Saturday, November 21, 2015

Liberalism: making the world a more dangerous place?

The news of the past week was, of course, the Paris terror attacks. I was interested to see what the reaction would be from the general public here in Australia. Many do seem to recognise that we now live in a different world, one which is no longer as safe as it once was. A less attractive world.

You might think that the next step would be for people thinking this way to reconsider the policies causing this decline. The smaller the Muslim population in the West, the easier it is for security services to keep on top of those planning terror attacks. So if you want a safer and more secure society it makes sense to limit Muslim immigration into the West.

But most people have not taken this next logical step. Why? I think perhaps it's because if you have lived in a liberal culture for long enough you are likely to have developed a "liberal reflex" - by which I mean an internalised sense of what you can or can't think (or feel). And, at the moment, the reflex tells people that to cast any kind of insensitivity onto a migrant, including a Muslim migrant, is a worse thing than to live under the ongoing threat of terror attacks.

It is weak-minded, when what is needed is a resolute commitment to the security of the Western populations.

11 comments:

  1. The majority of people are infantilised, child like and have no sense of identity or values. Without an identity and value system rooted in family bloodlines, tribe and caste and attachment to land, people become atomised, deracinated and easily manipulated into accepting a legally managed society based upon abstract rights and equality.

    Without a sound sense of tribal identity and values, there is nothing to fight for. Humans don't fight for abstract values. Most people understand that Muslims are incompatible with Western Christian societies but they are not prepared to organise and fight them.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good comment. You are of course right that none of this would be an issue if people still had an identity to uphold, as society would then be organised, in part, around preserving that identity. I thought it interesting, though, that people in a liberal society are not even willing to act to preserve their own physical security.

      Delete
    2. They expect the state or other organisations to act as their parental guardian, naively thinking that Governments will magic away any problem like a fairy godmother in a pantomime, which is not surprising given that many people spend their time watching soap operas.

      Consider how many people travel to unstable Muslim countries for holidays. Unconcerned for their security at home from aggression of the small Muslim communities, they travel thousands of miles to place themselves in danger in Muslim countries run by corrupt incompetent Governments, large populations of Islamic extremists and strong anti imperialist sentiment from the populations of these countries.

      This year there was a shooting of some British tourists on a beach in Tunisia , quite a massacre actually. Why did these people go to that country? They wanted sun at a cheap price and that desire overrode considerations that they may be killed or injured there.

      Delete
    3. Liberals tend to believe that terrorism is a reaction against Western bigotry, racism, Islamophobia, etc. I've noticed liberals are now saying that in order to prevent future terrorism we actually need to increase Muslim immigration, because that would prove to Muslims that we're not bigoted. And I think the liberals actually believe this, so they genuinely believe that they are acting to preserve their own physical security.

      Then again, there are those who, upon hearing the suggestion to stop Muslim immigration, say "I'd rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than to engage in such xenophobia," so I don't know which way of thinking is more prevalent.

      Delete
  2. But most people have not taken this next logical step. Why?

    Most people accept that politicians are corrupt and incompetent and that they lie. But they haven't grasped the fact that our own government is now the enemy (and that's the case in every western country). They still believe that the government is vaguely on their side.

    It's a big step to take, from believing the government is incompetent to realising that it's not incompetence, it's treason. And it makes no difference which party wins the election because both parties are identical. It's a thought that is too scary for most people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do think it's a good insight that people get stuck at the point of thinking that incompetence is to blame, rather than that the whole political establishment is on a destructive course that will dissolve family life, nations etc.

      Delete
    2. It's particularly difficult for older people because they grew up in a world in which it was reasonable to assume that governments generally meant well, even when they were incompetent or wrong. People who grew up in the 40s, 50s or even 60s still dutifully turn up to the polls and vote for either Labor or the Liberals because they cannot bring themselves to believe that both parties will betray them, and betray them consciously and deliberately.

      There's nothing you can do with the MIllennial Generation. They're so thoroughly indoctrinated that they're beyond help. They're like Mao's Red Guards. But there's still a window of opportunity for the next couple of decades for older people to throw the major parties out. Unfortunately they won't because they still have this blind faith that the next Liberal prime minister or the next Labor prime minister will fix things.

      When you have a choice between Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull the only sane response is to vote for neither. But how on earth do you persuade people to take that step?

      Delete
    3. In the younger generation, which I inhabit, there appears to be two or three mindsets. The first, believed highly by the non-white and non-christian portion, is the standard Cultural Marxism. The second, is a bias against anything conservative due to its links to the failed wars. The third, is like the various European nationalist parties, but in America only shows itself in fits and sparks.

      I'm unsure about the next generation (born in the 2000s), I think they may turn out more conservative than millennials. Even those that aren't part of the traditional Western culture. It's hard to underestimate the shock of a losing war on a population's psyche. The Democrats in America had their greatest wave in 2006, they've been in numerical decline since.

      The rise of ISIS has put the fear back into people, and channeled it in a positive direction towards restrictions on immigration. 9/11 simply cowed people into supporting the security state and militarism.

      Delete
  3. Liberal thought: Vibrant > Dull, Present > 1950s, Transgressive > Traditional

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark: I characterized this mindset some years ago as: "Better dead than rude."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wish I'd thought of that as a heading for this post - it's very good.

      Delete

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