Skip to content

Comments on Liberalism as the Reigning Ideology of our Times

I. Liberalism has been the dominant ideology in the West since 1700s, with its impact intensifying after the defeat of fascism in WWII and of communism in 1990s — with no ideological alternative on the horizon other than to slow down the speed of its progression by returning to a slightly earlier version of liberalism 1.0 when “America was great”.

But liberalism has already actualized its principles, eroding the last remnants of European traditions, mixing the populations of the West with masses of nonwhites, deconstructed the ethnic and national identities of Europeans, disqualified the traditional family, and enriched the upper elites into positions of ultimate power. So a return to 1980s/90s America or Europe is now impossible.

Liberalism remains the most persuasive and attractive ideology for whites, including conservatives and dissidents. There are a few fascists and a variety of white nationalists, but these pose no substantive threat to liberalism, largely in part because there is a firm consensus that those doctrines that question the fundamental principle of liberalism (that all humans ought to have equal liberties without regard to their gender, race, religion, and property) cannot be tolerated.

Race realism is not an ideology on its own, but a theory about a racial differences, while believing it can add racialism to liberalism, which is not possible, since it violates this fundamental principle. Don’t expect Tucker or Trump et al, or any populist party, to embrace race realism. The only realistic political alternative is liberalism 1.0, slowing down the inevitable path towards the end of European civilization.

II. Tucker’s Interview of Sailer the other day was a definite, if still slight, widening of the overton window as to what is proper to talk about in a liberal society.


But Steve Sailer’s effort at quantifying with precision what we notice, what is right in front of our noses, takes liberalism for granted, like a fish to water, without ever noticing this ideological reality. You can’t challenge the American liberal regime by bringing race realist data to it without providing an ideological alternative to liberalism.

As pleased as I was to see Sailer interviewed, I sensed a tacit agreement on their part that they should avoid white identity politics knowing that such talk would be outside the window of liberal discourse. In assuming that only that which can be quantified merits attention, Sailer’s number crunching analysis, indispensable as it is to the social sciences, can’t allow us to understand the ideological context which requires Westerners to avoid thinking through what they notice.

Sailer presumes that the solution is more number crunching until perhaps at some point the weight of the numbers persuade Republicans to appeal to white voters. But this has not happened, and it can never happen overtly, in terms of explicit white identity politics, unless liberalism itself is subjected to a critical discussion, and a new ideology is presented.

The numbers (verifying the noticing) have grown substantially since the 1970s — during the same time period in which the US liberal system intensified its dream of a multiracial democracy and prohibited more than ever open discussions about the noticing. Numbers can’t defeat an ideology; only another ideology can’t defeat an ideology. The US is liberal to its very core, in its foundational principles, and so far no alternative ideology has been conceived.

To answer that Tucker and Sailer can only open the overton window beyond liberalism by “noticing” Jewish power inadequately misses the reality of liberalism itself and that Jews rose to power within the moral premises of liberalism. The notion that Jews as Jews redirected an otherwise benign liberal America, and the West at large, into a “multiracial democracy,” to use a term AOC recently used, is inadequate, if only because one has to explain why a WASP world in full power and control allowed itself to be taken over by a supposedly alien ideology. The record shows that so-called “cultural Marxists” rose to power right within the liberal order, as progressives who simply sought to hold liberalism true to its principles.

III. Here’s Alex Jones yesterday rejecting “white supremacists”:

This is what happens when you lack ideas to challenge liberalism. I like Alex Jones, but howling about “globalists” and “demons” does not constitute a challenge to the liberal ideology which sustains globalism. The American right has always faced this problem, reliance on liberal principles to counter the progressive dynamic of liberalism. This is because the US is a propositional liberal nation without any pre-liberal history and traditions preceding its founding. Even most race realists accept the premises of liberalism. Race realism is not an ideology, a world view, and, as such, it is no match to liberalism. Its effort to persuade liberals to become race realists is a contradiction in moral terms; and that’s why race realists have failed to persuade liberals who have power.

IV. The prevailing assumption that there is an ideology called “cultural Marxism”, or “Woke”, or “Postmodernism” (a term Jordan Peterson uses often) or “Communism”, that is antithetical to Liberalism, and is behind anti-Whiteness, is simply a consequence of lack of knowledge of the history of Marxism and Liberalism. The “New Left” everyone was writing about from the 60s through to the 80s consisted heavily of intellectuals who had given up the ideology of Communism/Marxism, that is, abandoned the attempt to expropriate the capitalists, upon realizing that Communism had been a failure, AND that Liberalism contained within its principles an “immanent” deconstructive logic against the culture of the Western world.

Dissidents love to identify the Frankfurt School, with its “cultural Marxism”, as the major ideology behind anti-whiteness. They never mention Jurgen Habermas, a German who became, by the 1970s, the foremost thinker of this School. He agreed that the early Frankfurt School members, principally Horkheimer and Marcuse, had correctly articulated a new “Critical Theory” that went beyond Classical Marxism in focusing on a critique of culture, beyond a critique of political economy preoccupied solely with capitalism, while objecting vigorously against the attempt by these members to set up a new ideology of cultural Marxism aimed at a complete negation of Liberalism.

Habermas argued, and history proved him correct, that Liberal Modernity contained an “emancipatory project” visible in the Enlightenment, and that there was no reason to set up an alternative ideology, and that an “immanent critique” of Liberalism as it currently existed (the Liberalism that Paul Gottfried longs to restore) could be pushed to produce radical critiques of those cultural aspects of the West still dominated by mere self-interest, by reinforcing a public sphere (beyond the private sphere of markets and personal life) consisting of intellectuals pushing for feminism, equal rights for minorities, and decoupling of Western states from any ethnic group to create cosmopolitan nations that lived up to liberal values.

Please follow and like us: