Liberalism


When speaking of liberalism we are not referring to Democratic-esque Party politics. Rather, we mean to discuss liberalism in its original meaning. We are referring to the movement towards personal and economic liberty that began during the pseudo-enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. [1]

This form of liberalism characterizes both leading parties in the United States. Each of them (Republicans and Democrats) represent one side of the liberal coin. On the left wing Democratic side of the two party system, we see the championing of personal moral liberty in the form of sexual, religious, and cultural liberation allowing individuals to break away from past ethical systems which unified society under the religious authority of Christianity. On the other side of the party system, the GOP supports the free market economic approach which advocates individual greed for the development of stronger economies. The aim of the capitalists is to have complete economic freedom. 

It might be argued that the archetypal liberals are not the left wing Democrats but the supposedly right wing libertarians who believe members of society should be allowed to do anything they want without limitation. 

Liberalism is ultimately about the destruction of common identity and purpose. If no one is forced to follow a common moral code, required to share a similar ethnicity, or obligated to live within a common cultural paradigm then no positive communal identity is possible. The only identity permitted by liberalism, if it could be called such, is the vague conception of humans as belonging to the same biological species.

Only after understanding liberalism as the atomization of human society can one grasp the damage it has inflicted on Western Civilization. The final result of liberalism will be the annihilation of common connection; and if the West, Christendom, or America is no longer allowed to characterize itself using unique identity than it will cease to exist as a definable entity. 

On an individual level, if a person is barred from their religion or ethnicity it remains questionable whether the person possesses any meaningful identity. Their “identity” becomes fluid. It will be based on merely material or superficial things like wealth, job, or sports team fandom. In other words, the liberalized man, lacking spiritual or ethnic meaning, loses existential permanence.

When liberalism is applied to an entire nation the socio-political-cultural entity loses sense of self, and thus any purpose or meaning; this results in the disintegration of any tangible signs of its existence: borders (MexicoAmerica), citizenship (illegal aliens voting), or personality (European American culture). Multiculturalism represents an admission of lost identity. If one finds multiple ethno-religious identities within a single country the implication is that the nation has no collective culture with which it can be identified as distinct.

There is little question that liberalism is the dominate philosophical faith of the Western world. In America, there is no major political party which advocates for common identity. The Democrats back cultural and moral disintegration (religious and ethnic pluralism), the Republicans back economic disintegration (libertarianism) [1], and both parties back political disintegration (democracy).

It might be objected that the Republican Party supports America’s Christian heritage, but this must be analyzed from a perspective of results. Has the Republican Party succeeded in retaining Christian influence in America? The most that might be said for it is that it has slowed the removal of Christian morality from American life. A moderate perspective, however, might suggest it has capitulated in all major battlegrounds; [2] most recently, the nationalization of LGBT marriage. 

The Republican Party’s only major accomplishments within the last few decades furthered the liberal agenda: amnesty for illegal aliens (Reagan), the erasure of our borders in the form of free trade agreements (Bush I & II), numerous expensive wars that have succeeded only in spreading liberalism and economic “freedom” to outposts of ancient identity (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.), and the preservation of the right of Americans to own guns (which has nothing to do with identity). When one evaluates the Republican Party for what it has done to retain Christian and European ethnic identity one can see that its record is astoundingly negative as it continues to push civil rights legislation which actively discriminates against EuropeanAmericans, mass immigration from Third World nations, and the dismissal of the sentiment that America is an exclusively Christian and European nation. Republican candidates on the national level talk of American exceptionalism only in terms of dedication to economic and libertine freedom, but this constitutes only negative identity. Freedom to do what? Anything? Freedom is not a fulfilling or meaningful identity. 

Should those pursuing common community and identity become pessimistic at the dominance of liberalism? Or do we have reason to believe liberalism’s influence will fade?

In a Huffington Post article entitled 'How Liberalism is Undoing Itself,' John Milbank argued that liberalism is self-destructive because it contains a paradox. Its contradiction being that the only common identity permitted by liberalism is that of the liberal, which, as pointed out, is not a meaningful identity. Liberty is not identity. By destroying real substantial identity (ethnicity, biological family, religion, etc.) liberalism must, almost inevitably, create a backlash against itself when there is no more liberty to fight for. 

Such a period appears to be rapidly approaching in the West with rising youth movements, especially in Europe, defending their ethnic and cultural roots from an invasion of negative identity and mass immigration.

With the triumph of same-sex marriage, the ongoing movement to rid the Western world of any solid gender identity (feminism, transsexual movement, co-ed bathrooms, etc.), and the failure of free market capitalism with its solidification into economic oligarchy it appears liberalism may finally be burning itself out. Even the most brainwashed of populations will soon find it difficult to ignore the differences between male and female, and an ever growing segment of the citizenry simply cannot blind themselves to the violence and low intelligence of Third World ethnics who ravage their societies and schools. 

People cannot live as a negative. They must possess an identity which affirms their own existence. When there remains no reasonable liberty to fight for, mankind will look elsewhere for purpose and meaning. In this coming dissatisfaction lay an opportunity for Identitarians seeking to restore a more natural order.


NOTES

[1] Diamond, Larry. "What is America Fighting For? The United States has been at war with ISIS for more than a year. But you cannot beat a surging ideology without a higher sense of purpose." The Atlantic. December 19, 2015. Accessed December 26, 2015. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/america-freedomisis/421368/.

EXCERPT: “When [liberal] principles were first codified in 1776 and in 1789, in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they embodied a uniquely American creed. But they drew heavily from European Enlightenment thinkers. And the founders advanced them as universal values. Since America’s founding, the principles of equality, freedom, and government by and for the people have been increasingly embraced around the world, particularly since the mid-1970s, when democracy began its spread from being mainly a Western phenomenon to a global one, in nearly 120 countries today. During this period, the number of liberal democracies—with good protections for political and civil freedoms under a rule of law—also steadily increased, from 57 states in 1994 to 79 states in 2005 (about 40 percent of all the world’s states). And that is where it remains…. what the world has needed is a powerful reaffirmation of the universal relevance of liberal values.”

[2] When it comes to defending Christian values it might be said the Democrats and Republicans have similar records. Consider that it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. One exception might exist on the issue of local abortion clinics. Many Christian activists have managed to reverse abortions in some, mostly Southern, states. Again, however, the national Republican Party has worthless on the issue since Roe v. Wade.