Equality is Not a Prerequisite for Liberalism

Repost from the old site.

On a White nationalist blog that linked to me, I noted that it was possible to be a race realist and a socialist. This provoked the following objection:

…That makes no sense. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that of equality, of human beings being equal and interchangeable. It’s false of course, but take it away and all sorts of other leftist and liberal ideas crumble by implication.

I don’t see how one can be a race realist without that leading naturally to some sort of white supremacist / white nationalist / white exclusiveness position.

First of all, I would like to say some things about White Nationalism. I’ve finally concluded that White Nationalism is nothing but White racism and often White Supremacism.

It’s just White racism and White Supremacism repackaged with a fancy new name called White Nationalism to make it seem like it’s not those nasty things that we know of as White racism and White Supremacism, the latter being largely discredited. Well, if a philosophy is discredited, just invent a fancy new word for it and say it’s not the bad thing it really is.

It also explains why White Nationalists are so sensitive about the word racism and always put it in quotes like this: “racism”. Of course, they only do this when referring to White racism. Black racism, Hispanic racism, and all the other kinds are quite real; it’s only White racism that is phantasmagorical.

It’s also interesting how White Nationalists project. While they are denying their own racism, they are often fulminating about Black racism and Hispanic racism and whatnot. That’s clearly denial and projection.

There does seem to be a trend now with a lot of White Nationalists to come right out and admit that they are racists. This is to be encouraged. If you’re racist, what the Hell, just admit it. It’s not like you’re alone in the world – the world is full of racists. And it’s not like it’s the worst thing in the world to be anyway – as White Nationalists note, there are sure plenty of Hispanic and Black racists out there.

White Nationalists think they have excellent reasons to be racists – they’ve had bad experiences with Blacks and Hispanics and want nothing more to do with them. If that’s the case, then just admit it and make your case to an inquiring world.

There are a few White Nationalists who don’t seem to be racists, but I would say that 98% of them are.

No, onto this fellow’s rejoinder. This is a typical White Nationalist position. To them, one is either a silly race-denying liberal or one is a White Nationalist racist.

It doesn’t work that way. I know a number of White liberals and even Leftists who feel that there are intrinsic differences between the races; they just don’t think the question is very important. They date, befriend and even marry non-Whites. You might be surprised how common this type of thinking is.

One thing that always bothered me about the race realist crowd is that they insist that there are intrinsic differences between the races, and then proceed to blame races and ethnic groups for various average shortcomings and higher rates of pathologies.

But if those shortcomings and pathology rates are indeed genetic (This is what almost all race realists insist) then it follows that those groups should not be blamed for their shortcomings or pathologies. After all, it’s genetic and nothing can be done, right?

So, first of all, they accuse a group of being the equivalent of handicapped, then they throw the crutches away, kick the wheelchair to the side, throw the person into the gutter, all the while cursing them for being a cripple. How cruel can you get? Why does a realization that humans are not intrinsically equal automatically seem to lead to the cruelest sort of Social Darwinism, at best?

And by the same token, if the superior races are only superior through the luck of the dices, what on Earth do they have to feel proud of anyway? Nothing, really. Have they done anything to earn their superior status? Hardly. They just lucked out in the genes crapshoot. Big deal.

If humans are not equal, then it would be up to the state to equalize things. If Blacks, on average are always going to fall behind due to lower IQ (I am beginning to fear that this may be the case), then that is no fault of their own anyway, and it’s cruel to force them to suffer the ravages of the market, which is what most White nationalists seem to perversely want to do.

If Blacks were on average the same as we are, and the failures of their group were just due to their being a bunch of willful, perverse and deliberately wicked and stupid pricks, I would just say the Hell with them. But I honestly think that they can’t help it.

Nor can Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Aborigines, or any other group that is going to tend to fall behind. It’s really not their fault. Therefore, they should not be punished with failure for things that they can’t help.

If Black income is always going to be a lot lower on average than, say, Whites, due to an IQ deficit that they have no control over, then it is the duty of the state through redistributive taxation to equalize things a bit and make it more fair for Blacks who fail through no fault of their own.

Humans are not necessarily equal at all. Even within a race, we are born with wildly differing IQ’s and whatnot. I think most liberals would agree with that.

Even from a White Supremacist point of view, libertarianism makes no sense. Libertarianism is not only perverse for conscious White nationalists, it’s downright cruel.

If you really love your own people so much, why throw them into a Roman-type pit where they consume each other alive while you cheer on the deadliest and most homicidal of the White cannibals? Only via some form of socialism can Whites really work together to help each other and have real solidarity.

I’m not interested in supremacism or chauvinism or nationalism or any of that. What are you looking for in your acquaintances? There are smart or good or kind, or any combination of many other great qualities, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians and all sorts of other non-Europeans. Just as smart, good and kind as your European White friends.

I love my people finally (after decades of self-hate) but Whites are not the end-all and be-all. I think Whites are a bit cold, for one. Hispanics and Blacks are much warmer and friendlier, and it’s much easier to befriend them. Of course, their lower-income neighborhoods also have some big downsides too. There’s good and bad with all groups, including Whites.

If people are not equal, that’s no argument against liberalism. It actually implies we need it even more.

It means we need affirmative action, progressive taxation, humane prisons and all sorts of things you would never think of.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

15 thoughts on “Equality is Not a Prerequisite for Liberalism”

  1. How can you be a Liberal AND a Communist Robert? Liberalism might have been good for 1789 but is it for 2010?

    Don’t you have to choose? Liberal values are the values of the capitalist democracies. They are also the values of imperialism. Liberalism means I’m an Israeli Jew, leave me alone. Liberalism means tolerating authoritarian religious ideologies like Islam and Judaism, rather than putting them in their place with a militant secularism. Liberalism means relativism: no absolute standards of good and bad. Liberalism tolerates the likes of Bernie Madoff. Liberal values promote self-seeking, invidualism and domination of the periphery for the benefit of the metropole. Liberal values in England are fascist values in Palestine now, Kenya in the 1950s, and white South Africa in the 1960s, so Lafayette’s right too. Liberal values are anti-solidarity with oppressed nations, anti-equality (excepting equality “before the law”), anti-collective action and anti-working class. Liberal values are the opposite of communist values. Liberal values are opposed to the values of liberation theology, which you espouse. Which side are you on, brother?

    Love Me, I’m a Liberal…by Phil Ochs

    I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
    Tears ran down my spine
    I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
    As though I’d lost a father of mine
    But Malcolm X got what was coming
    He got what he asked for this time
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I go to civil rights rallies
    And I put down the old D.A.R.
    I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
    I hope every colored boy becomes a star
    But don’t talk about revolution
    That’s going a little bit too far
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
    My faith in the system restored
    I’m glad the commies were thrown out
    of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
    I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
    as long as they don’t move next door
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    The people of old Mississippi
    Should all hang their heads in shame
    I can’t understand how their minds work
    What’s the matter don’t they watch Les Crain?
    But if you ask me to bus my children
    I hope the cops take down your name
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I read New Republic and Nation
    I’ve learned to take every view
    You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden
    I feel like I’m almost a Jew
    But when it comes to times like Korea
    There’s no one more red, white and blue
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I vote for the democratic party
    They want the U.N. to be strong
    I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
    He sure gets me singing those songs
    I’ll send all the money you ask for
    But don’t ask me to come on along
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    Once I was young and impulsive
    I wore every conceivable pin
    Even went to the socialist meetings
    Learned all the old union hymns
    But I’ve grown older and wiser
    And that’s why I’m turning you in
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.

    Non liberals you admire: Stalin, Mao, Archbishop Romero, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Che, Castro…and i don’t know how many more…

    Mandela’s biggest fault is that he is a liberal. He and the ANC have betrayed their people, and that’s why the liberal capitalist world love Mandela. They love a black man in a white mask, like Obama.

    Let Mao have the final word on liberalism:

    COMBAT LIBERALISM

    September 7, 1937

    We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

    But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

    Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

    To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

    To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own inclination. This is a second type.

    To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

    Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one’s own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

    To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

    To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

    To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

    To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

    To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along–“So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell.” This is a ninth type.

    To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

    To be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

    We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

    They are all manifestations of liberalism.

    Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

    Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

    People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves.

    “They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each.”

    Is Mao describing you, Robert? And what have you to say to Mao?

    1. Speaking of which, Mikhail GorbaSHIT was a classic example of liberal decadence. He sold out his country for a few photo ops with Reagan and Thatcher.

    2. I’ a socialist. I’m not a doctrinaire Communist. I also support social democracy. There is a left wing of the Democratic party that is good and liberal. They even supported the Sandinistas. I don’t know if they are liberals or not. Actually, most liberals hate me because they think I go too far – that I’m a Village Voice type or a Commie.

      I have a very bourgeois mindset. I just don’t have a bourgeois income.

      I guess I’m a liberal. A liberal socialist, like a social democrat. I’ll support various Communist regimes and insurgencies on the basis of solidarity among the Left and because social democracy has often failed in the 3rd World, but not because it’s my preference. I’m a socialist. A lot of us support Marxist regimes and insurgencies on a solidarity basis, because we support everyone on the Left, from liberals to Commies. Anything Left is good. Anything Right is bad.

      And I got tossed out of the local Communist Party group for supposedly not being a Communist. “Bob, you’re not a revolutionary!” she said, and they threw my ass to the curb.

    3. Great stuff! I can’t do better than Phil Ochs or Mao, or is that liberalism? I mean that I think I can’t do better. Is that revolutionary defeatism, or liberal laziness and backsliding?

  2. Um…I wrote this without reading the post above, sorry. I saw the word Liberal and I decided to have a go at all it represents…If I’ve got on my high horse unnecessarily, apologies. But you never know where you are with a liberal. They’re slippery like fresh fish, and they are the class enemy. Accidental dissent, who posts on here, is a typical liberal. At least you know where you are with a conservative. Or a fascist.

  3. I agree with you totally. I tried to argue this line on a white nationalist forum. My conclusion, the whole movement is devoid of love and compassion, unless your white. That’s the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *