tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1555097235220784093..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Florence Gaub: Russians aren't EuropeansUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-84557476251708197152022-04-18T16:46:15.296+10:002022-04-18T16:46:15.296+10:00Thank you. If you post it, I’d be appreciative of ...Thank you. If you post it, I’d be appreciative of removing the error in the penultimate paragraph (it should be “Wouldn’t that make choosing to not be European (whatever that means) an […]” etc. but there’s an erroneous “is” there).<br /><br />On the note of culture, I think really what defines a culture above all else is shared customs and traditions — things we are largely bound to do or not to do, and things which therefore inhibit our freedom. There can always be cultural outliers that do whatever they want, but for a real living culture to survive the majority of people have to act as if they are bound by custom and tradition. Liberalism is obviously opposed to this and so works to dissolve them and reach the ideal state of a “culture” of uninhibited individuals.<br /><br />It would be tempting to argue that liberalism itself could constitute shared customs and tradition in that it dictates behavior in the real world, but I think that’s misguided for two reasons.<br /><br />The first and lesser reason is that liberalism discouraging us from doing some things and encouraging us to do other things is a result of internal contradiction which, for liberals, it would ideally not have. “Liberal cultures” might then be somewhat distinct by their members doing whatever they want and not being bound to do or not do anything, but this only works as a marker of distinction if non-liberal cultures exist to compare to. I don’t believe it would occur to anyone to frame NOT being bound to do or not do things as being custom or tradition just as BEING bound to do or not do things is without the latter existing. At the risk of being repititive, I would sooner label that “anti-customs” or “anti-traditions”, seeming similar and part of a whole only because one is a negation of the other (just as I think it would be misguided to call darkness a type of light when it is defined as the absence of light). I may be bound to do or not do many different things in many different ways, but I can only be unbound in one way; in other words while there can be diverse and multitudinous traditions and customs, there can only be identical anti-traditions and anti-customs. It’s hardly like my not being bound to do or not do anything can be different from your not being bound.<br /><br />The second and greater reason is that liberalism is a universal imposition. Liberals want everyone else to be liberal. If you have a number of “liberal cultures” therefore that are defined all by not being bound to do or not do things, they’re identical in “custom” and “tradition.” What becomes the marker of cultural distinctiveness then? What would separate, say, a German from a Frenchman? It cannot, if they are both liberal, be differing customs and traditions (or practices). And since liberalism as discussed elsewhere is opposed to bonds of kinship and common heritage and descent, a liberal culture also can’t be defined by those. What remains? Only superficial distinctions that are not morally unacceptable to liberalism; dress, cuisine, language, entertainment, etc. And, as I put in my original comment, all of those can be adopted without much impediment by any human being on the planet, while common practices and heritage might be outright impossible to “adopt."Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50610181513391575052022-04-18T10:19:35.922+10:002022-04-18T10:19:35.922+10:00Terrific comment, thank you. I might post it later...Terrific comment, thank you. I might post it later this week, as you draw out the contradictions of the idea of a liberal culture so clearly.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29287821241388776202022-04-18T03:11:12.186+10:002022-04-18T03:11:12.186+10:00I was amused that I guessed correctly and was prov...I was amused that I guessed correctly and was proven in 17 seconds. Haven’t they been trying to run this play for a long time? You aren’t a real true American if you’re not liberal; you’re not a real true Brit if you’re not liberal; you’re not a real true Australian if you’re not liberal. Gets a bit old, doesn’t it?<br /><br />Second, a community (not a voluntary association or group of mutual interest) is by definition a web of interdependencies. If you’re a free and independent individual how can you possibly belong to a community? That would make you dependent on other people and therefore not independent (and in the real world not free to make whatever choices you want).<br /><br />Third, how can one be culturally liberal? A culture is shared customs, practices, traditions, heritage, identity, and (arguably) beliefs, which the liberal project is opposed to. The ideal liberal society is one where one isn’t bound by any of that and is a completely unique individual, sharing nothing in common (except property, according to the socialist liberals).<br /><br />It would be more appropriate to call liberalism an “anti-culture” than a culture.<br /><br />Besides, if we’re all just unique individuals then how can we be commonly defined by one culture anyway? And how can one have a culture where a defining aspect is being able to choose to be part of the culture or not? Wouldn’t that make choosing to not be European (whatever that means) is an intrinsically European act in line with European culture? And am I therefore European if I choose to be since by the mere act of being able to freely choose my culture I am being culturally European? Wouldn’t that just mean that “culture” means being liberal and nothing else, except perhaps some superficial distinctions of no consequence like cuisine, dress, language, and entertainment — all of which could be aped by any human being?<br /><br />It all begs the question of what the point of this category labeled “European” is even for, since it doesn’t really seem to signify anything. Tax residency? Is a “European” just a liberal who happens to be a subject of a government in Europe? Why bother using the word?Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.com