Two scenarios of the end of liberalism: mass apostasy, or a Western civil war to the death
(Also see Tim W.’s comment below and my reply.)
Terry M . writes:
Have you ever thought of applying your principles of separationism to Western liberals and liberalism?
Now, I understand that we can’t physically isolate them (liberals) or it (liberalism) as with Islam and Islamists, and I’m having a hard time articulating what I’m thinking here, but has this thought ever occurred to you; that there are connections, or similarities, and that maybe the doctrine of separationism could be applied in a similar way to liberalism?
It seems to me that we have two clear and present dangers here, Islam and Liberalism. Might the principles of separationism be suited to deal with them both?
It’s a serious problem. All along I’ve worked with the hopeful possibility that as the suicidal nature of liberalism becomes more and more apparent under the pressure of the ongoing destruction of our civilization resulting from liberalism, liberalism would be abandoned and our society would have a chance to defend and restore itself.
The problem with my scenario is that it assumes that liberalism would be completely discredited and abandoned and lose all power. But it’s unlikely to happen that way. What is more likely is that there would be enough abandonment of liberalism for a genuinely non-liberal politics to become influential in the mainstream, pushing non-liberal solutions to such problems as Islam, Hispanic immigration, and so on. At this point, the remaining liberals, who would still be very numerous, would see the threat to liberalism and be aroused as never before to fight with all their might against it. Thus at the very moment when the West for the first time would be seriously trying to defend its existence, the liberals would be doing everything they could to undercut that self-defense effort.
To use another analogy with Islam, just as President Bush’s plan to spread Western-style freedom to Muslims triggers greater jihadism than ever before, since Western-style freedom is a mortal threat to Islam, in the same way, the attempt to overthrow liberalism will trigger a more destructive brand of liberalism than anything ever seen before.
The insight that any attempt to reform the Muslim world will trigger greater Islamic resistance, leads to the conclusion that the only solution to the Islam problem is the separation and isolation of the Muslim world.
As you have pointed out, there would not seem to be any equivalent of the above in the case of liberalism. Liberals are not geographically separate from us. They cannot be separated, isolated, contained.
It would appear, then, that there are only two main possibilities (though with many sub-variants):
Either there will be a mass apostasy from liberalism, with liberalism losing all serious credibility and power, giving the West a chance (not a certainty) of saving and restoring itself; or else the still-remaining and still-potent liberalism will fight to the death against any defense and renewal of Western civilization, leading to a civil war to the death within the West which would probably leave the civilization in ruins, even if our side won.
Just as the only way Islam can be permanently ended without a destructive war of the West against Islam is through the mass apostasy of Muslims, the only way liberalism can be permanently ended without a destructive conservative vs. liberal war within the West is through the mass apostasy of liberals. And the latter can only happen, as I’ve said, under the pressure of large-scale loss and suffering.
The only hopeful scenario is that our civilization will not have to be ruined before the mass apostasy from liberalism occurs.
(I’ve left out another scenario, which is that liberalism will fulfill its destiny by eagerly subordinating itself and the West to a new Western Caliphate.)
Terry M. replies:
As to your parenthetical scenario added at the bottom of your reply, I’ve read that scenario before, and I think you’ve shown evidence of this happening already in Europe. And this is the reason I find it vitally important to deal with the threat of liberalism now, on this continent, while we still have time. Whether the principles of separationism can be applied successfully, and in a way customized to the case of extreme liberal ideology is the question I was asking. In other words, is there any way to somehow combine forces to isolate liberalism so that it ceases to be a dominate force in American politics, which to me seems the only answer to the dilemma?
I believe I’ve answered the question with my three scenarios: I don’t see how the principles of separationism can be applied to liberalism.
Tim W. writes:
You suggested that if we were somehow to gain the upper hand over liberalism, it would breed an even more virulent strain of liberalism which would fight to the very end to destroy our civilization. We’ve seen that occur within the past decade. The election of Bush, combined with a Republican Congress, and the prospects of a more sensible Supreme Court, sent liberalism further into moonbat territory than ever. And this happened despite the fact that Bush isn’t really a conservative, and the accomplishments of the now-defunct GOP congress were minuscule. Imagine the hysteria if we had a real and effective conservative government.
We can’t separate from liberalism because liberals won’t allow us to separate. Their ultimate goal is world government The idea of allowing even a few conservative enclaves to survive is anathema to them. A conservative nation would be immediately quarantined and pressured into submission. Look at how Poland is being intimidated by the rest of Europe over its conservative attitude toward abortion and homosexuality. Look at the constant drumbeat at the UN for forcing liberal policies on the entire planet. Of course, certain exceptions are made for Islam, but we all know the reason for that. Look at what happened to South Africa and Rhodesia.
Within America, once a liberal policy becomes accepted in one region, the demand immediately arises to spread it nationwide. Once one or two states permitted legal abortion, the Supreme Court stepped in and imposed it everywhere. One state currently has same-sex “marriage”, and the left is working feverishly to force it on every other state via engineered judicial fiats. The few non-leftist media outlets in America, such as Fox News (neocon, but not outright leftist like CBS or the New York Times) and talk radio are under constant boycotts or threats of legislative censorship (“Fairness Doctrine”).
How does one escape from liberalism? How does one stop it when we’re fighting democratically (elections, open debate, local autonomy) and they aren’t (judicial & bureaucratic rule, suppression of dissent, centralized power)?
Well put. Tim is getting at the demonic nature of liberalism. The fact that liberalism increasingly insists on its absolute rule over everything in the cosmos, allowing no exceptions to itself, shows that we are dealing here not with an ordinary human error or sin, but with a demonic rebellion against nature and nature’s God. We are living through the apocalypse of liberalism, meaning the uncovering of liberalism’s true nature and the working out of its final destiny. The sheer evil of liberalism tells us that such evil could not exist unless there was a Good that it is rebelling against. Which further suggests that these events are not merely human. We have to do what we have to do, while recognizing that this is a drama the ultimate end of which is beyond the control of any human will or action.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 03, 2007 01:58 AM | Send