Liberalism, as it exists currently in the west, is very much a misnomer \u2013 theoretically, it should be the worldview of \u201cyou do you, I\u2019ll do me\u201d, basically being able to pick the direction and shape of your life, without external limitations being placed upon you by religion, nation etc.<\/p>\n
However, in practice it turned into violent, intolerant mobs attacking people who think differently (not only on the Internet, but with bricks and chains as well; google \u201cAntifa\u201d for details), with practices of labeling that I haven\u2019t seen since the collapse of communism; basically, they invent a loaded label that would sound harmless enough in a free society, but would get you persecuted and imprisoned in a communist totalitarian country. This is not liberalism; there\u2019s absolutely nothing \u201cliberal\u201d about this setup. This is totalitarian Marxism, with very few minor tweaks introduced to get it past people\u2019s bullshit detector \u2013 class warfare is rebranded as environmentalism, social justice or fight for the \u201crights\u201d of some group that\u2019s marginalized for good reasons, such as crazy people who can\u2019t adjust to reality and want to pretend they are the opposite gender (in benign cases) or aliens or cats (in less benign cases). In a normal society, a male swimmer or wrestler who starts claiming he\u2019s a woman would be given psychiatric help. In this insane society, they are believed and everybody who has a problem with them is bullied by the neo-marxist \u201csocial justice\u201d mobs.<\/p>\n
This is not how I understand liberalism. In a truly liberal society, such a person would say he\u2019s a woman, and I would say \u201cgo fuck yourself\u201d. He\u2019s within his right to claim nonsense, and I\u2019m within my right to call him out on it. In a totalitarian society, there\u2019s an ideological police that doesn\u2019t allow you to call out people on their bullshit if it\u2019s the kind of bullshit that\u2019s promoted by the central committee of The Party. I\u2019ve lived in a country that had official ideological bullshit protected by the police and the courts, thank you very much, so I know what it looks like. It\u2019s not liberalism, it\u2019s totalitarian Marxism dressing up as something else so it would pass by our defenses.<\/p>\n
The Marxist worldview is basically this: there was a money tree in the early past, and some people got to it first and took most of the money for themselves, so it wasn\u2019t equally distributed among the people. That\u2019s called \u201cthe initial distribution of capital\u201d. Search\/replace \u201ccapital\u201d with \u201dprivilege\u201d and you suddenly understand where the modern leftists are getting their inspiration. Basically, there\u2019s the initial accumulation of capital\/privilege, it causes a self-perpetuating circle of social injustice, and we need the revolution to redistribute wealth and cancel privilege or whatever, and then it\u2019s all going to be great and rosy, we just need to kill all the \u201creactionaries\u201d, meaning the people who object to such a wonderfully progressive plan.<\/p>\n
However, if we focus on the actual liberalism, I\u2019m having serious issues with that, as well. You see, liberalism is only superficially egalitarian, because \u201cyou do you, I\u2019ll do me\u201d works fine when we\u2019re talking about fashion and taste. However, the huge differences in personal power that result from vast differences in individual wealth make that sound like \u201clet them eat cake\u201d; there\u2019s a reason why nefarious super-wealthy people like Soros advocate for \u201copen society\u201d, because in a society without limits, someone like him, with immense wealth, can do whatever he wants, and everybody else is basically left without any influence or protection. Liberalism in an economically equal society means that the excesses of individuals cancel each other out. In an economically vastly unequal society, where the few billionaires own half the world, it means that those billionaires get to do whatever they want, because you no longer have religion to set the basic principles of the game that must not be violated (for instance, that breeding children for replacement organs for rich people is off limits), and you no longer have national borders that would protect citizens from external threats and foreign ideologies that threaten the local traditions and society. One can now say that \u201chuman rights\u201d will protect you, and I say \u201cbollocks\u201d, because the human rights are an arbitrary concept that\u2019s voted into existence by some globalist clique, in order to replace the religious concept of divine-ordained law, and some globalist clique can also vote changes into existence, that will turn the world into a giant concentration camp. If the covid lockdowns are not sufficient demonstration of the principle to you, then you are too stupid to argue with.<\/p>\n
So far, a combination of religion defining the basic morality of the playing field, the state defining the fair basic rules and punishments for transgressors in alignment with those religious principles, the people accepting the basic rules without question, and the free market capitalism implementing the practicalities, proved to be the only system that is both just and fair. I\u2019m not saying \u201cequal\u201d, because I really don\u2019t care about that too much; what matters is that the rules of the playing field are fair. The fact that there will be losers is actually essential, because that\u2019s what happens in a free system. What prevents the free system from becoming a merciless predatory nightmare are the religious principles that make you help the victims of a fire or an earthquake, instead of attacking them in their moment of weakness, and either selling them on the market as slaves or recycling them for spare parts for the rich people. Obviously, liberal capitalism, without moral restrictions that have to come from a place much higher than the \u201cfree market\u201d, inevitably turns into a Darwinian nightmare that selects for power and ruthlessness. \u201cHuman rights\u201d as an alternative protective concept isn\u2019t worth shit, which is obvious from the fact that \u201csecular humanism\u201d has been an incessant bloodbath since it first came to power in the French revolution. \u201cEquality, liberty and brotherhood\u201d in practice meant mass guillotine orgies. \u201cHuman rights\u201d in practice mean some globalist forum controlling everybody\u2019s fate \u201cbecause they know best\u201d, and, incidentally, they get to tell you what \u201chuman rights\u201d actually mean, because they are making this shit up as they go. Basically, if you accept \u201chuman rights\u201d, you basically replaced a Church that prays to God for guidance and believes it is ultimately responsible to God for their actions, with a Church that believes there is no God, and they are the next best thing.<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Liberalism, as it exists currently in the west, is very much a misnomer \u2013 theoretically, it should be the worldview of \u201cyou do you, I\u2019ll do me\u201d, basically being able to pick the direction and shape of your life, without … Continue reading