Reinventing Liberalism

If you’ve ever listened to conservative talk radio, you probably realize these hosts think the United States is in decline. These hosts seem to be ubiquitous in blaming liberalism as the cause of the decline. The accusations here are many: altering the racial makeup of the country by promoting third-world immigration, inhibiting free speech by passing hate speech laws, destroying public schools by promoting forced integration, reducing the economic prosperity of the country through redistributive taxation, etc.

The list of accusations could go on all day. Surprisingly, the solution to this perceived onslaught is, well, name-calling. Ninety-nine percent of the rhetoric coming from the right consists of nothing but bitching and complaining. No ideas for talking white liberals out of their self-righteous suicide are ever brought forth. They make no effort to understand liberals, lump them all into the same category, and assume they are all incorrigible.

But is this true? Are liberals incurable? Might some argument be crafted to talk them out of their pathological altruism? To answer this question, we must first do what no one on the right wants to do—make an effort to understand them. This essay attempts to understand liberals and then, if possible, find some way to preserve this ideology. The first thing to realize is that liberals are not all the same but are, in fact, as different as night and day. Americans with liberal views do so for many reasons, but we can boil them down into at least four main categories.

Group I: -THE PARENTS This group’s primary concern is not with themselves but with others. Others here are anything other than themselves or their group. Their concern is typically for nature (protecting the environment, preserving healthy ecosystems, protecting endangered species) or for other humans they perceive to be at a level below them (the poor, the handicapped, the ungifted, etc.). This group is typically gifted and has no problem meeting their own needs. Their motive for taking this viewpoint is not for their gain but to extend care where they feel care is needed.

This viewpoint resembles one that a parent would extend to a child. This group views their actions as being gracious and wants strongly to believe they are engaged in noble behavior. Racially, this group consists almost entirely of the Nordic [1] racial type. The small number of non-Nordics in this group is likely assimilated with and has fallen under the influence of the Nordic type.

GROUP II: THE CHILDREN This group is different from group I above in that group I is a net loser (they don’t expect to gain anything from their views but only to extend care where care is needed); group II expects to gain something from their liberal views. The latter votes in its interests, while the former ignores its interests. This group expects material or personal gain in one form or another. Group II consists of the less gifted element in the population and realizes that, due to their circumstances, they could use some assistance and ask for it.

Nonwhites in this group support equality not because they believe in it but because they expect to gain something from it. This gain could be free housing, education, food, or any of the myriad benefits of being declared equal to and living side by side with the Nordic peoples. Racially, this group is mainly nonwhite, but there is an element of notably ungifted whites within it. Nonwhite immigrants (either legal or illegal) typically fall into this category, while their descendants often migrate to Group IV.

GROUP III: THE FOLLOWERS Human beings are group animals that need to belong to a group to feel secure. Isolated loners are usually miserable people who lack self-confidence and any sense of purpose in their lives. This is obvious and hardly needs mentioning. Also evident is the fact that the fear of social rejection is a powerful motivator in human behavior. Humans who change locations often change their views to better fit into their new peer group. This behavior describes Group III perfectly. They are not liberals because they have something to give. They are not liberals because they are needy. They are liberals because they are surrounded by such people every day and need to fit in. What they get from liberalism is peer acceptance.

Members of this group can be of any race and are typically employed in the more social fields, such as school teachers, politicians, and actors—fields where being politically correct is important and social rejection would be extra painful. Because they are so concerned with what others think of them and don’t think things through, they can sometimes exhibit bizarre behavior, such as virtue signaling. This group doesn’t mean harm; they just can’t quiet their minds enough to realize what they are doing.

Group IV: THE DESTROYERS Like group II above (the children), group IV expects to gain from their liberal views, but unlike group II, they hope to achieve at the expense of others. Group II’s view is essentially childlike in that it never asks where the gain it seeks comes from. It never contemplates whether its desired gain comes at the expense of or burden to others. Group IV does ask this question and is perfectly OK with taking from others and giving to themselves. The group they intend to take from is white America, as the envy of white America is their motivation. This group is mainly nonwhite. The few whites in this group usually feel alienated from white America and resent it (e.g., homosexuals).

Envy has been described as “pain at the site of another’s good fortune” and increases with proximity to the desired object and the difficulty of attaining the object. So, if the desired object is distant but attainable, it gives a healthy sense of motivation, but if it is close and ultimately unattainable, it creates a painful feeling of frustration.

This can be verified by comparing the opinions of African Americans [2] towards white Americans vs. the opinions of Africans (in Africa) toward white Americans. While the former is full of anger and hostility, the latter tends to admire white Americans. The same difference in opinion can be seen between Arabs in the Middle East (towards Europeans) and Arabs actually in Europe (towards Europeans). Nonwhites abroad usually admire the Nordic people and their achievements, but when they live side by side with Nordics, their “benign envy” often turns into a severe case of “malicious envy,” and it is malicious envy that motivates Group IV.

When someone envies another person, there are only two ways to alleviate that envy. The first is positive: with motivation and effort, one lifts oneself to the level of the envied person, and the second is negative: with bad intent, one drags the envied person down to some level below the envier. In this case, since the envied object is the genetic traits of the Nordic people, the positive option is not viable, and the negative option is the only solution. The goal of Group IV, then, is to drag white America down to some level below them. This is the only way Group IV can appease its envy.

With this brief look at motivations, we can see that not only are all liberals not the same, but they are pretty different. While group I seeks to extend care graciously, group IV seeks only to destroy what it cannot level up to—complete opposites. Group I represents humans behaving at the highest spiritual level yet attained, while Group IV behaves near the lowest, with the other groups somewhere in the middle.

 Lumping all liberals into the same category and calling them “libtards,” “lefties,” “the left,“ or others is just unintelligent. But this is all those on the political right can seem to do. It should be evident that group I is the only group behaving nobly, with the rest acting out of self-interest in one form or another. If liberalism is to be saved, Group I will have to do it. Without Group I, no one is left to give, and the other groups descend into chaos. With that in mind, a closer look at group I (the parents) is needed.

There may be more women in this group than men. The likely reason is the low birthrate of Nordic women in the US. (The founding stock of white Americans has supposedly been below the replacement rate since the civil rights movement.) Without motherhood, women’s natural nurturing instincts go unmet. In Nordic women, this unmet nurturing need plus higher consciousness (see below) results in these women trying to become the mothers of all of society and, hence, members of Group I.

However, the most obvious trait of this group is its racial makeup, as it is overwhelmingly Nordic. If this is doubted, a glance at European politics and the racial makeup of the individual countries should clear things up. The more Nordic the population, the more the politics are centered around “fairness“ for all citizens. The politics of Scandinavia have gone to such an extreme that some have labeled them as “pathological altruism.“

Since group I is the Nordic race—more specifically, the more gifted members of this type—the focus necessarily shifts to this race type and what makes it different from the rest of humanity. This question is not easy to answer. There was some research into this subject at the beginning of the last century, but it promptly stopped at the end of World War II. With this in mind, there is probably one significant difference and two consequential ones.

1) HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS The Nordic subrace has higher consciousness than other races. Defining consciousness is another challenging thing. For our purpose, we are more concerned with levels or hierarchies, so an exact definition is not necessary. For example, take the awareness of an insect—a grasshopper, let’s say. We can only imagine that a grasshopper exists in the simplest of worlds. We know it is aware of the external world because it can react to stimuli from it. It can seek out food, fight a competitor, flee a predator, etc. When it comes to reproduction, it lays some eggs and crawls off. There is no evidence that it realizes what the eggs are or what they represent. The grasshopper’s existence is a concern for its biological unit and nothing else.

Now, let’s take another animal, say, a bear. The bear can do everything the grasshopper can do, plus something else—it can care for its young. The bear views its cubs, while they are small and vulnerable, as an extension of itself. The mother bear views any threat to her cubs as a threat to herself. Now, let’s take a wolf. The wolf can do everything the bear can do, plus something else—it can form a pack. Not only can the wolf care for its young, but it can also extend care to its pack members. It views its pack members as extensions of itself. An attack on an individual pack member is akin to an attack on the whole wolf pack. If we view species by their willingness to extend care beyond their biological unit, we can develop a spiritual hierarchy of sorts. A wolf ranks higher than a bear, and a bear ranks higher than a grasshopper.

Looking at this way, we can comfortably rank humans at the top of this hierarchy because humans regularly extend care further than any animal species. Most humans are at what has been termed the nation-state level. These humans are willing to extend care to what they consider their group—other humans with certain similarities in race, culture, language, religious beliefs, etc. Next, they draw a line around the geographical area they inhabit, and this is the basis of a nation or state.

Regarding human races (each race is a proto-species or species in the making and is the proper unit of division among humanity), the Nordic sub-race is at a higher level than the other human races. He is the only one who can extend care to other human groups that are not his own. He is the only one to extend care to other species; in fact, he can extend care to the entire planet. No other race type does this, and the most they are concerned with is the well-being of their nation or state. The Nordic type extends care further than other races, putting them at a higher spiritual level. This trait also makes him uniquely suited for a position of global leadership.

2) HIGHER MORALITY The Nordic also places more importance on moral behavior than other races. This is likely due to his increased ability and willingness to view the external world as an extension of himself. Because he cares about himself (as all organisms do), he therefore cares about and can empathize with whatever he mentally extends himself into. Since he extends himself further into the external world, he is willing to extend moral principles, such as fairness, further than other races. The point is that any attempt to talk him out of his self-destructive ways should be based primarily on a moral argument. You must convince him—not that it is in his best interest, but in the best interest of what he cares about—that he change.

3) A HIGHER DRIVE FOR POWER It should be evident from a study of European history that the Nordic type has a high drive for power. This trait is likely because he feels himself at a higher level than other races. Like an adult who feels he has a god-given right to command children (even if they are not his own), Nordic man feels he is at a higher level than other races and, therefore, has a right to rule them.

Currently, he has a conflict of interest between his drive for power and his desire to extend morality. In his attempt to lift the bottom to the level of the top, or, put another way, to remake the world’s people into an image of himself by imposing his language, religion, culture, etc., on them, he has voluntarily ceded much of his power. He did not lose interest in holding it; he relinquished it because he felt it was the moral thing to do. So, as the world’s people become more like him (in a cultural and technological sense), he relinquishes power to them, similar to how a parent gradually cedes autonomy to the child as the child grows older and matures.

If you could convince him it was not only in his interest but in the best interest of what he cares about to re-empower himself, we could assume he would gladly do so.

So, in summary, we have seen that liberals, instead of being all the same or even similar, actually consist of two main groups: net gainers and net losers. The gainers’ motives may vary, but they all feel they have something to gain from liberalism. Change the situation and take away the ability to gain from liberalism, and they would likely abandon it overnight.

On the other hand, the net losers take the vantage point of parents caring for children. Their motive is altruistic instead of self-centered. From a racial viewpoint, this group consists almost entirely of the Nordic type or, more accurately, the more gifted members of the Nordic racial type. Not all Nordics fit into this group, of course, as many fit into Group III (the followers). Some even fit into Group II (the children) or Group IV (the destroyers), while others are conservatives.

This does not belie the fact that the only group that is severely overrepresented by the Nordic racial type is group I (the parents). This is so much so that you could almost say liberal values (IE, fairness to all peoples, compassion for the suffering of others, et cetera) are racial traits of the Nordic type. You could even go so far as to define liberalism as the history of the northern European peoples trying to lift the rest of humanity to their level. If this is so, then it becomes evident that liberal values are entirely dependent on the continued existence and health of the Nordic racial type. With this thought in mind, the focus of this essay now shifts from trying to “save“ liberalism to preserving the Nordic racial type and empowering its most gifted members.

When someone is engaged in negative, self-defeating behavior, simply pointing out the behavior as self-defeating is not likely to change it. The reason is that the individual involved often gets satisfaction in one form or another from the behavior, and stopping it would leave him feeling unsatisfied. In this case, what the Nordic gets from ‘pathological altruism‘ is a sense of being gracious and engaging in noble behavior that is appropriate for men at his level. To quit cold turkey would seem like stepping down from his higher level and giving up on noble behavior, which he is unwilling to do. So, to talk him out of his suicidal behavior, you must provide an alternate model of behavior that satisfies his desire to act nobly and present this as superior to his current behavior.

One way to accomplish this might be to shift the focus from human to nature-centered altruism. If there were a conflict of interest between human population growth and environmental protection(and there is), protecting the environment would be touted as the more moral solution. After all, humans aren’t going anywhere (unless we find a way to off ourselves with technology—but that’s a subject for another day), yet environmental systems worldwide are in danger of collapsing. At the heart of this model might be a continent-wide re-wilding project.[3] This project would be massive and would take decades or more to complete. As re-wilding would come into direct conflict with population growth, subjects like illegal immigration, immigration in general, and even nonwhite population growth (remember, white Americans have been below the replacement rate since the civil rights movement) would come into question.

With this in mind, an argument to divert the Nordic from his current path might go as follows:

1) Show him that his attempt to ‘lift the bottom to the level of the top‘ was a noble act, but it is a movement that has reached its natural conclusion. If continued, not only will it destroy him, but it will also greatly damage those he is attempting to benefit. An example here might be that of African Americans, as their happiness seems to be negatively correlated with the care white America shows them.

2) Show him that Nordics have higher consciousness or spiritual awareness than other races and that higher values that foster civilization, like altruism or compassion, depend on Nordic survival.

3) Convince him that it is in the best interest of humanity, and in the best interest of life on earth, that he, having higher consciousness, should govern not only the countries he inhabits but also all countries that use Western technology as to the use of that technology.

4) Show him that the evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness and convince him that altering national and world demographics to favor those of higher consciousness—the Nordic type—would continue this evolution and, therefore, be a moral act.

5) Show him there is a conflict of interest between an ever-increasing nonwhite population and the health of the planet. Choosing the planet’s health is the more responsible choice between the two.

While many readers might think this is far-fetched, it is not as improbable as it might initially seem. What would happen if the Nordic type realized the higher values of liberalism depended on its survival and attempted to empower themselves legally and within the bounds of the constitution, as outlined on this website? What would the reaction of the rest of America be? Let’s look at the different liberal groups. The reaction of Group II would likely be inconsequential. After all, their attraction to liberalism is material or personal gain, and empowering the most altruistic element would seemingly be in their best interest. The worst-case scenario would be verbal complaining.

Group III’s reaction would also likely be inconsequential, as their primary desire is to be on the winning team. They would rather change their views and remain winners than keep their opinions and be frowned upon. If white America assured the country that it held the moral high ground, Group III would likely follow. The worst case here is verbal complaining.

Group IV’s reaction would not be inconsequential. Recall that Group IV is the largely nonwhite group of liberals motivated by envy. Unable to lift themselves to the level of the top, they seek to drag the top down to the level of the bottom. This group has an ego and would not appreciate an aristocratic class above them. Would they resort to violence? Yes, but only if the numbers were heavily in their favor. Otherwise, verbal complaining and crime would be their reactions.

What would American conservatives think of this proposal? This conversion of a mass democracy back into a republic? First, all changes would be constitutional, and second, the founding fathers, were they around today, would almost certainly approve them over the chaos we have today. In many ways, the Noble Republic idea—the idea that white America should choose its most gifted members every generation and put them in charge of the “brain“ of the country—is more in line with what the founding fathers had planned for America than the madness we have today. So any media claims of treason or coup could be brushed aside. Claims that white conservatives would become irate and go on the warpath are not realistic.

Conservatives are best described as high-achieving, average people. They are not, typically, the most gifted people in the lot—not the prettiest, not the smartest, not voted the most likely to succeed. They lack the fearlessness or self-confidence of more gifted individuals. What they are, though, is functional, as they have no problem raising a family, running a business, purchasing a house, etc. The conservative views himself correctly as a solid member of society. So the conservative looks up (to his ultimate human potential) and down (to his abject failure as a human) and decides the distance down is much further than the distance to the top. When contemplating some random change in society, he decides it will more likely leave him with a net loss than a net gain and, therefore, seeks to avoid it. He is often proud of what he has done with his life and aims to “conserve“ his position in society by avoiding change.

Conservatives differ from group I in that group I is usually more gifted, does easier work, and at the end of the day is more likely to have a surplus of time, energy, or money, and instead of indulging this surplus on themselves, use it to help others. Conservatives, on the other hand, typically work more physical jobs, make less money, and, at the end of the day, don’t have much left over to give. They feel forcing them to relinquish this small surplus isn’t fair. Since white conservatives are the same Nordic racial group as group I, it seems reasonable that they have the potential to see things similarly. Maybe with less physical work, more money, and more free time, the white American conservative could begin to see things from a more “paternal“ viewpoint.

The best way to facilitate this would be to switch from our current debt-based economic system to C.H. Douglas’s Social Credit economic system. With its promise of less work and a gradual transformation into a leisure society, Social Credit would take the edge off white conservatives. Any resistance the white conservatives would have to Group I (the more gifted members of the Nordic race) empowering themselves could be alleviated by the benefits of the Social Credit economic system, along with the assurance the founding fathers would, were they alive today, certainly support such changes. Social Credit would even convert many conservatives to Group I’s position. So white conservatives, far from being mortal enemies of Group I, are potential allies.

As of today, there is little standing in the way of the Nordic race empowering itself and returning America to a republic. A small number of Nordics could convince the rest to follow by changing the focus from human-centered altruism to environmentally-focused altruism (it’s one or the other, and a continent-wide re-wilding project would take center stage here). All that would be necessary would be to convince Group I that higher values such as compassion, fairness, or altruism would disappear without them in charge.

Once the majority, or even a minority, of Nordics choose this direction, there is no one left to stop them. Group II is inconsequential. Group III just wants to be on the winning team. As long as Group I assures them they hold the moral high ground with their actions, they will have little choice but to follow. White conservatives could be pacified and even converted to some degree by Social Credit economics. Group IV (the destroyers) would be the only source of resistance. They would fight, but only if it were an easy victory. Their numbers will increase in time, but their easy victory is several decades away.

If we define liberalism as the attempt by the Nordic peoples to lift the rest of the world to their level, and we look at its course today, we can see it has lost its direction. Liberalism, in theory, should be those on top trying to help those on the bottom, but it has transformed itself into those on the bottom trying to destroy those on top. What most don’t realize is that “liberals“ have different motivations and are fundamentally different. As this essay has shown, the only group with noble intentions is a subset of the Nordic racial type. At this point, the problem and its solution should be crystal clear. Liberalism has run amok because people with less-than-stellar motives have too much power in the US. Selecting a small group of highly gifted Nordic men every generation and giving them direct control over the country’s government, media, schools, etc., would solve this problem. Such an arrangement would transform liberalism from its current madness back to its original purpose—those with more behaving graciously towards those with less.

If the West continues its current trajectory, then liberalism is doomed. Liberals, in practice, are not creating a kinder, gentler, more civilized world, but the exact opposite—they are destroying the genetics liberalism depends on for survival. All hope is not lost, though. All we have to do is realize liberal ideas have a genetic and racial basis, then pro-create that base at a higher rate than the rest of humanity, and suddenly, the future looks entirely different.