Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Being politically disarmed

Classical liberals seem to be figuring out which way the wind is blowing. I've noticed more of them trying to stake a place in the alt right. On one level this is a good thing, as it further isolates the left. However, I would caution anyone on the alt right from adopting a classical liberal politics.

The classical liberals I am talking about are trying to appeal to disaffected young white men on the following basis:

1.The left uses identity politics to rank you as belonging to an evil group. Classical liberals, though, are colour blind and only recognise an individual person's character, not their race.

2. Classical liberals support free speech, unlike the left which organises campus riots against speakers they don't like.

It's true that classical liberals do have these beliefs and that they might have a superficial appeal for white men who are tired of being cast as the evil oppressor. But classical liberalism is not an effective way of opposing left liberalism.

I'd like to focus on just one reason why this is the case. Let's say that white Americans were to embrace the classical liberal position. That would mean white Americans would play by a certain set of rules, namely to see themselves as individuals only, self-reliant and personally responsible, but blind as a matter of principle to any interest they may have as white Americans or to the future existence of white America as an entity.

Would all Americans do the same? No. Other groups who embrace a left-liberalism would play by a different set of rules. They would believe that they were part of an oppressed race and that by organising and acting together in unity that they would promote the cause of freedom, justice and equality.

So the classical liberal pitch to disaffected white men is not really all that helpful. It's not going to stop these men from being painted by those playing by leftist rules as evil oppressors - that will continue on as before. But it will disarm them politically from acting in unity together to effectively defend their own larger identity and interests.


  1. Not one comment about the leaving of Cory Bernardi to form a new Conservative party? Explain this dereliction.

    1. I held off because I didn't want to misjudge. I had a look at the platform of the new party and it struck me as a turn back to right-liberalism rather than to conservatism. There were one or two phrases that were a little different, such as the idea of a society being based on Judeo-Christian values, but I don't know yet if this will lead to anything that is different from, say, the Liberal Party of the 1990s. I'm hoping that Bernardi will create something that represents social conservatism better than the Liberal Party, but it's not yet proven.

    2. I don't know what part of our values is Judeo-Christian rather than specifically Christian. 'Judeo-Christian' is one of those weird Americanisms that makes less sense the more you look at it. It easily leads to stuff like abolishing BC/AD for BCE/CE. I find it a bit annoying.

    3. Simon, interesting point. But even as "Christian values" it is still vague. What does this mean in terms of policy? John Howard, for instance, used to talk about nation and heritage but then he ramped up immigration to record levels - so what was the point?

      Trump very clearly staked out his ground. He eviscerated the left, he boldly asserted the value of nation and of borders, he attacked the leftist media, and he defended the economic interests of working-class America.

      I'm not suggesting that Bernardi should copy Trump's style, but he does need to make a pitch that carves out some distinct political territory and that engages with what the disenfranchised part of the electorate believes.

      The party platform at his website does not currently do this. It is an intellectual restatement of the core principles of classical liberalism, combined with a brief mention of Christianity and an even briefer tip of the hat to natural law (the natural family).

      If he wants to defend the natural family, for instance, maybe he could attack the feminism that sets men and women apart, propose policies that would make housing more affordable for young couples, propose changes to family law and to welfare that reward divorce, criticise domestic violence campaigns that malign men and masculinity, oppose quotas that hinder men from finding professional employment and so on.

      He could very easily set himself apart by opposing not only illegal immigration but the mass levels of legal immigration as well. There is currently no major party supporting this - there are millions of voters up for grabs if he will stake out this ground and he doesn't even have to make it a race based thing - there are any number of reasons to justify such a policy position.

    4. I had a look at the platform of the new party and it struck me as a turn back to right-liberalism rather than to conservatism.

      That's the last thing we need. I voted for One Nation last time and I'll vote for them again next time. At least they're a genuine alternative.

      I predict that Cory Bernardi's new party will sink without trace. But if it contributes in some small way to the downfall of Malcolm Turnbull then it's a good thing.

    5. Re: Judeo-Christian.

      I agree on that. Its either Christian OR Judeo, they are mutually exclusive.

      They are used together to virtue signal a certain faux 'tolerance' that usually means in the end, blindness or obeisance in Jewish behavior and interests.

    6. Clearly Christian includes a big Jewish element. But Jewish does not include any Christian element. Also, as Jesus said and as Laurence Auster pointed out, Christianity adds to the society's existing/previous law & culture, it is not a totalitarian system complete in itself (unlike Islam) and attempts to make it so have been highly destructive. Our culture has significant indigenous (primarily Anglo-Germanic), Christian, and Christian-modulated Greco-Roman elements. And yes we're entitled to seek our own preservation and the continuation of our posterity, just like all people, which certainly means no to unlimited or population-replacement-level immigration.

  2. Yes, I see your point. Classical Liberal's are hampered by a position that does not allow us/them to unite behind a classification that would serve to make us/them stronger but that the progressive left does not play by the same rules and thus has an advantage. Classical Liberalism is "ineffective" and "unhelpful".

    1. Not only is classical liberalism ineffective, its colour-blind positions are sometimes described in progressive literature as a smoke screen for white supremacy. Those who espouse classical liberal positions will still be attacked as racists (the worst kind - white supremacists). The only way forward from the progressive view is to embrace racial consciousness insofar as it will bring about 'social justice' for all the groups that whites have 'historically oppressed.' This framing allows for an ersatz white identity, but it is a wholly negative identity constructed from the sins of colonialism, with allusions to an "original sin" of whiteness. For whites who embrace this view there is only continual atonement for the past and the imperative of advancing the interests of other groups at the expense of one's own.

    2. Jimmy, spot on. That's the leftist view in a nutshell.

    3. Right, so being being colour blind and judging people based on solely their choice is in fact enabling white supremeism because that does not allow the targeting of white people for big ol' dose of social justice. Lol. Is this right?

    4. Basically right. Remember that the modern left work from a position that considers majority white countries as inherently racist and fundamentally corrupt, regardless of their stance on equality. Fundamental cultural institutions such as education, criminal justice, and even the notion of family, are all corrupted with racism to some degree. In order to remedy this situation we are supposed to recognise our white privilege and then help to bring about institutional change (by listening to the needs of minorities) so that society can benefit from 'true equality.' Affirmative action is one example of this. Another example is 'diversity in the workplace', where businesses feel obliged to hire a certain number of people from minority backgrounds.

      There are also people who will advocate for these kinds of policies without blaming white society for racism and disparities. They see positive discrimination as a legitimate tool for bringing about positive social change. These are regular people who consider themselves to be fair minded liberals, but who will nonetheless make obvious exceptions to the colour blind principle of equality. If pushed on the topic they will admit that whites have it good already and do not need any special help, and therefore we should help others who suffer from disadvantage. I suspect most of these people are affluent and face no fear of being passed over for a diversity hire.

    5. Right, so being being colour blind and judging people based on solely their choice is in fact enabling white supremeism because that does not allow the targeting of white people for big ol' dose of social justice. Lol. Is this right?

      Yes, that's basically it.

  3. RE: my earlier response to Charlioedelto, witness Universal Man par excellence Trudeau torn down in public as a defender of white supremacy.


    The irony for Trudeau and elitists like him is that there is some element of truth to this claim; if we consider the megalomaniacal urge to universalise all human affairs as finding its origin in european enlightenment thinking...