Liberal Values

Briefly Noted

Ian Jobling has advised the pro-white movement to reconcile racialism with liberal values. Absent from his discussion is any mention of the corrosive effect of liberal principles on white racial consciousness across history.

In any case, Jobling poses an interesting question. What role (if any) should the liberal values of liberty, equality, and tolerance have in a future racialist order?

I would argue that our objection isn’t so much to the trinity above as it is to universalism. Racialists are typically in favor of a moderate degree of individual freedom, civil equality, and tolerance of other points of view – why the impulse to extend these principles to all races? It is license, social equality, and non-discrimination that we find reprehensible.

Discuss.

About Hunter Wallace 11895 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

10 Comments

  1. I have no serious objection to the principles of liberty, [social] equality, and tolerance. Certainly, they have served us well in creating Western societies that have fostered all kinds of innovation as well as ordinary decency. The central insight of these values is that man does not lie on a continuum with the divine, consequently it is a mistake to construct societies around contrived notions of spiritual hierarchy.

    However, where we really part with modern day liberals is on the principle of non-discrimination. Our central insight is that human civilizations are (albeit complicated) natural extensions of human biology, as expressed in the different ethnic families of mankind. That we are not the same, and consequently not equally well-adapted to a given civilization, is axiomatic for us. Hence, the discrimination of human biological expression is of foundational importance when laying the groundwork for any successful civilization. Moreover, we should not only discriminate on matters of ethnicity but on other qualities which are also of great importance (i.e. moral fiber).

    At the last, it is revealed that the original notions of freedom, equality, and tolerance are only useful when restricted to a civilization’s in-group, which is to say the founding human stock of the civilization under discussion.

  2. I’ve already addressed this topic on another forum.

    Instead of defending American tradition, true collectivists should argue against American tradition. That leaves me with an odd coalition of Marxists and Fascists because American racialists are too liberal.

  3. There’s no working with the Marxists, as they are only capable of seeing people in terms of their socioeconomic class.

  4. Ian Jobling also makes the ridiculous claim that there is no such thing as a natural instinct for ethnic loyalty in his article.

  5. The problem with Jobling imo is that he’s trying to make racialism less extreme. If you make it too mainstream then you aren’t pushing the limits. Why doesn’t he just join the Republican party at this point. He seems to agree with them on the war, on taxation, on being a liberal, etc.

    On the other hand, I agree with Jobling that scientific racialism is not natural as true tribalism is nepotistic and not extended to the entire race. For instance a Cherokee Indian primarily considers himself Cherokee rather than Red, and a Japanese American does not consider himself Yellow but Japanese.

  6. I don’t have a problem with republicanism: positive liberty (having the power/resources to fulfill one’s potential), civic equality (no hereditary castes), or tolerance (in the sense of other points of view).

    Liberalism has perverted these ideals into something else altogether: “Freedom” is defined as the absence of restraint; “Equality” is defined as the abolition of social discrimintion; “Tolerance” is defined as loathing or indifference to one’s own race and culture.

  7. I love Jews because they are at the forefront of liberalism. Jews are the strongest supporters of liberalism and I am forever grateful to them. I am a classical liberal and a neoliberal.

  8. “I love Jews because they are at the forefront of liberalism.”

    That has to do with race-replacement of European populations whom they despise. It makes the racially-conscious Whites like us really not love them.

  9. On the other hand, I agree with Jobling that scientific racialism is not natural as true tribalism is nepotistic and not extended to the entire race. For instance a Cherokee Indian primarily considers himself Cherokee rather than Red, and a Japanese American does not consider himself Yellow but Japanese.

    I don’t see why ethno-nationalists would want to extend loyalty to their entire race. Why would I want to sleep under the same tent as SWPLs who’d like to see me hanged in the public square?

    Identity + race = ethno-nationalism.

    Liberalism has perverted these ideals

    Liberalism IS a perversion. Everything it stands for is a perversion of the original.

Comments are closed.