Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 31 March 2017 11:47.
Classical liberals make a two-paragraph declaration of obsolescence
No one ever thought that classical liberals would ever get
around to actually acknowledging that they are
fine with getting you and your family killed by roving bands of Islamic
‘migrants’ who are permanently conducting hijra for the past 1400 years
and are always looking for a new location to park their
reactionary socio-economic caravan of rampant misogyny, homophobia,
mestizaje and genocide, but here it is:
Well good God, of course it is morally wrong for nations to
pursue their “self-interest” in anything, and especially in border
control policies. People have self-interests that matter, morally;
nations do not. Nations are toxic hellholes of false identity and
purveyors of monstrous political violence.
Nations are not rational people; they are not free
associations or contractual agreements; they are unchosen, coercively
assembled collectives, whose interests are typically an abortion of, if
not an outright war against, the moral interests of individual people
which actually deserve to be cultivated, practiced and respected. For
anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve
no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.
So, there is that. That happened. A classical liberal man
actually wrote those paragraphs, and he was not intoxicated when he
That excerpt really is basically a two-paragraph
declaration of ideological obsolescence on the part of classical liberalism.
Apparently if you pre-emptively use force so as to prevent
your enemies from pillaging your lands and killing your family, that
makes you ‘a bad person’ or something. Crucially though, it also
happens to make you a winner, which I think is the most important thing.
Separately, Charles Johnson is indeed correct when he says
that nations are ‘coercively assembled collectives’ which wage
‘outright war’ against ‘the moral interests of individual people’. The
process of state formation is indeed an inherently violent array of
actions from which all other actions of the state cannot be extricated,
and the law itself is essentially an opinion with guns and detention
facilities behind it. That is completely true.
With that said, though. Does anyone actually care?
Literally nobody even cares, so whatever
When asked to choose between the ‘liberty’ to have some
individuals make moral choices in complete chaos and uncertainty,
versus the ‘monstrous political violence’ of the state which creates
stability and guarantees the safe existence of the people from which
actual prosperity flows, the people should always choose the state.
Liberty has to be properly understood as not ‘freedom from’,
but rather ‘freedom to’. The task of the state is to steer a course
that allows for the flourishing of prosperity without
undermining the social-economic position of the dominant class which
creates and reproduces state power, and without significantly
undermining the ethnic composition of the people within the jurisdiction
of the state’s territory, as genes are a productive force and as such
are a factor in the creation of the prosperity atop which the state
Talking to the invaders is useless
If someone virtue-signalled to Arabs through enacting
lax border policies and then framed it as an act of kindness in the social
media domain in the hopes that this would somehow smooth integration
(still a stupid idea, of course, as integration is a stupid idea), it would actually be just liberals
signalling to other
liberals in a de facto echo chamber, because
Arabs actually barely
find time to read their own Arabic print media much less finding time
to read English language in the social media domain. This is a fact
that is known among
most security consultants and among almost anyone who has ever been
in Information Operations in Mesopotamia after 2003. ‘The Arab man in
the street’ does not read.
The Arab guy in the street has a political understanding gleaned from
the oral pronouncements of his local Imam, a surface level
understanding of current events from Arab language television, and a
tangle of mutually contradictory conspiracy theories shared orally or
across social media. In the case where social media is used,
engagement-rates among Arabs are low, which is to say, they do not
actually click links.
Almost 100% of the hearts and minds
‘messaging’ that classical liberal thinktanks who are trying to ‘defend
values’ have engaged in, has actually been sent into an echo chamber of
and Americans congratulating each other for crafting increasingly
sophisticated narratives which all point toward strategically stupid
conclusions which undermine European security.
Meanwhile, the mostly male Arab Muslim migrant wave has been
ignoring it all while sitting in an ideological trash dumpster of
misogyny and homophobia, as they despise all the progressive gains that
have been made in regions of the world other than theirs. They have no
respect for any other ethnic group and they believe that it is their
mission to demographically infest the whole planet.
Safe beneath the watchful eyes
Without security there can be no real freedom. Most people
this almost instinctively, and that is for example why the United
Kingdom’s referendum on membership of the European Union delivered up a
The British people have displayed a revealed
preference for the untrammelled full spectrum dominance of
security state led by Theresa May and Amber Rudd, rather than a
European Union which has fallen under the de facto control of Angela
We can conclude from this that the British people
enjoy actually winning at counter-terrorism more than they enjoy
virtue-signalling to a foaming tide of Arab Muslim ‘migrants’ who can
barely find time to read their own Arabic print media much less reading
English in the social media domain.
The British people don’t actually believe in classical
liberalism. They believe in being real people. And that is a reason for
Classical liberal ‘freedom’ supposes that individuals can be
abstracted from their origins, their environment, the context in which
they live and where they exercise their choices, that is to say,
abstracted from everything that makes them who they are specifically,
and not someone else. It supposes that the individual is always prior
to her ends. However, there is nothing that can prove that the
individual can apprehend herself as a subject completely free of any
allegiance, free of any form of determinism. There is no reason why she
would prefer that form of ‘freedom’ over any other social good. Such a
conception ignores commitments and attachments to clans
or spiritual sects, bonds of blood and soil, long-term
economic class interests, and the fact that nations are the deepest and
most enduring source of political experience. Classical liberal
‘freedom’ is a purely formal conception, which is completely incapable
of capturing the rich tapestry of what a real person is.
The real person seeks ‘love’ and ‘eternity’. ‘Love’ is the
wish that someone or something should continue to flourish forever, or at least,
that they should ‘get the last word’ in the world before the
story of humanity ends. In that sense, love is a desire to pursue
victory and create a meaning where there was originally none. When
standing alone, the individual is always defeated and approaching death
alone is the most final of all defeats. But while death is a threshold
which must be crossed and can only be crossed
alone, it does not have to be approached
alone. If the individual can pool her identity with the group, so that
she becomes one with the will of the group as it solves the historical
tasks which have been placed before it, then she is all-seeing and
all-knowing forever and ever—capable of knowing what she is, and
what she can become. She is really free and has attained
Victory becomes attainable. We become the gendarmes who
protect the actualisation of eternal love so that others can become
part of it. We never die because this empire never dies, as it is
constructed not only in the physical domain, but is also fortified in
the domain of the mind. As such, we are expected to fight eternally for
We are not afraid of the conflicts that
lie ahead and we are not sorry about anything.
Because love will emerge victorious over terror.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Forward, “5 Reasons Tim Kaine Will Be the Jewiest Vice President Pick for Hillary Clinton,” 22 July 2016:
Tim Kaine is Hillary Clinton’s pick for Vice President, somewhat to the chagrin of the Democratic Party’s left wing and the — somewhat premature — excitement of Wikipedia. He has one of the longest records of service in politics among the people on Clinton’s shortlist, going back to his 1997 election as the mayor of Richmond, Virginia.
Kaine has also been a friend to the Jewish community for about as long as he’s been in public service. During his various campaigns, Kaine has repeatedly reached out to the Jewish community, conducted interviews with Jewish leaders and spoken about America’s relationship with Israel.
“He made himself very available to the Jewish community,” said Ron Halber, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington. “He took the Jewish community very seriously as a constituency,” even though it only represented a small portion of the Virginia electorate.
But Kaine is connected to the Jewish community in several other ways, as well. Here are five facts about Tim Kaine’s relationship to Judaism and Israel.
1. He supports a two-state solution even when others don’t.
Kaine is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East, Central Asia and terrorism, and held the chairmanship of the committee for two years. In March, he signed a letter, along with twenty-six other senators, urging President Obama to continue his support for the two-state solution. His predecessor as chairman of the subcommittee on the Middle East and terrorism, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, didn’t sign the letter.
Kaine’s decision to skip Bibi Netanyahu’s speech in Congress in March 2015 was also widely noticed throughout Washington. It was a clear message: Kaine did not agree with the timing of the talk, and Netanyahu’s perceived political motivations for delivering it before the Israeli elections.
“I’m not dumb, I knew not going to the speech might make some folks mad with me — there would be a political price, but I felt so strongly as a matter of principle that this was done in an entirely inappropriate way,” Kaine told the Forward.
Ron Halber, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said that it would be “a foolish mistake” to interpret Kaine’s move as being in any way unsupportive of Israel.
“He is keenly aware of the security challenges” in the region, Halber said.
2. He’s a religious Catholic, so he understands the imperatives, and difficulties, of observance.
Kaine is a dedicated, practicing Catholic who represents the Democratic party at the Senate’s weekly prayer breakfast on Wednesdays. He is also a member of a “reflection group,” along with six other senators, that holds faith-centered discussions. Though he does not personally agree with abortion, he sees a woman’s right to make decisions about her body as an important right, and does not support anti-abortion legislation. As a Catholic he’s used to being viewed as an outsider by white Protestants.
When Kaine found himself living in D.C., away from his wife, he decided to write a bible commentary on weeknights.
“He could’ve chosen to find other ways to address his loneliness that were either chemical or social in nature,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance. “But he spotted the opportunity for deeper social reflection into a piece of scripture that particularly spoke to him.”
3. He brought hummus to Virginia.
During his time as the governor of Virginia, Sabra built the what is reportedly the world’s largest hummus factory outside Richmond, capable of producing 8,000 tons of hummus a month. Kaine was apparently directly involved.
“He’s the man who brought Sabra hummus to Virginia,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, the Executive Director of Interfaith Alliance. According to Moline, Kaine “wooed” the company to set up shop in his state.
Kaine authorized $350,000 from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund to help bring the project to fruition, beating out two other states for the privilege of being at the heart of American hummus production.
4. He’s hosted a Passover Seder — multiple times.
In 2006, during his first year as governor of Virginia, he hosted the first ever Passover Seder in the governor’s mansion. He is apparently part of a group of friends that rotates hosting the Seder each year, and that year it happened to be his turn. It also wasn’t his first time hosting — his home had been a slot in the rotating group for several years before his election.
5. He played “Yente,” matchmaking for Rabbi Jack Moline’s daughter.
Moline’s daughter and son-in-law met while working on Kaine’s campaign for governor of Virginia in 2005.
“If he hadn’t run for governor, I wouldn’t be a grandfather,” said Moline.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her vice-presidential running mate by text to supporters today. She will unveil U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, formally tomorrow.
Virginia’s Kaine is a centrist pro-Israel choice who should please moderate Jewish voters as Hillary’s No. 2.
“He’s not going to appeal to the Bernie Sanders voters. He’s a centrist,” Ron Halber, executive director of the Greater Washington JCRC, told the Forward. Halber has forged a relationship with Kaine both as governor and as senator.
Kaine might offer some ammunition to Israel hawks as an early endorser of the Iranian nuclear deal, and like her he chose to skip Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.
5 Questions for Tim Kaine on Israel
But as a middle-of-the-road-Democrat and a co-sponsor of Iran-related legislation, Kaine made choices that, when it came to the nuclear deal, drew attention in the pro-Israel community.
“I’m not dumb, I knew not going to the speech might make some folks mad with me — there would be a political price,” Kaine told the Forward shortly after. “But I felt so strongly as a matter of principle that this was done in an entirely inappropriate way.”
Kaine, who has also served as head of the Democratic National Committee, has visited Israel several times and has supported the funding of Iron Dome systems and the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. Halber noted that he was a “very good friend” of the U.S.-Israel partnership, but he added that if chosen as vice president, he may want to see movement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. “His social background and his sympathy to the oppressed will likely make him want to see a solution,” he said, “but he will also support defending Israel in the U.N. and expanding the relationship.”
Kaine is a member of a small group of senators who participate in a biweekly reflection group organized by the Faith and Politics Institute.
“I had many, many personal deep conversations with him, and he is genuinely a friend of Israel,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, one of the group’s moderators. Moline believes that much of Kaine’s worldview was shaped during his work as a Jesuit missionary in Honduras. “It had an immense influence on his understanding of the need to make the world a better place.”
In Virginia, Kaine hosted the first Passover Seder in the governor’s mansion.
Before entering the U.S. Senate the well-liked Kaine had been the mayor of Richmond, governor of Virginia and chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Kaine, 58, is a fluent Spanish speaker after serving as a missionary in Honduras, and his presence on the ticket could help Clinton in Virginia, a heavily contested swing state.
Another senator, Cory Booker of New Jersey, along with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack were among the final contenders.
The announcement had been expected. The Wall Street Journal, citing Democrats familiar with the search, had said she was likely to make the announcement on Friday and Kaine was believed to be the pick.
Clinton, a former secretary of state, will be formally nominated as the party’s presidential candidate at next week’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Her choice of Kaine as running mate could provide an early signal about her plan of battle against Trump.
Picking Kaine, a veteran mainstay of the Democratic establishment with plenty of governing experience, emphasizes her message that Democrats will offer a serious, steady alternative to the unpredictable Trump after the chaotic Republican convention that closed on Thursday.
Booker, a charismatic rising star in the party, would have given her candidacy a jolt of energy as Clinton enters the three-month grind of the general election. Booker, 47, would have been the first black vice president and his help might still be vital to boost turnout among young and African-American voters.
Other potential contenders on Clinton’s short list included U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a liberal favorite, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Hispanic Cabinet members Julian Castro and Thomas Perez.—With Reuters
This article was updated at 8pm EST to reflect Hillary Clinton’s announcement of her running mate.
In the blog section of French media outlet, Nouve L’obs, a doctor wrote that any woman who votes for Front National (French anti-mass immigration party) has a “reptilian brain” and should be raped and impregnated to produce “multicolored descendants.”
Thierry Lecoquierre, a Medical Doctor from Le Havre in Upper Normandy, has been reported to the Council of Doctors for his article, which has now been deleted from the website.
His article titled “Impregnate the female of the National Front” says this:
“Right wing women do not appear less mammal than other women, even if they have a bigger than average reptilian brain . As any woman, it is subject to hormonal moods. With a feature that ethnology confirms to us : she gets especially wet for rough men.”
“These female FN sympathizers certainly offer us means to beat them. As each right-wing female appreciates the military and the macho, loathes feminist ideas, let’s play her game: Let’s take her at her own game, let’s take her and fuck her.”
“Since they give us the recipes for crossbreeding their pale race, use it against her side. Let’s sexually overcome these stupid right wing females, for the survival of a smiling humanity. Because they are stupid and easily tricked, like game going to the hunter, things should be easier. Let’s create a curly descent (not German mind you!) let’s curlify this “other-hating”, frightened France.”
“Refusing the advances of family planning, every pregnancy will result in a little half-breed or a mongrel, an artist that tomorrow she will eventually like.”
“Blacks, Negroes, gooks, Jews, leftists, gypsies, disabled, Freemasons and even my gay friends, in solidarity: bring up your hard dicks! Let our consciences sleep under the pillow, and jump on the right-wing pussies offered (unfortunately sometimes pretty!) Hail to a vast altruistic copulation. Provide multicolored descendants to the sinking country of France.”
“With one goal: kill right-wing poison in the egg.”
As of yet, there has been no reaction from French authorities to this shockingly anti-White article.
While most anti-Whites prefer to take a more subtle approach using code words like “diversity”, Lecoquierre is very blatant in saying what he wants: White genocide in France
The Polish Episcopate has published an extensive condemnation of anti-semitism on the 50th anniversary of a landmark Vatican declaration on relations with non-Christian religions.
In a special pastoral letter entitled ‘The shared spiritual heritage of Christians and Jews’, the Episcopate stressed that “anti-semitism and anti-Judaism are sins against the love of thy neighbour.”
The letter notes that the Church organises an annual ‘Day of Judaism’, affirming however that “Christian-Jewish dialogue must never be treated as ‘the religious hobby’ of a small group of enthusiasts, but it should increasingly become part of the mainstream of pastoral work.”
The Polish clerics also acknowledged that the Holocaust, which was planned by “Nazi Germany and largely carried out on the territory of occupied Poland,” nevertheless “sometimes met with indifference among certain Christians.”
According to the Episcopate, “if Christians and Jews had practised religious brotherhood in the past, more Jews would have found help and support from Christians.”
In that respect, the Espiscopate particularly praises the ‘Righteous among Nations’ who “risked their lives and those of their loved ones, heroically rescuing Jews” during the war. Under the Nazi occupation, giving shelter to Jews by Poles was punishable by death.
“In many places in our country there are no Jews, only traces of their religion and culture, often in neglected cemeteries,” the letter notes.
“The Love of thy neighbour, and the spiritual bond with our older brothers in the faith obliges us to care for the places that bear witness to the centuries-long presence of Jews in Poland and the memory of their contribution to the culture of our multinational and multireligious country.”
The document pays tribute to the conciliatory efforts of previous members of the Roman Catholic Church, including Polish pontiff Pope John Paul II, who was the first pope to visit a synagogue, and a committed leader of dialogue with Jews.
The so-called ‘Nostra aetate’ (In our time) declaration made during the Second Vatican Council 50 years ago under Pope Paul VI is regarded as a breakthrough regarding relations with non-Christian religions.
During the communist era, academic debate concerning the Holocaust was largely frozen in Poland.
An anti-Zionist campaign led by the government in 1968 compelled several thousand Polish Jews who had survived the war to emigrate. After that, Jewish issues were taboo in many aspects of officially endorsed Polish culture.
It was not until the 1980s that a reassessment of Polish-Jewish relations began in earnest, a trend that gathered pace following the collapse of communism in 1989.
Previously little discussed stains on Poland’s wartime treatment of Jews have been highlighted in recent years, owing to books such as Jan Gross’s Neighbours (2001), which focused on what had been a largely forgotten massacre of Jews by ethnic Poles in the town of Jedwabne, north eastern Poland.
Such issues remain highly emotive and divisive in Poland. (nh/rk)
Under any sane ethno-nationalist framework, the burden should not be on ethno-nationalists to explain why Jews ‘should be regarded as a separate people who ought to live outside of Europe’, the burden instead should be on everyone else to explain and to attempt to justify why Jews ‘should be allowed’ to persistently be part of Europe while not being European.
For every other non-European population group whose people are inside Europe in any number, that is how the burden of proof works when having that discussion. You have to prove how you are useful to Europe, at the very least. But mysteriously, when it comes to the issue of Jews, that burden of proof is reversed. Why?
Is it because Jews can ‘pass as white’?
Or is it because of extensive application of guilt narratives in the post war environment?
Or is it because Christianity is part of the Judaic jurisdiction?
Oh, actually, it’s probably all of the above.
Adrean Arlott wrote an article back in May 2013 in which he touched on this issue in a broad sense within the United States:
I have been debating Christianity’s lack of virtues today. I ask you this: Does Christianity do more to help or hurt White people? If we consider anti-racist to be code word for anti-White, then I vote it hurts White people.
Orthodox Church: (Source)
...we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness.
Catholic Church: (Source)
We begin with three facts. First, racism exists here; it is part of the American landscape. Second, racism is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, all baptized Catholics have a moral obligation to work toward the elimination of racism.
Episcopal Church: (Source)
Racism is totally inconsistent with the Gospel, therefore, must be confronted and eradicated. Basing its message on the baptismal covenant, the Bishops invited all baptized Christians to enter into a new covenant to fight racism and, “proclaim the vision of God’s new creation in which the dignity of every human being is honored.”
Baptist Church: (Source)
“We are all saddened when any sin, including the sin of racism, rears its head,” said Southern Baptist Convention spokesman Sing Oldham. “Part of our gospel is that we are being redeemed. We are flawed, failed creatures and redemption is a process.”
Westboro Baptist Church (Source)
...the Scripture doesn’t support racism. God never says “thou shalt not be black.” However, He does say, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).
Mormon Church: (Source)
“The church’s position is clear,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. “We believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent,” Purdy said. “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”
Lutheran Church: (Source)
Racism is one of the most destructive sins in today’s world. It refuses to honor God’s mighty acts in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Racism simply does not trust the gospel. It builds on human pride and prejudice, abusing power for selfish advantage. Racism dishonors God, neighbor, and self. It rejects the meaning in God’s becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, because in rejecting another person one rejects Jesus Christ.
Presbyterian Church: (Source)
The Dismantling Racism and Privilege Ministry Team assists the presbytery in its commitment to dismantle racism and privilege. Its purpose is to increase awareness and work toward the eradication of intentional and unintentional racism and privilege at critical decision points in the life of the presbytery, and to assist sessions and congregations in dismantling racism and privilege among our church constituency.
Methodist Church: (Source)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United Methodist Church is focusing on racism and promoting diversity with more vigor than ever. It is actively promoting more inclusiveness and diversity in its institutions and leadership. One of its 14 churchwide agencies, the Commission on Religion and Race, focuses on those issues, and caucuses such as Black Methodists for Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans also keep them in front of the church. Through programs such as Strengthening the Black Church for the 21st Century, the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries, the Council on Korean-American Ministries and the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the denomination is building up racial-ethnic congregations.
Pretty interesting, Adrean Arlott had done a good service to his readers when he pointed that out to them.
The fact that Arlott has drawn attention to this in the past, should provide even more of a context to how well-known and well-understood it is to ethno-nationalists, that Christian churches are not capable of being allies of ethno-nationalists and never will be. Even the most cynical political calculations could not bring anyone to the conclusion that organised Christianity could be utilised in the defence of anyone’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI).
It’s so bad in fact, that the Christian churches promote not only white genocide—not even metaphorically but literally—but also for the rest of the planet they offer nothing other than genocide either.
For example, plenty of church bodies espouse the position of mass mestizaje for Central Americans, thus advocating the continuation of the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas.
So really, in what world would anyone think that ethnic advocacy from ‘a Christian perspective’ could ever be possible? In what retarded world is ‘cultural Christianity’—which is to say, the idea of a political alliance between Christianity and ethno-nationalism—even a thing that could be worth considering for more than five seconds? It’s just completely ridiculous.
The real and actually-existing physical manifestation of Christianity is one which is intrinsically opposed to the existence of pretty much everyone’s ethnic groups. It’s not that Christianity somehow acquired an ethnicity-destroying agenda after the year 1968. It was already doing that from the start, it’s just that the ‘anti-racist’ cultural phenomenon that manifested in the west after 1968 offered Christianity the ability to express its full ‘anti-racist’ potential while uninhibited by secular interference.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 27 September 2015 07:53.
Why not? Seriously, why not? It’s all the same to the conservatives at the National Review, right? That’s what they themselves are saying! So let’s do this.
After being heckled on Twitter for being an apparent ‘cuckservative’ or something to that effect, National Review contributor David French decided to take to the safe space that is whatever CMS the National Review uses, to write out a long and rambling article where he claims that the ‘far-right’ and the ‘far-left’ are the same thing because they both disagree with him on the racialised-classised nature of reality itself, and they both disagree with him on the exact same issue for the exact same reason.
It has not crossed David French’s mind yet that the reason that both the ‘far-right’ and the ‘far-left’ disagree with the National Review, is because the National Review is denying biological realities while clinging desperately to a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth.
It’s almost like no one at the National Review has even the slightest sense of self-awareness.
Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.” Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.
The last time conservatives tried that one, they got punched in the head from both sides. That’s what happens when their argument is trash.
But since ‘far-right’ and ‘far-left’ are all the same to David French now, I might as well quote Leon Trotsky being correct about a thing which is obvious, since it doesn’t really matter which side of the spectrum I choose to source this argument from:
And who are all these democratic moralists? Ideologists of intermediary layers who have fallen, or are in fear of falling between the two fires. The chief traits of the prophets of this type are alienism to great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality, smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice.More than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in peace with their petty books, little magazines, subscribers, common sense, and moral copy books. But history does not leave them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right. ‘Clearly’ – revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism, communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism – are all ‘twins’. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists.
Moralists of the Anglo-Saxon type, in so far as they do not confine themselves to rationalist utilitarianism, the ethics of bourgeois bookkeeping, appear conscious or unconscious students of Viscount Shaftesbury, who at the beginning of the 18th century deduced moral judgments from a special “moral sense” supposedly once and for all given to man. Supra-class morality inevitably leads to the acknowledgment of a special substance, of a ’’moral sense’’, ’’conscience’’, some kind of absolute which is nothing more than the philosophic-cowardly pseudonym for god. Independent of “ends”, that is, of society, morality, whether we deduce it from eternal truths or from the “nature of man”, proves in the end to be a form of “natural theology”. Heaven remains the only fortified position for military operations against dialectic materialism.
Classical philosophic idealism in so far as it aimed in its time to secularize morality, that is, to free it from religious sanction, represented a tremendous step forward (Hegel). But having torn from heaven, moral philosophy had to find earthly roots. To discover these roots was one of the tasks of materialism. After Shaftesbury came Darwin, after Hegel—Marx. To appeal now to “eternal moral truths” signifies attempting to turn the wheels backward.
That’s completely applicable as a description of what the National Review is doing.
Of course, Leon Trotsky is not the only person who has said this. Much like how Leon Trotsky is not the only person who has announced that fire is hot.
Since conservatives, or ‘cuckservatives’ if you like, refuse to learn the basic building blocks of reality and apply them, I anticipate that we will all meet David French once again somewhere out there, and David French will once again find himself being punched on both sides of his face, from both the left and the right.