alt right, alt-center, alt-left, black lives matter, black supremacy, classical liberalism, ethnic replacement, Heathen, identity politics, libertarian, marxism, Pagan, white
Sargon of Akkad put out a video entitled Weimar America. When I saw the title of the video, I’ll admit, I got rather excited. Sadly, despite being up to his usual good quality of work, the video in question disappointed me. Mostly because the video focused on the Alt-Right and how they are “Identity politics” (which they are), and how they’re sparked by, and grown by, the identity politics of the “Alt-Left.” It’s a good video, but it focuses almost purely on clips of speakers associated with the “alt-right” and virtually nothing with speakers associated with the “alt-left.”
And it certainly didn’t go into any depth linking the present situation in America to the very, very similar situation that happened in the Weimar Republic of Germany where, quite literally, all of this stuff started a century ago. It’s an interesting thing to note, and something I might write about later. But the tl:dr version is: The Nazis got power and public support simply because they were opposing Communist/Anti-Fascist violence exactly like what we’re seeing today.
However, today I’m going to talk about Centristism. Or, I suppose you could call it “Alt-Centrists” to match up with the Alt-right and Alt-left. I myself would consider myself to have generally been an “Alt-Centrist,” and that’s somewhat historically what America has usually been, a more “Classically Liberal” or “Libertarian,” nation. I’m calling it “Alt-Center” because today’s modern Centrists would be more the “Bluedog Democrats” and the “RINOs,” People who can sit in the middle of the two political parties positions and come to moderate amounts of agreement, but neither of whom could really be described as “Classical Liberals” or “Libertarian.”
But as the history of the last sixty or so years has proven, “Alt-Centrists” aren’t really that good at dealing with Communism and Socialism. Ironically, the greatest strength of Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, that all people should be free to live as they please and we shouldn’t ban or punish people for being different from us, is it’s greatest weakness. It is like a raft floating in the center of a river, easily balanced and floating peacefully. The problem is that as soon as waves start crashing from one of the banks, the raft then gets carried on those waves with nothing to fight against those waves.
The other, and possibly greatest weakness of “Alt-Centrism” is that centrists are “Good people.” They are good people because they adhere to the values of classical liberalism, which is good because it judges people by the content of their character than by some other characteristic. This “Content of Character” though is the problem. Because as soon as you can destroy the content of the Centrist’s character, you have destroyed the Centrist and no other characteristic exists to save him as a member of society with value.
This was the greatest ally for Socialism’s growth. Any “Centrist” or Republican operating under this “content of character” was easy to expel from the dialog. A simple accusation of “You’re a Racist!” or “You’re a Bigot/homophobe/label” and suddenly the Centrist or Republican would spend all their time protesting that they were not such a horrible thing! “Judge me by my character” became “I must defend my character,” and this resulted in spending all their efforts in clearing themselves, and never making cases for their positions because each argument opened them up to another character assassination that had to be defended against.
Just look at every presidential election, or any election, or social debate, in the last 30 years or more. As soon as the cry of “racist/bigot” went out it turned into a spluttering, failing defense that ultimately caused the accused party to retreat from the debate field because not only was their precious character being slandered at every turn, accusations of the slander would be spread about via headline after headline. And to this day, this situation remains. Sargon has released several videos to simply defend his character against accusations, for example. And all that time spent defending himself was time and effort removed from making his case.
That’s the “Character” weakness, but sadly enough the “immutable characteristics” part of the argument ultimately becomes a weakness as well, especially in the face of Identity politics. Much like “Civic vs Ethnic Nationalism” “Content vs Characteristics” creates an inherent replacibility when it comes to people. If all a leadership requires is a person of honorable and honest character, then what does it matter if they’re black/white, male/female, etc? For Centrist, it doesn’t, so long as said leader is honorable and honest.
Which is where you run into a complete inability to argue against identity politics. Because as long as the IDP person can argue that “x person is as talented/honorable as y person, then why shouldn’t x be where y is?” And the Centrist cannot argue against it. Because x vs y is supposed to be meaningless. So when an id-politician insists “We need more girls in gaming” or “we need more blacks in the police” or “we need a woman to be president,” centrists can’t argue against racial/sexual placement, they can only argue about content of an individual. And any attempts (like the recent google memo) which show that the content of a person might not make them as suited for a position are instantly decried as “bigoty/phobia!”
Centrists cant argue against immutable characteristics without fundamentally saying characteristics matter.
An example of this would be Sargon and Immigration by refugees into Britain. He’s made a few videos talking about it, but he always makes a point against the “content of their character” and how its not compatible with “Classical British Values.” Which is all very true and valid. The problem arises in that arguing against content of character has not worked, is constantly shut down by “islamophobic bigot!” cries, and the vast majority of Muslims immigrating to England are largely law abiding however much they might be Islamist Supremacists. And the simple fact is that all these “law abiding” Muslims are going to turn the native British into a minority in their own country inside 30-40 years.
At which point all the law abiding Muslims will have the legal power to replace British laws and customs with Islamic ones. At which point the minority British population will have two choices: abandon their ancestral culture and values and convert, or live as a constantly abused, raped, kidnapped, and murdered 2nd class of citizens until all that remains is Islam or they Reconquista their nation. And Sargon and any other Centrist has utterly no ability to argue against this, because it doesn’t matter who is “British” and “Muslim” because those are not characteristics important to the “content of their character.”
It’s fine for the “Alt-Centrists” to point at both the “Alt-Right” and the “Alt-Left” and say “you’re just the same pieces of shit who only care about identity.” It’s fine for a centrist to not care if something is made plentiful or extinct in terms of characteristics because that is not something they value. And I’ll even admit is fair to insist not to care about “immutable characteristics” because that line of thinking has led to some pretty shitty stuff over the ages.
At the same time though, this “Centrism” is leading to similar situations that “Identitiarianism” has led to in the past. A Centrist can look at two dozen breeds of dogs kept in a collection of kennels, for example, and say “as long as it is loyal, it is a good dog.” And in the process, if say Beagles breed faster than say German Shepard, there by taking up all the kennel space and causing the population of German Shepherds to go extinct, then the centrist will say “Well, we still a complete collection’s worth of good, loyal dogs. Caring about the breed of dogs isn’t important as their loyalty. In fact, caring about breeds just makes you a racist.”
Entire ethnic groups are looking at losing their ancestral lands, their ancestral ways, and their ability to dictate their own countries. But this doesn’t matter to the Centrist, because “ethnicity” is an “intrinsic characteristic that can’t be changed, and so should have no influence over how a person is treated.”
And white people becoming not a global, but a national minority in the next few decades is, at this point, a non-negotiable fact! In almost every white nation, native “white” people are going to be minorities replaced by non-ethnic, non-native peoples. And a history of people all over the world and throughout time shows what happens to minorities, especially minorities who once held power. Africa and how whites have been treated there is but a few, recent examples.
But the Centrist doesn’t care about ethnic replacement. The Centrist cannot fight against ethnic replacement. Because then the Centrist would have to admit ethnicity is important. And to do that would brutally wreck most of what they believe about classical liberalism or libertarianism.
And this is a personal struggle I’m having with being, traditionally, a “libertarian/classical liberal.” I can no longer deny the erasure and replacement of many ethnic groups, a couple of which are my own. I cannot deny that my ancestral lands are well on their way to being lost, and my own homeland, the USA, is rapidly shifting away from it’s “white majority” to a “white minority.”
And I look at the violence of the Communists, the “Alt-Left,” and I know what happens when that “minority” status happens. I have dozens of examples of communist countries and their ethnic cleansing. I have dozens of examples of “black on white” crime. One happened in my old college town, where a racially motivated “Black on white” double murder happened at the hands of five black supremacists. A murder that included the man being castrated (alive) in front of his fiance, sodomized by at least four people (in front of his fiance), and set on fire, in front of his fiance. His fiance then got to endure being repeatedly gang raped in mouth, vag, and anally, tortured, had her breasts cut off (while alive), doused in chemicals like bleach, which she was also made to drink, before being stuffed in a barrel to suffocate to death. Oh, and that’s all the stuff the police would admit happened. The police openly admitted other things were done to both of them that they will never allow to be known to the public.
So, knowing how easily and how far black supremacists are willing to go to “Exterminate whitey,” forgive me for being a tad concerned about losing the numerical superiority that is holding such violence in check. A numerical loss that Centrism has absolutely no defense to, nor care about. And, should the numerical replacement happen, and the violence come that is feared, the “Centrist” will cry about “content of character” and tell a mob of angry communists and supremacists that “it shouldn’t matter if I’m wealthy, or white, or male, judge me for who I am, not what I am!”
And as has happened throughout history, they will be executed for what they are, regardless of who they were.
Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are wonderful ideologies with a lot to offer. But they only work when everyone agrees to play by the rules and not abuse them. I am also starting to wonder if they can only work in locations filled with a homogeneous ethnicity, if only because in such an environment concerns over race/ethnicity cannot be important because everyone is the same race/ethnicity. Certainly, as ethnicity becomes more diverse and less homogeneous, Libertarianism and our Classically Liberal values are proving to be incapable of defending themselves, much less sustaining themselves, in the face of ideologies like communism or black ethnic supremacy who eagerly use the weaknesses of Classical Liberalism against itself while being immune to the weapons of Centrism.
In the face of such failure, I find it harder and harder to remain a centrist.
Pingback: The Center Cannot Hold | The Tin Foil Hat Society