Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in application to Whites.

I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.

The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.

They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false representation on the level of the misrepresentative term.

At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.

1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”

The underlying idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.

This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.

At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, keeping them accountable as members of the class, while also keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.

All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortions such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create wealth for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left / native nationalist left.

There would not be an imposed economic class division in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class: class, union, nation and people (in our case Whites and native Whites) would be synonymous.

In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extent of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our subjective and relative social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people and it should as we are not only easily made to look like “the bad guys”, but are, in fact, dangerous in being bereft of sufficient accountability; made easy to defeat as the factual necessity of our cooperation is not sufficiently recognized and we remain disorganized in obsolete philosophy.

2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.

The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.

3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesian runaway and facilitate systemic homeostasis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. Thus, the lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, that would contradict the very anti-Cartesian premises of these ideas; in fact, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. They are meant to correct the “scientism” which can result from myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as blindered focus on moment or episode, the individual as socially unrelated, or the linear cause and effect of physics models to the detriment of how interactive, agentive, biological creatures can and do act in broad view of systemic homeostasis.

These concepts importantly serve to correct the bad science put forth as evidence for anti-racistm, scientism evident in the statement by Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project -
 
                     
                            —Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist

  “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”

.. by which he means that there are no important differences to justify discrimination.

While maintenance of the social group must admit to at least a tad of relativism and subjectivity in its interests, this admission is also an “admission” of a modicum of agency and choice; which thus lends itself by this admission to the stabilizing gauge of group criteria and the answerable, corrective means of its social accountability. This is stable in a way that attempts of pure objectivism are not - as its lack of social accountability tends to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relatvism. Spencer Well’s objectivism has the reflexive effect of being susceptible to having him espouse a destructive hyper-relativism in line with that espoused by pedestrian liberals or Marxist Jews.

Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper could correct this by adding dimensions of subjective and relative social accountability; thus coherence in historical process through accountability to historical social capital, manifest and situated delimitations, agency in racial re-construction and warrant in manifest and situated group evolution; but the Jewish red capes over these terms reverse the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.

However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigour - warranted assertability.

Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.

As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying in order to make sense of their argument: if they are suggesting something is a ‘mere’ social construct”, then there is no physical, interactive and interpersonal accountability and it is Cartesian.

4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernity properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.

The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.

5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.

6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hermeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.

Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.

7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.

Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendable in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religious ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; while in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Cartesian being there* amidst our people.

* or “being of”, as GW prefers.

8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of discourse’s red cape once again.

9. The Jewish affectation of Christianity posed as “the moral order” for Europeans. The necessary good of a European moral order is dismissed right along with the red cape of Christianity or some “false” version of Christianity.

Unlike right-wing WN, I’m not chasing the red cape of Jewish twisted terms, I’ve gored the sucker through the mouth.

We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…

READ MORE...

No, not a commitment to the 14 Words, but evergreen news of dedication to Israel:           
 
“For me, and for this entire Administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is ROCK SOLID, UNWAVERING, ENDURING, and FOREVER!”
                                                                                                  - Hillary

READ MORE...

26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
Tanstaafl says, *Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea.*

It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.

Daniel A, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”

To which I say, Daniel A,  Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.

Good riddance to you.

Tan says:

“DanielS, you write so much, even though it’s very simple:”

He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.

Then Tan says:

I get it. You think Hitler was bad for Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it. Suffice it to say I understand jewish parasitism (and to your point, judeo-bolshevism) came before Hitler. You forget the pathogen. I don’t.

You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.

Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.

Tan:

All the rest of what you’re saying stems from this disagreement.

No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said - “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.” - let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.

Tan:

“You get so wound up that you can’t even read what I’m writing straight. For example:

  Wait a minute! I don’t criticize anything you say about the Jews!

Exactly. You’d like me to focus on the jews then you call that monocausalist/myopic. You are rambling and incoherent. Your mind is clouded with emotion.

I’m not going to change what, where or who I say it to just because it upsets you. Get over it already

I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle and purporting to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.

Now calm your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:

Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..

For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).

I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset misapplied to praxis: the social world, requiring negotiation, correction and adjustment by and for its interactive reflexivity and complex human agency; a complexity negotiated by means of phronesis - viz., practical judgement requiring of its kind of necessity therefore, a negotiated surveying process.

In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..

or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”

.......
Jews are an overriding source of our problems from their elites, as they exercise influence from 7 powerful niches, which I do not short-shrift; and as a whole people in their inherent genetic proclivities, from which I do not seek-out “the good ones” to include in our group; but objectivism, for example, as it disrupts organizational* abilities in our defense against them, is another problem.

* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.

The inquiry into our own responses, or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might obstruct and suppress them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to whom is resisting and promoting our dispossession.

Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.

Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
It is Not innocent.
It is prejudiced,
It is hurting and
It is killing people.

These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.

The two aphorisms can go well together:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.

The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.” 

That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.

Other Mantras - -

Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
“If we had our own country this would not be happening.”
Optional - “If White people had their own country this would not be happening.”

Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.

Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).

Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.

Here are two more aphorisms/mantras that I have found to work well over the years:

You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?

This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:

To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.

                                            - By Dr. Graham Lister

Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an apriori exemption from this process is beyond me.

Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.

Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.

Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).

Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).

Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’

OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.

As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they’re still good points that I agree with about 90%

No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.

Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?

If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.

Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.

Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
 
There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so- called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and always in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
 
Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Un- socialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.
 
Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in downward spiral. In individual- istic societies freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.
 
Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.
 
                     

The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.                         

As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
 
The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subject- ivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it isn’t true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what’s ratio- nal to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear the name, are to be mild quirks of self, slight hues in otherwise grey smears of bureaucratic massification.
                     
The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
[2] A. Kolnai, “Privilege and Liberty” (1949), in Privilege & Liberty & Other Essays in Political Philosophy, ed.D.J.Mahoney(Lanham, Maryland:Lexington Books,‘99),p.21-2.

READ MORE...

On the radio page now, Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talks to GW and Daniel about the crisis confronting our race, about liberalism and modernity, and about Martin Heidegger, his revolutionary 1927 opus Being and Time..
                 
..and its meaning and utility for identitarians in the liberal age.