F
fakename
Guest
I’ve developed the theory that liberalism is, in the current incarnation and against us, invincible. Why? because it seems that liberalism says that all people are equal and that therefore all people should have equal access to all good things and that this equality is the essence of justice. Perhaps God does not exist but if he does then he wants this outcome. These ideas I think, define liberalism. It also explains its perennial strength which subsists in that it promises all happiness to all people with no exemptions and it promises this uncritically (it will do anything to achieve absolute tolerance/acceptance of people even if it means not accepting those that refuse to do so). It is THE philosophy of niceness. Because of this it has monopolized the one force of attraction which is alone sufficient and necessary for political success -charisma.
In order to oppose this philosophy one must either become somewhat misanthropic, or one must merely represent an exception or compromise to or with the general ideology. In case one, you cannot attract followers since you are necessarily telling people that they suck and that they should see themselves in the same light (and who are you, in an equal world, to tell someone else that they are less than you?). Since few people are capable of living in a society where their leaders necessarily berate them, they will never accept that leadership on these terms. In case two, you similarly cannot find followers for long, since you are presenting yourself as a parochial interest. In this case you don’t have an ideology but rather a political interest in the least flattering sense of the word (it is interesting in this connection, how much the modern and old conservative despised ideology). Here your sense of being different directly drives against the idea of equality and excites disgust while your power is at the mercy of those few who would pity your weakness.
Therefore direct opposition is hopeless. But it rarely happens that ideologies are directly confronted and defeated but rather they are morphed from the inside into becoming something totally different. So how can we do this with liberalism? I believe we can do this by showing how two parts of liberalism, the liberated modern world and egalitarianism are incompatible. We should say that the very idea of the scientific logic, which liberates atheism from theism and modern cosmology from medieval cosmology, goes against liberalism because it exposes liberalism as a mere appearance of knowledge and science. Liberalism assumes as self-evident or obvious that all men are equal. So of course, it would come to prove also that all men ought to be equal. But this is nothing if not circular argument. So liberalism has a tension from which it cannot escape.
That’s my extensive two-cents on how to deal with liberalism. Any thoughts?
In order to oppose this philosophy one must either become somewhat misanthropic, or one must merely represent an exception or compromise to or with the general ideology. In case one, you cannot attract followers since you are necessarily telling people that they suck and that they should see themselves in the same light (and who are you, in an equal world, to tell someone else that they are less than you?). Since few people are capable of living in a society where their leaders necessarily berate them, they will never accept that leadership on these terms. In case two, you similarly cannot find followers for long, since you are presenting yourself as a parochial interest. In this case you don’t have an ideology but rather a political interest in the least flattering sense of the word (it is interesting in this connection, how much the modern and old conservative despised ideology). Here your sense of being different directly drives against the idea of equality and excites disgust while your power is at the mercy of those few who would pity your weakness.
Therefore direct opposition is hopeless. But it rarely happens that ideologies are directly confronted and defeated but rather they are morphed from the inside into becoming something totally different. So how can we do this with liberalism? I believe we can do this by showing how two parts of liberalism, the liberated modern world and egalitarianism are incompatible. We should say that the very idea of the scientific logic, which liberates atheism from theism and modern cosmology from medieval cosmology, goes against liberalism because it exposes liberalism as a mere appearance of knowledge and science. Liberalism assumes as self-evident or obvious that all men are equal. So of course, it would come to prove also that all men ought to be equal. But this is nothing if not circular argument. So liberalism has a tension from which it cannot escape.
That’s my extensive two-cents on how to deal with liberalism. Any thoughts?
You actually insulted Jesus by stating those things.