The contradictions of multiculturalism may eventually bring it down. The different “victim groups” don’t get along, a factor that can lead to an eventual breakup.

Another factor is getting men to fight for a “multicultural” regime. They are discarding the things that made Americans fight for their country in the past.

I think you would be well served to consider a signature quote I saw once. It was (roughly): never attribute to evil what can be explained by stupidity.

I refer to your contention that liberals can embrace feminism and the immigration of anti-feminists because they are for anything that tears down white western culture. You could say they are too stupid or naive to realize their two policies will lead to a train wreck in the future. You could say the liberals are willing to let such people into the country because they foolishly think they can enforce their brand of political correctness upon them once they’re in the country. Instead, you accuse them of the evil of wanting to tear down a culture. People aren’t usually evil (and never in their own minds), though they’re frequently wrong.

I think liberals don’t see a contradiction because—if they think about it—they believe that once these anti-feminists are in the U.S., exposed to the enlightening wisdom of liberalism, they will see the error of their ways and so on and so forth. They don’t want to tear down white western culture, they want to “fix” it.

I can’t sign off without making a comment on David’s comment about getting men to fight for multiculturalism. As a soldier of 25-plus years, I find it insulting and ignorant. Soldiers don’t think through the politics of a mission before they decide if they “want” to accomplish it.

They do what they’ve sworn to do: obey the orders of the president of the United States and the officers appointed over them. They might talk about the politics before or after, and might be quoted about the politics in the media. A few might even do something to make a political statement.

But the vast majority simply do what they signed up to do and, if they have qualms, consider that at reenlistment time.

Remember the old line that soldiers in battle don’t charge the enemy lines for god and country. They charge them for their buddies in the foxhole. They’re not going to say “I’m going to let my buddies die because we’re fighting for a liberal multicultural ideal I don’t believe in.”

I don’t think that David’s point about men having less motivation to fight can be lightly dismissed.

In the early stages of WWII about 15,000 Australian troops (supported by a British armoured division), defeated Mussolini’s grand imperial army of 250,000 in about 6 weeks.

The Australians were all volunteers, came from a culture that respected men and masculinity, and had a strong sense of ethnic solidarity.

Would young white Australian men who have been treated as “the enemy within”, who have been poorly treated by their own women, and who have been urged for years to be more feminine and less proud, really fight as well as their forefathers? Some might, but I expect there would be less consistency.

As to Mr Ferrare’s other point, I think you do have to explain the apparent contradiction within liberalism, that liberals will sometimes support decidedly non-liberal aspects of other cultures, while fiercely opposing the same things within their own culture.

If the answer were that liberals are “open to anything”, as you suggest, then they would have a more relaxed view of whites choosing a traditional family life and celebrating a traditional ethnic nationalism. In fact, they are not at all open to these things, and are willing to attempt to vigorously suppress them.

The impediment to autonomy for a white liberal is the deeper claim upon him of his own culture and tradition. He can more lightly enjoy a variety of foreign traditional cultures because he is an outside spectator to these; moreover, as Lawrence Auster suggests, he knows that the presence of these cultures within his own country will undermine the special position of his own culture.

Typically, left liberals are more relaxed about maintaining foreign cultures and traditions within their own country; they seem to like the diversity and pluralism this involves. Right liberals are usually more nervous about the potential for conflict and disunity and look for longer term signs of acceptance and assimilation.

In reply to Joseph Ferrare, if we leave aside the part about whiteness, which liberals (and conservatives) do explicitly want to get rid of, I agree that liberals do not explicitly say to themselves, “We want to tear down Western culture.” As Mr. Ferrare points out, no one attributes destructive or blameworthy motives to himself. Nevertheless, everything liberals believe leads in that direction, because from the liberal point of view the historic society in all its moral and cultural particularities represents a principle of exclusion or inequality that can only be overcome by including more and more other cultures and making all kinds of people and all kinds of moralities equal. But that necessarily leads to the end of Western culture as a distinctive entity. Mr. Ferrare is offended by that charge because he feels it means attributing evil motives to liberals, and one should never do that. (It’s not clear if he would feel the same about attributing evil motives to some other group.)

By his reasoning, I wonder if anyone could ever attribute a blameworthy motive to liberals? For example, let’s say that a significant number of liberals believe in the movement toward global governance, and think that true justice and peace can only be achieved when all peoples are joined under one government. If I were to say, “These liberals want to destroy our national sovereignty,” Mr. Ferrare would probably reply that I am attributing evil motives to liberals. Once again, it’s true that the liberals would not come out and say “We want to destroy our national sovereignty.” They would say something else about peace and justice and ending imperialism and inequality. Nevertheless, what they believe in is the end of national sovereignty. The covering up and denying of the real end result of any liberal or progressive innovation (because such end result, if stated explicitly, would be broadly rejected) is a basic feature of liberalism. Which is also why political correctness—which means the prohibition of criticism of liberalism, and thus the abolition of public debate over the most important issues facing society—is also a basic feature of liberalism.

If Mr. Ferrare reads more of this web site, he will see that we do not attack liberals as persons, we critique and oppose liberalism as a total ideology that governs modern society and that is followed by most modern people, including conservatives.

Also, no-one is wholy evil, not even Nazi Germany. They had a love for country, made cheap automobiles for their workers, instituted health regulations for the public, fought Communism and were technologically advanced—making things like long-lasting roads to rockets. But they were obviously lacking in other aspects of goodness.

No-one wakes up in the morning and says; “I want to commit evil today” there is always some good hiding in there. Even Satanists are against what they see as the oppressive aspects of Christianity.

One fights them due to their particular evil and what their “good intent” could bring.

Interesting points, all. I won’t bore everyone with a point-by-point response. Instead I’ll point out that all I was saying was liberals were being painted as evil when their intentions could be understood as simple stupidity. I didn’t even say they were stupid. I just hate to see people demonize the other side, because it’s a cheap rhetorical technique and usually turns on those who already believe and turns off those who don’t believe. That reduces the debate to the level of “We’re right and they’re a bunch of poopyheads. Yah for us!”

I also question the general “if you use that logic then” extrapolation used by some. You can always take someone’s logic, stretch it until the holes show through and then declare if faulty. That’s a small feat, and again, proves nothing. Every rule calls for the application of judgment. If you subtract my judgment from the equation you’re no longer talking about me, you’re just making up what-if scenarios that fit your argument.

As to the comments about the Army, people have been bemoaning the political correctness being forced on the Army since I came in. The thing is, we’re a better Army now than we were when I came in, we’re a better Army now than we were in the ’80s or the ’90s. I won’t speculate about why, because that’s a question for historians. I’ve talked to people who were with wounded soldiers asking to be patched up and sent back up to those 9,000 foot passes to fight more bad guys. And these are 19-year-olds. Their fighting spirit doesn’t seem diminished by political correctness, too many liberal views being forced on them or feminine influence. I won’t try to explain that, either, but it does make it hard to argue that that stuff is harmful, because it’s all these kids have ever known.

I think we’ll all agree that we get nowhere trying to reduce a huge social movement like liberalism to personal evil or stupidity. It’s no better to attribute objectionable aspects of liberalism to stupidity than to evil. University professors and people with graduate degrees are usually liberal and they’re obviously not dumb in any ordinary sense. I think something of the sort has been Mr. Auster’s point in his postings on political correctness and the unfortunate tendency of conservatives to say it’s just silly.

We must be able to talk about more than the particular qualities of individuals. The liberal view of the world leaves out absolutely fundamental things and therefore tells us to do things that are often stupid or evil. I think it’s necessary to make that point in talking about liberalism and its advocates even though such talk can sometimes look like name-calling.

You may object to talking about the end result of some overall view of the world attributed to liberals. After all, every actual liberal is a human being who like other people exercises common-sense judgment. Also, no great social tendency is monolithic. As Americans become more obese some join health clubs, and as the masculine virtues are attacked some young men find them all the more attractive.

Still, I think that to understand the world we have to talk about grand tendencies. I think that’s especially true in the modern world, in which comprehensive rational organization is so highly valued, and in connection with liberalism, which I think is the moral and political face of the modern aspiration to control everything in an overall systematic and objective fashion. An outlook that emphasizes social science, likes expansive understandings of universal transcultural principles of human rights, expands bureaucratic control of social life, decides fundamental social and moral decisions by legal adjudication, and considers “deeply rooted social stereotype” a term of opprobrium can’t favor common sense and personal judgment. I think it has an inherent tendency to go to extremes.

In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How much do grand characterizations of political tendencies add to our understanding of things? Judgments differ, but to me they seem absolutely necessary.

where can I find info on whiteness from a conservative standpoint?