Exterminationist Liberals

Image via Druge

Here is a comment by View From the Right's correspondent Daniel L. on "exterminationist anti-Semites":

I think there are two possible alternatives to Kevin McDonald being an exterminationist anti-Semite. First, that McDonald supports letting the Jews live in gentile societies, but only with some other method of eliminating Jewish influence--perhaps through a pervasive system of anti-Semitic laws. Second, that McDonald has never actually thought his positions through to their logical conclusion. This second option may seem unlikely, as McDonald would seem a man of some intelligence, but let us not underestimate the mind-rotting effects of anti-Semitism.

I am inclined to believe that one those two options is true, rather than that McDonald is an exterminationist anti-Semite, if only to give the man the benefit of the doubt that he is not a total monster.

Substitute "anti-Semite" with "liberal" (and all else accordingly), and you get the "exterminationist liberal":

I think there are two possible alternatives to [name your liberal (Obama, x?)] being an exterminationist liberal. First, that [x] supports letting the [non-liberals] live in [liberal] societies, but only with some other method of eliminating [non-liberal - conservative?] influence--perhaps through a pervasive system of [liberal] laws. Second, that [x] has never actually thought his positions through to their logical conclusion. This second option may seem unlikely, as [Obama?] would seem a man of some intelligence, but let us not underestimate the mind-rotting effects of liberalism.

I am inclined to believe that one those two options is true, rather than that [Obama, x] is [an exterminationist liberal], if only to give the man the benefit of the doubt that he is not a total monster.

I got this idea of destructive liberals from Jim Kalb's book The Tyranny of Liberalism and his article "PC, the Cultural Antichrist." Here's what I wrote (quoting from Jim Kalb's article):

I've been trying to get fascists and liberals together in my mind for a while now. Kalb writes this, as though in answer to my (silent) quest.

There are two basic solutions to those problems within modernity, the fascist one and the liberal one. The fascist solution is to say that purposes are objectively binding and therefore provide a standard of what's right if you get beaten up when you don't go along with them. On that view the purposes that count are the purposes of whoever's in a position to do the beating--that is, whoever is the top guy on the top team. So the basic principles of government are "we're number one" and "the will of the leader is the highest law."

It sounds like Triumph of the Will, the film produced by Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's visual and artistic spokesman/handmaiden. The film, which every film student watches because it really is a feat in cinematography, begins with Hitler descending the heavens down to Nurenmberg, a divine creature (god himself) come to save the decadent Germans. Little did these common folk know that his project was their annihilation, and to raise something better from their ashes. The great Götterdämmerung. It almost worked, the annihilation part, anyway.

But as Kalb writes, fascism, whether in governments or in day-to-day interactions, loses because how much beating (metaphoric or literal) are people going to take? It seems that liberals are the high I.Q.ers of fascists, and are careful where and how they land their punches.

Kalb writes:

[Facism]'s a nice clear system, and it's got some logic behind it, but it doesn't work very well. It was tried and it lost. For that reason, the liberal solution won out.

That solution is a bit more complicated. It starts by noting that all our purposes are equally purposes, and infers that everybody's purposes equally confer value. Each of us is equally able to make things good or bad just by thinking of them as good or bad. That makes each of us in a sense divine. Our will creates moral reality. Instead of the wonder-working leader of fascism you get the divine me of liberalism. It's every man his own Jesus.

So how do liberal leaders get all these equally stationed demi-gods to follow them? It is still sheer will, I would think, of maintaining a semblance of liberal equality, but working with (and secretly ruling with) brute fascistic superiority, through a lot of lying and deceiving.