Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

**سيف الله** · 03-28-2018

Salaam

An establishment take on why the Liberal International order is declining, an interesting read nevertheless.

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

America’s decision to abandon the global system it helped build, and then preserve for more than seven decades, marks a turning point, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

NEW DELHI – After a run of nearly one thousand years, quipped the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, the fading Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Today, some two and a half centuries later, the problem, to paraphrase Voltaire, is that the fading liberal world order is neither liberal nor worldwide nor orderly.

The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).

All this and more was backed by the economic and military might of the US, a network of alliances across Europe and Asia, and nuclear weapons, which served to deter aggression. The liberal world order was thus based not just on ideals embraced by democracies, but also on hard power. None of this was lost on the decidedly illiberal Soviet Union, which had a fundamentally different notion of what constituted order in Europe and around the world.

The liberal world order appeared to be more robust than ever with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But today, a quarter-century later, its future is in doubt. Indeed, its three components – liberalism, universality, and the preservation of order itself – are being challenged as never before in its 70-year history.

Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies.

It is increasingly difficult to speak of the world as if it were whole. We are seeing the emergence of regional orders – or, most pronounced in the Middle East, disorders – each with its own characteristics. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. There are few rules governing the use of cyberspace.

At the same time, great power rivalry is returning. Russia violated the most basic norm of international relations when it used armed force to change borders in Europe, and it violated US sovereignty through its efforts to influence the 2016 election. North Korea has flouted the strong international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The world has stood by as humanitarian nightmares play out in Syria and Yemen, doing little at the UN or elsewhere in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Venezuela is a failing state. One in every hundred people in the world today is either a refugee or internally displaced.

There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions. And global institutions have failed to adapt to new power balances and technologies.

But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the US. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war. It has raised questions about its commitment to NATO and other alliance relationships. And it rarely speaks about democracy or human rights. “America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.

My point is not to single out the US for criticism. Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both. But the US is not just another country. It was the principal architect of the liberal world order and its principal backer. It was also a principal beneficiary.

America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-haass-2018-03

**سيف الله** · 08-19-2018

Salaam

More food for thought.

The Tyranny of Liberalism

Modern Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This line is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate whose elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the identical message James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism.[1] A “liberal tyranny” may strike some as oxymoronic if not a contradiction in terms since Liberalism likes to represent itself as the neutral ground of freedom rather than as an ideology and as an arbiter of religious pluralism and freedom rather than an anti-religious ideology. Liberalism is the ideology than denies that it is such a thing; ask a liberal and he will tell you he is against the dominance of any ideology or of any religion.

In our attempt to pierce this protective colouring we shall apply some ideas of the late German thinker Carl Schmitt who learned of liberalism the hard way. After Germany was subdued and conquered in 1945, Carl Schmitt lived for a while in the Soviet and the American occupation zones, which were later converted into the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis of his comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that Schmitt give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the Russians never asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist Manifesto. This personal experience led Schmitt to conclude that the Modern American Liberalism is not an ideology-free live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive ideology, and an ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he greatly disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea global imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason he welcomed the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force capable of containing the American ideological drive.

In recent years with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share Schmitt’s realization that Liberalism is an aggressive global ideology calling for certain principles to be implemented world-wide by force of arms. These principles can be described either in positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from a dual perspective.

Human rights OR denial of Collective Rights.
Minority Rights OR denial of Majority Rights.
Non-governmental ownership of media OR exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.
Women rights and protection OR dissolution of family.
Homosexual unions OR denial of the sanctity of marriage
Antiracism OR denial of “the need for roots” in Weil’s terms.
Economic self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in theological terms agape and charity)
Separation of Church and State OR freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on Christian mission in the public sphere.
Public elections of government («democracy»), limited by voters’ conformity to the liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic self-determination.

Carl Schmitt postulated an important assumption: every ideology is a crypto-religious doctrine, or in his words, «all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine are secularized theological concepts». Let us compare Communism and Liberalism in the light of this insight.

Though it originated in the West, Communism first arose in the society formed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and it had many features one would expect to find in a secularised Orthodoxy [2]. Poets felt it well, and Alexander Blok sang of Christ “with the blood-red flag, invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a white crown of roses” leading his Twelve Red Guards [3]. In the late Soviet days, the Russians proclaimed the Christian principle “Man is to Man a Friend, Comrade and Brother.”[4] The Russian Communists despised material comforts as had their Orthodox predecessors, and placed their sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church) and solidarity above all other virtues.[5]

Solidarity and Catholicity are features shared by ideologies Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda Bauer, the Yad Vashem Memorial director, the High Priest of the Holocaust cult, in a speech given to counterbalance the Tehran Conference, said:

“There are great differences between National Socialism, Soviet Communism, and radical Islam, but there are also some important parallels. All three are or were religious or quasi-religious movements. Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was Nazi ideology that was the central factor that produced the Holocaust; Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that everyone in the Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same applies to radical Islam.” [6]

This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of Carl Schmitt’s words, rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it has theological underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did not mention one important ideology, contemporary with the three and at war with them. Just recently, some fifty years ago, Marxists-Leninists, National Socialists and Liberals sorted out their differences on the battlefields of Europe. Why does the Liberal Bauer give a pass to Liberalism?

Beyond being coy, Bauer’s significant omission has an important theological message: Liberalism’s claim to transcendence. A liberal places liberalism above “ordinary” religions and ideologies; on a higher plane than any religious or ideological construct. The adepts of any ideology other than Liberalism are “totalitarians” or “fanatics”, in the eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the only possessors of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level above the “pagans”.

Theoretically, this attitude of superiority was inherited by the three great religions of our oikouménè, of Eastern and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it wasn’t internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider himself a cut above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern Judaism (widely divergent from Biblical Judaism in other respects) preserved this unpleasant claim to superiority of its predecessor.

Bauer’s reluctance to name the religious component of Liberalism provides us with a clue pointing to something he might wish to conceal. But here is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek parallels in the three indicted movements, he positions their common antagonist:

“All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy: the Nazis murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport all Soviet Jews to Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should die. The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud and clear.”

If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head of Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier. If he does not believe his own claim, he is a liar and a defamer. The story of “Soviets planning to deport Jews” is an Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar bill and thoroughly debunked, too.[7] If Stalin and Hitler had read Bauer’s talk in 1940, they wouldn’t have gone to war. But what is important for us is that Bauer construes every modern movement based on solidarity, catholicity and community as “anti-Jewish”, while Liberalism is as Jewish as gefilte fish.

What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars follow Weber and describe Liberalism as secularised Protestantism. Others pay attention to its anti-religious anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised Satanism. The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry based on the “heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers”.

Armed with Schmitt’s thesis and Bauer’s testimony, we may conclude: the “liberal democracy and human rights” doctrine carried by the US marines across the Tigris and the Oxus is a form of secularised Judaism. Considering the predominance of Jews in mass media and especially among the media lords, it is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall.

The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for American politicians. Bauer describes the horror of possible Nazi victory in such telling words: “There would be no Jews, because they would all be annihilated. This would end history as such”. In other words, history in Bauer’s eyes is about Jews. No Jews – no history. The rest of mankind are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.

Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to Judaism, and this is the only religion protected within the dominant Liberal discourse. When some Russians tried to apply the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic anti-Christian diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish bodies, but by the White House and by the European Community as well. This week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in “cultural anthropology.” New York city schools won’t allow mention of Christmas but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the silly Kwanza because they are all multicultural whereas Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good source for the war against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.) Every reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to Jewish religious symbols.

When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian Communism, conquered lands, they shared their faith and their resources with the conquered. Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net supplier to its “satellites”, and spent a fortune supporting Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states. After 1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of great industrial enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly lacked before their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of the more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR’s liberal destroyers was “enough of feeding foreigners”.

Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order to rob and destroy them. For forty years of Jewish rule in Palestine, not a single building was constructed by the authorities, but thousands were demolished. Although thoroughly secularised, the Jewish state embodies the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of the Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that have been fully subdued by the Liberals – Haiti, Malawi – are the poorest of all.

Hold on here! you’ll say. What a load of trash! Judaism is one of the great monotheistic religions; Judaists believe in the same God we Christians and Muslims believe. Judaists are our comrades in the common struggle against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in common with the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial of roots, destruction of family and of nature. It’s the other way around: Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the sanctity of family, the preservation of nature; Judaic communities are well known for their solidarity and mutual support, for tradition and for the togetherness of people united-in-God.

This is strong objection; and apparently it shatters our identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism. But only apparently; for this objection is based on faulty premise. Judaism (like the Roman God Janus) has two faces; one facing the Jews, and other facing the Goyim, non-Jews. It makes two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to Goyim. This is the difference between Judaism on one hand, and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths place no demands on non-adept except for the call to become one. The only thing the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become Christian. Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the misfortune to be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew, and thus the goy is forbidden to have a religion, he may not celebrate his own religious feasts, he may not help his brethren; he should be an economic animal. Secularised Judaism tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for Judaism-for-Jews has its sacral core.

Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described fit Judaism-for-Goyim.

Denial of Group Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group rights. Jews are entitled to participate in the society as a group, but non-Jews should play as individuals, an attitude of “You have individual rights, we have group rights”. Communal property of goyim is considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take over the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only about confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion is permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers’ solidarity should be broken, trade unions must be dismantled, but rich men’s solidarity is permitted. Privatisation is such a denial of group rights: if an asset does not belong to a private rich person, it is up for grabs.
Minority rights and denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a non-Jewish majority has no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this is fully inherited by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the victory of Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were called the “Aggressive and obedient majority” as opposed to the Enlightened Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened discourse in the West usually contains a hidden reference to John Stuart Mill, Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear of the majority’s tyranny.
Private (as opposed to public) ownership of media, or the exclusive right of rich men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned paper is usually contrasted with “free media”, as if a newspaper belonging to a rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to a state, to a church, or to a trade union.
Women’s rights and Homosexual rights. Judaism does not recognise the goy’s family. This is fully inherited by liberalism: liberals do not believe in the non-privileged man’s family and want to dismantle it.
Antiracism for a Jew is a tool in his natural struggle against the indigenous population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism allows for the importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine trade unions and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.
Judaism considers welfare a unique feature of Judaic community, while the goyim are not allowed such prerogatives as agape for mutual aide and protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare, unless it serves to support their companies and corporations or as a government policy to foster support for immigrants and demographic upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national communities and to racialize politics.
Freedom of anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not fight Judaism, but carries on a relentless struggle against Christianity. In liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church for its teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.
Democracy. In the liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with the liberal ideas, your voice is not counted; a defence against the Tyranny of Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for whom you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel “a democracy”, though the majority of its goyim have no right to vote, and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking the “Jewish majority”. The democratic victories of Hamas in Palestine, and of Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal; in Serbia, they repeated the elections until they obtained the sought-after result.
Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularised Judaism for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious pressure, as its proponents claim.

Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this strange ideology? A probable answer to this can be found in British history. Recent studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th century, pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and established an “apartheid society” of 10,000 invaders in the midst of 2 million natives. They eventually outbred the natives: “An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. They also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language,” writes Thomas.[8]

Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of “Judaic” principles. The Jews have no copyright on being nasty; and the quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth has more to do with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain was Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but along came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic ideas of the Old Testament, followed by the import of their Talmudic reading from the Netherlands during the Orange Revolution. The Catholic religious muzzle came off, and the enclosures devoured traditional England. In this great bout of privatisation, the landlords partitioned, privatised and fenced off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors, they disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes, of “the goyim” of the New Order. They applied their strategy in Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons, Americans and Australians have the memory of the successful strategy; this makes them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to quasi-Judaic measures.

Certainly, colonisation and ruling military caste formation did not occur only in Britain. There is the Aryan Conquest in the Indian tradition, or Frank rule in France. The French solved the problem by the National Razor of Dr Guillotin in the Big Terror of 1793, where the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly voiced by the middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the Polish nobles claim that they are descendants of non-Slavic Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary Poles who are Slavs. This “Sarmat” claim of the Polish nobility (which entails contempt for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important reason why Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community ever to exist on earth.

Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed, in the US, 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend.[9] This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. It is so successful, that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate its success. But its full extinction is not to be desired: brought down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist claim, offered a small niche, Liberalism can be useful in any solidarist society like a ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just should not allow to freeze us out.

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-tyranny-of-liberalism/

**Karl** · 08-20-2018

Good read but didn't the Soviets have "pogroms" against Jews. The Soviets also pushed unarmed Jews towards the German infantry so they would waste a lot of ammo on them. I suppose there are different types of Jews, the elite Soviet Jews probably wanted to get rid of "inferior" Jews. Jews like to use the term Anti Semitism but the Palestinians are Semites and the Ashkenazi are not, so are those Jews into Anti Semitism? Well we can only hope that Liberalism will die and kingdoms and caliphates will rise to crush the Zionists and their puppet democracies.

**سيف الله** · 08-24-2018

Salaam

Another update. Take the test how liberal are you? American context but can be applied elsewhere.

James Burnham devised a test to distinguish liberal-progressives from conservative-reactionaries in 1965. See how you do; you will very likely be surprised to see where you land in light of how much the Overton Window has moved to the Left in the last 53 years.

1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in the Southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

**Karl** · 08-26-2018

It's easy to tell that Burnham is a liberal given his typical liberal fixation with words like "adult" and "juvenile" and also "mankind". It is interesting that the Liberals zealously support age discrimination and prejudice, therefore they are no better than the "racists" and "male supremacists" that they loathe so much. Their bigotry is about age and it affects EVERYONE at some point throughout their lives. They are obsessed with ageist oppression. A typical liberal question is "should cannabis be legal for adults 18 years and over?" Such a question also reveals that the dogmatic liberal believes a person has to have obtained the ludicrously high age of 18 years old to be regarded as an adult.

Anyway here's my own response to his "test". (Not every one has been answered yet as they require more thought):

1. No. The reason being that every respective race has a natural right to have a self-determining self-segregating ethno state.
2.Yes
3.No. Education is not something that is inherently "free". It costs MONEY. A "free" state run education system ultimately means that money is coerced from tax payers pockets.
4. No
5. No (at least in cases where the enemy is the INVADER).
6. Yes, but only if the rebels are in agreement with my own political stance and don't actually want to instil a regime even WORSE than the one I'd like to bring down and destroy.
7. No, government does not have an inherent "duty" to provide for the "needy". However, it can nonetheless be pragmatic to do so to avoid increased crime such as theft etc.
8. No
9. No
10. No (reason: I'm not a globalist cultural Marxist bleeding heart humanist clone. Other races are simply of no consequence to me. I believe they instead have a duty to themselves).
11. No (reason: The UN and it's arrogant detestable globalist leftist ideology represents my greatest ENEMY)
12. Yes, although I do not believe in the liberal concept of "juvenile corruption". "Juvenile corruption" should NOT be allowed as an "excuse" to smother free speech.
13. Most definitely NOT.
14. Yes. Countries should keep to themselves and mind their own business.
15. No. Businesses operating on PRIVATE PROPERTY have every right to discriminate against who enters, regardless of whatever reason.
16. No.
17. Yes (as much as they are despicable creatures).
18. Depends on what's being "negotiated".
19. No.
20. Yes. They are the indigenous races of Asia and Africa, therefore they have every right to self-determination without any form of Western meddling.
21. No.
22.
23. There he goes with his "juvenile morals" again. You either have a morality or you don't. It makes no logical sense for a particular age group to adopt a particular morality, while another age group adopts a different morality. To answer his question, no, there should be no censorship except when a government's national security is under threat. Justified examples of censorship could perhaps be what we see coming from Iran or Russia.
24.
25. No
26. Yes, as long as they do not attempt to apply communist/leftist propaganda to incite students to cause disruption and rebellion.
27. No
28. Here he goes again, now with "adult citizens". Only tax paying MALE citizens (regardless of age) should be allowed to vote. But I am against democracy anyway and instead prefer strong warrior KINGS, in which case, "votes" simply don't apply.
29. No
30. Emphatically disagree.
31. No.
32. No.
33. Yes.
34. Yes.
35.
36. No.
37. No. If an employer wishes to offer less pay to some employees and the said employees AGREE and SIGN the employment contract then there is simply no issue.
38. No.
39. No.

**سيف الله** · 09-30-2018

Salaam

Another opinion on the nature of liberalism.

Given that liberal democracy has seemingly vanquished all its competitors, why should one be curious about radical alternatives?

As liberalism progresses, its demands become more and more radical. Democracy, feminism, and non-discrimination sounded nice when it was sold to us as meaning just being respectful of others, but now we learn that they require radical restructuring of the family, erasure of cultural distinctiveness and national boundaries, repudiation of the Christian religion, and aggressive indoctrination of children in disregard of the authority of their parents. If the principles are true, then we must accept the conclusions, no matter how discomforting we initially find them. But has liberalism really proved its case? Have the alternatives really been given a hearing?

As liberalism progresses, the range of publicly acceptable opinions (those not dismissed as “hateful”, “ignorant”, and “bigoted”) continues to narrow. We simply assume that anyone not on board with 21st century elite American beliefs is stupid, evil, or mentally ill. It is no longer even allowed that dissenters have inferior arguments for their beliefs; we do not allow that their beliefs can have any arguments at all. Thus we cut ourselves off from the entire past of our civilization (everything before about ten years ago) and from every other civilization (except for small Westernized elites who will parrot our ideas back at us). Even if we’re right and the mass of past and present humanity is wrong, we should at least want to understand these other perspectives for the sake of history and anthropology. Even a committed liberal can desire not simply to condemn but to have a genuine encounter with historical and non-Western peoples, which requires trying to understand their beliefs on their own terms.

https://bonald.wordpress.com/

Now that liberals have firmly esconed themselves in the establishment, they are suddenly losing interest in being open minded.

Against open-mindedness

Now that the liberals control everything, they’re finally getting around to agreeing with my arguments against open-mindedness and for censorship. Regarding the former, see this new book review at the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews of Jeremy Fantl’s The Limitations of the Open Mind.

In Chapter 2, Fantl begins to make his case for his first key premise:

There are important and standard situations in which you know that a relevant counterargument is misleading whether or not you have spent significant time with the argument, found each step compelling, and been unable to expose a flaw. (xi)

In many cases, Fantl argues, being unable to find a flaw in a compelling counterargument does not defeat your knowledge. Fantl labels this view ‘forward-looking dogmatism’. He argues that such a dogmatism can be rational since often the best explanation of your situation is that your well-supported belief is correct, and a clever individual has simply come up with a sneakily misleading counterargument. (34) Further, rather than being in conflict with intellectual modesty, such a dogmatism actually embodies it, since for many propositions you know, you could easily fail to identify a flaw in a misleading argument to the contrary (‘The Principle of Modesty’). (35) Given the ease at which one may come across an apparently flawless argument to the contrary, actually coming across one does not provide much evidential weight to the contrary. This is why, according to Fantl, your knowledge can survive coming across an apparently flawless counterargument. Fantl’s account explains how we can know that motion exists and that people are bald without being able to diagnose flaws in the compelling arguments to the contrary.

In Chapter 3, Fantl argues that a counterargument being too sophisticated for you is actually a reason why you can dismiss it, and do so without losing your knowledge. The greater your amateurism about some matter, the less surprising it should be to find an apparently flawless counterargument. This has the surprising result that the amateur is often in a more fortunate epistemic position than the expert. The motivation here is the same as in the previous chapter — surprising evidence counts for more than unsurprising evidence, so since the amateur is more likely to come across an apparently flawless counterargument, it counts for less against the amateur’s belief.

https://bonald.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/against-open-mindedness/

Liberals are getting nervous, people are asking more and more awkward questions, where will it lead?

20180915 cuk400hires 429acf1118574771a4b 1?v1536954296 - Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

So how will the liberal elite maintain their grip on power? Through persuasion? debate? Discussion? Not quite.

Liberal ideals are worthless unless backed by military power

The Economist 15th-21st 2018

Well at least the mask is coming off.

**سيف الله** · 10-03-2018

Salaam

More on the future direction of liberalism.

Embedded Tweet

**سيف الله** · 10-13-2018

Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

This lecture discusses the history of liberalism and some of its fundamental epistemological flaws. it does so especially in the context of the relationship between Islam and the West.

**سيف الله** · 10-17-2018

Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

An interesting discussion between Patrick Deneen and Scott Stephens on liberalism. Political liberalism has been an extraordinarily successful doctrine, freeing the individual from custom, tribe, and tradition. The self-interested, self-directing individual has triumphed. But that great achievement may have come at a heavy cost. Unacceptable levels of inequality and the rise of a new global ruling class are two symptoms of a political system being lauded as the natural end point of history.

More on the current state of liberalism.

Embedded Tweet

**سيف الله** · 11-01-2018

Salaam

Originally Posted by BeTheChange

Eric H it is always a pleasure to read your posts. Well done for practising your religion when many have left Christianity and moved to a secular ideology.

Yes, the importation of secular ideologies into Christianity hasn't helped it.

Embedded Tweet

As always learn the lessons.

**BeTheChange** · 11-02-2018

Asalamualykum

Never saw this thread. Just came across it Alhamdulilah. New subscriber to this thread.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-02-2018

I am western. American. Are you talking about liberalism in the sense of neo-liberalism, like unfettered capitalism, or liberalism in the sense of progressivism?

You do know the latter is very sympathetic to Islam, and fights for the rights of Muslims nationwide, right? And you do know that American conservatives hate you, right? Liberalism is the reason you can practice Islam freely in the US. If conservatives had their way, you couldn't practice at all.

Show some gratitude. You may not agree with their ideologies, but they are an ally to Islam. They are very vocal about your religious rights. Ask them. Then ask a Christian conservative how they feel about you. You're in for a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also keep in mind that it's liberals welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, and conservatives trying to purge them from the country.

Learn a little bit about western politics before commenting.

**سيف الله** · 11-03-2018

Salaam

Your proving the point on how Authoritarian liberals can be. Once must not question the 'good intentions' of the liberals can we? Having had experience dealing with both sides you realise the world isn't so black and white. I'm not beholden to the 'liberal' narrative.

Relax bro, read the thread, read the books mentioned and come back with a more reasoned response.

Another update. This is insightful

Introductionof Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

We swim in the medium of liberalism. Throughout our school and working lives, the non discriminative principles, known euphemistically as 'political correctness', are drilled into us. In a Hollywood Disneyland world of media stereotypes, the 'good' guys always win where the good is equated with the liberal and progressive; and the cops get the villains, leaving the world a safer place for homo economicus to pursue his nihilistic dreams.

Little wonder that our western way of life appears rational, even natural, and the culmination of a long chain of Darwinistic evolutionary progress. the hard fact to swallow is that it is none of these. Liberalism, the dominant western, verging on global, belief system is built on a chimera, a lie.

Liberalisms mantra of equality has arisen in such a manner that no other difference is acknowledged to be more right and more true than that which is 'achieved' through ones efforts and 'merit', according to the terms of liberalisms monetary measure of value.

From a higher point of view (from a point of view that knows that the progressive decay of the organism will eventually push one into nothingness), meritocracy and the chasing after wealth, or self fulfillment, or peer recognition, or celebrity, all lead, quite literally, to dead ends.

Yet liberalism remains unchallenged from any point of view. the political left and right in the West are both sides of the same coin. Where one promotes multiculturalism, the other offer globalisation. The same applies to nationalisation and corportisation, equality and commoditisation, liberty and the free market, materialism and the amoral economic space, education and media indoctrination. Even Karl Marx was pro capitalism to the extent it was necessary to sweep away tradition. Where religion exists in the West, it is these days founded upon ambiguously liberal 'ethics'. It is not a coincidence either that vaguely left causes are often supported by the global elite.

In short, the same coin is liberalism and there is no opposition to it. The political right in the West was long ago hijacked by economic liberalism. And what does liberalism serve? Money. It arose out of financial liberalism, the freedom to make money out of money. Whatever the personal belief of the individual, whatever the motive driving the individual, the way society is constituted under liberalism means that his or her efforts will serve money in the end.

'Thank God for the possibility of my holding certain beliefs' some might say. But it is too simplistic to suggest that all are at liberty to think how they will. you only have to look at the world to see that people are thinking and behaving and consuming in ways that are increasingly similar. Liberty seems to be mistaken for 'principles' of the corporate human resources department, where all are equal in a 1=1 prison. In this sense, and individual right becomes a right to do nothing.

We might be free to hold beliefs, even if under strict surveillance, but these will eventually be an irrelevance. It is much easier and safer to be like all the others, to become a repetition, a number along with the crowd, all serving the great global enterprise in the most efficient manner. Belief will become a folk memory.

Being two sides of the same coin, todays political left and right offer and false dichotomy. The right has been hijacked by economic liberalism, whereas once it was resistance to the amoral economic space opened up by money that motivated the radical right.

A renewed political dichotomy would have the liberal economic motive on one side and the ethically driven on the other, the latter founded on beliefs that have a transcendental origin, separate from man. Without a renewed political dichotomy, there will be no opposition to liberalism in the West. But how will one emerge? All contact with previous eras of faith have been lost; the distance between the traditional and todays egotistic mind being vast.

The answer is that faith and tradition will have to be rediscovered and relearnt. This will have to happen outside of academia, which is no merely a functionary of liberalism, engaged in the business of preparing workers for the wage economy.

Once a process of rediscovery has been undertaken, then a more meaningful and historically relevant political dichotomy will arise in the form of liberalism versus traditionalism, the latter being the radical challenger to the status quo. Traditionalism is the only radicalism.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam

Your proving the point on how Authoritarian liberals can be. Once must not question the 'good intentions' of the liberals can we? Having had experience dealing with both sides you realise the world isn't so black and white. I'm not beholden to the 'liberal' narrative.

Relax bro, read the thread, read the books mentioned and come back with a more reasoned response.

Another update. This is insightful

Introductionof Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

We swim in the medium of liberalism. Throughout our school and working lives, the non discriminative principles, known euphemistically as 'political correctness', are drilled into us. In a Hollywood Disneyland world of media stereotypes, the 'good' guys always win where the good is equated with the liberal and progressive; and the cops get the villains, leaving the world a safer place for homo economicus to pursue his nihilistic dreams.

Little wonder that our western way of life appears rational, even natural, and the culmination of a long chain of Darwinistic evolutionary progress. the hard fact to swallow is that it is none of these. Liberalism, the dominant western, verging on global, belief system is built on a chimera, a lie.

Liberalisms mantra of equality has arisen in such a manner that no other difference is acknowledged to be more right and more true than that which is 'achieved' through ones efforts and 'merit', according to the terms of liberalisms monetary measure of value.

From a higher point of view (from a point of view that knows that the progressive decay of the organism will eventually push one into nothingness), meritocracy and the chasing after wealth, or self fulfillment, or peer recognition, or celebrity, all lead, quite literally, to dead ends.

Yet liberalism remains unchallenged from any point of view. the political left and right in the West are both sides of the same coin. Where one promotes multiculturalism, the other offer globalisation. The same applies to nationalisation and corportisation, equality and commoditisation, liberty and the free market, materialism and the amoral economic space, education and media indoctrination. Even Karl Marx was pro capitalism to the extent it was necessary to sweep away tradition. Where religion exists in the West, it is these days founded upon ambiguously liberal 'ethics'. It is not a coincidence either that vaguely left causes are often supported by the global elite.

In short, the same coin is liberalism and there is no opposition to it. The political right in the West was long ago hijacked by economic liberalism. And what does liberalism serve? Money. It arose out of financial liberalism, the freedom to make money out of money. Whatever the personal belief of the individual, whatever the motive driving the individual, the way society is constituted under liberalism means that his or her efforts will serve money in the end.

'Thank God for the possibility of my holding certain beliefs' some might say. But it is too simplistic to suggest that all are at liberty to think how they will. you only have to look at the world to see that people are thinking and behaving and consuming in ways that are increasingly similar. Liberty seems to be mistaken for 'principles' of the corporate human resources department, where all are equal in a 1=1 prison. In this sense, and individual right becomes a right to do nothing.

We might be free to hold beliefs, even if under strict surveillance, but these will eventually be an irrelevance. It is much easier and safer to be like all the others, to become a repetition, a number along with the crowd, all serving the great global enterprise in the most efficient manner. Belief will become a folk memory.

Being two sides of the same coin, todays political left and right offer and false dichotomy. The right has been hijacked by economic liberalism, whereas once it was resistance to the amoral economic space opened up by money that motivated the radical right.

A renewed political dichotomy would have the liberal economic motive on one side and the ethically driven on the other, the latter founded on beliefs that have a transcendental origin, separate from man. Without a renewed political dichotomy, there will be no opposition to liberalism in the West. But how will one emerge? All contact with previous eras of faith have been lost; the distance between the traditional and todays egotistic mind being vast.

The answer is that faith and tradition will have to be rediscovered and relearnt. This will have to happen outside of academia, which is no merely a functionary of liberalism, engaged in the business of preparing workers for the wage economy.

Once a process of rediscovery has been undertaken, then a more meaningful and historically relevant political dichotomy will arise in the form of liberalism versus traditionalism, the latter being the radical challenger to the status quo. Traditionalism is the only radicalism.

Eloquently put. However, I will counter and say liberalism is anti-authoritarian in nature. Liberalism allows people personal choice; they can be who they want to be. Muslim, Christian, atheist, Hindu. It attempts not to superimpose on personal freedom. Excessive? Maybe. My defensiveness does not lend to authoritarianism. Everyone defends their personal beliefs. Even you.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

And you should be grateful for secular commitment to religious liberty. We are a Christian majority country. Without said commitment, Muslims here would not enjoy the rights they have.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

All of that being said, I appreciate your well thought out critique. I am intrigued, and would like to know more. Can you offer details about your proposed policy and government?

I am new to Islam. I am sympathetic to secular liberalism. This is all very new to me, but my mind is open, if you'd care to educate.

What specific government and policies would you like to see implemented?

**fschmidt** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by ACEDIslam

I am western. American. Are you talking about liberalism in the sense of neo-liberalism, like unfettered capitalism, or liberalism in the sense of progressivism?

You do know the latter is very sympathetic to Islam, and fights for the rights of Muslims nationwide, right? And you do know that American conservatives hate you, right? Liberalism is the reason you can practice Islam freely in the US. If conservatives had their way, you couldn't practice at all.

Show some gratitude. You may not agree with their ideologies, but they are an ally to Islam. They are very vocal about your religious rights. Ask them. Then ask a Christian conservative how they feel about you. You're in for a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also keep in mind that it's liberals welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, and conservatives trying to purge them from the country.

Learn a little bit about western politics before commenting.

The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by fschmidt

The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.

I understand what you're saying. I too have considered the left supporting Islam simply because the right rejects it.

I would not say the left has no shared values with Islam. I am left of center, but a moderate, and I try to keep an open mind. It is true that the western left and Islam have many points of contention, however, I have found many points of intersection. For example, Islam states that there is no compulsion in religion. This is an idea the left is on board with. Also, the idea that people of various faiths should coexist peacefully without oppression of one another is an idea held dear to almost every liberal and Muslim I have spoken to. There are outliers, but typically that view is shared. Liberals and Muslims are also both very passionate about caring for the poor, sick, elderly, orphans, etc. This is one thing that I have found my leftist friends respect very much about Islam, and something I respected greatly about Islam even as an agnostic. The kindness of Muslims is unmatched in the modern world.

I don't think it's that the left doesn't care about morality. It's just that morality often takes a back seat to personal freedom. It's also worth noting that leftist morality typically doesn't come from any divine source (one of my biggest criticisms of leftist ideology).

Islam and the left diverge greatly when it comes to issues of sexuality, gender, orientation, and the like.

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by beleiver

Junon i am neither left nor right either, i have looked at the right arguments and find hypocracy at every turn same can be said for the left..But the distinctions are fuzzy.

The right balance can be found in the Quran, its right wing as it supports the free markets but left wing as it demands the poor, sick and elderly are looked after..
It respects the relegions and ways of life of others and there is no compulsin in it so it has a liberal side too.

What i really like is it abides by the universal natural laws that no one can esacpe, that no modern day economist will talk of, it prohibits usery, it warns against hoarding, unused land can be used if the occupier brings life to that land and empty abandoned buildings can be occupied with no fear of God..I am sure there is a verse where it warns about monopolizing and i am certain there are several that warn against rich exploiting the poor with their wealth..
In effect from what i understand it respects but limits property to what doesnt infringe basic human rights and adds a responsibilty to that property..That is the True hidden hand of the free market that the corporate elite refuse to aknowlage , basic human rights.

And whats more it promotes sound money.

My ideal philosphy would be free market capitalism, co-operative rather than corporate, but that takes hard work and dedication and a strong community able to think for them selves, the Quran also teaches how to acheive this.

Now corporate is certainly right wing by and for the wealthy to exploit the worker..co-operative self ownership is left but right too, certainly works for conservatives and socialists alike, which i find totally compatable with Islam?

I have found a great wealth of wisdom from reading the Quran but few people seem to notice or disscuss these points.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for your input! Very eloquently put. Peace be upon you.

**fschmidt** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by ACEDIslam

For example, Islam states that there is no compulsion in religion. This is an idea the left is on board with.

Isn't the Left requiring Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes compulsion in religion?

Liberals and Muslims are also both very passionate about caring for the poor, sick, elderly, orphans, etc. This is one thing that I have found my leftist friends respect very much about Islam, and something I respected greatly about Islam even as an agnostic. The kindness of Muslims is unmatched in the modern world.

The Islamic approach is quite different and much better. Islam supports direct charity while the Left produces complex government programs that tend to destroy communities.

I don't think it's that the left doesn't care about morality. It's just that morality often takes a back seat to personal freedom.

As far as I can tell, the Left has no respect for personal freedom. They undermine freedom of speech with hate speech laws. They destroy economic freedom with regulations. And now they seem to be going after Christians. It seems to me that the primary value of the Left is support for degeneracy. The primary value of the Right is intolerance. (I don't vote anymore.)

**ACEDIslam** · 11-03-2018

Originally Posted by fschmidt

Isn't the Left requiring Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes compulsion in religion?

The Islamic approach is quite different and much better. Islam supports direct charity while the Left produces complex government programs that tend to destroy communities.

As far as I can tell, the Left has no respect for personal freedom. They undermine freedom of speech with hate speech laws. They destroy economic freedom with regulations. And now they seem to be going after Christians. It seems to me that the primary value of the Left is support for degeneracy. The primary value of the Right is intolerance. (I don't vote anymore.)

I welcome you to explore the positives of regulation. The FDA, for example, protects the environment against harm from industry. Experience shows us a lack of adequate regulation leads to destruction of the environment by industry. Would Allah look favorably upon us if we allowed corporations to destroy that which He provided for us?

Also, whether government or charity, are the poor and sickly not still being taken care of? Are not both pleasing in the eyes of the Lord? I am wondering what issue you have with public programs providing for the less fortunate. Is it not charitable for us to dedicate our tax dollars to such a purpose?

You're looking for the differences and discounting the similarities.