To my opinion, liberalism is not only about avoiding pain but about avoiding life in general. For example, the First Law of Liberalism (after L. Auster) can be explained on this basis. Because the worse some alien group behaves, the more it makes our life intolerable, hence the more reasons are to avoid life. Any real attempt to improve the situation, to bring life and reason to the world, is therefore undermining liberalism. Actually, we are living in the environment which is in many details hostile to life, though physically comfortable.[1]Absolutely right.
I think that liberal males embrace pacificism, multiculturalism, and non-discrimination with a vengeance so that they can hide behind doctrines that never require them to fight, to resist, to criticize, or to cause "offense" (positively the worst thing that can ever inflicted upon a human being).
If military service is inherently wrong then one is insulated forever from the risk and frightful inconvenience of service. One can hide behind the service of others or within gated communities, safe from the realities of ethnic and religious strife – but always be free to weigh in with whatever inanities may flit across the brain stem. Similarly, one can hide behind drugs that obscure so many unpleasant realities.
When the aggressive enemy is too close to get away from, the liberal can roll over like a dog and sing the praises of multiculturalism; fanatical, unexamined equality; and the other ideas that guarantee national suicide. Liberals today are like the unresisting European Jews who left their homes at the orders of German troops. They cannot imagine that there are kinds of evil that cannot be negotiated with, that cannot be placated, that cannot be cajoled, that cannot be bribed, that can only be made war upon.
Liberalism is a fatal failure of intellect and of imagination. As drugs are to the physical body so Liberalism is to the body politic: subversive, parasitic, and destructive.
 |
The essence of liberalism courtesy Dimitri K. and the Colonel.
Notes
[1] Dimitri K. comment on "What Christianity requires in order not to be destructive of society." By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right, 8/31/07.
2 comments:
"Liberalism is a fatal failure of intellect and of imagination. As drugs are to the physical body so Liberalism is to the body politic: subversive, parasitic, and destructive."
I'm sure this is true, even if only some of the time. However, 'Religions allow people to justify abhorrant actions through their own self-righteous faith' is another blanket statement which is true, some of the time. But 'truth' (if such a concept exists) can rarely be found in such extreme positions.
Not all war can be avoided, but not all evil deserves war. The problem is agreeing on which is the case. Taking one position does not mean it couldn't be resolved through another. The outcome might be different, but does that make it wrong or worse than the other?
As for 'Liberalism is a fatal failure of intellect and of imagination', I think you need to stop offering straw men and better explain why or how. I will however say that Ted Nugent was very creative in caking himself in his own urine and feces to avoid the draft, and if his imaginative action was somehow a result of or can be attributed to his conservatism, then I'll give you that point unequivocally. Intellect not so much, but definitely imagination.
As far as hiding behind something to obscure reality, many conservatives hide behind patriotism or fear in order to convince themselves that the Patriot Act and loss of liberty is justified. Some feel they can't denounce a conservative government or its members as their dissent is somehow 'anti-american' or disloyal to their party. Gun advocates hide behind the 2nd amendment so they can own and/or hunt with assault rifles.
I'm obviously not a conservative, but I don't think I'm a liberal either. I'm pro abortion, but against partial-birth abortion. I'm not anti-war, but it does have a time and place. I think people need to help themselves, but those who are physically incapable should not be told to fuck off if they need help. I don't find words such as 'nigger' or 'kike' offensive, as it's the racist, bigoted asshole using them that we should be concerned about.
If nothing else, I think you need to stop classifying people to make your views appear to be more valid than they are. All sides do much of the same in different ways, but 'us against them' mentalities are far more subversive and destructive than any one political affiliation.
My apologies for never replying to your comment. I only just now noticed it.
You seem to object to blanket statements as though I had provided only such a statement. Given the medium and my unwillingness to write a book on the subject, I did however provide examples of liberals' parasitism in mouthing platitudes about violence but using their objection to it to avoid personal risk. True, you could say that objecting to service in Vietnam was ever so principled but I would say in response that the intensity of the "principled" response of the draft dodgers increased by several orders of magnitude when academic exemptions to the draft were abolished. Oh boy. Were we ever interested in "principles" then.
Same thing on the destruction point. Discussion was offered.
So, I'm not too vexed by making a tendentious statement and then backing it up in some fashion.
I suppose any statement that a human can make outside the realm of settled science is subject to the objection that it may be true in some cases but not all cases. Whoop de doo. Your statement "'Religions allow people to justify abhorrant actions through their own self-righteous faith' is another blanket statement which is true, some of the time" strikes me as something unlikely to be supported by a lot of historical data, esp. as it applies to ALL religions and appears to assume that any faith is necessarily self-righteous. By itself the proposition is uninteresting. It's thus not the bare proposition that would make your case but how you supported it. I understand it was hypothetical.
I don't think you understand conservatism. Conservatives are hardly likely to cheer any loss of liberty and as for criticizing government what conservative would embrace any and all government action? I also doubt that not more than one person in 100,000 could make a one-minute speech on the Patriot Act's provisions and why it infringes on our liberties. It might but as a conservative I'm far more worried about the wholesale attack on federalism that was made possible by the Supreme Court's betrayal on the matter of the Commerce Clause in the 1930s.
I never heard that about Mr. Nugent but if it is true it is not conduct that vindicates any conservative principle that I know of. I don't know his history but I'll bet a dollar that he was a certified liberal at the time. My hypothesis.
Gun ownership is a fundamental right that the Constitution merely memorializes. Someone who owns a weapon no more "hides behind" the Second Amendment than you "hide behind" the First.
I know of no one in my entire life who has ever said that people who are physically incapable should not receive help from any source. The heaping of public "assistance" on those who are quite capable, however, is something that conservatives do object to. Maybe some liberals who aren't looking to solidify the role of parasites as a mainstay of the Democrat Party would agree. I just don't know about that.
I rather like the "us against them" approach. RINOs and assorted bed wetters over the years have compromised with the left and its hideous assault on our constitutional freedoms for too long. It's time for the dividing line to be sharpened and highlighted.
Post a Comment