I tend to be suspicious of claims that liberalism is some big Jewish conspiracy. The ideology of liberalism obviously has a life of its own. Plus, liberalism is eating away Jewry just like all other particular groups. True, Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, but that’s natural given that they’re a subculture that wants to, if not displace the majority culture, at least overthrow that culture’s prominence; Jews are also vastly overrepresented in revolutionary movements, but that also is natural given their Leftism, high IQ, and verbal aggressiveness. It would seem natural for Jews in Israel–where the established culture to be preserved is theirs–to be more conservative, and that is more or less what we find.
Still, Daybreaker presented an intriguing theory which would mean a tighter connection between liberalism and the Jews. It would be a shame for it to get lost in my comments:
The main problem liberalism would theoretically face is that man must have religion, sex roles and in-groups with some degree of genetic solidarity, and that liberalism, by deconstructing essential aspects of human life will erode any distinct, particular and thus potentially sustainable people that becomes the bearer of its message and the enforcer of its laws. This horse gallops fast, but it kills its rider, and so it doesn’t seem likely to win many races.
That problem could be overcome if the horse could be passed on to any rider with equal success. But Haiti, for example, shows that’s not the case. The sentiments of liberalism had knock-on effects that led to the utter destruction of the Whites there, but post-genocide Haiti did not become the new bearer and enforcer of the liberal message. Nor did Zimbabwe become a liberal Mecca, nor is South Africa becoming a liberal mecca.
The other solution would be an un-killable rider. An ethny with great resistance to the virulence of liberalism, and with great inner resources to regenerate the damage that liberalism imposes, could enjoy the kind of advantage over its ethnic rivals that disease-carrying Europeans had over the the natives of the Americas. And this is the situation that we have.
If it was not so, such a fierce plague would have burned itself out centuries ago.
Since it is so, the plague will not burn itself out, or not till everything that I for one care about has been exterminated from the world, and not till a new and much worse world will have been created.
Liberalism would be long-gone if it really created a world opposed to religion, but what it really creates is a part of the world called for by one supremely tough, survival prone religion, that is the profane, empty, demoralizing, deracializing and ultimately all-destroying world outside the boundaries of the only really holy people and the one true God’s special concern with that people.
It can even support healthy demographics through strong sex roles, ethnic solidarity and genetic segregation, by supporting a distinction between us the holy and them the vile. This is how the Amish get by.
But woe unto them that don’t have such a demographic hinterland to call on to refresh their numbers.
And woe unto those who don’t have within the same collective an elite able to dominate events in the corrupted world, for they have lost all control of their destiny in a world where the highly leveraged financial instrument, the all-media blitz and the predator drone dominate the piggy bank, the weekly sermon and the horse and buggy.
And woe, black woe, unto those who can’t set up the complicated kind of social arrangement needed for long-term collective survival in a world where public space is being flooded with social poison, because the authorities and institutions they look to will not do it, or because the first movers in this poisoned environment have marked them out as enemies and won’t let them segregate themselves and survive.
We conservatives are always telling ourselves that liberalism is unstable, it destroys its own basis, it’s on its last legs. We always have pretty good arguments for these predictions, but they always end up being spectacularly wrong. In fact, when a conservative announces the imminent demise of liberalism, that’s a pretty good sign that liberalism is about to have a great victory leading to several more decades of unquestioned hegemony, while its opponents disappear in a puff of smoke. What gives? My suspicion is that a lot of this “liberalism is social suicide” talk is just wishful thinking on our part. We may not like liberal society, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to collapse on its own. On the other hand, maybe liberalism really is as host-destroying as it seems it should be. Then there needs to be an explanation of why it didn’t already fall apart long ago. Hence Daybreaker’s theory: a culture that bears liberalism but is immune to its host-destroying effects. If I read him right, the Jews are the example par excellence. If they were the only example, then liberalism would be in big trouble, because I think that nut has been cracked via increasing intermarriage. Liberalism is pulling down the Jews. However, the liberal elite itself might be thought of as another example. They live fairly conservatively, taking care not to experiment with their own marriages. While they proudly disdain loyalty to their countrymen, they are intensely loyal and chauvinistic regarding their true people–the international liberal elite itself. They have a common creed from which they do not brook dissent. They yield liberalism as a weapon to remove the resources of family, group solidarity, and religion from their rivals. The ruin liberalism does to these groups actually makes the system more secure.
Which brings me back to my original belief. Liberalism itself isn’t suicidal on a foreseeable timescale. True, there may be an economic or environmental collapse on the horizon, but this may not discredit liberalism, and it may actually strengthen it.