Why, because blacks are oppressed. Their oppressors (the new untermensch, the new oppressor-Jews defined more inclusively) must be destroyed, and blacks must be exhalted to their rightful position as members of the new ubermensch:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/0902135.html

After all, how could we claim that Harvard University has it wrong? Just because a minor word substitution would result in a direct quote from _Mein Kampf_?

I love this quote:

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. “

How is it possible for anyone to doubt that Naziism is just an advanced form of liberalism?

It’s an interesting point. I’d certainly agree that liberalism tends toward extremism, and with the final discrediting of all nonliberal thought 300 or so years after John Locke its ultimate tendencies are all around us. On the other hand it is genuinely adverse to force and attached to the pursuit of individual satisfactions. It’s also quite decentralized as totalitarian tyrannies go. And it has a genius for hypocrisy. So it seems to me unlikely that liberalism will imitate the things the Nazis and Bolsheviks are most famous for. I think corruption will get to it first.

I agree that liberalism’s incoherence makes it tend toward corruption and internal collapse in general; its genius for hypocrisy keeps it around long enough for other expressions to arise, though. Environmental forces can (and did, in the case of the Nazis) lead to other sorts of expressions of the theory. We don’t have a “feminist party” or a “people of color party” that clearly defines the ubermensch and untermensch at the level of national politics yet. On the other hand in some quarters Al Sharpton is not an impossible presidential candidate, and it is not clear to me why he should be discounted. Hitler started as a nobody as well.

I don’t see why we should expect that no particular group of self-identified victims of oppression can gain the critical mass to dominate national politics and use that domination to put down the untermensch. It has happened before in the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia for example. The exact same basic theory applied in all of them; why think that we are somehow mystically immune?

I suppose the notion that liberalism is opposed to violence and in favor of freedom and equality needs to be answered. As I understand the theory, once we do what it takes to get past oppressive history the supermen that emerge on the other side will all be free, equal individuals. Since the old oppressors will have been eradicated there will be no obstacles to freedom and equality, and the unfortunate need for violent means in the defense of freedom and equal rights will have passed. Violence for liberals (whether communist, nazi, feminist, or whatever) is always an unfortunate necessity. Hitler thought that ultimately the violence would end, once the oppressors who were holding back the advancement of humanity had been comprehensively eradicated.

But liberal third-world or female tyrants don’t seem likely. The hustler and the Great Leader are not the same type. As the story I posted suggests, liberalism makes people less able to organize themselves to any purpose and the effect is greater in the case of those who are less capable to start with.

The system depends on keeping hierarchy and compulsion out of focus so when the oppressed are turned into clients the change can be presented as liberation. It’s not as if the oppressed are actually going to run anything. That, by the way, is why in liberalism the aversion to violence is real and not simply an ultimate goal to be realized after apocalyptic struggle. Violence is not an “unfortunate necessity,” it’s something that must be denied here and now. That may lead to hypocrisy but it does make something like the Great Purge harder to carry off.

I suppose one thing any prognostication of future development depends on is time frame. I don’t see latinos and blacks becoming a combined coherent majority and deciding they have had enough and been oppressed for too long in the next year or so, but have some patience. These things tend to happen all of a sudden and progress quickly when they do happen, and of course any specific possibility I choose won’t be the one that actually occurs. In the meantime the feminist head of the hydra is crushing the skulls of its dehumanized oppressors right now: at least tens and perhaps hundreds of them in the time it takes me to post this reply.

Mr Kalb doesn’t seem to think it is possible that a particular head of the hydra will emerge dominant within a powerful state in the future to try again to eat the world; but I still do not understand why he discounts the possibility. It is already happening if you are unfortunate enough to be a member of a current less-than-human untermensch, and I am sure Mr. Kalb doesn’t deny the possibility in principle.

Finally, I don’t think it is true that Naziism and Marxism gave up liberalism’s aversion to explicit violence, at least not until they became far too powerful to be stopped with words. Violence against subhumans isn’t real violence: just read _Mein Kampf_ or _Das Kapital_ or _Backlash_.