Thursday, 30 October 2008

Don't blame liberalism

Some time ago I wrote that GW Bush was in no way a true conservative, and the term ‘liberal’ has become equally distorted in recent decades. When we look at the disaster befalling Western countries, the blame has been applied to ‘liberals’, well, liberally. I think this is wrong. Now you might need to get hold of something solid here, as I'm about to tell you that I consider myself a liberal! Now before you delete this link from your Favourites list, hear me out.

To me being liberal in essence means that anyone can do what he wants so long as it doesn’t impinge on the freedoms of others. Ok, that's a broad definition and practicalities will always pose challenges. The best illustration to my mind relates to sexual conduct. Liberals would say that anything is permissible if it’s between consenting adults and done in private. Note the emphases. Conservatives, by way of contrast, want to poke a flashlight under every blanket to check out what said consenting adults are up to. It’s not that long ago that anal sex between married people carried the death penalty!

What's liberal?

Here’s how Encarta defines liberal

(1) broad-minded: “tolerant of different views and standards of behaviour in others” Isn’t that me, down to the ground? (quiet there at the back, please)

progressive politically or socially: favouring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Doesn’t sound too bad, does it?

Let me give you a few more examples of how liberalism appeals to me:

They allow everyone to believe and practice whatever religious mumbo jumbo they want, but not to enforce it on the general public

They’re deeply unenthusiastic over the nation state, which, together with organized religion, its malevolent doppelganger, has been responsible for 90% of the wars on this earth. Unfortunately this particular baby has been well and truly thrown out with the bathwater, but more of that anon.

They don't like killing animals for entertainment, nor the state killing its own citizens (a.k.a. judicial executions)

Liberals made us face up to the acceptance of The Other, and not to demonise him, thus creating the conditions for peaceful co-existence. (Again, this baby has well and truly disappeared with the bathwater).

And a true liberal would allow voluntary societies such as golf clubs and political parties restrict membership based on any criteria they want, including gender, race etc. Their position would be ‘women can have their own clubs, so can men, so can whites so can blacks. So can any or all mixtures of the same. If that’s what they want’.

Now here’s my point. Liberals, as defined above, are not our problem, or what's undermining western society. All of the things we complain about are deeply illiberal.

So………

It’s not liberal to force ‘diversity’ ratios.

It’s not liberal to prohibit discussion on any subject, still less a whole range of topics as is the case today. It most certainly isn’t liberal to support Muslims in threatening violence against ‘offensive’ writers. The liberal position is ‘everything’s up for discussion’

Liberalism tries to use rationality and scientific knowledge, rather than the ravings of self-professed prophets, to address the human condition and provide the required supporting legislation

It’s not liberal to force some community to take down a statue of the Ten Commandments. Liberals would say, ‘it’s not causing any problem, so what is the problem?’

Liberals wouldn’t force private march organizers to include gays and lesbians in their parades. If they want heterosexual males only, that’s their prerogative. If gays want to hold a parade comprised only of dykes and benders, that’s their prerogative

Provided they didn’t call for violence or weren’t libellous, liberals would allow the bad guys such as racists or Holocaust-deniers to freely air their views in public.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

Now here’s my thesis: When we rage at ‘liberals’ we’re really raging at, not liberalism, but at a New Secular Religion (NSR).

The New Secular Religion

Think about it. The Post Modern, peecee, multi-cultural, moral relativist, violent opposition to free speech movement is a classical religion:

It’s got its own body of orthodoxies which they believe in despite all evidence to the contrary. (‘All races are equal’, ‘men and women are equal in every way’, ‘multi-culturalism is good’, ‘whites bad, non-whites good’, ‘the state knows best’, ‘equality over fairness’, ‘black backwardness is the fault of whites’ etc.

Its adherents refuse to enter into any meaningful discourse with those outside the faith, instead forcing their views on the unfaithful by any means possible. If you look at the ‘contra’ comments to this blog (most recently St. Catherine, bless you, Catherine) they’re all point and splutter, never engage with the evidence.

It has its own pantheon of Gods: multiculturalism, racial equality, diversity, feminism, homosexuality, to which we must genuflect and never ever question

It even has its own liturgy, Peecee Speak, containing a range of sacred code words (‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘offensive’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘hate speech’, ‘victimhood’), just like any other religion.

So let’s recognise the enemy for what it really is – another irrational religion of the kind that has blighted the earth since the dawn of man. True liberalism is our friend. Because usurpers have hijacked the term (just as Bush and the Neocons hijacked conservatism) doesn’t make this any the less true.

Remember the oldest of all war adages – ‘know thine enemy’.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is just semantics. We know what we mean by liberals, and they're the enemy.

Joe the Plumber

ceannai Venice said...

No, it isn't! The savant is saying that these so-called liberals are, in fact, false liberals.

'know thine enemy'. eh who they, the people pulling the strings behind these fake liberals?

blushing hair was one.

Skot German said...

Great post Savant.

You might want to have a look around on Mencius Moldbug's blog: Unqualified Reservations, if you haven't discovered it already.

In one of his essays, he argues that modern liberalism is what old mainline Protestantism evolved into. Basically, a form of Christianity without Christ.

If mainline Christianity can cast off Christ and evolve into liberalism as a secular religion, then liberalism can cast off it's current tenants and evolve into something else.

Anonymous said...

Savant - your becomeing a renegade! Your showing your tru colors.

Proud redneck.

Anonymous said...

what's 'blushing hair' about?

SAVANT said...

Proud redneck - you illustrate my point. Wht dont you engage with the evidence as I presented it? Don't point and splutter. I happen to think that a true liberal would support the objectives of most readers of this blog and have brought forward evidence to support this view.

I might be wrong, but engage with the evidence like skot german does.

SAVANT said...

I haven't seen this blog skot german. Thanks. Well worth it.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post! I look now at this topic different

latté island said...

I agree. It's useful to make the distinction between liberals (tolerant people) and progressives (leftist social engineers). In order to have a liberal society, you need a strong, conservative immigration policy. Parts of Europe and the US are regressing to third world social norms, including sharia, due to unchecked immigration.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post. It's funny how you can seduced into assigning concepts to the worng 'target'.

Aoife

Anonymous said...

blushing=shy

SAVANT said...

blushing=shy?? still dont know what it means

Anonymous said...

hair=locks lock

leadpb said...

Savant, I agree that "liberal" and "liberalism" have become fantastically corrupted over the years. The many good points about classical liberalism you expound upon are still with us and vital to Western Civilization. But what about the origins of this new secular religion? Surely they lie in liberalism itself.

Secularism, it seems, has branched off from liberalism out of sheer political force: the constant working of the Left to ensure that no one is happy with the status quo, that to achieve the ultimate promise of liberalism itself, we (they) have to corrupt it by all manner of sloganeering, activism, "slow march through the institutions", etc. It is literally a never-ending series of demands to achieve certain *results* rather than *conditions* under which men can live.

What you describe as the bad thing is an illogical, or at least not inevitable, outgrowth of classical liberalism.

Somewhere I read recently this sum-up of the progressive mind-set:

Always just one revolution away from happiness. Always.

Anonymous said...

Liberals are the useful idiots of the Frankfurt School. Their recipe for the destruction of Western Civilisation:

Mass Immigration to Destroy Identity
Creation of Racism Offences
Bias in Law Courts towards the Criminal
Teaching Sex to School Children...
Dependence on Social Security
Constant Change to Cause Confusion

AND THIS WAS IN THE 1930s!

proud redneck said...

I think the worst mistake a White person can do is try to run away from being labeled a racist. The term is nothing more than shorthand for “Shut up, cracker!” when you are winning an argument with an Anti-White or Non-White

Lone Wolf said...

This is a great site. the truth at long last!