Skip to main content

Owning the Libertarians on 'identity politics' again


http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/12/14/identity-politics-is-reactionary/comment-page-1/#comment-2886030

In-group preference is a scientific reality. It is not a moral defect AKA "racism". If you think it is a defect you have been brainwashed. To say that 'identity politics' (pejorative for in-group preference) is reactionary, even though everyone has been doing it for the entirety of history, is retarded. Libertarians are retarded.

People who complain about 'identity politics' are always white or echoing whites. A smart person would question why that is, but not a Libertarian - because they are retarded.

Whites restraining their natural in-group preference is not working out for them. Other ethnic groups are pursuing their in-group preference and it is benefiting them. Two solutions:
1. whites embrace ethnocentrism (like for all of human history, except the last 50 years)
2. undermine ethnocentricism in non-whites and broader society. e.g. by labeling it pejoratively 'identity politics'; marking it as low-status/outsider/evil.

Whites have pursued the second option since at least the 60s, despite its continued failure. They do this is because it is politically correct and despite claiming to be 'individuals' they fear being marked as low-status among the herd.

Libertarians would rather have their freedom of speech and association be taken away than be called 'racist'. They implicitly support the big state social engineering project of Multiculturalism because they don't support its alternative.

btw, the people who beat the Nazis were 'racists' and in Australia's case white nationalist. You should thank white racists for all the freedoms you enjoy, and blame white 'anti-racists' for all the freedoms you are losing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...
Post a Comment
Read more