The Dangers of (Classical) Liberalism

[Cynllo]

I think the main danger of liberalism is their unquestioned belief that everyone can be like them; and that the environment they create is good for everyone.

The real liberal, of the vein of Locke, Mill, Thoreau and Peterson, is cut from people who tend to be good in numerous spheres. They are generally competent. In short, thy can come up with good ideas and execute them. The liberal comes up with his world-view, because it suits him and his life experience. This is 5% of the population in the West. The liberal, in his idealised notion of the world, assumes that everyone can be just like him, if they just have the right tools. With one of the main tools being that he is not encumbered by the stifle of tradition.

But if you put most other people in a liberal environment. That is one that is good for that 5%, they will at best be high-level cogs in someone else's system. Others will be destitute and require aid.

A case of this is the liberal social scientist Robert D. Putnam, who is well known in right-wing circles for his study of diversity. Being a liberal, he though - what could possibly be wrong with diversity? More people bringing more ideas from all over the world. We'll take the best ideas and leave the rest. And that's how it would probably go if all of those immigrants were liberals immigrating to a 100% liberal environment. But most of those people won't be liberals. Given the countries many come from, there will be fewer liberals than in the West. So on the whole, the immigrants don't do as the liberal expects. When Putnam found they did not do what he expected, and instead he was taken back, they degraded society, he had no ability to explain or understand the outcome. So stuck in their own world are liberals.

What makes this worse is the liberal does not enforce his environment for the same reason that he thinks everyone can be like him and that if given the chance no one would reject his view of the world. Yet since the liberal system is not good for everyone - it's only good for a minority - the liberal messages of "we are all free to reach our potential so long as we are not obstructed" shifts under the hierarchy liberalism creates, but has no explanation for. That being, broadly, a hierarchy of competence. Prior systems had the notion of the right to rule and fairly rigid hierarchy. Something that liberalism rejects. So over time the liberal philosophy bends and people who are not competent criticise the liberal model. These are the leftists and they say - we are all equal, but we are being oppressed. Liberals have been defenceless with dealing with that dialectic and been forced to accept more and more of the oppression narrative. This has got to the point where there are very few liberals left in any institution. And they have virtually no idea how or why that's happened.

 

[Rax Moscow]

I think the main danger of liberalism is their unquestioned belief that everyone can be like them; and that the environment they create is good for everyone.

The first is spot on, the second is not so much a critique of liberalism (the idea that the form of government any group supports is good for everyone is pretty much universally true outside of something like slavery that doesn't really exist today and even then one can make a strong argument that slavery *was* better for the slaves than our current system).

The main issue I have with liberalism is its egalitarianism.
The denial of hierarchy and spiritual belief in secular humanism.
(Its "economics" or anything else is just irrelevant).

And perhaps that could actually work in an ethnically homogeneous state. I would prefer living in pre-revolutionary France, but the French Republic was also very good until they made it diverse in the last couple of decades ( I would argue that is the main problem with liberalism. It is not a bad system per se, but it inevitably leads to the diverse democratic destruction of the former nation. A people from diverse backgrounds within national borders is historically the definition of a state of warfare and therefore there is no such thing as a "diverse nation" because at that point it is no longer a "nation" by any historical understanding of the term).

But liberalism is an absolute disaster for a capitalist democratic diversity-is-our-strength universal suffrage nation.

The real liberal, of the vein of Locke, Mill, Thoreau and Peterson, is cut from people who tend to be good in numerous spheres. They are generally competent. In short, thy can come up with good ideas and execute them

It's like what Adams said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

One can debate whether he would think that say, African Christians, could successfully participate in this government or not (it's pretty obvious that none of the founders really believed this), or whether our Constitution was even a good idea, but you can't deny the truth of the statement.

 

[paternos]

What we call today "liberalism" has nothing to do with classical "liberalism".

These are hijacked words. We live in a communist regime.

In 1984-style words are cut off from their meaning.

Modern "liberals" want a megastate, high taxes, believe that the megastates need to tax more to buy windmills and mouthmasks to keep us "safe"

Freedom is God-given.

When an elite steals 50% of your labour, completely micromanages you and society and forces you to take 15 years of useless education training you to say "yes Mr." to learn their propaganda by heart that not freedom.

Today freedom means that the state tells us we have the freedom to sin.

Celebrate putting penises in anuses. To blaspheme God. To mock the truth. And to celebrate the liars. To deny God who which us guilt and shame to return back to him. We are told to take SSRIs to keep Gods voice down.

That's not freedom. That's captivity. 1-way road to hell.

Beasts.

 

[chestmilk]

A case of this is the liberal social scientist Robert D. Putnam, who is well known in right-wing circles for his study of diversity. Being a liberal, he though - what could possibly be wrong with diversity? More people bringing more ideas from all over the world. We'll take the best ideas and leave the rest. And that's how it would probably go if all of those immigrants were liberals immigrating to a 100% liberal environment. But most of those people won't be liberals. Given the countries many come from, there will be fewer liberals than in the West. So on the whole, the immigrants don't do as the liberal expects. When Putnam found they did not do what he expected, and instead he was taken back, they degraded society, he had no ability to explain or understand the outcome. So stuck in their own world are liberals.

What people like Dr Putnam don’t realize is extremely simple. I’ll even be pragmatic and concede that some outside ideas can be beneficial - to a limit. And sure, all things being equal, it’s great to have different cuisines.

But there’s an upper limit to how many new ideas there are that can contribute to an existing worldview. The effect drops off quickly, especially as you import peoples from entirely different philosophical and more importantly religious backgrounds.

The real problem the liberals are missing is the increase in social incompatibilities. While contributions diminish quickly as the number of groups grows, those problems multiply fast. At this stage, we’re gaining zero from the people coming across the border except instability, sleeper cells, and more dystopian propaganda by the government to hide the problem.

America is proving you cannot run a democracy with people that have fundamentally different worldviews of what is right or wrong. Regardless if you can get authentic Thai and Mexican food or hear about how Brits don’t pasteurize their eggs.

 

[Blade Runner]

When someone pointed out the other day that modern conservatives are just egalitarians and leftists or classical liberals (their fathers, who are of course hated now) are authoritarians/feminists, it all made sense. That's why there are no conservatives and everyone is lost - they aren't conservatives at all. All these people believe varying degrees of lies. What afforded it is that no one wants the mammon to stop flowing.

Now we're at a tipping point where money on a screen means less and less, and a culling or future generations having no kids is more and more real. Of course, this is the plan, and the only material hope now is for something like BTC to replace the dishonesty and debasement of the central banks, which is always used to kill and/or enslave.

I'll make my population thread now. Finally.

 

[Cynllo]

 

[Genealogist]

America is a victim of its own principles.

The theory of government of the United States was based on the thinking of radically leftist 18th century philosophers, such as John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu and others. These men were either deists or atheists, and consequently rejected the Catholic teaching concerning original sin.

This radical new philosophy, better known as liberalism or 'classical' liberalism, taught that man could perfect himself by his own natural powers, and was not in need of a Redeemer or His grace in order to stay on the right path.

Like all liberals, they held that when man is left to his own lights, he will follow the right path. He just needs to follow reason. The Catholic teaching is that although man, without grace, is capable of natural virtue, nonetheless, he cannot attain all the natural virtues without grace, nor can he persevere for a long time in virtue. He will eventually commit a mortal sin. This is proven by the fact that the human race, without the help of grace, fell into ignorance and barbarism.

Even civilized nations, such as Greece and Rome, although they achieved some truths and virtues, nonetheless fell into gross immorality, superstition, and cruelty.

These 18th century philosophers also taught that liberty was the highest good of man.

The liberty of man, according to Catholic teaching merely means that man elects to do the good without being necessitated to it. He sees the reason why the end is good, and he elects to do the good. Liberty is made by God for the free election of the good.

The Catholic Church teaches that man’s ability to choose evil is a defect of his liberty, since man’s will is not made to choose evil but good.

Hence human liberty is subject to law: the eternal law of God, the natural law, the laws of the Church, the laws of individual nations. Law is not incompatible with liberty, since your will always remains free when it elects to obey the law. It is nonetheless bound to obey the law, because the law prescribes the good.

But the notion of liberty in the 18th century radical thinking, is what St. Augustine calls the liberty of perdition. This means the liberty to do whatever you please. No external law can really bind you. Law is merely a necessary evil which we reluctantly consent to in order to keep general order and peace.

This liberty of perdition is what animated the three "cherished" liberties of the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. America is being fatally bitten by these so-called liberties.

Speech and the press are made for speaking the truth. Consequently, it is the duty of the government to assure that speech which is subversive of good morals or of the government itself should be repressed. The same is true of the printed word, in which we also place the media, including the social media.

Because of freedom of religion for its citizens, however, the government in the United States is free from religion. This means that, because of its refusal to officially recognize any religion, there is no guiding moral principle from religion to determine what is good or evil in speech or in the press. Hence, when it comes to these matters, the United States government can only reply, with Pilate: "What is truth?"

The government is therefore duty-bound, because of its commitment to the liberty of perdition, to permit any kind of speech and any kind of press, even if subversive of morals or of the government. It cannot regulate what is taught in schools and universities. It cannot outlaw subversive political organizations, such as communists.

Leftists understand that freedom of speech and of the press are absurd. This is why leftist hordes beat up people who disagree with them. This is why Big Tech censors what it considers to be wrong, in nearly all cases conservative political thinking. The leftists skillfully used this inherent weakness in American culture for their own advantage.

Since the 1930’s, for example, the Left has been overtaking our public schools and universities. Education is completely in the hands of the Left. This means that the youth are being corrupted by leftist ideas every day. No one can stop them because of freedom of speech and of the press. They have also seized control of the media of all kinds, thereby indoctrinating with leftism people sitting in front of their screens at home and on their computers. They have seized the rich, the super-rich, and the Wall Street elites. They have politicized the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. They have even convinced the post office to do their bidding.

Since most leftists are atheists or at least religion-less, they favor socialism, which is the natural consequence of atheism. The State automatically becomes the highest entity, the all-embracing Good. This is why the Left is practically fanatical in regard to their leftist ideas, since they direct all of the natural religiosity in man toward the leftist State which they see as a paradise. Leftism is a religion for them, with sacrosanct dogmas and "morals" which cannot be denied by conservatives under pain of being beaten up.

The cherished freedoms of the Bill of Rights will serve to destroy America, since they render her powerless in front of her enemies (freedom of speech and freedom of the press) and blind to the possibility of objective truths, even about the natural law (freedom from religion, a direct consequence of freedom of religion).

 

[analyst_green]

Consequently, it is the duty of the government to assure that speech which is subversive of good morals or of the government itself should be repressed. The same is true of the printed word, in which we also place the media, including the social media.

That sounds great in theory, but in practice, government officials will always abuse their powers and censor people who are speaking truth. It is the nature of fallen man that he cannot form a perfectly just government. Because of their pride, officials always go after the people who criticize them, even if the criticism is merited.

Your model would also never work in America because of the plurality of the religions. Orthodox and Protestants will never accept the Latin church as the ultimate source of truth.

 

[InspCallahan]

I don't think abuse of Power is the Ultimate Problem, but an Enemy who we can't even Name.
Without this Tribes Involvement the last 100 or so years among a Relatively Homogeneous Majority Group of European Tribes, would say the Protestant Churches not to pick on them Entirely gone along with the Progressive Marxist Suicidal Philosophy?

I mean mostly, we had Ethnic Enclaves that had Power here and there, some weren't good, others were better, but folks generally speaking, stayed in their lanes and lived what life they could. Political Life was Generally Local with Friends Close and Enemies Close as well. I guess what I'm saying is, can any form of Government Order withstand a Subversive bunch such as the Judeo-Masonic with emphasis on (Judeo), a Multi-Faceted Network of Plunder and Complete Take Over. I believe the Ethnic Bonds and Local Living for Europeans took care of itself. They were just laying in wait for something they forgot as Americans or weren't sophisticated enough in History to Identify their Insidious Nature?

Good thread!!

 

[magoo]

A lot of people believe they would be kings or nobles. When in fact they’re ancestors were peasants. Even if they were nobles. Versailles palace at its height smelled like shit. People didn’t bath. And the gardens were used as toilets.



Sometimes I also see people comparing ancient architecture with modern and they put a cathedral against an office building. When you need to compare with the “beautiful” houses of peasants.
Not to say there weren’t architectural crimes committed. And modern architecture is ugly. As Ikea shit is ugly.

Liberalism is a form of defense against the government. It has nothing to do with American liberalism which is communism.
Even though an universal health care system should exist.

Liberalism is a set of rights individuals have before any sovereign or any state. Due process of law is one of them. Security of law. Which means individuals need to know what is and what’s not a crime. And the law must be stable. At this moment in western countries there’s no stability of law. Neither people know what are crimes and not. Lege stricta.

The question is if the power of god goes to the government and from there to people. Or directly to the people and from there to the government.
I believe we are directly blessed by the Lord. And it’s the people which delegate their own power to officials.

If the government doesn’t interfere man and woman will assume their natural role.

Of course you need Christianity. Which is besides all the rest a guide for healthy and long lasting relationships. And a way of life.

There’s no such thing as Latin church. There is only a church. The first church. Peter church. And some lost sheep. As orthodox. Which are nothing more than an extreme form of Catholicism. And hopefully one day will integrate again.

Protestantism is not a lost sheep. It’s an abomination. In its every form. Anglicanism is the less abominable form probably because it’s a mix of Protestantism and Catholicism. Henry VIII rebeled against the pope because he wanted to divorce his lawful wife. A wife which was faithful and obedient.

In order to be able to marry 6 times. He broke the sacred vowel of marriage. And the Catholic Church said no my friend. You can’t divorce. Marriage is for life. This is the origin of the Anglican Church. The necessity of a king to marry his mistress. The great whore. The Pope didn’t agree on making an annulment. Because you marry before God. And only God can decide your fate.

Liberalism is not anarchy or communism. Liberalism is what makes you have the right of not being accused by the government without a due process of law. What we have in the west has nothing to do with liberalism.

Liberalism means the government or any officials haven’t the right to monitor a private forum. Unless there’s a justifiable cause. And even then only with a court order. A judge must authorize the monitoring. For a fixed period of time and with a limited scope. That’s classical liberalism.

This NSA bullshit is nothing more than commies.

They’re everywhere filthy commies.

 

[Lawrence87]

The issue with Liberalism is that it leads to all of the issues we see in society today. Classic Liberals are just arbitrarily wanting to stop the "progress" train at a particular point.

If you insist on liberty as the guiding principle then eventually you're going to wind up with trannies committing public indecency. Those who want to rewind to before all that, yet still retain liberalism as a principle are deluded.

 

[magoo]

The issue with Liberalism is that it leads to all of the issues we see in society today. Classic Liberals are just arbitrarily wanting to stop the "progress" train at a particular point.

If you insist on liberty as the guiding principle then eventually you're going to wind up with trannies committing public indecency. Those who want to rewind to before all that, yet still retain liberalism as a principle are deluded.

And the alternative is always living in tyranny?

It’s been studied extensively the corruption of one form than leads to another which then loops back the the prior one.

Trannies are tyranny. It goes against the people will. The existence of trannies is not a symptom of too much liberty. It’s the opposite. It means few are dictating how many should live. This comes from the top. Not from the bottom. And I think the kids being subject to it will be a tipping point.

Central banks control money. And therefore control food. If you control food you control people. Central banks are owned by elite. Elite feels like they can fuck around with the pleb. Nothing new under the sun. Why did the elites lost fear is a more important question imo.

There are no trannies in private schools. No trannies show. Nothing. It’s the elite weakening the people. A little bit of diversity. Respect for others blacks, etc. That exists. But zero LGBT. All of the lgbt is pushed in public schools. You see tranny shows in Eton?

In the past when the communist took over for a brief period the wealthiest families sent they’re kids overseas to traditional schools.

Rich people fear population. They fear becoming poor and even more the crazy mob.
It’s a legitimate fear. I’m not against rich people. I’m against people who are too much greedy.

The bad behavior of the richest: what I learned from wealth managers | US news | The Guardian

While those in poverty are called lazy, the idle rich are dubbed bon vivants

amp.theguardian.com

Chris Rock: There'd Be Riots If People Knew What Being Rich Was Really Like

"If the average person could see the Virgin Airlines first-class lounge, they’d go, 'What? What? This is food, and it’s free, and they… what? Massage? Are you kidding me?'"

www.huffpost.com

 

[analyst_green]

There’s no such thing as Latin church.

They literally call themselves the Latin church, the biggest member of the RCC. Don't go calling us lost sheep when you don't even know what ecclesiastical body you belong to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church

Nonetheless, I agree on your take that there need to be protections for individual rights such as due process. The problem is that liberals make liberty the end goal and say people should do whatever they want. I see no reason to allow plainly sinful behaviors to take place in our society.

 

[magoo]

They literally call themselves the Latin church, the biggest member of the RCC. Don't go calling us lost sheep when you don't even know what ecclesiastical body you belong to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church

Nonetheless, I agree on your take that there need to be protections for individual rights such as due process. The problem is that liberals make liberty the end goal and say people should do whatever they want. I see no reason to allow plainly sinful behaviors to take place in our society.

I was educated all my life in catholic schools. And had never heard of Latin church.

Catholic Church. Roman Catholic. Yes. My mistake.

Liberalism for me is the existence of rights against government tyranny. Property rights being a cornerstone. Due legal process. Presumption of innocence. Etc etc

Not meddling into family affairs. With those being regulated according to Christ. And in economy government should only create the conditions and not intervene.

It’s the government that protects the LGBT movement. Take away the cops and you ll see what happens to their parades.

Liberty is against government tyranny. It’s not selling kidneys or any other libertarian crap.

Immigration as long as it is regulated and the people approve it.

Either elite people lost fear or are much more fearful. And panicking hence all this shitshow.