At White America, Ian Jobling continues his flirtation with Rawlsian liberalism, which for some bizarre reason he sees as an ideal candidate for a pro-White political philosophy. Nevermind the fact that Rawlsian liberalism justifies anti-racism, integration, welfare, affirmative action, third world immigration, hate crime laws, hate speech laws, outlawing pro-White political parties, etc. Jobling promises there is gold in this manure.
In The Collapse of British Power, Correlli Barnett traces the decline of the British Empire back to the “original sin” of fidelity to highminded principles. He persuasively argues that a concern for philosophy and principle came to overwhelm an earlier understanding that the ruthless pursuit of self interest was all the justification required to act in a certain way. A comparable text could be written about racial decline in the United States.
We don’t need to hitch White Nationalism to any particular political philosophy. That would be repeating one of our worst mistakes. The Founders married old fashioned white supremacy to liberal republicanism and the latter was eventually invoked to subvert and discard the former. An even more toxic version of liberalism is about the last rock we need to found a White ethnostate on.
… The Founders married old fashioned white supremacy to liberal republicanism and the latter was eventually invoked to subvert and discard the former. …
__
Indeed Prozium, indeed.
I remember reading countless timesa and watching older movies about Britain and how they would invoke liberal Christianity and liberal egalitarian principles as justifications for ‘their’ Empire (funny, they would never mention the name Rothschild).
Apparently, these very same principles not only were used to ‘deconstruct’ the empire, but, as we see, have been used to justify and rationalize the third-world racial colonization of the United Kingdom itself!
I’ve stopped reading Jobling, who, I find, for some reason likes to indulge in intellectual masturbation. (I suppose he needs to justify that PhD). In this respect I have noticed he is like a lot of other WN sages, particularly some of the renowned WN philosophers at MR. Plus, he seems to keep excessively strict control over the contents, that is, whenever the site is updated, which seems to be about once a month or so. A waste of time. Whenever I read Jobling and other like-minded geniuses, I am reminded of the play The Clouds by Aristophanes. We need fewer thinkers mulling over abstract theories–and more activists, artists, writers, businessmen.
“We need fewer thinkers mulling over abstract theories–and more activists, artists, writers, businessmen.”
Yes.
In National Socialist terms: There are two many Fuhrers and not enough brown-shirts!
I’m not a big fan of Jobling considering the sophomoric hatchet job he has done to Kevin MacDonald. I think his intellect is overrated and his highly emotional philosemitism is rather disturbing.
Right on, Prozium. Jobling starts off with this: “The major question to be addressed is why we should be just at all rather than unjust.”
Only a friggin moron would spout something so vacuous and believe he was saying something important.
Rawls’ “Political Liberalism” effectively eliminates any conception of justice that deviates substantially from the basic axioms of liberalism. His attempt to resolve conflict between incommensurable claims to justice simply ignores any perspective that is incapable of forming an overlapping consensus with libertarians, progressive liberals and utilitarians. Those of us who reject this tradition are philosophically ostracized from his vague in-group category of “reasonable pluralism.”
Since one of the basic axioms of liberalism is the political and legal equality of everything with a human face, it goes without saying that a racist would have a hard time finding a seat at Rawls’ table.
I am still wondering if Jobling is indeed still a Leftist himself, despite claims to the contrary.
After all, he claimed once at AMREN that both his parents were far-Leftist Marxists.