Wm. Lewis on Lawrence Auster on Christian Vulnerability to Liberalism

In a comment here at the Orthosphere, Wm. Lewis quotes Lawrence Auster to great effect in responding to the claim made by some that Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism:

*

Some commenters have observed, correctly, that formerly Protestant countries are in the vanguard of liberalism and its destruction of the West. This is due not to some defect within Protestantism; formerly Roman Catholic countries are also being destroyed by liberalism. We also see leaders within the Roman Catholic Church advancing liberal destruction (e.g., American bishops advocating open borders), so vulnerability to liberalism is unique neither to Protestantism nor to Roman Catholicism.

Whence this weakness to liberalism? Any number of factors could be cited, but one of the most important is the inherent risk, as Lawrence Auster put it, of Christian society:

Christian society is thus more complex—more differentiated, to use Eric Voegelin’s term—than any other. It is multileveled, mediating between the pole of the Christian, spiritual realm and the pole of political and cultural existence in this world, which does not come from Christianity itself. If the society loses its this-worldly pole it will go out of existence. This is the reason why Christian society is the riskiest and most dangerous type of society, the most open to catastrophic derailment, such as the derailment brought by modern liberalism. Yet Christianity’s this-worldly “lack,” which makes Christian society so vulnerable in comparison to the religiously structured society of traditional Judaism and Islam, is also the thing that, by requiring Christian society to be multileveled in order to function in this world, makes it the fullest and truest articulation of the human soul, extending downward to the apeirontic depths (the many) and upward to transcendent spiritual truth (the One).

Protestantism, being less grounded in concrete traditions than Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is therefore more susceptible to derailment than they are. However, precisely because it does not have (as many?) extra-biblical accretions, Protestantism, to the extent that it remains faithful to the inerrant Word of God (i.e., the Bible), is a truer expression of Christianity than other forms—in our estimation, of course. (I’m not trying to start up another argument over whose Christianity is true and whose is false; I’m just trying to give an explanation for the observed phenomena.) [AR: Remember that last sentence, partisans.]

Another relevant quote from Auster:

The great error of many modern Christians, especially low-church and evangelical Christians, but even many modern Catholics as well, is the belief that Christian faith by itself is sufficient for political as well as spiritual existence. And this has the danger I mentioned, that the faith of the New Testament, divorced from the particularity and concreteness of any political or cultural organization, devolves into a vapid, self-sacrificing universalism which spells the death of any earthly society.

When Christianity is divorced from tradition, then toxic elements, such as liberalism, can infect the society and de-Christianize it. This is why many of us call ourselves traditionalists: along with Christianity, we value our Western traditions and heritage, those very things that liberalism attempts to destroy.

[End of Mr. Lewis’s comment.]

I don’t expect these quotes from one of the Orthosphere’s patron saints to settle the dispute, but they remind us of the value of our Christian heritage: “…the fullest and truest articulation of the human soul…:

88 thoughts on “Wm. Lewis on Lawrence Auster on Christian Vulnerability to Liberalism

  1. … in responding to the claim made by some that Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism

    Or course, it matters greatly just what one means by “liberalism”.

    IF one is using the term correctly, then, of course, “Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism”.

    However, IF one is using the term incorrectly (as we tend to do in America) to refer to the smiley-face version of leftism, then it is the opposite of the truth tp say that “Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism”.

    And I suspect that that is why so many of the regulars here try to equate “rightism” with “leftism”. What are the terms these people use — “left-liberalism” and “right-liberalism”? or something like that. Essentially — and to make apparent the intellectual dishonesty involved — “left-leftism” and “right-leftism”.

    • As a Protestant, I recognize that “Protestantism” ultimately means “biblical doctrine.”

      So you’re affirming (I think) that “Biblical doctrine is the mother of liberalism.”

      Not buying it.

      • Once again, what do you mean by “liberalism”?

        If you’re using the term “liberalism” correctly, then, yes, “Biblical doctrine is the mother of liberalism.”

      • I mean by “liberalism” what the man in the street means by it.

        You don’t get to use a private definition.

      • Please!

        “The man in the street” is using a false “definition”, intentionally corrupted by the 20th century Progressives, and you know that.

        And, I’m not using a private definition in pointing out that “the man in the street” is using a false “definition”, and you know I’m not — which is why you people invented and promote such silly and intellectually dishonest terms as “right liberal” and “left liberal”.

        ===========
        Is equality before the Law (*) a Biblical doctrine, or is it not?

        It is, of course. And once just that *one* Biblical doctrine leavens a society, that society will be liberal (in the correct use of the term) and ultimately, it will be republican.

        (*) and I mean both the law of God and the law of the polis.

      • Your comment above appears to mean that you think “liberalism” is good.

        Well, the good parts of liberalism are good, but the bad parts (rebellion, nihilism, rejection of God) are bad.

        We affirm the good parts, and reject the bad parts.

        And currently “liberalism” mostly means the things that liberals (leftists) are currently fighting for, which are mostly bad. Very bad.

      • And since the essence of liberalism is rebellion against legitimate authority …

        This is false. It is, in fact, a lie.

      • The essence of contemporary liberalism is what I said. Contemporary liberals rebel against everything, including reality itself.

      • Or, perhaps the “recognition” that Protestantism accords with the Bible, is a petitio principii. Indeed, that is precisely the point at issue; Catholics regard Protestantism as the human ideology that made the very concept of an “authentic” doctrine into an absurdity for modern man. That is the point, more than any debate about whose doctrine is more biblical, per se.

        You said: “…formerly Protestant countries are in the vanguard of liberalism and its destruction of the West. This is due not to some defect within Protestantism; formerly Roman Catholic countries are also being destroyed by liberalism. We also see leaders within the Roman Catholic Church advancing liberal destruction…”

        This isn’t the right approach; neither I nor any orthodox Catholic I know, thinks Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism simply because their territories were at the vanguard of Liberalism. It’s true that where there’s gunsmoke, you’ll find a gun; but the gun is a matter of the principle, the ideological genesis of Liberalism; the place where it occurs is a mere crime scene, a matter of accident – it now occurs amongst Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, etc. Liberalism at its core is the notion that people have a “right” to form their own judgments about Truth, and that there is therefore a moral obligation on the part of the public/state to (more or less) accommodate this, irrespective of a more objective and transcendent standard (the mere idea of which, has consequently come to appear discredited). As Justice Kennedy so succinctly put it: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Thus, the only telos of the Liberal “society” becomes the abolition of all transcendent standards, and the only real brake upon this Leftward slide is the Overton Window or “ick factor.”

        Don Felix Sarda y Salvany asserted that Protestantism naturally gives birth to this because whatever it says about authority is, as in all Liberal systems, a matter of pure theory; in the real world, practically speaking, Scripture is interpreted like all the other data taken in by the senses and considered in the mind. So the key difference will be whether one brings a primarily private and human hermeneutic to the infallible data of Scripture and Tradition (and especially whether one insists upon this as a right), or whether one eschews such an hermeneutic and the sense of entitlement to it, in favor of a more objective, transcendent (and therefore authentic) authority. Obviously the private element of choice is not and can never be eliminated (a man chooses what and whom to believe, whether he be Protestant, Catholic or whatever). The question is about the grounds and application of this choice; personally choosing to submit to the intelligible judgments of an external hermeneutical authority, and private judgment as an hermeneutical method, are entirely different things, though both are done by the choice of a private individual. In Protestantism, people have the “right” to follow their own, best lights, and this mandates a social system that allows this – i.e., Liberalism, the system that inevitably cannibalizes authority for the sake of authoritarianism.

        Now, nobody doubts that modern “Catholicism” is in crisis and advances Liberalism with great efficiency. But this is precisely because modern “Catholicism” has become a Protestant sect, after four centuries of open and covert warfare against the culture of Christendom and the Church. Manifestly, most people who identify themselves as Catholics no longer believe (or even know about) a great many of the signal Catholic doctrines, and feel fully entitled to disagree with their authorities (and their authorities seem surprisingly fine – even pleased? – with that). Their new rites, laws and doctrines are advanced on the explicit grounds of seeking a greater sense of unity with the Protestant sects and even other religions (and are in some cases written by Protestants). More generally, the essence of the modern crisis of formerly Catholic institutions rests on attempts to privatize interpretation of the Magisterium under the cover of a modernized expression, a “pastoral approach” or “the rights of conscience.” Herein, the objective and transcendent norms of Catholic morality and doctrine are slighted, and the private assessment of “pastors” and private persons’ individual consciences, based on private circumstances, are exalted beyond all propriety – yet all while maintaining a purely theoretical recognition of the objective authority of the Magisterium, just as Protestantism practically employs a privatized hermeneutic while advancing a purely theoretical affirmation of biblical authority. The few conservatives (a deliberate term) who try to remain subject to this sectarian body in the mistaken belief that it is the Church, have to stretch their privatized “hermeneutic of continuity” further by the day – and even they have so etiolated a sense of Catholicity, that they regularly mistake heretical notions for conservative theological opinions, supporting the Constitution and holding “Fortnights of Religious Freedom” with as much fervor as any American, Confessional Protestant.

        So, even here, we find that the presence of Liberalism in nominally Catholic institutions corresponds precisely to the degree of Protestantization – either through explicitly Protestant influences and sympathies, or through the Protestant methodology of privatizing the hermeneutic despite protestations of reverence for theoretical authorities. I know you’ll disagree, but I post this simply as an honest reply to your argument. I’ve tried to do this in a civil and productive way, so I hope you’ll include it as a relevant contribution.

      • I appreciate the civil tone of this comment, and can approve it with no reservations, aureliusmoner.

        But you are mistaken to think that Protestantism adds a principle that people are allowed to disagree with the authorities. Protestantism and Catholicism are formally identical in the sense that both systems posit an ultimate earthly authority and give reasons for why this is the ultimate authority, and both systems have within themselves people who refuse to submit to the authority. At one time, both Protestant and Catholics authorities took steps to suppress heresy, but this rarely happens today.

        When you say that Protestantism is “pure theory” on the subject of authority, you mean ultimately that Protestantism lacks a Pope or other person or body which has a recognized right to enforce the rules. But this is only a defect if God intended for there to be such a body. And if also Scripture can be understood by the ordinary means of scholarship without ever having to appeal to the fiat pronouncements of an earthly authority or to an unwritten tradition or to a mystical experience, then the Protestant position has a fundamental integrity.

        In Protestantism, people have the “right” to follow their own, best lights…

        That’s the bastardized modern version of Protestantism, just as much of contemporary Catholicism is the bastardized modern version of Catholicism.

        You also say that your Church has been corrupted by liberalism rather than an originator (or co-originator) of it. But if so, doesn’t this show that Catholicism is not an effective solution to the problem of religious confusion? If the Pope cannot keep his ducks in a row, who can?

      • Protestants have decisively won the “private interpretation” debate. The only way we are able to resist Pope Francis’ heresies is by privately interpreting the previous Magisterium, proving that a living voice is not necessary nor even likely to be more reliable than our own reading of dead voices. And if one can understand Catholic doctrine by reading documents, one can understand the Bible, which is much shorter and less technical. There may be other strong arguments for the Catholic side of the Reformation debate, but this one is sunk.

      • Re: Protestants winning the “private interpretation” debate.

        Not really. The fact that positivism is false does not imply postmodernism. That moderns misunderstand the nature of the epistemic ‘problem’ doesn’t imply the equivalence of Protestant and Catholic hermeneutics.

      • We can’t be sure that positivism (the Protestant position–“It’s all there in black and white in the Bible.”) is true, but postmodernism (the Catholic argument–“How, oh how, can we ever know what anything written by a dead person means?”) is certainly untenable, at least if you don’t want to take Pope “Adultery Debt” as your unquestioned guide to the faith.

      • Bonald:
        But postmodernism is just a straw man of the Catholic understanding: the same basic epistemic antipattern as when liberals look at a modernist dictator and a king, and can’t tell the difference.

        A real monarchist doesn’t expect every monarch or even every dynasty to be particularly good.

        Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism guarantee that individual Catholics will arrive at true faith in true doctrines. (It should perhaps be noted that comprehensive grasp of true doctrines is rather far down on the list of important things in the daily lives and eternities of individual faithful – to think otherwise is already rather protoprotestant).

        But the Protestant hermeneutic rules out the possibility: it is a guarantee of error. It isn’t that you always get what you pay for; but you definitely don’t get what is not paid for.

      • “And if one can understand Catholic doctrine by reading documents, one can understand the Bible, which is much shorter and less technical. ”

        Nope. The Bible is shorter and less technical but MUCH MORE AMBIGUOUS AND FULL OF DIFFICULTIES, because it was written by people of a really ancient culture. Those people had a different way of expression from our own. It was more metaphorical, more paradoxal, less literal.

        This is why several interpretations are possible. This is why there are thousands of Protestant churches and only one Catholic doctrine. No mean to offend, Alan.

        Does the host contain the real flesh and blood of Christ? Several interpretations disagree over the same Bible text.

        Try the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. No ambiguity. Like reading a dictionary. Boring as hell. Not inspiring, like the Bible, but very clear. No room to disagree about the Blessed Presence if you accept the authority of the CCC, the way it happens with the Bible.

        Having said that, as a Catholic, I am sure that Leftism comes from classical Liberalism, which comes from Protestantism, which comes from Catholicism, which comes from Judaism. I don’t see any point in this debate. Leftism does not make Protestantism or Catholicism bad.

      • …several interpretations are possible.

        That’s right. And that’s a problem. But Rome is the solution only if she really does have the God-given authority she thinks she does and if she speaks clearly.

        This is why there are thousands of Protestant churches and only one Catholic doctrine. No mean to offend, Alan.

        None taken. I’ll just say that there are thousands of churches, but only one Westminster Confession of Faith 🙂

    • IF one is using the term correctly, then, of course, “Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism”.

      Which is what we have been saying all along. Protestantism is the mother of classical liberalism or what many American conservatives consider to be “conservatism” is just the liberalism of yesteryear. It seems to me that most conservative Protestants not only acknowledge this historical truth but are in fact proud of it.

      We see it here on the Orthosphere, people like Lydia, and Ilion are always act so exasperated when we go after their form of liberalism. I want to go after liberalism in all of its manifestations, its historical origins I find to be more of an academic interest. I don’t bring it up just to poke my thumb in Wm Lewis or Alan’s eyes.

      • The intent of the Reformation was to assert biblical teaching, against Rome if necessary.

        Catholics think that their (Capital-C) Church is the God-given authority over Christianity, and that therefore Protestantism is rebellion by definition.

        And since the essence of liberalism is rebellion against legitimate authority, the Catholic concludes that Protestantism is (the mother of) liberalism.

        But if Rome does not have the authority she thinks she does, then Protestantism is not rebellion by definition. Protestantism as a broad phenomenon may include a lot of rebellion, but that is not the essence of the Reformation.

        The essence of Protestantism is to assert true biblical teaching.

        That is not liberalism. Not by any sane definition of “liberalism,” that is.

      • Alan,

        I don’t think (classical) liberalism’s nexus to Protestantism is just simply that of rebellion for rebellion’s sake. I do think both share a common individualism that does undermine both civil and spiritual authority. That was De Maistre’s thesis. But there are other aspects that are perhaps even more important, even where Protestants were not intending to revolting against anything. In a variation of Weber’s Protestant ethic thesis, I find that Protestantism’s attack on monastisicm did much to pave the way for secularism. Protestantism’s emphasis on the active life at the expense of the contemplative life was a very necessary precondition for the rise of modern liberal economics which continues to have a tremendously disruptive effect on traditional socieities. As far as authority goes, I don’t expect you to accept the claims of the Catholic Church but I can’t see any denying that many of the liberal’s complaints are virtually identical with historical Protestantism- Rome is an illegitimate authority that tells people what to think. I acknowledge that liberalism certainly exaggerates the Protestant notion of conscience beyond all bounds, but liberal’s did not just get this out of a vaccum. The point being is that relationship is more intricate than might initially appear.

      • Yes, the relationship is very intricate. This post was mainly reacting against the simpleminded assertion that the Reformation was the primary cause of Liberalism.

        As for liberalism joining Protestantism in rejecting authority, there is one major difference between the two: Protestantism affirmed the authority of God and the Bible, along with lesser authorities such as pastors, theologians and princes. See, e.g., Luther versus the radical Anabaptists. Liberalism rejects all authority, at least in principle. In practice, it has to affirm some authority in order to have a barely tolerable social order.

        I think that there are two independent ideas here: One, that Rome has authority over Christendom and that the Reformation was a sinful rebellion. I reject that. Idea two would be that a loosening of even an illegitimate authority tends to induce people to rebel further. I can affirm this.

      • I find that Protestantism’s attack on monasticism did much to pave the way for secularism. Protestantism’s emphasis on the active life

        I’ve been wondering what happens to all the people who would have been in religious orders when religious orders go out of existence. I think the answer is that they become Amy Biehl or these weirdos or, generally, demented crusading leftoids.

      • Even though I am a Protestant I have to say that your point about Protestants and liberals being different in rebellion/claimed authority is questionable.

        You mentioned God, Bible, pastors, theologians and princes.

        Liberals definitely have authorities: Self, Humanism, along with lesser authorities such as professors, scientists, and celebrities.

      • @Alan

        These comments are made in a respectful nature.

        This post was mainly reacting against the simpleminded assertion that the Reformation was the primary cause of Liberalism.

        It is a simple minded assertion, though not one without justification, the situation is fare more complex. The Reformation was not the primary cause of Liberalism, rather, the reformation provided an intellectual framework in which liberalism could thrive. These is no implicit imperative in the Reformation that leads to Liberalism and it’s quite possible for there to be a “Reactionary” reformation.The Leftward drift in Protestantism is probably more an accident of historical circumstances rather than some inherent feature in the system. At its core, the problem with the Reformation is that it provides no error checking mechanism against the Protestant believer’s conscience.

        It very to fine to say that the Bible is the reference, but the question is one of interpretation, and as the historical record has shown, good men, with good intentions have come to differing interpretations of it. Simply claiming that my interpretation is the correct one is simply proof by assertion and not proof by coherence with reality. Which of course, is the fundamental issue. Many of those Protestants who are in “rebellion” sincerely believe that they’re doing God’s will. They’re not in Rebellion simply by the fact that they disagree with you.

        It is my belief that a man can achieve reality coherence within the framework of Protestantism but it is very, very hard to do so under normal conditions. Amongst intelligent men of goodwill, there seems to be a convergence of opinion. And while Papal authority may be something you and I will disagree about, it’s clear that many positions that are espoused by the Catholic Church are also held by those clear thinking Protestants. (I accept that there are disagreements.) On the other hand, amongst the cognitively weak, the liberty that Protestantism affords the individual results in the Bible being interpreted in erroneous ways. Stupid Catholics, on the other hand, have no such justification, the hierarchy does their thinking for them, and until recently, they either toed the party line or were thrown out. It’s a very hostile environment for stupid ideas, hence it’s resistance to liberalism.

        On the other hand, it’s also a very hostile idea to novel ideas, especially in an environment, where there seems to be a conflation of Tradition with the Truth. Therefore if God himself wanted to raise a prophet with a novel idea within the Church they would probably be pilloried by the hierarchy and these plenty of examples of intelligent Catholics being censured by the Church only to be justified later on. De Lubac and Blondel come to mind. The Catholic Church is inertial and resistant to new ideas, even within the framework of the old. Change happens from the top down, unlike Protestantism where it comes from the bottom up.

        This inertial of the Church has mean that Protestantism has been the lead source of doctrinal innovation, even within the Catholic Church. Freedom of Conscience, Abolition of Slavery, the dignity of work and the raising of the status of women were championed by Protestants long before Catholicism took any real notice and these ideas were incorporated into the Catholic Church with great resistance. Sometimes I wonder if God allowed the formation of Protestantism since doctrinal development seemed to have become so moribund in the Catholic Church.

        A few of the commenters here want everybody to be subject to the Bishop of Rome,

        Perhaps the Integralists or the Ultramontane faction want you to do so, but neither do I or the Emeritus Pope Benedict want you to do so. His view of looking at the papacy is worth looking into here.

        Firstly, the Benedict, asserts the primacy of conscience and conscience must follow the Truth. He however states the while conscience has rights, it also has duties, and a conscience with has not been properly examined stands condemned. Hence, a “feels” interpretation of the Bible without the “thinks” fails the test. Secondly, he sees the Papacy as an “aid to conscience”, its authority resting on the “office’s” coherence with the truth. (I’m not asking you to accept it but see it from his point of view.” Infallible statements are in complete adherence with the truth, therefore anyone who disagrees with the statement is wrong, in the same way that someone asserting 2+2=5 is wrong. Papal authority is a teaching authority in the same way a math teacher has authority in his subject.

        No one wants to boss you around.

        Peace.

      • …the reformation provided an intellectual framework in which liberalism could thrive.

        I can affirm that. The Reformation was, in part, a shaking off of authority, although it was the intent of the Reformers to replace one authority with others. The Reformation loosened the grip of the church over society, with unpredictable consequences.

        …the problem with the Reformation is that it provides no error checking mechanism against the Protestant believer’s conscience.

        Protestant churches originally practiced church discipline against those who stubbornly continued to profess heresy, but that has been largely dropped. As it has in Catholic churches.

        Papal authority is a teaching authority in the same way a math teacher has authority in his subject.

        I think he would have to have more authority than that, or else he could not function as the leader of a society. In modern times the Pope, like most leaders, has to be “kinder and gentler,” but his function is still to enforce the Catholic teaching that defines Catholicism.

    • The idea behind the left-liberal and right-liberal distinction is that those who are called, and who call themselves, “conservatives,” are nothing of the sort (as the term is traditionally understood), but that they are a type of liberal. Mark Richardson came up with the terms, and Lawrence Auster fleshed out what they mean. Certainly you have read some of Auster’s blog entries, such as this one and this one and this one, where he explains the difference and why it matters.

      I have always been fond of Howard Phillip’s illustration of the difference, where Democrats are the left-liberals and Republicans are right-liberals: “The main difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats would take us over the cliff at 80 miles an hour; the Republicans would stay within the speed limit.”

      This illustrates two points: that the two sides differ by degree, rather than kind; and that one side is lawless while the other at least pays lip service to the law.

      In any case, how is it “intellectual dishonesty” to notice, and explicate, an actual distinction?

      • For starters, it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend that license and liberty are the same thing.

        Liberalism — when the term is used correctly (as they still sometimes do in Europe) — is about extending human liberty, both horizontally and vertically.

        Leftism — in all its variants — dangles the bait of license so as to ensnare-and-enslave human beings.

        =========
        Is sex a Good Thing, or is it not?

        Well, of course, it is a Very Good Thing (and we have that on the Highest Authority).

        Does the fact the *all* the corruptions of sex are but snares to enslave human beings by sin turn sex into a Bad Thing?

        Not at all.

        Similarly with liberty and license – human liberty is a Good Thing, and the fact that some people fall for the false allure of license does not turn liberty into a Bad Thing.

        In the end, it is *you people* who are the “right-leftists”, for you hate and despise the liberty of *other* human beings; just as the leftists do, you wish to turn *other* human beings into means to your ends.

      • In the end, it is *you people* who are the “right-leftists”, for you hate and despise the liberty of *other* human beings; just as the leftists do, you wish to turn *other* human beings into means to your ends.

        That’s just nuts, Ilion. A few of the commenters here want everybody to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, which is a tyranny of sorts, but modern liberalism is not about extending liberty to mankind. It’s about forcing mankind to live in a rootless, atheistic world presided over by a petty but omnipresent and vicious nanny-state dictatorship.

      • I don’t see how human liberty is a good thing. At best, it’s neutral. Usually, though, it’s bad. The only way you get liberty/freedom to be a good thing is to define it narrowly as something like “the ability to choose the good.”

        Then, of course, you’ve just punted on the whole discussion. In that case, there is no natural kind “liberty.” Authority must make a case-by-case determination as to whether each particular behavior in each particular context is good or bad and do his best not to forbid the good ones. If liberty is not some big, important, easily recognized category of things which we are sure are worth protecting, then the whole concept is useless.

        I’m fine with the normative part of the distinction you’re making above. Something like freedom of religion is clearly license and thus bad. I think it’s silly to call it leftist when it is so obviously particularly liberal, however.

        In the end, it is *you people* who are the “right-leftists”, for you hate and despise the liberty of *other* human beings; just as the leftists do, you wish to turn *other* human beings into means to your ends.

        How come it’s you who talk exactly like a leftist, then?

    • Or course, it matters greatly just what one means by “liberalism”.

      Everyone means the same thing by Liberalism. It is the doctrine that government exists for the purpose of maximizing human freedom. Right liberals and left liberals differ on trivia like whether poverty counts as a limitation on freedom or whether calling Bruce Jenner a man limits his freedom. The left is endlessly prone to these demented tyranny-of-small-differences food fights. Naturally, in the course of them, leftists call their fellow leftists the worst name they can think of, rightist.

      The guys in the Estates General knew what right and left meant, and they knew that proto-libertarians and proto-socialists belonged together on the left side of the chamber. Here is David Boaz of the Cato Institute explaining that libertarians should hail the French Revolution.

      • ‘License’ and ‘liberty’ are two very different things; opposites, in fact. And you know this.

        And “libertarians should hail the French Revolution” precisely because “libertarianism” is not about liberty, it is about license. You know this, also.

      • @DrBill

        Interestingly enough, your definition of “Liberalism” makes Dante (De Monarchia, “upright governments have liberty in their aim.”) and even St. Thomas Aquinas liberals.
        Now we can know from our nature that freedom is a Good, even before we know rationally what freedom is. We can later know from our reason that freedom in the philosophical sense means “the ability or state of a being acting according to its nature,” and as we know that human nature is rational, human freedom is “man acting voluntarily according to reason.” That it is an integral part of the purpose of Government to promote human freedom as above defined, I prove at length in my post “Liberty and Catholicism.”

      • @THR

        Yes and no. If by “freedom” we mean the ability to choose the good while we continue to maintain my definition of liberalism, then, of course, Aquinas and lots of other people become liberals. See my answer above to Ilion on his similar point. But, if we mean by “freedom” the ability to choose the good, then “I’m a liberal” becomes almost an empty statement. It pretty much means that you’re in favor of letting people choose good things.

        It also leads to strange statements like “I’m a liberal who is in favor of burning heretics,” and “I’m a liberal opposed to freedom of speech” and “I’m a pro-slavery liberal.”

        We might as well, in that case, just define a liberal as someone who thinks government should do what government should do.

        No, we have long ago lost control of the definition of “freedom.” Freedom means something like maximal breadth of human choice. That such a definition leads to all sorts of intractable problems is true. But, so what? That’s what it means.

      • DrBill:

        We might as well, in that case, just define a liberal as someone who thinks that government should do what government should do.

        Precisely. As a specifically political principle, liberty is either vacuous or self contradictory. In practice defenders of liberty-as-political-principle — liberals — equivocate between the vacuous and the self contradictory, depending upon whether the invocation of liberalism is supposed to justify some particular action by those holding authority or invalidate it.

      • @DrBill,

        On the contrary, “I’m a Liberal” is not an empty statement, but a confirmation that the speaker accepts the definition conflating Liberty with Ability, or volition. Freedom itself remains what it objectively is, regardless of how the common consensus defines it. In which case, should we not use the definition which we can know through reason which best reflects reality, rather than concede to those who disagree the unreasonable definition, undermining any arguments in favor of reality?

        P.S.
        “If by “freedom” we mean the ability to choose the good,” but if you read carefully enough I didn’t define “Freedom” that way. Read my comment again to see how I did define it.

      • @THR

        It looks to me as if you define it that way. If you want to draw out the distinction between “the ability to act according to its nature” and “the ability to choose the good,” go ahead.

        How is it, exactly, that we know the definition of a word which “best reflects reality” apart from “how the common consensus defines” it? For example, what does “fnordesbladum” mean?

      • @DrBill,

        We are not discussing “the definition of a word,” rather, we are discussing the reality of a state of being. One either “is free” or one isn’t. That one is or isn’t free we determine philosophically. However, words do not exist in and of themselves but rather in relation to reality, to other words, to connotations and denotations, and to basic concepts which can be determined by the etymological root. “Fnordesbladum” is not a word because it does not exist in relation to any concept or reality, present or historical. The word “Freedom” on the other hand, is a concept of a positive and natural state, intrinsically related in some way to the concept of “Good” and the concept of “person”. This prompts us to look at the nature of Goodness and the nature of personhood, in order to determine what the state of “Freedom” consists of. A person with a mistake understanding of either of those concepts will inevitably give a mistaken definition of “Freedom”, but that Good exists, and that certain beings exist in a state of Freedom and others do not does not change regardless of how many people are in error.

        P.S. To act according to nature is not necessarily to choose the Good if one takes into account non-Rational beings. In one sense a rock unmoving in a field is “free,” in another sense a fish in tank which knows not nor can know anything of Good is “free,” and in a third sense a Man choosing the Good is “free”.

        P.P.S. You mentioned earlier, “But, if we mean by “freedom” the ability to choose the good, then “I’m a liberal” becomes almost an empty statement… “It also leads to strange statements like… “I’m a pro-slavery liberal.”
        This makes no sense unless the speaker has a completely distorted understanding of the Good, which I hope is not the case with you (otherwise, it would be impossible to dialogue).

      • HR…

        One may be free or not free, but for “liberalism’s” sake it all goes down on a finite playing field. So it is desire for absolute freedom on a finite playing field that is “liberalism.” Ergo, liberalism is self-annihilation (or the homosexual “nature” if HBD-inclined). Liberalism is something akin to bashing your head against the wall.

      • @DrBill,

        Then it is impossible for you and I to come conjointly to the Truth, though I must say that in any dialogue seeking the objective Truth I am under the disadvantage of presupposing that the Teaching of the Catholic Church is True, which I have always found to be the case, and therefore I unfairly have the conclusion before the argument is even properly begun. I assure you that the understanding of Freedom I hold, regardless of its truth, is Catholic, and I have already proven this, and if one truly accepts the premise of the Truth of Catholic Teaching, it follows that one accepts this Catholic definition of Freedom. Those who argue that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise on the subject of Freedom are indeed arguing falsely and displaying ignorance.

      • I don’t put much stock in critiques of “liberalism”. Some say nationalism is a form of liberalism (if it is, then by God, I am a radical liberal). The Catholics who do see nothing wrong with allowing hordes of hostile aliens into the country and try to sugar coat Bertoglio’s liberation theology garbage as “conservative”.

        We’re at the point where conservatives, in their spinelessness, have become as much of an enemy as the libertarians and the Structuralist/CultMarx New Left.

  2. Pingback: Wm. Lewis on Lawrence Auster on Christian Vulnerability to Liberalism | Reaction Times

  3. Anti-Catholicism, not Protestantism per se, is the mother of liberalism. The Glorious Revolution was carried out not to make England more Protestant, but to make it less Catholic. (Similarly, of course, the French Revolution.)

    • I don’t think that definition quite works for the Glorious Revolution as the Whigs explicitly overthrew James because he threatened the Protestant establishment. It does work better with the French Revolution, which was also about imposing England’s constitution on France.

      Also I think we can clearly see the rise of Whig-liberalism in the early 17th century.

  4. The strongest argument of this type is that Western/ Roman Catholicism is the origin of Leftism (what’s with this US term ‘liberal-ism’?) – which began at the Great Schism c1000 AD when the Western Church insisted on changing the creed, adopting scholasticism etc. Which I argued throughout my book Thought Prison.

    http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk

    But really its all nonsense! A Red Herring.

    It is obvious that Leftism-Now is anti-Christian, not Christian – and visible, effective, modern Leftism began in the late 1700s in England which was the first country in the history of the world to industrialize; where it was driven by people on the way-out from Christianity – Quakers becoming the first pacifists, Anglican Evangelicals becoming the first abolitionists, Unitarians becoming socialists and so on.

    In the modern West where Christianity is strongest, Leftism is weakest – and where Leftism is strongest, Christianity is rare, weak, submissive, and targeted for mockery, subversion, suppression and legal harrassment.

    This ‘Leftism is Christian’ meme is just a self-serving excuse so that the secular ‘right’ can continue to enjoy their favourite brand of license, selected from the sexual revolution smorgasbord.

    • Bruce’s point is important (“In the modern West where Christianity is strongest, Leftism is weakest”), which shows that Protestantism and liberalism (and its sister vices) are not the same or even complementary. I do think that they are related; I usually think of Protestantism as the spiritual aspect of modernity, where modernity is a certain rejection of the inherited traditions of our ancestors. Protestants did this, thinking that they were reclaiming the more fundamental tradition of the apostles (“we’re just following the Bible”). Yet, their rejection of their religious patrimony was accompanied by all sorts of modernist tomfoolery that remains with us to this day — especially the idea that everyone was pretty much a wicked moron until yesterday. The Reformation prepared the fields, so to speak, for evil sowers. The consequent disorientation of uprooting, suspicion of tradition, and arrogant confidence in contemporary wisdom (especially that of oneself) create an environment hospitable to leftist weeds. However, Protestants didn’t go completely bonkers because they still fervently affirmed truth (I mean that there is truth, that it is knowable, and that it’s important to know it) and goodness. Their focus on the scriptures and on God’s will saved them from becoming what we see in our society now — drifting lost people ever in search for the new deity, prophet, and mission du jour (and, let’s not forget, scapegoat — thanks Prof. Bertonneau). Remove religious belief from modern man, and you turn him from a Protestant into a crazy leftist zealot (if he’s naturally pious) or into a hedonistic opportunist (if he’s not).

      So, it may not be fair to say that Protestantism begat leftism. Yet, the two are related modern phenomena.

      This thorough rejection of one’s inheritance happened before — in the early Church — for both Jewish and pagan converts to Christianity. Is there any indication that they followed the same path as the moderns? One commonly sees in patristic texts a contemptuous dismissal of pagan society’s wickedness — of its superstition and immorality. Yet, ancient Christians did not create a permanently revolutionary society. Medieval Christendom doesn’t seem to have much in common with Berkley, CA. Why not? Clearly, a rejection of tradition isn’t sufficient for creating the mess that we have. Why was the early modern period different? Was the change just so radical in so many different domains at once? Or — is it wrong to see the beginning of the Revolution in Wittenberg? Would the French Revolution — which happened in a Roman Catholic kingdom — have occurred had there not been major religious dissension in the West for the previous two centuries? Would the philosophes have entertained their freethinking about theology without the relatively recent history of the Wars of Religion? Would Jacques Hébert’s Cult of Reason have come about without Jean Calvin’s Institutes?

      From the Protestant perspective, it all was worth it to save the gospel from popery. For even a parricide might be justified in certain circumstances. The blame would fall to those who distorted the faith in the first place — those pimps for the Whore of Babylon. Speaking of whores — if the house of a man’s father doubles as a brothel, would the son be impious to work for the brothel’s dissolution? Sure, he and his family might become homeless, but righteousness requires him to choose decency over loyalty. OK, but . . . such a man would unfortunately be scarred in many ways ever after. Even if the Protestants are right in their theology, their history — in the messy affairs of this world — is intertwined with a great affliction of Western civilization. The West has been broken, and the communion of its peoples was one of the first signs of this catastrophe.

      • Bruce’s point is important (“In the modern West where Christianity is strongest, Leftism is weakest

        Well, the theoretical Mormon and most Americans always talk about how swell American religiosity is viz a viz modern Europe, yet how can this be since the US is the primary driving engine of world liberalism? I guess it depends on how one defines “traditional Christianity.” A lot of the worst elements of American “Christianity” have spread to South America, and we don’t see that continent becoming more traditional, its modernizing just like much of rest of the world under the American shadow. Indeed, the Christian-Zionist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness and of course Mormon are just as opposed to traditional Christianity as the atheist or Islamic modernist.

    • Each generation succeeds the next in a series of begats. Bruce makes the point that the Great Schism of 1054 was an important step in a long list of begats on the road to our present condition. I agree it was important, though I would argue the faults of modernity go back much further, to the third chapter of Genesis. Returning to the begats, Roman Catholicism begat Protestantism. Protestantism begat the Counter-Reformation, etc.

      Bruce also correctly points out that all this is, at the current juncture, a red herring. The new Great Schism is a left-right divide that runs through virtually all denominations, though some denominations fall largely on one side or the other. This is particularly critical because, as Bruce has pointed out elsewhere, modern leftism has honed its weapons specifically against Christianity, the tradition it knows it must destroy or corrupt to advance its own agenda. The current crisis is over issues of the on-going sexual revolution or in Bruce’s words, “the sexual revolution smorgasbord.” Conservatives in this divide often have more in common with conservatives of other denominations than with left-liberals of their own denomination. This is especially true of issues that affect the common good and the public square.

      See, for example:

      http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=176450

      http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865653604/Catholics-LDS-stand-together-on-issues-good-for-America-archbishop-says.html?pg=all

      • No. We have very little in common. First no one is denying that strains of modern thought have there origin prior to 1600. Neo-pagans argue that Christianity itself is responsible for liberalism and communism. I suppose that in some sense that is true. But the fact is that Christianity was dominate in the West for nearly a thousand years and we didn’t see the rise of liberalism. Liberalism did arise within a century of the Reformation, primarily in Northern Europe. There just is a fundamental break there.

        Even on the very basic issues of the sexual revolution our respective churches are split. Fron my vantage point Mormons agree much more with our modernists. You think abortion (under certain circumstances), contraception and divorce are okay. You see priestly celibacy as very bad – just like our modernists do. Why even on the theoretical Mormon’s blog today we have post about Jesus being married! I find that just as offensive and disgusting as what any liberal femimist nun believes. Should I make common cause with Dan Brown now too? Ontologically speaking I do share the mark of baptism even with the leftists of my religion so in a very important sense even wayward Catholics share more in common than I ever likely will with you.

        You can post all the statements of the US bishops a group that has overseen the unprecedented destruction of our religion (when your not posting about the atrocites of the “apostate” church). I know Mormons are quite happy to have all the praise and photo ops, meanwhile saying things like this in private – http://religionnews.com/2015/10/23/mormon-apostle-criticized-for-anti-catholic-remarks/
        Our same bishops half of whom won’t even allow a Latin Mass in their diocese fall over themselves to appease these hucksters.

      • I agree that the suggestion that Jesus was married is outrageous. Not to mention totally unfounded.

        About the origins of liberalism: I think the failure of either side to gain a decisive victory in the Wars of the Reformation contributed greatly to cynicism in Europe. Leading thinkers began looking for a theoretical end to the conflict through relativism and skepticism, i.e., liberalism.

      • I ask the readers of the Orthosphere, who is the true representative of Catholicism, Bonald (May 12, 7:42 PM above) or Pope Francis, Itascriptaest (May 13, 7:05 PM) or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?

  5. ”Protestantism, to the extent that it remains faithful to the inerrant Word of God (i.e., the Bible), is a truer expression of Christianity than other forms—in our estimation, of course”

    The monkey business with the Gender Neutral Translation and NIV 2011(feminist translation) is trying to change that. By changing the scripture liberalism seeks to change God’s commands to suit themselves making evil good and good evil.

    • So don’t use the NIV. Have you read the ESV? The ESV retains the brothers, etc., of the original. The editors, knowing that the ESV would be read by modern readers who no longer understand the inclusion of women when masculine forms are used as the generic (e.g., everyone must do his best), included footnotes to explain that the original words, such as adelphoi, include the women of the church.

  6. Centuries of memetic evolution and competition has mutated liberalism into a parasite that specializes in subversion.

  7. Pace Ilíon, the word “liberal” does not have one correct definition. The word can certainly be used incorrectly, but it has been (and is) used to describe many different things. The definition Ilíon prefers is essentially European. There liberal meant an opponent of the old order. In the U.S. there was no old order, so words like liberal and conservative came to describe slightly different opinions as to the most desirable rate of nineteenth century “progress.”

    If you actually look for the word in nineteenth-century books and newspapers, you will find it was most often used in debates over the most desirable rate of progress in religion. In the United States a “liberal” was a person who was non-sectarian, who had (in his own mind, at least) outgrown or transcended any specific, narrow creed. He looked upon all sects, even all religions, with tolerant benignity. In background he tended to be Unitarian or Quaker, but once the attitude was established as part of the culture, a man could jump directly into it.

    The key to liberalism is this sense of personal transcendence over the petty divisions of other humans, and it explains why every liberal sees himself as a Playground Monitor in charge of children and on the lookout for Bullies.

    • The key to liberalism is this sense of personal transcendence over the petty divisions of other humans, and it explains why every liberal sees himself as a Playground Monitor in charge of children and on the lookout for Bullies.

      Amen to that!

  8. It is, of course, far easier to destroy than to create – to hate than to love; so the Left has it easy.

    But those who (with varying degrees of understanding and diligence) oppose the Left are far too prone to the same vices. And pride in (presumed) self-purity and advertized-humility is perhaps worse among self-identified Christians than on the Left – and no more to God’s liking, I daresay.

    Yet Christianity is about repentance, not ‘being good’ – somehow the Left doesn’t know that and the religious are too prone to forget.

    It’s really up to individual Christians – working in the non-perceptual, supersensory realm – because as mutually hostile organized groups of zealous partisans there seems zero possibility of the necessary cohesive ‘political’ resistance from Christians-as-such (a concept in which only a minority of Christians believe).

    The funny thing is that it has never been easier to be a Christian than now – matters are clearer than ever before: it’s a no brainer! Suddenly, that may become very obvious to very many people. Let’s be ready if it does.

  9. Liberalism is a child with many fathers. Protestantism was but one of them; it provided its fair share of the constitutive material- the DNA, if you will- but not all of it. Its main contribution was in bringing down the spiritual power, which under Protestant influence was transformed from a pillar of public authority into so many mere community organizations quite incapable of checking the temporal power, or even providing real authority in spiritual matters. This cleared the way for the omnipotent modern State, under which religion increasingly became a matter of “private conscience” with no public significance whatsoever. The contents of this conscience increasingly comprised whatever the “private” individual wanted them to- at least unless deemed to have political significance by the State, an altogether different story.

    With respect to the all-powerful and uniquely authoritative public power, Catholicism had already centuries earlier helped develop and promote the politico-legal theories of popular sovereignty, Natural rights, including a right of resistance against rulers deemed illegitimate, and so on. Once appropriated by the likes of the Whigs- who were bigoted to the point of the psychotic, but nonetheless adored a Catholic thinker like Suarez insofar as what he had to say about politics was exactly what they wanted to hear- these theories helped ensure that the Constitution of the State would have a Liberal form.

    Secularized natural philosophy in the form of what became “scientific” monist and deterministic positivism/materialism furnished the omnipotent temporal-political order with a congenial ontology: reality other than the temporal is not just irrelevant, but doesn’t even exist, and if there can’t be any really authoritative religious dogma, it doesn’t matter, since it’s all so much “metaphysical” or “subjective” nonsense anyways. Morality can have no invariant content, since it is the mere mental by-product of the play of the “real” underlying forces of politics and economics at any given time; and men must seek seek their salvation in this life, in the perfection of the Liberal State. To this end they are impelled, by irresistible, involuntary, and unconscious biological and physical forces, along a pre-determined arc of History.

    I guess the point of all this is that blaming Liberalism on Protestantism or anything in particular is like blaming the snow for bringing the winter.

    • I guess the point of all this is that blaming Liberalism on Protestantism or anything in particular is like blaming the snow for bringing the winter.

      How is it like that? You’re saying liberalism caused Protestantism?

      • DrBill: It’s that Protestantism is but one aspect of a much wider and more general historical process, and not the first or last link in the causal chain.

  10. The psychology of Protestantism is much more in line with that of Liberalism. Protestantism did not necessary lead to liberalism, but it is a contributing and normalizing factor. Liberalism advocates individualism at all costs, just as Protestantism advocates individual interpretation of Scripture as opposed to relying on legitimate authority. Scripture is extremely complicated and a good judgment of it as a whole requires an interpretative body. This is plainly visible to see as there are numerous disagreements among various protestant bodies even on essential doctrines. Protestants say that minor disagreements don’t matter but really what if you want to know you have the truth down to even the minutest of doctrines. Unless every protestant can agree on all doctrines and have the same interpretation the authority of individual interpretation is shown to be invalid. ‘

    Now if it can be clearly shown that the Catholic church is not the original and only Church that Christ established, then it does not have claims to legitimate authority. It can still mean that Catholicism is more able to preserve unity of doctrine then individual interpretation but it is not guaranteed to teach correctly. Now if Christ has promised the Church from ever dogmatically teaching error then this was true before the Reformation and this is true now. If the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established then what it dogmatically proclaims has been guaranteed by Christ to be free from error till the end of time (indefectibility). This does not mean that whatever Pope Francis says is true and we need to follow it. Only what is proclaimed ex cathedra is held to be infallible. The Pope maybe leading people astray in terms of clarity of doctrine and may have some false ideas himself, but this does not mean that the Church teaches those things officially. The orthodox believers will have to put up with a pope who may err in some of his beliefs but this does not mean that the authority of the Church is then negated.

    Any formal change to the official doctrines of the Church that have been dogmatically defined would indicate that the Church is false and one should not follow it. The pope may make changes that are not correct in terms of best practices in a Catholic sense, but these are things that are possible to be changed and maybe changed again by a future pope. It is certainly possible for Pope Francis to err in many different ways in matters of discipline. Such errors do not conflate to errors on doctrine. And the idea that a change of discipline equates to heresy is a rash, foolish, ignorant, dangerous, and utterly false claim. If this pope has been legitimately elected (which there is ample proof of) then his authority is valid and Catholics are subject to obedience and not free to defect from the church due to disagreement.

    Basically every little thing that the current pope says is not binding for Catholics to believe. What is true is the Church is protected from officially teaching false dogmas by the Holy Spirit. Changes that are in bad taste are definitely disturbing but does not take away from the authority Christ has entrusted the Church. A pope can fall into errors in his judgment OUTSIDE the parameters of infallibility.

    What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. There have been no valid historical cases of popes teaching false doctrines infallibly in the past.

  11. Could it not also be argued that because change is the only constant in our world, any inflexible or non-adaptable belief system is eventually doomed to extinction? In this sense conservatism and liberalism can both be potentially toxic to the longevity of a civilization.

    • Perhaps so, but the principle you articulate here is so broad as not to be of much use.

      But we observe that “conservatism,” if defined to be non- or anti-liberalism, is currently much more healthy and diverse (if you’ll excuse the expression) than liberalism, which has ossified into an intolerant, privilege-preserving institution.

      • Okay – so we’re not using the standard definition of liberalism (i.e., a political philosophy based on liberty and equality) but rather a definition more akin to a political philosophy of big government, social welfare, atheism and political correctness? If that is the case then I would agree with you.

      • Okay – so we’re not using the standard definition of liberalism …

        In fact, these people intentionally and knowingly conflate the original-and-standard definition of ‘liberalism’ with the leftist/Progressive hi-jacking of the term to denote themselves … and then use that intentional muddling to condemn (classical) liberalism on the basis of the crimes of Progressivism.

      • We can’t have a real discussion unless we are using the same definitions.

        Well, most of the contributors to this blog aren’t interested in having “a real discussion”; or, as I’d put it, few of them are interested in getting at the truth of the matter. For, like the Leftists they so resemble, they have their System (*) … and by gum! no one may pose probing and critical questions about it.

        (*) which System is ultimately indistinguishable from that of the open Leftists, for it likewise depends upon and requires some body of “experts” to “guide” and control the economic decisions of “the masses”; that is, it requires that “the masses” be owned by “the experts”.

        As I point out from time to time, it doesn’t matter whether your owner is call a Commissar or a Monsignor: you’re still a slave.

        ==========
        Thordaddy,
        I don’t even begin to understand your last post addressed to me.

      • Ilion…

        I think it more truthful to state that these people speak of liberalism as though it were detached from objective Supremacy. Which it CLEARLY IS at this time and place. And I’ve never heard you claim to be a white Supremacist? That could be a classical white liberal acknowledging the Truth of objective Supremacy, no?

      • Well, most of the contributors to this blog aren’t interested in having “a real discussion”; or, as I’d put it, few of them are interested in getting at the truth of the matter . . . For, like the Leftists they so resemble, they have their System

        The projection is strong, here.

        which System is ultimately indistinguishable from that of the open Leftists, for it likewise depends upon and requires some body of “experts” to “guide” and control the economic decisions of “the masses”; that is, it requires that “the masses” be owned by “the experts”.

        Like other open leftists, Ilion’s real fight is with reality. Most people are dumb as a box of rocks, impulsive, and incapable of running their own lives. Any system built on the foundation of assuming the opposite is certain to reduce the clueless to slavery at the hands of con men, drug pushers, and the like. How can there be a worse curse than to tell an incompetent man he is responsible for making his own decisions? Oh, I thought of one. After telling him he is responsible for making his own decisions, make sure to expose him to plenty of “free speech” by advertisers and TV personalities. And lots of flattery about his amazing decision-making capacities.

        Non-idiotic right liberals, in the presence of alcohol and the absence of a large audience, will generally admit all this and explain “If they don’t like it, they should stop being so stupid/make better choices.” And then, depending on how much alcohol is left in the bottle and how much humanity is left in their souls, laugh nervously or derisively.

      • Ilion.

        objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection…

        A “liberated language” is when you say “man,” but are referencing a homosexual. Or, you say “woman” and are referencing a dyke. Perhaps, you witness an abortion and you call it a “reproductive right.” Maybe though, you speak of free will, yet what you really mean is “radical autonomy.” This is what is meant by a “liberated language” with there being countless more examples. And this “liberated language” is the result of attempting to forcefully integrate those who believe in objective Supremacy with those who do not.

        So if you ask me what “objective Supremacy” is with a genuine curiosity then you are signaling a lack of genuine free will. You are indicating your degree of radical autonomy.

        Liberty = free will = willingly existing freely…

        That’s Perfect.

  12. Using my history with Thordaddy as a guide I anticipate (1) an unsatisfying answer that will not clarify anything and (2) an accusation that we are somehow at fault for not understanding him.

    • wS…

      What is so difficult to understand?

      Christians believe in and worship (P)erfection, ie., objective Supremacy.

      Non-Christians do not.

      And radical “white” liberationists ATTEMPT to forcefully integrate the two with catastrophic result. Nonetheless, maximizing their personal autonomy.

      And under the guise of “anti-white Supremacy” (equality > white Supremacy) is where one locates the source of this enFORCEd integration of entirely antithetical entities.

      • So then “objective supremacy” means “perfection”? If so why not just use the term “perfection”? If “objective supremacy” means something more or other than “perfection” what specifically does it mean?

      • Ilion…

        Do you believe in and thus worship The Perfect Man?

        A LIBERAL does not.

        Even when he claims to believe in “equality before the (L)aw.”

        Or else he would call himself a (white) Supremacist and bury all the deception.

  13. TD – What is the basis for your claim that a liberal does not worship the perfect man? I’m not saying that a liberal does or does not do this. I am interested in the connection between the two concepts that exists in your head. Please explain.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s