I would disagree with Imperium Press when he says that "Liberalism is anti-White"; as Kevin MacDonald argues, Liberalism is more an innate personality type than an ideology. Most conflict between us and non-Whites is that there is incompatible dissymmetry in our personality types, we are trusting and generous to an in-group because this is how we have long survived, but this cannot ever function among an outgroup of such biological and cultural dissimilarity. Anti-Whitism is caused by allowing non-Whites to participate in 'Liberal' societies that generally fit our personality types.

Even anti-Liberals in nationalist circles are eager to go out of their way to take up the cause of non-Whites when it comes to defending Palestine or arguing how Liberalism harms non-Whites, while I myself have even argued above that it is a problem that globalism will destroy all other races and cultures when it has removed Whites from the map. All this is a result of Liberalism, that is, a personality type in Europeans, rather than an ideology.

I have formerly argued that Christianity is Jewish in origin and a result of the Semitic soul, as well as the foundation of both Communism and Globalism, but this is only partly true. It was indeed founded by Jews, specifically Hellenised Jews immersed in Platonic philosophy, but it resonated with, and is reinforced by, something which already existed in Europeans, and this is what has made it so difficult to shake off. Those same universalist elements found in Platonism are comparable to the White Man's Burden which underlies Liberalism, and we are unable to separate these elements, trapped in a foreign framework that appeals to our native sensibilities like a mind-parasite.

It is therefore very curious that when Mike says "Liberalism hurts us, but it also hurts non-whites and that is also a tragedy" and "We have given the smallpox blanket of democracy, rule of law, and human rights to the third world," he criticises Liberalism (ideology), but does so because of Liberalism (innate European mindset). Any criticism of Liberalism (politics) must either come from a perspective independent of Liberalism (mindset; impossible to take a 'view from nihil'), or it must recognise Liberalism as something innate to our psychology and worldview which must be personally restrained to prevent the manipulation of our own natures against us by external and malicious forces.

I think that this misunderstands Kevin MacDonald's thesis — because of the climate in which we developed, many of our instincts are individualistic, but most importantly, individualism IS our tribalism, our collectivism.

https://t.me/ImperiumPressOfficial/1743

In the mid 2010s, when the so-called Social Justice Warriors, fresh out of recently overtaken academic institutions, used 'identity politics' and 'collectivism' to undermine morality and order, the opposing team of Classical Liberal Centrists argued that rationalism and deracinated individualism would be its solution.

The Alt-Right, however, caught onto this problem, and insisted not only that Liberal individualism was part of the problem, but that Whites should do the opposite and collectivise around our common identity, carving a clear distinction between natural and artificial categories of identity.

One of the unfortunate consequences of this, which has since spawned the NazBol praise for third world societies, is the idea that collectivism is the same for all peoples across the world, and that by imitating the collectivism of the Chinese for example, we can fix the problem in our own people.

It may seem paradoxical to say that for European peoples individualism is collectivism, but this merely describes a particular character of how we form communities in such a harsh and cold climate formed around small tribal family groups, based on hierarchy and high trust altruism.

I do not believe it is peculiar to hear us call to re-tribalise AND that Europeans are individualist and altruistic by our very natures when one understands that not all forms of collective social organisation are the same. If the old Alt-Right could see that not all categories of identity were the same, then the Dissident-Right, Radical-Right or whatever we are, should see that not all forms of collective organisation are the same. Our individualism is not an aberration of our collectivism, but a feature of it.

We cannot fix ourselves by looking to the social structures of other peoples, or holding a one-size-fits-all view when there is a specific and particular quality to ourselves. Liberalism is our creation and so it is our mess to clean up.

TL;DR: The fundamental disagreement that I and others have with Imperium Press and his "anti-liberal" coterie is that their "anti-liberalism" is ultimately a form of Magic Dirt Theory. What they don't understand is that what they call "liberalism" (mainly the classical kind) is largely the result of a psychological phenotype that developed over tens of thousands of years of racial evolution. Failure to accept this leads to a way of thinking that reverts back to Conservatism Inc's Magic Dirt Theory: you either accept that race is much more than physical appearance or you don't.

Hwitgeard paraphrases Kevin MacDonald's research quite well,
"It may seem paradoxical to say that for European peoples individualism is collectivism, but this merely describes a particular character of how we form communities in such a harsh and cold climate formed around small tribal family groups, based on hierarchy and high trust altruism. Our individualism is not an aberration of our collectivism, but a feature of it."

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken

Image: Sick Media by Bob Moran

Good times are hard, for there is nothing to do.
Bad times are good, for they reveal who is willing to.

Apparently there was a mass shooting in Australia today/yesterday, with 2 cops killed in a gun fight. And apparently the Australian establishment is using this as an excuse to push for even more gun control.

Something is going on in Peru.

https://t.me/emmalucyshaw/1168

Oh you don’t want to live in a gulag?

What are you, some kind of classical liberal?

this is a repost

On the back and forth between Imperium Press and Thuletide... As I am often prone to say, two things can be true at the same time.

Kevin MacDonald argues that "individualist" behavior is strongly driven by genetic factors. The evidence on this is pretty incontrovertible; some genetic populations are more prone to certain behaviors than others. If you think of individualistic behavior as being a network of personality traits, then we can think of that as "genetic liberalism."

The modern "social justice" ideology which swept the Western world in the 20th century should be distinguished from "liberal" personality traits that drive individualistic behavior among European peoples. Egalitarianism, "equality," and the resulting policies are ideological constructs. Call all of this "social liberalism."

Social liberalism, leftism, progressivism, these are all practically designed to be subversive towards individual-oriented communities and cultures. They are not natural for Europeans at all, which is why they have to be enforced through constant propaganda. They are carefully structured ideological premises. And they are completely different from the "genetic liberalism" that made European civilizations strong and prosperous.

"Genetic liberalism" is not contradictory or subversive towards cultural, ethnic, or national identity. "Social liberalism" is literally designed to be subversive towards all of the above, and towards individualistic traits as well.

@remnantposter

Here’s more info from the shooting in Australia. I can’t help but sympathize with the couple that killed the two cops, given the amount tyranny Australians have already been put through.

https://t.me/realblaircottrell/3888

This is something I’ve suspected for a very long time: the ruling class plans on literally arming and militarizing black and brown migrant populations against the White population. In this context, the sole purpose of gun control is exclusively to disarm Whites first in order to ensure that non-Whites have the upper hand in firepower when the you-know-who led system starts doling out guns to them like that scene from the movie Zardoz. In other words, the establishment is setting up all the conditions for a literal race war.

If this still sounds too crazy to you, you have to consider the following:

Why is it that so many of the migrants flooding into White countries just so happen to be military age males?

Why are gun control efforts aimed at law abiding Whites?

Why is so little being done to disarm non-White thugs that openly flaunt and use illegal, fully automatic weapons to commit crimes?

Why are non-Whites already being organized into these solid anti-White coalitions?

When you put all of this into the entire context of the rest of the establishment’s efforts to target and ban White advocacy or label all freedom minded Whites as “Militia Violent Extremists” you start to see the bigger picture.

Where do you think this is headed? My guess is something like South Africa, but perhaps even more sinister. Hold onto your guns like your life depends on it.

https://t.me/NathanDamigo/368

During the Civil War about a third of the Union army were immigrants, I don't see why leftists can't use this tactic again. I'd expect them to do it, if anything

Chris Langan, the man with the highest recorded IQ of anyone alive today, is unfathomably based. He understands what the right to keep and bear arms is all about and why we all need it.

“Remember, if a cop or soldier can walk around with it, every citizen should be able to carry it around as well. Under the US Constitution, citizens are merely on temporary leave from the Well-Regulated Militias in which they will be expected to serve against any enemies, foreign or domestic, criminally attempting to enforce nonsense like this.

In addition to a little hunting and sport shooting now and then, protection from criminals is what guns are for.

[* We're talking about "small arms", and by "conventional", we mean regularly / conventionally possessed and carried around by criminals, cops, and soldiers (who, where the Constitution is being violated, differ only by wearing or not wearing a uniform).”

https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/109264162652008721

The problem with being a member of a larger country (by population) is that you not only have more intelligent people representing your nation, you also have more idiots — but the idiots will have more weight as far as representation goes. This allows for confirmation bias for anyone looking for evidence that your people are either uncultured, stupid or whatever it is that they want to believe about them, usually it’s negative.

The more people your country has, the dumber it will appear to the outside world, regardless of any objective metrics proving otherwise.

Today on Counter-Currents Radio!

Greg Johnson welcomes Jim Goad to talk about the newly reissued Answer Me!, the zine culture of the 1990s, Jim’s karaoke fundraiser for Counter-Currents, and, of course, your questions. The stream will start at noon Pacific, 3pm Eastern Standard Time, 8pm UK time, and 9pm Central European time at:

DLive: https://dlive.tv/Counter-Currents

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@countercurrents/ccradio

Send questions & donations to Entropy: entropystream.live/countercurrents

That face you make when a tranny’s voice cracks and all the propaganda and conditioning you’ve voluntarily swallowed for years yields to your natural instincts.

What does Nationalism mean to you? Does it mean White survival/power or does it also mean that White people should only exist within the geographic limits of whatever region someone decides is the respective ancestral homeland of each specific European ethnic group for the rest of all time?

With issues like global resource scarcity and carry capacity limitations looming on the horizon, which definition of Nationalism makes the most sense from a pro-White perspective?

This whole sentiment that “whitey needs to go back to Europe where he came from” echoing within the “Nationalist” sphere just feels like yet another example of Whites embracing blatantly anti-White brownoid decolonizer arguments and perspectives.

I’m starting to wonder about the Nationalist label itself: is it even worth identifying with if it just paints a target on your back? Is it worth embracing a concept that can be used against you? “Hey whitey, If you’re such a Nationalist then why are you on stolen land? Gtfo!”

Instead of saying you’re a White Nationalist, maybe it’s better to say you’re pro-White and leave it open ended.

Years ago, an Argentinian white nationalist went on JF Gariepy’s Public Space to explain the situation in Argentina. From what I remember, he was raising the alarm about Argentina because due to nonwhite immigration, it had dropped to 60-55% white. France, on the other hand, doesn’t keep racial statistics, but extrapolating from religious statistics, people have assumed that it is between 80 and 90% white.

So, what you had was the whiter of the two countries fielding a 100% nonwhite team, while the country which is less white percentage-wise fielding a 100% white team.

Sometimes, it’s not a numbers game. Sometimes it’s a question of how bad the mind virus has gotten you.

Live at 9pm, I'm joining Nicholas Jeelvy to discuss how liberalism relates to nations, nationalism and civilisation, which has been a point of dispute for many years. Come along...

https://t.me/nixjeelvy/3182