Today’s media paints the liberals as people who rally against racism. As people who are so “woke” and enlightened that they couldn’t possibly be racist; however, the reality is that liberalism and racism actually go hand in hand since, well, it was the Enlightenment Era liberals who first devised the very race theory that would lead to institutionalized forms of racism. I mention this in my book. So, consequently liberals are inherently ideologically racist independently of era or claims to the contrary.
The irony of today’s liberal is that they now use racism in order to compensate for racism itself which becomes like fighting fire with fire. This a real-life strategy used to prevent fire from spreading any further. While such a strategy prevents fire from spreading, it doesn’t actually directly eliminate it in the process. So, when the liberal uses this strategy, it results in preserving racism as a belief and as an institution – it doesn’t work to eliminate it which is in the goal for the humans who are discriminated by it. Since the liberal invented the race theory for the purpose of political convenience, we couldn’t expect them to exterminate it.
The fact is that if one does not believe that the human race is one yet diversified by way of branches of different ethnicities (which is a scientific reality). If instead they believe that there instead exist different “races” altogether, then that person believes in the race theory and therefore they are racist by definition. And so long as one is racist, their actions will reflect this even if they claim to avoid discriminating others on this basis. Racism is not qualified on the basis of treatment according to the race factor, but instead on simply believing in the race theory at all.
These liberals are racist for a variety of reasons, I think. These reasons having to do with the context of that racism. From observation I would say that there are two types of racism, both having different causes or motivations. There’s the racism that arises within the context of one’s personal life. This which results from personal inherent biases. Then there’s the kind of racism that arises within a political context, its causes cultural, its motivations political.
Racism in the personal context: provincial mindedness
Ultimately, racism results from both class and cultural influences. Here class does not refer to socio economic class but instead in one’s level of cultural and moral development – basically sophistication. These being the traditional factors that would determine one’s class in Western culture.
The upper class – what we call the aristocrats – tend to be outwardly people who take on roles of leadership within the context of their own lives or for posts within society. These are not people who hide from or fear anyone who’s different. Instead, they willingly meeting new people or those who are different given how “different” has the potential to offer some kind of new opportunity. Aristocrats are people who operate on the basis of merit and who see others through the lens of merit. Merit representing opportunity; in this case to connect with those who may come in useful. Merit is what concern these folks, not petty superficialities or personal differences.
Then you have the lower class: the provincial primitives. These historically comprising the slaves of the upper class. Their subordinate role the consequence of the absence of the same kind of leadership streak and open attitude of their masters. This resulting from their lack of sophistication given they were just provincial and primitive and somehow not inclined to rise out of this state into one of sophistication. Now, of course, most provincial primitive peoples weren’t generally slaves to any aristocrats, however, they still had the same kind of temperament: nothing to prove to no one, content to just get by, live a peaceful life devoid of strange new people who might complicate your existence. These simple folk had no need to network with new, different, potentially useful individuals. It’s true that simple provincial folk, throughout the world, would generally be closed off to outsiders given they had no need for them. Less contact with the outside world left these folks less socialized and less savvy for dealing with those different from them. While Christianity may have greatly changed these kinds of attitudes throughout the Western world, with its promotion of openness and love towards everyone, the reality is that such openness doesn’t represent that provincial behavioral norm.
In the US the problem of such provincialness converting into racism would arise when people like provincial conservative Protestant English – the ancestors of many of today’s liberals – would immigrate to the US, taking their provincial closed off ways with them. Future generations then taking these class behaviors and institutionalizing them by turning them into some sort of tradition. This wouldn’t just be a problem with the English but with other immigrant groups as well like the Italians or Mexicans who would also take what were class behaviors in their native country and convert these a kind of haphazard “culture” and tradition, perpetuating these class behaviors out of context in some attempt to “hold on to their culture”. The US in general is full of problematic haphazard cultures resulting from these incidents of what I’d call the trauma of immigration.
Anyway, that provincial propensity to stick to one’s own kind along with that desperate attempt to hold on to “what was”, given the lack of any new cultural identity to adopt, is what then leads to a lot of racism across ethnic groups. Because the US was a country built entirely on political liberal ideology it would lack a culture, forcing all new immigrants to retain their cultures for lack of any new cultural identity awaiting them in the US. This promoting racism and isolationism among all ethnic groups, quite frankly.
The best way to combat this is to simply learn and adopt real Western culture. This another reason why I wrote the book: to help Americans adopt true Western culture in order give them that new something to hold on to given this ain’t Europe or whatever else other country you came from. Romance culture, with its basis on Roman culture, itself an ethnic neutral culture, is a sterile culture, suitable for anyone to adopt. Its Christian underpinnings also work to make it catolico – or catholic – meaning universal.
Politically-motivated racism: liberals and feudalism
One characteristic of modern liberals is their advocacy for vulnerable members of society. These liberals always on the lookout for injured birds to care for and heal. These “injured birds” taking the form of people in a dependent situation since that’s what the vulnerable ultimately are. So they look for people who will depend on them. Now, recall my last reference to the class system: there’s the independent (the aristocrat) and then there’s the dependent (the slave). Roman aristocrats put the dependent to work; it was Europe’s nobles who seemed to have that lord complex where they simply desired to have subjects underneath them to dominate. Because Europeans were patriarchal [LINK: east and west] they seemed inclined to that hierarchical power structure, one more motivated by ego than by pragmatism.
When you really analyze it, it appears as if the liberal’s hero complex is really just a feudal complex in disguise. They feel like lords and are looking for subjects to rule. Early American liberals having derived from the upper classes of Europe or having been of that mind at least. The culture of the nobility, that of master-servant, comprises the responsibility of the master towards their servant: that they are responsible for them and must take care of them. In return the servant will respond with dedicated service and utmost loyalty. That class dynamic (along with its expectations) becoming encrusted into the European’s traditional culture. The same traditional culture many Americans brought with them and preserved through traditions which they still carry on with today. In many ways I still see the remnants of this cultural tradition even within today’s modern, supposedly more egalitarian social context. Politically motivated racism being a prime example of this where the liberals will actively work to protect someone because they belong to a particular “race” group. Their need to protect them rendering them the dependent.
So, let’s look at an example of this “lord complex”. Let’s use the current migrant crisis. Here you see liberals looking for and gathering their injured birds – these taking form in grown adults whose vulnerable migratory status makes them dependent on advocates in the country they’ve arrived. Now, once the liberal has helped the injured bird, they’ll expect something in return. Not direct compensation, but instead an ideological favor given the context of the relationship. Imagine if the immigrant, once helped and settled in their new life, becomes a Republican. That would anger the liberal personally. I mean, how dare the migrant do something like this when it is I, the liberal through the democrats, who helped him? How disloyal! Rather than help the immigrant to the extent of rendering him independent and autonomous, the liberal cutting him off, becoming totally unconcerned with his future decisions, the liberal will instead aid the individual to render them a subject perpetually dependent and loyal. Now, it’s not like there’s liberals knocking on the doors of migrants they’ve helped, asking for their political party affiliations, but it’s the expectation that matters here. What does the liberal expect from his act of charity? This is what really identifies his motivations and his feudal complex. That need to find a class (a demographic) of people who “need you” and who will become perpetually dependent on your benevolence” is precisely the feudal dynamic in action – the lord and serf relationship. The serfs of the feudal lords having been perpetual, lifetime slaves and servants to the lords of Europe. It is freedom from this sort of slavery that American liberalism, ironically, arose from: freedom from enslavement by each other. And here these modern liberals are perpetuating it again precisely because we’re not teaching Western culture and it’s opposite, European feudalism. Because we’re not westernizing white youth. This again, reiterating a point I’ll make, that whites are not inherently Westerners [east west culture link].
The liberal’s perpetuation of a classist complex also explains why they subconsciously perceive as inferior these people whom they help. Why they’re prone to type casting race groups automatically as “low class” and why they almost seem offended when members of these races are of a higher class than them. They don’t know how to respond to them and feel threatened by them because ultimately they’re after power and those after power don’t like competition. Their feudal ancestors felt just as threatened by neighboring powers. The feudal dynamic being built upon a hierarchical class system of upper and lower classes with room for only one at the top. This explains why, while they’re inclined to help people of a certain race, they won’t generally associate with them: they’re all about helping blacks but haven’t a single black friend. This mimics the relationship dynamic of how lords would be kind to their servants but would never fraternize with them. In other words, they don’t act out of heart and a real interest in a certain group, but instead out of the power of moral right they derive from being “good lords” towards their underlings. Their noble acts towards their slaves validating their “nobility” – their status as upper class and as lords. This was the dynamic of feudalism in the old era and, apparently, in the mind of today’s backward liberals. So, that’s all that’s really going on here: a perpetuation of feudalism. These liberals have just found a different way to arrange the pieces, but they’re perpetuation the same feudal dynamic as their ancestors. This example reiterates the problem I pointed out above of how the absence of a coherent culture in the US is a problem, especially when people continue to perpetuate the sins of Europe through these makeshift cultures contrived from obsolete ancestral traditions. People are left to piece together these invalid cultures in an effort to have some kind of culture that gives them a sense of structure and direction in their lives, which is the function of culture. It’s not so much their fault, these liberals just don’t know how else to behave.
It’s important to point out that this “liberal: lord and savior of humanity” culture is also inculcated into the ivy league schools which perpetuate this view through their humanistic approach to politics. These liberals of course established by feudal-cultured humanist liberals… They perpetuate the view that all of our problems social and political can be solved by the very brilliant class of these ivy leagues. They inculcate hero complexes into them where earthly salvation is achieved through what is effectively a feudal dynamic given people’s on-going dependence on the liberal hero. So, if you didn’t have a feudal complex to begin with, you’ll have one once you graduate from these nefarious institutions.
While the topic of today’s illegal immigration is very complex and can’t be dealt with in this blog post, the topic of that feudal dynamic can be addressed: true liberalism, as based on Western culture [east west culture link], seeks to make people independent and autonomous which means it has no interest in one’s future actions. That’s why in this environment there was democracy and free markets among those competent enough to lead independent lives. Whenever you “fight for the vulnerable” then fight for the principle at issue, not for the individuals. Don’t perceive yourself as taking into your care grown adults because that is what incites the feudal power dynamic. Feeling yourself responsible for grown adults resurrects the paternalistic, controlling feudal lord mentality. Caring too much, to the point of excess, can have the effect of obstructing the free will of others, along with their inherent responsibility for themselves, in an effort to “protect” them and that is immoral.
Conclusion: true Western culture has the answers
Ultimately, all of these problems have their solution in simply adopting true Western culture into one’s life. The world is very old by now. There is no need to figure out morality or what are the best ways to operate. We know these already. We’ve known these for hundreds of years. It’s just a matter of restoring these ways back into our life. And those ways are the ways of true Western culture. While my book is about forming relationships, it still touches on all of these topics given that these are foundational to forming relationships. Society as a whole is nothing more than an interconnected web of relationships. Consequently, by learning about forming relationships you learn about how to form a society in general. So when correcting these and other problems in society, this is the place to start.
