Uh, there isn't a contradiction between Liberalism and our treatment of Islam.
I despair reading through the threads on the frontpage as people attempt to reconcile contradictions and determine how much condemnation of Islam is an appropriately 'liberal' amount.
There is no Liberal contradiction, we haven't been Liberal since the end of the Great Depression. Liberalism doesn't protect Islam, Progressivism does. Liberalism didn't institute mass immigration, Progressivism did. The battle we're fighting isn't about Islam, it's about Liberalism vs. Progressivism - THIS is the debate 'the West' needs to start having.
It's a battle which encompasses Progressivism’s corresponding proxies (men vs women, nationalism vs. globalism, relativism vs absolutism, etc.). Identity is merely Progressivism's conduit for global government and the erosion of social unity and it cares nothing for individualism. Liberalism is about individualism and cares nothing for identity.
Progressivism doesn’t actually oppose racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia or any other identity it cares to co-opt to further its cause (global government) - Progressivism is about technocracy, global government, social sciences (many of which it invented), the dissolution of individualism and opposition to social unity.
Its opposition to racism stops at the border of white victims and non-white perpetrators, its opposition to homophobia stops at the border of a Communist tyrant, its opposition to xenophobia stops at the border of hating western nation-states (or accentuating and repeating the 'barbarity' of western nation-states), its opposition to sexism stops at the border of male victims or female perpetrators and its advocacy of women's rights stops at the border of Islam.
Why?
The breakthrough moment was second-wave feminism which used the politics of Marxism to determine 'white men' were the 'new bourgeoisie' and all penetration was 'oppression' ('don’t rely on your family, rely on the progressive state’). In sum, the Progressives deemed identity was a proxy for class warfare (internal conflict between groups) and global government and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
It was the worst political miscalculation of the 20th century, and that's saying something (and it's why we have the problems we face today).
It's also why we have mass immigration. The output of 'white men' doesn't vote for Progressivism, state power or the dissolution of social unity, and feminists hate that. It's why Labour spent most of its time disembowelling every immigration policy in sight.
To further hammer home the point, in the 1920s it was the progressives who advocated in favour of eugenics (these policies served as the blueprint for National Socialism's policies on eugenics in the 1930s) and 'liberal fascism.' They sterilised non-white people by invoking their 'educated' interpretation of Darwinism. Fast forward 100 years and the same intellectual structure applies as has always applied with those eager to institute statism and authoritarianism - another identity is at fault (it doesn't really matter which one, it's always the same tactic; ie, if its not the Jews it's black people, if it's not black people it's white men).
Today, according to 'progressivism' (they've always got to have their pure and evil identity types), it's 'the white man' who is 'genetically inferior' owed to his predisposition to warfare and his 'innate privilege' and thus in need of 'diversification.'
'Truth' and 'justice', to Progressivism, is filtered by the identity of the perpetrator or victim, or its own political objectives. Consistency, as far as the progressive is concerned, is tantamount to bigotry. Under their relativist framework, it's 'ethnocentric' to judge another's culture - when extended, this leads to it being deemed 'ethnocentric' to interfere with a National Socialist's right to perpetrate the holocaust.
Under the progressive tyranny, slavery isn't wrong, enslaving non-white people is wrong (omit the Barbary slave trade); rape isn't wrong, rape by white men is wrong (omit Cologne); homophobia isn't wrong, homophobia by Christianity is wrong (omit Castro); an unequal distribution isn't wrong, unequal distributions in favour of white men are wrong (omit primary school teachers).
If it's about 'in-group' social unity or individuality, Progressivism wants to eviscerate it. From golf clubs to Christianity, from world-class scientists (Matt Taylor) to Nobel prize winners (Tim Hunt), no-one and nothing is spared their puritanical, demoralising relativism.
Liberalism (individualism), on the other hand, has nothing to do with identity. Progressivism - which is what our institutions universally subscribe to, and we are a one 'ideology' continent - is anti-liberal. Progressivism (collectivism) is about identity and has always opposed classical liberalism (individualism).
It's important to understand progressivism has no principles - nothing is consistent. Where nothing is consistent everything can be, and has been, justified (sexual assault, murder, rape, etc.)
THIS is the reason we've arrived at this impasse and it is, ironically, due to the demise of religion (I'm agnostic before anyone attacks my identity) - with no absolute moral framework, the individual becomes their own moral arbiter and a relativist.
Worse yet, the individual relies on the Progressive state to institute what is or is not moral. If anyone wanted to ensure the return of actual fascism (Islam, eg, extreme social unity) to the European continent, Progressivism would be their strategy of choice.
There is no Liberal contradiction, we haven't been Liberal since the end of the Great Depression. Liberalism doesn't protect Islam, Progressivism does. Liberalism didn't institute mass immigration, Progressivism did. The battle we're fighting isn't about Islam, it's about Liberalism vs. Progressivism - THIS is the debate 'the West' needs to start having.
It's a battle which encompasses Progressivism’s corresponding proxies (men vs women, nationalism vs. globalism, relativism vs absolutism, etc.). Identity is merely Progressivism's conduit for global government and the erosion of social unity and it cares nothing for individualism. Liberalism is about individualism and cares nothing for identity.
Progressivism doesn’t actually oppose racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia or any other identity it cares to co-opt to further its cause (global government) - Progressivism is about technocracy, global government, social sciences (many of which it invented), the dissolution of individualism and opposition to social unity.
Its opposition to racism stops at the border of white victims and non-white perpetrators, its opposition to homophobia stops at the border of a Communist tyrant, its opposition to xenophobia stops at the border of hating western nation-states (or accentuating and repeating the 'barbarity' of western nation-states), its opposition to sexism stops at the border of male victims or female perpetrators and its advocacy of women's rights stops at the border of Islam.
Why?
The breakthrough moment was second-wave feminism which used the politics of Marxism to determine 'white men' were the 'new bourgeoisie' and all penetration was 'oppression' ('don’t rely on your family, rely on the progressive state’). In sum, the Progressives deemed identity was a proxy for class warfare (internal conflict between groups) and global government and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
It was the worst political miscalculation of the 20th century, and that's saying something (and it's why we have the problems we face today).
It's also why we have mass immigration. The output of 'white men' doesn't vote for Progressivism, state power or the dissolution of social unity, and feminists hate that. It's why Labour spent most of its time disembowelling every immigration policy in sight.
To further hammer home the point, in the 1920s it was the progressives who advocated in favour of eugenics (these policies served as the blueprint for National Socialism's policies on eugenics in the 1930s) and 'liberal fascism.' They sterilised non-white people by invoking their 'educated' interpretation of Darwinism. Fast forward 100 years and the same intellectual structure applies as has always applied with those eager to institute statism and authoritarianism - another identity is at fault (it doesn't really matter which one, it's always the same tactic; ie, if its not the Jews it's black people, if it's not black people it's white men).
Today, according to 'progressivism' (they've always got to have their pure and evil identity types), it's 'the white man' who is 'genetically inferior' owed to his predisposition to warfare and his 'innate privilege' and thus in need of 'diversification.'
'Truth' and 'justice', to Progressivism, is filtered by the identity of the perpetrator or victim, or its own political objectives. Consistency, as far as the progressive is concerned, is tantamount to bigotry. Under their relativist framework, it's 'ethnocentric' to judge another's culture - when extended, this leads to it being deemed 'ethnocentric' to interfere with a National Socialist's right to perpetrate the holocaust.
Under the progressive tyranny, slavery isn't wrong, enslaving non-white people is wrong (omit the Barbary slave trade); rape isn't wrong, rape by white men is wrong (omit Cologne); homophobia isn't wrong, homophobia by Christianity is wrong (omit Castro); an unequal distribution isn't wrong, unequal distributions in favour of white men are wrong (omit primary school teachers).
If it's about 'in-group' social unity or individuality, Progressivism wants to eviscerate it. From golf clubs to Christianity, from world-class scientists (Matt Taylor) to Nobel prize winners (Tim Hunt), no-one and nothing is spared their puritanical, demoralising relativism.
Liberalism (individualism), on the other hand, has nothing to do with identity. Progressivism - which is what our institutions universally subscribe to, and we are a one 'ideology' continent - is anti-liberal. Progressivism (collectivism) is about identity and has always opposed classical liberalism (individualism).
It's important to understand progressivism has no principles - nothing is consistent. Where nothing is consistent everything can be, and has been, justified (sexual assault, murder, rape, etc.)
THIS is the reason we've arrived at this impasse and it is, ironically, due to the demise of religion (I'm agnostic before anyone attacks my identity) - with no absolute moral framework, the individual becomes their own moral arbiter and a relativist.
Worse yet, the individual relies on the Progressive state to institute what is or is not moral. If anyone wanted to ensure the return of actual fascism (Islam, eg, extreme social unity) to the European continent, Progressivism would be their strategy of choice.
There is a difference between the UK and the US vis a vis the term " liberal." In the US it is conflated with "progressive" and the Democrats.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
Original post by astutehirstute
There is a difference between the UK and the US vis a vis the term " liberal." In the US it is conflated with "progressive" and the Democrats.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
Mostly agreed, however in UK party terms, the Greens, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are all progressive - as are the Tories, albeit less so (they too are incapable of analysing anything beyond identity politics). The entire Higher Education sector is progressive and beholden to diversity eugenics, as are our public institutions.
Even our national broadcaster, which deems itself impartial (because it deems Progressivism gave society to the 'left' and the economy to the 'right'), is fundamentally progressive and filters all news output dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or victim (if it's a non-white victim/white perpetrator then it's accentuated and repeated; if it's a white male victim or a non-white perpetrator it's omitted or rationalised).
The relativist bigotry of articles like 'do we need men?' and 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again' is something to behold, particularly when it comes from anti-liberal Progressives who deem themselves virtuous.
These are the same people who express no moral outrage over comments like those from Lena Dunham (a woman who writes for the Guardian and appears on the BBC), when she calls for the extinction of white men.
I'm sure I've read bits of this word for word somewhere else. The "stops at the border" paragraph.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
I'm sure I've read bits of this word for word somewhere else. The "stops at the border" paragraph.
Probably on here. Ssssshhhh.
Apparently modern liberalism means that you have to accept everything and you can't be critical of anything. Yeah, let more immigrants into Euriope - who cares if their cultures are incompatible and there is a bit of a rape spree? Let's just ignore that as mentioning anything about it is islamophobic. Yeah, let's normalise paedophilia and let them babysit our kids.
Original post by YaliaV
Apparently modern liberalism means that you have to accept everything and you can't be critical of anything. Yeah, let more immigrants into Euriope - who cares if their cultures are incompatible and there is a bit of a rape spree? Let's just ignore that as mentioning anything about it is islamophobic. Yeah, let's normalise paedophilia and let them babysit our kids.
It isn't 'modern liberalism' though, it has nothing to do with liberalism; it's progressivism. The distinction is incredibly important because it's also the solution.
Progressivism has always opposed classical liberalism (individualism and the small state). It believes society is made up of collectives (eg, 'white men', 'black men', 'homosexuals', etc.,) and everyone who isn't a 'white man' is a natural ally of 'progressivism' and their warped plan to impose technocracy, global government and the 'big state' on western civilisation.
Progressivism believes the state should be involved in every facet of our life, and it's now the ideology of every party in the UK (because classical liberals gave up fighting it).
The split in Liberalism came much earlier than you suggest, Social Liberalism arose in the late 19th century but really came to prominence as a reaction to a number of economic downturns and the wider awareness of poverty and socialinjustice.
It also seems slightly odd to blame Social Liberalism for the problems of today when the dominant political ideology of the last 40 years has been neoliberalism, an which deserves much more scorn than it gets.
It also seems slightly odd to blame Social Liberalism for the problems of today when the dominant political ideology of the last 40 years has been neoliberalism, an which deserves much more scorn than it gets.
Original post by iRational
Even our national broadcaster, which deems itself impartial (because it deems Progressivism gave society to the 'left' and the economy to the 'right'
, is fundamentally progressive and filters all news output dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or victim (if it's a non-white victim/white perpetrator then it's accentuated and repeated; if it's a white male victim or a non-white perpetrator it's omitted or rationalised)
.
Even our national broadcaster, which deems itself impartial (because it deems Progressivism gave society to the 'left' and the economy to the 'right'
, is fundamentally progressive and filters all news output dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or victim (if it's a non-white victim/white perpetrator then it's accentuated and repeated; if it's a white male victim or a non-white perpetrator it's omitted or rationalised).
Agreed. The BBC is beyond parody nowadays. The phrase that REALLY annoys me is "so called Islamic State." Who are they to decide that?
Whenever I hear it I feel like throwing my so called shoe at the so called television screen...
Original post by astutehirstute
There is a difference between the UK and the US vis a vis the term " liberal." In the US it is conflated with "progressive" and the Democrats.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
In the UK it has a distinct meaning going back to John Stuart Mill, perhaps even Locke. It encompasses right wing Labour, the LDs and the modern Tory party.
Progressivism is indeed different from liberalism. It is a pernicious political creed that has reached high tide, thank God, and is receding. In UK party terms only the Labour Party is progressive now and they are politicallly irrelevant.
The Tories liberal?
Are you joking? May wants a big state and social conservatism.
Maybe the likes of Hannan are liberal but not the bulk of the Tory party.
but isn't progressivism about progress
Original post by realestnga99
but isn't progressivism about progress
Progress towards what?
Original post by Bornblue
The Tories liberal?
Are you joking? May wants a big state and social conservatism.
Maybe the likes of Hannan are liberal but not the bulk of the Tory party.
Are you joking? May wants a big state and social conservatism.
Maybe the likes of Hannan are liberal but not the bulk of the Tory party.
The Tories are anti-liberal progressives; they don't have a social conservative bone in their bodies. The very notion that a party which legislates in favour of feminism, the environment, LGBT rights and speaks against 'white men' and equality of opportunity is 'social conservative' is absolutely absurd.
They have an 'Equality Minister' and a Minister for Women, FFS - they are anti-liberal and progressive through and through. May has even commented on their being 'too many white men' in the fire service. If this is social conservatism then I'm the Queen.
Then again, I'd estimate 90% of Parliament is progressive.
(edited 7 years ago)
>Thinks White people don't vote progressive.
You must be one of those blue collar conservative Whites.
A better model would be to view the White liberal intelligentsia as an asexual clergy class which has to convert the non-Whites before they themselves go extinct, unfortunately for the left, the right has returned and they can't convert faster than Orthodox Jews and Salafis can make babies so it really is good night progressives and I welcome this.
You must be one of those blue collar conservative Whites.
A better model would be to view the White liberal intelligentsia as an asexual clergy class which has to convert the non-Whites before they themselves go extinct, unfortunately for the left, the right has returned and they can't convert faster than Orthodox Jews and Salafis can make babies so it really is good night progressives and I welcome this.
Original post by iRational
The Tories are anti-liberal progressives; they don't have a social conservative bone in their bodies. The very notion that a party which legislates in favour of feminism, the environment, LGBT rights and speaks against 'white men' and equality of opportunity is 'social conservative' is absolutely absurd.
They have an 'Equality Minister' and a Minister for Women, FFS - they are anti-liberal and progressive through and through. May has even commented on their being 'too many white men' in the fire service. If this is social conservatism then I'm the Queen.
Then again, I'd estimate 90% of Parliament is progressive.
They have an 'Equality Minister' and a Minister for Women, FFS - they are anti-liberal and progressive through and through. May has even commented on their being 'too many white men' in the fire service. If this is social conservatism then I'm the Queen.
Then again, I'd estimate 90% of Parliament is progressive.
There's some truth in that.
The Tories are a very broad church to use the cliche though. There are quite a few liberals amongst them. They just get whipped.
Funnily enough the guy who left them to join UKIP and has now become an independent is in many ways a classical liberal. Douglas Carswell.
Original post by astutehirstute
Funnily enough the guy who left them to join UKIP and has now become an independent is in many ways a classical liberal. Douglas Carswell.
Funnily enough the guy who left them to join UKIP and has now become an independent is in many ways a classical liberal. Douglas Carswell.
There's also truth in that. Mind you, the man is also delusional and a bit of a ****.
Original post by iRational
Even our national broadcaster, which deems itself impartial (because it deems Progressivism gave society to the 'left' and the economy to the 'right', is fundamentally progressive and filters all news output dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or victim (if it's a non-white victim/white perpetrator then it's accentuated and repeated; if it's a white male victim or a non-white perpetrator it's omitted or rationalised).
The relativist bigotry of articles like 'do we need men?' and 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again' is something to behold, particularly when it comes from anti-liberal Progressives who deem themselves virtuous.
Even our national broadcaster, which deems itself impartial (because it deems Progressivism gave society to the 'left' and the economy to the 'right'
, is fundamentally progressive and filters all news output dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or victim (if it's a non-white victim/white perpetrator then it's accentuated and repeated; if it's a white male victim or a non-white perpetrator it's omitted or rationalised). The relativist bigotry of articles like 'do we need men?' and 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again' is something to behold, particularly when it comes from anti-liberal Progressives who deem themselves virtuous.
Original post by astutehirstute
Agreed. The BBC is beyond parody nowadays. The phrase that REALLY annoys me is "so called Islamic State." Who are they to decide that?
Whenever I hear it I feel like throwing my so called shoe at the so called television screen...
Whenever I hear it I feel like throwing my so called shoe at the so called television screen...
The BBC has been taken over by progressive idealogues, it seems. And it's the same over here in Canada with our CBC. You can't trust them anymore. If they aren't publishing propaganda about racism and gender, for example, they're manipulatively reporting current events to make it look like the progressives are the good guys and their political opponents the bad guys. It's disgraceful.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- could someone mark this politics edexcel alevel essay please?
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Converting to Islam...but I'm white
- TSR I-SOC (Islamic Society) Mk. XVII
- Do Muslims go to therapy and get eating disorder treatment?
- proof by contradiction
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- Christianity
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- .
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- Muslim convert, how do I tell my family?
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- Answer please
- ocr history y318 russia and its rulers
- Hi
- Aalimah or hifdh?
- What degree do you have no respect for?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?