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.


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 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 

Political Fallacies

Concerning the dishonest nature of contemporary political discourse.

The Left-Right fallacy: Divide and conquer, political theater, the Orwellian racial meaning of equality and diversity.

The 50-50 fallacy: A deliberately calculated division, brain versus body.

Armor’s comment on Left and Right:

We know that leftism is encouraged by school and the media. But it doesn’t explain why, now and then, we find a real hard-core leftist in our own families, just like sometimes, some parents are surprised to find that their new born child is a redhead. So, maybe the leftist mindset is partly in the genes. But I think that only few people are real leftists. In the population, there isn’t a regular continuum from right to left with half the people on the right and half of them on the left. Rather, I think most people are conservatives, and a small minority is “leftist”, with a markedly different mindset. I think the real leftists are less than 10% of the population, but it is difficult to tell a natural-born leftist from someone who simply goes along with what the media preaches.

I don’t think that support for immigration can be in the genes of leftist people. There is no reason we cannot find leftists who want to defend the white lower class, and who strongly disagree with the race-replacement program. We need them on our side. A century ago, very few leftists would have agreed with our replacement with non-whites. But race replacement is now the main element in the Jewish political program, and the Jews are the backbone of the institutional left.

Even though the leftists are a minority, it seems that everything in our public political life proceeds from the left. In fact, it is the Jewish media that gets to define everyone else on the political spectrum. So, they classify anyone who stands against race-replacement as right-wing, far-right, nazi, racist, supremacist, evil.

My own opinion is that the right is simply made of normal people with the most common mindset. Opposition to immigration isn’t right-wing, it is a matter of common sense. Being called right-wing is like being called antisemite. It is like firemen being called anti-arsonist. Actually, the problem isn’t anti-arsonism.

I disagree with Bertonneau’s comment on one point: the problem doesn’t exactly come from the left. It comes from the Jewish-dominated FAR-LEFT. And in fact, the far-left doesn’t even belong to the left. The left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and egalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the “far-left” that controls the media isn’t compassionate. The Jews don’t care about equality. Their motivation is racial and anti-white.

Just like right-wing voters, most people who vote for the left are ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people. I don’t think that voting for the left is in their genes.

Yes. To the extent left/right is biological, it is at best a tendency, a preference. The jews and their racial animus drive the anti-White/pro-non-White agenda.

The “far” fallacy: far-right/racist/nazi is code for White, far-left is code for the jews.

French far-right triumphs in local polls that hammer ruling Socialists, 24 March 2014:

According to preliminary results from the interior ministry, the UMP and allies took 47 percent of the vote nationwide while the Socialist party and allies took 38 percent, and the FN five percent — far higher than its 0.9 percent result in the first round of 2008 municipal polls.

Applauding what she said was “an exceptional vintage for the FN”, Marine Le Pen — head of the anti-immigration, anti-EU party — said the polls marked the “end of the bipolarisation of the political scene”.

Although the FN had been expected to do well, the first round results were far better than expected.

What makes Front National “far-right”?

Le Pen took over the FN leadership in 2011 and set about broadening the appeal of a party regarded as taboo by many voters in light of her father’s repeated convictions for Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred.

As well as trying to “detoxify” the FN’s image, she has attempted to make it less of a single-issue party by campaigning on unemployment, costs of living and crime.

The “single-issue” is what’s best for the French. This is regarded as toxic by jews and other non-French who are themselves toxic to the French.

The post-racial fallacy: Left vs right increasingly openly revealed as non-White vs White.

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years, 24 March 2014.

The misleading headline is typical. The most striking feature of Gallup’s graph (attached above) is the stark and consistent racial divide.

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

Left and Right

Concerning what everyone knows, or should know, about politics, the game of life, and the important role of lies and deception.

Left–right politics:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties.

The left/right duality seems baked into the White psyche. It springs, I think, from an Old European instinct for egalitarianism and Aryan instinct for hierarchy.

Rather than a synthesis of these essential instincts, producing an orderly movement forward, Whites are instead polarized and divided by jewish influence, resulting in a disorderly shuffle toward oblivion.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 
© the White network