What Are Liberals So Afraid Of?

The local public radio classical music station has excellent programming and good hosts, as they call their DJs. They had a fundraising drive recently. Yes, I kept the station on because the banter was engaging, and doing so learned that Erik Satie’s Trois Gymnopedies were revolutionary despite their simplicity because there is no progression in those pieces.

Then something made me raise an eyebrow — a caller pledges a generous sum and compliments the station’s hosts for keeping the listeners’ spirits high “through the frightening times we now live in.” The hostess concurred with the obvious reference to The God Emperor. She added that they strive to be an oasis of peace for their listeners, recalling how the station continued playing great classical music through the shock of 9/11. Yes, she compared that calamity to Trump’s presidency.

To flip perspectives yes, I would consider a Hillary Clinton presidency a bigger disaster than 9/11. But I can also explain why, in simple words: her administration would put the globalists in a position from which they are free to destroy us through mass immigration and free trade. They would level mankind down to its most stupid, blank-eyed third world common denominator and acid-bathe everything I value of all that’s good and beautiful.

So, can a liberal similarly explain why the presidency of Donald Trump is more frightening than a terrorist attack? Are liberals afraid of the same thing I am — globalism — except that they are working with different premises than I am, in ascribing its destructiveness to the spirit of nationalism? Or to ask this question differently, why would a patrician custodian of high culture be afraid of the regeneration of Western nations that the past four administrations had made a dire necessity of and that Trump’s presidency promises to deliver? This isn’t about one radio host at this point, but an entire class of liberal Whites.

Let’s look at twelve possible reasons for their fear of Donald Trump.

One: liberals, regardless of their class or intelligence, are herd animals. Imagine antelopes taunting a lion (to take a bit of liberty with this metaphor). They can’t help it, it’s what they do. In the wake of the Trumpenslide, it is dawning on them that the big, fleshy beast they’ve been biting and prodding all that time is now awake and is about shred them to pieces.

“The Dems have a look of rabbits that are discovering they aren’t free, independent agents…they are food.” — commenter at Vox Popoli

Two: worries about funding cuts. The liberal’s worldview is a mirror image of mine, in that we both divide the world into the light of civilization and the darkness of barbarism, but we point to different sources of barbarism. To contrast our perspectives: I believe that our civilization, my descendants’ secure place in it and their identity, as well as our nations’ cultural output, relies on the integrity of organic social pyramids with our own criminal, labor, middle, and upper classes. But while my view is expansive, accommodating of both chaos and order, populist above all (the rose needs a robust, healthy soil to bloom) the liberal’s vision is elitist and claustrophobic.

His world is a perpetual night, with light-bearing government standing as sentry between security and savagery — while to me, the savage sleeps in each of us. And more on-point in the present day, the savage arrives from the global south by land, air and sea. Look at Paris.

Drawn to their own conception of light, liberals seek out others like themselves who are elect, and recognize them by their specific markers of status, such as a proper type of education or cultural signalling. That is how liberals confirm that the person in question has a soul. They are repulsed by what they regard as their lesser compatriots, whom they consider subhuman and depressing. And for modern American liberals, the federal government and its power to hold its boot on the subhumans’ necks is the vehicle through which they — the elect — are safe. So what I am getting at, is that the liberal considers any talk of defunding federal programs an attack on the government itself and as such, an attack on the very light of civilization.

Three: all change is scary. Four: Jewish paranoia. I don’t think that the radio station’s hosts are Jews but liberals have appropriated their prejudices. (This post is about White liberals, exclusive of Jews). Five: they aren’t really afraid; they are playing to the anxieties of their donor base, which takes us back to the original question: what are their supporters so fearful of? Six: they believe all that bullshit about leftists being the nice underdogs.

Seven: like everyone in the West, they feel that something is very wrong. But unlike those of us who want to confront the problem, liberals are appeasement-oriented. Whomever they seek to appease at any given moment — placate any individuals or entities that comprise the patron-client matrix of neoliberalism — they look with horror upon Trump and the Alt-Right’s aggressive challenge to these seemingly omnipotent forces. Liberals would rather let the wolves pace about so long as we don’t give them a reason to bite, even as the animals grow bolder and meaner with each passing year.

Eight: fear of chaos, even as they play that game with us. This is another one that merits a fuller explanation. Do you believe that a race has its destiny? If so, then ours is to build and destroy, at turns. Trainspotter explains this in a long comment that I featured in my earlier post about our love of freedom:

The European soul craves more; it needs more. If necessary, it will upend and destroy the world to get that “more.” It will even destroy itself.

We’ve near-destroyed our whole world. And this brings us to an enigmatic vision of our great race. At some level liberals intuit the slow swing of the eros-thanatos pendulum because for the past seventy years, they’ve done the wrecking. The immediate reason for their fear is that for them, the big questions had been settled and the pendulum may now rest. Racism is bad, women are more equal, religion is best castrated unless it’s Islam, and White men are beasts of burden. I can appreciate the satisfaction that the liberal feels at this point, after almost a century of winning. He has imposed the victor’s non-negotiable terms, dictating a tyranny of his ideals. But there is stasis in tyranny, and that is what the liberal dreads. Which brings me to something MGE recently wrote:

trump is a chaos agent and I love it. […] white people need a bit of chaos to thrive. our allergy to stasis compels us to kick over the apple cart every now and then

Especially when we are harnessed to the apple cart from which everyone but us is grabbing the fruits.

To continue with this lengthy look at #8, allow me a tangent in which I will encapsulate the apex liberal ideal in one anecdote. A while back, a young self-described feminist is hanging out nearby. In earshot, a pleasant older woman is having a conversation with someone else about her work as an engineer. Overhearing them, the young feminist is beaming, vicariously absorbing the rays of her ideal incarnate. Me being me, I start thinking: What is so great about female engineers? I don’t mean this in a contrarian or spiteful sense; what I’m asking is, where does a world in which women are engineers lead and why would someone support that aspiration? The utilitarian calculation is clear enough to me: allowing due acceptance of peoples’ individual choices, women engineers are a negative at both micro- and macro-levels of society. They are not going to make any innovations in their fields because women don’t do that. Their intelligence could have been better passed on to their children and the bigger families that they could have had instead. A man supporting a family could have had her job and being an extra unit of labor supply, she’s depressing wages for all male engineers. But the young feminist likes a world in which women walk on air. The question remains: why?

Now, I certainly understand that we all like a lot of things for their intrinsic value, whether or not their first-causes are socially constructive. For example, some of us have slept with girls our age in our early twenties, making them worse for the men who ended up marrying them. Stealing is liberation, freedom’s depraved sister.

Not having been a saint, I am aware of my own corruption. But the liberal (a feminist in this case but this extends to all of them) does not understand net-loss. The liberal does not understand the violence against the West she supports by promoting female careerism, however passively, because she wants to bask in the gratification of a woman defying nature’s and history’s iron laws concerning the role of the female. Rebelling against laws feels like liberation, and feminism is one of the ways in which the liberal has been kicking over the apple cart.

Liberals want to keep the world in which female engineers exist as an end in itself. Even if the gorging on our social capital continues until the grain stores run empty. And this refusal to let go of liberalism is not limited to feminist advocacy. They want the world and they want it now. The liberated women, the intoxication of throwing everything away — our best of everything, our temperate lands, our beautiful genes — the orgy and the rape.

And late into the night on November 8th, chill wind hit their faces just as consummation was in reach: a recognition that we, the long-suffering and now wide-awake men of the West, have hated every single fucking moment of their joy, of having been their slaves. White man lives free or dies, and it’s dawned on us that we want to live. Liberals are terrified of our awakening because now it’s our turn.

Nine, and this is related to the previous: no more free stuff, which is strip-mined from the social capital of others. Liberalism is like nuclear fission in that its application releases and harnesses potential energy by breaking the structural integrity of an existing system, leaving behind radioactive waste. This works on global levels such as when George Soros destabilizes countries and profits on their downfall, as well as on street levels when protected-class aliens make themselves at home in our public space. The free stuff model has so many incarnations. Fat girls used to be few and they had to work on their personalities. Now they are everywhere and are bombarded with male attention, all of that to the detriment of healthy male-female dynamics. So in essence, what liberals across the spectrum might be afraid of, as the gods of copybook headings return, is the end of the feast.

Ten: they are afraid that their beliefs have been false all along. That they believed in the fantasy that man can transcend his material limits and not have to come back down.

Eleven: deportations, cleansing, bloodshed. A successful reconquista would objectively be good for Whites across the ideological spectrum for obvious reasons. (If those reasons are not obvious to some: the sole alternative to White supremacy in our own countries is White genocide, and with it, no more classical music). But the imagery of reclaiming our lands is scary because where wood is chopped, there fly splinters. And more than one liberal may be called to account for his role in race-replacement.

And twelve: the fight to the death. Members of the striver class pick up on the anxieties of the principal actors of globalism who know that if they regain power, they’ll have to break us. And they know that we know that they know. The globalist and the nationalist, two killers wrestling over one gun. Only one of us will see the next day. And having captured the presidency of the United States and the cultural momentum, we may yet win. Our ideas are the ones whose time has come, theirs are exhausted. Scores will be settled over all that they’ve ruined if we are clear-headed enough to reestablish a future for our posterity.

Reframing Compassion: You Can’t Come Here

And they wonder why Donald Trump is to civic enthusiasm as “The Passion of the Christ” was to movie-going.

An attendee at Donald Trump’s rally in Salem, New Hampshire, questioned Trump about his hardline position on Middle Eastern migrants. Trump has said that, in addition to barring new refugees, he would deport any already in the country. From Business Insider, Feb. 8, 2016, with emphasis added:

“There’s plans in place now to relocate a few Syrian families in the [Greenwich, NH] community,” the man told Trump. “The community has been very open and welcoming of these families. Some of their children are — ages 5, 8, 10, 12 — are planning to go to school there.”

He continued: “I think we all probably know what your general policies are toward refugees. I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to go to school in the community?”

Trump said he could, in fact, look those children in the face and tell them the US wouldn’t accept them. The Republican front-runner warned that their parents could be aligned with the Islamic State, the terrorist group also known as ISIS.

Trump’s answer—that he would look the migrant children in the eye and tell them that they can’t come here—was principled and right. The explanation he gave, that their parents could be aligned with ISIS, is factually sound but it doesn’t come from first causes. The fundamental answer, one that may have created an unnecessary distraction on the campaign trail, is that the purpose of countries is to secure a future for their own native children.

A response to that Greenwich rally attendee that reframes the compassion fallacy at first causes would look something like this:

I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these White children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to have a school, or a community, or a future of their own?

Nobody ever asks about American kids, or White kids. Any talk of compassion for White children as such would draw a blank look on the average modern man’s face. Under the globalist world order and in the minds of hate-crazed anti-Whites, our communities and all of our social capital have legitimacy solely in their function of being nourishment for non-Whites.

From the most recent Democratic debate, moderated by a Black woman Gwen Ifill and featuring Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:

IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about African-Americans, people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?

SANDERS: White people?

IFILL: I know. (Laughter)

Hyenas cackling over the lion cubs.

A human being with a healthy moral alignment and a non-cucked worldview sees the world from the perspective of his concentric circles of loyalty, all of them anchored on the axis of his blood lineage. A healthy man makes all practical judgments in accordance with how they serve the well-being of his posterity writ large but delineated by outer limits to keep his generosity from diluting itself in universalism.

What about Christian compassion to others, in the context of asylum-seekers? I mused about the notion of shelter-giving in my post about hospitality, where I wrote something that is apropos here:

A generous humanitarian gesture toward a large numbers of foreigners seeking safety — assuming they are deemed asylum seekers and not non-uniformed invaders — should be a temporary sanctuary in a confined campus, with mandatory return once the hostilities are deemed to have ended. And no possibility of release to integrate with the host state’s population.

In no moral law is it written that asylum for refugees must become an open door to changing the national character of the host country. A good host will feed you and board you, not dispossess his son or give away his daughter for the guest’s sake.

And the above assumes that the refugees are fleeing certain death, rather than coming here “for a better life” at the price of making our children’s lives worse.

***

It has been pointed out in ironic tones that Donald Trump could pass for a moderate Democrat twenty years ago. That may be true at face value but this glib dismissal also understates Trump’s campaign as an existential threat to the system. The globalist world order—which had kicked into implementation phase with the end of the Cold War—operates on two principles: (1) a perpetual expansion of the economic consumer pool, and (2) White genocide.

A charismatic, independent, national-level political figure that allegedly positions himself as a “moderate Democrat” from 1996 is not a threat to the establishment because he is two-decades’ worth of quibbles behind the program. Rather, he’s a threat to them because he represents a reversal of the present direction of national destinies from a planned blending-out oblivion to a defiant rebirth of nations. (“Destinies” in the plural, because Trump’s national populism will validate the aspirations of White patriots worldwide)

***

But, but—they say it’s just a few refugees that want to be your neighbors in Greenwich!

Yeah. That’s what they told us in ’65.

The Donald knows.

twttmp