9 Comments
Jan 27·edited Jan 27Liked by Imperium Press

I think you passed over the weakest point in Hanania's argument. He is in my view claiming that classical liberalism's superiority is evidenced by America's economic might. By every single legitimate measure, that is to say by ignoring nominal GDP growth and fake inflation numbers, and focusing on the rapidly deteriorating economic condition of America in real terms, the argument completely falls apart. When the printing press' demise meets the insanity of mass human flesh sack invasions turned to hungry mouths may Hanania and his ilk be the first sacks of flesh offered up to sate the savages' appetites. Of course we all know the absurdity of the reductionism of the homo economicus illness in classical liberalism.

What the multi-culturists must be forced to answer are: 1. Where has a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society ever flourished? 2. How is turning your founding and indigenous population into a minority, inviting in people and encouraging them to hate and dismantle their culture and country and teaching them to hate that population a sign of a superior civilization? A civilization that destroys itself and its own people is a catastrophic failure no matter how capable it is at disguising the fraud that keeps numbers moving up and to the right.

"Wokeness is not believed on the basis of some fact that a convincing argument for HBD can defeat. Wokeness is a mythic complex that no argument will ever defeat, no matter how sound—indeed, the more facts that accumulate against it, the more hysterical and fundamentalist it grows."

Genius. I do think that we on the side of reality need a comprehensive breakdown of, "woke." Midwittery is a perfect explanation of the Hanania, Lindsey, Peterson critiques of woke that start at the Frankfurt school. A huge part that doesn't get addressed is that woke is many things. One of the critical components of it is that it is a power play. There are factions that do not believe at all in egalitarianism. Those factions manipulate it for a very significant part of what it is. It is a racial patronage and spoils system. It is also an insidious status signaling system. The latter component is truly tragic for it offers the race that is being made the bottom of the caste system and that is being dispossessed to fund the patronage/spoils system nothing but empty gestures to maintain status and rank.

That is a system that is rotten to its core. Nay, that is a system that is pure evil. It is we who see this. It is we who have the courage to assert our race's existential need to assert itself in order to survive. It is left liberal insanity that condemns that impulse as hate and right liberal insanity that condemns it as an outdated, collectivist impulse of dullards and knaves. Survival is not a right. It is the manifestation of the ability to channel the most primal of impulses into actions that ensure that outcome. Within that crucible, genius assembles those same ingredients and summons the will to make the most of them. For our people what ensues are the cantatas that swirl in the cupola of our cathedrals and the furnace of the rocket engines burning through the skies and sailing through the cosmos.

Liberalism has no survival instinct. In fact its impulses are destruction. It is so myopic that it desperately uses midwitery to assemble evidence of success that genius easily and properly sees as a fraud. At the causal root of that fraud is a sickness - a sickness whose prognosis is suicide. Stay healthy. Stay strong. Stay right.

Expand full comment
author

Good point, the metrics by which the West measures its dominance are largely non-sequiturs.

"Where has a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society ever flourished?"

The beauty of the progressive liberal mindset is its rigorous anti-empiricism. We are always in a "new era" where "old ideas don't apply" and the Big Data set that is all history is completely thrown out the window. Sure, we've never had rule-by-ouija-board before, but then, we never had liberalism before 1789, hmm? hmm? There's a first time for everything you know. What's that about Lindy? Sounds like misinformation. Shut his bank account down.

Expand full comment
Jan 27·edited Jan 28Liked by Imperium Press

Liberalism's survival instinct is incredibly fine-tuned. It's immune-system response is just as vigorous and sensitive as any right-wing government in history. Maybe more so. Most successful authoritarian governments that I'm aware of eventually died of excessive immune response, just as will liberalism.

When a human system reaches a certain scale, it either fragments or requires increasing levels of bureaucratic administration to maintain the centrifugal forces leading to fragmentation. The Greeks solved their 'scale' problems by spawning colonies of Greeks with new constitutions to represent new sensibilities regarding how a Greek city-state ought to be managed. If the Greeks had chosen the centralization approach, they would have been Persians.

Liberalism refuses to fragment because the driving engine of liberalism is, as pointed out, the redemptive millenarian arch of a fully normalized Christianity.

The strength of the 'folkish' response to liberalism lies in the logic of fragmentation and the opacity of discrete communities to liberal political-economy. If you haven't been following Circulation of Elite's series on Mack Walker's 'German Home Towns', it contains excellent information on how 'opacity' to liberalism was achieved and defended during its rise to dominance.

https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/a-case-study-in-the-phenotype-wars

Expand full comment

I enjoyed this. Sadly, though, these counter-revolutionary thinkers are pretty weak sauce.

As a pragmatist, I would suggest that a 'pragmatic' argument from outcomes cannot be refuted by an appeal to 'truth'. The whole point of pragmatism is to move away from the need to determine 'the real' in some fundamental sense and replace it with a 'community' standard.

The alt-liberal appeal to 'liberalism is successful because X' is only relevant to a community that would accept such a standard as valid. The counter to such a claim is not 'rightism is also successful' but 'Since you have such confidence, you shouldn't oppose the right from trying to be successful, too'.

Then, I think, you'd find the liberal suddenly changing their tune.

There is no valid counterargument against 'preference' arguments that is *consistent* with liberalism. That's why, when challenged by a preference argument, the liberal has to shift away from 'liberalism' to the logic of the security state.

All liberalism is totalitarianism in the final analysis.

The only way to oppose totalitarianism is with opacity and inertia. The best piece of theory on the problem of opacity for totalitarian liberalism is 'In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities' by Jean Baudillard. Baudrillard may not be a person of the Right, but he is not *liberal*.

You should consider adding Jacques Ellul and Marshal McLuhan non-liberal culture contributors.

Expand full comment
author

Interesting suggestion of Baudrillard, that book I'm not familiar with.

The point about pragmatism is exactly right. Modern science (as well as Darwinism in its earlier iterations) understands that truth is simply a function of use, and any evaluation of truth is finally going to come down to what you can do with it. I think there is value in showing that liberalism fails on its own terms though.

Expand full comment

What we can legitimately say is that liberalism has failed to meet *our* community's preferences. That embeds both the critique and the claims to communal status in a seamless expression. Liberalism sought to overwrite fragmentation with a 'universalism' that perpetuated ruling class prerogatives while striping away traditional protections for common folk.

The central movement within 'liberal' (i.e. imperial) political-economy since all of recorded history has been the same: exploit the exploitable, internalize all value while externalizing all waste products. What the Right calls 'hierarchy' was an 'in place' component of this process of disenfranchisement, disembedding and displacement. Now, nearly the entire world is in motion, moving about and 'unsettling in', creating ever-increasing dissatisfaction from the last groups of people who were too 'primitive' and parochial to notice what was happening around them: Rural Whites in the West.

To the extent that a folkish movement can have strength it needs to articulate a 'we' that can acquire assent from The Parochial while at the same time defending individual parochial communities.

Some smart person or persons needs to steal from the Left regarding 'community economics' and come up with the broad outlines of a plan to protect the economic autonomy of communities. And I think that's going to have to start with local 'money' and local 'banking'.

Expand full comment
Feb 5Liked by Imperium Press

"Sadly, though, these counter-revolutionary thinkers are pretty weak sauce."

Yes, weaksauce is a fairly apt description of guys like Hanania. They offer their audience a way to be edgy & somewhat red-pilled while remaining on the reservation; in other words, controlled opposition. Also,

"When Maistre says of Rousseau that “he bases his whole system on exceptions”, he might as well have been speaking of the alt-centre."

Not just the alt-center, but the entire Left's strategy is to argue from exceptions & outliers to undermine the dominant paradigm, eventually dissolving it. They've done this with race, nationality, gender norms, sexuality, and now biological sex. "But what about straight couples who can't conceive?" "But what about hermaphrodites and barren women?" "But aren't we all illegal immigrants?" and on it goes. Morgoth had a good article on this, using British radio as an example: https://morgoth.substack.com/p/the-deconstruction-of-radio-2-and

Ultimately, woke is the youngest strain of Liberalism, in a direct line of descent from Classical Liberalism, and that's a terrible indictment of the latter. Trying to fight woke without rejecting Liberalism is like trying to cut down kudzu while leaving the roots intact -- it simply doesn't work. Cuckservatives tried to be lukewarm Liberals, and their compromise didn't work either. Liberalism may have had a good run, but it's proven to be unstable, radioactive and cancerous; thus, the solution is to destroy-and-rebuild, and lay the groundwork for a new society with a foundation of biology, ethnos, mythos, and tradition.

Expand full comment
Feb 6·edited Feb 6Liked by Imperium Press

Clearly, the argument from exceptions and outliers is *very* effective. The liberal/left have had an unbroken string of successes at every major policy goal in the West for over 200 years. In my view, the problem is accepting the terms of the debate as being one of *ideas* instead of *desires*. The only genuine political question is 'What do you (really) want?'. Most ideology is just an attempt at the euphemization of desire. All ideologies are, in the their final form, totalitarian. Consequently, the *very idea* of a 'private' space can only be accomplished by *totalitarian* means. And all totalitarian systems are systems of desire.

Expand full comment
Jan 27Liked by Imperium Press

“ I have a dream. A dream in which my children…

will never need encounter the facile, hyper-feminized, pro forma, patronage-funded scribblings of Hananaia, Lindsay, and every other so-called political centrist (left or right)! Moreover, that these ‘thinkers’ find themselves relegated to the obscure fringes of the agora, where they suffer in isolation from a warranted societal snub.”

Expand full comment