Archive for the ‘Left liberalism’ category

The right pulls the race card

August 10, 2014

Traditionally the race card is something left wing progressives like to use whenever they are losing an argument with social conservatives. But times are a changin’ and today the economic right is increasingly using the race card to shut down progressive or populist debate on free trade, immigration and globalisation.

In New Zealand there’s currently a debate going on about the sale of large farms to Chinese investors. This policy is actively promoted by the mainstream centre right but opposed by a loose coalition of environmentalists, socialists and populists. The right has responded by labeling their opponents as “xenophobic racists” opposed to the idea of large-scale Asian investment. While the sale of large blocks of land to foreigners may or may not be a good thing from an economic point of view, there are indeed serious questions about whether it’s a good idea to sell large amount of land to investors from non-western countries. As well as the issue of corruption there is also the issue of whether such land buy-ups will result in increased pressure for the importation of Chinese labour to work on such farms. After all, low-wage third world labour from the Philippines and Melanesia is already being widely used on dairy farms and vineyards, with numerous reports of sub-standard wages and work conditions.

However, the economic right is not prepared to debate these issues and instead is resorting to the race card to try and shut down the debate altogether. If opinion polls are anything to go by this policy is clearly backfiring. Calling refugee-loving liberals “racist” sounds desperate and pathetic, and will only serve to further alienate social conservatives who are already feed up with the mammon obsessed policies of the mainstream centre right.


Early and contemporary progressives – a comparison

June 3, 2013

I’ve just been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. The theme of Goldberg’s book is that modern progressives are just like the progressives of the early 20 th Century. According to Goldberg, all progressives like using government power to achieve their ends, so all progressives are “liberal fascists.”

However, this shallow argument is based solely on means rather than ends. Just because early progressives liked using state power doesn’t mean they wanted to achieve the same things that modern progressives do, or that they were authoritarian in the same ways that modern progressives are. After all, if today’s progressives are just like those of the 1920s and 1930s, then why is modern society so different from what it was 80 years ago?

Here’s some important differences between early and modern progressives which Goldberg downplays and ignores:

Early progressives generally believed in promoting the interests of the majority/Modern progressives promote the interests of minorities

Early progressives wanted to get more native minorities into paid employment so they could support their families and contribute taxes/Modern progressives actively support affirmative action across a wide range of training courses, jobs and political positions, for both native and immigrant minorities.

Early progressives distrusted the financial sector and many were actively hostile towards it/Modern progressives are generally supportive of the financial sector

Early progressives tended to support farming and manufacturing/Modern progressives are apathetic about farming and manufacturing

Early progressives had mixed views about nationalism and protectionism/Most modern progressives actively promote free trade, open borders and global government

Early progressives supported energy independence and aggressively promoted large-scale infrastructure projects/Modern progressive are apathetic about energy independence and are heavily influenced by the thinking of environmentalists

Early progressives had little interest in introducing hate speech laws and saw censorship as something that conservatives did/Modern progressives strongly support hate speech laws and PC speech codes, and many believe right-wing intellectuals, jounalists and entertainers should be actively discriminated against.

Early progressives were interested in discussing human bio-diversity/Modern progressives are not interested in discussing human bio-diversity and criticise or censor those who are

Many early progressives supported eugenics or had an open mind about it /All modern progressives are strongly opposed to eugenics and arguably support dysgenics

Early progressives believed in IQ testing and meritocratic education/Modern progressives are opposed to IQ testing and strongly support egalitarian dogma in education

Early progressives tended to be cautious about immigration and many were immigration restrictionists/Almost all modern progressives are strongly critical of immigration restrictionists, oppose building border fences and off-shore detention camps, and are uncritical supporters of UN refugee quotas

Early progressives supported traditional nuclear families with government subsidies/Modern progressives are often hostile to the traditional nuclear family and give state handouts to single parents

Early progressives had mixed views about women in the workforce/Modern progressives believe in equal pay and subsidised child care so women can compete directly against men in the job market

Early progressives weren’t very concerned about gay rights/Modern progressives actively promote gay rights and homosexual parenting

Given the big differences between early and modern progressives in terms of political views, it’s a big stretch to say that modern progressives have similar agendas to their predecessors

I’d argue the reason people like Goldberg fixate on progressive means rather than ends, it that they actually support many of the ends of modern progressives and see the ends of early progressives as too fascist, elitist or conservative.


Politics and Pussy

February 16, 2013

Evolutionary psychologists often say that male behaviour is heavily influenced by the desire to score with women, and it seems the world of far-left politics is no exception.

In a recent Guardian column “Why Leftists and Revolutionaries Are Not the Best Feminists” progressive commentator Nick Cohen opines on the sexual transgressions of leading male far-leftists.

In one paragraph, he quotes Anna Chen, who spent a number of years working for the Socialist Alliance and Socialist Worker’s Party :

“I was struck by how sexless and ugly the leading men in the SWP were. But they always had women. If you slept with one of them, they promoted you. It was as basic as that.”

A particularly randy leftist was Gerry Healey, of the Worker’s Revolutionary Party. The party fell apart in 1986 when 26 women came forward claiming of “gross sexual misconduct,” at the hands of Healey during the 70s and 80s.

Far-left causes tend to attract more women than men, so it makes perfect sense they sexually sub-par males would be interested in using memberships of such groups to access relatively attractive women that would otherwise be unobtainable. This is also likely to be one of the reasons why male intellectuals don’t tend to be very interested in far-right politics. The nationalist right doesn’t tend to attract many women, so the opportunities to score with relatively attractive females are limited.

Cohen concludes his article by stating that the feminist movement is now getting wise to womanising comrades, and that most of hard-core socialist parties like the SWP are dying out. In this new, more female dominated climate it’s going to be interesting to see where these exiled male leftists will end up directing their political energies.

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

March 15, 2012

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

Having made conscious racism legally and socially verboten, left liberals are increasingly turning their attention to subconscious racism. Among their wackier ideas include treating it with drugs and discouraging whites from listening to rock music (apparently it implicitly promotes white identity).

There are however some pretty big stumbling blocks.

Firstly if something is only recognised subconsciously, then it’s hard for most people to accept that it exists. People can be persuaded that explicit things such as legal statutes may be racist, but how do you expect for example, to persuade a staunch white fiscal conservative that fiscal conservatism is sub-consciously racist because it indirectly benefits white people ? The liberal left relies for much of its power on shaming its opponents, but you can only shame someone into changing their views if you can appeal to their conscious. The sub-conscious has no shame.

Hence as the liberal left sends its panzers of political correctness across the vast steppes of the white subconscious, they’re likely to find a stubborn and bemused opponent that’s unwilling to surrender ground.

Secondly, they may well unravel a lot of information that’s just as useful to the right as it is to the left. For example, in trying to show that whites have sub-consciously racist voting practices they will also end up revealing that non-whites are just as sub-consciously racist (if not more so).

Thirdly they may end up alienating many of their own kind.

As Kevin Macdonald pointed out in his excellent essay on white ethnocentrism, liberals may not be quite as ethnocentric as conservatives, but they’re a lot more hypocritical. For example, they publicly promote egalitarianism and anti-racism, but in private they avoid sending their kids to multicultural schools, support restrictive housing regulations (making housing more expensive for the poor) and engage in the gentrification (or whitetification) of non-white inner city neighborhoods.

Similarly, liberal musicians in white dominated genres like rock and folk are hardly likely to appreciate having their funding and publicity undermined by over-zealous anti-racist campaigners.

As the recession-driven Occupy movement has demonstrated, liberal whites quickly start to lose interest in helping non-whites once their own economic interests are on the line.

Are left liberals bigoted?

March 11, 2012

In an article on the Sarah Maid of Albion blog David Hamilton makes the point that left liberals who like to use the word bigot are actually bigots themselves since a bigot is someone who won’t listen to other opinions and many leftists refuse to listen to non-liberal opinions.

Hamilton argues that leftists misuse the word bigot to make it seem that it only applies to right wingers with negative opinions of things like ethnic diversity, while ignoring the word’s original meaning.

I looked up the term bigot in a couple of dictionaries.

According to a 1981 New Webster’s Dictionary a ‘bigot’ is defined as:

“a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or practice, a person blindly attached to any opinion system or party and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently”

A 2004 Chambers dictionary defines a ‘bigot’ as:

“someone who is persistently prejudiced, especially about religion or politics, and refuses to tolerate the opinions of others”

The Chamber’s Dictionary defines ‘prejudice’ as:

“a preconceived and irrational opinion”

Now clearly a bigot is not simply someone who is intolerant of something. A bigot is someone who is unreasonably and irrationally intolerant, and won’t change their views if new information comes to hand. And bigotry doesn’t just apply to issues of race and religion it applies to all opinions and belief systems. Therefore it’s just as easy for a secular leftist to be a bigot as it is for say, a religious conservative or ethno-nationalist, and given that many leftists wish to deny rightists freedom of expression, Hamilton can make a strong claim that leftists are today’s biggest bigots.

Interestingly the original French meaning of the term bigot is “a suspicious hypocrite” which suggests that bigots are likely to dismiss rational arguments they disagree with and accuse those who make them of bigotry – a trait which is rampant on the modern left.

Why anti-racist drugs probably won’t work

March 10, 2012

A research story about a drug having anti-racist effects is currently getting a lot of mileage on the Internet.  Apparently some Oxford researchers have found that the beta blocker drug propranolol reduced sub-conscious racist responses in a recent study.

Not surprisingly, this has generated a lot of semi-serious comments about the possibility of liberal-fascist authorities popping such drugs in the water supply. However, just because ethnocentric people show more fearful responses to questions about racism does not mean (for better or worse) that beta blockers are going to make them less racist.

For a start, beta blockers don’t actually reduce fear per se, they only reduce the physical symptoms of fear. In other words, if say, a white guy who doesn’t like Black people sees a Black man with a machette, he’s still going to be just as fearful.

Beta blockers are popular for performance anxiety, because  those who are concerned about showing their fear through blushing, tremors, etc, have one less thing to worry about.  But this also means that blockers could potentially make people who are sub-consciously racist better at hiding their racial discomfort, which in some cases could actually make them more, not less racist.

Beta blockers also have negative side effects like fatigue and insomnia. Whatever, liberals say about racist whites, they still need whites as cash-cow taxpayers and indiscriminate use of such drugs would undermine white productivity – which is the same reason why they don’t want to  legalise marajuana – it’s bad for capitalism, and in a modern liberal society money is the only thing holding society together.



Binary politics

March 3, 2012

One of the features of living under an ideological hegemony is that there is no ideological middle ground.

In today’s liberal hegemony, people either have the correct views or they have the wrong views and if they have the later, they’re labeled as “extremists” or simply backward idiots who are beyond the pale.

Take racism for example. Racism basically means favouring those of your own race over those of other races. A more scientific, and less emotionally-loaded term for racism is ethnocentrism.

Now ethnocentrism may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your view point, but most people would at least agree that it exists in varying degrees.

However, within the official ideological straitjacket of modern liberalism, there are no degrees of ethnocentrism, you can’t be slightly or moderately ethno-centric, you’re either are ethnocentric or you aren’t.

This is why you hear people making saying statements starting with “I’m not racist, but….”

Since it’s not acceptable to admit to being even slightly ethnocentric, you have to deny you’re ethnocentric before you can make any kind of ethnic observation or judgement. Thus today’s liberal society creates an ideological “no man’s land” within which no one admits to having any opinions.

Not only does this suppress debate, but it also undermines people’s ability to actually come up with workable solutions to social problems.

Take the recent issue of women serving in the front lines in the military. In practice the debate has taken place between those who promote the “correct” liberal view that women should be able to do whatever men do, and a small number of conservative dissidents who argue that this is dangerous and impractical. Naturally, the liberals have won the argument and women can now serve with men in front line roles.

However, there were other possible alternative that weren’t even discussed. For example, girls and boys tend to do better in single-sex schools. So you could make a good case that if you’re going to have women in the front lines, you should get them to serve in women’s only units. This would get around a lot of the problems associated with men and women living next to each other in arduous battlefield conditions, while still allowing atypical women to serve in the front line.

I’m not necessarily saying this is the best solution to the issue, it may be, but it does demonstrate that when you have a binary form of politics, few options outside of the mainstream paradigm will raised and given due consideration.