by Alex Kurtagic
Editor’s note: What happened the last week in the US Supreme Court can only be understood considering that the West had long embraced liberalism, the most destructive ideology of history. (Kurtagic’s complete piece can be read: here.)
The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.
In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.
When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.
The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.
Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.
The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.
Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.
8 replies on “Liberal axiology”
Later in that article Kurtagic said:
See also Kurwenal’s recent piece.
This is a good piece and I would like to add something as well:
To say that Liberalism was born out of Rationalism fails to look at the bigger picture. Regardless of race or religion, it is innate for people to evolve insofar as to demand change when something isn’t working in a society. Evolution in politics is the reason why we have wars and revolution. So when individuals or societies demand change because an old or traditional method isn’t working, this demand shouldn’t be considered as a Liberal phenomenon, but as an innate quality in all of us as a result of ensuring our own survival. Think of Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” and compare it with Neitzsche’s “will-to-power.” It should be noted that Liberalism, with its authoritarian personality designed to fight any discrimination, is an artificial method to oppress ideas that pose as an external threat. We can say that Liberalism is an evolutionary idea that unfortunately misses the point and fails to recognize the reason why race, strength and aesthetics are important elements in constructing a Higher Culture.
Our decaying civilization is not because of Liberalism or because of Jewish conspiracies, as some Western religious fanatics would claim, but because our ideas have been distorted by the notion that egalitarianism will inevitably win in the end. A heirarchic system, according to Liberal ideology, is a biased system and ipso facto must be eradicated. How are we as Indo-Europeans ever going to create a Nationalistic doctrine if we are not allowed to implement a biased system?
Liberalism is not only an offshoot of Christianity, but evolution as well. If we are going to create a Higher Culture, it shouldn’t just be about race, but about ideas that distinguishes cultures in its pursuits for a better future. Wars and revolutions are elements that will always take place regardless of what “elites” are in power. Traditionalism in the modern age will never be revived, but it can be reflected. As Neitzsche once said: “God is dead, he remains dead. And we have killed him.” Is that a bad thing? Does that mean we will become barbarian savages because have lost our sense of morality?
Faithful individuals think that, because religon is dying, the pursuit of Higher Culture will die along with it. What is Higher Culture anyways? Higher Culture is based on ideas. Ideas are an epochal phenomenon that is based on superstition (religion), reason (data and analysis), and metaphysics (transcendence from awareness). So can we acknowledge then that ideas can be constructed by both modern (science) and traditional (religious) values? Perhaps the end of Western civilization gives Whites the opportunity to create a culture that can be stronger than it was before, because we now know that Christianity has been a burden to our will-to-power.
To conclude, Liberalism is nothing more than the manifestation of the lower strata of human development. We, as human beings, should consider Liberalism to be anti-nature, just like Christianity. Evolution has nothing to do with equality even though modern, PC scientists will never acknowledge that. Our ideas will NEVER come from Liberals or Conservatives, but from cultures that have awareness, courage, aesthetics, and intelligence. Liberalism a religion of destruction with its distorted views on “progress” whereas Higher Culture is a phenomenon that focuses on the betterment of mankind through the creation of ideas. Liberals must exist in this sense because they are the regulators that criticize and destroy our methods of creation if it happens to fail. Since creation is the antithesis of Liberalism, let us make sure that our Higher Cultural ideas have more power and influence than theirs!
Many WNs complain that White Liberals are hypocrites because they live in completely White neighborhoods, but this proves that White Liberals have, DE FACTO, given up on Christian axiology. Liberalism is just a tool to keep the common Whites down. How Nietzschean.
There’s a lot not to like here. Mostly, no reasoned argument, just soft ranting, but also no source referencing. How can anyone possibly disagree where there’s nothing substantive to debate? He’s fired.
BTW, I see nothing on this website about Donald Trump and the american burrito establishment. How telling is that?
This entry is only a paragraph of Kurtagic’s long article.
That’s the result of such thing: link
It seems today some racists did some prejudiced comments about the weather girl. Stupid of theyr part. The result was that you can see in the post: 13 thousand comments against the racists followed, and the thing became national news that stopped the day.
As you said, Brazil is the country of the future, and there’s nothing good about it.
The Age of Enlightenment begat Liberalism; Liberalism begat the Age of Entitlement.