The Elitist Conceits of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Why Conservatism Is Crucial to the Success of Both.

[No Bull Savage]

http://freiboden.blogspot.com/2009/04/elitist-conceits-of-liberalism-and.html



Though both liberals and libertarians talk about the The People, both
have elitist blinders on when it comes to social reality. Elitism in
and of itself is not a bad thing. There is hierarchy everywhere and in
everything. In the military the special forces are better trained and
more skilled than regular troops. In sports, you have professionals as
opposed to mere amateurs. There are colleges with better qualified
professors and more intelligent students. Elitism as elitism is no
problem at all, as long as it recognizes itself as such.


The problem begins when elitists think they speak for the people and
that their highfaluting ideas are actually good for the masses and
will work as planned at the top. This is too often untrue. Indeed,
sophisticated and highly rationalized ideas at the top often have a
terrible impact on the people below. The most extreme example of such
was communism, an ideology conceived of by serious and highly learned
intellectuals. It was an ideology of justice for mankind and was
supposed to create a better world. It turned entire nations into
prisons and killed tens of millions.


Though liberalism and libertarianism aren’t nearly as dangerous or
radical as communism, they too are misguided or misconceived elitist
ideas. Liberalism is intellectual democratic statism, and
libertarianism is intellectual democratic individualism.
What’s wrong with government? What’s wrong with individual liberty?
All societies need governments, and it’s only natural for government
to do certain things that the private sector cannot do or provide,
right? And, every individual should have freedom of choice to do as
he pleases as long as he doesn’t interfere with or violate the
freedoms of other people, right?
So, what’s the problem? The problem is not the idea of the modern
state or the idea of modern liberty. The problem is the notion that
the high sounding and sophisticated ideas of liberalism or
libertarianism could be understood, appreciated, and practiced by
masses of people. A good number of people may understand, appreciate,
or apply them, but many people will simply misunderstand or half-
understand them–and abuse them. If liberalism has one major advantage
over libertarianism, it is because liberalism feeds on personal
irresponsibility whereas libertarianism requires personal
responsibility. Human nature prefers freebies and pushing blame onto
others than working hard for one’s keep and self-criticism. So, at
least in the game of winning votes of the masses, liberalism
understands human nature better. Of course, human nature being what it
is, libertarians and conservatives are right to argue that it should
not be encouraged toward irresponsible behavior. Cynical liberals
understand human nature–tendency for wanting freebies and scapegoating–
and exploit it to gain power. But, not all liberals are cynical.
Idealistic liberals think that human nature can be transformed and
improved by social engineering.


Anyway, the liberal elite(at least ones who aren’t cynical)believe
that a bigger statist role and increased social engineering will make
for a better and more just society. They project their own high
intelligence, goodwill, learnedness, decency, compassion, and work
ethic onto others. They see everyone as a potentially ‘intelligent,
caring, and hardworking progressive person’ and believe that the
reason why so many people are down on their luck, stupid, or hopeless
is because of historical injustice, economic inequality, self-
interested individualism(greed), irrational superstition(religion),
and so on. They believe that these problems cannot be overcome by the
Church, the individual, or by ethos of capitalism. They see the Church
as promoting blind faith over reason and as sweeping real social
problems under the carpet of false hope. They see the individual as
caring only for himself, often at the expense of the community. They
see capitalism as promoting dog-eat-dog materialism which tends to
separate and exploit the people according to race, nationality, and
class. These “well-intentioned” elitist liberals believe that their
big government is necessary for society. Though liberals–at least
white liberals–have a self-loathing and guilt-stricken streak, they
also happen to be ideological, intellectual, cultural, and moral
narcissists. They think they are more socially and morally advanced
than other people because they went to top schools, read John Rawls
(and some Marx), watch foreign films, know more about Jazz and World
Music more than your average American, and care so much about Negroes
and poor folks around the world. They’ve read Jeffrey Sachs and Cornel
West, you see. So, even their self-loathing fills them with
narcissistic pride; they think, “we are better than all those mean
white conservatives because we CARE for the ‘people of color.’”


Educated and affluent liberals tend to have very high opinions of
themselves. They don’t see big government-ism as incompatible with
personal responsibility, diligence, work ethic. After all, they
believe in big government yet studied hard, attended good universities
(and were taught by successful and intelligent professors who also
believe in big government), have good jobs, and tend to raise pretty
stable families. If big government philosophy is so damaging to
people, how come so many liberals who espouse statism are successful
people? How come most of the top professors in all fields are
liberal? How come most of the super businessmen are liberal? And, how
come so many conservatives and small-government gun-clinging folks are
actually down in the dumps(and actually live on welfare despite all
their tough talk of freedom)?
As far as the liberals are concerned, big government-ism goes well
with social order, success, and advancement. Big government-ism means
that intelligent and serious people who care for society get to run
and expand government to make sure that everyone has an equal chance
and also to counter-balance the power of unstable free markets.
Liberals believe that the best and brightest(and the most caring and
moral)should run society. Since capitalism is about the rule of those
who know to make the most money, it is not necessarily best for society
(say the liberals). Capitalists will sell whatever to maximize their
profits, even if what they’re selling may be damaging to the people.
Also, people with A LOT of money don’t just re-invest it in business
but come to control the media and influence government to serve the
interests of the Rich Class. So, the idea is that liberals must run a
big strong government in order to check the power of the Rich
Capitalist Class. (Ironically, those who run much of our private
enterprise economy are liberals. Hollywood, TV, and fashion industry
are totally liberal, and what they’re selling to the people are
corrupting and damaging. What we have is liberals in business
corrupting and messing up our society, and then liberals taking over
government in order to repair the damage caused by the private sector–
run by liberals. The business of pop culture is what fuels our
dreams, fantasies, obsessions, and desires. It is totally dominated by
liberals, and liberals will market and sell ANYTHING to make their
millions, no matter how negative the impact may be. Though one could
argue that it’s the private sector–bastion of conservatism–doing
social damage, it’s actually the private sector dominated by libertine
liberals who are doing the damage.)


The problem with the liberal view of the world is obvious. What
applies at the top doesn’t apply to the bottom. This is all the more
so when we closely study how most white liberals succeeded in the
world. Did they succeed by taking handouts from the government? No.
The most successful group in the United States are the Jews. How did
Jews rise up in America? On welfare? No, through self-reliance,
communal & family values, individualism and personal responsibility,
work ethic, education, and so forth. Many affluent WASPS are also
liberal, and they rose up in society the same way. So, why do these
people think that other folks can’t rise up in the same way? If Jews
and WASP–and Asians-Americans–can rise up through practicing
‘conservative’ values(at least on the personal level), why not blacks
and Hispanics? (Isn’t it odd that Japanese-Americans, another very
successful group in America, is overwhelmingly liberal?) Why is it
that so many successful and highly educated people in America are
liberal? One reason is colleges are run by liberal and leftist
professors, and the best/brightest/elite people come under liberal
influence. But, there are probably other reasons as well. One reason
could be a kind for loathing of the toil that their parents went
through. If you look back enough, the rise of all peoples from the
dirt poor poverty was a painful process. (The American Dream was
always earned through hard work, not fantasy.) Jews had to work as
peddlers in the US or run dirty shops. Chinese had to work in steaming
laundries. And, Japanese had to work from dawn to dusk on the farms.
Indeed, the parents of Jews, Japanese-Americans, and white liberals
told them to rise up in the world and find something more dignified in
life–often meaning professional work than wheeling-dealing kind of
business. In other words, parents sacrificed themselves and toiled and
sweated so that their kids would have not only more money but have
more respectable jobs in life–like Don Corleone, who made his money by
dirtying his hands but wanted his son to go into politics and become a
lawyer. (Many liberals look upon capitalism as a form of gangsterism
that is, at best, necessary for making money and rising up in the
world; once you have the money and power, you want to buy
respectability and join the mandarin class that deals with Ideas and
works for a better world according to those Ideas than merely grub for
more money like shylock. Notice that even Bernie Madoff surrounded
himself with ‘progressive’ and ‘moral’ figures and causes.) And, kids
of parents who toiled and sweated did have better lives; but, feeling
that their parents suffered and sacrificed for them unduly, they
wanted to create a society in which success would come much more
easily for all people rather than have people go through what their
parents went through to rise up in society; we often hear of liberal
guilt, but much of it could be ancestral than social.
Anyway, on the one hand, the kids got imbued with the ‘conservative’
values of their parents and appreciated the latter’s seriousness and
dedication. On the other hand, the kids didn’t want to go through what
their parents went through. Because their parents suffered so much,
they didn’t want other poor people to go through the same struggles to
rise up in the world. They wanted to make things more ‘humane’ and
easier for all people, especially the poor, so that everyone would
have an easier time rising up in the world without having to sweat and
toil so much. Indeed, Jews will always say it’s because they remember
how much that their ancestors suffered that they want big government
to help people rise up in the world without so much toil and sweat.
(There’s also the element of contempt for their parents. Poor or
immigrant parents who work, work, and work often aren’t the most
educated, most debonair, most cool, most hip, or most sophisticated
people in the world. Many of these people are God believers, speak
broken English, or have simple devotions in life. As much as their
children may appreciate the parental devotion, they regard their
parents as ignoramuses. To an extent, parents wanted it this way.
Parents wanted their kids to know more, advance more, succeed more,
and become more respectable and rise up to higher standings in
society. Many of these parents don’t want their kids to do what they
themselves have done to climb out of the hole. They want their kids to
climb to the Ivory Tower and gain greater knowledge and power. So,
naturally, the kids become elitist snobs, but due to the ‘progressive’
ideology of the Ivory Tower institutions, their elitism is devoted to
egalitarianism. Indeed, they justify their elitist power in the name
of promoting equality.)


But, there’s another reason for why the successful are so liberal.
Those who rose up in the world and attained higher standing want it to
be assured permanently. The rule of capitalism says that losers may
win and winners may lose; there is no permanence in capitalism; it
works according to the principles of creative destruction. The never
ending innovations and competition make for a dog-eat-dog society. So,
winners today may be losers tomorrow. This is why government is so
welcome to successful liberals, especially those who grew up in
affluence instead of having earned it themselves. They want constancy
in their privilege and good life, and big government offers it. A
liberal who has a plush bureaucratic job is set for life. Or, if the
rich person is living off a trust fund, he or she can grab onto some
liberal cause to justify his or her wealth or privilege; just look at
the Kennedy family.
Also, a liberal businessman can rely on subsidies to maintain his
business even if it’s not profitable. Big government cushions the
affluent from the hard knocks of cold competition. Just look at the
banking and auto industry going to government for bail outs and aid.
Also, privileged liberals grew up with high-minded notions taught in
school and absorbed through books and culture. They want to work for
the GOOD of society, which is why even liberals who enter business try
to make their business socially conscious. Big corporations run by
liberals(or even image-conscious conservatives) seek the advice of men
like Jeffrey Sachs and Al Gore; they often contribute to Good Causes.
Even the arch conservative Annenberg donated money for Bill Ayers’s
educational agenda. And, many corporations and individuals set up
foundations which generally give money to liberal or leftist
intellectuals, activists, and artists. There is a sense among
liberals that artists, activists, and intellectuals live for truth and
justice whereas businessmen live for profit. So, for businessmen to be
good people, they must take a big chunk of their cash and support
artists, activists, and intellectuals(who these days must be part of
the ‘radical’ crowd to be considered relevant). Obama is appealing to
many rich liberals because there’s something of the artist(actor/
performer), activist(community organizer), and intellectual(Ivy League
trained lawyer) in him. Of course, most successful liberals are not
stinking rich but only moderately affluent, but they all think in the
NPR/New Yorker Magazine mode. It’s the Way To Be and Way To Think–
just as even unsuccessful conservatives read Ayn Rand and pretend to
see the world through the eyes of capitalist titans.


Anyway, the problem of the liberal elite is they think what applies to
itself applies to the masses. It doesn’t. Successful liberals may be
liberal in thought, but they are ‘conservative’ in many of their
habits and personal choices. They may dismiss traditional marriage,
but your average successful liberal is more likely to lead a
traditional married life than your white trash conservative with half
a dozen tattoos on his ass and obnoxious idiots for children. Jews may
politically be the most liberal people in America, but if you judge
them by what they actually do, they are ‘conservative’ in many
respects. Successful liberals are for new ideas and more tolerance,
but in actual practice they have an instinctive and deeply ingrained
sense or hierarchy of what’s crucial and what is not. Also, they have
strong sense of personal responsibility and personal shame. Many Ivy
League liberal students worked very hard to be admitted to top
schools. They are the kind of kids who got depressed if they got a B
on an exam. For all their egalitarian mumbo jumbo, they want to excel,
attain most privilege, most power, most money, or most whatever. They
are very competitive and talented, much more so than your average not-
to-bright conservative. Indeed, one of the reasons why successful
liberals push for big government is because they feel so personally
responsible–not just for themselves but for their fellow man, for the
poor, the downtrodden, for minorities, for disenfranchises, for the
hungry around the world. They want power, but power is always having
power OVER OTHERS; doing ‘good work’ is justification for the power
they amass in order to control us.
Anyway, successful liberals may want to share more, but they have a
strong sense of responsibility and shame. They would personally feel
ashamed if they failed in life. People without shame and
responsibility do not make it to top schools(unless on affirmative
action), find and keep good jobs, or build successful businesses. So,
it’s true that many liberals have many sound virtues and values that
may be deemed conservative in actual practice. So, what is the
problem?


The problem is that elite liberalism applied to the masses often turns
into shit. For successful liberals, big government-ism means SHARING.
For the masses, it just means TAKING. For successful liberals, big
government-ism means caring or being concerned about your fellow man.
For the masses, it just means demanding more attention and getting
more handouts. For successful liberals, big government-ism means that
good people should be responsible and take care of all of society.
For the masses, it means one should be lazy and irresponsible and
force other people to take care of their jive-ass needs. You’ll notice
that many successful liberals are too proud and responsible to take
handouts themselves, yet they believe that the masses should be
provided with more handouts. Successful liberals want to give; the
masses just want to grab. The positive intentions, values, and virtues
of successful liberals translate into negative intentions, vices, and
vitriol among the masses. Successful liberals say, WE SHOULD CARE,
CARE, CARE. The likes of Jeremiah Wright and his followers shout
GIMME, GIMME, GIMME.


The reason why liberalism has worked better in nations like Holland or
Sweden(at least among the white population) is that their citizens
tend to have a degree of work ethic, good amount of education,
appreciation, and a sense of contributing as well as taking from the
system, and so on. Liberalism may eventually erode the values of hard
work and responsibility in these nations as well, but for centuries
these nations imbued their people with a serious disposition,
discipline, diligence, and culture of appreciation and cooperation;
those values still remain intact in the national character of the
Germanic peoples. If big government-ism means that everyone works
hard and contributes to as well as takes from the system, it can work
reasonably well. But, if big government-ism means that one group of
well-intentioned and idealistic people contribute to the system while
others just take and take(and feel no gratitude but always demand more
and more), it cannot work. Because of the large black, illegal alien,
and white trash elements in America, big government-ism will not work
here as it has in Sweden or Holland. Indeed, even those Scandinavian
are now facing major problems due to increasing numbers of immigrants,
a good number of them black-African(most problematic) and Muslim.
Also, big government-ism everywhere has a way of slowly eroding away
the culture of diligence, discipline, shame, and appreciation forged
through centuries of cultural development. As society grows morally
laxer, shameless, faceless, and bureaucratic, more and more people
learn from an early age that they can have a pretty good life by
working as little as possible while living off the government dole. In
the long run, liberal big government-ism makes ‘niggers’ out of
everyone.


This is why if we’re going to have big government-ism, it has to be
the fascist kind than the welfare kind. The fascist kind favors
providing work than welfare. This is why National Socialist and New
Deal policies worked. They focused on creating jobs by opening up
factories for the armament production on a vast scale. Also, fascist
big government policies offer things to the people ONLY in exchange
for the goodwill, appreciation, and responsibility on the part of the
people. Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore established a fascist big government
system whereby the government provides certain programs and services
but makes sure that the people act in good faith. It’s not just a
system whereby one group of people get handouts indefinitely for
giving nothing back in return. They must give something in return as
well–decent behavior, appreciation, and taking work when work is
available. It is conditional socialism(fascist) as opposed to
unconditional socialism(welfare liberalism).


It seems that even American liberals have understood this lesson to
some degree. Though Obama is a welfare socialist in many ways, he also
wants to expand public works programs and set up a mandatory youth
corp. The new liberal view is that too many American kids have become
self-centered, cynical, individualistic, and lazy. So, kids need to
believe and work for something higher than themselves, and the new
programs will make them work for the people; kids will be inspired to
do so under the Banner of Obama because Barack is ‘like a rock star’.
So, liberals are taking certain ideas from National Socialism and Lee
Yuan Kew-ism. Liberals are too proud and arrogant to admit that Great
Society and Welfare Liberalism/Socialism have done much damage. Also,
even though liberals are too proud to admit that their control of
popular culture has led to cynicism, ugliness, putridity, savagery,
animal behavior, and hideousness of all kinds, their support of Obama
as the ‘new kind of black guy’ suggests that many white liberals are
worried about what liberal culture has done to this country. Liberal
dominated TV, Hollywood, and Music Industry have inundated us with
ugly rap music, cynical TV shows, pornography, crass materialism,
culture of violence(Matrix movies, video games, gangsta rap, etc),
egocentric individualism, and retardation of all kinds. Liberals
cannot admit, ‘we were wrong, we need to mend our ways’. Liberals
actually cannot let go of their old ways because too much of their
power, prestige, and influence are invested in Hollywood(and what it
sells) and in Government(and what it offers). So, liberals
conveniently blame people like Rush Limbaugh for all the cynicism. To
liberals, cynicism means ‘not having total faith in the Church of
Obama and Oprah’.
And, liberals blame the materialism and crassness of our culture on
the ‘free market’ and capitalist ethos of greed, vanity, and such
(despite the fact that popular culture is run by liberal Jews, blacks,
and gays.) Liberals privately sense that our society has grown ugly,
decadent, and putrid largely due to the excesses of liberal Jewish and
black-dominated popular culture, but they can never admit it since
doing so would be ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’(and give ammo to the right-
wing enemy).


In times of economic downturn, people can sober up, grow angry, and
lash out at the cultural rot infecting the nation. Liberal Jews, ever
so clever, decided to pre-empt the rise of neo-fascism on the Right by
appropriating elements of fascism for their own power. Many angry
White Rightist want their form of unified political power, their great
powerful leaders, and their own grand vision. Such movement may gain
real power and momentum in American thanks to the dangers of illegal
invasion, pop cultural rot where black thugs and whores act like
animals, Jewish control of banks and Wall Street which contributed to
the financial collapse, and so on. This is like the social decay and
deterioration we saw in Germany during the Weimar period. In the
turmoil and chaos, the National Socialism produced the most dynamic
leader with the charisma and vision to capture the hearts and minds of
the German people. The liberal Jews figured that if things continue
as usual–pop cultural corrosiveness, economic collapse, social
divisions and alienation, etc–, the White Right may eventually unify
into a National Socialist mode and come up with a Great White Leader
for White People. So, in order to prevent the rise of such fascism,
liberal Jews decided to take certain spellbinding and catchy aspects
of fascism and let Obama run with it. With Obama as the fuhrer, Jews
have killed two birds with one stone. On the one hand, fascism has
been, appropriated, tamed, and used for the empowerment of liberals.
On the other, the White Right, in attacking Obama as a fascist or
Hitlerian figure, undermines their own future investment in fascism.
If the White Right trashes everything about Obama’s style and image as
being ‘fascist’, then they cannot use or employ that kind of campaign
or movement for themselves in the future.


And, though liberal Jews don’t like Ron Paul, they would be only too
happy if more white rightists supported Paul because Paul stands for
small government(which means conservatives will never gain much
political power) and individualism(which means the White Right will
remain atomized and disunified as mere individuals whose only ideology
is ‘leave me alone’). There is a virtue in individualism, but the
fight that the White Right must face is not one they can win through
individualism. They must unify as a people and as a race.
Individualism of the kind that Ron Paul advises is only good after the
victory of white power and assurance of white survival.
So, I would advise white people that they are making a mistake if they
attack Obama for being a fascist. Rather, they should attack Obama for
deviously stealing elements of fascism from the White Right. We should
say he’s a fake fascist, a poseur fascist, merely a tool used by the
liberal and left-wing Jews to rile up populist passions for the
liberal agenda. Obama is not the return of fascism but the
appropriation of fascism. Just as liberal companies have appropriated
Marxism and radical leftism for their marketing agenda, they’ve also
appropriated elements of fascist imagery and style to serve liberal
politics. To many liberals, fascism or fascist style or aesthetics are
okay as long as it glorifies, celebrates, or deifies the non-white or
the ‘anti-Aryan’. So, fascist imagery that promotes black power or
black passions are cool with liberals. Zionism is a form of fascist-
nationalism, but it’s okay because it’s about Jewish power as opposed
to ‘Aryan’ power. The thing for the White Right is not to scream
‘fascism’ whenever they see Obama, but to develop their own fascism.


The White Right should also realize that for every disadvantage, there
is an advantage(just like for every advantage, there is a
disadvantage). It’s disadvantageous to the White Right that the
liberals masterfully stole and employed the fascist thunder. (Of
course, liberals acted in bad faith. All these years, they’ve been
denouncing fascism as a style, ideology, and value system, yet there
is more than a little fascism in Obama-ism. According to liberals,
fascism isn’t fascist IF it glorifies non-whites or if used against
the White Right. It’s like saying a gun is not a gun if it’s used to
kill a conservative. In truth, Obama-ism has quasi-fascist elements.
If indeed Obama-ism is a political and ideological miracle, it is
proof that fascism had been right all along. It means that fascism
never died and that even liberals have come to drink from its well
after the discrediting of communism, welfare socialism, global
capitalism, and finance capitalism.) But, if that is the case, the
White Right should not reject Obama-ism completely but come up with
their own Obama-ism or their own fascism. Our own Obama-ism would be
pro-white, pro-Western, national socialist, for bigger government in
OUR HANDS, and have its own great leaders. And, if liberals accuse us
of acting like fascists, we need only to point our fingers at Obama-
ism and say that liberals revived this kind of politics and used it
very effectively. If liberal fascism is an option, then so is
conservative fascism. We are all socialists now? No, we are all
fascists now.


Socialism was purely a materialistic ideology that claimed to
scientifically understand the world and how to fix it. But, there is
something mythic, inspiring, holistic, messianic, sacrosanct and
spiritual about Obama-ism. It has the Vision Thing. It is more fascist
in style than socialist. It appeals to the emotions of the masses, to
the mythic bonds of unity. Socialism has been dry, technocratic,
impersonal, and intellectual. Since it’s supposed to be a system run
by rational minds, it distrusted primal emotions and the passions of
the community. Of course, communism had a mythic and spiritual
element, but that developed later and rather cynically in order to
keep power by winning and controlling the hearts and minds of the
masses; since communism didn’t work well as it promised on the
material level, it had to rely more on myth-making. Also, the radical
passions at the core of communism lent it more easily to stuff like
mass pageantry and the deification of the Great Thinkers and Leaders.


Anyway, the elitist assumptions of the liberals have failed. Both
liberal control of government and popular culture have not led the
masses toward independence and liberation but toward enslavement(or
addiction) to basest desires, appetites, and passions. What held true
for the educated and successful liberal elite didn’t hold true for the
masses. Liberal thinkers and activists with their neat theoretical
models became ever more divorced from reality. The masses were not
too bright, responsible with their freedom, accountable, nor grateful
for the new order. Liberals came to realize that the people are
essentially emotional beings. And so, the liberals came up with Martin
Luther King-ism, Camelot-ism, and Obama-ism. Obama-ism unites
intellectual liberalism with the impassioned holism of the masses. It
is indeed the apotheosis of what might be called ‘liberal fascism’.


Since liberals who control the media and public discourse have made
fascism fashionable again–though they would never call it that–, it
gives us a chance to bring back fascism for OUR power, interests, and
agenda. Again, if liberals accuse us of reviving or using fascist
methods, we need only to point to what they did with Obama. We should
do exactly what they did with Obama in terms of marketing the image,
the celebration of the Great Man, the loud slogans, the holistic
symbolism, and so on. Also, Obama-ism has meant ‘no enemy to the
left’. So, liberal policy is never to criticize or attack black
extremists, illegal aliens, gay lunatics, feminist bitches, radical
Marxists, and so on. They are altogether now. This is not necessarily
because liberals endorse the elements of the far left or the
nationalisms of minority groups. It just that liberals, cynical and
hungry for power, have a Popular Front strategy whereby everyone
opposed to the White Right must stick together no matter how sick or
demented they might be. The White Right must do the same thing. The
White Right is not exclusively white. It should welcome non-whites who
believe that the West should remain a white majority civilization(just
as white people respect the right of China to be mostly Chinese, of
sub-Saharan Africa to be mostly black, of India to be mostly Indiana,
and of Mexico to remain mostly Mexican. At any rate, once the White
Right understands who their allies are, the policy should be to never
attack enemies on the white right. If the liberals say the White Right
is allied with ‘extremists’, we have a silver bullet to shoot back
because Obama-ism has meant and practiced ‘no enemy to the left’.
Despite the revelations about Obama’s allies and associates, the
national media–that is to say the Liberal Jew Media–said it was
perfectly fine for Obama to have been friends or close associates of
radicals and extremists since they are ‘progressives’ or ‘victim
groups’. Then, we must follow the same policy. We must never condemn
the elements of the far-right(not harshly anyway) but rather argue
that even though we disagree with some of their views, they are merely
a people fighting for their survival.


Anyway, let’s return to the original topic of why the elite
assumptions of liberalism are wrong. Imagine pure snow at the top of
the mountain. It is clean, crisp, perfect, and pure. It is icy snow,
pure H2O in icy frozen state. Elite liberal ideas are like this.
Purely on a theoretical level, they sound pretty good and infallible.
But, what happens when the snow on the mountain melts and flows down
the slopes and streams and rivers. Near the top, the water is clean
and pure. As it moves down more, it picks up more impurities. As it
hits the rivers, it picks up mud and dirt. When it finally moves into
the lagoons, it isn’t all that clean but festering with all kinds of
germs. Elite ideas are like that. What sounds good in its pristine
theoretical form at the top becomes muddied, dirtied, and loaded with
impurities as it spreads among the masses. This is the case with high
and mighty ideas. Nietzsche’s profound philosophy turned into the ugly
aspects of Nazism. Aldous Huxley’s cautious and profound ideas on
hallucinogenics turned into 60s hippie lunacy and drug orgies. Marx’s
theory of economics in actual practice became murderous communism that
destroyed entire societies. Elitist Huxley thought that the experience
of hallucinogens was so profound that people would not/could not
possibly abuse them for stupid. How wrong he was. I highly doubt if
Nietzsche would have thought his ideas would lead to something like
Nazism and WWII. Of course, not all ideas hatched by ‘great men’ are
pure as snow. In many ways, Nietzsche’s ideas were dangerous to begin
with. And, come to think of it, Marx’s ideas and visions were pretty
crazy to begin with too. Orwell was wrong in Animal Farm to suggest
that the noble ideas of Marx were corrupted by those who came later;
the ideas were ruthless and murderous to begin with despite all that
stuff about justice for mankind.
But, some ideas do sound so pristine, nice, logical, and fool-proof at
the top. Liberalism and libertarianism both share this quality. Both
are incredibly naive but fool and win over a lot of smart people
because of their impressive intellectual mumbo jumbo. Many people,
especially the educated, come to think it must be correct since some
of the best and the brightest minds came up with or espouse them. But,
it doesn’t matter how smart someone is. Knowledge and understanding
are always limited to a person’s narrow experience. Also, people are
capable of denial even when reality is right in front of their faces
either due to cowardice, social pressure, dogmatic indoctrination, or
sense of shame(if they were to think ‘taboo’ thoughts).


Elite liberal assumptions may indeed work in a world where everyone
shares the qualities of elite liberals. They would not only believe in
big government but would be imbued with values related to personal
responsibility, diligence, shame, accountability, and contributing to
society(as opposed to mere taking). Elite liberals believe in giving-
and-taking, but they practice more giving than taking. Also, elite
liberals have a moral and theoretical understanding of the tenets of
liberalism. They are not liberals only for the sake of self-interest.
Indeed, as many liberals are rich, they would be financially better
off under conservatism–lower taxes. But, many rich people support
liberalism because they see it as a set of moral principles and
imperatives, a kind of secular religion and mission; as Jesus said,
man doesn’t live on bread alone. (Just like soldiers need not only
guns and ammo but a cause to fight and die for, rich liberals need not
only success and wealth but causes to live for and champion.)


Rich liberals tend to be knowledgeable and well-read. But, as we go
down the social ladder, liberalism becomes less a set of moral and
social principles than an easy way for the masses to get freebies. All
those welfare mommas in Detroit and South Side of Chicago don’t give a
shit about the values or theories of liberalism. They aint never heard
of John Rawls or some do-gooder Jew-ass mothafucka. For them, it
simply means, ‘them honkeys gonna gimme me mo free lunch. Dang!!!’ All
those illegal aliens who cross the border into this country don’t give
a shit about the values of ‘sharing’, ‘cooperation’, and all that.
They only care for Mexican power and nationalism and getting freebies
from gringos. All those white trash who live off the government dole
don’t give a crap about the responsibilities of citizenship. In all
these cases, it’s about the government giving them more free stuff so
they can fatten their asses and have more fun while contributing
nothing to society.


So, what started out as a positive, constructive, cooperative, and
useful socio-economic theory at the top turned into the worst and lazy
kind of self-interest and self-indulgence among the slobs. (To be
sure, there are elite liberals who espouse liberalism mainly as an
effective means to gain power and privilege.) Just compare the Ivy
League educated Jewish liberal with the welfare momma in the black
inner city with her 10 idiot children. Just compare the Japanese-
American professional liberal with some black thug dope dealer with
guns and bling blings. What applies at the top doesn’t apply at the
bottom, not even in the middle. (It’s like the physical laws governing
the stars don’t apply to the laws governing subatomic particles.)
And, the arrival and support of Obama-ism is partly an admittance on
the part of liberals that what I say is true. For instance, many
affluent white liberals thought the black style of acting, talking,
behaving, and feeling was so cool and liberating. A lot of privileged
and affluent white kids(especially Jews)put on black airs and
disseminated it throughout the culture. Affluent white liberals found
it very refreshing, fun, and ‘liberating’. But, what was only a matter
of style(like clothes to put on and off) for white liberals was the
very substance(the very flesh and bones) for the masses–especially
among blacks and trash elements of other races. It’s one thing to be a
Jewish liberal who goes to school, does his homework, and gets good
grades to enjoy Richard Pryor or some Rap music. It’s quite another to
be a stupid Negro who has no father, fails in school, despises his
teachers, and is problematic to embrace stuff like Richard Pryor and
Rap music. For the Jewish liberal, the black jive-ass act is merely
fun stuff to spice up his mostly sound and stable life. For the Negro
kid, the jive-ass act becomes the very heart and soul of his being.
(Alcohol means different things to a responsible drinker and to an
alcoholic.) So, the impact of permissive cultural liberality is very
different for the elite liberals and for the trash elements.


Much the same can be said of libertarianism, another intellectual and
elaborate but essentially naive ideology. Let us return to the
metaphor of the snow at the top of the mountain peak and what happens
as it melts and flows down the slopes all the way down to the lagoon.
Libertarianism, like liberalism, sounds pretty good when expounded at
the top. It is about personal freedom and liberty after all. Who can
be opposed to that?


The problem is what libertarians theorize and propose up in their
ivory towers don’t translate into their preferred reality on the
ground. Libertarianism would work just fine and dandy IF most people
thought and acted like elite libertarian theorists, that is to say
they not only embraced the philosophy of unfettered individual freedom
but also were capable of restraint & rational behavior, accepted full
responsibility for their actions, and didn’t blame society for their
problems.


What happens is that only the crudest and most easily accessible
aspects of any philosophy or theory come to be understood and
practiced by the masses. Consider the fact that Freudianism came to
mean, for most people, the idea that having free sex is good(thought
that’s NOT what Freud meant). For most people, libertarianism is that
cool ideology that says you can do whatever you want that gives you
maximum pleasure. On that level, most liberals and blacks are
libertarian. They want to be left alone to pursue their fun. Liberals
want to be left alone to use drugs. Blacks want to be left alone to
buy and carry guns and sell drugs. Many people want the freedom to go
gambling, buy pornography, and all that stuff. So, the part of
libertarianism that means ‘freedom to do as you want’ is understood
and even embraced by a lot of liberals. The problem is the
responsibility part. Ideological or intellectual libertarians see
that as crucial to the philosophy–that a person must have freedom and
make his own choices BUT also act rationally and take responsibility
for the choices he makes. The latter part of the philosophy just
doesn’t trickle down to the masses. Masses are crude, stupid, and
childish. A child wants to play with toys but doesn’t want to clean
up after playing with them. Similarly, people want to play with
freedom but don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of
all of their freedoms. They want full freedom to do as they please,
but if they mess up, they prefer to blame or scapegoat others and make
others pay for and clean up the mess they’ve created. Again, the icy
pure reason of libertarianism at the mountain peak turns into muddy
water filled with impurities and bacteria once it flows down to the
masses. All these theories can work ONLY IF the masses accept not only
the freedom(libertarianism) or services(liberalism) but also the
responsibility and appreciation. One must appreciate freedom to use
it intelligently, and one must have strong values to have the will and
courage to admit mistakes, learn from mistakes, and take
responsibility for one’s own actions. Too many people don’t fit that
mold. Similarly, one must appreciate big government services if one
is to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, without
such appreciation, one never knows the limits of what one may take
from the system; he just keeps demanding more and more(always
complaining that it’s all unfair because some people have more); and
unscrupulous demagogues like Obama or Chavez will come along and play
on such emotions to gain power for themselves.


It is for this reason that both liberalism and libertarianism cannot
work without a firm foundation in conservatism. ‘Conservatism’ can
mean different things, but for modern societies it means a set of
moral principles that have stood the test of time. Fads and fashions
come and go, but basic truths about humanity remain the same. Of
course, both liberalism and libertarianism are not without moral
values, but they tend to be vague and negative than positive. Freedom,
for instance, can mean freedom to do anything; and even if some
freedoms don’t violate others directly, they are personally corrosive.
Also, helping mankind(liberal value) is only a vague moral value
because collective morality is faceless. If you help out a friend or
family member out of personal obligation, there is a strong moral
element in your deed. But, if you pay taxes for the good of society,
whom is your money going to? It could go to deserving people or it
could go to mere parasites. You would never know. And, who handles
the government in charge of such things? Paper-shuffling faceless
bureaucrats whose main interest is to expand government as much as
possible for their own power and benefit.
There is a vague moral component in the idea of everyone helping one
another, but the actual practice of such is diffuse and can be
immorally exploited by too many people–lazy parasites.
Liberalism also teaches people to be tolerant, and tolerance is a
value of sorts, but it too is vague and a negative value. It tells
people NOT to do certain things, like calling someone a ‘kike’,
‘nigger’, ‘faggot’, or ‘chink.’ Not acting nasty and rude is indeed a
good thing, but liberalism doesn’t fill the individual with the values
and virtues necessary for him or her to succeed in life, make wise
decisions, or be a good individual(as opposed to merely a good
citizen). One cannot succeed or be a functional member of society
simply by not doing some bad things. Even if you’re not hateful or
hostile toward people of other races, nationalities, religions, or
sexual natures, you could still be a stupid, dishonest, lazy, idiotic,
childish, egocentric, obnoxious, moronic, and insufferable fool. And,
there are many such people in our society. Having been raised under
politically correct indoctrination, they know well enough NOT to say
certain ‘hateful’ things. They tend to support generic ‘progressive’
policies such as ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘equality’ and
‘diversity’. But, those misguided or vague moral values teach them
nothing about what it means to be a good person, a responsible person,
a decent person, an honest person, a hardworking person, a good family
man, and so on.



In some ways, those vague values undermine stronger moral values. For
example, if you’re told that you must take care of society, you would
be a fool to work hard since you’d be forking over much of your wealth
to the government so that bureaucrats and bums can leech off your
labor. (Besides, ‘you should take care of society’ can also mean ‘you
should take care of society,’ in which case you might as well try to
take it easy so that others will take care of you.) Also, tolerance
has limits; beyond a certain point, its moral value becomes as
worthless as inflated paper currency. Complete tolerance is at best
amoral and at worst, completely immoral. We are seeing the product of
this craziness already in Canada and Europe.
The ultra-liberal governments in those places insist and enforce laws
that require the majority populations to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’
of diversity. So, if some white European or Canadian badmouths
Muslims, blacks, or gays, he can be put behind bars. This is done in
the name of tolerance for minorities and different cultures. But, what
if the culture or population that is being protected is itself
intolerant, illiberal, or crazy? This is a problem that the liberal
West has not been able to resolve. In the name of protecting a
(rapidly growing)minority from bigotry, liberalism is actually giving
protection to a growing social reality that may indeed come to destroy
the West along with its liberal values.


Every idea or policy has its useful limit beyond which it becomes
destructive or suicidal–just like medicine; too much will kill you.
Imagine having a baby tiger cub in your midst. It is small and cuddly.
Suppose there are several storeys in a building. Those at the topmost
storey have the most power. As the baby tiger grows, it starts to claw
at and bite people at the lower storeys. They complain about the
growing power of the tiger and its increasing erratic and aggressive
behavior. But, the people at the top are not sympathetic to the
complaints of humans below. They don’t want to look at the people
below but only cling to the belief that the tiger cub is essentially
good, innocent, and nice even if it acts increasingly troublesome.
Also, let us suppose the people on top feel a certain guilt because
they had long mistreated the tiger cub’s mother. As time goes by, the
tiger cub grows bigger and bigger, more confident and aggressive.. The
people begin to complain that this tiger is posing a big threat to
them and has already killed and devoured some of the people below.
But, suppose the people at the top, committed to the religion of
tolerance for the tiger, refuses to heed to the cries and demands.
Besides, as they are safe and well-protected at the higher storeys,
they don’t have to worry about the tiger attacking them or their kids.
Of course, eventually the tiger will grow big and strong enough to
attack even those at the top, but it will too late by the time the
people on top realize the true nature of the tiger.


For this reason, it is misguided for patriotic white folks in America
and Europe to see the minorities as their main threat. The main threat
is the people at the top who control, shape, and command the national
information, ideology, and policy. So, it’s stupid for the white
masses to keep pleading with those at the top for attention and help.
The people at the top will not listen to white people’s cries. In
America, the elite compromises mainly liberal and left-wing Jews,
which means they have a special interest to weaken gentile white power
as much as possible. In Europe, the Jews are less powerful but the
people who control the media, government, and institutions are mostly
also of the left. This is partly the legacy of WWII, which morally and
mortally discredited the Right thanks to the insane policies of Adolf
Hitler. Though most of the Right had nothing to do with Hitler, they
got associated with the radical right anyway. Guilt-by-association
employed by the resurgent left against the white right did a lot of
damage. But, there’s another reason for the cultural weakness of the
Right. Because the Right has been so religious and traditionalist, it
rejected or dismissed intellectualism, critique, and such things. As
we all know, modern societies empower the best educated and the
intellectually-oriented(whether their ideas are sound or not) in the
fields of media, arts, culture, academia, government, and so on.
Because of the Right’s disdain for intellectualism and creativity, the
Left naturally took over the institutions that command our social,
political, and moral ideas. The stupid thick-skulled religious
leanings of the Right has even turned off many conservatives, which
explains why so many flocked to the libertarian brand. What
intelligent or educated person would want to be associated with the
sermons of Pat Robertson or other such banalities?


At any rate, both individual freedom and collective cooperation are
useless unless a society is mostly made up of sober, responsible,
decent, and steadfast individuals, and the values that imbue
individuals with strong moral sense are conservative. Liberal
tolerance can be a good thing within reason. Collective sharing can be
beneficial if modest in design. Individual freedom that libertarians
love so much is crucial to a democracy’s health and progress. But, all
must be rooted in and restrained by strong moral values of
conservative character. And, people must understand that morality
cannot be completely tolerant. Any set of values must discriminate and
dismiss other values(or anti-values). Diligence is the opposite of
laziness. Honestly is at odds with dishonesty. Decency is the enemy of
rudeness and barbarism. But, just look at the kind of culture our
society embraces. Liberals defend rap music on the basis that it’s
essentially black and that we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of
black culture. But, what are the ‘values’ of rap music/culture?
Decency? No, it’s about savagery, rudeness, and thuggery. Self-
criticism? No, it’s about self-centeredness, self-promotion, and self-
aggrandizement. Honesty? No, it’s about fooling, jiving, hustling,
conning, and ‘dissing’ the ‘mothafackas’? Friendliness? No, it’s
about saying bad things about other guys, women, and their friends and
relatives. Law and order? No, it’s about the thrill and fun of
criminality, robbery, and rape. Curiosity and intelligence? No, its
attitude is that the only cool things in the world be your ego, your
guns, your dick, your ho’s, your drugs, and etc. Obligation to
family, friends, society, ancestors, relatives, etc? No, it’s about
you, you, and you and ‘fuck’ the rest. Rap is liberalism and
libertarianism at their worst. It exists under the liberal rubric
because stupid white liberals believe that it’s wonderfully ‘tolerant’
to appreciate non-white cultures(no matter how pathological and
disgusting they happen to be). It also falls under the libertarian
umbrella because Rap is all about me, me, me, my freedom, my passions,
my desires, etc. But, notice that the rap community has no
appreciation for the liberal concept of mutual tolerance, mutual
appreciation, and mutual obligation, and it has no appreciation for
the libertarian values of personal restraint and self-responsibility.
People of the rap community have little or no interest in the cultures
of other people, nationalities, communities. Indeed, they dismiss most
of that stuff as ‘pussyass’ or ‘faggotyass’. Also, the egocentrism at
the core of rap doesn’t inspire or encourage appreciation of things
that aren’t loud, sexy, badass, or toughass.
If Nazism’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures was based on
a sense of Aryan cultural and racial superiority, Rap culture’s
intolerance and disinterest in other cultures are based on the notion
that nothing has any value unless it can kick ass and get as many
pussies as possible. Nazism was the radical ultra-arrogance and
intolerance of High Culture whereas Rap-ism is the pathological ultra-
arrogance of low culture. Rap-ism, were it to take over society would
leave behind an even worse impact than Nazism because it would simply
end civilization itself. Nazism, had it prevailed, would have
established an evil civilization, but a civilization with some noble
things just the same. But, rap-ism, which grew out of the jungle-
pathologies of black genetic nature, is something that can bring on a
PERMANENT Dark Age since blacks cannot create and maintain
civilizations. Uganda under Idi Amin was like a society taken over by
rap thugs. And, much of Africa has come under that kind of mind set.
That kind of mentality cannot set up complex businesses, produce
doctors/scientists/engineers, run a responsible government, produce an
intelligent and sober electorate, or make way for any social
progress. People with rap mentality know how to demand, how to
complain, how to bitch and whine, how to shake their fists, how to
destroy, how to act wild and crazy. They don’t know how to build, how
to learn, how to appreciate, how to make peace, how to cooperate, how
to self-criticize, how to make amends.


Our society is producing more and more people with rap mentalities
because of the rise in black populations and because so many whites
and Hispanics are aping the blacks–a natural process in a society
which is obsessed with sports/sex/pop music. As long as blacks
dominate sports and popular music, more and more kids of all
background will try to adopt or imitate blackness in order to be hip,
cool, badass, and etc. Fascism understands human nature correctly for
people gravitate toward power.
As Jews gained intellectual and cultural superiority in the West, many
gentiles became slaves of Jewish ideology and values. Radical
feminism, for example, was created by ugly Jewish hags, but as it was
intellectually more sophisticated and elaborate(even if wrong)than
what gentile women came up with, gentile women all tried to write,
think, and act like the Big Jewish Sister. In the arena of sports and
pop music, blacks are the toughest, roughest, meanest, and baddest.
So, naturally boys and girls want to be black or black-ish. They
respect Power and become the emotional and cultural slaves of
blackness. If whites were stronger than blacks and if gentiles were
smarter than Jews, this would not have happened. So, despite all the
leftist Jewish crap about fighting oppressive power, the real
oppressive power is being concentrated in the hands of Jews
(intellectual, cultural, economic, political) and blacks(athletic,
streets, crime, sexual, etc).


And of course, our pop culture industry promotes, markets, and
disseminates much of this. Now, why would well-educated white(largely
Jewish)people spread this garbage far and wide? There are three main
reasons. One is the simple profit motive. For pop culture industries
to compete and win, they need to market what most people want, and
most people happen to be dummies. Another reason is many highly
intelligent and well-educated people think stuff like Rap has real
cultural value. Though rich liberals are part of the elite, they are
eager to prove that they are egalitarian. To prove their street cred,
they parrot and promote the garbage that issues from the street. Even
so, it must be said that many worthy arts and culture did come from
below. Though a person who cannot appreciate high culture nor
distinguish between a work of art and mere junk is no better than an
ape, a snob who cannot appreciate genius and brilliance simply because
it didn’t issue from the top is an idiot. Even so, most of what passes
for pop culture range from banal/ harmless to demented/destructive.
The third reason why rich liberals shamelessly promote dangerous and
corrosive stuff like rap music is many of them have been taught by
their radical professors and learned from books that truly progressive
people must take a hateful and antagonistic stance against the
‘conservative’ majoritarian forces of society. This explains why
someone like Margaret Cho has become a major star in pop culture.
She’s ugly, disgusting, and repulsive–an Asian version of Rosie
O’Donnell or Sarah Silverman–but, she and her fans fool themselves
that her stupid and retarded anti-social attitude amounts to some kind
of meaningful statement for the sake of liberation and freedom. It may
well be that she had problems growing up and has issues she needs to
resolve, but notice that she blames society than coming to terms with
herself and accepting that society can never be perfect. But, the idea
of people like her is that society is essentially evil–as long as
straight white people are in the majority–and the only way to fight
for freedom and noble causes is to be ‘badder’ than society. Lots of
Jews like Lenny Bruce were the pioneers of this kind of attitude, and
we can now see where it has taken our society.