tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post3152563526791866741..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: How does a liberal philosophy measure up?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57280434101918789822013-06-08T09:27:27.062+10:002013-06-08T09:27:27.062+10:00We don't need to write books on political phil...<i>We don't need to write books on political philosophy.</i><br /><br />So we just let liberals dominate the intellectual sphere then?<br /><br />Our goal ought to be not just to write books, but to dominate the writing of books of political philosophy.<br /><br />We need more books than they produce and we need better books.<br /><br /><i>And as Bruce said, that philosophy is at bottom nothing more than the negation of everything we believe in</i><br /><br />If Bruce said that he is wrong. Liberals have tried to make sense of the world, but they have done it in a way that logically leads to the dissolution of traditional society.<br /><br /><i>Liberalism does not believe in truth or reality, and does not regard logic or objectivity as necessary or even desirable</i><br /><br />But they still have beliefs and these beliefs when carried out have certain logical consequences. That is what we have to explain.<br /><br /><br /><br />Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-87891740673665548832013-06-08T05:59:46.750+10:002013-06-08T05:59:46.750+10:00We don't need to write books on political phil...We don't need to write books on political philosophy. Our books have already been written - that's why we're "traditionalists", remember?<br /><br /><i>The political philosophy then helps to form the principles by which liberals govern society.</i><br /><br />And as Bruce said, that philosophy is at bottom nothing more than the negatioon of everything we believe in, like Christianity, tradition, decency, patriotism, men, marriage, etc.<br /><br /><i>It's true that liberals have trouble making these principles consistent, but that's because liberalism doesn't describe the truth of reality well.</i><br /><br />Liberalism does not believe in truth or reality, and does not regard logic or objectivity as necessary or even desirable. Once you get that, you will appreciate that liberal "philosophy" has no other purpose than to advance a political agenda. The word for such works is not "philosophy", but as Bruce said, propaganda.Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21547947268281200762013-06-07T07:11:24.683+10:002013-06-07T07:11:24.683+10:00It's not true that liberal ideas are just slog...It's not true that liberal ideas are just slogans.<br /><br />Liberals write books on political philosophy, something that only Jim Kalb is doing at the moment on our side.<br /><br />The political philosophy then helps to form the principles by which liberals govern society.<br /><br />It's true that liberals have trouble making these principles consistent, but that's because liberalism doesn't describe the truth of reality well.<br /><br />It's part of our job to explain why.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55095241124394951212013-06-06T20:18:38.080+10:002013-06-06T20:18:38.080+10:00Apropos from Bruce Charlton:
Where do Leftist ide...Apropos from Bruce Charlton:<br /><br /><i>Where do Leftist ideas come from? <br /><br />Harvard maybe, or the New York Times, or NGOs or what? <br /><br />No, No, No - None of the above. <br /><br />Un-ask the question - it is badly formed.<br /> <br />There are no Leftist 'ideas' - there are only oppositional slogans - slogans in opposition to Christianity, tradition, decency, patriotism, natives, men... stuff like that.<br /> <br />They are not ideas, because there is no requirement for cohesion or internal consistency or consistency between the ideas or anything of that sort.<br /> <br />Leftist 'ideas' are not ideas: they are just slogans, sound-bites, notions, propaganda images - that's all they are.<br /> <br />These are so easy and obvious to manufacture (anyone can do it by simply asking Why? over-and-over again, or playing-the-opposites-game of negating every statement - for goodness sake four year olds do this all the time!) that it is deeply misleading to try and locate their origin.</i><br /><br />So why knock yourself out trying to analyze the logic and coherence of slogans that have no requirement for logical coherence in the first place?Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22029952487074317512013-06-02T19:35:19.096+10:002013-06-02T19:35:19.096+10:00Anon, good point.Anon, good point.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47862619155432336962013-06-02T13:57:42.379+10:002013-06-02T13:57:42.379+10:00Mark
In regards to some groups being reified in t...Mark<br /><br />In regards to some groups being reified in terms of an opposition to white oppression - a common argument from the left I have seen is that 'whiteness' or the 'west' is already an established collective - represented by the status quo. Therefore it's not right to argue that white's are being denied collective action. And we can see that's why opposition to 'how things are' (racism, poverty, pollution et al) are described in terms of opposing white christian male hegemony...<br /><br />The irony is that the status quo is deeply liberal (and promoted by white academia) and strives to be race-neutral in outlook...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78534279956846631662013-05-31T18:52:46.499+10:002013-05-31T18:52:46.499+10:00Daybreaker, your comment of 12.05 is really intere...Daybreaker, your comment of 12.05 is really interesting. I'll have to think on it a bit.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-326635056336165142013-05-31T18:48:34.768+10:002013-05-31T18:48:34.768+10:00Again this won't be achieved through logical a...<i>Again this won't be achieved through logical argumentation.</i><br /><br />Nah, there is an element of truth to what you say but also something that is dangerously false.<br /><br />The element of truth is this: people often start to break with an orthodoxy not through intellectual dissatisfaction but by becoming aware that something that they value is being lost.<br /><br />The dangerously false aspect, though, is the idea that intellectual debate has no influence.<br /><br />Think, for instance, about the men's movement. For years, there were only isolated individuals arguing against feminism. Then the anti-feminist movement suddenly achieved lift-off. For a year or two the movement was forming itself politically and it wasn't clear which way it would go. If there had been even a dozen intelligent voices putting the traditionalist view, there could easily have been a traditionalist wing of the movement.<br /><br />But there weren't a dozen, just myself and a couple of others. And so gradually the movement crystallised into the political form we see today.<br /><br />Why weren't there more traditionalist voices? In part, because too many traditionalists don't appreciate just how important at critical moments the political argument can be.<br /><br />The left blows us out of the water in this regard: it is ever ready to seize upon political opportunities and it recognises how important it is to get leverage within "opinion forming" institutions.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56713709837738375972013-05-31T18:30:54.579+10:002013-05-31T18:30:54.579+10:00Clearly stating and criticising the state ideology...Clearly stating and criticising the state ideology definitely helps some people. It helped me.<br /><br />And I didn't mean my criticisms in this thread only to be sarcastic shots at the dominant ideology. I was trying to make real points that Mark built on very usefully.<br /><br />My point about the modern left acting on behalf of "we are the world" simulacra is also serious.<br /><br />The old-time leftist labor movement was all about delivering the goods for a real community, or at least to a real and essential part of it, and after the breadwinners got their share the wives and children gained too. Delivering the goods in that sense implies motivation and accountability - people can see if you are getting things done for them <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/labor_big_real_heavy_sleeper_jl3C7gI710FI3XqpEl5o3O" rel="nofollow">or not</a>.<br /><br />When you get into the business of abolishing the (white) people and electing a new (non-white) people, which is definitely the business the modern left is in, accountability to a real community is out the window, but place-seeking and point-scoring (like the Tony Blair government secretly promoting mass immigration to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date") are still highly motivating.<br /><br />These are motives that make for bad policy and bad outcomes.<br /><br />This is not a joke. Your motive for something like stealth mass immigration may be frivolous, but the consequences will be anything but.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70637613338649628352013-05-31T14:24:18.036+10:002013-05-31T14:24:18.036+10:00Nah, I think your assertion is incomplete. You may...Nah, I think your assertion is incomplete. You may be right that rational explications of how liberalism has gone wrong are insufficient to result in the change we seek. But such discussions are a crucial component of any larger movement wherein different actors employ different strategies-- direct action, party reform, etc.-- to achieve the goal of change. <br /><br />While different modes of action may work against otherwise natural alliances, clearly stated principles are an indispensable means of building ties in advance. If I understand him correctly, this is what Mr. Richardson is aiming toward.<br /><br />HannonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-16856083617492813832013-05-31T12:00:00.157+10:002013-05-31T12:00:00.157+10:00You misunderstand the reason for clearly stating a...<i>You misunderstand the reason for clearly stating and criticising the state ideology.<br /><br />It is to liberate ourselves from it in a principled way.</i><br /><br />Liberate ourselves? Who is "us"? I don't need liberating from it. Those who do need liberating won't be liberated via a statement of principles.<br /><br /><i>You have to remember that before anything can happen on the ground you need a group of people who have first broken from the moral logic of the state ideology - and that's not an easy thing to achieve.</i><br /><br />Again this won't be achieved through logical argumentation.Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1958232697315852422013-05-31T08:27:36.776+10:002013-05-31T08:27:36.776+10:00Nah,
You misunderstand the reason for clearly sta...Nah,<br /><br />You misunderstand the reason for clearly stating and criticising the state ideology.<br /><br />It is to liberate ourselves from it in a principled way.<br /><br />You have to remember that before anything can happen on the ground you need a group of people who have first broken from the moral logic of the state ideology - and that's not an easy thing to achieve.<br /><br />Our audience are those who can see that things are going wrong and who are looking for an explanation. Our responsibility is to clearly state that explanation in a way that allows the principled break from liberalism rather than something like "things are OK except policy X has gone too far" or "I can just passively vote for the opposition party and that will put things right". Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-40945283803788435942013-05-31T04:28:32.284+10:002013-05-31T04:28:32.284+10:00What's important is that liberals beat the ene...<i><br />What's important is that liberals beat the enemy. And whenever there is a clash between doing what will deliver power and victory to liberals, say by jailing conservatives for speaking up, and doing what will deliver promised goods to a nonexistent collective that can't really complain and is going into oblivion anyway, liberals dive for power and victory for themselves every time.</i><br /><br />But ya know, they really 'n' truly believe in autonomy, and if we can just logically explain to them the flaws in that philosophy, we'll be, like, totally better off while the liberal boots are stamping on our faces forever, or something.Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83459235050073061722013-05-31T02:47:44.974+10:002013-05-31T02:47:44.974+10:00Mark Richardson: "But that then goes against ...Mark Richardson: "But that then goes against the liberal idea that we are all being "empowered" through the liberal ideology. Clearly, many of us are being deliberately "disempowered"." <br /><br />The latest Lefty mantra: <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100219309/the-latest-lefty-mantra-check-your-privilege/" rel="nofollow">Check Your Privilege</a>.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43401853118742319372013-05-31T00:05:30.350+10:002013-05-31T00:05:30.350+10:00Lawrence Auster [Private correspondence.]: "T...<a href="http://www.vdare.com/articles/jason-richwine-comprehensive-immigration-reform-and-the-long-war-of-larry-auster" rel="nofollow">Lawrence Auster</a> [Private correspondence.]: "This insight confirms in me in my core principle that the concrete sense of peoplehood is the <i>sine qua non</i> of all conservatism. Once you give that up, you're done for. You've given up your concrete collective existence. So what <i>are</i> you? In order to have the things that conservatives believe in, religion, traditional values, a way of life, a rule of law, a high culture, family values, national defense, whatever, YOU MUST FIRST COLLECTIVELY EXIST. And conservatives who have given up that sense of collective existence are unable to hold the line on any other issues."<br /><br />I think that's right.<br /><br />Of course what applies to conservatives applies also to right liberals and left liberals.<br /><br />They have given up on our collective existence as a concrete people; "deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be a majority again" in any and all white countries is a liberal project.<br /><br />Obviously that means the balance of the basic "friend or foe" dichotomy is shifted decisively to destroying foes. And one could go on about how that hyper-combativeness is destructive, and it would all be true.<br /><br />I think a more fundamental point is, <i>what happens to your motivation to secure all the good things that liberalism promises to secure for us, when there is no concrete "us"?</i><br /><br />It's obvious that in practice liberalism is not at all in favour of freedom of speech, security against arbitrary arrest (say just for carrying a British flag) and so on.<br /><br />Maybe a reason why they don't really care about these things is that there is no concrete national "us" to secure them <i>for</i>.<br /><br />There is only the oppressive enemy, white Christian males. And according to liberalism, that identity is fake and must be deconstructed to utter destruction.<br /><br />All the artificially imported and promoted groups hostile to the "oppressors" are theoretically not supposed to "reify" themselves, as Mark noted, and in any case they do not add up to a rational, biologically sustainable "us". They only exist instrumentally, to deconstruct the "oppressors".<br /><br />So is failing to secure promised goods for a nonexistent "us" all that serious? Maybe not.<br /><br />If there is no real Australian nation, for example - if the occupants of the big island and the little island are just whoever happens to be here before the next massive wave of leftist-sponsored mass immigration sweeps them away too - how important is it, really, that these heterogeneous wanderers on the road to nonexistence enjoy free speech, secure family lives and so on?<br /><br />From the way liberals actually act, it's not important at all.<br /><br />What's important is that liberals beat the enemy. And whenever there is a clash between doing what will deliver power and victory to liberals, say by jailing conservatives for speaking up, and doing what will deliver promised goods to a nonexistent collective that can't really complain and is going into oblivion anyway, liberals dive for power and victory for themselves every time.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78982341050669503762013-05-30T09:59:38.637+10:002013-05-30T09:59:38.637+10:00Great article - highlighted by the fact that as Ca...Great article - highlighted by the fact that as Cameron talks of 'muscular liberalism' and redefining the purpose of marriage his soldiers are murdered on London's streets. The liberals are powerless to stop the beast they've created. Made worse as they leave the middle east, dismantle the drones and the extremists go on the march.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62774636772464031622013-05-30T07:29:51.505+10:002013-05-30T07:29:51.505+10:00People who resonate to the notes of that harp are ...<i>People who resonate to the notes of that harp are not going to fight for and conquer key institutions.</i><br /><br />Good point.<br />Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80623278460386346212013-05-30T03:56:46.024+10:002013-05-30T03:56:46.024+10:00Daybreaker,
Good summary on right liberals. The ...Daybreaker,<br /><br />Good summary on right liberals. The liberal goal is and always is the self. Those that think government intervention will help them will be economically left liberals. Those that think it will hurt then will be right liberals. However, this stance is driven purely by self interest. And thus is malleable based on the circumstances presented to the liberal. So left liberals will try to get rich off the market when they can (Al Gore worth $400 mil) and right liberals will benefit from the government when they can (banksters getting bailouts).<br /><br />What matters to the liberal is self advancement. All ideological believes that are touted are touted solely because they allow the self to advance. Thus their views are whatever helps the liberal in that particular moment. Left liberals will try to hide this fact, but right liberals will be right out in the open about their will to power opportunism (Rand).asdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39240943572143158032013-05-29T23:28:41.279+10:002013-05-29T23:28:41.279+10:00Right liberals haven't successfully defended a...Right liberals haven't successfully defended anything much since World War II. <i>Part</i> of the reason, as Mark reminds is, is that they never intended to, because a right liberal is a liberal. But they haven't even been able to defend their own respectability and their numbers in key institutions like academia. Why not? <a href="http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-richwine-atrocity-how-come-only-the-left-retrieves-its-wounded" rel="nofollow">This</a>, at VDARE.com, has a lot to do with why<br />not. (It's a good idea to go and read the whole thing, and also <a href="http://www.vdare.com/articles/where-were-you-when-richwine-got-derbed%22http://www.vdare.com/articles/where-were-you-when-richwine-got-derbed%22" rel="nofollow">this</a>.)<br /><br /><i>The Richwine Atrocity: How Come Only The Left Retrieves Its Wounded?<br />By William H. Regnery on May 28, 2013 at 11:14pm<br /><br />I have an unusual personal perspective on the Jason Richwine atrocity. William F. Buckley's breakthrough book was his first, God and Man at Yale. In the early 1950s, he scoured Manhattan for a publisher, without success. This caused him to go far afield and contact a small Midwestern house then located in a walk-up office in a Chicago suburb. The publisher was my uncle, Henry Regnery.<br /><br />And the rest is history—save for two incidents.<br /><br />The book not only made Buckley's reputation but also certainly added luster to my uncle's struggling firm. However, the Henry Regnery Co. suffered an offsetting financial blow when, at the behest of Mortimer Adler, the contract to publish the Great Books series for the University of Chicago was withdrawn because of the Buckley book.<br /><br />Regnery issued Buckley's next book, McCarthy and His Enemies, co-authored with his brother-in-law, Brent Bozell. But there would be no hat trick. By then, Buckley was a bankable literary commodity and could cut a better deal with an established New York house. So he did.</i><br /><br />What do you call a man who sells out those who absorbed the costs of angering left liberals in order to give him a break when he needed it?<br /><br />A right liberal hero, self-actualizing by optimizing his value in the market-society.<br /><br />So what do you call someone who angers the left and pays the cost of doing so to stand by a right liberal?<br /><br />A loser, who the right liberal hero left behind on his way up. Also: a sucker.<br /><br />Over time, this ethos must have an effect on which coalition holds firm and achieves its goals, and which one fails - particularly at the expense of those members of the coalition in the worst position to punish betrayal. (That would be social conservatives, not big businesses.)<br /><br />Right liberals can be stern on "free riders", but their ethos makes them aspiring free riders themselves.<br /><br />And they don't understand what they are losing, even institutionally. Their emotional organization chart consists of something like<br />* Hank Rearden / Dagny Taggart / me<br />* some second-hander<br />* masses of valueless nobodies.<br /><br />People who resonate to the notes of that harp are not going to fight for and conquer key institutions.<br /><br />They will show up nicely dressed for the social battle, looking like a "leader", and try to be the smart guy who hangs back out of the fight but is in for the looting.<br /><br />People like William F. Buckley, Jr. or Tony Abbott don't deserve support, not only because of what they stand for (and don't stand for), but also because they simply will not stand. In the long run they are sure losers.<br /><br />The future will be won, if at all, by people who stand by each other even when visible costs exceed rewards, and even when they have a chance to rise from spear-carriers to stars by selling out. They will need reasons to do that. And they will need an understanding of the power of institutions and a respect for the people who take and usefully hold small places in key institutions.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-49189238678658720562013-05-29T21:52:08.109+10:002013-05-29T21:52:08.109+10:00JMSmith: "But, of course, liberals are not re...JMSmith: "But, of course, liberals are not really in favor of leaving individual wills perfectly free to choose the good. We simply disagree over which acts should be regulated, and by whom."<br /><br />"Freedom of speech" turned out to mean pervasive pornography plus the police arresting you at 3:20am for twittering on race and religion. It meant much less freedom, but a vast increase in debasement. It was freedom to degrade traditional white society, and profit by doing so, but not to defend traditional white society and criticize those wrecking it.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47019503749964616832013-05-29T21:10:16.227+10:002013-05-29T21:10:16.227+10:00When you tell a man that he may "choose the g...When you tell a man that he may "choose the good," you are telling him that he may choose what is <i> good for him."</i> It's all about <i>his</i> happiness, because there is nothing higher than the individual will to serve as grounds for duty or acts of self-sacrifice.<br /><br />But, of course, liberals are not really in favor of leaving individual wills perfectly free to choose the good. We simply disagree over which acts should be regulated, and by whom.JMSmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21740086378550345632013-05-29T13:09:38.482+10:002013-05-29T13:09:38.482+10:00Mark, this was a good post and in those two commen...Mark, this was a good post and in those two comments you accurately said what I was getting at and added important extra steps that I did not have. So thank you.Daybreakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-16385904539685432582013-05-29T08:20:07.570+10:002013-05-29T08:20:07.570+10:00This is one of your best posts, Mark.This is one of your best posts, Mark.CamelCaseRobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56640580160754997912013-05-29T07:16:03.383+10:002013-05-29T07:16:03.383+10:00One last point. Right-liberalism isn't much he...One last point. Right-liberalism isn't much help here. It can be tempting to fall back to the right-liberal position because it seems more even-handed, i.e. everyone is supposed to give up a collective existence equally.<br /><br />But there are several problems with this.<br /><br />a) A notion of collective rights is still disallowed<br /><br />b) In practice, whites find the right-liberal position the lesser of two evils and flock to it, whilst non-whites like the leftist position and stick with it. That means that whites *voluntarily* give up the notion of their own collective rights, whilst non-whites are encouraged to continue to promote their own collective rights.<br /><br />So the imbalance continues.<br /><br />c) The right-liberal leaders, especially those in the mainstream political parties, seek the votes of women and minorities and so go a considerable way to recognising the collective rights/demands of these groups. They don't have to do this for whites, as whites have either voluntarily given up a collective existence (right liberalism) or have had it deliberately denied to them (left liberalism). <br /><br />d) Right-liberals also tend to believe that if people have equal opportunities there will be roughly equal outcomes (given that they believe that such things as race and sex don't matter, only personal character).<br /><br />So if there is not the same level or type of outcome in matters like career or income or education, right-liberals tend to be sympathetic to the left-liberal programme of social levelling.<br /><br />In other words, right-liberals tend to go along with the left-liberal programme of group rights for some groups and not for others as long as it's not done too explicitly (e.g. right-liberals tend to prefer informal quotas to formal ones).Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21189278154440770462013-05-29T07:15:42.952+10:002013-05-29T07:15:42.952+10:00Some well expressed comments, thank you.
Daybreak...Some well expressed comments, thank you.<br /><br />Daybreaker, your recent comments have highlighted one aspect of modern politics. You wrote:<br /><br />"By playing a totalitarian collectivist game while demanding that its targets function only as isolated, effectively rightless individuals, political correctness has been very successful."<br /><br />That's particularly true of left-liberalism. Right liberals are more likely to insist that everybody function as isolated individuals. But the left encourages "oppressed" groups to act together in a collective way to challenge the system. The left, for instance, is happy for women to organise collectively or for black Americans and so on. <br /><br />The left does ask that the existence of these groups isn't "reified". What this means is that those within the women's liberation movement or the black liberation movement aren't supposed to believe that the category of womanhood/black race has a real, essential existence.<br /><br />The formal idea goes something like this: "Whites invented the category of race, it doesn't really exist, but those grouped as blacks are disadvantaged by it and should organise collectively on the basis of it to challenge the system of white privilege".<br /><br />In practice such subtleties are largely forgotten and blacks are allowed to believe in their own reality as are women in a way that those put into the "oppressor" category aren't.<br /><br />Anyway, the point I really want to make is this: left-liberals are smart enough to know that if you allow one group of people to act collectively, and suppress others from doing so, the group with collective rights are being put in a much stronger position. That's why the left allows those groups it favours to act collectively.<br /><br />But that then goes against the liberal idea that we are all being "empowered" through the liberal ideology. Clearly, many of us are being deliberately "disempowered". <br /><br />One thing we need to do is to challenge white women when the system insists that white men have no collective rights. The obvious question to ask is this one: "Do you really want the men of your own community to be disempowered? Do you really think that is in the long-term interests of your own tradition and your own sons and daughters for the people meant to be defending you to be deliberately disempowered?"<br /><br />Daybreaker's framing of the issue should help clarify things for us. It shows us that we should not be so defensive when liberals disallow our collective, communal rights. Liberals *know* that this is disempowering. Liberals *know* that this makes others stronger whilst undermining our own existence. We should feel a kind of moral righteousness in kicking back against liberals who try to foist such a situation on us.<br /><br />(continues in next comment)Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.com