Liberalism represents the triumph of the sovereign individual’s freedom based on desire over the community’s order based on duties.
A few hundred years of liberal political hegemony in the West (England, France, and the United States primarily) have resulted in a total cultural hegemonic apparatus always affirming its own biases with pretensions of objectivity.
Lionel Mordecai Trilling, in his preface to The Liberal Imagination, wrote that Liberalism is the “sole intellectual tradition” of the United States.
What today passes for ‘conservatism’ is really classical liberalism. The Democrats are the same thing, but with transgender bathrooms, that is an emphasis on social liberalism. The political choice is really a non-option between two liberalisms with minute degrees of separation, and when a real strand of ‘Reactionary Conservatism’ is given political expression by capturing the disenchanted popular imagination in those rare moments when reality asserts itself, the system reacts with same perceptible pattern to crush the ‘anti-liberal option.’
Ironically, this is usually accomplished by using anti-liberal means. Whether it is the recent defeat of the Freedom Party in the Austrian election, or the previous defeat of Marine Le Pen’s Front National, or even the defeat of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation movement in the 1990s in Australia, the same emergency actions are employed by the oligarchic establishment to crush popular dissent and political insurrection.
The pattern is a three step process, usually precipitated by some form of existential threat – mass immigration, economic recession, unemployment, etc., which suddenly gives opportunity for the political voice of popular resentment. Secondly, because of liberal cultural hegemony and political correctness, this ‘third option’ is vilified by the mainstream media. Thirdly, there is a coalition of the mainstream center right and center left political parties against ‘the vilified third option,’ which is often accompanied by some form of soft co-option of the rhetoric or policies of the ostracized anti-liberal option.
If the anti-liberal option is held within a federation, as is the case of Europe, the decadent class of the oligarchs and their unelected bureaucratic lackeys in the EU, who fear any real change, will use their considerable power to destroy the popular will of the people:
This anti-democratic posturing reveals the limits of liberal-democracy to live up to its own standards of plurality, national sovereignty, open, free and fair elections, and the parliamentary standards of open dialogue and debate. The emperor wears no clothes; democracy is a liberal lie – given the contradictory notion of ‘illiberal liberalism.’ Brown political insider Fareed Zakaria, known as a CNN political pundit and his book The Post-American World, in a recent video monologue summed up the predicament:
Zakaria's argument herein is twofold: the first part is that the life expectations of middle class whites are being systematically undermined by globalization, and that, because 'minority groups' have adopted coping mechanisms for dealing with low expectations, they are not as at risk of decline as Whites. Zakaria then essentially accepts a fatalist non-reversal: you're doomed and there is nothing you can do about it so accept your subordinate status in the NWO.
The reason Zakaria readily endorses this fatalist position is self-evident. As a representative of a visible minority group, he throws in his weight with the rising tide of color, which is irrefutably linked to his own success and aspirations, and any attempt to overcome this despair is antithetical to his goals as a recipient of the globalist agenda.
The first part of Zakaria's argument has been critiqued by Trump as “the false song of globalism” and countered by pro-nationalism, balancing the trade deficit, rebuilding the manufacturing sector and imposing import tariffs. The second part of Zakaria's argument – the fatalism – can be countered by the coping mechanism of group identification. If Europeans band together and express their solidarity like other ethnic groups they will be less likely to engage in individual and collective suicide.
Zakaria only alludes to these possibilities, but he denies them agency or viability because they both point towards National Socialism – the true expression of the European Race – and this scares him and all those that exult in our despair. They cannot stand to see us with hope and a future. So, the first problem is economic liberalism; the second is disunity stemming from the individualist ethos of social liberalism.
Likewise, the dual nature of the problem of liberalism correlates to the materialist aspects expressed in growing economic disenfranchisement and diminishing returns, and the spiritual aspect expressed in the atomistic society and the breakdown of white ethnic solidarity. The father of American psychology, William James in his Principles of Psychology, 1890, defined self-esteem as a fraction: Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions
If this equation holds truth, “then, as James points out, self-esteem can equally be protected by increasing one’s success or lowering one’s pretensions.” So, the choice is ours – to either increase our success or to lower our pretensions. But the options available for success are no longer individual and they are definitely not liberal.
Lionel Mordecai Trilling, in his preface to The Liberal Imagination, wrote that Liberalism is the “sole intellectual tradition” of the United States.
What today passes for ‘conservatism’ is really classical liberalism. The Democrats are the same thing, but with transgender bathrooms, that is an emphasis on social liberalism. The political choice is really a non-option between two liberalisms with minute degrees of separation, and when a real strand of ‘Reactionary Conservatism’ is given political expression by capturing the disenchanted popular imagination in those rare moments when reality asserts itself, the system reacts with same perceptible pattern to crush the ‘anti-liberal option.’
Ironically, this is usually accomplished by using anti-liberal means. Whether it is the recent defeat of the Freedom Party in the Austrian election, or the previous defeat of Marine Le Pen’s Front National, or even the defeat of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation movement in the 1990s in Australia, the same emergency actions are employed by the oligarchic establishment to crush popular dissent and political insurrection.
The pattern is a three step process, usually precipitated by some form of existential threat – mass immigration, economic recession, unemployment, etc., which suddenly gives opportunity for the political voice of popular resentment. Secondly, because of liberal cultural hegemony and political correctness, this ‘third option’ is vilified by the mainstream media. Thirdly, there is a coalition of the mainstream center right and center left political parties against ‘the vilified third option,’ which is often accompanied by some form of soft co-option of the rhetoric or policies of the ostracized anti-liberal option.
If the anti-liberal option is held within a federation, as is the case of Europe, the decadent class of the oligarchs and their unelected bureaucratic lackeys in the EU, who fear any real change, will use their considerable power to destroy the popular will of the people:
"Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote. 'There will be no debate or dialogue with the far-right,' the liberal bureaucrat told AFP."
This anti-democratic posturing reveals the limits of liberal-democracy to live up to its own standards of plurality, national sovereignty, open, free and fair elections, and the parliamentary standards of open dialogue and debate. The emperor wears no clothes; democracy is a liberal lie – given the contradictory notion of ‘illiberal liberalism.’ Brown political insider Fareed Zakaria, known as a CNN political pundit and his book The Post-American World, in a recent video monologue summed up the predicament:
Zakaria's argument herein is twofold: the first part is that the life expectations of middle class whites are being systematically undermined by globalization, and that, because 'minority groups' have adopted coping mechanisms for dealing with low expectations, they are not as at risk of decline as Whites. Zakaria then essentially accepts a fatalist non-reversal: you're doomed and there is nothing you can do about it so accept your subordinate status in the NWO.
The reason Zakaria readily endorses this fatalist position is self-evident. As a representative of a visible minority group, he throws in his weight with the rising tide of color, which is irrefutably linked to his own success and aspirations, and any attempt to overcome this despair is antithetical to his goals as a recipient of the globalist agenda.
The first part of Zakaria's argument has been critiqued by Trump as “the false song of globalism” and countered by pro-nationalism, balancing the trade deficit, rebuilding the manufacturing sector and imposing import tariffs. The second part of Zakaria's argument – the fatalism – can be countered by the coping mechanism of group identification. If Europeans band together and express their solidarity like other ethnic groups they will be less likely to engage in individual and collective suicide.
Zakaria only alludes to these possibilities, but he denies them agency or viability because they both point towards National Socialism – the true expression of the European Race – and this scares him and all those that exult in our despair. They cannot stand to see us with hope and a future. So, the first problem is economic liberalism; the second is disunity stemming from the individualist ethos of social liberalism.
Likewise, the dual nature of the problem of liberalism correlates to the materialist aspects expressed in growing economic disenfranchisement and diminishing returns, and the spiritual aspect expressed in the atomistic society and the breakdown of white ethnic solidarity. The father of American psychology, William James in his Principles of Psychology, 1890, defined self-esteem as a fraction: Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions
If this equation holds truth, “then, as James points out, self-esteem can equally be protected by increasing one’s success or lowering one’s pretensions.” So, the choice is ours – to either increase our success or to lower our pretensions. But the options available for success are no longer individual and they are definitely not liberal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.