Amerika

What comes after liberalism

People often ask me, when politics are being discussed, the fully legitimate question “So what would that look like?” They are curious as to how their daily lives and the society around them would change. Politics specifies abstractions; daily life is tangible.

Maybe we can make use of a few choice quotations from others to illustrate what this world would look like, but first, we should identify what we have now: liberal democracy, or democracy with the influences of liberalism such that both major “sides” are liberal-influenced. Liberal democracy contains a number of ideas:

  • Equality. Every person is equal, therefore, every person should be equal in what they own, their degree of personal power, and how much wealth they have. The concept of equality in a political sense naturally extends to social and eventually economic equality, which makes the state an engine for redistribution of wealth and power.
  • Pluralism. In order to make everyone equal, we must support all viewpoints equally as if they were all equally valid if not equally true. For this reason, we no longer pick right answers. We let every answer be right, and our society is ruled by a polyarchy, or many different interest groups each influencing policy based on their needs.
  • Multiculturalism. Much as pluralism arises from equality, multiculturalism and diversity arise from pluralism. If we are all equal as human beings, we should all be welcome in every place on earth at any time, which destroys national borders and makes us all citizens of the world. People of different races, classes, genders, sexual orientations, castes and social standards mix it up and form a new, diverse population.
  • Appearance. If everything is equal, and we live in a pluralism where you’re fighting against other interests for your own, you must stand out. You must appear to be good, and appear to have a more interesting plan than you do, to rope in the herd. This creates a society where appearance trumps underlying reality.

These are the biggies, but the core of liberal democracy is that every warm body gets a vote, is “take care of” by society at cost to others, and that each viewpoint is equally valid even if most viewpoints end in disaster when applied to physical reality. We are tolerant! We are not concerned with consequences; we are concerned that everyone feels they are participating. Even if someone is biologically stupid and mentally deranged and possibly a pedophile, their viewpoint is equal to yours, even if you’re a genius superhero.

If we were to throw out liberal democracy, what might we expect?

For starters, politics will get brainier, because it will no longer be a popularity contest among the stupid.

In addition, certain behaviors will become “officially” taboo, others will become officially rewarded, and anything in between will be tacitly tolerated.

This means that each community is going to have to pick its own values system, and we’ll probably split up by race, ethnicity, class and political inclination. While this is happening already, with formalization it will accelerate and occur more cleanly.

Instead of a mixed pluralistic society, you’ll have a parallel pluralistic society, where different communities keep their own values — and keep them to themselves, and throw out outsiders who are different:

The town I grew up in was divided into two distinct communities, the white community and the black community. There were two large industrial plants there that were the main source of income for both communities. The opportunities offered by their employment enabled the maintenance of two different but vibrant communities. Both had their own schools, doctors, businesses, recreation centers and sports teams. The men of both communities worked in the plants side by side, but when their shifts were done, they returned home to their families in their respective neighborhoods. I don’t remember any emnity between the two communities, every man from both was a hard working family man; if you weren’t, your own peers would take care of that no matter which one you were from. I think the men working side by side engendered a respect from both sides that we rarely see today. And we weren’t exactly separate, every year the sports teams from both communities whether it be football, baseball or basketball played each other. And even though the black community wasn’t as large as the white, they were good; it was a matter of community pride that they fielded the best sports teams possible. It was a positive for us also, it kept us from getting complacent because we knew that if we slacked off, we’d get our asses handed to us. It was almost a festival atmosphere every year when the annual football game was played. Both communities shared the local football grounds and no matter who won, there was always a huge barbeque and cookout held afterwards at alternating recreation centers. You might say that I’m waxing nostalgic but I never saw any overt racism, there was no racial violence, no one thought they were better than anyone else, we were just different.

Multiculturalism is responsible for that kind of world disappearing. Multiculturalism is responsible for affirmative action, lowering of test standards, establishment of the welfare system that has for all intents and purposes destroyed the black family and is in the process of destroying everyone else’s and the resentment and downright anger that different ethnic and cultural groups feel for each other today. – In Mala Fide

In addition, people are no longer going to look to government for their morality, ethics and Nanny State laws. They’re going to junk those useless laws, and live by a creed shared in common accord with the rest of the community.

That’s the localization that environmental activists keep talking about. You’d probably see less interstate trade and more consumption of local products. Population wouldn’t bloom radically as it does. Fewer resources would be used. Laws would reflect the values of the local community, and communities would be more diverse, in comparison between each other.

Even more, you’d see people returning to harmonizing influences that unite the many different areas of life, like religion, philosophy and organic culture.

When I speak of restoring the historic ethnic and Christian identity of the United States and Europe, I do not speak of a society purged of non-whites and non-Christians or a society that strips non-whites and non-Christians of civil rights or mistreats them. I am referring to a restoration of the public confidence in Christianity and the European peoples that prevailed in America until relatively recently. The editors of Faith and Heritage offer some more important principles on this score when they write:

We affirm that all men, of every race, ethnicity, and tribe, are created in the image of God. However, this common humanity does not mean that all groups are equal in every respect, just as two brothers can share a common family but be blessed by Providence with vastly differing talents and abilities. We affirm that many of these differences have genetic components and thank God for the diversity of mankind.

We affirm that all men are fallen and in need of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. We further affirm that this grace, not race or ethnicity, is the sole source of our salvation.

We affirm the multi-national multi-racial makeup of Christ’s Church. We further affirm that the nations and races are themselves individual expressions of Providence, separated and cultivated by God to check the spread of evil and add to His glory, to be preserved kind after kind in this world and eternally in the world to come. We affirm that all attempts to amalgamate humans into one mixed mass are in open rebellion against God’s law and His sovereignly created boundaries.

We affirm that every race and ethnicity not only has the right, but also the duty to defend its homeland, borders, culture, and existence from those seeking to destroy them. We affirm that each generation has the duty to preserve its own particular culture, blood, and soil as well as the true faith of Christianity as an inheritance to those generations following it.

So, to answer your question, you would have a home in such a society just as you have a home here now. But I do not mean to paint a picture of a sugary-sweet utopia. As a non-white, you would have a sense of yourself as somewhat of an outsider, just as I would always feel somewhat of an outsider if I lived in, say, Japan, no matter how much I adopted the customs or language. You are a Christian and a reasonable person so that is not something that would enrage you. Only those who are envious or seek power for themselves would find this outsider or minority status intolerable. – The Thinking Housewife

This is a mature view. It does not go on hysterical jeremiads against members of other races; it does not accuse small groups of manipulating the world, even if their values may be incompatible with our own. It simply states the obvious, which we’ll repeat here and you will forget immediately because it’s too clear to take hold in most accidentally brainwashed minds:

Diversity does not work.

No form of diversity works. Too much variation — Haidt estimates it at 20% and up — and a society falls apart, whether that variation is basic philosophy, basic values, religion, social class, genetic caste, race or ethnicity. It doesn’t work because without social accord, you have a pluralism in which each group competes with all others for predominance, and so manipulation becomes the standard — as does a victim/oppressor mentality.

Even mixing groups of the same race does not work. “White” people are highly varied between Southern, Eastern, Western and UK/US populations. In the large multicultural American cities, white outliers like Polish, Italian, Greek, Russian and Irish tend to cluster with their own, rather than integrate into the Anglo-German mainstream. It’s not really much different from how North Asians segregate themselves.

While in the past the “New Right” has been divided between its European and American factions, a convergence is occurring. The New Right is leaving behind the pointless reactionary leftism (a Cold War leftover) of its birth, and rejecting the right-wing conventions that are trying to re-fight WWI/WWII and hoping we win this time, so we can say “I told you so.”

The New New Right(tm) is all about pragmatism, not of the compromise with low popular standards kind, but the kind that appeals to the middle-class European and American voters who will deliver power to it: any new plan must achieve its desired results without unnecessarily disrupting society.

The voters say: We’re cool with ending immigration and anti-discrimination legislation, maybe even with dropping entitlements from the budget, and having some kind of culture again. We’re not cool with anything that looks like it’s going to break out into violence without good cause for that violence.

While we all know the limitations of democracy, it makes sense to listen to these people because voters or no, they’re the constituents of our future in the West. They will compose our future populations and be the ones to implement any plan that the relatively small number of thinkers, intellectuals and political writers can dream up.

The old right cultivated an unfortunate audience of angry people who rejected common sense in favor of fanciful, ideological notions — actually, a leftist-styled move. The old New Right did the same thing but enmeshed it in arabesques of liberal sources and arguments. The New New Right is looking at practical answers like this:

“The New Black Panther Party is dedicated to the liberation of our people and to the unifying of black organizations here and throughout the world,” said Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz, the Chairman of the New Black Panther Party.

The convention brought over 50 organizations together and is set to be followed by another convention in New York in October. The follow-up convention is expected to draw representatives from 60 to 70 black organizations from the United States and Africa together to address racial inequality in America.

“History has proven in America that it is very difficult or impossible for blacks and whites to exist in America on an equal basis. We exist now in America but on an unequal basis. So, our focus is not that question. Our focus is what we can do for our people,” said Shabazz.

Shabazz argues that it is simply not possible for blacks and whites to fully exist peacefully in America.

“We seek a nation of our own,” he said. – RT

What whites want, blacks want; Jews want it too. It’s called ethnic self-rule, or nationalism, and it’s the exact opposite of the internationalist liberal democracy which seeks to standardize us as people, figuring that when we’re finally equal, all conflict will cease and we will live in Utopian peaceful harmony.

If you think about it, all these groups want the same thing, which is for all ethnic groups to have self-rule. If whites get self-rule, blacks get self-rule; Jews get self-rule, too. If any one group gets self-rule, other groups can demand the same. A domino effect can work toward a positive result.

It was back in 1985 when I first met Osiris Akkebala, Chief Elder of the Pan-Afrikan International Movement (PAIN). Chief Akkebala hosted a radio show in an all-black community where we had a scheduled demonstration. PAIN follows a Garvian philosophy, and understanding that Marcus Garvey had met with the Klan in the 1920s, Chief Osiris approached me for a private meeting. We hit it off well and have been good friends ever since.

Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.

I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: “If we can’t get along together, then we need to separate.”

I’m a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don’t feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. – Folk and Faith

This is the future of right-wing politics. We no longer need reactionarism, reliving of the past, or an us-versus-Other narrative that has us spend all our energy on our enemies and none on ourselves. We do not need the paranoia, the searching for conspiracies, or the pointless hatred. We don’t need the illusions and euphemisms for our own failings, or the kind of racial Marxism that makes us think we should toss quality control out the window when it comes to our own people.

Instead, we should face the obvious: as civilizations age, they die from within through a process of liberalization. Liberalism is a cancer and we should fight it, and we do that not by directly bashing at it, but by creating a better vision of a society. We do not have to suffer the failures of diversity, equality and liberal dogma. There are better options out there, and people are hungry for them.

The old, bitter New Right doesn’t want to see this happen. They would rather be ideologically correct, or “politically correct” in a different sense, than reach out and grab the future being offered to them. They would rather rally the troops around simple resentment than produce a workable plan and describe a better future for us all. It’s us-versus-them, with a heaping dose of bitterness and resentment.

This is why right-wing movements drive away many more people than they attract. When you think about it, most people over 30 who are inclined toward having families are also heading toward conservatism. You want to protect your family, and what the work of your hands has produced, from the creeping tide of Crowdism. Why don’t they stick around? A good question indeed.

The new New Right is looking for a solution to modernity which, as we’re finally seeing in public events, is revealing its utter failure and its blithe tendency to lead us down destructive paths. Liberals care about feelings, appearance and equality, not the consequences of our actions. And it’s up to us to clean up, rebuild civilization, and start again without this harangue of decay.

To take a step into this new future, we have to ask ourselves what comes after liberalism. We need to, for a minute, forget party lines and history; we need to cast out the old and useless, and keep the old and useful. We need to realize that history has happened and we do not have a magic Undo button.

But we also need to realize that what comes after liberalism, in the eternally recurrent cycle of history, is the opposite principle. Consequences matter more than intentions. Goals matter more than methods. Time-honored ways that unite us are more important than equality, “freedom” and tolerance.

Right now these are scary words still, but that is changing. Liberalism has revealed that it is old, decrepit and unreasonable; it is obsolete, delusional and hollow. People are questing for something new. If we want to show them the future, we need to show them what comes after liberalism, and show them we are the realists who can take them there.

Tags: ,

|
Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn