not going to gain traction in a society which is focused on maximising female autonomy.

    I can argue against the focus on female autonomy myself - but that won't be sufficient to swing opinion within the political class. What that leaves me with is the usual political process of trying to build a wider movement.

    One thing we need to do is to get beyond the "consumer" model of politics in which someone says "do something for me or I won't support you".

    Realistically, large numbers of people will be stuck in this mindset, and ideally one day a traditionalist movement would reach a size that it could try to offer something to the consumers.

    But at our current stage of development we need a different kind of person - someone who is not a "consumer" but who more actively wants to defend the good he recognises within his tradition.

    Those are the people who will build things.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Beefy Levinson,

    That was a well stated comment, thank you.

    Robert,

    For generations the conservative right was given the label "the stupid party". In part this was because it was unintellectual (which then meant abandoning the intellectuals to leftism) and in part because it didn't clearly assert its own politics but was instead drawn within the orbit of liberalism.

    Is there not room for a non-liberal blog which takes political ideas seriously? Is there not room for a non-liberal blog which wants to clarify politics so that those who ought to be traditionalists don't continue to trail behind some sort of liberal political leadership?

    Obviously, you can't forever remain at the level of intellectual debate which is why I have put so much effort recently into demonstrating that local organisation is possible.

    Finally, I don't think we are getting anywhere on the "name a date" issue. I have tried to explain why it is not a case of picking out a certain time and saying "that is what we want".

    One reason for not doing this is that Western societies for a long time had a traditionalist base but with a liberal philosophical and political superstructure. So if we look back it's not a case of saying "this time was good, that time was bad". Secondly, traditionalism is about taking a tradition forward, not backward.

    I would have thought it obvious from the blog that what I would like to carry forward somewhere in this country is an Anglo communal identity; a non-leftist Christianity; a traditional family structure; a morality which does not see choice itself as the highest good but which recognises objective moral goods, including positive forms of character; arts which attempt to inspire or to express higher truths or to express the beautiful in life; a masculinity which is allowed the time and the resources to not only fulfil a provider role but to carry out a wider fatherhood role and also a commitment to the wider community; and an encouragement to a real connection with nature.

    I could go on and I could define these things more finely. But I'm aware that I am not the one who will ultimately decide these things. If something like this does happen it will do so as a larger movement of people and I will be one voice amongst many.

    ReplyDelete
  40. A Lady, writing at 1:06PM, is correct. Preaching sermons is easy. Devising policies is hard. Implementing policies is harder. Imposing policies is the hardest of all.

    For Pete's sake, this blog has been, so far as I can tell, an active-policy-free (as opposed to sermon-free) zone for nine years!


    Well, at least in my viewpoint, A Lady isn't necessarily part of this corner of the blogosphere. They're not ethno-nationalists, they're not Christian traditionalists (Orthospherians), they don't like the manosphere, they don't discuss political theory and art/culture? I don't know about that. TC women are nice women, but they don't have time to devise policies and are busy with children. A couple of times I even think the FI (feminine imperative) shows up (which is no fault of their own, it's unconscious I think).

    I'm sure that a website or a blog like this wouldn't even exist in the late 90's and before the year 2000. After philosophy will come plans and then will come implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A Lady, there's no need to rush. We're not some all-powerful group who can give support everywhere. We're just starting out and building little by little. Some changes are rapid, while others are slower.

    ReplyDelete
  42. so obviously I fail traditionalism 4eva.


    *rolls eyes*

    ReplyDelete
  43. Man, I hate to even invoke the Mormons, but they didn't sit around talking about how they needed political power for women to have help raising their armies of kids. Or for men to have jobs and business capital.

    Actively defending the good is doing stuff like employing fellow sympathetic men when you need work done. It's doing stuff like encouraging the wives with grown children to go around and help the wives with little kids underfoot. Mormons did this, they didn't use a political movement. Midwestern Americans and their Granges didn't need a political movement.

    None of this is impossible to do on a small scale, among a few families and reaching out beyond that. People do what I'm talking about all the time, I am just saying traditional-types need to formalize it and build a template so friendly folks in other areas can just glom on to that and feel ok reaching out to those in need of help or employ. Because of atomization, the formality is essential to move beyond just a few families doing this here and there.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You understand they use moral appeal to forward an amoral agenda through amoral means.

    Once you have conceded that liberalism has to have some moral appeal to it in order gain support among the general population, as you have, you've basically given away the store. After all, it makes it so much simpler to have at least some of the liberal leadership actually believe in the stuff. Which they do. Even if they are partially con men, it's easier to convince others if you believe your own bullshit.

    Sheesh, this is elementary stuff. Liberalism is triumphant and they're pretty open about their actual beliefs. As Mark has said, that things don't work out exactly as planned is not really proof that they're beliefs are insincere.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Liberals are usually sincere

    Liberals are simultaneously sincere and insincere. Whether this is displayed in the same person, or in the same mind of a group is a good question. I think it's "sincerity" (good intentions) in beliefs, while wearing a mask, but bewilderment at the outcome (maybe?).

    Orwell's 1984 talked about "double-think". Remember that according to his novel, the "inner party" really does believe its own propaganda. According to that dystopian novel, its the lower one gets (e.g. the proletarians), the less one believes in it.

    Maybe that's why those on our side have been called the "stupid party".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dissents of communism were stereotyped as insane and crazy in the Former Soviet Union and sent to re-education camps.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sheesh, this is elementary stuff. Liberalism is triumphant and they're pretty open about their actual beliefs. As Mark has said, that things don't work out exactly as planned is not really proof that they're beliefs are insincere.
    Mark's example of the nordic liberalism is a bit different. In Sweden they have consensus, its the same in Finland.
    Actually to talk about the strangeness of nordics and modern politics I personally could go on forever having lived there for a time.
    There are a great many things liberals are not open about. Like dabbling in eugenic thought as I believe Mark once highlighted on this blog.
    The most amoral positions from liberals the ones we actually get to glimpse are just denied, denied, denied.
    It is a bit like plausible dependability.
    A hall mark of liberal discussions is they will never own their politics if the particular policy when held up to scrutiny appears amoral.
    Now the debate could be whether they truly believe if they follow liberalism they are incapable of evil or if they know full well what they are doing.
    I think they do know. Though their confidence in their ideology is just momentum from their movements apparent unstoppable success.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Plausible deniability

    Not dependability. Autocorrect...

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you wish to understand reality, then you must understand that liberals are liars who do not deserve to be taken seriously

    You're assuming what you purport to prove.


    Not at all. There is a massive, massive liberal literature that heaps scorn on the idea of objective anything (truth, beauty, virtue, reality). If you are not familiar with it, you are so lacking in basic education on the nature of your opponent that your opinions are simply irrelevant.

    Any position which assumes that all your political opponents are amoral psychopaths, especially a broadbased movement like liberalism, is just a non-starter.

    Any position which does not acknowledge reality -- which is that liberals do not believe in objective truth or morality -- is a non-starter that is utterly doomed to failure.

    even if many liberals are using moral spin to mask immoral motives like envy, the fact is that their moral appeals succeed because they resonate with people.

    So, um, it surprises you that envy "resonates with people"? LOL at your naivete.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nah still hasn't accepted that Clegg's view is a logical working through of the autonomy principle. If you want to make a woman more autonomous of men, you make her financially independent of men and you liberate her from the impediment of her sex which ties her to a family role and this requires the state to heavily subsidise childcare and to promote unisex parenting in its parental leave policy.

    I do not accept it because Clegg's view is NOT logical. Making everyone dependent on the state is the opposite of making them autonomous. Period!

    That is his "stopping point" when it comes to unfolding the logic of liberalism. But as we have seen over and over, liberalism is no respecter of such stopping points.

    At last you acknowledge that liberalism is no respecter of logic!

    The liberal "argument" is (a) illogical and (b) dishonest.

    I will stop calling it that when it stops being that.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sheesh, this is elementary stuff. Liberalism is triumphant and they're pretty open about their actual beliefs. As Mark has said, that things don't work out exactly as planned is not really proof that they're beliefs are insincere.

    What is elementary is that if someone genuinely, sincerely, and convincingly believes that lies are truth and evil is good, then (a) lies and still lies, and evil is still evil, regardless of this, and (b) we have no reason to respect that person or treat them as a friend or merely misguided.

    ReplyDelete
  52. There is a massive, massive liberal literature that heaps scorn on the idea of objective anything (truth, beauty, virtue, reality).

    I'm familiar with the literature and it's overstated. Liberals, like the good modernists they are, tend to believe in the truth of scientism and utilitarianism. They tend not to believe in God or beauty, but that's not the same thing as not believing in truth. Again, this is pretty basic. A few more sophisticated liberals realize that reason and science rigourously applied don't necessarily lead to liberal conclusions and use all sorts of techniques to try and wriggle out of the consequences, but they're not representative.

    ReplyDelete
  53. that's not the same thing as not believing in truth.

    Or morality.

    ReplyDelete
  54. What is elementary is that if someone genuinely, sincerely, and convincingly believes that lies are truth and evil is good, then (a) lies and still lies, and evil is still evil, regardless of this, and (b) we have no reason to respect that person or treat them as a friend or merely misguided.

    Liberals sincerely believe liberalism is good. You're shifting the argument and are now just trying to wriggle out of the obvious fact that liberals can and do actually believe in liberalism. Nobody is saying this is a good thing, so you're other points aren't really relevant.

    Most of liberals' "there is no good" "there is no truth" is really just tactical, an attempt to deconstruct traditional societies or what's left of them. Try reading Martha Nussbaum on Judith Butler.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Well, I am on the same page as Thursday, exactly.

    Mark what kind of government would you prefer for a traditional polity?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Liberals, like the good modernists they are, tend to believe in the truth of scientism and utilitarianism.

    They don't define "science" or "utility" the way we do, any more than they define "autonomy" the way we do, so this argument falls flat on its face.

    For God's sake, every single one of the most dearly held beliefs of liberalism, without exception, flies in the face of both science AND utility maximization. Every one! And yet you fatuously insist they believe in scientism and utilitarianism.

    No wonder you "trads" have been getting your asses kicked if you are so naive as to take them at their word.

    They tend not to believe in God or beauty, but that's not the same thing as not believing in truth.

    Yes it is, if you're a traditionalist, anyway. Which I guess you're not.

    And in any event they do NOT believe in objective truth. As Bruce Charlton says, "But the most PC really are nihilists in that they deny the reality of reality. For political correctness there is no objective underlying reality. For PC truth is a social construct: subjective, malleable, evolving. So PC does not discover truth, it makes truth; does not fit itself to reality but creates reality via the shaping of discourse. Since nihilism is precisely the denial of truth and reality; the politically correct are certainly nihilists by a strict and accurate definition."

    This, indeed, is pretty basic.

    Liberals sincerely believe liberalism is good.

    No. Since they do not define "good" in the same way that honest people do, this statement is simply false. Furthermore, the word "sincere" is incorrect, because their belief is not free from qualification or dissimulation. Nor is their belief in what is "good" unchanging. ("Passionately" would be a more accurate word than "sincerely".)

    In saying this, you are committing the egregious error of allowing them to define reality for you. You are doing exactly what they want you to do - crediting them with "good intentions". This ensures your defeat.

    You're shifting the argument and are now just trying to wriggle out of the obvious fact that liberals can and do actually believe in liberalism.

    Not at all. You are now attempting to redefine the debate yourself.

    My point is that if liberals believe something false and evil with passionate intensity, that does not make that thing true or good. Nor does it mean it is sensible to give them "credit" for this or to engage them in serious discussion on that point.

    "Liberals can and do actually believe in liberalism" -- many Germans passionately believed in Nazism, and were willing to die for it in large numbers. Many Russians passionately believed in Communism, and were willing to die for it in large numbers. Does this make these doctrines somehow less false, evil, stupid, and worthy of obliteration?

    You simply do not understand the enemy. You cannot even bear to describe him correctly. You are doomed to defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Nah, you're more interested in playing with words and scoring cheap points than seeking truth.

    ReplyDelete
  58. My point is that if liberals believe something false and evil with passionate intensity

    That certainly wasn't your original point.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Bruce Charlton is brilliant, but he's a little crazy. Not an authority.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Frank Salter - Humanitarian Costs of Western Multiculturalism

    It's very important, and only a ten minute presentation that should not take too long to see.

    The high humanitarian costs of western multiculturalism are inconsistent with announced liberal ideals.

    Liberal followers are following leaders, with misplaced trust and carelessness about the truth and how things add up, in the pursuit of what they trust has all been worked out for the best.

    The leaders are lying, or so prejudiced against white people that they can't tell the difference between truth and their own lies.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. So are they lying, or hopelessly prejudiced and self-deceptive? Either way, it's bad.

    Mass immigration plus forced integration is white genocide. Genocide is the maximum crime even under liberalism, whether left or right liberalism. Not only do liberal leaders such as Tony Blair pursue this, they do so by stealth, intentionally keeping the public in the dark. So, Deception or self-deception? Either way: deception.

    Liberalism is not on the level.

    And its major action do not follow logically from its premises. Rather, it's major actions are driven by anti-white prejudice and self-deception, and bogus connections between liberal principles and genocidal anti-white actions are invented ad hoc, and sold to overly trusting followers.

    ReplyDelete
  61. How rise of 'white flight' is creating a segregated UK: Study reveals white Britons are 'retreating' from areas dominated by ethnic minorities

    How rise of 'white flight' is creating a segregated UK: Study reveals white Britons are 'retreating' from areas dominated by ethnic minorities

    * Census figures show white Britons are leaving areas where they are minority
    * Think-tank says survey reveals 'spiral of white British demographic decline'
    * Ex-Human Rights Commission chair says findings should make us 'anxious'
    * Nearly half of ethnic minorities live where whites make up less than 50%
    * Just 800 of 8,850 council wards where population is 98 per cent white


    We know the costs of this kind of conflict of interests, as Frank Salter explained. We can also see how it has often led to tyranny, as one group seizes the state and use it as a weapon against its ethnic rivals. The Sunni and specifically ethnic base of Saddam Hussein's former dictatorship of Iraq is an example of that. So liberalism in practice is leading to tyranny and violence.

    Self-deception, or simply deception by the inventors of intellectual movements that are so prejudiced against whites that what they want is the end of white domination and white rule and white demographic hegemony - even in our own countries and never mind the cost?

    Either way, deception.

    Liberalism is not on the level. It is institutionally "anti-racist" and that is already a "code word" for anti-white. The whole thing is a scam.

    ReplyDelete
  62. We've seen many times and Mark has acknowledged how liberals see non-elite whites as just "ordinary" and as raw materials for social experiments, such as mass immigration and forced integration, allegedly to create "interesting" blended identities as opposed to tacitly "uninteresting" white identities. This whole way of seeing and treating white people, as innately valueless experimental animals, is radically inconsistent with announced liberal ideas favoring autonomy and self-chosen lives.

    Rather, it reflects the perspective of manipulative intellectuals with anti-white prejudice - that is the people behind the too-trusting white followers of liberalism.

    Liberalism, both right-wing and left-wing liberalism, is ultimately a scam, that tricks white people into acting against their interests, as documented above. It is not on the level.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Once you commit yourself to policies based on anti-white prejudice you are committed, in our circumstances, to statism. You want state power to treat white people as intrinsically valueless experimental animals for social scince experiments. You want state power to genocide white people with mass immigration and forced integration. You want state power (as well as compulsory education in your doctrines and mass media influence) to manipulate them into doing what you want. You want state power to manage the clashes that will result from your artificially created "diversity". You want state power to give you jobs for the boys including yourself while you do all this. And you want to control the state, like everything else important, so that white people have no representation. (And indeed, white people as such now have no representation.)

    You know all this from the start. There is obviously no way to genocide whites unless you get control of their states, and build them into weapons that dominate the population. So you are all for building the big, dominating, intrusive state from the get-go.

    You want an intrusive state, one that will reach into homes. Because of your prejudice, you don't think white people should be choosing their own lives. You should be choosing for them. Anti-family policies facilitate that - and devastate whites demographically.

    It's easy enough to tell your trusting suckers that every growth of state power is good. Especially while it provides "jobs for the girls" for them too.

    That is an important part of how liberalism really leads to statism.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I deliberately used "hate words" before: "white domination" and "white rule" and "white hegemony".

    I want to make sure that this is understood. The "hate value" of these words reflects institutionalized anti-white prejudice.

    If you are against "white domination" and "white rule" and so on, you are a good person. If you are for "white domination" and "white rule" and so on, you are a bad person, fit to be scolded and excluded from power.

    This is as true in official documents as in private conversation. In other words, it's about power and policy.

    In the context of a London suburb, to be against "white domination" and "white rule" and so on is in reality to be against autonomy for the whites, and for mass immigration, forced integration and ethnic cleansing of the whites. It is to be for white genocide.

    In the context of a London suburb, to be for "white domination" and "white rule" and so on is in reality to be for autonomy for the whites (in the same sense that is used whenever another ethnic population calls for "autonomy" and is supported as a matter of human rights), and against white genocide. This is the side that is made "morally unacceptable."

    Pervasive, official anti-white prejudice plus a dominating state facilitates white genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  65. If liberal followers were always right about what their leaders and intellectual influences were really aiming at, and if liberals in government were effectively unable to pursue any important policy unless it had popular support, then what I said would have to be wrong an an unfounded concern.

    But we know that's not true. Governments in white countries, with Tony Blair's Labor government in Great Britain as a prime example, have used stealth, deception, and shutting people up with the "bigot!" accusation to impose devastating policies.

    Liberal governments, both right liberal and left liberal, follow the rule: promise them anything, but give them mass immigration.

    So an anti-white, untrustworthy leadership in white countries is not so much an accusation on my part as it is an established fact.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If "liberal" policies and major actions actually follow logically from announced liberal principles in a consistent, coercive way and not merely through post-hoc rationalization of what leaders do as being consistent with liberal principles, why the day and night difference between what liberal leaders promise, and what their followers think they are going to do (and often what they have done in the past) and what followers think will be consistent with liberalism, and what liberal leaders actually do, and what followers (with encouragement from intellectuals and leaders) then rationalize as being consistent with liberal principles? How can that be?

    If you say that liberal principals call for both low immigration and high immigration, and so on with many other policies, and that whether leaders call "heads" or "tails" they are always right with liberal principles, you are really saying that there are no liberal principles and that leaders rule and followers rationalize, and that is all there is to it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Just my Australian 2c:

    Most liberals (since we're using this word) I know believe their own tripe.
    But they simultaneously hold highly contradictory views.
    This leads them to reach contradictory conclusions and actions.
    They are necessarily short sighted in their philosophy and politics in order to avoid the obvious and uncomfortable contradictions that follow.
    They have a hierarchy of 'principles' - the highest of which is 'altruism' (i.e. white guilt).
    Those who realise their contradictions resolve them through the high 'morality' of white guilt.
    Those who don't believe their own tripe are the ones Kevin MacDonald refers to as our 'hostile elite', and Paul Kersey calls BRA.

    Yes/No/More criteria, please?

    ReplyDelete
  68. What liberal intellectuals and leaders are doing is radially different from what their principles say, what they have done in earlier generations (mostly before World War Two, when liberals also were for immigration restriction and the maintenance of white power in white countries), what they promise in public (as Blair and his cronies regularly denied that they were conniving at mass immigration, while that is exactly what they were doing) and white interests. Liberal policies such as mass immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West, and a betrayal of all our future but past generations, even past generations of liberals.

    I think this imposes at least two challenges for non-liberals, such as conservatives, traditionalists and people who think things are getting so bad that only white solidarity can save us. (And over the past year or so, seeing how bad things are getting, I have moved to that last position.)

    The first challenge is not to fall into the trap of objecting to these terrible policies for not being true to liberalism.

    It's tempting, because they really aren't true to liberalism, by most measures. But it's a trap, because as soon as you say "this is wrong because it's not true liberalism" you are conceding power to liberals and liberalism.

    If you do that, you are in a very position to fight for political power against liberals.

    You are in a worse position in trying to argue that more broad-based and traditional principles, not liberal goods, ought to drive public policy. And there are still a lot of really bad policies being pushed that really do follow from the narrowness and lack of balance of liberalism. Conservatism could do much better, and that is worth aiming for.

    The second challenge is to respond adequately to the challenge of these disasters, mainly anti-white prejudice as official policy rationalized as "anti-racism" and "multiculturalism", and mass immigration and forced integration, which is white genocide.

    In other words, the challenge is not to go on as if things were "business as usual" and the real issue was a discussion over whether "our society" and "we" should be more or less traditional, when the real action now is that we are being abolished altogether.

    These challenges are tough, because they conflict to some extent. Refusing to fall for the old error of disputing bad policies enacted by liberals but on the basis a rationale that is itself liberal calls for a political attitude that is more "us versus them". On the other hand, saying that what is really going on is white genocide, which is true, is saying that the disaster is so big that ordinary "us versus them" attitudes are inadequate. Which they are. Those requirements are in tension.

    Despite the difficulty, both challenges have to be met.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Semi-off-topic, but here is what I think is the argument that things are getting so bad that white solidarity is essential, and not conservatism, or not by itself.

    Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

    “Everything You Have Learned in School is Wrong”

    There are some very insightful comments.

    Including, in my opinion:

    Luciano on May 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm said:
    The counterjihad movement, if this want success, must oppose other leftist ideologies like feminism, that have horrible consequences to young europeans who lives in culturally enriched neighborhoods. First, the lack of family protection, specially the lack of a father and other male relatives, throwed away from the homes by the divorce industry or completely absent because their mothers are promiscuous womem who became pregnant outside a marriage. Second, the removal of all barriers for the female utilitarianism and the feminization of the native men, wich causes the preference of native girls for immigrant men, who are the new alpha males. Fjordman explained this phenomenon in the article “How the war against boys paved the way for Islam”.


    White solidarity alone is not enough, you need proper gender roles and the sorts of things Mark talks about. You need a balanced promotion of traditional social goods. That is why I read Oz Conservative.

    Jolie Rouge on May 2, 2013 at 5:24 am said:
    “If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

    That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.

    Reply ?

    ATBOTL
    on May 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm said:
    That’s why libertarianism, objectivism, colorblind race-neutral conservativsim, free markets etc. cannot save the West and in fact, are part of the problem. The only thing that can save the West is racial solidarity.


    Color-blind conservatism cannot save white people under attack by very much not color-blind anti-white policies and highly ethnocentric non-whites. We need white solidarity.

    It's life and death, because white people, being inclined to individualism and to love personal autonomy, are guaranteed losers in a Darwinian contest of the sort that mass immigration and multiculturalism sets up.

    (The article I linked above about white flight in London underlines this.)

    We need white solidarity or we are dead. But we need conservatism too.

    ReplyDelete
  70. If:

    * the only alternative to liberalism (of the right and of the left) is conservatism, and
    * the price of conservatism is respectability, and
    * the price of respectability is color-blindness, while
    * anti-white liberals and ethnocentric whites are far from race-blind, then:

    * white genocide through mass immigration and forced integration will proceed unopposed, and
    * everything that conservatives have claimed to be for will be lost, collateral damage in the end of the white race.

    So far, conservatives have been willing to take that deal.

    Conservatism is not good enough by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  71. If:

    * the only alternative to liberalism (of the right and of the left) is conservatism, and
    * the price of conservatism is respectability, and
    * the price of respectability is color-blindness, while
    * anti-white liberals and ethnocentric non-whites are far from race-blind, then:

    * white genocide through mass immigration and forced integration will proceed unopposed, and
    * everything that conservatives have claimed to be for will be lost, collateral damage in the end of the white race.

    So far, conservatives have been willing to take that deal.

    Conservatism is not good enough by itself.

    (Sorry. Speedy typing and no proof-reading is a bad idea. It's just, I feel strongly about this.)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jason, I agree with that.

    Liberalism as experienced by true believers at the bottom of the political food chain is a confusing tar-ball of conflicting ideas and recommendations, as much as the Communist "party line" was. People believe that it all makes sense, but it's only blind faith.

    However, the main lines of modern liberalism as implemented by deception and without mass consent are brutally clear, and all go in the same direction:

    * Mass immigration.
    * Forced integration - you can see even in the discussion on London, the idea is not "how to we give the whites relief from conditions they are fleeing from" but how do we make them stay and be absorbed".
    * Silencing of dissent: "Racist!"
    * Unilateral demobilization of whites, who are deprived of positive expression of their identity and political expression of their interests.
    * State-sponsored mobilization of non-white groups, with subsidized representation of their interests, against whites.
    * Fracturing white society with tax-subsidized splits: women turned against men, and homosexuals built into a formidable lobby.
    * De-Christianization.
    * The destruction of white families, and the war on white boys visible in their worsening educational outcomes.
    * An artificial silence about an artificially created Darwinian war, where white boys, placed under every disadvantage, are at the bottom of the heap, and white girls are open to severe exploitation in the long run, from "multicultural" males who do not regard them with the Western values that historically raised the status of women in the white world.

    It's a chain of abuses all tending in a single direction.

    It's not possible that everybody all the way to the top is not wise to what this is about.

    Sure, the mass of liberal suckers have probably never asked themselves: "if masses of non-white immigrants are supposed to be rising in status, in a zero-sum status game who is supposed to be undergoing the downward mobility?"

    But anyone bright enough to be a top leader or an intellectual can figure that one out. It is not possible that no-one's asked themselves that and come up with the obvious and only right answer.

    ReplyDelete
  73. That set of policies, beginning with and not limited to non-white mass immigration and forced integration, is white genocide.

    If that stack of policies was used to swamp and blend out of existence the nations of any other race, while attacking everything from their targeted peoples' families to their majority religion, it would be obvious to everyone that this set of policies has to be seen as genocide.

    They are forcing white people out of existence, by policy. That's white genocide.

    Genocide is not a side-issue. Preservation of the targeted people has to be up-front and central.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Jason

    Its true this seems to be a key feature of a Liberal is the large amount of contradictory beliefs he or she holds.
    One I realised recently was that liberals claim to believe in evolutionary biology, deriding creationism. Citing Richard Dawkins as a popular proponent of their beliefs.
    Then their is the liberal belief that races do not exist it is a "social construct".
    Now Dawkins disagrees with that he refutes the claim and says the theory of different races is perfectly legitimate.
    So the conclusion is that Liberals do not believe in evolutionary biology or in fact science anymore than a creationist does.

    That is a very glaring contradiction. It requires a form of double think.

    Another one. Claiming to be atheist and solely preferring to be critical of Christians.
    Then simultaneously claiming to follow a faith like Buddhism or Islam or some form of paganism.
    Another contradiction.
    A Christian that is able to be scientific is much more rational than a liberal claiming to be atheist and a Buddhist at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mark what kind of government would you prefer for a traditional polity?

    I want to foster the instict of men to lead within their families and communities.

    To that end I would have locally elected councils take over some of the functions of government, such as the supervision of education, the patronage of arts, the maintenance of infrastructure, the organisation of welfare programmes and so on.

    I would try to encourage reasonable working hours, so that men could contribute to community organisations after work (sporting, cultural, service etc).

    I would encourage local institutions that would foster fellowship amongst those men who do have the instinct to lead and contribute, and these institutions could also discuss social developments, contribute to the patronage of the arts and to welfare programmes. Another role would be to discuss and encourage ideals of character and to promote a sense of heritage.

    There would also be an elected form of government at a higher level than this. Whether this would be entirely elected directly and the exact system of franchise is something I am open-minded about. I would like to see a role for men in the age group 25 to 45, i.e. the prime fatherhood years, within the leadership of this higher governing body.

    That's a few thoughts that spring to mind. What I think we need to think about is how to avoid, on the one hand, the dominance of powerful sectional interests over government and, on the other hand, how to encourage the idea that an ordinary, well-functioning adult male has the responsibility to actively uphold his community by participating in its governance.

    ReplyDelete
  76. My point is that if liberals believe something false and evil with passionate intensity

    That certainly wasn't your original point.


    My original point was that liberals are liars. How does them being intensely passionate about their lies change anything?

    ReplyDelete