John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.

       

(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.

Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’

And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.

I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.

And there are two big questions:

1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?

That’s question number one.

2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?

Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?

Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.

Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.

I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.

Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.

I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.

However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.

But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.

The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.

Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.

I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:

A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.

B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.

C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences

D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”

There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.

Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.

.....

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.

Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

Comment under a Josh Neal interview of “Aarvoll”, NAL #79: Building a Peer Academy w/Aarvoll, 21 Sept 2019:

Josh, I don’t know how much the concern about your recent guests “rambling, stammering and mumbling” has been directed at me and my talk with you, but I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and my ideas because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

I am not against anyone doing things well for our people if they are doing things well. I have long felt that philosophy should be among the very first things that students are taught in schools, not something put on hold until graduate school.

I don’t know who is participating in Aarvoll’s virtual philosophical academe, but there can be a concern that it provides a means to recruit, divert, infiltrate and subvert advocacy of European peoples (our social systemic homeostasis).

I haven’t looked into Aarvol enough to go beyond pointing out the few things in the discussions of his that jump out. I liked his critique of Doolittle. Aarvoll is clearly intelligent, brings up several good philosophical ideas, including philosophy per se.

As I have said, I believe philosophy is fundamental. And it is fine to continually deepen our philosophical knowledge. However, a point of knowledge can be reached when practical matters can occupy more of our concern, the practical matter which is now urgent, that is defending our people against charges of racism and supremacism.

That is an attack on our group and requires a group defense - and White Post Modern understanding as opposed to this weaponized Cartesiansim/Modernity - the time for explaining the hindrances and correcting the misunderstandings is now. Perhaps a thorough understanding of Pythagoras can help and far be it from me to prevent people from sharpening their understanding of the world…

However, when I hear people saying that “truth” is their priority, without indicating a realization that there are different truths to attend to; that attending to one truth may entail neglecting others (like getting a philosophical handle on the post modern turn to anthropecentrism - our relative interests as such), I get the sense that someone is trying to put across a bum steer from the White Post Modern project as it needs to be understood for the sake of our well being and survival.

Aarvoll did call attention to Aristotle’s anthropocentric idea that politics should be the first concern, so I don’t want to presume that he is merely giving bum steers by any means.

But then there is the matter of Aarvoll saying that he cares about truth and that he is a Christian - how is that reconciled? And how is its universalism really suited to the survival of our people (if you allow for people to read the texts themselves, that is).

He does say that he is a Catholic and acknowledges that it considers itself the universal church .... again, this universalizing that runs obliviously rough shod over profound biological differences, species, is a large part of our problem, our liberal/modern predicament.

I don’t know if he is accusing me in particular, but if he thinks that I am proposing faddish, “sexy ideas” that aren’t very important, that haven’t been tested, then the superficiality is in his interpretation.

I heard more talk of (((Moldbug))) in the context of this “neo-abolutist"idea. That’s not a good sign. Participation in controlled opposition should not be encouraged.

And yes, I do believe that Christianity - the oldest and grandest form of controlled opposition - is a means to bring us under the Jewish/Abrahamic yoke.

These entanglements, along with the red flags that Joel Davis triggered, would have me advise caution as to how my input is assessed - because I know my will for our people is good and I know what I am talking about.

Furthermore, I hope that you will give me a chance to discuss and promote the DNA Nations concept with you - it is certainly as important to curate and coordinate our genetic defense as it is to quibble over the minutiae of philosophy or for right wingers to straw man me when their one upmanship fails in essence.