Often coming from the mouths of common, modern, liberal-minded persons, people such as particular “personalities” on YouTube and elsewhere, is the line moreorless that “social justice warriors/progressives don’t stand for Real Equality™!” It reminds me of the American cucksevative maxim: “The Democrats are the real racists!” Both statements do, of course, contain a streak of truth to them, but the reasoning behind making such statements is often rather dishonest.
Do progressives want equality? Yes, they do. What they observe in reality, funnily enough, is inequality. Thus, they want to tip the balance, disprivileging perceived “haves” and privileging perceived “have-nots.” In the context of white-centric, white-founded, white-based European or Anglo civilisation, the “haves” are the people who own the land and whose ancestors built the civilisation, meaning white Europeans and their descendants, as well as the fruits of their civilisation such as notions of law, justice, individualism, liberty, et all distinctly Western ideas and theories which have been developed due to exclusive historical circumstance which did not occur elsewhere in the world.
Say any of this to a progressive, however, and you’d be surprised to hear a coherent response beyond accusations of racism and so on — the usual nonsense and buzzwords anyone with a speck of real-world experience should be bored of by now. Marxism is European; progressivism is European; anti-racism is European; anti-sexism is European; rights for sexual and other minorities is European, et cetera — it all began in Europe or (if you like to bang-on about the Jews) were most accepted by Europeans — and yet this clearly observable and obvious fact means nothing to your average tolerance-mad progressive or their socialist friends. They want to destroy the hand that feeds them, and most of them do not even know it as they are so sheltered and self-centric in their worldview that they actually perceive their delusions as being the default, as the normal mindset which is unquestionable. They view the world through a distinctly Western or post-Western lens using intellectual methodology and theory which is one-hundred percent Western.
Of course, there are indeed Marxists and theorists who are aware of this fact, but that doesn’t apply to the layperson sucked into the university machine: the useful idiots Yuri Bezmenov described at various points. The Marxists at the helm of these institutions know exactly what they’re doing.
Regardless, the moderate who likes to go for low-hanging fruit (I needn’t even have to name names here) is not operating from a position of pure reason, rationality, etc. as they like to believe themselves to be. Their beliefs are informed by prior experience and in the most likely of cases are directly existent due to something else. A liberal cannot define themselves as such without barriers as was excellently described elsewhere,
[The liberal] was “free” in his opinions, picking what he saw as the best from every creed, and he was “generous” in his goodwill towards men of opposing (if equally generous) opinion. His moral opposite was the “sectarian,” “fundamentalist,” or “absolutist.” He was seldom a libertine, but his morals were not strict and he was censorious mainly of those whose morals were stricter than his own.
To put this into perspective, what has happened historically is that the forces of chaos have pushed civilisation further and further away from the natural order of things, and these forces of chaos, of negation, of nullification, have found themselves in our modern era in a comfortable position between two “extremes,” the “Left and “Right” respectively, whereby this middle-ground can actually appear as some form of neutrality when in fact it is only a moderate form of the Left (evidenced by its support of egalitarianism, universalism, existentialism, etc.). A diluted poison is still poison, as Julius Evola noted.
As a response to the moderate’s semi-self-awareness of his heart beating on the left side, one can observe a new sort of dialectic emerging whereby it is not “liberalism versus conservatism” or “Left-wing versus Right-wing” which are used to define and categorise, but “individualism versus collectivism.” This is, by its nature an even more suspect system as it is rife with issues of its own including a problematic definition of the “individual.” To quote Julius Evola’s Men Amid the Ruins:
… to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated. The individual may be conceived only as an atomic unit, or as a mere number in the reign of quantity; in absolute terms, it is a mere fiction and an abstraction. And yet it is possible to lean toward this solution, namely to minimize the differences characterizing the individual being, emphasizing mixed and uniform qualities (what ensues from this, through massification and standardization, is a uniformity of paths, rights, and freedoms) and conceiving this as an ideal and desirable condition. However, this means to degrade and to alter the course of nature.
For all practical purposes, the pure individual belongs to the inorganic rather than to the organic dimension. In reality, the law of progressive differentiation rules supreme. In virtue of this law, the lower degrees of reality are differentiated from the higher ones because in the lower degrees a whole can be broken down into many parts, all of which retain the same quality (as in the case of the parts of a noncrystallized mineral, or those parts of some plants and animals that reproduce themselves by parthenogenesis); in the higher degrees of reality this is no longer possible, as there is a higher organic unity in them that does not allow itself to be split without being compromised and without its parts entirely losing the quality, meaning, and function they had in it. Therefore the atomic, unrestricted (solutus), “free” individual is under the aegis of inorganic matter, and belongs, analogically, to the lowest degrees of reality.
The fact is that most “individualists” in our midst today confuse totally the person and the individual. The latter can only be established in relation to what it is a part of, id est the collective of which it is a component part. I hope it is clear now how individualism and atomisation in the capitalist marketplace go hand in hand: hence it is not the main answer to our problems at all. According to the moderate individualist, anything resembling “identity politics” is deplorable and base collectivism of a totalitarian nature which surely leads to “oppression” and the likes. Thankfully the Magic Baron eloquently addressed this as well at a different point in the same work:
I wish to say that [liberalism] represents the antithesis of every organic doctrine. Since according to liberalism the primary element is the human being regarded not as person, but rather as an individual living in a formless freedom, this philosophy is able to conceive society merely as a mechanical interplay of forces and entities acting and reacting to each other, according to the space they succeed in gaining for themselves, without the overall system reflecting any higher law of order or meaning. The only law, and thus the only State, that liberalism can conceive has therefore an extrinsic character in regard to its subjects. Power is entrusted to the State by sovereign individuals, so that it may safeguard the freedoms of the individuals and intervene only when these freedoms clash and prove dangerous to one another. Thus, order appears as a limitation and a regulation of freedoms, rather than as a form that freedom itself expresses from within, as freedom to do something, or as freedom connected to a quality and a specific function. Order, namely the legal order, eventually amounts to an act of violence because, practically speaking, in a liberal and democratic regime a government is defined in terms of a majority; thus, the minority, though composed of “free individuals,” must bow and obey.
Thus liberalism lends itself to essentially ensuring the dominance of a grey masses whose only interests are in themselves for themselves at the basest levels. The Alternative Right and co. is often criticised of focusing too much upon metapolitics as opposed to politics, but in a liberal society, how could that not be the case? The civilisation is heading towards oblivion — whether by design or fate — and the realisation of this is what has spawned spheres of thought which happen to be explicitly antiliberal.
The liberal moderates have absolutely no answers to our crisis. They cannot undo the damage which has been done because to do so would mean dismounting their high horse of the “reasonable” watershed and picking a side. They do what they do solely for their own ego — and in the case of a few — to capitalise on the hugboxes they generate, which then must be sustained, trapping themselves in the status quo!
I, for one, am glad to be without such shackles and nonsense.