Liberalism as a Death Wish

jewish_liberalism

Picking up where we left off. The meaning of “liberal”/”liberalism” is vague and has shifted dramatically over time. As Wikipedia phrased it, “liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. The shift in the meaning of the term reflects the shift in power from Aryan to Jew.

The title and focus of this installment was inspired by Weichseler’s pithy comment:

In short, liberalism is a sugar coated racial death wish

In contrast to the suicide meme, “sugar coated racial death wish” better describes the collective, who/whom aspect of White genocide.

Robert Frost’s witticism that, “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel”, is related, but begs the question. How could such a passive attitude ever become dominant? It couldn’t and didn’t. Such self-abnegating broadmindedness only reflects a strand of the older, Whiter sense of “liberalism” which never was truly dominant, and has at any rate been displaced by a jewish sense of “liberalism” which is not passive, but is instead more or less openly and aggressively anti-White.

Armor’s comment:

Most people do not have strong political beliefs. They vote mainly according to what they think is in their personal interest.

I agree with the broader point, which is to keep in mind the classic distinction between the hoi polloi (in the original Greek sense) and the elite who actually wield political power (the hoi oligoi, the oligarchs, and their politician-servants who are often mistaken as “leaders”).

My dictionary defines liberalism as “a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution”

This definition is at odds with the reality that “liberalism” helped trigger and was most advanced by war – specifically the American and French revolutions and World War II. “Liberalism” rose in revolt against aristocracy and hierarchy, the previously dominant “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. Only now that “liberalism” is hegemonic can it been seen as counter-revolutionary.

So, I think the word “liberalism” no longer means anything. It doesn’t refer to a coherent ideology. The Jews pretend to be liberals, which they are not. And the White liberals pretend they still believe in something, but they defer to the Jewish agenda and are held tightly in check. The incredible thing is how the non-Jews have accepted to go along with a new agenda that contradicts their former ideals.

Instead of studying liberalism, maybe we should start studying how dictatorship works, and how the whole population of a country can come under the rule of a small hostile minority.

The how, the mechanics, is important and merits its own focus, but what must come first is a recognition and understanding of the what, this “rule of a small hostile minority”. The shift in meaning of “liberalism” is emblematic – a symbol of both the how and what of jewish rule. We can do more than simply assert that “liberalism” is not a coherent ideology – it is useful to try to understand how and why it came to be so.

The perceived incoherence of “liberalism” springs largely from the fundamental incompatibility of its two supposedly primary ideas – freedom and equality.

As Richard Cotten noted, “Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal, and Equal men are not free.” Reality is not equal, equality is not real. Free from artificial efforts to force equality, human beings are naturally unequal. Freedom or equality – pick one.

In The New Blacklist, Pat Buchanan remarks on this quintessential dilemma of “liberalism”:

Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation, who escorted Eich out, said in her statement: “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.

Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

George Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

What Baker is saying is that you have freedom of speech, so long as you use your speech to advocate equality.

Beyond this incompatibility, the incoherence also springs from the increasingly obvious reality that neither freedom nor equality are the true priorities. The current thoroughly judaized “liberalism” is all about racial inequality. It’s about blaming Whites and making excuses for non-Whites. It’s about seeing Whites as bad and non-Whites as good. Under this judaized “liberalism” the free speech and free association of Whites is increasingly defined as “hate” and restricted.

George Lincoln Rockwell noted in the 1960s that the boundaries of the “liberal” mainstream are defined and policed by jews. Within that judaized mainstream there are essentially two poles – the “left”, representing the direction the system is shifting/”progressing” toward, and the “right” being the direction the system is moving away from, purging and excluding (e.g. Eich or Buchanan) as the outer bounds are moved.

The “left”, who at the time of French revolution were the promoters of equality, in opposition to aristocracy and hierarchy, long ago abandoned that pretext. “Leftists” today openly advocate in racial terms. They support identity politics and multiculturalism. In other words, they acknowledge and encourage inequality. They favor the moral and legal supremacy of non-Whites/”people of color”.

The “right”, who used to defend aristocracy and hierarchy, have gradually and continually given ground in a vain effort to avoid being psychoanalyzed as “racist” “sexist” “homophobic” “xenophobic” and “anti-semitic” by jews (whether “leftist” enemies, or supposed “rightist” allies). Today, when mainstream “rightists” talk about race it’s only to nonsensically insist that race doesn’t matter – because their favorite “conservative” is black and immigration is bad because it’s bad for black and brown people.

The self-described “traditionalist” jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster identified just about everything he didn’t like (which he couldn’t more specifically identify as “anti-semitism”) as “liberalism”. Upon scrutiny, Auster’s superficial blather about “liberalism”, which has been mimicked and praised by many other supposedly intelligent critics, was only so much dissembling. He talked about “liberalism” only to obscure and excuse the jewish role in it.

Auster was an effusive source of bogus explanations only loosely connected to reality, such as his misidentification of “liberalism” as non-discrimination. The limits of his own ability to discriminate were clear in his insistence of conflating jews and Whites as “whites”, even when the distinction between the two was most plain. The jewish nature of “liberalism” and Auster’s attempt to disguise it was evident, for example, in a key idea he often cited and immodestly referred to as Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. Roughly stated, the idea is that the worse “minorities” behave the more compelled “the majority” is to excuse them. Just so. Auster never tried to explain how this came to be. He apparently conceived it to apply only to certain “minorities” he himself liked to criticize. When pressed as to how his Law related to the jews he behaved very badly and excused them.

Auster very often distinguished between what he called “left-liberals” and “right-liberals”, but because he would not distinguish Whites from jews (except to defend jews) he almost never discussed the obvious differences between White and jewish “liberalism”. The one occasion I’m aware of where Auster did demonstrate that he could see the distinction was in an exchange with tribemate Paul Gottfried. Note how they still maintained the absurd pretense that the nature of the distinction is religious rather than racial:

You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Here we see the true “liberal” essence of so much of the complaints about “liberalism”. It has nothing to do with jewish rule, the jewish critics of jewish “liberalism” say, it’s all Whitey’s fault.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

15 thoughts on “Liberalism as a Death Wish”

  1. Glad you’re back man.

    New site’s much cleaner, you’re free…

    It must feel great!

  2. About Paul Gottfried, I listened to a discussion he had with Richard Spencer about fascism (January 2014).

    A few excerpts :

    9:39 – the demonic personality of Hitler and people around him.

    9:57 – I think the Nazis really are nihilistic revolutionaries in a way that (generic) fascists are not. (…) They are totally destructive. They are recklessly superioristic. They are based very much on a terroristic dictatorship at the top, like Stalin’s Russia. I agree with Hannah Arendt. I think that the Soviets and the Nazis had similar totalitarian governments. The only difference being the Soviets are more totalitarian. Because they entirely control the economy as well. The Nazis are not as socialist as obviously the Soviets.

    22:00 – But the right by its very nature, even if it is stylistically brilliant, is a reaction. It is not a movement in its own right, it is reacting against the left. The left has all the momentum, it has all the wind in its sails. The right simply has to find some way to control the left. And fascism, I would argue, is a brilliant creative attempt to sort of turn the energy of the left against it. And it fails for several reasons. One of which is that it becomes rightly or wrongly identified with the mass murder and expansionism of Nazi Germany, which is like one of the most evil regimes that ever existed —except from Mao, Stalin and other communists, who get a pass from a lot of the establishment.

    24:00 – whereas the left seems nice, even if they murdered ten times as many people, but they are nice because they want equality, universalism, women’s rights, and all these other good things

    24:50 [about Italy's fascism] – It’s a bourgeois culture trying to resist working-class revolution

    35:25 – But if there is to be a right, I think it has to be influenced by something like fascism, without necessarily taking over the entire model (…) There are tendencies in fascism that I think remain pertinent (…)


    My comments:
    Maybe the main reason Gottfried thinks he must vilify Hitler is because he wants to say that fascism had some positive elements about it that could prove useful today. But it isn’t really useful for us to have an intellectual like Gottfried who presents the German national-socialists as evil nihilistic revolutionaries.

    The other day, the Daily Stormer republished a VDare column by Gottfried, about another column written by Jonah Goldberg with the title “Policing Thought Crime”. Gottfried says the problem with Goldberg is that he “has simply internalized the Leftist indoctrination given to his generation”, and there is also a problem with “Jonah’s neoconservative patrons”.

    I don’t think he goes far enough. Actually the oppressive thought police is mainly the result of Jewish activism. And the problem with Goldberg is that he belongs to the Jewish neocons who took over the conservative media and expelled the non-Jewish conservatives. Goldberg is supposed to be a leading advocate of the conservative cause, when he is actually a Jew (or maybe part-Jew) who prevents real conservatives from openly opposing race-replacement and explaining that the problem is mainly due to the Jews and their monopoly on the media.

    As an old Jewish retired teacher who is supposed to stand against race-replacement, Gottfried should say outright that the problem is mainly Jewish. Otherwise, I don’t think he is helping us at all. It is a problem to have Jews on our side, because it encourages self-censorship on our part, out of politeness. The only way some Jews can be useful to us is if they are honest and forthright about the Jewish problem.

  3. Armor, good job at listing those excerpts, I had listened to that podcast a while ago and had found Gottfried to be intelligent in his analysis of fascism and national-socialism.

    I have a respect for Gottfried for the reason that he knowingly limited his career opportunities as an intellectual/academic/historian by taking these positions, and his habit of downplaying (though I wouldn’t describe it as excusing or ignoring) Jewish involvement in the worst anti-European trends of the 20th century is understandable.

    I’d imagine he’d get much more press and “prestige,” if he regurgitated out pop-psychoanalytical works on Nazism as expressed rage of European inferiority-complex against Jews or some other such drivel. His separation from the canon of the Jewish secular religion of 20th century Nazi persecution is to be commended in that regard.

    However, you’re right in listing the problems of elevating men like him into our ranks and into our subcultures. It undoubtedly causes us to tiptoe too much when elaborating Jewish malfeasance, and it muzzles the kind of jewish critique tanstaafl engages which is highly necessary for the White advocacy movement to flourish.

    That critique being, of course, tan’s methodical, clear headed and intelligent manner in which he illustrates and shows Jewish ethnic warfare in either its most implicit or explicit forms. Tan is the kind of anti-semite that will change the movement, and the Austers and Gottfrieds of the world would be the kinds of jewish “insiders” that would inhibit someone like tan from doing their good works.

    In a better future, the ambassadors of the Jewish community would be people like Gottfried, whom we’d be able to deal with in a manner more akin to to respecting, equal groups rationally bartering.

  4. I had listened to that podcast a while ago and had found Gottfried to be intelligent in his analysis of fascism and national-socialism.

    I have a respect for Gottfried for the reason that he knowingly limited his career opportunities as an intellectual/academic/historian by taking these positions

    Jews like Gottfried and Auster don’t deserve respect. At best you could argue that they’re trying to help “white” people, though what they’re really doing is denouncing the symptoms, the demoralization and degeneracy, while transferring blame from the jews who are driving it to passive “liberals” instead, by which they mean Whites.

    These aren’t allies. These are dissimulating dissembling enemies. Look past their verbalizing and pay attention to their attitudes – where they direct their antipathies and sympathies. Auster, for example, was more concerned about sniffing out and condemning “anti-semitism” than anything else – and most especially among those who mistook him for an ally. Gottfried is more careful, less vitriolic, but like Auster his supposedly intelligent analysis amounts to blaming their victims as a way of excusing the jews.

  5. I agree about Gottfried.

    Spencer ended all commenting at his early version of Takimag when I finally got Gottfried to admit that he personally supported Israel’s right to its Jewish character but was hostile to White Nationalism for Americans. A swarm of nationalists immediately descended on Takimag demanding to know why this objectively anti-White double standard was tolerated. Spencer thought it best to do away with traditional Western norms of free speech and enquiry to protect the sensitivities and biases of his Jewish mentor.

    Buchanan is likeable, but four things I can’t forgive: the Black running mate; including Israel as subject in DEATH OF THE WEST; his own massive offshore investing; his efforts to undermine David Duke’s campaigns. Likeable, but a moral lightweight. He is a career pol/media dandy after all.

  6. Not really for publication but whatever … Perhaps a DOWNLOAD link at the top of the post as well as the bottom, accessible from the main front page and radio front page? Nag, nag, nag …

  7. The best explanation of the essence of Liberalism is still Yockey’s, from Imperium. Liberalism is indeed a destroyer. However, blaming liberalism for our problems is like blaming guns for crime.

  8. Sure. Buchanan’s 1996 campaign heavily emphasized anti-NAFTA, anti-offshoring, economic nationalist themes. So when details of Buchanan’s personal investment portfolio were published, revealing that most of his money was invested either in foreign companies or in US companies with lots of foreign holdings and a pattern of offshoring to reduce labour costs, he got a lot of flak. Buchanan was forced to promise to bring his investments in line with his stated ethos.

    At one time Wikipedia had a big section on this, but no longer. Here is a summary taken principally from a USA Today article according to the citation,

    Hypocrite
    Buchanan calls himself an outsider, which is ridiculous. When not running for president, he makes $1 million a year as part of the “liberal media”, and he has worked in the White House for 3 presidents.

    Buchanan is a big hypocrite. Though he attacks big corporations like AT&T and General Electric for laying off Americans and investing overseas, he gets a piece of their profits from the stock he owns — between $15,000 and $50,000 each in AT&T, DuPont, General Motors and General Electric. Pat owns between $50,000 and $100,000 in IBM stock as well. His multi-million portfolio also includes interests in a British bank, YPF Sociedad Anonima (an Argentine oil company), and China Light and Power, a Hong Kong utility that owns part of a Chinese power plant.

    Buchanan attacks immigrants and foreigners, but his housekeeper is South American …

    He likes to brag that his biggest campaign contributor — Roger Milliken, a textile billionaire — gave him just $60,000. But Milliken also secretly gave $1.7 million to The American Cause, Buchanan’s protectionist group, and to an affiliated lobbying arm. And Milliken directly paid for “99 percent” of the anti-GATT ads Buchanan ran in 1994, according to a Buchanan accountant quoted in Newsweek.

    Sheltered Washington Insider:

    Pat has always led a very sheltered upper class life, and has never worked for anyone except the federal government and the media — while attacking both the whole time. In fact, he lived off the federal payroll even as a kid — his dad was a government accountant and then managing partner of Councilor, Buchanan & Mitchell, one of the largest accounting firms in the Washington D.C. area. He earned enough to raise several kids in an affluent neighborhood, with enough left over to buy a Cadillac. Even George Bush was less sheltered than Buchanan — he at least lived in Texas and China, and worked in the private sector …

    He has never lived or worked outside of the Washington “beltway” cocoon, except a 3 year stint as an editorial writer for a now-defunct conservative paper in St. Louis.

    Buchanan’s sheltered life explains why it took him until 1992 to discover that working men were losing jobs, and their wages were falling. That’s why he didn’t notice his own hypocrisy of preaching “America First” while driving a Mercedes in the 1992 election. (Worse yet, he tried to blame it on his wife.)

    http://realchange.org/buchanan.htm

    I assume realchange.org is partisan, but what they say is correct.

  9. Liberalism is socio-political Christianity. That is all, a failed religion and a failed socio-political construct of erroneous egalitarian minds that needs to be swept aside by harshness of nature and empirical science

Comments are closed.