Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

What is Liberalism?

The word liberalism has been in common use in political discourse for more than two hundred years. Why is its meaning so ambiguous and changed so dramatically over time?

In short, it is due to a shift away from White/Aryan origins to a contemporary judaized meaning. The word itself is emblematic of the racial struggle for control of Europe.

liberal, at Online Etymology Dictionary:

liberal (adj.)

mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (source of Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”) but literally “to mount up, to grow.”

With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.

The original meaning of liberal was noble, and thus synonymous with aryan.

Liberalism:

Originally based on two main principles: liberty (freedom from constraints on speech and thoughts) and equality (every human born possessing “natural rights”, ala John Locke).

Contemporary, judaized liberalism is actually the opposite – granting special preferences to “protected classes”, and defining special “hate crimes” for offenses against them.

Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

Liberalism thus developed in opposition to the long-standing socio-political status quo in Europe, overturning and destroying it. In retrospect it was not a natural expression of European nature, but represented a revolution, a turn toward jewish rule and the complete destruction of Europeans which looms today.

The notion that liberalism seeks equality is a fraud. The reality is that it elevates non-Whites above Whites – jews are the archetype, elevated first and highest, above everyone else.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word (liberal) acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823.[13] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[14] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.

The shift in meaning and spread of liberalism corresponds/correlates with the emancipation of jews. Tolerance and freedom from prejudice and bigotry enabled the jews to more easily infiltrate, manipulate and exploit White society. Here we see the beginnings of anti-”racism”.

During the twentieth century, liberal ideas spread even further, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Liberalism also survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.

The jews won those wars – securing and entrenching jewish power while disempowering Europeans. Communism was a jewish project, not an opponent of liberalism. They share major features, including central banking, internationalism, and an Orwellian drive for equality (metastasizing into anti-”racism” and ultimately anti-Whitism).

As such, the meaning of the word “liberalism” began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”

These contradictory meanings reflect a different emphasis on freedom versus equality (which are at odds).

What liberalism supposedly means:

Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.

This is the “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society” which Whites are propagandized to believe.

Meliorism:

Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

The real, jewish liberalism is completely different. It is not individualist; it is collectivist (group/bloc-oriented, identity politics, partisan politics). It is not egalitarian; non-Whites are collectively elevated above Whites, Whites are blamed for “racism”/privilege. It is not meliorist; dengeneracy is promoted and celebrated, Whites excelling or progressing is regarded as evidence of “racism”/privilege. It is not universalist; it sets everyone, including Whites, against Whites.

Liberalism, as a “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”, has become entangled with democracy.

Liberal democracy:

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.

Porter, at The Kakistocracy, describes how it works in practice:

Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on which white to have for lunch;

Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the vote.

In 1961 the poet Robert Frost remarked:

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

John Tyndall pt 17/17

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

John Tyndall pt 5

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

Anti-White Identity

This installment addresses some feedback to the two previous installments, in the attempt to clarify and fill some gaps.

Also, I finish quoting and saying what I have to say about Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

Liberalism and Identity Politics

. . .

Critics charged that the neutral citizen of liberal theory was in fact the bearer of an identity coded white, male, bourgeois, able-bodied, and heterosexual … This implicit ontology in part explained the persistent historical failure of liberal democracies to achieve anything more than token inclusion in power structures for members of marginalized groups.

A richer understanding of political subjects as constituted through and by their social location was required. In particular, the history and experience of oppression brought with it certain perspectives and needs that could not be assimilated through existing liberal structures. Individuals are oppressed by virtue of their membership in a particular social group—that is, a collective whose members have relatively little mobility into or out of the collective, who usually experience their membership as involuntary, who are generally identified as members by others [ie. biological identity, race], and whose opportunities are deeply shaped by the relation of their group to corollary groups through privilege and oppression (Cudd 2006).

Oppression, then, is the systematic limiting of opportunity or constraints on self-determination because of such membership: for example, Frantz Fanon eloquently describes the experience of being always constrained by the white gaze as a Black man: “I already knew that there were legends, stories, history, and above all historicity… I was responsible at the same time for my body, my race, for my ancestors” (Fanon 1968, 112). Conversely, members of dominant groups are privileged—systematically advantaged by the deprivations imposed on the oppressed. For example, in a widely cited article Peggy McIntosh identifies whiteness as a dominant identity, and lists 47 ways in which she is advantaged by being white compared with her colleagues of color. These range from being able to buy “flesh-colored” Band-Aids that will match her skin tone, to knowing that she can be rude without provoking negative judgments of her racial group, to being able to buy a house in a middle-class community without risking neighbors’ disapproval (1993).

Critics have also charged that assimilation (or, less provocatively, integration) is a guiding principle of liberalism. If the liberal subject is coded in the way Young (1990) suggests, then attempts to apply liberal norms of equality will risk demanding that the marginalized conform to the identities of their oppressors.

The take-away for Whites: “Identity politcs”, as such, is a jewish, cultural-marxist, anti-White construct. It is wrapped in dishonest universalist-sounding rhetoric, but is in fact defined and deployed solely in opposition to Whites. The essence of its notion of identity is victimization – with Whites portrayed, in a variety of ways, as oppressors, and non-Whites portrayed as oppressed.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 
© the White network