Friday, September 06, 2013

What are the liberal advantages?

The liberal team has done better than our team over a long period of time. Therefore, we have to carefully consider where they have managed to get an advantage over us, so that we can learn to improve our game.

So how have liberals managed to do better? There are a range of answers that have been given to this question.

1. Class interests

It helps if your political philosophy serves the class interests of an influential and wealthy class of people in society.

Historically, liberalism had support from the Whig aristocracy (who wanted to contain royal power) and then from the rising commercial classes.

Traditionalists did have some support from the landed gentry, but the power of the landowning classes in general (in the UK) was broken by the early 1900s.

The situation now is that right-liberals tend to get support from business associations, whilst left-liberals get it from trade unions.

What could traditionalists have done to have preserved a base of support? One possible opportunity might have been to appeal to local manufacturers and manufacturing workers whose position was undermined by globalisation.

2. An institutional base

It was once the case that universities and the established churches were considered conservative institutions. But, as we know, they were captured by the left.

Without an institutional base it becomes much more difficult to assert influence in society. The lesson here is that institutions matter and have to be defended.

Traditionalists have to now consider either retaking existing institutions or building new ones.

3. The intellectual underlay

The way that Western intellectual history has developed has aided liberalism. Some of the commonly observed problems include:

i) Nominalism. A view that the world is made up of a collection of individual substances; there are no essences that give a common nature to classes of things.

ii) Scepticism. A view which doubts our capacity to obtain reliable knowledge of external reality.

iii) Scientism. The view that the methods employed in the natural sciences are the only authoritative way to gain knowledge of the world.

We have to take philosophy seriously and develop our own views in areas such as epistemology (theories of knowledge).

4. Moral persuasion

Liberals have learned to present their philosophy in highly moral terms, based on a certain understanding of freedom, equality and justice.

It has proved to be influential not just with those who are intellectual enough to wish to follow moral principles consistently, but also with those who wish emotionally to attach themselves to a moral cause.

What can we do? There are two ways of recovering ground here. The first is to criticise liberal morality, by bringing it back to its political starting points, by showing its internal inconsistencies and by demonstrating its destructive consequences. The second it to assert a morality of our own. We can do this by insisting on our own understanding of freedom, equality and justice and also by invoking other moral qualities, such as loyalty and patriotism.

We're not as good at this as we might be; we tend not to speak with moral conviction.

5. Creative spirit

Liberals often assume, as a starting point, a blank slate individual. So it's easy for us to think that we have a better understanding than liberals of human nature.

But what liberals have recognised about human nature is the existence of a core instinct to express a creative spirit in the world, for instance, by shaping the world around us and by making something of ourselves.

By attracting people in whom this creative spirit is strong, liberals have an advantage, as these are the kinds of people who are most likely to act in the world to bring about changes in society and within the human personality.

How can we make ground here? I think we have to emphasise our own understanding of a telos (a purpose or end) that individuals and communities seek to fulfil in life. We can't offer as open-ended a realm of creative spirit as liberals, but we can offer one that has greater depth and meaning, and that requires all our attributes of intellect, character, physique and spirit to carry through. We can return to an ideal of a public spirited man, one who seeks not only to defend what is best in his society and tradition, but to add to it creatively. We can make the term "progress" our own so that it has the sense of a creative effort to push forward and improve our own cultures and traditions.

Above all, we need to learn to speak and write in a way which expresses our own instinct to act creatively in the world. We must do this better than our liberal opponents.

42 comments:

  1. An additional thought has occurred to me. It's possible that we are at a disadvantage when it comes to creative spirit because society has moved in an opposite direction for so long that our desire to act creatively in the world has become demoralised. Perhaps some traditionalists prefer apathy to disappointment.

    But the better remedy is to maintain a certain frame of mind that it is healthy to have anyway, a frame of mind that remains focused on creative acts in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Liberals have learned to present their philosophy in highly moral terms, based on a certain understanding of freedom, equality and justice.

    It has proved to be influential not just with those who are intellectual enough to wish to follow moral principles consistently, but also with those who wish emotionally to attach themselves to a moral cause."

    Liberals use morality as a deception to achieve their ends. Their actions are not moral. Morality is the cloak within which they hide their true intentions.

    Similarly freedom, equality and justice are liberal dogmas. They are not possible in reality and certainly not within a traditional society. A Traditional society in the West is one in which society is organised by biblical Christian principles and morality. A society in which a group of people calling themselves "traditionalists " who seek to create their own ideas of freedom, equality and justice is not a traditionalist society but a liberal one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark

    Traditional Western Christian society is hierarchical and aristocratic with a monarch and defined social classes.

    Liberals aimed to overthrow the traditional class system and displace the monarchy and aristocracy (if not destroy them altogether)in order to create a vacancy at the top table to be filled by themselves. Liberalism has therefore always been a revolutionary exercise. The result of each stage of revolution is to create a society which become progressively more unstable and inexorably leads to the next stage of revolution until total collapse.

    In order to overthrow liberalism, the traditional class system will have to be restored. In Europe this has always been based on family bloodlines.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon,

    We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    I work with a group of about 40 to 50 liberals. They take liberal morality very seriously; I have often seen the women moved to tears such is the power of this morality.

    Don't underestimate it. It is a major weapon in the liberal arsenal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark

    The people you work with are not the political and economic elites who create policy. They are just the dupes who follow them and are manipulated by them. So their emotional involvement is irrelevant. Their hands are not on the leavers of power and all their tears will count for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I work with a group of about 40 to 50 liberals. They take liberal morality very seriously; I have often seen the women moved to tears such is the power of this morality."

    Are you talking about school teachers crying in the school?

    What are the liberal moral issues which they are crying over?

    Crying liberals demonstrates the power of liberal ideology to deceive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Forgive me, as I have been banging this like a drum at traditionalist sites.

    My hypothesis is that modern life conditions people, especially intelligent people, to be liberals. So, the main advantage that liberalism has is that the majority of the population and the overwhelming majority of the elite are now psychologically disposed to be liberals.

    I don't believe this is the result of deliberate control and propaganda by liberal elites, though obviously that doesn't help. Liberal propaganda is not all powerful, and, in fact, has had an extremely spotty record of success.

    Philosophy and science are the province of extremely small elites. Most of the broader elite, let alone the general population, can't understand them and have essentially no interest in them.

    This is very much related to the decline of religion in the West. Whatever it is that is conditioning us to be less able to perceive God or the gods in the world is also conditioning us to be less able to see forms, ideals, essences and purposes in the world.

    See here and here for summaries of interesting research in this area. I've also been strongly influenced by the early work of Bruce Charlton here, here and here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, the main advantage liberals have is that a majority of the people (and almost all of the elite) are liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A few more reasons for thinking as I do:

    1. Islam has taken an officially nominalist line since forever, and seems in no danger of heading towards liberalism.

    2. Some examples of liberal failures. Liberal propaganda has attempted to do away entirely with the natural family (kibbutzes etc.). Liberal propaganda has tried to make men indifferent to women's sexual history when it comes to long term relationships. There has been a concerted war against physical beauty, indeed beauty of every kind. None of this has worked.

    3. The average person, even the average person with a Bachelors degree is completely ignorant of science.

    4. People now explicitly adhere to the utilitarian harm principle, despite the fact that that this was never explicitly propagandized for. It was implicit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. With respect, Mark, I think you're seriously over-explaining this question.

    Sure, you can find liberal philosophers and political theorists who seek to provide intellectual justifications for liberalism, but philosophy didn’t win this war. In my experiences arguing with ordinary, intelligent liberals of both the left- and right- variety, they’re completely unaware of their own premises, and just regard liberalism as the obviously correct and morally neutral worldview. This makes them both easy and impossible to argue against: Easy because their arguments tend to be asinine and incoherent; impossible because they are unable to comprehend arguments coming from outside the Overton Window. So they just restate their initial position over and over.

    Sure, they’re highly moralistic about the tenets of liberalism, but that doesn’t mean they’ve ever given them a second thought. In fact, I’ve often pointed out to liberals the incoherence of liberal moralism, since it imposes on others the moral view that one must never impose morality on others. Does it have any effect? Nope.

    The reason that liberalism commands such allegiance is far simpler: it legitimizes the unfettered pursuit of pleasure, under the terms of a society-wide agreement to politely look the other way. You can have your [abortion/bathhouse/divorce/euthanasia/wife-swapping/greed/drug of choice] if I can have my porn. Deal? Deal.

    I really think that’s it. Liberalism is licence, allowing you to do whatever you want, constrained only by an (ever-diminishing) requirement to obtain the consent of anyone directly involved. For most people, that’s an irresistible prospect. Plus, as Huxley pointed out, it’s an extremely effective method of social control.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If Liberalism was all-powerful we'd be bombing Syria right now. The Liberal media want to bomb Syria. The Liberal political elite want to bomb Syria. Opposed are the non-Liberal Right and Left, and most of the population.

    BTW I was a Liberal until after the Iraq war. I was raised a Liberal atheist. I was still calling myself a (right) Liberal 6-7 years ago. The folly of the war made me reevaluate my basic premises, and eventually I realised that Liberalism was a path to civilisational suicide, to paraphrase Auster. Traditionalists can certainly make converts even in the more unlikely places. And many, many people are not Liberals at heart - outside the Anglosphere & Scandinavia, Liberals are a tiny proportion even of the elites. You won't find many real Liberals in France, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree completely with the Anon who made the first three comments.

    Mark is, as usual, allowing the liberals to define their own terms and set the parameters for the debate. He should add that to the list of reasons why they gain advantage, because if we allow that then no wonder we keep losing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another reason why the Left keeps winning:

    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-left-isnt-winning-by-having-good.html

    Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say 'The Left' I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.

    While at the same time denying that they are doing this! And being believed!!

    *

    The consequence is on one side to sustain a truly deplorable state of dishonesty, and on the other side a near total lack of awareness of this state of dishonesty.

    There have been plenty of examples of coercive repression of opposition, indeed something of the sort is necessary to stable government - yet has there ever before been a situation where so many people are unaware of the coercion, deny the coercion, or think that it doesn't make any significant difference, or that they personally can easily 'see through' the dense cloud of swirling lies which surrounds them?
    ...
    In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars, who get dumber and more dishonest every day - who think they are smart reality-perceivers because they are talking so loud and fast, and because nobody argues against them except disgusting losers - and this continues because the dumb liars rule a world inhabited by short-termist secular hedonists who do not have any reason to care whether or not the above description is true; since they regard truth as whatever is expedient en route to happiness, and reality as something socially constructed and open-endedly re-definable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The left wins because conservatives and traditionalists treat the paper tigers as real. The left also wins because many conservatives, traditionalists and right-liberals want the lifestyle goodies of the left and refuse to count the cost or acknowledge there remains one.

    Sorry, but you have to actually create a parallel society that eventually subsumes the remains of the leftist and liberal scrapheap. You can't just keep twisting around in a leftist framework and hopeity hope it'll change if you get the right guy elected.

    Conservatives and traditionalists must be free in Christ and ready to keep each other fed and clothed when the relatively small number of actual liberal tigers bite down instead of being craven.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What are the liberal moral issues which they are crying over?

    Usually, the sufferings of non-white people oppressed by white people and their struggle for freedom and equality.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whatever it is that is conditioning us to be less able to perceive God or the gods in the world is also conditioning us to be less able to see forms, ideals, essences and purposes in the world.

    Thursday, I've been thinking somewhat along these lines too lately. "Conditioning" is not bad word, as it is something that is gradually playing out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Liberalism is licence, allowing you to do whatever you want

    But why all the other stuff? If morality and principles have no effect, why didn't Westerners then simply act to maximise their pleasure and wants in all ways? Why sign away our own suburbs and towns, pay higher taxes to support immigrants on welfare? Why accept the crime of an imported underclass? Why accept the male bashing by feminists? Why make the cultural milieu so harsh on oneself that it came to be described as masochistic and suicidal?

    None of this seems aimed to maximise the fun or pleasure of Westerners. A fair number of Westerners have done their best to flee from it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "But why all the other stuff? If morality and principles have no effect, why didn't Westerners then simply act to maximise their pleasure and wants in all ways? Why sign away our own suburbs and towns, pay higher taxes to support immigrants on welfare? Why accept the crime of an imported underclass? Why accept the male bashing by feminists? Why make the cultural milieu so harsh on oneself that it came to be described as masochistic and suicidal?

    None of this seems aimed to maximise the fun or pleasure of Westerners. A fair number of Westerners have done their best to flee from it.

    Mark, it is obvious that the decisions to import immigrants and crime and all the other social pathologies was taken by the elites who do not suffer from the effects of the decisions they make. Most elites don't actually pay much tax and are very rarely victims of immigrant crime. Thus the ordinary people are the ones who pay the price of the social disasters created by the elites.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Crying over non whites and their perceived "oppression" by whites is just crocodile tears and synthetic emotional incontinence. One cannot have a genuine emotional reaction to a perceived historical injustice in which one was not involved.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bah,

    I am going to charge you with being an intellectually lazy person.

    Liberals have ruled for generations and have dominated intellectual discussion and debate and all you can say in response is "they're just a pack of dishonest liars without a real world view of their own".

    Really?

    I get the sense that you just can't be bothered to think through what liberals claim and to deconstruct it. You'd rather wish it away.

    Nor does Bruce Charlton's post make much sense to me. Yes, non-liberal ideas get suppressed. But Charlton ends with these claims:

    i) The world is ruled by dumb liars

    ii) The only people arguing against them are disgusting losers

    iii) Everyone else is a short-term secular hedonist who views reality as socially constructed and infinitely redefinable

    See the problem that arises when you totally discount the value of political beliefs and ideals? There is no longer any path to building influence and you end up in the Bleak House of politics.

    The issue raised by Thursday does concern me - the modern world + liberalism does seem to be conditioning people to perceive of themselves as indeterminate beings, i.e. to lose connection to particular identities, essences and character that they have as created beings. And this is going to make things more difficult for us.

    But clearly there are people that the modern world "leaves behind" and that a well-argued traditionalism can attract. There are always opportunities, but these will only be seized by those who are willing to push forward with an intelligent and non-nihilistic politics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Excellent comments and observations from Blah, Simon, mgl and Mrs Johnson.

    I agree that the setting up of parallel societies is the only way in which one can resist and subvert the liberal orthodoxy.

    This has successfully been done by some ethnic groups living within the West. Parallel states within a state and people who stick to their own traditions and religions and refuse to compromise them. They also have their own economies.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One cannot have a genuine emotional reaction to a perceived historical injustice

    These people live by it. I have even known women who think of themselves as committed Christians but who are clearly captured instead by the moral appeal of liberalism.

    I don't even understand why this is controversial. Is it that difficult to imagine that someone might find it appealing to identify with a just cause, a cause of freedom and progress and equality? These phrases do carry emotional appeal. Why should we be surprised if they work amongst some people?

    We can appeal to people instead at the level of reason and intellect (which we should do). We can point out what is destructive or false about liberal moral claims. If we do this well we will certainly attract some people.

    But at some point we also need to assert a moral persuasion of our own. We too can talk about justice and freedom. We could talk about the nobility and honour associated with a masculine ideal. We could talk about love of country and loyalty to one's own tradition.

    It is a test of politics, as much as the intellectual arguments, to be able to express such moral categories in ways which strike a chord with people (though I think we're still at a stage now in which the intellectual side of things should predominate).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mark

    It is obvious that the comment made by Bah does not demonstrate intellectual laziness. Liberalism is an ideology which is based upon deception and fraud and maintained by force. Liberals dominate media discussion because they own the media and they control much of politics by a combination of bribes and threats.

    Liberalism, is like Islam, a totalitarian ideology spread and maintained through force.

    You state "See the problem that arises when you totally discount the value of political beliefs and ideals? There is no longer any path to building influence and you end up in the Bleak House of politics. "

    Liberals don't have genuine political beliefs and ideals. They are revolutionaries who aim to use whatever tools they can to overthrow the traditional order.

    As Mrs Johnson said, it is a fantasy to think you can change the political order and the only realistic strategy for opposition is the setting up of parallel societies in which people have the space and support to resist liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Liberals don't have genuine political beliefs and ideals.

    Sorry, but that's weird. I have to assume that you've read this somewhere. Is that what Bruce Charlton is claiming? You'd be better off reading Jim Kalb. Charlton might throw around some interesting ideas, but Kalb is a systematic and self-disciplined thinker.

    You then wrote:

    As Mrs Johnson said, it is a fantasy to think you can change the political order and the only realistic strategy for opposition is the setting up of parallel societies in which people have the space and support to resist liberalism.

    Maybe you've just dropped into this site and are unaware of what you're really arguing against.

    But I've argued over and over for a two-pronged strategy of seeking whatever political influence we can within the mainstream whilst setting up communities of our own.

    So you have rolled up and said "Mark your position is a fantasy, you should really believe this other thing" - when this other thing is what I have long set out as a belief.

    The lesson: don't be too quick or assume to much when you lay out such arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I just don't see the benefits of a political strategy as a primary concern. I do think it is important to have a political approach, but it shouldn't come before solving the problem of feeding and sheltering the guy who spoke against Slutwalk or whatever and lost his academic job. Or providing employment for the widow whose in-home daycare was closed because she had Bible verses posted at the entrance.

    When those people know that they can be bold in Christ and not end up homeless, when they know that giving up decades of professional effort will not leave their families utterly destitute, then it would be time to push forward with more overt political strategy. I am an American though, and that is what would be most effective for conservatives and traditionalists here in the multi-generational term.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "These people live by it. I have even known women who think of themselves as committed Christians but who are clearly captured instead by the moral appeal of liberalism."

    This statement is contradictory. A committed and bible based Christian cannot be captured by liberalism. Thus these women are deceiving themselves (and others) and failing to live in accordance with Christian teaching. The moral teaching of Christ is not liberal and one cannot be Christian and liberal at the same time.

    "Is it that difficult to imagine that someone might find it appealing to identify with a just cause, a cause of freedom and progress and equality? These phrases do carry emotional appeal. Why should we be surprised if they work amongst some people? "

    You describe a surrogate religion. The Christian way is the one of sanctification and not the pursuit of unattainable equality, freedom and justice. The Emotional appeal of these non Christian pagan ideals is for the intellectually deficient who have rejected the Christian path and seek a narcissistic guilt trip.

    "But at some point we also need to assert a moral persuasion of our own. We too can talk about justice and freedom. We could talk about the nobility and honour associated with a masculine ideal. We could talk about love of country and loyalty to one's own tradition."

    Why don't you just stick to the Biblical commands? Asserting your own moral persuasion is just egotistical liberalism. The Bible adequately deals with all the relevant concepts.

    Love of country and tradition is dealt with in the Commandment Honour Your father and mother (this doesn't mean call home). This means honour your heritage and it is the only commandment to promise the reward of a long spiritual life.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Liberals don't have genuine political beliefs and ideals."

    I have seen that demonstrated adequately by working among them in the UK House of Commons, one of the biggest collections of liberals in the world. They are chancers. They believe in anything that will get them elected and get them some money on the side.

    The reading of political theory is not relevant to the real life activity of real liberal politicians and lobbyists.

    Mark, most of your blog posts and comments concentrate on the fanciful idea of changing the political order. Try it in real life and you may change your mind.

    You have not made a serious case for the set up of a community. Why not elaborate on the plans?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mark, most of your blog posts and comments concentrate on the fanciful idea of changing the political order.

    I wish you'd read more carefully. I have said over and over that the aim is to present a traditionalist politics clearly and effectively enough so that you become part of the political landscape for young Westerners who are forming their beliefs and values.

    The aim is to win over a sufficient number (could be 10 per cent) of thoughtful, intelligent young Westerners so that you have the human capital with which to act in the world.

    From there the aim is to build up an institutional base from which political and community building activities can be effectively carried out.

    You need to do both political and community work. If you give up on the politics, you leave the liberal paradigm intact and unchallenged and that means that you will most likely not have the political space within which to create communities.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why don't you just stick to the Biblical commands? Asserting your own moral persuasion is just egotistical liberalism.

    According to Paul we are to find the virtues within the traditions we belong to and meditate on them:

    Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.

    Paul also supported a concept of natural law:

    For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.

    Was Paul an egotistical liberal?

    Christianity is not meant to cancel out what is good within the life of different communities. If a million Westerners form a community and express something good within their own natures, then that is to be defended regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Bible or not.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mrs Johnson above is right about the importance of supporting people who take a stand. Evil wins when the Good feels isolated and alone.

    Mark is completely right about the need for a positive message and conversion. Unfortunately most Trad/con sites are hopelessly bitter and negative, they've given in to Despair like the worst posters in the comments here. That doesn't win any converts and it doesn't achieve anything. It's what the enemy wants - they like you guys to exist, as a face their boot can stamp on forever, but they want you to think of yourselves as losers, not as a real threat to them.

    What does win converts is Mark's approach; it's what converted me. If there were even a single American or British blogger as good as Mark Richardson prospects would be a lot better right now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mark you state
    "Paul also supported a concept of natural law"

    The Natural Law was not devised by Paul. It is that which is revealed by God in the created order. It is not man made. It is inherent in human nature. When Paul said that Gentiles do not have the Law he referred to the Mitvas which Jews must follow. Gentiles do not have Mitzvas and hence are free from Mosaic Law. However the Law of the Gentiles must be based upon the Natural Law and hence is not man made. It must reflect the sovereignty of God.

    The Cannon Law and The Civil Law are closer to the Christian tradition than the Anglican Common Law.

    Whilst individual ethnic groups can define their own traditions, these should remain within the scope of Christian teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  32. But why all the other stuff? If morality and principles have no effect, why didn't Westerners then simply act to maximise their pleasure and wants in all ways? Why sign away our own suburbs and towns, pay higher taxes to support immigrants on welfare? Why accept the crime of an imported underclass? Why accept the male bashing by feminists? Why make the cultural milieu so harsh on oneself that it came to be described as masochistic and suicidal?

    Easy. You can't create a liberal licentious culture without destroying the traditional culture first. Everything you mention here is intentionally designed to destroy conservative political power and conservative culture.

    Crying over non whites and their perceived "oppression" by whites is just crocodile tears and synthetic emotional incontinence. One cannot have a genuine emotional reaction to a perceived historical injustice in which one was not involved.

    AGREE!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Liberals have ruled for generations and have dominated intellectual discussion and debate and all you can say in response is "they're just a pack of dishonest liars without a real world view of their own".

    Really?


    Yes, really. It should not be so unthinkable that lies and evil can prevail for what is, historically, not a great span of time.

    I get the sense that you just can't be bothered to think through what liberals claim and to deconstruct it. You'd rather wish it away.

    You are the one engaged in wishful thinking if you imagine "deconstructing" their claims is worthwhile.

    Everything they say has been refuted decades ago. But the lack of intellectual or moral foundation to liberalism does not matter, because their appeal is emotional not logical or moral.

    See the problem that arises when you totally discount the value of political beliefs and ideals? There is no longer any path to building influence and you end up in the Bleak House of politics.

    So can't argue that what BGC said is not true, only that it is depressing. Fine. Good luck with your hobby of building influence.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Everything they say has been refuted decades ago.

    Liberalism has remained largely unchallenged. There was an academic movement called the communitarians which had some influence for a period of time in pushing liberalism onto the defensive. There were a couple of books written (e.g. Kirk).

    When I hit my 20s (mid-80s) not only did liberalism go unchallenged in Australia, but the intelligentsia was left-liberal almost as a tribal marker.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You are the one engaged in wishful thinking if you imagine "deconstructing" their claims is worthwhile.

    That's a losing attitude. I have people write in to me saying that by reading this site they have been enabled to move beyond liberalism.

    I seem to have to repeat this ad nauseam but the aim is not to miraculously convert the whole political class and suddenly solve all our problems and go back to watching TV.

    The aim is to present our politics clearly enough and persuasively enough that we are part of the political landscape and that we attract even 10 per cent of thoughtful, intelligent young Westerners.

    If you think that's impossible then you ought to get out of the business of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm both optimistic and pessimistic. I don't think liberalism has long term viability, but I also think that, at least in rich modern nations, it currently has the kind of organic, bottom up strength that is going to be very hard to dislodge in the short term. It took us awhile to get here and it's going to take a while to get out.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks as always for the positive blog Mark.

    @Thursday
    I've often been misunderstood as a pessimist because I talk about things that are difficult for some people to hear.
    Though I've always had in a completely optimistic outlook.

    I think in the long run that liberalism beneath the surface is too inhuman to survive. People will reject its madness for what is more natural. Which is the lifestyle our traditional ancestors lived in.
    Already you have along with pseudo-conservatives you have pseudo-traditionalists.
    This isn't a bad thing. This is a sign that people like this lifestyle.

    Following a traditional mindset has even helped me with dating. I attract the attention of very high quality women. Who similarly want to live a more wholesome existence.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Liberalism has remained largely unchallenged.

    No. Liberalism has, long ago, been intellectually and morally refuted. Your efforts to "deconstruct" will at best reinvent the wheel. All the information is out there for anyone who wants it. And that was true even before the internet existed!

    What you regard as the "lack of challenge" is the product of two problems: firstly, liberalism argues on emotional grounds, not logical or moral grounds, and secondly liberalism does not argue honestly because they are not really interested the logical or moral coherence of their views.

    If you think that's impossible then you ought to get out of the business of politics.

    I am not in the business of politics. But since you are, and you have a positive attitude, why don't you "deconstruct liberalism" for the 40 to 50 liberals you work with. Let us know when you turn 4 or 5 of them away from liberalism. Your logical and intellectual arguments will surely convince a mere 10% of this group of intelligent, well-educated people. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bah is correct. Liberalism aims to deconstruct Western civilisation and various ideologies are used as tools to achieve that. They are not moral although they may presented as such in order to gain the support of the naive and the stupid. Nor are they coherent ideologies. They are typically incoherent and thoroughly unprincipled.

    One example is the "War on Terror" against the Islamic jihad led by CIA asset Osama Bin Laden. Using this pretext, most Western countries are being turned into Police States and embarking on national finance busting wars in the Middle East. Yet in a recent twist John Kerry announced that the USA will attack Syria in order to assist the Al Queda brigades fighting Assad. And what is more Saudi Arabia and Qatar will pick up the bill. Therefore the Americans are now the Airforce of Al Queda.

    This is one of the many contortions of "liberalism". By attempting to deconstruct liberalism you will never be able to explain (or understand) the actions of the political and elite classes. You need to work backwards. Figure out the political goals and then it becomes apparent what liberal tools are being used where, how and why.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, this is the odd thing. People who are negative and uninterested in politics come along and claim that there is no such thing as a liberal politics to be refuted, just bad people in pursuit of bad things.

    It's a laziness that will continue to condemn a traditionalist movement to fringe irrelevancy.

    I don't understand why such people bother to come along and say such things. Why take the attitude "I'm not into politics, I'm defeatist, but I'll come along to a site where people are trying to do something and down talk them".

    It's that thing that, rightly or wrongly, I termed "nihilist" in a recent post.

    Why would people sign up to a trad movement if it's inhabited by the bitter, the defeatist, the apolitical, the anti-intellectual?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I find these criticisms of Mark quite tedious. He's absolutely on the money.

    Jesse_7

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.