Liberalism and its hosts

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.

58 Responses

  1. My suspicion is that a lot of this “liberalism is social suicide” talk is just wishful thinking on our part.

    No, liberalism is social suicide, just not of the apocalyptic, rome-is-burning kind:
    http://takimag.com/article/religious_extremists_will_inherit_the_earth#axzz1hthDnObD
    Since religiosity has considerable heritability, it seems bizarre to think that an ideology the privileges individual desire over family was ever going to win out in the long run.

    I’d also note that while immigration probably won’t lead to race wars etc., the Brazilification of America is kind of suicidal, or at least is likely to lead to considerable decline. But then again Brazil isn’t so bad, as long as you take security precautions and don’t go into the favelas.

  2. Liberalism *is* suicidal, and is killing itself, and this is very obvious at a demographic level.

    Liberal elites are dying very fast indeed. Women with just an undergraduate degree have collapsing fertility – a third and rising have zero children, the average is therefore very low – say about one.

    Median age in the West is about 45 – older then ever; in the third world it is in the teens in many places – younger than ever.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

    Why hasn’t Liberalism collpased already? Don’t be impatient. Only because its enemies have been weak.

    But look around the world, the big story in the past century has been the resurgence of Islam and its growth from a very low ebb of about 4 percent (only tow Islam-ruled countries) to 20-something percent of the world population (c20-40 Islam ruled countries according to definitions) – set to rise to 25 percent in the next few decades. This is very, very fast growth! Islam has taken-over several semi-Liberalized nations already (e.g. Iran, Turkey), some more in the Middle East just in the past year, and no doubt more in the next few years. If something else does not do the job first, Islam will *certainly* destroy Liberalism. It is just a matter of when.

    Don’t be confused by the propaganda – the collapse of Liberalism is already underway. Things are happening already which would be very obvious indicator of collapse to common sense, but they are re-framed as ‘progress’ by the mass media, and it is hard to resist. Just this summer year recent immigrant rioters took-over the centre of London (London!) for several nights of arson and looting – the police (in their thousands – peaking at 16 000 I believe) stood by and watched.

    Liberalism is like Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) when he tries a trick and it fails spectacularly then claims “I meant to do that”. As Hobbes says – “In that case, it worked very well.”

    Liberalism never meant to enable – for example – uncontrolled and continuing and accelerating mass immigration from the third world causing mass dependency, an epidemic of violent crime and a collapse in ‘educational standards’ . It just conceals the facts as much as possible while reorganizing itself around what is happening, then says that it is good, that is exactly what we meant all-along – and then they begin actively to assist collapse. This is the corruption of Liberalism from passive into active evil, and is a game-changer.

    So on present trends Liberalism certainly will continue to collapse, indeed the collpase will continue to accelerate as in the UK this year; but this is not exactly good news – at least not in the short or medium term. Or, it is ‘good new’s only in the sense that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was good news. I don’t think readers will like what replaces it.

  3. A common saying in the financial community, “Brazil is the country of the future – and always will be.”

  4. An interesting analysis from the French Hard Left
    “The West is a civilization that has survived all the prophecies of its collapse with a singular stratagem. Just as the bourgeoisie had to deny itself as a class in order to permit the bourgeoisification of society as a whole, from the worker to the baron; just as capital had to sacrifice itself as a wage relation in order to impose itself as a social relation – becoming cultural capital and health capital in addition to finance capital; just as Christianity had to sacrifice itself as a religion in order to survive as an affective structure – as a vague injunction to humility, compassion, and weakness; so the West has sacrificed itself as a particular civilization in order to impose itself as a universal culture. The operation can be summarized like this: an entity in its death throes sacrifices itself as a content in order to survive as a form.” – L’insurrection qui vient

  5. Liberalism is killing itself as Thursday and Bruce have already pointed out. It has only been ascendant in the west 300 years or so and wasn’t dominant until the end of WW1. That isn’t much time at all in the historical sense.

  6. That’s brilliant.

  7. Jewish conspiracy theories are silly. You can’t get from that to philosemitism or even neutrality easily, however. Your argument in this direction is problematic. If I said, “controlling for T cell count, AIDS is not bad for you,” you would be unimpressed, I hope. You can’t control for the mechanisms by which something works and then conclude it has no effect. Nor can you conclude that “low T cell counts are the real problem.”

    Liberalism was a collaboration between Puritans, Masons, and Jews. There is no need to blame only Jews or to absolve them.

    Are the children of Jewish mixed marriages generally not self-identified Jews, in your experience? They are in mine, though not generally observant.

    Liberalism is a parasite. It eats our babies because it has none of its own. It will induce the host to evolve immunity. Some pro-natalist ideology which is not susceptible to liberal recruitment will eventually take over. Mormonism? Islam? Traditionalist Catholicism?

  8. Hi TMWW,

    The demographic argument used to convince me, too, but if things were really going as it suggests, we would expect to see the younger generations being more conservative and religious than older generations, when in fact the opposite is the case. The Left elite doesn’t need to make their own children; they get to take everybody else’s. Their propaganda leads the high IQ children to join the elite as fully-committed partisans and the low IQ children to breed recklessly so there will be more recruits in the next generation.

    I agree that the Brazilification scenario is depressingly possible.

  9. @bonald- “we would expect to see the younger generations being more conservative and religious than older generations”

    – but they are!

    At the global scale they are more conservative and religious – but also now in most nations.

    For example, the number of ultra-devout young religious people who would willing die for their faith has risen in one generation in the UK from zero to many tens of thousands.

    However approximately none of them are white Christians.

    Your description of what is happening applies only to the native white population, which is aging and disappearing so fast (and doing everything possible to aid the process) that recruitment by the PC elite from the ‘conservative’ middle classes is a mere triviality – just subtle variations in shades of grey agnostic/ dabbling-religious Leftism.

    But maybe this is just a quibble over timescales. The UK population has been massively transformed in 15 years (indeed in 10 years). I regard 15 years as very fast, but then I am in my fifties and can remember 15 years ago as if it was yesterday – but maybe a young man regards it as slow?

  10. The problem with the argument is that Jews are suffering the late-stage effects of Liberalism perhaps more than anyone else. As Bill commented above, most young Jews are not continuing the Jewish tradition. There are far more conservative Christians than there are conservative Jews, as a percentage of each faith, not to mention in raw numbers.

  11. A few thoughts:

    1. The children of liberals, right and left, certainly have been getting more liberal than their parents.

    2. The children of immigrants are more liberal than their parents.

    3. In the U.S., demographic change has been masked by the delay in secularization compared to Europe.

    1. and 3. are subject to diminishing returns and 2. won’t go on forever either. Liberalism is just cresting.

    Some considerable number of people remain stubbornly religious and stubbornly conservative despite the influence of the surrounding society. They can’t be swayed by education, the media etc. to the extent that those are the cause for liberalization.

  12. Bruce is right that one shouldn’t look for immediate change. The conservative religious are a very small minority, maybe 10% of the population of Western countries, so it is going to take time to build up demographic momentum. Ironically, it is in Israel that you’re first going to see the effects of this kind of demographic change.

    Bruce wrong though if he thinks that Islam is an external threat. Islamic countries are completely pathetic. For the West, Islam is only an immigration issue.

  13. “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.”

    Exactly. Not necessarily the only example or even the “worst” in some moral sense, but the most important from the perspective of the sustainability of liberalism, because the most influential, intellectually impressive, financially and politically successful, and so on.

    The Jews are theoretically important in ways beyond their sheer success. First, their unique tenacity through the ages. If I argued for example that the Palestinians supported liberal politics but were themselves resilient to the evils of liberalism, apart from all the other objections it would be easy to say something like this:

    “The ‘Palestinians’ as such haven’t been around long. They are like shallow-rooted weeds that have sprung up quickly and will wither and be gone just as quickly. You can’t prove me wrong until more generations have risen up and gone down and the Palestinians are still here. So in our lifetimes you haven’t got a serious argument than there can be a durable ‘carrier’ of liberalism.”

    It’s tougher to argue with a straight face that the Jews are about to fade away.

    Second, Jews have succeeded in creating, sustaining and explaining an ethnonationalist state in the teeth of all opposition. That should be impossible for vociferous anti-racist and anti-nationalist liberals. The fact that Jews can do it shows they have a degree of resilience to the paralyzing, enervating effects of liberalism.

    The argument that liberalism is here to stay because SWPLs are permanently viable carriers is weaker than the argument from the sustainability of the Jews, not only because of lousy SWPL fertility, not only because SWPL culture hasn’t already proved itself through the ages as Jewish culture has, but because SWPLs aren’t proving their viability by building up ethnostates for people of the same ethnicity. On the contrary, they’re participating in the destruction of the nations they were born into, nations of their own ethnicity.

    Anyway, since you agree on the viability of relatively immune “carriers” on the liberal plague, we are on the same page on what is most important to me though not to you.

    I’m about the survival and the flourishing of White people. To achieve a sustainable future where there will still be White people is a tremendously difficult task given that they are being corrupted by a plague of bad ideas in power, and given that they are being colonized and driven towards minority status everywhere, and given the hostile attitudes of the people that will then be dominant.

    I don’t believe this tremendously difficult, all-important task can be moved forward effectively on the false assumption that liberalism is going to just vanish of its own accord. So getting rid of the assumption that liberalism is a self-solving problem is important, and the argument that persuades rightists of that is less important. If someone prefers the argument that looks to me weaker, the argument from SWPL sustainability (say because they’re unfamiliar with Jewish culture but they’re very familiar with SWPL culture and they are sure that lifestyle isn’t going away), that’s fine by me.

  14. By the way, I started thinking about this after The Passion of the Christ came out, and the critics went berserk. Two kinds of critics showed extraordinary hatred: Jews and atheists. The Jews obviously had skin in the game. Surprisingly, the atheists were more frenzied and more hateful, not only toward the movie but toward the innocent multitudes who apparently just wanted to see a movie that took Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection seriously. It seemed there was an element of calculation in the Jewish responses, which spoke of prudence and a hatred of perceived enemies that was founded on a love of one’s own people. The atheist reaction was inhuman, careless of whom or what might be hurt, including one’s own reputation. The atheists seemed willingly possessed by their ideology. They hated what was in front of them because the were supposed to, and they did not have a people of their own behind them to protect.

    It seemed to me then, and it still does, that the Jewish kind of hostility to Christian culture was much more sustainable, because it is mixed with and strengthened by good in ways that chip-spitting atheist leftism is not.

  15. Second, Jews have succeeded in creating, sustaining and explaining an ethnonationalist state in the teeth of all opposition. That should be impossible for vociferous anti-racist and anti-nationalist liberals

    1. Because of certain historical circumstances in the mid-20th century, Jews were able to frame their nation building in a leftist way.

    2. Nothing creates motivation like someone trying to completely obliterate your tribe.

    More here:
    http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/06/03/liberalism-contra-the-tribe-or-the-silent-suicide-of-american-jewry/

  16. Justin, in his book on the culture of critique, Kevin MacDonald takes into account the corrosive effects of liberalism even on the remarkably resilient Jewish population, but concludes that for the long term the troubles of the Jewish people are greatly exaggerated. I am of the same opinion.

    Are you really expecting disproportionately Jewish liberal power centers such as Hollywood to self-terminate soon for lack of self-identified Jews?

    And if you are, because you think “Jews are suffering the late-stage effects of Liberalism perhaps more than anyone else,” can you tell us something about the people who are suffering the effects less? How does their system work?

    If you don’t agree that Jews are sustainable carriers of liberalism, but you think that the assumption that liberalism is a self-abolishing problem is refuted by the strength of some other group of carriers, great! Chapter and verse on other groups of tenacious and influential carriers could strengthen my argument.

  17. Suppose for the sake of argument that liberalism will only remain dominant for another 300 years, which is not long by your standard.

    That is easily long enough to wipe away the demographic base that has sustained Western culture from Homer to Virgil to Shakespeare, and that should have gone on to produce new geniuses forever.

  18. I think there is a confusion or conflation between Liberalism as a self-destroying phenomenon and a self-curing *problem*.

    Yes Liberalism will self destroy, but no this won’t cure or solve any problems because society has been so desperately weakened that it will perhaps/ probably collapse with all kinds of horrors.

    To state that Liberalism is self-destroying in not complacency! Nobody wants starvation, disease and violence. Liberalism will bring everything down with it – but the sooner it collapses the less the damage, so I suppose we should want collapse ASAP (assuming that people really will not repent – I hope, but see no sign)…

    *

    I think there is also conflation of Judaism and Jews – Israel began as a Jewish state and is on the cusp of becoming a State of Judaism. But these are very different things.

    *

    Another necessary distinction: The Reactionary Right are going to have to make a decision between preserving Christianity and preserving whites. For me the choice is obvious; and it is also obvious that what is effective policy for the one objective is not effective for the other objective.

    *

  19. Another necessary distinction: The Reactionary Right are going to have to make a decision between preserving Christianity and preserving whites.

    I love your blog and your writings but I disagree with this observation.

  20. “Another necessary distinction: The Reactionary Right are going to have to make a decision between preserving Christianity and preserving whites. For me the choice is obvious; and it is also obvious that what is effective policy for the one objective is not effective for the other objective.”

    This is the sort of thing I was getting at when I wrote my unpopular “This Is Not a White Nationalist Blog.” Liberalism is our enemy; and it is the product of white people, their brainchild and their movement, even now.

    For me, too, the choice is obvious.

  21. Your three points are true for recent history; but, I’d say recent trends are that children are becoming more conservative than their parents were at that age.

    A few other things to consider:
    1. Devout, conservative parents have more children than materialistic, atheistic liberals.

    2. Children of conservatives are more likely to be conservative than children of liberals.

  22. Correction:
    Your three points are true for most of America’s history; but, I’d say…”

  23. Well, its only been dominant for 70 some years. It started it ascent 300 years ago.

    Even if liberalism were to dominate for the next 300 years it will never be able to wipe out the demographic base of Christendom until it destorys the Church entirely which assurances have been made that it will not be able to do.

  24. Yes, but it is the issue that most matters. If you replace the native population with Muslims, then the game is over. The external threat is secondary.

  25. society has been so desperately weakened that it will perhaps/ probably collapse with all kinds of horrors.

    This is the kind of apocalyptic nonsense I referred to and for which certain varieties of conservative have been rightly excoriated. On the other hand, Brazilification is a more than plausible scenario. But while Brazil has some pretty big problems, it isn’t about to collapse.

  26. Christianity is alive and well in places like Africa and Latin America. You needn’t worry about that. But from the looks of things in the 3rd World it is quite apparent that Christianity alone isn’t enough to create much of a civilization, while places like China, Japan and Korea would suggest that civilization can exist quite well without it, at least in certain circumstances.

  27. When someone says that preserving Western Civilization per se doesn’t matter and all that does matter is having a traditional, highly religious society. I tend not to believe them. Such societies already exist, in the 3rd World, but no one is in a rush to move there nor do they hold them up as things to aspire towards.

    Why so get worked up about the decline in science, political culture and the arts, if those things ultimately don’t matter?

  28. “Liberalism is our enemy; and it is the product of white people, their brainchild and their movement, even now.”

    Yes. Several years ago I tried to make that exact same point on Auster’s blog, in response to his going on and on about the need to preserve “white culture”. I pointed out that liberalism had distinctively white origins and asked whether and how he was defining white culture so as to exclude it. I never got a satisfactory answer.

    I tend to see liberalism as the tragic element in western civilization and that we’re in or approaching the final act of the play, in which we see how our fate has been shaped by certain essential aspects of our character.

    As I understand it, btw, modernism or liberalism originates with Protestantism — not Judaism. But I take the point made above, that Jews have found it to be a useful tool.

  29. Perhaps “originates” isn’t the right word to describe how modernism/liberalism relates to Protestantism.

    Like any good conservative, I’ve read my Weaver and know that nominalism came before that.

    There are also contributing causes to be found in antiquity — which is why I think it’s correct to say that the tragic element has been present all along.

  30. CorkyAgain: “But I take the point made above, that Jews have found it to be a useful tool.”

    My analysis doesn’t assume that Jews have found liberalism a useful tool, even though Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique supports that. In the model I presented, it doesn’t matter whether some Jews invented various ideas that have become part of liberalism or merely picked them up, and it doesn’t matter whether this was with purpose aforethought or merely because these ideas were fashionable once and remained congenial. It doesn’t even matter whether Jews think of themselves as “liberal”. They could all think of themselves as conservative or moderate (while continuing to promote the same ideas and while not succumbing to the effects of them) and the results would be the same.

    What matters is that once a permanent people has gotten hold of the tenets of liberalism, liberalism has extraordinary staying power.

    The idea that liberalism will abolish itself (in any time frame that will be of use for the survival of White people and Western civilization) is no more than wishful thinking.

  31. The Man Who Was: “When someone says that preserving Western Civilization per se doesn’t matter and all that does matter is having a traditional, highly religious society.” I tend not to believe them.

    I believe them. You must serve one master or another.

    If you say, absolutely and as your final law, Jesus must be served, the Gospels take no account of the survival and flourishing of the White peoples, or of all their beauty and creativity through the ages. Israel was reserved for the Jews, but not a single square inch of the Earth’s surface was ever divinely reserved for White people. They can be let go.

    Even better: everything that White people are and have made can be given away to other peoples, to win them to Jesus or keep them in the fold. I think this is what Christian leaders across the world are engaged in, when they support mass immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants and various sorts of affirmative action. If it results in a stable Christian dominance everywhere, then it is a good idea from a Christian point of view, even if the stability is of the Haitian sort.

    On the other hand of you say, absolutely and as your final law, that you don’t consent to the elimination of your people, that what you want is their survival and flourishing, you might as well admit outright that you are a pagan, because you have put yourself on a path that leads to praising or disparaging any god or gods, to lifting up or throwing in the dirt any banner, if only it will serve the survival of the race or tribe.

    Of course this is all idolatry to the Christians, because, well, it actually is idolatry. bgc and Proph reject it, and in the light of what they believe about eternity they are right to. It’s a no-brainer.

  32. You raise an interesting point.

    For those of us with our eyes on the hereafter and our minds on the transcendent, what use worrying about temporal, earthly things? Do science, wealth, culture and the arts tend to increase faith and obedience to God or decrease it? I guess the argument could be made that man’s creations and dominion brings glory to God as creator of Man who created all this. Or that we should strive after temporal goods because they are Good and therefore pleasing to God. Or we could go the Millenarianist route and say that these things bring us closer to the Kingdom of God on Earth and therefore to Jesus’s Second Coming.

    Interesting to think about at any rate.

  33. The Man Who Was: “Such societies already exist, in the 3rd World, but no one is in a rush to move there nor do they hold them up as things to aspire towards.”

    Since the people who live in those societies take every opportunity to occupy White lands and take the good things that White people have built, why would those who endorse the traditional, highly religious society (if need be at the expense of what is good for Whites and Western culture) and who already live in White lands move away? Why would they be morally obligated not to do what the people whose culture they endorse do?

    The Man Who Was: “Why so get worked up about the decline in science, political culture and the arts, if those things ultimately don’t matter?”

    Why get so upset if your collection of rare stamps is lost in a flood? It’s nothing in the light of eternity, but it’s human nature to cling to accustomed pleasures.

  34. bgc: “Another necessary distinction: The Reactionary Right are going to have to make a decision between preserving Christianity and preserving whites. For me the choice is obvious; and it is also obvious that what is effective policy for the one objective is not effective for the other objective.”

    Absolutely.

  35. However that is not my point and it is no part of my argument. Even if it was not true, the model stands.

  36. Good questions, important issue. Just speaking of demographics here: the Jewish birth rate and out-conversion rate are resulting in a shrinking pool of Jews, both religiously and genetically. Liberal worldview is a result more of economic/class factors than ethnic factors. The WASP/Anglo establishment in the northeast was the originators of Liberalism in America. Please see my blog for a more developed response, this is a very complex issue.

  37. @Daybreaker – Pretty fair summery, except for the bt about ‘Christian’ leaders deploying psychotic Leftism in pursuit of converts – such people are Leftists first and Christians perhaps hardly at all.

    (After all, much more devout Christians of the past many-centuries did none of these modern things nor anything remotely resembling them. I always – nowadays – check claims of modern Christians to be pursuing Christian teaching against the Saints, Holy Fathers, Byzantium, Medieval Europe, Holy Russia and the like – societies far above our own in terms of sanctity. For example, any notion that the death penalty (or war; or slavery, for that matter) is forbidden by Christian teaching is conclusively refuted by this check.).

    I think a constructive way to think of it is First and Second Things (the title of an essay by CS Lewis). It is not that Second things are unimportant, but that they can only be achieved via First things.

    Civilization is a Second thing, a by-product (it is the example Lewis uses) and no worthwhile civilization has ever been set-up as a primary aim.

    There is no blueprint for the future, since we begin from a place nobody ever began from before – however the way is clear: pursue Christianity as a First thing (trying to make the right choices), taking account of important Second things in the light of that First thing – and then see what emerges.

  38. tenkev: “Even if liberalism were to dominate for the next 300 years it will never be able to wipe out the demographic base of Christendom until it destorys the Church entirely which assurances have been made that it will not be able to do.”

    Of course the mass demographic base of Christianity is now outside the West.

    That will not pass away, but I think it will be diminished when everyone can see what happened to a race that embraced the Galilean god. Not that I care: I am perfectly indifferent to whether Christians, Cohens or Confucians inherit a world without Whites.

    Regarding the divine promises you look to…

    I don’t have any argument against those who say that Christianity will outlast liberalism because Christianity is eternal and liberalism will fade out with the conversion of the Jews, or when whatever holy things you expect to happen happen. That’s fine.

    I am talking about mere death-for-the-race, mere flesh and blood, mere history – the sort of thing that doesn’t rate a theological mention, like the end of Neanderthal Man (from the point of view of a Neanderthal man).

    I do object to people offering up baseless complacency by saying that liberalism is on its last legs, that it’s abolishing itself and so on, when they seem to mean that waiting for liberalism to abolish itself will be good enough for White and Western survival, but what is behind their words is that between their love of eternal heaven and their attenuated tribal instincts they can recontextualize destruction for their entire race as something they are not all that upset about.

  39. bgc: “@Daybreaker – Pretty fair summery, except for the bt about ‘Christian’ leaders deploying psychotic Leftism in pursuit of converts – such people are Leftists first and Christians perhaps hardly at all.”

    Thanks, bcg.

    Regarding the current behavior of Christian leaders… I take your point.

    But Socialists always put more stock in the difference between “pure Communism” and “actually existing Socialism” than non-Socialists did, and in the same way it’s natural for an unbeliever to emphasize the difference between the true nature of Christian faith and what we can see going on around us less than a sincere Christian would.

    And I would weigh “true Christianity’ more heavily with a view to its behavior in the long run, except that from my point of view there isn’t necessarily a long run.

    You said it yourself: look at what the last fifteen years have wrought.

    bgc: “I think a constructive way to think of it is First and Second Things (the title of an essay by CS Lewis). It is not that Second things are unimportant, but that they can only be achieved via First things.
    Civilization is a Second thing, a by-product (it is the example Lewis uses) and no worthwhile civilization has ever been set-up as a primary aim.”

    I need to get that out of the library and re-read it before I can usefully reply to anything based in it.

    But meantime, I cannot think of anything more primal than to insist on life, collective life, an ongoing real-world existence for one’s breed.

    I think if there is any hope it lies in people with enough “tribal feeling” to struggle for that despite all the priests and intellectuals telling them not to. Obviously it’s very doubtful if enough people like that will ever appear (given that they would have to be young people, and looking at the numbers), but they are what’s needed.

    I think with enough people like that, and Mars, Venus Genetrix and Fortuna on your side, you can build a new Rome, and bring along the priests and intellectuals later if need be.

    (Temples have been sacked for the needs of wars of national survival before now, and antique “intellectuals” told to shut up or else, and permanent impiety and ignorance did not follow.)

    Without enough of that feeling, we’re just dead. There is no step two that follows after step one: consent to death-for-the-race, and by going along with that agree with the priests, and get honey-cakes in Heaven forever.

    No offense. I respect your perspective, which has a long history. But that’s how I feel about it. And don’t think my perspective is a shallow-rooted novelty either.

  40. @Daybreaker

    You might be interested in this:

    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/characteristics-of-anti-pc-populist.html

    I revised the idea for inclusion in my Thought Prison book, the above was a first draft affair.

    I agree that common sense and spontaneity (Natural Law) are necessary for a political system, and that the Leftist inversion of these basic human dispositions is an evil, and self-destroying.

    However, taken as the highest political principle this is merely to elevate selfishness, will, power, domination to become the highest values – which is close to/ identical with Fascism.

    Now, I regard Fascism is less-wholly-evil than Communism, precisely because it is based on many aspects of Natural Law – but it is pretty bad nonetheless unless moderated by Christianity (as in Spain and Italy) – but a wholly secular (or neo-pagan) Fascism is a nightmare.

  41. Daybreaker

    In the decline of the Western Empire, it is precisely the populations – the “breed,” if you will, that did not survive. The religion did survive, with the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages and that preserved what could be salvaged of the culture, too, notably the Latin language, the traditions of municipal government and the written law, at least South of the Loire.

  42. At least in Europe, the fundamental contradictions in Liberalism have been subjected to a searching analysis from the Left. Here is a rather long quotation – It would be vandalism to abridge it – from L’insurrection qui vient, from an Anarchist perspective (comité invisible) but it is difficult to disagree with their diagnosis, which could have been written by the Schoolmen:-

    “At least in Europe, the fundamental contradictions in Liberalism have been subjected to a searching analysis from the Left. Here is a rather long quotation – It would be vandalism to abridge it – from L’insurrection qui vient, from an Anarchist perspective,( comité invisible) but it is difficult to disagree with their diagnosis, which could have been written by the Schoolmen:-

    “There is no “clash of civilizations.” There is a clinically dead civilization kept alive by all sorts of life-support machines that spread a peculiar plague into the planet’s atmosphere. At this point it can no longer believe in a single one of its own “values,” and any affirmation of them is considered an impudent act, a provocation that should and must be taken apart, deconstructed, and returned to a state of doubt. Today Western imperialism is the imperialism of relativism, of the “it all depends on your point of view”; it is the eye-rolling or the wounded indignation at anyone who is stupid, primitive, or presumptuous enough to still believe in something, to affirm anything at all. You can see the dogmatism of constant questioning give its complicit wink of the eye everywhere in the universities and among the literary intelligentsias. No critique is too radical among postmodernist thinkers, as long as it maintains this total absence of certitude. A century ago, scandal was identified with any particularly unruly and raucous negation, while today it’s found in any affirmation that fails to tremble.

    No social order can securely found itself on the principle that nothing is true. Yet it must be made secure. Applying the concept of “security” to everything these days is the expression of a project to securely fasten onto places, behaviours, and even people themselves, an ideal order to which they are no longer ready to submit. Saying “nothing is true” says nothing about the world but everything about the Western concept of truth. For the West, truth is not an attribute of beings or things, but of their representation. A representation that conforms to experience is held to be true. Science is, in the last analysis, this empire of universal verification. Since all human behaviour, from the most ordinary to the most learned, is based on a foundation of unevenly formulated presuppositions, and since all practices start from a point where things and their representations can no longer be distinguished, a dose of truth that the Western concept knows nothing about enters into every life. We talk in the West about “real people,” but only in order to mock these simpletons. This is why Westerners have always been thought of as liars and hypocrites by the people they have colonised. This is why they are envied for what they have, for their technological development, but never for what they are, for which they are rightly held in contempt. Sade, Nietzsche and Artaud wouldn’t be taught in schools if the kind of truth mentioned above was not discredited in advance. Containing all affirmations and deactivating all certainties as they irresistibly come to light-such is the long labour of the Western intellect. The police and philosophy are two convergent, if formally distinct, means to this end.”

  43. Andrew Fraser has written part 1 of what I think is a very good and relevant piece here. Woe unto the people whose spiritual leaders won’t help or even allow them to organize themselves as they need to for their national, ethic or racial survival. This is why that means woe unto WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Christian nations.

  44. That’s a very interesting quote – and an excellent example of the dangers of partially, or even mostly, correct ideologies – since on the one hand there is this very impressive diagnosis, and on the other hand it is (by the looks of it) embedded in the sheerest incoherent, wishful-thinking nonsense!

  45. @bgc

    I was interested in that. It’s a very good piece, and your list is unpleasantly plausible.

    I agree that a pro-survival common-sense movement is inherently unstable, and that this is a key merit: it will not form a lasting tyranny.

    I don’t think you give nearly the weight you should to the advantages of such a movement. For one thing, it might give answers simple enough to be understood, supported, implemented and effective in a time frame that might actually save communities.

    I abhor atheism and materialistic barbarism, and I agree that people need elites and an elite / “high” culture.

    The thing is, this instability, this lack, is vastly better than collective destruction, which is what the current elites are providing.

    Modern Christianity, in particular, is radically unadaptive on a collective level for White people. The shepherds pen up the sheep individually so that no collective defense is possible, and then invite the wolves in to eat hearty.

    From the point of view of any nativist / nationalist revival movement, it would be better to suggest that the mainstream clergy shut up than it would be to ask them to explain the Christian view on race and nation, and heed the sermons that would follow.

  46. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “In the decline of the Western Empire, it is precisely the populations – the “breed,” if you will, that did not survive.”

    Actually, I prefer the word populations, as in “population replacement”, which is what I’m concerned about. If you prefer the word populations too, great.

    Michael Paterson-Seymour: “The religion did survive, with the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages and that preserved what could be salvaged of the culture, too, notably the Latin language, the traditions of municipal government and the written law, at least South of the Loire.”

    Right. And the darkest of my suspicions is that the Catholic Church has unconsciously accepted that as a positive model. Out with the old population, in with the new, and on with the Church, re-invigorated again.

    I could argue that these new populations are different. Firstly, are the Muslim masses being into Europe turning to Christianity in droves? Or are they about to? I don’t think so. Second, are their capacities the same? Blacks are quite good at eliminating White minorities, so there are plenty of examples to look to to see what the post-White future will look like. It doesn’t look like the Renaissance.

    But, I don’t care how well the new population will serve Christianity after the old population has been replaced. I desire the collective survival and flourishing of the old populations.

  47. I care not one white for a man of skin color if he is a moral degenerate. Moral degeneracy and irreligion cause the death of cultures anyways, so what point is there in preserving a society which believes in those things? I care about my race, yes, but I care even more about my culture and tongue. If I cannot find people of my own race to preserve those things others must instead.

  48. Pardon, I meant to say “I care not one whit for a man of my skin color if he is a moral degenerate.”

  49. Can we really say the populations did not survive? Italia is still Latin.

  50. Anymouse: “Pardon, I meant to say “I care not one whit for a man of my skin color if he is a moral degenerate.”

    Nor I.

    I am not trying to persuade you to love White people or object to their replacement.

    And if you feel Whites are all degenerate and ought to be replaced by other and presumably superior races, the present system will serve you very well, and so will waiting patiently for liberalism to abolish itself.

    My point is that liberalism will not abolish itself. It destroys some peoples that become infected by it, and we can see the devastation around us, but others (particularly at the higher end of the IQ range) are more resilient to it, and I accept that the Jews are a permanent people, with the right heritable characteristics, culture and institutions to be able to promote liberalism and yet survive it to the end of time. (While profiting, whether consciously or not, from the destruction of potential rivals for control of resources, as SWPLs profit by the social destruction of their potential rivals, working class Whites.)

    So, if you want to plan for a future that includes White people, you need to plan for institutions that will help them be resilient to the cultural and demographic corrosion of liberal ideas in power. Given the extraordinary capacities of the Jewish people, neither ideas they favor nor their tendency to get to the top of the power pyramid and influence others there will be going away. We have to deal with that.

    Unless we’ll be going away. Which we are. And if that’s fine by you I have nothing else to say.

  51. And here is part 2.

  52. Seriously, I think people should read both these pieces. They are an anatomy of betrayal, and a perfect example of what not to do in the face of the permanent propagation of progressively more destructive forms of the culture of critique, backed (not only but critically) by a permanent people with a permanent tendency to become very dominant, intellectually, financially, socially, politically, legally, culturally and in mass media / technological terms.

    Woe, black woe, unto those whose religious leadership is like this.

  53. @Daybreaker – “I desire the collective survival and flourishing of the old populations.”

    Yes, but why and at what cost?

    Why do you want ‘populations’ to survive rather than just yourself and your family, or your village, city or region or nation?

    And then why arbitrarily stop at the level of your population as the focus of concern, rather than going on to include the whole of mankind? (As universalists do).

    And, even if we accept the population as the appropriate level of primary concern; then at what cost is it worth salvaging this particular gene pool? (I will leave out religious costs, since we do not share assumptions.)

    Supposing the cost of saving the population was loss of science, high art and complex culture – or a return to agrarian society?

    Supposing the cost was loss or degradation of the English language?

    Suppose the cost was massive relocation of populations?

    Supposing the cost was a society of selfishness, anger, hatred, misery and meaninglessness?

    There is a point at which the costs will be too great for the objective. So clearly there cannot be a single objective – but a primary objective and some secondary ones – aiming at population preservation but with certain constraints.

    My point is that this is a pretty complex set of demands, yet the set of demands is essentially arbitrary – this is not a spontaneous upwelling of instinctive human feelings. I see no evidence that people ever have en masse and spontaneously wanted what you want.

    Sure, there has been plenty of nationalism in the past couple of centuries, but not at the population level – indeed nationalist type thinking (followed by distortedly anti-nationalist thinking) within Europe destroyed (pretty much) the European population – or at least crippled it.

    To get people to want what *you* want would involve a lot of education/ propaganda/ coercion – but where will this come from? given that there clearly is no populist movement wanting all this stuff and ready to be mobilized…

    In general, my feeling is that an effective populist political movement starts from what the population already wants – and this isn’t it.

  54. @bgc, I disagree with what you are asserting, but this is a Christian and not a White Nationalist blog, and not the place to argue my side.

    Briefly, I do not agree that survival is the sort of thing that should be weighed only in terms of costs. I find your list of possible costs bizarre. I do not agree that “this is not a spontaneous upwelling of instinctive human feelings”. I don’t agree that my level of concern is arbitrary.

    And mainly, starting from what the population already wants now likely means aiming at a more immersive 3D home theater and gaming experience at an affordable cost, and probably drugs without severe side effects to keep people going calmly on, while the world outside their windows and doors keeps getting worse and worse.

    That’s a reasonable guess at what people want, based on how I see them acting and spending their money. And it’s an understandable reaction to a tremendously toxic social environment where people feel lacking in power, because they are. But it’s not the optimum starting point for an effective populist political movement.

  55. Yes, but people who agree that truth exists can be persuaded to seek it. Rejection of the liberal suicide of the intellect is a vital first step.

  56. @MP-S – fair point. It worked that way for me – but it took an awfully long time!

  57. “Michael Paterson-Seymour: “The religion did survive, with the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages and that preserved what could be salvaged of the culture, too, notably the Latin language, the traditions of municipal government and the written law, at least South of the Loire.”
    Right. And the darkest of my suspicions is that the Catholic Church has unconsciously accepted that as a positive model. Out with the old population, in with the new, and on with the Church, re-invigorated again.”

    Well, I certainly do think so. The Scandinavian savages who settled in Normandy and mixed with the Romano-Celtic and Frankish populations certainly did produce an new and more vigorous type, if their exploits in Britain, Sicily and the Holy Land are anything to go by. The North of Italy was heavily settled by the Lonbards, the South had many Greek settlements; the Romano-British population received an admixture of Angle, Saxon, Jutish and Danish elements and I am typing this post in a Low German dialect.

    All of these must have appeared unpromising material to people like poor, old Sidonius Appolonaris (a bishop and one of the last of the Romans) whose laments afford us so much amusement.

  58. On a personal note, the Scottish Seymours are French immigrants, from Saint-Maur-des-Fossés in the Ile-de-France, who came to Britian with the Normans.

    For a more exotic connection, A maternal ancestor of mine, Lt-Col William Linnaeus Gardner (b. 1770) served in the 74th Highlanders amd, in 1809 raised, at Farrukhabad and Mainpuri, the famous cavalry corps known as “Gardner’s Horse.” In 1796, he married (by Muslim rites), Nawab Mah Manzilunnissa Begum Dehlivi a princess of Cambay, afterwards adopted as daughter by Padshah Akbar Shah, Emperor of Delhi. Such an inter-racial marriage was no new thing in the Gardner family; he was descended from Col Jonathan Gale of Fullerswood, Parish of St Elizabeth, Jamaica, who, in 1699, had married a West African slave, Eleanor.

    Gardner’s granddaughter, Susan Gardner [Sabia Begum], married Mirza Anjan Shikoh, son of Shahzada Mirza Suleiman Shikoh of the Delhi Imperial Family. He was the grandson of Padshah-e Hind (Emperor of India) Jalal ad-Din Abu´l Mozaffar Mohammad Ali Gauhar Shah Alam II (1759/1788). Such family connections were quite common in the days of the old East India Company, right up until the Indian Mutiny of 1857.

    As a direct descendant of Sabia Begum, I must have any number of Muslim ancestors of varying degrees of orthodoxy and observance from the first Mughal Emperor, Zahir ud-Din Mohammad (Babur) onwards.

    Of course, it also makes me a lineal descendant of Genghis Khan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: