Coronavirus and the Crisis of Neoliberalism
Introduction:
Many of the world’s contemporary ills are a direct result of the philosophies, actions and policies of the mainstream establishment, its elites, and their bizarre ideology-cum-religion of liberalism, more recently dubbed “neoliberalism” in its most extreme incarnation. Figuratively speaking, it’s more than fair to posit that the dangerously interconnected and interdependent neoliberalized world is like a giant network server, ever perilously teetering on the verge of a cataclysmic failure. When writing of the excesses of the liberal system, and most notably the dangerous interconnectivity of the globalized world Guillaume Faye acutely summarizes our current predicament when he writes:
A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord (between 2010 and 2020) towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos (Faye 2012, 12)
Continuing Faye then offers a glimmer of hope when he writes:
From this chaos — which will be extremely painful on the global scale — can emerge the new order of the post-catastrophe era and therefore a new civilization born in pain (Faye 2012, 12)
The accelerationists among our ranks will chortle that collapse is a good thing. They believe that civilizational collapse will pave the way for a “new world order,” images of valiant last stands reminiscent of those envisioned by William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries or James Mason’s Siege first and foremost in their minds. While the more grounded elements of our movement—those interested in gradual, and realistic metapolitical, and eventual political change—tend to take another view. Realistically speaking, collapse would be a nightmare, wrought with unimaginable suffering and death. Moreover, presumably many of the victims would be our fellow Whites. Political disintegration is a recurring theme throughout world history, and as the study of history has taught, its seldom a pleasant phenomenon.
Bringing matters to a head, and intensifying the instability of the Western world, is the Chinese coronavirus. In true Huxleyan dystopian fashion, with each passing day the fate of the liberalized world rests atop “a pale tenuous membrane,” veering ever closer towards systemic planetary collapse. I cannot help but liken the current crisis to a near-death experience and like any near-death experience, I am cautiously optimistic that some good may arise from our collective veering so close to the proverbial edge. More precisely, I’m hoping that all the fear, misery and uncertainty engendered by the Wuhan pestilence elicits a bona fide existential crisis in whatever’s left of the dwindling soul of the European variant of homo economicus. Let’s hope that with what is tantamount to a national quarantine here in America and most of Europe, that the racially unenlightened kindred among us begin to contemplate just how we got here. The current litany of crises afflicting the West appeared long before the emergence of the Chinese coronavirus, but the virus has managed to bring many of the systems weaknesses to the world’s attention.
War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength
In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph A. Tainter argues that societies become unsustainable when the their problem-solving structures diminish (Tainter 1988). Liberalism as a way of life, has precipitated a number of calamities, on a global scale, many of which remain unresolved, and in fact, are growing to monstrous proportions, immigration chief among them.
Related to the above, the true severity underpinning the coronavirus crisis is a direct result of the extreme uncertainty as to how or when it will end. This uncertainty in turn endows the virus with a potency much more immediately felt than, say, mass immigration or overpopulation, both of which take years for their effects to be realized by the mainstream. Generally speaking, risk can be quantified, in fact, there’s a whole science of risk quantification present within the field of project management devoted solely to the evaluation of risk. Uncertainty, however, isn’t quantifiable, and by its nature is completely unpredictable, and it is this unpredictability which imbues the Chinese virus with so much psychological stress. From this the question arises, how will European man, and ultimately European civilization react to the uncertainty of the Chinese scourge? Will this crisis be the springboard which propels European man towards real ontological, and by extension, civilizational transformation? Or will the retracting empire of European civilization drift closer to the precipice of total racial annihilation? Only time will tell what the future will bring, but some optimism is warranted.
Regardless of outcome, it’s obvious to even the dimmest among us that tangible civilizational change is necessary, at least if the European race is to persevere beyond the twenty-first century. At present, the Chinese scourge is doing a fantastic job of illuminating the real contagion infecting the atrophied West, that of neoliberalism. From atop their echo chambers, a number of mainstream pundits have parroted the statement that the Chinese virus is a global problem. The Chinese virus is a global issue, but presumably much to their chagrin, it is a problem directly caused by neoliberal ideology, and more specifically by its intrinsic preference for and reliance upon globalism. It is the global reach and totalitarian nature of liberalism that has endowed its ideology with such pernicious virulence. It’s probably more than safe to say that if the West wasn’t enthralled by the deranged ideology that is liberalism, that there would be no coronavirus ravaging our homelands and endangering the lives of our folk.
Liberalism isn’t a precise ideology, unlike nationalism which is based on a simple, and fundamental truth, like the love for one’s nation, or an all-encompassing, consensual worldview, like National Socialism. Neoliberalism, unlike its more tolerant ancestor, is more akin to a Rabelaisian salmagundi of rigidly intolerant dogmas and precepts, which are slowly assuming all the accoutrements of a secularized mystery religion. For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires. Liberalism seeks to satiate these wants and desires, the so-called “happiness” of those under its sway, via the specious “freedoms” diffused by the market-economy.
Like all things en-vogue in contemporary in the West, there is a degree of utopian millenarianism present within neoliberal thought, which promises salvation from the cruel sufferings of this world via its fetish for free-market economics. Like all successful swindles, the unconscious pull of neoliberal thought comes from its ability to present and manipulate half-truths. The long and varied successes of the European race are derived from both the individualism and the competitive nature of our civilization, and it is this truth which neoliberalism insidiously exploits. To the neoliberal order, competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. However, competition is framed not as the conquest, or attainment of individual glory or achievement, but primarily as an economic process, of buying and selling, and thus of a hypertrophied free-market. Liberalism has apotheosized the free-market system by portraying it as the most effective, the most rational, and the most natural of social institutions, capable of producing the most “happiness,” and by extension arousing the most “freedoms” for the greatest number of people. These statements aren’t meant to say that free-market capitalism isn’t a profoundly powerful economic system, but rather to illustrate the point that as a concept, it is just a system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and not the totality of a civilization. As Alain de Benoist has correctly pointed out over the years, a society is not a market, and this notion has been twisted by liberalism for decades.
Adding to and intensifying the already perplexing liberal ideological milieu is the establishment’s confusion over the very real differences that exist between a capitalist system and a free-market system. A capitalist system focuses on the creation of wealth and the ownership of capital. In the traditional capitalist system of America, the economy was an industrially oriented economy, as opposed to the so-called “knowledge-economy” of present times in which growth is seen as dependent on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of the information available, rather than the means of production. The industrial orientation of the American economy ensured that economic growth occurred largely in the sectors of farming, mining, construction and manufacturing. Moreover, it was during the industrial period of American economic history, and by extension European economic history, that the middle-class was ascendant, and the private ownership of capital (i.e., small businesses) was disbursed among a much larger percentage of the population.
The liberalization of trade, and the expansion of globalism as an ideology rather than just as a byproduct of technological advancement, acted to deindustrialize large swathes of America, resulting in the mass economic dislocation of workers, specifically within import-competing economic sectors. The decades long process of the deindustrialization of America resulted in an economic restructuring of the economy, which precipitated a shift of the locus of American economic output from the generative (e.g., manufacturing) to the parasitic (e.g., financialization). The resulting postindustrial, “knowledge-based” economies of both contemporary America and the West, are focused on the services, finance, and technology, and as such are parasitic in nature, focusing on the exchange of wealth, rather than its creation. Obviously, creation does occur in the knowledge economy—say, for example, a new technology, but the actual production of the new technology will likely end up going to low-wage countries. This outsourcing of manufacturing has resulted in what one might term the intangibleization of the economies of the West, which has in turn led to stagnant wages for the working class and increasing economic inequality. This ongoing economic process has transformed Western civilization, with the its ancestral European peoples being gradually turned into a postmodern servile class dominated by a globalist elite that recognizes no borders. To wit, the current incarnation of the parasitic, free-market economy is a system most vehemently embraced by a Judaized “Western” elite, who profit off of the labor of others, and who have little in common with the new servile class that they now lord over.
The Eschewal of Inequality and the Perversion of the Natural Order:
Central to the noxious confusion of liberalism is its denunciation of inequality. European civilizational agency—the capacity to act in accordance with one’s own will rather than being a victim of some immutable external force or circumstance—is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization. However, the liberal conceptualization of “agency” ignores the fact that there are differences between individuals in the capacity for agency. These differences reliably produce different economic outcomes, and liberalism, despite decades of trying one panacea after another, has been unable to eradicate these differences at the group level: Blacks, e.g., are still underperforming academically as a group despite decades of interventions aimed at “closing the gap.”
From Jean Bodin to John Stuart Mills to Friedrich Hayek and beyond, classical liberal thought posits that freedom stems from the impartiality of economic markets and its role as the great equalizer, which in turn allows people to reach their maximum potential. In an attempt to reconcile the reality of inequality with their ideology, liberal elites have taken to a program of elevating those individuals, and groups, whole racial groups in fact, whose outcomes don’t coalesce with the egalitarian, and thus utopian aspirations of liberal ideology. In terms of general intelligence (the g factor) for example, numerous studies have shown that Sub-Saharan Blacks on average score a whole standard deviation (or more) below that of Whites. IQ is correlated highly to measures of academic achievement, and better academic achievement, more often than not, results in better life outcomes, in terms of social status. Objectively speaking, the higher an individual’s (or groups) status, the more socially valuable they are. This is an empirical fact, which is rooted primarily in genetics and phenotypic expression, and thus a facet of the inequality of the natural world. Liberalism has elevated hordes of the worthless in a confusing attempt to artificially improve their social status, despite their actual lack of tangible societal value. The relatively new concept of “human rights” is a product of this delusional logic.
To the typical liberal, the Black-White IQ gap is a matter of material inequality, an economic problem, and thus completely unrelated to genes or biology. Charles Murray summed up not only the differences in racial intelligence, but also the futility of the utopian neoliberal project perfectly when he wrote: There is this notion that if traits are genetically determined, that’s bad, and if traits are environmentally determined, that’s good, because we can do something about them if they are environmental. And if there is one lesson that we have learned from the last 70 years of social policy, it is that changing environments in ways that produce measurable results is really, really hard and we actually don’t know how to do it, no matter how much money we spend (Harris 2017). Thus, the neoliberal perspective is immanently flawed as it conceptualizes reality in a way which posits that all negative outcomes are a result of material or economic inequality—which is routinely glossed as the result of White racism—and not an issue of ability or capacity, and by extension a facet of objective reality. Liberalism as the reigning ideology has blurred the lines between the real and unreal, between subjectivism and objectivism. Our current age is characterized by a radical subjectivism, where any notion of absolute, objective truth has been deliberately disregarded and replaced by a facetious tapestry of plural “my truths.”
As the oft-used adage goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It is the philosophical inadequacy of liberalism that reduces all things to the level of material and underlies the multitudes of fallacies present within the many “truths” which make up its pseudo-ideology. As Martin Heidegger posited throughout the entirety of his works, the factual world is perfectly real; it is the human, and by extension, the hyper-liberal propensity to base reality on “projection” (ideal) rather than on “facticity,” (fact) which corrupts the liberal mind and wreaks havoc upon the world.
It is neoliberalism’s adherence to the alleged agency of man, achieved solely by possessing economic and thus political rights, which limits its ability to successfully cope with actual real-world issues. Bridging the gaps in wealth and achievement and abolishing inequality is always just another trillion dollars away. Or it is just a matter of refining our laws to enforce equal outcomes between groups in areas such as income and academic achievement.
And because purely economic adjustments have proved ineffective, political solutions must be found. Policies like quota systems must be enacted and if they are threatened by public opinion—as they most assuredly are— liberalism necessarily morphs into a totalitarian ideology. Bertrand de Jouvenel described the liberal paradox as the cause of what he called “totalitarian democracy.” In the totalitarian democracies of the West, individual decision making, and the explicit “democratic” political processes, maintain the guise of political representation, while in reality decision making is a process done largely by groups of unelected donors—the oligarchs—and their politician minions who really run the system. This is a system which seeks only to maintain and enrich itself. And because its fundamental ideology conflicts with the realities of human nature, such as race differences in IQ, it must necessarily seek total hegemony because that is the only way it can attempt to exempt itself from the realities of nature. It must crush all dissent. Religion, the nation-state, and the family, are all obstacles to the smooth operating of the economy and are ground to dust beneath the machine of market economy. Race is useful only as a means of subverting the traditional power of White majorities, so that only the traditional White majorities are prohibited to have a racial identity or pursue racial interests.
Freedom as an ideal is so ambiguous in orientation that as an abstract notion it can be manipulated to represent anything. It is the economic determinism intrinsic to liberalism which endows it with the myopia of its reductionist tendencies and which, by extension, degrades all things which are real, true and beautiful. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord asserts that just as industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing (Debord 1995). Postmodern neoliberalism isn’t about reality, it’s about the maintaining of appearances to perpetuate the farce of reality—lies, injustice and ugliness masquerading as truth, justice and beauty.
In the degeneration that is the liberal age, presentism is the rule of the day. The generally low-IQ, high-time preference “men without chests” of the postmodern world sacrifice all future gains, whether they be economic, political, racial or otherwise, in favor of high-risk, and often fleeting, short-term gains. As GOP Senator Ron Johnson recently phrased it, we have to reopen portions of the American economy post-haste because “death is an unavoidable part of life.” This train of thought is exemplary of the philosophical weaknesses of liberalism, particularly as it relates to its overreliance on presentism. The behavior of individuals currently living will generally have long-term consequences that affect the well-being of those who will come to live in the future. In this age of dissolution, many people pay lip service to future generations, but act as if it’s not necessary to treat the interests of future generations as equivalent to those of their own. Again, this lack of future-mindedness, and overall lack of care for others beyond oneself, specifically for one’s racial kin, is baked into the giant shit cake which is the liberal establishment.
Conclusion:
The money-grubbing elites of the West have willfully, and quite deliberately forgotten that the purpose of the economy is to serve a people, and not vice-versa. It is this inversion, Nietzschean in its transvaluation of reality, that has led to the series of crises and conflicts destabilizing the West. However, in America, and throughout Europe, people of European descent are gradually awakening to the hostility of these elites. Each new crisis spurred by neoliberalism both edges our people one step closer to the proverbial edge and potentially one step closer to civilizational transformation. In fact, over the past several weeks many legacy media outlets have been publishing stories about the need to suppress the natural, “nationalistic instinct” which has arisen in response to the China plague. Like the farce of multiculturalism, the pervasiveness and popularity of this “nationalistic instinct” is rendered self-evident by the obvious fact that the talking heads in the media are actively working to suppress it. If the works of George Orwell have taught us anything, the more preposterous an untruth, the more vigorously it must be defended.
In times of turmoil like these, it’s important to remember that the disease of liberalism, and those who perpetuate it, are the true enemy of all European people. If America and the West weren’t dominated by the perversion that is money-power, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the hostile elites hadn’t sold out the American people and gleefully deindustrialized America, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we weren’t dominated by a ruthless and rootless, predominantly Semitic, transnational elite whose only interest is the “almighty dollar,” then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the borders of America were closed and if immigration was biased toward Europeans, as it was before 1965, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we lived in a racially homogenous nation-state, populated by people of European descent, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. In other words, if neoliberalism wasn’t the rule of the day, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. Regardless of what emerges from these times of trouble, let’s hope that the loss of life isn’t great, and that the Wuhan scourge is one more nail in the coffin which is the absurdity of postmodern neoliberalism.
Debord, Guy. 1995. The Society of the Spectacle. Cambridge: Zone Books.
Faye, Guillaume. 2012. Convergence of Catastrophes. Budapest: Arktos Media Ltd.
Harris, Sam. 2017. Forbidden Knowledge – A Conversation with Charles Murray. https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/.
Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
No it’s not. Individuals, if left to their individual human wants and desires, largely prefer to assort into natural communities, reasonably called nations.
Advocating power structures aimed at overcoming “the individual” invites hostile elites to enable implementation of said power structures for the precise purpose of overcoming nationalism.
Get real about the root causes of our predicament and, for crying out loud, stop accepting Jewish definitions of “individualism” when individualism, properly understood in its natural glory going back 600 million years of creative sexual evolution, is what makes whites the moral superiors of humanity.
What you are really concerned about is the failure of whites to organize into a power structure upholding genuine individualism to utterly exterminate cultures of group integrity, so we can get back to upholding the essential unity of sexuality and individualism.
“IQ is correlated highly to measures of academic achievement, and better academic achievement, more often than not, results in better life outcomes, in terms of social status.”
After I started to read TOO I have read a lot about IQ tests . But frankly I think that current use of IQ metrics missed the half of equation. IQ tests currently used as scalar (absolute) values, however they should be probably treated as vector in sociological space so to speak.
We should take in consideration not only absolute value (vector magnitude) but aptitude ( vector direction) as well…
What I mean: lets say we have simple X Y axes graph. Line X present what is good and what is bad. If we move left to the negative side we have misery and poverty if we move right we have happiness and prosperity..
Lets say we have a White man with IQ 95 ( vector magnitude). However as a White man he is a good, responsible and caring person ( positive direction ) . He is not ideal though. So let say his projection on X axes is 0.75 in positive direction So he is moving society to the happiness and prosperity by 95*0.75 = 71.25 points
On another hand lets say we have some evil Jewish or Indian specimen with IQ 110 . He will use his high relative intelligence to enrich himself and take from society as much as possible. lets say his projection is -0.9 on X axes in negative direction. So he is moving society to the negative direction by 110*-0.9 = – 99 points
So if we replace Good , Caring White man IQ 95 with evil Jewish or Indian specimen IQ 110 we have moved society 170.25 points to the left toward misery and poverty.
Nobody says IQ is everything. E.g., ere’s also conscientiousness and other personality traits important for success.
IQ is necessary but not sufficient. Character and temperament matter. A society of Jewish geniuses would be hellish and, while Down Syndrome people are universally kind and sweet-tempered, they couldn’t build a successful society and culture.
Nice to see you back Mr. Crowley!
You still got it, “Like the farce of multiculturalism, the pervasiveness and popularity of this “nationalistic instinct” is rendered self-evident by the obvious fact that the talking heads in the media are actively working to suppress it. If the works of George Orwell have taught us anything, the more preposterous an untruth, the more vigorously it must be defended.” – Excellent.
When you say a so-called Transnational Semitic elite is swindling the west, please provide names. When there is incredible societal change that people can’t comprehend and want to pin blame, it’s always the “Jew”. When a a Malaysian airliner disappeared without a trace, some blamed it on the Mossad. I agree 100% that the European peoples are in trouble due to many factors, including massive third world immigration. If you want to blame the JEW, please provide names and facts.
—–
(Mod. Note: “Earl”, is that your new name Mr. Ashton? Same type of “stuff”.)
Name the Jew, eh?
Well, with respect to massive Third World immigration into majority white nations, and with respect to propaganda intended to foster hatred of white people, I’ll give you some names:
Barbara Lerner Spectre, Gregor Gysi, Noel Ignatiev, Tim Wise, Nicholas Sarkozy, Anthony Bourdain, George Soros, Rabbi Rav David Touitou, Susan Sontag, Robin DiAngelo, Abigail Weinberg, George Lipsitz, Paul Kivel, Tema Jon Okun, Frances Kendall, Annalee Newitz, Karen Brodkin, Richard Rothstein, Paula S. Rothenberg, Jonathan M. Metzl, David Roediger, Ira Katznelson, Deborah Root, Eric Klinenberg, Naomi Wolf, Kevin M. Kruse, Michael Kimmel, Abby Ferber, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Shirley R. Steinberg, Lois Weis, April Burns, Howard Winant, David Aaronovitch, Michael A. Cohen, Katy Tur, Rabbi Baruch Efrati, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Rabbi Avarron Haviv, Erica Sherover-Marcuse, Philip Roth, David Judah Simon, Jason Blum, David Weil, Tom Lesinski, Win Rosenfeld, David Ellender, Emma Eiber Tessler, Jake Weiner, Michael Shamberg, Bob Weinstein, Emma Goldman, Emmanuel Celler and Harvey Weinstein.
And the following organizations: HIAS, IsraAid, Open Societies Foundation, ADL, SPLC.
Brilliant response Eric!
I am copying the list, titling it Some of Usual Suspects. You really got the Jews nailed. I aspire to be in your class someday.
I have lots and lots of time to do this stuff. Don’t think I’m anything special.
Cheers!
Don’t be modest. I too have lots and lots of time.
I too will
become
something special
Not forgetting;
Jonathan Sacks, Heidi Beirich, Morris Dees, Mark Potok, Jonathan Freedland, David Dimbleby, Jonathan Dimbleby, Laura Kuennsberg, Mark Peston, Barbara Roche, Denis MacShane (Josef Denis Matyjuszek), Simon Schama, Alan Grynszpan, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Wolf Blitzer, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell…. etc, etc, etc.
I can’t take anymore. Even the list disgusts me, let alone the lizards named.
Great list! But terribly incomplete.Where’s Jeff Zucker? Mark Zuckerberg? Chuck Schumer? Amy Schumer? Bernie Sanders? Sarah Silverberg? Bill Kristol? John Podhoretz? (not to mention Marx, Boas, Freud, “Ashley Montague”, Melville Herskovits, Otto Klineberg, Isadore Chein) Etc forever.
And is it 100% fair to put Sarkozy on that list?
I was restricting myself to Jewish writers, activists and non-profit organizations that make it a major priority to push for white genocide (race mixing with non-whites; hatred of white people; and mass Third World immigration into majority-white nations– both legal and illegal).
Sarkozy is on the list because he publicly called for the French people to intermarry with non-whites and, if necessary, he called for forcing them to do so.
I saw him say this in a videotaped speech. It can probably still be found via Google, complete with translation for those who don’t speak French.
Up until seeing that video, I had liked Sarkozy for taking a hard line against trouble-making Muslims in France.
There are literally tens of thousands of jews in on the swindle and hundreds of thousands sycophant nonjews . Surely you are not asking for the listing of them ? The Forbes list of the 100 richest in the USA will probably give you more names than you would know what to do with . Actually naming a multi-billionaire oligarch for example , as a swindler , could be very bad for your health … capishe ?
(Mod. Note: Earl, good to know.)
In his autobiography, 19th century writer Anthony Trollope, describing how he went into the British Post Office, says (referring to what could be considered the 19th century version of an IQ test), “That method pretends only to decide who among a certain number of lads will best answer a string of questions, for the answering of which they are prepared by tutors, who have sprung up for the purpose since this fashion of election has been adopted. When it is decided in a family that a boy shall “try the Civil Service,” he is made to undergo a certain amount of cramming. But such treatment has, I maintain, no connection whatever with education. The lad is no better fitted after it than he was before for the future work of his life. But his very success fills him with false ideas of his own educational standing, and so far unfits him. And, by the plan now in vogue, it has come to pass that no one is in truth responsible either for the conduct, the manners, or even for the character of the youth. The responsibility was perhaps slight before; but existed, and was on the increase.”
It is true that “conscientiousness and other personality traits (are) important for success.” But, at least in my opinion, the same line or train of thought that uses IQ tests as determinant of certain characteristics of intelligence, leads to consider “conscientiousness and other personality traits” neutral when irrelevant or even counterproductive. I am a PhD in Electronic Engineering and I had occasion to witness multiple occurrences where my opinion on the matter was verified.
And, extending the observation at large, though without proof, I suspect that the attitude I referred to is one among the root causes of the malaise well described in the article and subsumed under the heading of neoliberalism.
Those who came-of-age, at least physically, in the 1960s, didn’t all make the best parents. And their/our children and grandchildren didn’t learn anything about gatekeeping. For the most part, we were taught tolerance when we should have learned the opposite. https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/05/allen-ginsberg-media-model-for-americas-youth/
“For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires.”
There is ample room for confusion around the term “Neoliberalism”, made even more treacherous when freely substituted by the simpler term “Liberalism”.
I did enjoy the article, which makes some very valid and essential points. But the need for a more rigorous (or more expansive- see below) definition of Neoliberalism practically cries out. What we are really concerned with, in a discussion about everything from shuttered factories to the official obfuscation of racial differences in IQ, is an economic critique of Neoliberalism coupled with a social critique of Cultural Marxism.
Many definitions of Neoliberalism are organized around a set of economic principles or tendencies. When critiquing the cultural and quasi-religious aspects of ideas such as “equality”, equal outcomes for all races, and even more so the elevation of fringe minorities and privileging of the “other” that we find in the contemporary West, the economic hallmarks of Neoliberalism are of limited practical use.
“Cultural Marxism” in combination with Neoliberalism is the formula needed, I believe, to further this discussion. Merely invoking “Neoliberalism”, much less “Liberalism” isn’t sufficient. On the other hand, if the author is suggesting that Neoliberalism contains Cultural Marxism as an essential component, some explanation should be devoted to rationalizing the somewhat unaligned economic elements of Neoliberalism (free markets) with the legalistic application of Cultural Marxist tenets (authoritarianism).
An excellent, insightful article.
As suggested, the danger in counting on calamities to create opportunities to salvage what’s left of our societies/cultures is the possibility that we will ultimately go off a cliff without having any chance of retracing our steps.
We must surely have some way of proactively resisting our destruction, without waiting on Providence to throw destabilizing disasters our way. Finding, exploring, and testing such means of resistance should be our primary goal.
I second the motion to avoid relying on calamities and their unintended consequences along with pointless sufferings .
The only “calamity” of interest is where things have fallen apart to the point that the United States and other majority white nations cannot survive in their present form.
Racial, ethnic, linguistic, and/or religious groups would separate into enclaves, and those would be the basis for new nations.
It happened in Yugoslavia. It happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in Czechoslovakia. It has been something that could potentially happen in Canada, Belgium, France, Spain, South Africa, Israel, and other countries.
If and when it does happen, it will happen quickly and it will be a surprise to many. So we have to think ahead. And of course, we have to also plan for the possibility that it might not happen at all.
I agree that “jumping the gun” would be a bad mistake.
This essay rocks! It is the single best piece I have read here or anywhere else on the larger implications of the Corona Bug
and I have read a few. What I like about it particularly is that it bypasses the “Hoax” meme which is so often dominating WN sites and gets to the transformational nature
of our current crisis and what that crisis says about what is wrong with our civilization no matter what the China Bug really is as far as its actual virological threat. This article is great meta politics – the very newest version of it
Read Greg Johnson’s piece on Covid-19 and its relation to globalism over at Counter-Currents.
Setting “isms” aside, we need an ethical system that is not exclusively based on group or individual interests.
The system I have in mind is virtue ethics — what a decent person admires in other people: fairness, hard work, bravery, generosity, etc. What such a person admires in a nation: leaders who make the well-being of the people as a whole their highest priority while respecting the rights and freedom of individuals.
If you apply the second part this ethical template to the contemporary West, its failures become evident in short order.
The well-being of the people as a whole has not been a priority for our rulers. Democracy and a republican form of government have not remedied this deficiency in the slightest. Government has been an enemy, not a friend, of the governed. This has happened through corruption, legal sophistry, pseudo-intellectual posturing, and propaganda.
For example, we have been assured that mass immigration from the Third World is a good thing, when it is plainly a bad thing for the indigenous population. We have been told that hollowing out our industrial base and shipping jobs overseas is a good thing, when it is plainly a bad thing for the indigenous population. We have been told that democracy and a republican form of government will protect us when it is clear that they will not.
Democracy? Were the American people asked whether they wanted mass immigration and the offshoring of their industrial base? At best, it can be said they elected politicians who did those things. But is that the whole story, or is it only a half-truth? Politicians can’t get elected without running campaigns. They are beholden to the people who fund those campaigns, not to the people who vote for them. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to put an end to this money corruption and failed to do so.
That brings us into the realm of the law — the much vaunted “nation of laws” we are said to be, rooted in a Constitution that guarantees us our rights, liberties and self-determination.
None of this is true. For, example, take the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which plainly forbids discrimination on the basis of race and sex (gender). The Supreme Court has ignored this law passed by Congress and allowed discrimination against whites and males. This fact refutes any claim that we have “separation of powers” and “checks and balances.” It shows that the Constitution and laws in general can be trampled on with impunity — by the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
When your rights are trampled on, you do have legal recourse in theory. You may sue — but only if you have the money and time to do so. You can be “right” when it comes to the Constitution and the law. But there is no assurance that you will win. Most likely, you will lose. That is because the entire edifice of our “democratic republic” is the equivalent of a Potemkin village. Within the lifetime of the Founders themselves, it failed. And so did the Enlightenment precepts and values upon which it was founded.
Could there be a remedy for this in a white ethnostate? We could do better. The American constitution as it exists today has a lot of ambiguity. For example, the use of the word “person” rather than “citizen” has provided a rationale for courts to claim that foreigners have the same rights as citizens when they are in this country. The case I have in mind concerns a proposition passed by California voters to deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens. The court ruled it unconstitutional.
If you examine the Constitution, you will see that it omits needed terms and definitions. It doesn’t stop courts from coming to conclusions having no relation to the original intent of a given amendment. The fourteenth amendment’s purpose (with respect to citizenship) was to make former slaves into citizens. But you would never know that from reading the amendment itself.
I paraphrase: “Citizenship is granted to all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The latter part is put in so that the children of foreign diplomats who are born in the United States don’t automatically become U.S. citizens. And this rule still holds.
But a child born to an illegal alien in the United States is automatically deemed a U.S. citizen. How is that child — like his parents — not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country instead of the United States? His parents are citizens of that foreign nation, and they are in the United States illegally.
It is a mystery to me why this hasn’t been the subject of a lawsuit by immigration restrictionists and put on the docket of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it has, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
I believe that nine randomly-picked, law-abiding U.S. citizens who represent the white majority could resolve this and many similar issues in short order in a way that makes sense.
I am confident that — admonished and sworn to take the Constitution at face value and to use common sense — they would end affirmative action, deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, and — oh, what else — order an end to the lockdown we are now under. A lockdown that violates the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution on the basis of an apparently fake crisis.
As for politicians having to run campaigns and being corrupted by money, we could institute a much different system. Citizens could be randomly chosen and appointed to represent other citizens. They could choose to decline the offer. They would have to be tested for basic moral and intellectual fitness. And they would have to be compensated for interrupting their careers. But money would no longer “be the mother’s milk of politics,” to quote former California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh.
But that is not the system we have. The system we have robs the American majority of their wealth, gives us perpetual pointless wars, creates ever increasing inequality, and takes away more and more of our freedoms and rights. It has failed, and it cannot be rehabilitated.
Good points, but it’s not the *system* that’s failing us, it’s the *people* we’re forced to tolerate and coexist with.
The Constitution would be a perfectly serviceable document for the ordering of power in our nation if we were magically relieved of our Negroes (unruly and unteachable in the aggregate), our Jews (no comment necessary!), and our hordes of brown “guest workers”.
But then, almost any flavor of Fascism, Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, etc, would probably be workable if we had ethnic unity and some basic eugenics as a starting point.
No, I think our Constituin is at keast jsut another
part of the problem,
maybe a seminal part.
I think it has allwed the people you rightly compain abut to use “minority” cover to undo us OUr problem is very much systemic
I have no firm idea
what to replace this
constitutional republic
with but I look at real nationalist fascism for some clues
Good article since it shows the liberal fallacy. Ethnocentrism is the superior life force of survival, the blood-sucking alien parasite will try to suppress it, but the time will come when its victim will weaken and start to get uncomfortable (whites). Every social group is grouped by biological symmetry. Bees will create a panel of bees, wasps will create wasp nests, ants will create ant nests, flies will not create anything except more flies.
“Ethnocentrism is the superior life force of survival, the blood-sucking alien parasite will try to suppress it, but the time will come when its victim will weaken and start to get uncomfortable (whites)”
Hasn’t that time come a long time ago?
“The accelerationists among our ranks will chortle that collapse is a good thing. They believe that civilizational collapse will pave the way for a “new world order,” images of valiant last stands reminiscent of those envisioned by William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries or James Mason’s Siege first and foremost in their minds… Realistically speaking, collapse would be a nightmare, wrought with unimaginable suffering and death. Moreover, presumably many of the victims would be our fellow Whites.””
The Siege-sperg is a cartoonish caricature increasingly straw-manned by those who’re more comfortable with the dissident pose than the dissident reality.
Melodramatic invocations of “unimaginable suffering” aside, who realistically believes that Jewish dominance of Western cultures can be reversed without suffering? Accelerationists find it not only “imaginable” but regrettably necessary.
I personally believe in a long-war, multi-generational strategy but I hope for events to present opportunities to accelerate that schedule. Anything that damages the system is potentially beneficial for us – and before the dramatists start in, that doesn’t necessarily mean total civilizational collapse ala some of Faye’s fiction. Whites who’re invested in the system will suffer damage as it goes down, whether the decline is incremental or sudden.
If there’s a softer solution that doesn’t hurt anyone, please describe it. The author makes a good critique of classical liberalism but doesn’t suggest how we can get from liberal here to a better there without some “accelerating” events.
Constructive criticism and positive suggestions would be more helpful than tut-tutting and demonizing accelerationists. We already have the SPLC for that. I’m sorry-not-sorry that this comment doesn’t fit the tailored straw-devil of the Siege-tard but it does accurately reflect the attitudes of most “accelerationists” I’ve spoken with in the years since the bloom fell off the Trumpian rose.
I actually don’t see that much difference between what you are saying and what this author is saying. I think he sees this Pandemic thing as an acceleration event and expects more of them in a relatively gradual movement towards some sort of denouement short of WN’s trying to
ride a sudden social catastrophe
to victory. I think he is in the long war. like you, like me. And of course wars mean suffering
Long war , short war or middle-duration war — play to win and dont let ((( them ))) know your actual strategies or tactics . You need to be able to adapt any plan quickly to rapidly changing circumstances to exploit ((( their ))) weaknesses and capitalize on your strengths . No one knows yet how long it would take to formally establish a WN ethno-state .
it does accurately reflect the attitudes of most “accelerationists” I’ve spoken with in the years since the bloom fell off the Trumpian rose.
Well Exile, I do have to note that for some of us, the bloom was never on the Trumpian rose. Some of us even suspected that the Trumpian plant was actually one unique to Israel. We have seen nothing to dispel this notion
I stopped reading here:
“While the more grounded elements of our movement—those interested in gradual, and realistic metapolitical, and eventual political change”
Remember to vote harder! It’s obviously working very well. It’s totally not like every year and decade of voting brings about an even further limited and precarious position for white people everywhere on this planet or anything. You guys can “gradual and realistic” change yourselves right into the grave, discussing the finer points of a two party system false dichotomy as you’re being carried off in your caskets by the Latinos making pennies an hour to do the job, but hey, they’re here legally!
I’m going to stick with acceleration, for the simple reason that you can’t fish a spoonful of poop out of your coffee, and it’s a much better idea to just throw the whole thing away, cup included, and start over again fresh. There are no political solutions at this point.
Oh I don’t think the author is reducing our future politics to a voting booth. He knows what our political class and their system is . By political change he just means action that is a cut above
trying to ride to some socio economic catastrophe to a WN victory. As for what that politics could be, he doesn’t know but who would know? Stuff happens if you are in the game even if only on the fringes, Remember a certain politician in Germany back in the day who got into power legitimately through a loophole in the system rather than by waiting for the Great Depression to arouse the masses?
A WN ethno-state is the political solution that would likely engender a pro-zionist Pentagon militant opposition that would need to be intelligence-wise neutralized .
This is a very poorly argued piece of writing. If I were an instructor grading it, I would assume the student had rushed superficially through his reading on his purported topic (neoliberalism) in order to discuss what really interested him — race, IQ, and the present woes of a romanticized conception of ‘European Man.’
Liberalism has been marked since its inception by a tension between liberty and equality. As the twentieth century saw this tension being resolved increasingly in favor of equality — partly in response to the challenge of communism, partly in response to the Great Depression — neoliberalism arose as a reaction which attempted to restore liberalism to its 18th century roots. This distinction appears lost on the author of this piece.
Thus he is flatly wrong when he charges neoliberals as being obsessed with denouncing and rooting out inequality. As any of their legions of left-leaning critics could tell you, neoliberals are not at all known for being concerned about inequality. It is precisely because they consider the free market’s distribution of rewards as being grounded in individual agency that neoliberals can accept unequal outcomes as just — and attempts to remediate them as not only economically ruinous, but morally unjust.
Actually, neoliberalis would agree with de Benoist. Indeed, they’re likely to go further and claim — as Thatcher did — that “there is no such thing as society.” That is, there is a collection of individual men and women, but to treat that collection as a unity, with special needs of its own, is fallacious. (And even if some neoliberals might regard such a formulation as too extreme, they’re unlikely to be outraged by it.)
This is a distinction without a difference.
Growth, as always, is mostly dependent on technological advancement. It is information’s promise to help along the process of technological advancement that makes it economically valuable. As technological complexity has increased, it is no great wonder that the value — or at least the quantity — of information has increased in turn. But to suggest that this, in the minds of neoliberals, somehow obviates the production of tangible goods is simply nonsense.
As if the “traditional capitalist system of America” avoided profiting from the labor others!
The article and your response is one reason why I try not to get caught up in “isms.” They mean different things to different people, sidestep the concrete in favor of the abstract and ephemeral, and turn off thought itself by falsely claiming to have all the answers.
I disagree that liberalism in its original form was concerned with balancing freedom with equality. The Founders of the United States were not interested in doing that. Neither was Adam Smith. Freedom was their priority, not equality.
As for neo-liberalism, I have taken it to be a synonym for neo-conservatism. Neoliberals (AKA neoconservatives) are globalists who want a world-wide free market that isn’t interfered with by labor unions, borders, nations, immigration restrictions, tariffs, and the like.
They also want maximum profits by taking advantage of cheap labor and having perpetual war for perpetual peace.
They mouth concern for human rights, individual freedom, democracy, and self-determination, but they are not in the least bit interested in those things.
Their ostensible opponents are Cultural Marxists (this, however, is an illusion; they work together for the same outcome).
Cultural Marxists want equality over individual freedom and group rights over individual rights. How has big business responded? By discriminating against whites and males, enforcing political correctness, accepting affirmative action even when it lowers productivity, and pushing for mass Third World immigration.
Because neo-liberals/neo-conservatives work hand-in-glove with Cultural Marxists to achieve the same outcome — a world government run by a small elite of “woke” billionaires — the whole Left-vs.-Right paradigm is nothing more than theater.
So who are the true opponents of this unitary system that only appears to be divided? The true opponents are those who insist that the first rule of government is to prioritize the well-being of all of the people in a given nation.
That means allowing them to be free as long as they do not harm others. It means taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. It means respecting and preserving national sovereignty and national culture: not allowing alien outsiders to flood into the nation, altering its demographics and traditions.
When Alain de Benoist says that society is not (just) a market, I take it that he means that it is also made up of other important aspects: Race, ethnos, language, borders, customs, traditions, rights, freedoms, and obligations to the helpless. So I think you have interpreted him incorrectly.
I was being facetious. Neoliberals and de Benoist are poles apart in their conceptions of a ‘the good life.’ While de Benoist argues there are numerous aspects of society which outweigh economic efficiency, neoliberals maintain its fallacious to prioritize the needs of an amorphous, illusory concept like ‘society’ over the preferences of individuals.
Try being generous for once in your life. Some people are trying to learn a new way to talk about economics.
This article’s author is one of them.
The modern and postmodern distinctions between capitalism and socialism don’t really explain the changes that have taken place
since liberalism arose. This article’s author is hamstrung by using the term capitalism. But he is trying to get at something – a form of production that is neither capitalistic nor socialist but productivist – concerned with labor value and social needs rather than just making money though makeing money was fine, Henry Ford in the International Jew argued that he was not a capitalist because he made useful things and paid people a family wage to make them. Ford said the guy at the bank who lent him money at very high interest rates was the capitalist. Fordism or streins of it was more common in earlier America before the Usury class -the grubby bunch who make money any way they can – triumphed . That is what this author is trying to get at. There were economic forms in the west – perhaps particularly in Germanic countries as opposed to the Judaized Anglosphere – which allowed for profits decently made. This thing called capitalism by I think Marx was not the only way to make profits, not the only way to use private property, But since our economic history is just another variant of
Jewstory, we don;t know this anymore. This article’s author would be better off just dropping the term capitalist as it is for
good reason synonymous in most minds with exploitation, and greed and using a new term But maybe he thinks what I just said would take too long to explain adequately. He’d be right because I am not explaining it adequately though he;d do better than I have If you want to get it right instead of just carping, read E Michael Jones, Barren Metal.
But you won’t. You are a pseudo intellectual. Nobody who knows much would take your course
The new religion of { The PRIME DIRECTIVE } for the survival of mankind beyond The Solar Extinction Event answers the most important economic question : What are you going to do with your life ? Clearly , if you do not directly nor indirectly support the development of space technologies for survival beyond The Event then you are at the least either tacitly neutral or tacitly in favor of the IMMINENT and GUARANTEED OBLITERATION ( by The Extinction Event ) of mankind .
Historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that the vast majority of humanity is always in favor of survival . Therefore , any prospective WN ethno-state should capitalize , in order to guarantee economic viability , on that overwhelming sentiment of humanity .
The technology for maintaining permanent records
( across any time period and any space distance )
of accreditation ,
for anyone whom makes any positive contribution whatsoever to the fulfillment of { The PRIME DIRECTIVE } ,
already exists .
Your criticisms are mostly on target – I, too, had difficulty discerning what the author was getting at (and think he could have made his useful points more clearly and simply) – but even you are a bit confused wrt the content of “neoliberalism” (a lot of this is semantic, it should be emphasized). “Neoliberalism” at bottom is an ideology which seeks to combine moderate social/moral and cultural/racial liberalism with a (correct) recognition of the virtues of unregulated or lightly regulated markets. That makes it different from Thatcherism or Reaganism, which at least rhetorically were conservative in the Anglo-American sense; that is, they sought to restore freer markets, and to combine that goal with moderate social and cultural traditionalism. Neoliberalism in fact defeated Reaganism as multinational corporations and their hirelings found it easier (and vastly more lucrative) to plug for free markets only, and jettison the divisive moralism and traditionalism.
Of course, the defining characteristic of neoliberalism, which differentiates it decisively from conservatism or even classical liberalism, is its global scope and ambition. This is encapsulated in left-neoliberal NYT journalist Thomas Friedman’s hymns to the “flat world”, a world in which all exogenous distinctions between men and groups of men have been “flattened” (erased, or stigmatized) so that all that remains of humans are their roles as workers and consumers. For these neoliberals, the ideal human is “post-historical”, someone without any inherited identity or loyalty (beyond that which he chooses or fashions for himself). Free market conservatives and even to some extent classical liberals, to the contrary, are concerned with individual liberty and private property rights, and are not exercised by historic identities (and the more intelligent among them recognize such identities as bulwarks against wealth leveling statisms).
Reagan was always an uneasy mix of classical liberal, anticommunist, and neoliberal – the latter, not due to his belief in free markets, but rather, in “American exceptionalism” and the concomitant [and fatal] ontological fallacy that America was an ideational rather than blood and soil nation, and thus that anyone from anywhere had an equal chance at becoming a “good American” (because, again, such was thought to depend upon outlook and behavior, not ethnocultural let alone genetic inheritance). In the end, it was perhaps unsurprising that the neoliberal Reagan advanced, while the classical liberal (and “small town values conservative”) Reagan receded.
In the final analysis, was their “conservatism” anything more than an electorla ploy? Doesn’t the fact that Reagan caved in with nary a fight clue you into how tenuous his “conservatism” really was? I’m not suggesting it was non-existent, only that when he realized what he was up against, it didn’t take much for him to — I’m speculating here — decide to stop being such an old fogey and get with the times. It would have pretty easy for him to think precisely that, given the international context of his presidency, in which the ‘evil empire’ seemed to provide such a stark alternative to his own primarily economic values.
Great article. I am sure it was just a typo, but the philosopher’s name was John Stuart Mill, not John Stuart Mills.
Glad to see in Eric’s comment a reference to the lottery system (sortitio – or participatory democracy) in political representation – already implemented in Athens around 490 BC, and applied to magistrates, to the ‘Council of the 500’, and to juries.
Although unknown to most and understandably ignored by the ‘think-tanks’ that count, significant research has been conducted on how to reconcile sortitio with the bewildering complexities of our time. To name one researcher, David Van Reybrouck from Holland.
An excellent article.
The deconstructive criticism of some of the commentators is illuminating as well. Meta-political change through culture change is the way to go. Having grown up in the former Yugoslavia I can tell you that collapse should not be a preferred method of change.
I also personally enjoyed what one poster described as the “melodramatic invocations” of the author. Thank you for the pleasant and positive read!
The critics are just LARPING. Very American, huh? Unlike you they do not know what
the political roof falling in really means. Neither do I but I don’t want to find out
I agree with your comments. Criticism is good, but some of the criticisms leveled at the author seem to be matters of incorrect interpretation of what he’s saying. He’s not saying voting will fix the problem, his interpretation of liberalism is correct by most standards, and I believe that he said neoliberalism is an extreme form of liberalism (which it is).
I’m new to this, but some of what I’m reading by others boils down to a lack of reading comprehension.
In a very real sense the United States was terminal long before COV-19 raised its ugly head. No nation can long exist on deficit spending and open borders especially when it has outsourced its industry and insourced its technical labor and makes cultural and political war upon its founding ethnicity!
Excellent summation. And in only two sentences!
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150222-column.html
A “loophole” in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs
By (((MICHAEL HILTZIK)))
FEB 20, 2015 | 9:02 PM
Hundreds of members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers walk the picket line this month outside Edison’s office in Irvine to support hundreds of information technology workers Edison opted to lay off in favor of workers from India.
Imagine getting a layoff notice, then being ordered to train your replacement.