Peculiarities of life under Leftist rule

In my previous post, I suggested a distinction between “liberalism” and “Leftism”.  Now I’d like to consider some of the features of living in a Leftist society.  Whereas my last post concerned personality traits of the liberal and the Leftist considered as ideal types, here I will be talking about Leftist society itself, about emergent phenomena that appear because of the power of Leftist mythology on the populace, regardless of the wishes of individual Leftists.

1.  Believe what you want, as long as it’s not insulting.

Yes, there are restrictions on what one can say, but not in the sense of an explicit creed from which one may not dissent.  What is forbidden is not making any particular value-free statement about officially oppressed groups, but “insulting” them.  The crime is in one’s evaluation of the fact.

Consider the following two statements:

  • “Women/minorities don’t constrict themselves by the rigid forms of linear, binary, Hellenistic-bourgious logical discourse.  They approach reality in a more holistic, intuitive way.”
  • “Women/minorities don’t think logically.”

Both mean pretty much the same thing, but only the first is acceptable; the second marks the speaker as “ignorant” and in need of re-education.  The difference is that the first statement implies approval, while the second implies disapproval.  In fact, many individual Leftists would agree with me that it is silly to accept the one statement without accepting the other.  People who praise feminine intuition will be criticized by the more logical feminists who will accuse them of playing into the patriarchy’s hands.  But the accusation of sexism against someone who says that women think in ways “unrestricted by oppressive masculine norms of deductive reasoning” won’t stick; the accusation against someone who says they are “illogical” will.

Acceptable statements can be combined to make unacceptable statements.  Consider the following

  • The Jewish people have a long and proud tradition of promoting social justice and standing up for the marginalized, sexual minorities, and, above all, immigrants.  They have fought the oppressive structures of white Christian hegemony to create a juster world.

An acceptable statement, commonplace among leaders of Jewish activist organizations.

  • Social justice really just means communist subversion.  Stirring up resentments harms our nation and civilization.

Also acceptable, although unfavored.  A commonplace belief not only among genuine reactionaries, but also among mainstream Republicans.

  • The Jews are actively subverting Christendom and the white race.  This is a bad thing.

Totally unacceptable!  Kookery!  The sort of thing only nuts like E. Michael Jones and Kevin MacDonald would say.  But hardly a surprising conclusion to draw if one were to hold both of the previous two acceptable beliefs as true.  In fact, one is allowed to believe as fervently as one wants that the Jews are subverting the West, just as long as one also believes that this is a good thing, that the West deserves to be subverted.  (Are the Jews really doing this, though?  Does it even make sense to attribute “subversion” to an entire ethno-religious group?  Perhaps it doesn’t, but that’s not the point.  The point is what you can get away with saying without being tagged a bigot and losing your job, not what’s true or even makes sense.)

As a final example, recall Pope Benedict’s infamous claim in his Regensburg lecture that God in Muslim theology stands above reason and morality.  Of course, everyone was horrified by the bigotry and ignorance of such a statement, not least scholars of Islam.  The funny thing, though, is that I had just been reading several books on Islam written by atheists and Muslims, and they all claimed, as if it were not a controversial point, that beliefs like those Benedict attributed to Muslims were indeed the majority view of Muslims for most of Islamic history.  The difference, as you can imagine, is that these authors never expressed disapproval of divine command ethics, occasionalism, and the general motive of keeping God completely unrestrained.  (Again, my own opinion of these theological positions, and how prevalent they really have been among Muslims, is beside the point.)

2. Maintaining the correct ratio of oppressors and oppressed

I cringe when I remember the naivety of my neoconservative days.  The fact that America would eventually be a majority nonwhite country didn’t interest me much either way, but I did see a positive side to it.  As long as blacks were the great majority of nonwhites, it would be hard to avoid seeing racial issues in terms of slavery and its legacy, with my own people and their descendants forever marked as the guilty party, the one that owes a debt but can never pay it.  Once most of the country is descended from Hispanics who came here of their own will, I thought, that narrative will no longer make sense.  We’ll be able to see racial issues in terms of the more fundamental issues of reconciling the legitimate claims of particularist ethnic loyalty and universal justice.  Also, it will be impossible to believe that all of society’s problems are exclusively the fault of whites.  Whites will become a people just like any other.

As I said, I was a fool then.  I didn’t realize, although I should have, how flexible the oppressor-oppressed racial narrative could be in adapting to new situations.  All the narrative needs is that the numbers of both oppressors and oppressed be kept at appropriate levels, and this can always be achieved by redefining categories.

When I grew up, the problem was to get a sufficient number of oppressed.  There weren’t enough negroes to go around, and other groups were encouraged to find causes to resent the majority and become Democratic clients.  Thus, Democrats claimed to champion the interests of “women” rather than speaking more precisely of championing the interests of single mothers, career women, and lesbians, because there weren’t enough of these smaller groups.  New categories were created, such as “Asian-Americans”, so that minorities with insufficient histories of oppression in America could pool their grievances, and those who had suffered more could share points with those who honestly had nothing to complain about.  At this time, there was still some outreach to low-income whites, who despite their “white privilege” might hopefully feel economically oppressed enough to pull for the Democrats.  Even the Irish were encouraged to remember (or, perhaps, pretend) that there was a time when they were not white people.

Today, the dynamics is shifting.  Officially oppressed groups are poised to become a majority, and further numerical increase of their numbers will debase the value in being oppressed.  Does this mean a crisis for the system?  Of course not.  All that needs to be done is to create a hierarchy of victims, so that the most favored victims can maintain their relative status, and if necessary to eject some people from the category of victim altogether.  The latter act–actually ejecting people from the circle of victims into the outer whiteness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth–that is an extreme and clumsy act, but it does sometimes happen, as in the case of “white hispanic” George Zimmerman.  Being labeled “white” here constituted a sentence of excommunication from the oppressed.

The squabbling for placement in the hierarchy of victims has been noticed.  Our friend Mark Richardson has noted the establishment of transvestites as a superior victim group over feminists and the crushing of feminist resistance to this usurpation.  I have suggested that the popularity of Iris Chang among Chinese-Americans but not mainland Chinese comes from Chinese-Americans trying to establish their priority over Japanese-Americans in the victim hierarchy.  As the mainland shows, ordinary people don’t enjoy remembering past slaughters of their people; only in the West are such memories valued currency.  In his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, Thomas Friedman points out that it was only in the sixties that the Holocaust became the central fixture of Israeli consciousness (and Friedman, to his credit, realizes that this as an unhealthy development).  Although he doesn’t draw the connection, this was the same time that the Leftist narrative established its dominance over the West.  What had been a painful memory now granted access to the top of the victim hierarchy.  Now, since victimhood has become a zero-sum game, the other victims can’t just let the Jews cash in.  Hence we have that overflowing concern throughout the world for the plight of the poor, poor Palestinians.  Why should people on the other side of the world care about Palestinians?  They don’t, but they care very much about bringing the Jews down a notch.  In this world, the only way to do that is to either question Jewish victimhood, which is illegal in much of the West, or to assert that the Jews have a foot in the oppressor camp, which is allowed and encouraged.

(It’s not just Holocaust denial that is forbidden.  A general rule of the game is that no victim group is allowed to question or belittle another victim group’s memory of oppression at the hand of white Christians.  That would call the system itself into question.  The only way one victim group can assert status against another is to say that their own oppression was even worse, or that the other victim group is itself also an oppressor.)

People still do try to jump on the victim bandwagon, but it’s getting harder to do.  Individual white men must resort to drastic measures:  either forging their ancestry or taking up a hobby of sodomizing other men.  Groups scour their histories for usable misfortunes.  Not any kind of victimization will do; you’ll find your task much easier if you claim victimization from a group already recognized as an oppressor.  Otherwise, your claim will be taken as an aggression against an already recognized victim group, which is a very risky way to start.  For example, the Eastern Orthodox have suffered horribly for extended periods of time up to the present from Turks and communists, but that does them no good.  Tell the Left that the communists persecuted you, and you’ll risk them taking that as evidence that you’re some kind of reactionary who must have done something to deserve it.  Best to let bygones be bygones; I hear Stalin’s reputation is making a comeback in Russia.  The only feather the Orthodox have in their cap is the 4th crusade.  Here at last they can point to victimization by a recognized oppressor group:  Catholics.  Hence another phenomenon seen in Leftist times–the selective long memory.

Examples could be multiplied.  Status competition among victim groups will be a key to understanding the coming cultural battles of this century.  Some reactionaries have taken this as evidence that the Leftist coalition is unstable, that arguments among competing oppressed groups will fracture it.  Instead, we see that this competition fosters greater and greater zeal for the official Leftist narrative.  History is parsed more and more carefully for evidence of oppression and the sinister imprint of quasi-whiteness.  Groups cling desperately to their real or manufactured memories of oppression by recognized oppressor groups.  Outrage over these real or imagined slights feeds their hatred of the Left’s enemies.  Even if it didn’t, no group wants to risk demotion in the hierarchy by appearing insufficiently zealous for the cause.  Thus, we can expect no respite, no matter how small the population of white Christians becomes.

3. The source of white guilt

What is the source of white guilt?  Why are whites uniquely guilty among all the races?  Well, one can make a list of bad things white people have done:  war, conquest, enslavement, etc.  Ask someone why whites are a guilty race, and you’ll probably get a list like that.  Notice what’s missing to establish the conclusion.  How are whites in particular guilty?  For example, if holding African slaves is enough to destroy a group’s moral status in perpetuity, what does it mean that Muslims also did this?  Are they also moral pariahs?  No, it is a matter of settled dogma that Muslims are victims.  Why?  Is it because the Muslim practice of slavery wasn’t as bad as the Christian practice?  Was it less extensive?  One could presumably argue thus, but it’s interesting that most Leftists are uninterested in this argument.  I would understand it if, when one asserted that Muslim slavery, conquest, and oppression of women were as bad as that of Christians, the Leftist screamed “No, that’s not true!  I don’t believe you!”  It’s the indifference toward the claim that is revealing.  Bringing up the misdeeds of other civilizations is said to be an attempt to “change the subject” away from the real issue of white Christian guilt.  But that’s an interesting claim, isn’t it?  Who gets to decide that “the subject” is?  If we had started out by impartially comparing the moral offenses of every civilization and decided that Westerners are objectively the worst, I would understand just focusing on us.  It seems, though, that the focus on white Christian guilt is the starting point of the whole enterprise.  Whites are guilty on an ontological level; it is our nature to do evil.  In fact, one suspects that rather than whites being guilty because they practiced slavery and war, slavery and war are wrong when done by whites because it is whites who are doing it.

About these ads

51 thoughts on “Peculiarities of life under Leftist rule

  1. “Officially oppressed groups are poised to become a minority, and further numerical increase of their numbers will debase the value in being oppressed.”

    I think you mean they are poised to become a majority, right?

  2. Leftist PC: minorities need a helping hand overcoming white privilege and being accepted into society in schools, jobs, entertainment, and government service.

    Hateful leftist truth: non whites need to be persuaded to act more like whites, persuaded to reject their savage criminality, ignorance, their ineptitude- by being integrated into white society where they will hopefully be enculturated to become more white and get over their primitive backward ways. Although it took several hundred years to civilize the blue bottomed naked white cardigans, we can wait and pay the price while non-whites make the change for white ways.

  3. Very interesting glimpse of your thought processes. You seem to be under the impression that feminists are feminists simply to annoy you, and that minorities explore their history solely so they can paint you as an oppressor and themselves as victim. Has it occured to you that these groups might have purposes and interests that have nothing at all to do with you? That their reason for being is precisely to define their own stories where they are subjects rather than the merely the victims of others?

    Your apparent inability to see these people as subjects in their own right, as anything but defects in the ordering of your world, is one of the problems they are trying to correct. It leads you into absurditites, such as the idea that people take up homosexuality just so they can play the role of victims.

    Note: I’m not looking for another endless and unsatisfactory argument like what happened in the earlier post. Please take the above as an observation, not as an opening salvo over a battle for any particular truth. Take it or leave it.

    • I would be very happy for minorities to define themselves in some way other than as victims of evil white Christians. Indeed, many nonwhite, nonChristians do just this. I mentioned the mainland Chinese as a people who prefer to revel in their accomplishments rather than their misfortunes. I’m astounded that you imagine that, given the incentive structures of a Leftist society, you imagine minority groups could resist the temptation to exploit potential victim status.

      • I’m astounded you can’t see minority groups as fully human and are quite ignorant (and proudly so it appears) about how they define themselves.

      • Bonald was not accepting Leftist “frames” in this article as much as explaining them and arguing from them for the purpose of explanation. For most of us at the Orthosphere, Leftism is alien, to a greater or lesser degree, so explications of its workings help us to understand it. Such elucidations (as the excellent one Bonald supplies here) are not to be construed as any sort of acceptance of them; rather, they help us deal with our enemies.

        I’m surprised this needs to be cleared up.

      • Bonald, don’t mind A Lady. She’s quite typical this regard. I don’t know whether it’s a social instinct or a feminine instinct of inclusion (perhaps the latter), but most people know that you regard minorities as human.

      • A lady,

        I’m astounded you can’t see, even with the benefit of hindsight, that minorities (blacks in particular) have been used and discarded by the left and that one of the main instrument of exploitation was the victimhood narrative. Is this any different from what happened to the laborers before them? What have been the fruits of “empowerment” politics for blacks in America? 75% illegitimacy, rampant crime, unemployment, decline in morals and a large fraction of black people with a net worth of zero.

        Qui bono?

      • Augh, this threading!!!

        Anyway. What I mean, since I have a little time to break it down is that Progressives/Leftists/etc are monstrous racists who have worked really hard to shoehorn minorities (whether they agreed or no) into the frame of blame whitey for everything. They have done such a fabulous job that some minorities do feel this way that wouldn’t otherwise and many, perhaps most right-wing types believe that minorities have always felt this way even when blatant historical evidence shows otherwise.

        Before the Marxists took over, for example, black intellectual and political thought in America and Africa (well, a couple of African countries where there was an educated class who wrote in a European language) was significantly more diverse about how to deal with their own internal problems. Much of meat of the relevant discussions exists in books mostly easily available on Amazon and there’s not a lot of talk about whitey.

        When any group really is downtrodden, there’s always a cohort seeking the victim veil, but usually it is not a majority and that includes with black Americans. The myth is that it always and ever was, and it’s a Leftist myth, very effectively propagated, as the comments here demonstrate.

      • Hello A Lady,

        Thank you for this explanation. I admit that I had no idea what you were talking about when you said I regard minorities as “less than fully human”. The actual accusation is that I think that they have all always carried the same victim mentality as their loudest spokesmen do today. I don’t believe I actually addressed that issue in my post, which dealt exclusively with incentive structures in the present.

        Actually, a certain amount of blaming whitey isn’t always wrong, because sometimes it really is whitey’s fault. Even when the blame is split, showing more sympathy for one’s own group is natural. The danger comes when the victim mindset becomes an integral part of the group’s identity and will to perpetuate itself. Blacks wanting to have their own spaces because they love their own subculture and want to cultivate it is healthy; saying they should be allowed them *only* because of past and current oppression is unhealthy. It means they could not justify continuing to exist as a people if they stopped claiming to be oppressed.

  4. I would understand it if, when one asserted that Muslim slavery, conquest, and oppression of women were as bad as that of Christians, the Leftist screamed “No, that’s not true! I don’t believe you!”

    I had to watch this interview with feminist Joan Wallach Scott for a master’s-level theory of history class last week. In it she talks about her book The Politics of the Veil wherein she apparently tries to defend the “oppressed” Muslims in France against their white, secular “oppressors.” In the interview she argues for a more “nuanced” understanding of the hijab — that it is a symbol of voluntary deference to God among Muslim women rather than oppression of women simpliciter. Why this same sort of nuance can’t be applied to so-called oppression among white, Christian women in the West isn’t addressed. Per this post, the reason is obvious.

    On an unrelated note, she also states several times throughout the interview that there is a need to critically challenge contemporary socio-cultural orthodoxies. The goal is to further the revolution, to tear down conventional wisdom in pursuit of greater and greater equality. I thought this was curious. Surely leftism dominates contemporary socio-cultural orthodoxies. Contemporary conventional wisdom is liberal. Wouldn’t the reactionary, not the revolutionary, be the one who truly engaged in this critique she speaks of?

    • “Surely leftism dominates contemporary socio-cultural orthodoxies. Contemporary conventional wisdom is liberal.”

      Understanding that involved a more nuanced perspective of the Political Spectrum than (right to left) “Godly Traditionalism – Neoconservatism – Godless Communism.”

      • It’s a popular theme among Evangelical Protestants e.g. Baptists and Lutherans. I don’t know if it’s popular among Catholics but it probably is. Basically the argument is that it’s a form of genocide against blacks that was started by Margaret Sanger and is continued by white abortionists. Basically, white leftists are really exterminationist racists. “We conservatives aren’t racists. They’re the real racists.” Or something like that.

      • Its a popular theme because it is 100% true. I’ve read Sanger. She’s an eugenecist. She’s a racist. She’s an elitist. Every abortionist once pressed (or sometimes even right away) will admit that “poor” people having babies are a drag on the economy. We all know what “poor” people means. These save-the-whale, raise awareness, sugary drink banning, bleeding hearts become cold Randian libertarians regarding social spending programs once abortion is mentioned.

      • Everyone was a eugenicist back then. Father Ryan, one of Sanger’s major opponents on the birth control issue, was a eugenicist.
        Everyone was a “racist” back then. Sanger as either a eugenicist or a “racist” was unremarkable for her time.
        The contemporary left demands abortion because it believes in radical personal autonomy and that motherhood is an impediment to fulfilling one’s desires/dreams. Even more so for poor people.
        The contemporary left doesn’t want to commit genocide against blacks.

      • But they do implicitly want to manage them, to keep them under control, in their ghettos, until they’re reformed. They don’t know this about themselves of course. And they also fail to compete against minorities- their own reproduction levels might not sustain them, which gives the appearance that they are giving way to the “other.” The self loathing white guilt is only featured among a certain subset of leftists, usually the elitist ones from the coasts who don’t actually hang out with minorities.

        Although it is no longer cool to be a racist eugenicist among them, they still are racist eugenicists at heart. You can always tell by which way the school-bussing goes- blacks into white schools, so to speak, not whites into black schools. So even today it is unremarkable for our time. Being from working-class balkanized south Chicago with a wife from East Bay (San Fran) I can say that there is a big difference between the white uneducated beer-swilling union thug leftism of South Chicago and the effeminate elitist pansy leftism of San Fran, but they have in common their dislike of blacks and black culture and other minorities who don’t act white enough for them. The Chicagoan displays it more readily, especially in a confrontation with a minority where both sides will be hurling racist remarks in public. They both think they “own” race: the Chicagoan by living down in the mud and speaking more bluntly because they really have “black friends,” and the San Franciscan by staying in the gated communities while throwing money at minorities and keeping a few token minorities that act white enough. We know who funds planned parenthood: The elitist leftists. For them and their wealthy white women it is about personal autonomy. For minorities, it is about poverty and population control.

        Chicago style:

      • “But they do implicitly want to manage them, to keep them under control, in their ghettos, until they’re reformed.”

        And…?

    • Nobody is putting a gun to black and hispanic heads and telling them to abort themselves or kill each other and commit crime. It’s intra minority violence.

      Left-liberals do this quite often: if something bad happens because or from minorities among themselves (e.g. civil wars) or towards the “oppressors”, then the blame is put on the “oppressor class” because minorities can’t be responsible for themselves and can’t be at fault sometimes.

      If something good happens, then it’s either because the minorities are being accepted or assimilated (aka “I’m blind to race”) or are piggy backing on the efforts of the “oppressors” (aka affirmative action, government welfare, housing, etc) through the inverted Nietzsche specified “slave morality”.

      • It doesn’t occur in a vacuum. So much time is spent carefully and lovingly threading backwards to the roots of white liberal thought processes, but when it comes to black and HIspanic thought processes, the spigot shuts off and it’s just a bunch of ‘they’re stupid, they do it to themselves, nobody makes anyone do anything’. More liberal framing (it is fundamentally liberal to make such presumptions of psychological and individual autonomy) and it’s particularly amusing/disheartening to see reactionaries glide right into that trap.

      • A Lady you are incorrect and it’s not liberal framing to acknowledge that yes, blacks and hispanics are human too and can take of themselves. It’s left-liberals who don’t think that minorities such as blacks and hispanics can’t be held accountable for their actions and need to be taken care of like children with affirmative action, government welfare and other such policies. Also if something bad happens amongst them, then it’s because of racism, oppression and hatred.

        White liberals have a sick, twisted relationship with most minorities (except maybe with some Asians and Jews). They see the differences between various races and ethnicities in the end, and deep down, but can’t confront it openly and push it under the rug and become more deluded and weird as time goes on. They wish for equality and continue to chase such absurdities.

        White liberal framing when it comes to races/ethnicities is the following (hat tip to blogger Lawrence Auster for this):

        1 – Bad white people aka White conservatives, the original sin and the ones who end up with all of the blame for what minorities do to each other. Open about their views.

        2 – Good white people aka White liberals, the benevolent saviors and the ones who speak diversity, but live undiverse lives. Closeted about their views.

        3 – Minorities. Minorities can’t be good or bad, they are just minorities. They don’t have a script.

      • I mean for example, when it comes to white liberals, isn’t it a great coincidence that the exploration of the New World (Latin America and Asia), as well as bringing African slaves to America, all occurred either during the beginning of the Enlightenment (and the Reformation) or near it?

        Who went into these places to “save those precious minorities”? White liberals have a strange savior complex, mixed in with hunger for the new and foreign. And this is still manifested today.

        Not to mention globally, minorities aren’t really minorities. The European populations should be considered a minority. They are far fewer in number.

      • I think Our Lady protests our lacking dialogue over the American minority and his personal history. She would be more impressed if those here and among the tradcons knew more about the causes of modern minority mentalities. Perhaps if we studied liberation theology and black history a bit more we’d be a bit less dismissive of minority dysfunction. We sit here, professors, authors, and philosophers exploring the deep deep roots of liberalism and leftism daily, but only from the “white’ perspective. She wishes we’d spend more time exploring minority philosophy and culture.

        Perhaps at first she was upset and was too quick to judge the lack of concern for minorities as inhuman leftist hate, when it is more likely that these white people blogging here don’t really care about minority philosophy and would rather not deal with it and leave it up to them to sort out their own problems.

    • I don’t believe in “racism” as a distinctive sin. That is, an otherwise nonsinful act does not become sinful solely for being “racist”. What is generally called “racism”, namely preference for and loyalty toward one’s extended kinship group, is actually a virtue. I am entirely consistent in this; I say it is a virtue also for blacks, Chinese, Indians, Jews, and Mexicans to prefer their own kind to white Christians like me. Mistreatment of a member of a racial minority is the same sort of sin, almost always done for the same sort of motives, as mistreatment of anybody else. Killing black fetuses is wrong not because it is racism but because it is murder; killing them is wrong not because they are black but because they are human.

      • We? I said leftists should admit their hate and racism. I didn’t say anything about “we.” I personally support freedom of association and freedom of disassociation. Others here have expressed more authoritarian means.

      • Freedom of dissociation would suffice! Indeed, it is a forecondition of freedom to associate. When we lose the freedom to dissociate, all communities of interest will vanish with it.

      • I am confused as to why you believe that we do not already have freedom of association and disassociation.

      • Perhaps you’ve never had to work in real estate, or run a mid to large size buisiness, or enroll students at your college, or rent out your vacation home on Craigslist, or lend money to “Christians only” or to a stranger from a crappy neighborhood, or run a restauraunt in a neighborhood going bad, or operate an inn which is not a den of iniquity in NY, or maintain a Christian student group led by “Christians only” on a college campus?

        http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA

      • We do still have many freedoms of dissociation. But our adversaries (and our Adversary) have been chipping away at them. E.g., wedding photographers being forced to take on gay clients. It’s not that we are forced to be wedding photographers, and then take on gay clients, but rather that we are not free to be wedding photographers who refuse to take on gay clients.

    • Allow me to butt in a little here.

      I believe it is valuable to introduce Bonald’s leftism-liberalism distinction at this juncture. This is a prime example of conflict between the two (and the miraculous ability of most modernists to avoid it). When we have specimens of pure(r) leftism (like this chap, raised by Mr Reggie Perrin a few billion posts ago), they will tend to reject more of the contradictory (to leftism) positions of liberalism, like all that bovine excrement about the made-up “right to choice”.

      Leftism, fundamentally, is a perverse, myopic excess of charity, in much the same way that liberalism may be construed as a perverse, myopic excess of valuation of free will (not 100% sure about this thesis; haven’t given very much thought about it, but I think it merits consideration), Calvinism is a perverse, myopic excess of respect for divine sovereignity (apologies to Mr. Roebuck) and superstition (in some cases) is a perverse, myopic excess of piety/religiosity (I think that’s how the CCC puts it, sort of). Note that all these perversions differ from the thing that they are perversions of by kind and not degree.

      So I suppose the “abortion is racist” thing may just be a great display of compassion, though the degree to which it is tainted with Leftism is up for debate.

      • Thomas Fleming coined the phrase “pornography of compassion” to describe Leftism.

        I think the Christian Right “abortion is racist” theme is intended to turn the left’s own arguments against them and shame them. It won’t work. The left can’t be shamed into being anti-abortionists. It won’t have the intended effect and it just reinforces the Left’s argument that society is “racist” against blacks.

      • It is also transparent. “Leftists” can and will wonder, “Why are conservatives so concerned about what is and isn’t racist only when it relates to one of their own social hobby horses”?

  5. I think combining the ideas of Jon Haidt and Steve Sailer provides a good window on this.

    Steve’s (earlier) idea is that liberalism is all about inter-white status games. Larry Auster and others have pointed out that this can’t be the whole explanation. Lots of whites are plenty hypocritical in their liberalism, but most of them seem to genuinely believe in it, at least partially. And besides this kind of explanation makes the groups that white people have divided into seem pretty arbitrary, which they are not. Really why should the elites have picked non-whites to use in their status wars with the masses?

    On the other hand, Jon Haidt’s work showing that liberalism is a distinct moral orientation has proved most successful at illuminating liberal psychology. It explains why white people have divided into the groups they have. But, as Bonald has pointed out here, that doesn’t really explain the particular dislike of white people. Especially since they should be universalists. Shouldn’t liberals care most about violations of their moral code committed any time and any where?

    Theoretically, then liberals should be impartial between those who are close to them and those who are not. But the people close to you can be really annoying, they’re often crude, stupid and have poor taste, and all that gives you good reason to dislike them. Plus, they are your more immediate rivals for status. And, of course, if they don’t happen to share your liberal universalism, well then all the more reason to dislike them.

    Now minorities and foreigners are also often crude, stupid and lacking in taste as well, but you tend not to have as much contact with them, nor are you in as direct competition with them. In fact, the one’s you do run into will probably be from your own social class and will share many of your tastes and ideas, so it will seem more natural to identify with them. On the other hand, the crude and stupid ones, as well as the ones with the unfashionable social conservative views, are well out of sight. So, they tend not to provoke much ire in white leftists. Every so often though, Muslims will commit some atrocity or blacks will be a little too zealous in putting their homoaversion into practice, and there will be a temporary spike in criticizing these otherwise protected groups. Mostly though, it’s out of sight, out of mind, and you can indulge your (mostly theoretical) benevolence towards them.

    • The most virulent, dangerous and influential form of white liberalism seems descended from Anglos (coupled with both Anglo individualism and the strange Victorian-Puritan Anglo feminism hybrid), followed closely by certain Nordics/Scandinavians such as Swedes.

      Of course that doesn’t mean that Anglos are evil or anything, just that their liberalism seems more intense and the most “practical” out of them all.

  6. Short version: if you are a universalist, it’s easy to romanticize those far away from you, and loathe those that are close to you.

  7. Those who actually have to live near, say, a lot blacks, like in Mississippi, don’t have any such illusions, so they vote heavily for the Rs.

    We may be seeing the end of a lot of this among ordinary whites though. Rather shockingly, Romney actually won the white vote in New York City!

  8. Just realised the reason behind point no. 1: nominalism, plain and simple. This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the hold it has on leftist thought processes.

    It’s all William of Ockham’s fault!

  9. Pingback: Just because we’re not allowed to say it doesn’t mean they can’t brag about it. | Throne and Altar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s