top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Liberals

Updated: Jan 12



If the Tories are for “king, blood, tradition” then what is the left for? Really, though it changes more often, it is always the same left—the left changes so often because it is built on defection from king, blood, and tradition. People who are disloyal to that trinity are disloyal to other things—namely, their own side. 

 

And so we find, when we look at the left, a myriad of splits into splits—whereas to the right we find the Conservatives, then UKIP, then a neo-fascist formation (and that, of course, is the conundrum for the radical right—because their loyalist constituency will not defect from the Conservatives, being loyal).

 

So the left has many forms—Roundheads, Whigs, Liberals, socialists, Marxists, Labour, anarchists, Greens, LGBT+…It shifts and changes all the time, it froths about; it denounces, as Marx did in The New York Herald Tribune, the “old left”—in that case the “Whig oligarchy” that supposedly merely served industrial interests and not the coming working class. 

 

Today, the accusation is that the system as constituted serves “straight white males”—whereas the future is mulatto non-binary people (the “dreamers of the they”).

 

So what constitutes the left is the reliance on an idea. To take the Liberals as an example: 

 

1. the Liberals were organised around an abstract principle “free trade” that came, ultimately, from an academic, Adam Smith; 


2. they were also against the idea that actual people make judicial decisions—they insisted that decisions really emanate from “the Constitution” (even today British liberals go on and on about a “written constitution”, like America) or from “law”, it’s all abstract; 


3. and, finally, they stand for the idea that “the individual” as an abstract theoretical entity should not be impeded in his actions on principle—it’s up to someone else to show why you shouldn’t do something, rather than there being a tradition that you shouldn’t (i.e. experiment is good).

 

What’s the commonality here? It’s all theoretical. It’s all about things that have been speculated about, thought out in rational terms—but have no concrete reality. It’s a rational idea of man as an atom—nay, a reasonable atom—who just makes free contracts with people. 

 

It’s also utopian—free trade will usher in universal prosperity and world peace

 

That was what people said, quite seriously, right up until WWI.

 

Yes, in abstract, if people were very reasonable then we could conclude everything by a non-coerced contract—but people are only like that in tracts by Mill, Smith, and Godwin. That is “reasonable man” in their very reasonable and “very intelligent” heads.

 

You see how the Liberals paved the way for Labour—because “free trade” didn’t actually solve all the problems it promised to, there were still great disparities of wealth; and so even Liberals like Mill contemplated socialism of some sort, voluntary co-operatives if not state action, in the end. 

 

It’s because the theory doesn’t do what it claims to do—and as it’s implemented it leads to more social disintegration, because it kicks out the ties that hold the country together. 

 

And so liberalism gives way to socialism—which is, no surprise, another theory. The link between liberalism and non-Conformism is no surprise because non-Conformism is all about fanatical belief—the preacher in his tent “Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!”. 

 

And with this fanaticism goes utopian ideas like prohibition—which the left still works on today, it’s forcing out beer, cigarettes, and cocaine (active drugs) and replacing them with virtuous (i.e. passive) cannabis and DMT (Conservatives and brewers were natural allies for many years).  

 

The fanatic Ranter is contrasted to the man who just goes to his Anglican church and doesn’t think about the content at all—just carries out the ceremony and maintains the tradition. 

 

This issue goes back to ancient Rome—it’s perennial. In Rome, the religion and the state were fused—the aristocratic families had certain rites, certain gods (indeed, some members of their families, like Chinese ancestor cults, had become gods—the Roman emperors became gods).

 

This was hit, in its decadent period, by Christianity—a plebeian religion based not on rituals and rites but on a fanatical belief. There was “one God” so that nobody could be a god anymore—and, since it came from an outsider racial group, it destroyed, at the biological level, Rome’s defences.

 

It destroyed the cohesion of the legions, since it inverted their rites in particular. If you think about the language employed by the Christians it’s the same as the left today—it’s about emotive out-group rhetoric. So the Christians called the people who adhered to the gods of their ancestors “Pagans”—and this wasn’t just about the fact that it meant the same as “county” in English (i.e. “these rustic and ignorant people who don’t follow trendy and sophisticated urban Christianity, it’s what everyone is doing in Rome this season”).

 

No, rather, “Pagan” was already traditionally contrasted to a “knight” or “legionary” (like peasant and knight in medieval times)—what the Christians did, when they popularised the once secret rites of Mithras, previously reserved for the legions, was to say “everyone is a knight now, everyone is legionary now, everyone is an aristocrat now”. That’s the real significance of the way they called everyone who wasn’t “down with the project” a “Pagan”.

 

It’s exactly the same as in America today some black woman is appointed Professor of Theoretical Physics at a university—just to prove a point. So when Christians say they’re “soldiers of Christ” it’s this half-remembered point from ancient Rome—“we wuz legionaries (and sheet)”.

 

You always have to beware people who are preoccupied with dualism: “Christian/Pagan”, “capitalist/worker”, “good/bad”, “sinner/saved”, “racist/anti-racist”. It usually means they’re liars obsessed with status who want to conceal reality—and manipulate you into the bargain “oh, you’re one of those.”

 

“Dirty pagan!” If you think about it, this is ridiculous—it’s a pejorative phrase that relegates every other religion in the world, from Buddhism to African folk religions, into the same category (who says they’re the same?). Of course, for the fanatic “they’re all the same” until they’ve been “saved” (joined the gang—become liberals, Christians, socialists, anti-racists). 

 

Well, Christianity destroyed the state cult and so destroyed the state—that’s why St. Augustine had to write the enormous coping strategy that is The City of God (which is a long, long attempt to explain why Christianity didn’t cause Rome to be overrun by barbarians—but I think the lady doth protest too much).

 

So it’s the same thing—the plebeian fanatic belief that promises utopia (prohibition, the Second Coming, socialism) that tries to overthrow the aristocratic society based on traditions and blood. As the movement succeeds, it itself disintegrates more—because the utopia never arrives. The utopia was, at first, the return of Jesus; then it became “free trade”; then it became socialism—and today it’s the “end of white supremacy”. 

 

You might think the Liberals were for private property because they talked about free trade—Marx would have said that, no doubt. But it’s not so—because they challenged the king’s authority and wanted to replace it with a codified constitution (which really means the deniable shadow government, per America, of the Supreme Court—because men make decisions, not pieces of paper). 

 

Since the king instantiates the principle that you can transmit property (“the crown”) to relatives, then to challenge the king is a de facto challenge to property—so even 19th-century liberalism, though it doesn’t intend it, is a move towards socialism, because it undermines the principle upon which property rests and transfers sovereignty to, empowers really, the state (the lawyers and bureaucrats who administer the constitution). 

 

Parallel with Christianity: it doesn’t intend to create atheism, but it abolishes gods and so establishes the principle that gods can be abolished; and this ends at the last in the “final superstition”, the one God, being abolished. That’s the logic.

 

Basically, trust to wisdom—things you can see and touch—not abstract beliefs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page