The liberal order is already dead

submitted by DisastrousDepth14Race comes first from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I don't often agree with a lot of things posted in this sub, but this article is terrific and absolutely on the money.

Appreciate the reference to Chesterton, his criticisms of both capitalism and communism are on point in my opinion.

[–]DisastrousDepth14Race comes first[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I don't often agree with a lot of things posted in this sub

Constructive criticisms are always welcome. Just curious, what particular things/ideas make you disagree with us?

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Honestly, its the fact that everything is about race - give me a chance to explain

People here tend to talk a lot about genetics and race, specifically about desirable inheritable traits. Now, if I selected individuals based purely on qualities determined by the alt-right, like IQ, law-abidingness, or whatever else you find desirable, the fact is that these traits are distributed on a bell curve, and even if white people are statistically superior - this is a heuristic. Some white people at the bottom of the bell-curve are going to be inferior to some non-whites at the top of the non-white curve. This makes the idea of white nationalism seem an imperfect ideology in my eyes.

I certainly can respect that some people would choose to live in an all-white society, and I think people ought to be able to choose to do so.

However, for me personally, I value freedom and autonomy more than anything, and would choose to create a 'nationalism' of other people that agreed with me, and would allow me to live how I would want. It doesn't matter to me what their race is as long as they agree with me.

I am no wokist liberal, I am just not a fan of any kind of race, gender, or sexuality identity politics on either end of the political spectrum.

Hope that explains what I mean, I don't harbor any ill-will towards you folks, or even want to deny you the ability to create the kind of nation you would want to live in, I just get the feeling that the alt-right wants the entire world to organize themselves by race, and don't acknowledge it is possible some of us might prefer different arrangements

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

People here tend to talk a lot about genetics and race, specifically about desirable inheritable traits. Now, if I selected individuals based purely on qualities determined by the alt-right, like IQ, law-abidingness, or whatever else you find desirable, the fact is that these traits are distributed on a bell curve, and even if white people are statistically superior - this is a heuristic. Some white people at the bottom of the bell-curve are going to be inferior to some non-whites at the top of the non-white curve. This makes the idea of white nationalism seem an imperfect ideology in my eyes.

This has nothing to do with the alt right, you're critiquing retarded IQ nationalists. We are for our race because it's our race, not because of any quantitative metrics.

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I can respect that, and I appreciate you correcting my misunderstanding

For me race just isn't at the top of my list of things I care about

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What's your socioeconomic background?

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

White and upper-middle class

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah I figured, it's still rather surprising. Do you just live in a place with no non-whites? I don't think I've ever known someone who hasn't been a victim of some kind of violence by a racial stranger, or at least been in a threatening situation. Have you been fortunate enough to be completely sheltered from this?

Do you think you would have the same anti-racial feeling if you were trapped in a post-industrial urban area, you grew up poor and the area you're from is 50%~ white with a high crime rate? You might look down your nose at the backwards whites, or have contempt for the libtard whites but guess what? If all those non-whites were swapped with whites of whatever kind we all know you would immediately feel safer in this hypothetical scenario; if you had to be dirt poor you'd rather be that way in a 100% white community than than a diverse one. Having to live around non-whites leaves you in a constant state of psychological stress; you never know when you'll be stabbed where I live, the problems of diversity are abundantly clear.

You personally might be able avoid most of these affects but many white people can't, our people are being murdered and raped daily while the state discriminates against us. Maybe the non-whites in your life are professionals with high IQs and you don't travel to the bad parts of town or whatever, but most the people in poverty in America are white. Those white people are trapped and being oppressed.

This is why we are racialists.

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you just live in a place with no non-whites? I don't think I've ever known someone who hasn't been a victim of some kind of violence by a racial stranger, or at least been in a threatening situation. Have you been fortunate enough to be completely sheltered from this?

No, I actually have voluntarily lived in pretty bad areas early in my adulthood. I have no illusions about the racial disparities in crime. I don't think they can all be accounted for by socio-economics or police discrimination either. Statistically you are correct, but again the bell curve thing, not all whites are non-criminal, and not all non-whites are criminal.

I actually agree with you that societies would work better organized by race, as any kind of homogeneity makes governance easier. I am not saying race is not a factor, or even an unimportant one, but homogeneity is more than just race. There are a lot of white people that I do not want anything to do with, mainly authoritarian types. I don't want to live in a society where I have no medical autonomy, or can be jailed for possession of marijuana, white people who want that are my enemy, period.

I'd prefer a bunch of non-criminal non-whites that would leave me alone if that was my only other choice

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    He doesn't simp for Arabs, but I am more interested in seeing you expand on that other thing you said. What in Mark's post would an Arab consider to be outrageous and offensive, and why? I want to hear your thoughts on this.

    [–]DisastrousDepth14Race comes first[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    We bring up IQ only when woke retards deny existence of race. Of course races do exist and so do racial differences. IQ is one of them. As u/Markimus said, to us IQ isn't everything. We advocate for our racial interests.

    [–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    Yes, I admit I do not have great understanding of all the nuanced positions covered by the alt-right.

    From a personal standpoint, my main concerns about governance are just being left alone. I want to be free to smoke weed if I want, and refuse medical treatments if I want. To me, an authoritarian is an authoritarian is an authoritarian, and race isn't part of that picture to me.

    In general I think societies work better when everyone agrees - rule by consent. I think the creation of ideological states might satisfy everyone.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    For people dissatisfied with the one dimensional flatness of the quantitative worldview, there exists also the possibility of exploring a qualitative one. Just in this thread, for example, Evola has been mentioned several times. I do not think that you will get much benefit from reading him, however, since you seem to be attached to liberalism. The issue with liberalism is that there is consent, yes, but it is manufactured consent, which is in my opinion the only possible type of consent in a modern system. Now putting aside the matter of if government by popular consent is truly possible or not, the very attempt tends to transform government into an institution that provides maximal liberty and convenience. The issue with this is that a lot of people are not capable of using their liberty responsibly, and that when the highest human horizon is merely "convenience", division, greed, cynicism and conflict become inevitable as people gradually start to crave for more and more at the expense of each other, of social harmony and of any higher ideals of truth, justice, what have you. The conflict between the Republicans and the Democrats can be interpreted in the same way - they are two cynical, vicious groups that hate each other and are willing to destroy the United States simply to deny power to their opponents and seize it for themselves. It is not a healthy, sustainable or desirably dynamic.

    [–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Evola has been mentioned several times. I do not think that you will get much benefit from reading him, however, since you seem to be attached to liberalism

    I have an open mind, even people I generally disagree with have good ideas, I will read up on Evola.

    The issue with liberalism is that there is consent

    I disagree - liberalism says no rulers, but is generally perfectly fine with rule by the majority (Gauthier is an exception who believes in unanimous consent), to which the minority does not consent. I don't consent to all sorts of shit in our democracy. Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority, so I am not sure that I am as attached to liberalism as you think

    The conflict between the Republicans and the Democrats can be interpreted in the same way - they are two cynical, vicious groups that hate each other and are willing to destroy the United States simply to deny power to their opponents and seize it for themselves.

    I couldn't agree more

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I disagree - liberalism says no rulers, but is generally perfectly fine with rule by the majority (Gauthier is an exception who believes in unanimous consent), to which the minority does not consent. I don't consent to all sorts of shit in our democracy. Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority, so I am not sure that I am as attached to liberalism as you think

    What is your alternative to authoritarian tyranny and popular tyranny? Are you perhaps some sort of anarchist? I should note that typically that last line is considered a major liberal critique of democracy.

    [–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    What is your alternative to authoritarian tyranny and popular tyranny? Are you perhaps some sort of anarchist? I should note that typically that last line is considered a major liberal critique of democracy.

    I do appreciate the works of individualist and egoist anarchists. I have been influenced by Max Stirner's egoism like many anarchist thinkers, but Stirner was very dismissive of Proudhon and never called himself an anarchist. Solutions are a lot harder than critiques. Many revolutionary thinkers have had brilliant critiques of society, and also remarkably flawed solutions (Marx, Kaczynski, many others).

    There are a few ideas I find somewhat convincing.

    Personally, it seems like if 'states' were organized by ideology, the people in those states would be less likely to find themselves in the minority. I also somewhat believe in the 'liberal' idea of natural law as per Gauthier (not Hobbes or Hume). Humans are social animals, and they tend to voluntarily form agreements that have similar features, because game theory shows that these features are optimal and result from people acting in their own best interest. You need laws like 'don't murder', 'respect each others property', and we implicitly agree to these conditions when we form these relationships. Anything past these natural laws should require unanimous consent (manufactured or otherwise, makes little difference to me). Clearly this requires that people have freedom of movement to leave and join societies at their discretion as long as they agree to the codes of conduct.

    Is this practical? I don't know, perhaps not. But it seems like if all the alt-right people who agreed formed a state, and all the people following my unnamed 'ism' formed a state with me, we would both be satisfied, untyrannized, and not violating the rights of anyone else.

    [–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Is this practical? I don't know, perhaps not. But it seems like if all the alt-right people who agreed formed a state, and all the people following my unnamed 'ism' formed a state with me, we would both be satisfied, untyrannized, and not violating the rights of anyone else.

    That sounds very utopian to me - you would not only need to eliminate any scarcity problem that could lead to warfare, but would also need to eliminate aggression in general and ensure the economic integration of all those states.

    [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't understand why a wokeist would be convinced by IQ differences among races.