Tag Archives: liberalism

Bari Weiss, Superjewess

Bari Weiss – Where Did the Media Go Wrong?

In this interview with two sympathetic alt-jew jesters Weiss revels in her hyper-tribalist jew identity while venting her hostility toward Whites. She sees herself first and foremost as a member of the world’s first and foremost collectively-imagined victim collective. She laughs as she refers to herself as an “unhinged zionist”. She describes her worldview as “liberalism”, claiming it is based on the “truths” that everyone is an individual, created in the image of “god”, and therefore should be treated equally by law. She says “no person should be held to a standard of collective innocence or collective guilt” due to their “immutable characteristics”.

This is the standard IDW shtick, though IDWers more typically avoid saying the jew part out loud. They prefer the jew-led war on Whites continue by deception, under the guise of “liberalism”. They oppose the more overt “wokeism” tack only because they believe more open aggression may somehow not work out as well for jews. Weiss makes her jew-first mindset more plain than usual, causing more cognitive dissonance. (Her new podcast, laughably titled “Honestly”, is bound to be more of the same “liberalism” double-talk.)

The portion of Weiss’ motivation which she does not credit directly to being a jew she attributes indirectly to an inner voice telling her to fight “anti-semitism” for her tribe’s collective benefit. She wrote what has to be the six gorillionth book on the subject.

As Weiss jewplains in the interview, she deplores “the right” because “anti-semitism”, but thinks it’s obvious to everyone. She prefers to focus on screeching about “anti-semitism” on “the left” (citing Columbia and the Jew York Times as her primary examples) because she imagines it is relatively unrecognized and unopposed.

Weiss is not so much stupid, delusional, or even hypocritical as she is unapologetically, unselfconsciously, and unfathomably jewy. Convinced that the jew-first “left” and “right” just aren’t good enough, she seeks to spawn a jew-first “center”.

You can picture Weiss’ frustration when she finally decided to leave the Jew York Times, having screeched herself hoarse at the supposed “anti-semitism” of all those uppity house niggers and with no White men left to blame. After so many hard years in the mainstream jewsmedia, boosted by her tribemates from one cushy position to another, constantly discussing what is or isn’t good for her tribe, Bari Weiss is now a mogul, raking in the shekels at the alt-jewsmedia hub Substack, finally free to be the Superjewess she always wanted to be.

Liberalism vs Wokeism – The Fix is In

Michael Tracey started a Clubhouse chat to discuss how the Clubhouse chats he’s in always devolve into a criticism of “wokeism”, and how nobody in his “liberal” bubble ever tries to defend it. For about 90 minutes that’s exactly what happens. Very boring, very politically correct – with everyone trying to sound like a deep thinker, unable to plainly state what they’re thinking.

Somebody recorded the bulk of the conversation and uploaded it to YouTube: “Is Clubhouse Obsessed with “Wokeism”?” Feb 26th 2021. I transcoded it to mp3.

Without the aid of Clubhouse avatars it’s sometimes hard to tell who’s speaking. The speaker’s race is easier to guess. Tracey bragged that there were plenty of non-White participants from various countries, but for the most part they conformed to White social norms. The jewy-behaving moderators carefully curated the conversation, allowing a series of jewy- and black-sounding voices to “popcorn in” and say their little piece of nothing.

The conversation finally got interesting at about 1:20:00, when the first overt defender of “wokeism” spoke. The mood becomes increasingly fraught. Within ten minutes someone was announcing that “the milquetoast stuff needs to stop” and the conversation needs to be about “White supremacy”.

About two hours in an aggressive nigress named Brooklyn enters, starts berating Tracey, gets admin privileges, and bounces Tracey out of his own chat. The mood changes dramatically. Niggers now control the room, whooping and high-fiving, talking over each other.

Even as they settle down it becomes clear that black social norms are very different. Brooklyn and the other field niggers are incensed that White people had the audacity to speak about proprietary black topics using proprietary black words. They giggle as they silence non-blacks. They institute “stack”-style moderation, explicitly privileging blacks. Brooklyn asserts the term and tactic were invented by blacks.

House niggers who were in the room from the start drop their masks and denounce the previous long boring politically correct conversation as “anti-black” and “violent”. They praise the field niggers for swooping in and saving them. The field niggers castigate the house niggers, accusing them of “cooning“.

One of the milquetoast nigresses says Tracey made her a moderator, and that she was the one who started the coup by elevating Brooklyn. They share a knowing laugh about their virtual “Haitian revolution“.

Tracey never saw any defense of “wokeism” because it’s proponents don’t defend, they attack. Like jews, blacks imagine themselves as victims of oppression, at the hands of Whites, and in their minds this naturally justifies the hostility and aggression they direct at Whites. They act offended at the idea that they have to argue with or even explain what they want.

At 2:45:00 Brooklyn notices Bret Weinstein is in the room. Saying Weinstein is a “mad racist” who is supposedly promoted by Clubhouse, she invites him to speak.

For years Weinstein has danced around what he is and what he believes. Here he finally copped to it, and did so even more bluntly than his older brother recently has.

Weinstein: Can I ask something of you, before I answer your questions?

Brooklyn: Did you answer those questions? Do you support White supremacy, are you anti-“racist”…

Someone else: and transphobia.

W: Okay. I’m happy to do all these things, but I would ask you to try to listen…

B: Listen, white man, we’re in charge here, okay? We axed you some questions. You can answer or you can go.

Some black male: Here’s da problem Bret. It’s the same thing as if I was to axe the president of the United States, or the previous president…

B: We’re not gonna do dat. Axe him, bro. Are you anti-racist? Are you transphobic? Are you anti-black, like give us the answers right now and quickly or you gonna get off the stage.

W: Sure, sure. 100%. But let me correct something Marcy said first.

B: 100% what? Are you 100% anti-black or are you 100% anti-racist? What’s goin on?

W: I am 100%…

crosstalk

B: Can you all stop trying to let this man wiggle out of answering the questions?

W: First of all, I’m not a classical liberal, I’m an actual liberal. Okay? Far left. Have been my whole life. I am thoroughly anti-racist by any normal definition, but I don’t like Kendi’s definition of anti-racist, it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination a White supremacist. As a matter of fact I’m not even sure I qualify as White. I’m jewish. It’s a different thing. My people have been persecuted by Europeans…

B: You are just spicy white, but continue.

W: Okay, fine, I’ll take that. I just don’t think it’s a simple issue. And to be honest I’m…was there a third question? Oh, am I transphobic? I am not the least bit transphobic. As a matter of fact I…

B: Stop right there.

At this point the discussion goes off into the “transphobia” weeds, with everyone involved oddly eager to drop any further discussion of the difference between Whites and jews. Shortly thereafter Weinstein describes himself as an evolutionary biologist. Brooklyn says, “A eugenicist. Dats what you mean.” A minute later they call Weinstein a White supremacist and mute him.

There is no reason to listen to the entire 5 hour and 20 minute recording. The 8 or so minutes with Weinstein are the most telling, capturing the essence of the farce, which is itself a microcosm of the shift in the broader jew agenda, the replacement of “liberalism” with “wokeism”.

Dissembling dissimulating jews, authors of the oppression narrative, posing as White liberals, leading the White surrender to non-Whites. To the extent the Weinsteins ever argue with non-Whites it is only to get across their point that, as jews, they also see Whites as their enemy.

This Fictitious Conflict

zionism_is_code_for_death_by_jewing

Left-posing jew Weiss writes, Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals):

For a long time, liberalism and Zionism have gotten along fine in America– just look at the Democratic Party and its love for Israel. But Charlottesville represents a crisis for liberal Zionists. When they condemn white nationalism in the U.S. and celebrate Jewish nationalism in Israel, the contradiction is obvious to all.

Just consider three prominent voices. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the liberal Zionist group J Street, and blogger and Democratic Party thinker Josh Marshall.

Weiss cites three contemporary jew voices. Below I’ll cite a prominent opposing voice from the past.

The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.

Weiss continues:

Charlottesville makes this conversation urgent because the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership hurts resistance to intolerance. You can’t be righteously anti-nationalist in the U.S. and evangelists for Jewish nationalism over there.

This is not just good liberal philosophy. It’s the best policy to fight anti-Semitism. Israel’s status as a human-rights abuser is now its global reputation; and Jews and Jewish organizations who blindly defend it are hurting the reputation of Jews.

It is behind the mask of liberalism that academia, corporations, and the mainstream media have issued a constant stream of increasingly hostile rhetoric psychopathologizing and demonizing Whites. Whites who collaborate are rewarded, even if only temporarily. Whites who resist, even if only rhetorically, are punished. And behind that same liberal mask the same powerful institutions actively denounce and suppress any criticism of jews.

The snarling illiberal reality of this anti-White/pro-jew regime is deliberately concealed behind its smiley weaponized buzzterms. The jews cry “tolerance”, “social justice”, “diversity”, and “equity” as they strike “nazis”, by which they mean Whites, then screech “anti-semitism” when they imagine some ricochet might possibly hit the jews.

Weiss is an apologist for his tribe posing as a critic. He postures as a liberal but frets specifically about the best interests of jews. He minimizes the harm jewing causes Whites. He’s concerned about the potential harm any backlash might cause jews.

Yair Rosenberg provides a more overt example of jew hostility toward Whites. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg makes no pretense that he’s a liberal and offers no apologies for being obsessed with whatever is best for the jews, in or out of their jew state. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg’s toxic anti-White opinions are shamelessly amplified by the corporate mainstream jewsmedia.

Rosenberg recently jewsplained Why There’s No Such Thing as White Zionism, directly addressing the anti-White/pro-jew cake-eating Weiss misidentifies. Rosenberg describes the problem as sneaky White nationalists stupidly trying to use liberal-zionist double-talk in the same way jews have. Smirking Rosenberg admits that the argument is senseless, because jews are oppressed and Whites are oppressors, i.e. because jews aren’t White.

Writing nearly a century ago Adolf Hitler discussed this same apparent contradiction and described how he came to understand that jews aren’t Germans, how this fictitious conflict between liberalism and zionism brought about this realization:

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.

Then I came to Vienna.

Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.

Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Yes. Race and morality are key. Liberalism and zionism are simply code for death by jewing. They have mutated somewhat yet remain two faces of the same jew-first moral fraud. Both incite non-jews into fighting “racism” (Whites being White) and “anti-semitism” (anything that interferes with jews jewing). Both are championed by jews for the benefit of jews.

Hitler described accurately not only what was happening in Germany in his time, but also foresaw the jew-dominated future we’re now living:

The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.

As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.

The jew war on Whites is waged stealthily under the fiction that jews are White. It started and will end with the realization that they aren’t.

Yockey on Liberalism – Part 7

hegel_machiavelli

Concluding this short series concerning Yockey’s Imperium, The 20th Century Political Outlook:

Hegel posited a three-stage development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property, as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with these words.

The political thinkers mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers — and Macchiavelli was the prime victim — were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty. The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace

221

showed a sick mind with moral deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the political nullity of the “leagues of nations” was a prophet of despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history. In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the best order, and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a “reactionary,” and also because he refused to join the revolutionary crowd.

Since most people wish to hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the held of action from a “disinterested” standpoint, moral, scientific, or economic, and to kind that the opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic — in fact — he was political. This was devilishness that must be combated. One’s own standpoint was entirely “non-political.” Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age. Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign relations, “unpolitical” could also be a term of abuse, meaning the man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party-politician also had to feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully arranged “popular will” broke down his reluctance, and he consented to “serve.” This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a party-politician

222

does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire human race, except certain perverse people, the author’s opponents.

Yockey counterposed the liberal, i.e. someone who won’t take his own side, against the “political”, i.e. those who will. Today’s White politicians have “progressed” to the point where they are increasingly anti-White and openly take the side of the non-White Other.

Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli’s century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Macchiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Macchiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.

One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time. Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party.

223

The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas — these are the enemy. Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself — what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” i.e., a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and calls her a “soldier.” This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History.

Yockey saw liberalism as springing from the White mind, Western philosophy and specifically Rationalism, originating with John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the mid-18th century. More than once Yockey asserted that Rationalism, and thus liberalism, are based on the false premise that man is “good” by nature. He described liberalism as “Rationalism in politics”, a “mere negative” which weakens the State and makes it subservient to “society”, a loose grouping of free independent groups and individuals, a thoroughly liberal construct.

Yockey saw liberalism as “thinking about politics” rather than “political thinking”, opposed to Authority in any form, but most especially the State and the Church. He saw liberalism as outside and in violation of his Laws of Totality and Sovereignty, thus corrosive to political organisms and the friend-enemy disjunction which defines them. “[A]lways and only a disintegrating force”.

Yockey saw liberalism as individualistic, humanistic and materialistic. He noted Jeremy Bentham’s guiding principle, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. “The two poles of [Rationalism] are ‘the individual’ and ‘humanity.’ Anything separating them is ‘irrational.'” He deplored that liberalism enables wealthy individuals to become more important than political organisms, and to twist the “rule of law” to serve their own selfish interests. “In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of the earth.”

New (jewish) masters aside, Yockey saw a deluded sentimentalism in the liberal hope that elevating commerce and economics would end war, the harsh reality being that under this delusion wars had only become more devastating.

“The purest expression of the doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant.” Wikipedia contains some hints why Yockey saw Constant this way:

Constant’s repeated denunciation of despotism pervaded his critique of French political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Abbé de Mably. These writers, influential to the French Revolution, according to Constant, mistook authority for liberty and approved any means of extending the action of authority.

Moreover, Constant believed that in the modern world, commerce was superior to war. He attacked Napoleon’s martial appetite on the grounds that it was illiberal and no longer suited to modern commercial social organization. Ancient Liberty tended to be warlike, whereas a state organized on the principles of Modern Liberty would be at peace with all peaceful nations.

Regarding the principle of freedom in liberalism Yockey wrote:

It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism, in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family.

At the same time a team of jews were hard at work attacking the White family and producing social atomism with The Authoritarian Personality.

However, Yockey saw the influence of jews as distinct from liberalism:

it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning

In contrast to liberalism Yockey recommended Ethical Socialism, which Oswald Spengler called Prussianism. Spengler described the Prussian spirit as, “aristocratic virtue, of which few are possessed” and “a proud and exclusive Socialism for men of race, for the elect of life”. In other words the Aryan spirit, or the spirit of National Socialism.

Yockey described “true liberalism” as Hegel’s view of bourgeois – the individual against the whole, who values personal security over courage and a potentially violent death. Liberalism, in one word, is weakness. At the very end he connects liberalism to feminism, “an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity”.

Yockey dedicated only 15 pages of his 619-page magnum opus to liberalism. In this series we have only barely probed his thoughts. Yockey’s words and style are deceptively simple. His ideas are rooted in and intertwined with historical and philosophical references which make true understanding difficult, even for those prepared to dig deeper. The effort is worth it, especially for thinkers looking for mental exercise and an excuse to trace through some of the vast history of European political thought. After having done so I can say that those less willing to embark on such excursions should feel no guilt or shame. There are more accessible works – e.g. by Kevin MacDonald or Revilo Oliver – from which one can learn more with less effort.

Yockey on Liberalism – Part 6

oswald_spengler_prussianism_and_socialism

Continuing with Imperium, The 20th Century Political Outlook, p215:

The idea of bringing in the law to make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back in Hobbes’s day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law means the rule of those who determine and administer the law,

216

that the rule of a “higher order” is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.

This was political thinking, which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who loudly demands the rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism. But the monarch was tied to the organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.

“The usurer” and “the financier” is best understood as jews, who do in fact care about the life of the jewish organism. George Soros is a contemporary example which comes immediately to mind. Names less generally known include Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson.

The Execution of Louis XVI, 1793, king of France 1774-1793. Charles I of England, monarch of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1625 until his execution in 1649.

In his contest against Authority the finance-Liberal evolved

217

a theory that power corrupts men. It is, however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into the service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.

It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol of l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was greatest.

Richard Wagner, German composer. Charles Baudelaire, French poet, member of the Decadent movement.

Allowing the initiative in economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from metaphysics and religion, and related only to “society.” The criminal law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion, but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing millions into want, or usury on a national scale.

The independence of the economic sphere was a tenet of

218

faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named “economic man,” whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum. Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of success was to concentrate on one’s own gain and ignore everything else. This “economic man” was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the unit of their world-picture. “Humanity” was the sum total of these economic grains of sand.

III

The type of mind which believes in the essential “goodness” of human nature attained to Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes, locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.

Thus this type of thought starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be. Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.

A political theory seeks to find from history the limits of the

219

politically possible. These limits cannot be found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics, and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years, and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation, torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking, and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a war, it called it “disannexation.” The document consolidating the new position was called a “Treaty,” even though it was dictated in the middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in the “Treaty” that he was “guilty” of the war, that he is morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed “war crimes.” But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.

Yockey describes what he means by Absolute Politics earlier in Imperium: “We stand at the beginning of the Age of Absolute Politics, and one of its demands is naturally for powerful weapons. Therefore, technics is ordered to strain after absolute weapons.”

“The Brotherhood of Man” was part of the (jewish) zeitgeist by the late 1940s. the White network – Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind – Part 4 discusses an anti-“racist” cartoon by that title, which was based on the fraudulent pseudoscientific war-era propaganda produced by Franz Boas’ disciples Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish.

There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Montaigne, Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle.

220

While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the “progress” from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.

The contemporary view of Ethical socialism, as described by Wikipedia:

Ethical socialism is a political philosophy that appeals to socialism on ethical and moral grounds as opposed to economic, rationalist and materialist grounds.[1] It emphasizes the need for a morally conscious economy based upon the principles of service, cooperation, and social justice while opposing possessive individualism.[2] Therefore, in contrast to socialism inspired by rationalism, historical materialism, neoclassical economics and Marxist theory which base their appeals for socialism on grounds of economic efficiency, rationality or historical inevitability; ethical socialism focuses on the moral and ethical reasons for advocating socialism.

Ethical socialism is a form of liberal socialism closely related to Christian socialism, and had a profound impact on the social democratic movement and reformism during the later half of the 20th century, particularly in Great Britain.

Ethical socialism was advocated and promoted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair

This cannot be the “Ethical Socialism” Yockey, the proud disciple of Spengler, had in mind. He referred instead to a distinction made by The Philosopher himself, in his essay “The Hour of Decision”, in 1933, which the synopsis at Amazon describes as:

An essay by the author of The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler, on the need for “Prussianism” in order to save civilization from the “Coloured Peril,” based on Spengler’s view, just after the Naxi rise to power in 1933, that the white (European) tribes were under attack by colored races through a “war” by various political forces – enemies of the white race.

Oswald Spengler – Prussian Socialism, via The Traditionalist, is an excerpt in which Spengler contrasts the nationalist/moral form of socialism with the economic/internationalist/jewish form:

Throughout the world they think of Socialism not as a moral attitude of life but as economic Socialism, Labour Socialism, as a mass ideology with material aims. Program Socialism of every sort is thinking from below, building on base instincts, canonizing the herd-feeling which everywhere today lurks behind the slogan of “overcoming individualism”; it is the contrary of Prussian feeling, which has livingly experienced through exemplary leaders the necessity of disciplined devotion and possesses accordingly the inward freedom that comes with the fulfilment of duty, the ordering of oneself, command of oneself, for the sake of a great aim.

Labour-Socialism in every form, on the other hand, is, as I have already shown, definitely English in origin. It arose, about 1840, simultaneously with the victory of the joint-stock company and the rootless “financial” form of capital. Both were the expression of Free Trade Manchesterism: this “white” Bolshevism is capitalism from below, wage-capitalism, just as speculative finance-capital in respect of its method is Socialism from above, from the stock exchange.

Prussian is, lastly, a character which disciplines itself, such as that of Frederick the Great, which he himself paraphrased as consisting in being the First Servant of the State. … To be a servant of the State is an aristocratic virtue, of which few are possessed. If this is “Socialistic,” it is a proud and exclusive Socialism for men of race, for the elect of life. Prussianism is a very superior thing which sets itself against every sort of majority- and mob-rule; above all, against the dominance of the mass character. Moltke, the great educator of the German officer, the finest example of true Prussianism in the nineteenth century, was thus constituted. Count Schlieffen summed up his personality in the motto: “Talk little, do much, be, rather than seem.”

This idea of a “Prussian” existence will be the starting-point for the ultimate overthrowing of the World Revolution. There is no other possibility. I said, as far back as 1919: Not everyone is a Prussian who is born in Prussia; the type is possible anywhere in the white world and actually occurs, though rarely. […] The Prussian idea is opposed to finance-Liberalism as well as to Labour-Socialism. Every description of mass and majority, everything that is “Left,” it regards as suspect. […] All really great leaders in history go “Right,” however low the depths from which they have climbed. It is the mark of the born master and ruler.

What Spengler saw as Prussian – “aristocratic virtue, of which few are possessed” and “a proud and exclusive Socialism for men of race, for the elect of life” – are traits Ricardo Duchesne attributes to Aryans.