Liberalism = Globalism

Liberalism is the core of a snowball. Its one concept is that the individual is equal, therefore can do whatever they want independent of shared cultural values or reality itself.

As a result, liberalism takes on any value that is compatible with a rejection of allegiance larger than the self. It can for example embrace capitalism, in its consumerist form that says all business exists to serve the individual’s whims and fancies.

Ironically, because individualism is based in the individual, it tends toward groupthink because it unites people who have nothing in common except a desire to be “free.” This idea of being free implies two things: (a) a desire to have no goal and (b) someone or something obstructing that non-goal.

This creates a mob of people linked by their desire to not be part of a group. One of the reasons liberalism is so hard to diagnose and remove is that it is fundamentally paradoxical. “We’re all individualists, so we formed a lobbyist group called Liberalism, now you must obey!”

As time goes on, even the descendants of the most dim-witted peasants are starting to realize that like the advertising on television, liberalism is not telling us the whole story. It’s telling us what it wants to sell us (freedom) but forgetting to mention that the cost of freedom is slavery.

Before the Great Crash, critics of globalisation were isolated on the loony fringe: tear-gassed in Seattle and whacked with truncheons in Prague, as the west’s leaders gathered to congratulate themselves on reaping the benefits of unfettered world trade.

…From the Indignados in Spain, who have espoused the cause of the 50% of young Spaniards now out of a job, to the Occupy movements that have sprung up in New York, London and scores of other cities around the world, to the villagers in Guangdong, China, protesting against government land-grabs, many thousands of discontented citizens are making their anger felt about the way the system has failed them.

The demands of these inchoate groups may not be fully formed; but they have noisily identified the fact that there is something deeply wrong with today’s world economic system, which puts unfathomable riches in the hands of an unaccountable elite, while millions are trapped in unemployment and poverty. – “We can now see the true cost of globalisation” by Staff, The Guardian

In a double irony, the editorial above shows the problem with most revolutions: they imitate the order that went before as it is all they know. This editorial argues for an end to globalism by using the ideology that created globalism.

Our problem is not elites. It’s not proles either. The problem is equality itself, which when applied to human populations inevitably creates a breakaway group of “individualists” who then insist on a destruction of all shared purpose, value or goals. It is the anti-civilization, the ego out of control.

It is also inevitable that liberalism would create Internationalism — sorry, I used the 1930s word for it; I mean Globalism. The essence of globalism is the notion that national borders and customs should not obstruct the individual from fulfilling its whims and fancies, and if we have to unite global business to do this, well so much the better. It is after all more efficient to have a Wal-mart or Taco Bell than a local Mom n’ Pop shop.

Taken together, the 1% and the 99% form a political entity that systematically eliminates anything but itself. It wants government to protect the individual from any obligations but its own whims, and to balance that with commerce so everyone has money, because money is freedom. It consumes all in its path.

Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No‑o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”

As we try desperately to extricate ourselves from the consequences of that philosophy, which sounds so eminently reasonable (“giving everybody a fair share”, the President called it), we could tell America a thing or two – if it would only listen. Human beings are so much more complicated than this childlike conception of fairness assumes. When government takes away an ever larger proportion of the wealth which entrepreneurial activity creates and attempts to distribute it “fairly” (that is to say, evenly) throughout society in the form of welfare programmes and public spending projects, the effects are much, much more complex and perverse than a simple financial equation would suggest.

It is probably obvious that the people from whom the wealth is taken will become less willing to incur the risks that entrepreneurial investment involves – and so will produce less wealth, and thus less tax revenue. But more surprising, perhaps, are the damaging changes that take place in the beneficiaries of this “fairness” and the permanent effect this has on the balance of power between government and the people. – “Barack Obama is trying to make the US a more socialist state” by Janet Daley, The Telegraph

In the name of the meek, and penalizing the strong, we re-create the order which defies us all by destroying the civilization we need to actualize our dreams. We need stability that comes from having culture and values and a shared goal. We need it as a backdrop, as a support system and as a common language. Without it we can be individualists, sure, but in a meaningless cardboard existence.

It’s time we stopped beating around the bush and started to admit the obvious. Liberalism is globalism; globalism is liberalism. Our efforts in the name of the poor and downtrodden have created the most oppressive system of government ever envisioned. Our justifications in the name of the individual have created the most monstrous groupthink ever conceptualized.

In fact, all of politics is a ceremony of opposites. Individualism creates groupthink. Liberalism creates calcification. Freedom creates slavery. Justice creates the police state. Every time the human mind intervenes, we seem to create the opposite of what we wanted.

We need to pick a new path. Every time someone says that, the “wise” pundits trot out the same old justifications of individualism and the meek/poor. I suggest our new starting point should be designing a society for the 100%, not the poor, who inevitably become an empty symbol for the next generation of authoritarians.

24 Comments

  1. Jason says:

    Brett, how you can ever write so often, and so beautifully, on the death of civilization without wanting to blow your own head off is beyond me. I need to take breaks from the insanity of life and just enjoy walking dogs, writing, and making art.

    I get so fucking depressed at the bleak outlook for the future. I’ve been really channeling that emotion into something positive, my book on the atomized hedonist lost male

    1. Ryan says:

      sounds good, sounds like our lives eh? ol’ nihilistic hedonism its way more engaging than regular hedonism, because we can’t stop laughing at how stupid everything is.

      1. Jason says:

        Yes. Things are incredibly backwards.

        For example, I know a girl who is very attractive. She likes to front as if she is a very classy and hard-to-get girl. She will have men show up to court her with flowers, with expensive dinners, weekend trips. She laughs and calls them names behind their backs. Her and her friends refer to these guys as “creepers” and such, the ones who take her out.

        Meanwhile, when I met her and hung out with her the first few times, I assumed(correctly)she is just the type of chick who puts on a public face but has no real virtues or rules for herself. These are the majority of women I meet. I texted her a photo of my dick soon after I met her, and her response was to text me back photos of herself. We ended up hooking up a few times and we’re still friend and hang out.

        What gets me is that the guys that take her out and spend the time and effort on getting to know her are the ones her and her friends call creepers. I show her my dick soon after we meet, and I’m the guy who gets a pass, gets the reward, and the friendship with her and her friends? How the fuck does this work? I feel like the whole world is broken and backwards.

        1. Nicholas Marville says:

          How true, how accurate. I really have nothing else to add other than what you just wrote – the whole world should read it.

        2. A. Realist says:

          “I feel like the whole world is broken and backwards.”

          Humanity is at least, but only because we made a very bad decision to go down the path of liberalism (and perhaps the arrogance that is atheism, which is different from agnosticism).

        3. Eric says:

          Not sure what to say, but I couldn’t even muster up the gall to text my unit to someone just like that. I suppose if that is what it takes these days, then I’m getting a lot less than I could. But something tells me that at the end of it all I need to face my maker and be at peace with how I lived my life. I cannot just jump on the bandwagon of a narcissistic society and be like the rest just because “everyone else is doing it”. Not judging your behavior here, obviously it worked for you. But it makes me wonder if this is what cuts the mustard today, where are we headed?? Of course, that seems to be a main point of a lot of the discourse here.

    2. Sgt. Slaughter says:

      Chin up! No time to get depressed now! Up and at ‘em, dammit!

      P.S. please don’t write another book on the atomized hedonist lost male.

  2. Mihai says:

    This article hits the point.

    In the name of humanism and individualism modern (anti)civilization has become the tyranny of the whims and short-term pleasures of an amorphous, leveled mass of mediocre individuals.

    What’s most paradoxical in our time is that liberals attack and subject every single thing to debate. Even rock solid and radically non-relative issues such as gender : http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4075523/Its-a-boy-Couple-reveal-sex-of-their-gender-neutral-kid-after-five-years.html

    The only thing they NEVER want to subject to debate is their own dogmas of equality, diversity and individualism.

    1. Nicholas Marville says:

      As often, Mihai is entirely right. Mihai, I hope that you have some influential job so that you can speak to your subordinates every day and point all of this out, so that those subordinates in turn pass it onto their children.

      Regardless of whether the proposals of Obama for more tax on the rich is fair, we have to consider the following: Even in my country, government is cutting cost on lots of things; army, foreign aid, healthcare, and still the costs continue to rise. We have rightists at the wheel yet the state continues to demand more tax-income, regardless of its political colour. The political leaders sure as hell do not wish it, yet life is getting more expensive; you are obliged to have an ensurance, yet you have to pay more and more money for less and less services. This is a perfectly legitimate cause to get angry over. Governments are endebted and entangled to banks, and banks deal in money that doesn’t even exist; credit that’s not to be found in the money pool. Yet the money that comes from taxation is very real as it comes from wages and thus from the money pool.

      You have to consider the following; what are our cultural roots? Good literature, such as Shakespeare, important writing done by men such as Orwell and De Tocqueville, art created by the Ancients, Raphael, and more. Yet no-one is going to study this any longer because life is getting so expensive and we all seem to want some “business” job just to afford it all.

      Who are the ultra, super-rich that are gonna be taxed by Obama? They are in charge of the firms like Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. Definitely not Mom ‘n Pop shops. In those globalist firms everything is standardized by routine and protocol, and it requires a minimum of independent thinking.

      A friend of mine lived in Australia for a few years and he said the following: “In Australia, you get into the plane, fly for five hours, get out and everything around you is just like the place you just left. In Europe, that’s not the case.” I met some Americans, Canadians, Australians, and this is my conclusion: They’re overal good-willing folk that you can have small laughs with, chitchat about life and make polite conversation, and that’s about it really. They don’t get much more below the surface than that. They’re sort of “interchangeable feelgood conversation people”. Hope I don’t offend anyone with that. It’s sort of a civilization I guess. The New Civilization.

  3. qwerty says:

    I was just wondering why dont you try writing on some practical issues..like what will you do if a theif breaks into you home, how would you tackle him, or how to handle naughty kids(not ur own) disturbing you in work will u handle him like a leftst,rightist,libral….m not saying the topic you speak on are useless or boring,they nicely written interesting topic..but it will be intersting to see intelligent authors talking a bit about pragmatic angle to life rather than ideological angle…..

    1. Nicholas Marville says:

      This article should satisfy some of your wishes, as it talks about raising kids in a practical sense:

      http://www.amerika.org/globalism/chinese-and-western-modes-of-upbringing/

      1. ferret says:

        Thanks for the link. My wife has a good experience of teaching in three countries; she shared with me a similar observations. I should show her your post. I enjoyed it so much.

        1. Nicholas Marville says:

          I would appreciate it, friend.

      2. qwerty says:

        thanku for the link…….hope to see more articles in this line

  4. Oznoto says:

    The forces that aggregate cultures cannot be organized or forced. They arrise out of necessity, and disintegrate out of superfluity. They can be (and often are) however built on false or inadequate foundations which will surely crumble or rot.

    As near as I can tell, there is an inversely proportional relationship between quantity and quality. This is an underlying universal principle, which well applies to human population dynamics. The more of us there are, the less we’re worth.

    In other words “The quality of the incarnating spirits diminish with the quantity of the bodies being bred.” Compound that with the fact that less intelligent people outbreed more intelligent people by a wide margin; add TV and you have a perfect prescription for dumbing down humanity.

    I have been reading your weblog regularly for the last year. I find it intelligent and useful. This is my first written comment here. There will probably be more to follow. To quote Spock: “Be well and prosper”.

  5. EvilBuzzard says:

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183

    Brett, I’m here to inform you that everything GOOD is LIBERAL. /sarc)

    No really, all goodness is a version of a giant software program called Liberalism.

    The Glorious Revolution – Liberalism 1.0.
    The American Revolution – Liberalism 2.0.
    Universal Sufferage and Manumission – Liberalism 3.0.
    The New Deal – Liberalism 4.0.
    The Great Society – Liberalism 5.0.

    I mean what do you say to such utter innanity. That’s a mind-screw w/ Dirk Diggler’s phallus. The delusion is complete and all-encompassing.

  6. CorkyAgain says:

    There’s nothing in this article that hasn’t been said before.

    But it’s worth repeating anyway.

    I doubt it will reach many who aren’t already convinced, at some level, of the things it says.

    For some of us, it’s a catechism, teaching the principles and logic behind our beliefs.

    For others, it’s a necessary kind of ritual, reciting and re-affirming our creed, so we do not forget it.

    Keep on writing!

  7. Kinderling says:

    The Liberal is their “good” side and the Libertarian their “dark” side. To never suffer the rights of anyone, and have the rights to never suffer from anyone. Welfare raised.

    1. A. Realist says:

      Quite interesting. Both sides point to anarchy where the individual takes precedence over any kind of social order, except the social order of tolerance.

  8. Nicholas Marville says:

    Quoting the article:
    “Liberalism . . . Its one concept is that the individual is equal, therefore can do whatever they want independent of shared cultural values . . . As a result, liberalism takes on any value that is compatible with a rejection of allegiance larger than the self.”

    Let’s analyze this for a second. For example; homosexuality. A Christian might say: “The Bible says it’s abominable, so our society should not endorse homosexuality.” A Liberal might say: “Homosexuality doesn’t do damage to anyone, so our society should accept homosexuality.” So there, you have it, Liberalism says the individual could do whatever he wants as long as it doesn’t damage anyone, regardless of cultural values.

    Then, things get more complicated. For example, Liberalism has the idea that, through voting, we can all transfer some of our legitimacy to public representatives who then vote for us in assemblies. These laws are declared sovereign, and nobody may violate them, or punishment follows. These laws are the outcome of compromise, yet every individual is supposed to follow the law, regardless of his values and personal beliefs. So in that sense, Liberalism DOES think that the democratic procedure can empower a decision with a sovereignty that transcends the individual preference.

    Again, quoting the article:
    “Liberalism takes on any value that is compatible with a rejection of allegiance larger than the self.”
    This means that Liberalism cannot be identified with Socialism, Marxism, Communism, because all these philosophies are collectivist in nature; they say the individual should transfer some of his rights to do service to the greater whole. Do labour for the state, become an altruist, etc, like some party members of Socialist parties transfer the fees they get from their political positions to the party coffers. They probably recognize their party’s dogma as a higher authority than themselves as individuals.

    1. Kinderling says:

      “Let’s analyze this for a second…” the asshole serves no other evolutionary purpose than to poop. (Not that Richard Dawkins would know).

      What makes it attractive to abuse or for self-abuse is for psychologists to explain if they were not so intimidated to declare blindness when overlorded by a “Free”-World Stazi.

      What made it even a passing care is for philosophers to untangle. (Not that Christopher Hitchens (RIP) knew).

      Religions of antiquity just knew it killed you, hence it became non-kosher.

      1. ferret says:

        “the asshole serves no other evolutionary purpose than to poop.”

        You are ascribing here a purpose to the evolution, while the evolution is a merely theory describing how (not for what purpose) the species originate/change.

        Men wash their teeth though they are for chewing. Maybe the asshole requires some maintenance also.

        1. Kinderling says:

          Hence the pejorative “dumbass” comes to mind.

  9. ferret says:

    “for the 100%, not the poor”

    Polity vs Democracy?

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.693 seconds