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.
Bookmarks