From the Gates of Vienna’s “Questioning the Sanity of Liberals”
Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.
How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.
As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white-faced and shaking with genuine anger, would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today — Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism.
Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”.
The thing about totalitarians are that they are such a bore, as well as a hinderance to progress.
The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none-too-attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly – the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future international consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about.
The author argues that the main driver of Liberals is not the desire of a New World Order, but an unquenchable narcissism. If you see narcissism as a form of self-worship, coupled with the desire to inflict pain on others, he is quite correct.
The writer, Paul Weston, greatly regrets the damage these fools had done to his own White European race and culture, and well he should. However, I tend to take Gary North’s view: people choose their leaders, and this class of incompetents would never have come near the levels of powers, if both the masses and the upper classes didn’t support them.
After all, all these people – including the Clintons, Tony Blair, and the rest of the lot – were elected by primarily white electorates; and the conservative parties – also elected by the same white electorate – soon toed the liberal line.
“Let the dead bury the dead” is North’s advice in Voluntarily Disarmed: The Impotence of the Victims in Western Europe and Demographic Suicide: Europe, Pat Buchanan, and Islam.
I can but agree. Nobody forced the White EuroAmerican nations to dump God and Law, and go into the destruction of their own world and wealth, as a way to gain pleasure and show their power in the here and now. Nobody forced the UK to join the Common Market, or the EU; and nobody forced Merkel to open the gates to the Muslims.
Would God bless White repentance, even at this late date? I am 100% confident of this: there would still be great pain, but at least they would have a future, and a land to call their own.
Is it going to happen? Excluding a miracle – and miracles do happen – I am confident that it won’t.
Even when we all know that the Amish is the fastest-growing white population, the white racial leadership just can’t stomach the humility needed to go that route. They pour their energy into Trump: but even if he was given all the power he wants, he can’t rebuild a nation past her prime, or increase the White birth rate.
(Although getting out of NATO, the UN, and all those alliances would at least get the US out of an endless string of stupid wars.)
While the White Nationalists and the White working class look to Trump, Christians of all races would be well-advised to focus on their own local communities. We will not be saved by Mighty Leaders of whatever party, or whatever name or race. “It’s going to be up to you.”
One-sided race-blaming isn’t going to cut it, either: there’s lots of blame and grief and sin to go around, plenty for all the races in America to repent of. Dumping the Liberal Empire – the common enemy of American Indians and Blacks, and ever-more obviously of Whites as well – would do wonders for a start, as well as a renewed commitment to local, county-based rule.