Thursday, May 09, 2019

Hitting Liberalism's Wall of Death

It is argued by some that US/Western Liberalism is the very best of all possible philosophic/political theories.   Well, it is, if you are not among the millions of dead victims of Liberalism.

This Liberalism is shared to one or another degree by Democrats, Libertarians, and establishment Republicans in marked contrast to Conservatives, who, while nominally "Republican" (due to voting choices) are the mysterious force behind Clinton's '16 loss and the victory of Hagedorn in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

...Children and family have always been a problem for liberal political theory, which is centered on autonomous adults. Children are not born free and rational, but dependent and irrational, and liberal political theory has long struggled to address human development and dependence.

In particular, the developing human person’s specific dependence on the mother is an insoluble problem for modern liberalism. Human life in the womb can only exist and develop by imposing upon the mother’s body, regardless of her consent. Modern liberalism will not accept this loss of bodily autonomy (even if it usually arises as a natural and predictable result of consensual sex) and has chosen to secure the mother’s rights under the liberal regime by negating the child’s right to life.
Liberalism cannot keep all of its promises. Thus, a political philosophy that began by claiming to defend rights and liberty for all ends, has started denying the rights of the most vulnerable, in an ironic twist. As a political theory for rational, autonomous adults, liberalism has no place for the dependent and disabled, against whom Western liberal nations are engaged in a quiet genocide....

Given that killing "problems"--born or not--is now the hallmark of Western Liberalism, and that killing "problems" is also the hallmark of totalitarian-fascist States such as Russia, Red China, Cambodia, Cuba, and in former times Hitler's Germany and Revolutionary France......Hmmm.  How shall we discern the difference?

...The populist backlash throughout the West is a symptom of this decadence, not its cause. Although populists often lack the theoretical acumen of a scholar like Deneen or the moral clarity of pro-life activists, they sense the decadence permeating the liberal order. They see it in the dissolution of national, as well as familial, bonds. It is evident in the casual acceptance, even celebration, of the destruction of local economies and communities in the service of globalization...
Yes.  It is more than a little irritating to listen to the RadioMouths who flapjaw incessantly about the Wonders of Wally-World Chinese junk while berating their neighbors for being unemployed (at least until Trump showed up and goosed jobs....)  Or hearing the Babbling Babes of Boob-osity/Feminazis chattering about the absolute requirement for women to "contribute" by showing up at an office instead of nurturing and raising children.

Yes, there's something wrong with them and the system they cheer.  What might that be?

...This civilizational exhaustion is exemplified by the liberal West facing demographic disaster. In a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, many people refuse to have children. Decadence is evident throughout the cultural and political elites of Western liberal nations. Examples of ineptitude, arrogance, insularity, and self-indulgence abound, and they are increasingly illiberal in their efforts to defend a desiccated and exhausted liberalism....
That "illiberalism" is translated "gun control" and "de-platforming."  Not coincidence, friends.

This will be a bumpy ride, friends.  Best pray harder.

No comments: