Rewording the “Basic Guide, Part I,” and more about the Definition of Liberalism

Responding to my previous post A Basic Guide to Liberalism and Conservatism, Part I, many commenters said that I had either failed to define “liberalism” or had given a bad definition. And blogger Winston Scrooge offered more substantial criticisms, from a position less friendly to conservatism.

I‘m grateful to these commenters for, whereas I remain convinced that my basic position is correct, their criticisms helped me to realize certain ideas were not expressed well enough. I have accordingly made some additions to my post, which you can read here.


But let’s talk here about defining liberalism. I say it’s a vast phenomenon. Zippy Catholic says it’s a simple principle that’s now injected into everything. Let’s discuss:

In a sense, everyone knows what it is. Liberalism is legitimizing deviant sex. It’s confiscating guns. It’s exalting nonwhites over whites. It’s rebelling against authority. It’s denying traditional religion. And so on. Everyone (in the Western world, at any rate) has an intuitive sense of the phenomena generally labelled “liberalism.”

It must be acknowledged that not everyone uses the word “liberalism.” Words like “neoliberal,” “progressive,” “leftist,” “socialism,” and others are used. But my post said that it would use the word “liberalism” to label the phenomena. Therefore I did provide a definition of liberalism: the system that encompasses the various positions identified above, and the other positions that we all know tend to go along with them.

Everybody knows what liberalism is. But they disagree about its essence or ultimate cause.

Having noted that all these positions may be generally described as “liberal,” we next ask, Do these positions have an underlying unity? Are they part of a system or are they independent? It makes the most sense to see them as part of a system, and my intent is to lay out as much of the system as I have time for in subsequent posts.

There is also the distinction between liberalism and liberals, people who embrace liberalism to a large degree. Every liberal holds some non-liberal views, so a liberal is not somebody who endorses the entire system. We know about liberalism not by looking at liberals, but by looking at the positions that are generally called liberal, or at least non-conservative. Pointing out that someone generally known as a liberal disagrees with a certain tenet that is said to be a part of liberalism does not prove that it it’s not really a tenet of liberalism.

It’s possible, for example, for a (genuine) Christian to hold many liberal beliefs. This does not mean that the rejection of Christianity is unnecessary for liberalism. It just means that this hypothetical Christian is worldly, a biblical term meaning to love some of the anti-Christian systems of the world. Liberals are often basically-decent people who (mostly) unwittingly become carriers of evil ideas they only partly understand.


In my view, then, liberalism is a vast system. It has something to say about just about everything, and it purports to be able to guide individuals and nations. Because of its success at remaining in existence, recruiting vast numbers of people, and becoming the generally-accepted way of thinking here in the West, this system must have a basic coherence. I believe that it is based on certain principles of thought, and that these principles have a certain superficial coherence and appeal, even though it turns out on closer scrutiny that they are largely false and inconsistent.

Therefore a dictionary or textbook definition of the word “liberalism” is not useful here. The specific phenomena of liberalism are well known, even if under another name, and a brief formal definition fails to capture the vastness and comprehensiveness of the thing. And if liberalism has an essence or basic cause, conventional definitions fail to identify them.

One could define liberalism to be what the dictionary says it is. But then it fails to be very interesting or important. I’m interested in the vast phenomenon, although I do see a connection between the thing defined in the dictionary and the vast phenomenon.


Zippy Catholic challenges me with the best of the competing definitions: While I see liberalism as a vast phenomenon, he sees it as a simply-stated principle—political action aimed at securing freedom and equality—injected like a virus into everything. For him, liberalism is this drive for freedom and equality.

Every institution is now committed to pushing freedom and equality. Every group now says it celebrates diversity and strives to empower the individual to be free to be whatever he wants to be. Therefore every group has been infected (“converged,” in official Alt-Right-speak), and the first thing for anti-liberals is correctly to identify the virus so that we can oppose it. Zippy sees my allegedly false (or perhaps just weak) definition as inadvertently protecting liberalism by distracting conservatives into continuing to tolerate the virus. What liberalism actually does in the material world is push for freedom and equality, and to fail to note this is to miss the actual battle being fought.

So I say liberalism is a big thing and Zippy says it’s a small thing with a big effect.

Well, liberalism is a virus that’s injected everywhere. And a lot of so-called conservatives fail to understand the danger of accepting the imperative to freedom and equality.  But we can guard against the virus and understand and oppose the philosophical and spiritual principles that make the virus so successful.

Zippy’s doctrine is important and true as far as it goes (and it goes pretty far), but it doesn’t go far enough for me.

Besides, the virus wouldn’t be successful if the victim had not first been weakened into being susceptible. The political drive for freedom and equality is both a cause and an effect. People push for freedom and equality because they believe stuff. If they didn’t believe the stuff, they wouldn’t make the push, dont’cha think?

And a catechism, such as my post, does not necessarily need to jump in with the main thing first. Sometimes you need to start by laying a foundation. If you’re going to warn people about the drive for unlimited freedom and equality, you must first show the reader why they’re wrong.


Some also faulted me for my opening statement that liberalism is the rejection of the God of the Bible and of our traditional ways. This was intended as poetry rather than definition; I gave my definition of liberalism later, although some missed it. In addition to chiding me for an inaccurate definition, some commenters noted that nonwestern peoples generally reject the God of the Bible without being liberals.

True enough, but this post is situated within Western Civilization. The second sentence of the main body begins “As Christians, we understand,…” The post speaks to the men of the West. For us, God is the God of the Bible, which is why classical Western liberals historically majored in rejecting the God of the Bible. He was for them the only God worth rejecting.

And, more to the point, the system of liberalism still rejects the God of the Bible. Even if he continues to say that he honor the triune God, a liberal cannot agree with all that the traditional Christian religion teaches. If he does, he’s not liberal enough to merit the label “liberal.”

63 thoughts on “Rewording the “Basic Guide, Part I,” and more about the Definition of Liberalism

  1. Pingback: Rewording the “Basic Guide, Part I,” and more about the Definition of Liberalism | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Alan: I believe that you are right – liberalism is vast, so much so that no dictionary-type definition can (pardoning the expression) do it justice. The rejection of God certainly plays a role in liberalism, which exalts man, except when, in the discussion of “global warming” or “climate change,” it denigrates man. That is the aspect of liberalism that (how shall I put it) fascinates me. Liberalism is a Gordian Knot of irreconcilable definitional and performative contradictions. Listing a few examples should give meaning to my assertion.

    Liberalism promises liberation into guilt-free sexual libertinism in a do-what-you-will paradise, but it simultaneously execrates sexuality, especially male sexuality. (Never mind the question what becomes of sexuality once one of the sexes is withdrawn from the equation and the act degenerates into mutual masturbation, as it does in the two one-sex arrangements.)

    Liberalism broadcasts its mantra of “choice” while proscribing as many actual choices as it can bullet in its agenda-book. (Never mind that “choice” in liberalese usually means manslaughter, at least.)

    Liberalism promotes equality, but the liberal elite acts like any other corrupt group with means at its disposal, lives as unequally high on the hog as it can, and leaves it to other people to carry out the project of egalitarianism. (An instance: Liberals pretend to commiserate with low-income illegal immigrants while employing them at minimum wage to do household chores that – how to say it – their type of American wants not to do.)

    Liberalism calls for the dissolution of borders, but again actual liberals, whenever they have the means and can afford themselves the opportunity, live behind the gates of “gated communities,” or behind the steel-clad doors of their urban high-rise apartment dwellings.

    Liberals accuse dissenters from liberalism of being racists, but liberals send their children to expensive private schools where even the black children are White, Anglo-Saxon, and Post-Protestant.

    Liberals claim to be – well… liberal – but they have allied themselves with the world’s sole surviving sacrificial cult, one that degrades and oppresses women, abuses children, and murders people who squint the wrong way at it; and for the monoculturalism of the bloody desert sectarians that they wish to impose on everyone who does not live in one of their gated communities, liberals have coined the quaint term “multiculturalism.”

    I could go on, but I suppose you get my point.

    Hypocrisy is not strong enough a word to describe the two-facedness of liberalism, and neither, for that matter, is two-facedness, which in any case does an injustice to an entirely dignified Pagan deity.

    Speaking of Janus: Liberals have only one-way vision; they see only their impossible utopia away off in the Radiant Future and they pay no heed whatever to the past, which explains what has happened to education under the regime of liberalism.

    Juggling contradictions is a weak position, as the panic in the aftermath of the Trump insurgency demonstrates.

    One other thing – liberals are cheap with their own money, just as they are lavish with everyone else’s. Once, when I was teaching in Michigan, I visited a bar on the invitation of a colleague. The waitress was friendly and helpful. I spent about twelve dollars, and left a four-dollar tip. The colleague, who had spent as much as I had, on standing up, left a handful of coinage on the table. Stepping a pace or two away from his seat, he reversed course to retrieve a dime, which (I’d guess) he felt to be in excess of what he owed to good service.

    • liberalism…exalts man, except when ….it denigrates man

      In addition to good old-fashioned inconsistency, this is partly because the liberal senses that his god is not all that impressive.

      • Part of the explanation for the epic spluttering and finger-pointing of Liberalism-after-Trump is that liberals have discovered that they are not all that impressive.

  3. Pingback: Rewording the “Basic Guide, Part I,” and more about the Definition of Liberalism | Reaction Times

  4. The desire for freedom and equality just is a desire for perpetuating self-annihilation. Every entity that desires freedom and equality will eventually become its own actuated anti-entity. Heterosexual whites who desire freedom and equality are bound to become diverse homosexuals. Christians who desire freedom and equality shall suicide for salvation. Athletes who desire freedom and equality transform into political stooges. Politicians who desire freedom and equality morph into charlatans and quislings. Scientists who desire freedom and equality cannot even conceive a freedom and equality that is not just infinite regress and general entropy. An artist who desires freedom and equality will never create his perfect piece. An atheist who desires freedom and equality will not embrace Final Liberation NOW. The desire for freedom and equality is the desire for redundancy… A desire for same… A desire for homo-sexuality… The desire for freedom and equality is the desire of the homosexual “nature,” ie., the self-annihilating “nature.”

    • So that I can better understand you, please walk me through the process of how a heterosexual white person desiring freedom and equality eventually becomes a diverse homosexual person. Start at the point where the desire first enters his or her mind and describe the causal chain of events of their transition. Please be clear and specific in your description.

  5. Tom, re the Gordian knot of Liberalism. I think the understanding reached in your first post at VFR (by both you and Larry) explains all the seeming contradictions you raise here. Most are explained by elite liberal’s hypocrisy, unwillingness to be subject to the ‘equality’ rules of liberalism that they seek to impose on others. The Global Warming can be explained by your words “according to liberals, nature is sacrosanct and inviolate, always at the expense of the modern economy” and Larry’s version, “… industrial society is violating equality by exerting power over nature, by exploiting and polluting nature. Therefore the way to restore equality is to weaken and hamstring industrial society so that it can no longer dominate nature.”
    The other items that at first seem like contradictions, execrating male sexuality, open borders, unacceptable Muslim behaviors, and even abortion, all are explained nicely with your Gnostic concept of reversal via resentment or Larry’s “Equality requires that the better off, the more successful, the more powerful, the more familiar, the ordinary, the normal, must be unjustly dragged down, and that the worse off, the less successful, the less powerful, the alien, and the strange, must be unjustly raised up”.
    The connection back to Liberalism’s Godlessness was described by Larry as “Radical autonomy grows out of equality which grows out of the rejection of the transcendent.”

    • Thank you, Steve, for reminding me of my participation in VFR. I deliberately avoided using the words Gnostic and Gnosticism in my comment above because this is Alan’s post-and-thread, and I did not want to ride my hobby-horse on his turf. Nevertheless, resentment lies at the core of Gnosticism and liberalism is Gnosticism. Because resentment, as you write, is labile, it easily shifts from one position into its opposite, depending on context, which is itself always shifting. Liberalism can even occupy two non-compossible positions at the time same, catering to feminists and gays with one hand and to Muslims with the other. What they all have in common is their hatred — that is, their extreme resentment — of Western norms.

    • Thank you, Steven R…

      “Radical autonomy” is my phrase and this is the first time I’ve been made aware that Mr. Auster had appropriated the phrase. So now “we” thank God that Orthosphereans may be able to understand “liberalism” because just the right man uttered the phrase “radical autonomy.”

    • The problem as I see it is that the right is constantly using different definitions for liberalism. Often it just means a philosophy espoused by someone they disagree with. But if we are to have a meaningful conversation about liberalism we must make sure we are using a common definition.

      • Every time I see these articles, I get the image of the entire West as an old man with dementia, asking the same question over and over again because he’s forgotten the last dozen times it was asked.

      • But, Winston, there *is* a common definition. Common enough, anyway. Here is the link to the Wiki article on liberalism:

        Your objection is understandable to an extent – after all, there are three minimal requirements for intelligent communication between minds: (1) a mind capable of transmitting a thought, (2) a mind capable of receiving a thought, and (3) a mode of communication common to them both (a common language).

        As I have pointed out many times, it is almost invariably #3 that prevents, or breaks down intelligent communication between minds, i.e., the lack of a common language. Aka the so called “language barrier.”

        The problem isn’t that there is not a common definition of liberalism that we can virtually all agree on as far as it goes; the problem is the language barrier, and generally speaking one’s world view informs his understanding of terms.

        Any definition consists of a string of terms that form an idea or ideas in the mind of the reader. The idea he forms of these terms, individually and as a connected whole, is greatly informed by his world view. Which is why I’ve also said many times that “worldview is everything.”

        To the extent, therefore, that most of us have a classical or a liberal/modernist education for example, or that most of us share a great many common experiences (political, social, familial, etc.), and/or that we agree to the tenets of Orthodox Christianity, and so on and so forth, to that extent we share a common language as well.

        Intelligent communication between minds then is possible. Whereas, to the extent that we don’t share a common religion, personal experiences, education and so forth, to that extent intelligent communication between minds will *always* break down at some point.

        There is some irony here as well, because liberals (who are generally people who want to wipe out all social distinctions which, to their minds, create inequality and deprives certain individuals and groups of their rightful liberty) would have it that when all racial, ethnic and social distinctions are erased, then and only then will people be able to communicate unimpeded by their (former) various and sundry differences. This may be theoretically true, but the problem is that nature produces virtually limitless distinctions, and warring against nature and nature’s God to “improve” on His design is never a good idea.

        So, yes, liberalism is an ideology that we disagree with. So too is “conservatism” a set of ideas that liberals disagree with. Pointing that out isn’t really saying much. And it works both ways, so it’s not as though “conservatives” are somehow guilty of misunderstanding liberals when liberals do not share the exact same fault of misunderstanding “conservatives.”

        But don’t be confused by the scare quotes because most “conservatives” are really liberals who make all kinds of unprincipled exceptions to their liberalism. And that’s where communication between “conservatives” and liberals begins to break down. To one extent or the other, they simply do not share the same language, which is another way of saying they do not share the same ideas, or worldview.

      • The problem as I see it is that the right is constantly using different definitions for liberalism. Often it just means a philosophy espoused by someone they disagree with.

        I’m with Winston on this one. Treating liberalism like it’s a nebulous cloud of ideas we find revolting is neither instructive nor helpful. But this, I think, is a side-effect of a larger problem: the fact that there are seldom few individuals alive today that are actually opposed to liberalism unequivocally.

        If we look back to the defining world event of the last 250 years, the French Revolution, we would see very clearly that liberalism was at its inception a political doctrine that held liberty to be the primary legitimate aim of any exercise of government authority. Liberals in those days were those that advocated for a new form of government based upon liberty, equality, fraternity, and the light of reason unshackled by faith. The liberals’ commitment to liberty as political end is what led them to oppose traditional monarchies and fight to replace them with constitutions and parliaments. The original liberals wanted their nations to have independence and self-determination.

        And in those days the liberals were opposed by the conservatives, who defended the traditional monarchies, aristocracies, churches, feudalism, and a traditional agrarian model of society. The conservatives thought the liberals were naive fools who were recklessly tearing up civilization by the roots. It was the liberals who were in favor of small government and nationalism, and it was the conservatives who opposed liberal attempts to break up traditional empires into modern nation-states.

        The problem for conservatives today is that there are none. They’re extinct and they’ve been extinct for quite some time now. The last traditional, pre-1789-style conservative who commanded any notable amount of authority on this earth was Pope Pius IX and he’s been dead since 1878. Since then, all Western people have inherited their political views from the 1789 liberals and their decedents in one form or another.

        Many people today profess to be conservative, but are not. A so-called conservative man might be a classical liberal, sticking with the old liberal ideals of limited government, constitutionalism and property rights. Or a man might be a libertarian, advocating for a particularly rigorous take on the classical liberal tradition. Or a man might fuse elements of classical liberalism with elements of a moderate, pragmatic, Burkean form of traditional conservatism. I think this last one describes most traditionally-minded folks you meet today, including most of the readers here at The Orthosphere.

        But none of the above mentioned “conservatives” can ever hope to be anything more than a moderating influence on the horrors of socialism, communism, and It’s The Current Year(TM) left-liberalism. That is because each of these conservatives are actually liberals, descendants of 1789 liberalism that holds at it’s very core a seductive, but ultimately incoherent and immoral commitment to liberty as the primary legitimate purpose of government.

        Until each of us are ready to admit what liberalism is, why it is bad, and repudiate it unequivocally, we will continue to circle the drain, trapped inside the liberal gravity well.

        As with most things in the life of any Christian, the problem is you, and the solution is repentance.

      • scrooge has things completely inverted…

        “Radical autonomy” is not actually definable (it is self-annihilation and can only be conceptually defined) and “liberalism” is just a word providing some definition (as in outline to an ambiguous phenomenon) to the desire for radical autonomy.

        So if “radical autonomy” is the Blob then “liberalism” is where said Blob APPEARS TO BE grasping the world with its blobbiness.

      • I have captured “liberalism” as YOU define it. I have also captured radical autonomy, self-annihilation, white supremacy, God ordained free will, total redundancy and all the other cliches and catch phrases you employ but refuse to define as well as your incoherent use of “scare quotes” and ALL CAPS.

      • Thor,

        You’re demonstrating Zippy’s point from one of his other comments in the earlier thread. Not only is portraying liberalism as a nebulous blob of undefinable wrongness not an accurate description of liberalism, it’s also vastly unhelpful. The portrayal only appeals to the prejudices of right-liberals, while other liberals, like Winston here, reject the portrayal as ludicrous straw-man caricature.


        Since definitions seem to be the problem here, what do you think of Zippy’s definition of liberalism?

      • My concern is that there be a definition of liberalism that we can all agree upon when we use the term. That is the only way to have a meaningful conversation. Zippy’s definition is fine with me in that sense so long as everyone is using that definition or something reasonably similar.

      • scrooge…

        I defined “liberalism” a long time ago as a “perpetuating self-annihilation.”

        Now common sense will tell you that such definition will be a hard sell to “liberals.”

        And in that vain, I find out that EVERYONE is a “liberal.”

        EVERYONE is in on the perpetuating self-annihilation to one degree or to infinity.

        And then you realize that the difference between one degree and an infinite degree is NOTHING where the matter of self-annihilation is concerned.

        So a radical autonomist must take his next radical step.

        That’s wS.

        And the rejection of self-annihilation IN EVERY SINGLE RESPECT.

        And MODERN “Christian” just isn’t down for the reframe.

        Bah humbug!

      • Winston, could you please take this discussion to your site? You can embed here a link to it, but I don’t want to spend any more of the Orthosphere’s time on a side conversation with Mr. T.

    • We’re not constantly trying to redefine liberalism (at least I’m not). We’re trying to understand an obviously malevolent force, and to express this understanding in a way which will win us allies, especially among the young.

  6. This was a beneficial addendum.

    Let’s just say both Zippy and yourself can be correct. Liberalism can be conceived as a first principle of sorts (or collection of first principles–i.e. equality, liberty, fraternity); or it can be seen as a wide-ranging system which seeks to rule over all areas of human experience. In choosing the latter, you’ve undertaken a daunting task which will be misunderstood by many (including, I confess, myself originally). I think using “liberalism” and “liberals” simultaneously may be a problem, as many self-described liberals will balk at the worst aspects you attribute to them. Now of course there is relation between liberals and liberalism, but by exploring liberalism as a phenomenon you are focusing on something larger than individual liberals themselves.

    So a few quick points. First, in looking at liberalism as a system you still have to understand it as an ideal (or more accurately, set of ideals). Liberalism is functioned around certain abstractions–equality, openness, tolerance, togetherness, etc.–that influence how it evolves. It is less concerned with (and often openly hostile to) tradition, transcendent order, or hierarchy. Can abstractions be treated as an end? What results from trying to implement a society centered around a nebulous concept like human equality, instead of an ordered and grounded concept like imago dei?

    Second, there are multiple ill effects on liberalism (the principle) brought on by liberalism (the system). Free speech and openness to ideas are a part of any ideal liberal society; in the real world wherever liberalism is the strongest (i.e. university campuses) it is political correctness and attempted suppression of ideas that we see. What prevents liberalism from actualizing its ideals? Most interestingly, how does the system of liberalism debase tenets of the worldview that are otherwise redeemable–like harmony and cooperation?

    • At some point, protecting the spiritual and intellectual creation myths of “liberalism” becomes collusion with Evil. And because the “intellectual right” represent the bulk of such authors for creation myths, the implication cannot be more chilling.

      • Emailed to Mr. Lawrence Auster on October 29, 2012.


        Mr. Auster,

        Mark Richardson asserts “self-creation” as the liberal’s “highest value” while you would assert “nondiscrimination” as such. When taken together, we see that the liberal’s “high value” is actually self-annihilation. Self-annihilation is “final liberation.” It represents an internally consistent process that must transpire after every unsatisfying and ultimately failed “self-creation” leading one back to his “indiscriminate” thoughts and actions. Leading a life of indiscriminate thought and action is the surest path to self-annihilation, i.e., Final Liberation.

        Josh F.

  7. Emailed to Mr. Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2009…


    I would say there are really just two human types. Those that believe in One True God and those that believe in an autonomous god(s). This god autonomy then allows the various designations of liberal extremists to deny His existence and designate themselves, atheist. Yet, they must ALWAYS invoke Him before denying Him. And because the atheist purports to adhere to science, he must explain how he both invokes and denies a God in which no empirical evidence exists?

    The reality is that the two human types are believers in One True God and radical autonomists, i.e., increasingly extreme liberals. The extreme liberals merely use atheism to cover their god-like intentions. Intentions that evidence belief in Higher Power.


    • Fast-forward seven years, and after applying the Hegelian dialectic to recognize no synthesis between this radical autonomist and those who believe in One True God, the Hegelian dialectic was seen for the half truth that is needed to occupy the minds of the dull mass. Concurrently, the inconceivabilty of separation as synthesis between theist/atheist was clearly TABOO. Until the homodyke jihadist exploded on the scene exposing that side of the equation that pitted theist/atheist as clearly inadequate, yet did nothing to change the synthesis of separation or the strict taboo on separation. This is where The Perfecf Man obviously intervenes and puts a MERE SYNTHESIS, ie., a separation, in its proper perspective. SUSTAINED separation is the solution. White men striving towards Supremacy is the answer.

      What’s in a name?

      • Nicene Christians believe in a God who is Three-in-One. Muslims believe in a divinity who is one. Trinity… What’s in a word, after all?

  8. Thordaddy,
    Perhaps you had a previous communication with Mr. Auster, mentioning ‘radical autonomy’ before Dec. 2, 2009? I ask because Mr. Auster used the term 4 months before you wrote your letter to him:
    “First, a principled conservative would want people to be free as they are really constituted, namely as men and women, as members of distinct communities and traditions, and as moral beings. He would not accept the liberal idea that we are made free through a radical autonomy in which we self-create who we are.”

    Google comes up with 17,500 entries for that term.

    • Steve R… Below will be my best evidence for introducting the phrase “radical autonomy” to Mr. Auster.

      –On Jan 3, 2008 11:32 PM, Lawrence Auster wrote:

      Sorry, I should be famliar with the autonomy theory but am not. Can you fill me in with a brief definition?

      But I do think I know what you’re talking about. I’m going to expand the Romney entry and give an example.

      —– Original Message —–
      From: Josh F—-
      To: Lawrence Auster
      Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:41.a.m.
      Subject: Re: On Romney…

      Mr. Auster,

      “Autonomy Theory” in a nutshell as articulated by Mark Richardson is the idea that one can essentially remake himself. In order the facilitate this belief one is forced to reject those things most traditionally thought of as giving us our identity. These traditional “things” being race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Although, one can pursue the former without believing in the latter. This would be more like semi-autonomy theory.




    If there were a program to homosexualize the masses, you would certainly agree – even with your unjustifiably limited understanding of homosexuality – that such a program was evil and to be totally rejected. Such a program would be self-annihilating as homosexuality as chosen orientation is self-annihilating. This is certainly a program that any Man’s movement would identify and call out for rejection, no?

    Yet, males are being “feminized.” This is according to ALL who have a claim on the right from the atheist “conservative” to the white Supremacist. But what does this actually mean? Does this mean Man is being made feminine? What does it mean for Man to live under “feminism?” It doesn’t even make sense and yet you persist.

    Imagine modern female LEGALLY joining the Alpha carousel, LEGALLY killing her OWN CHILD in utero and LEGALLY divorcing with no-fault.


    You say this IS “feminism.”

    Why? Just because… It serves your male liberationist fantasies.

    Self-annihilating ISN’T “feminism;” it’s evidence of a radically autonomous nature.

    Male separatism based on aversion to woman ISN’T Man’s movement; it is evidence that one is embracing a homosexual nature.

    Radical liberals MUST manifest to PROVE their liberalism.

    Self-annihilation is the ultimate proof of one’s radical autonomy.

    In the meantime, playing atheist, homosexual, anarchist, jihadist, liberal “Christian,” etc., will be sufficient proof to those not willing to take their autonomy theory to its logical conclusion.

    Now, what does this have to do with getting married later?

    Simple… Females are moving FARTHER AWAY from real femininity and there is a coherent program that seeks such an outcome. It calls itself “feminism” and so do you.

    And yet, there is NOTHING feminine about it.

    But you persist.”

    • The above was copy/pasted unedited.

      Below is edited.

      “In the meantime, playing atheist, homosexual, anarchist, jihadist, liberal “Christian,” etc., will be sufficient proof [OF] those not willing to take their autonomy theory to its logical conclusion.”

    • And of course…

      Homosexuality is self-annihilating where:

      homo = same = EXACT SAME = self

      And the radical egalitarian refutes this irrefutable equation because he is self-refuting.

      While the anti-egalitarian accepts the truth of the equation ONLY TO KNOW the self-annihilation inherent to homo-sexuality thus legitimating his rejection of ideological “equality.”

  10. Thordaddy: Those emails convince me that you provided Mr. Auster with that concept. However, in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I note that five years earlier, Zippy in two separate posts introduced the concept at VFR using the ‘self-creation’ terminology. His first post was in April of 2003.

    Perhaps professor Bertonneau can say for sure but it seems to me that Voegelin might be an early author of the concept since he said that for modern Gnostics, ‘being’ creates for itself a world and creates that world through man.

    • Steve R.

      I am not taking claim to the coining of any phrase.

      “Liberalism” as I have defined comes from Auster’s “nondiscrimination” and Richardson’s “autonomy theory” of “self-creation.”

      Together, they make “liberalism” a perpetuating self-annihilation, i.e., a desire for radical autonomy… And CONTRA genuine wS.

    • Steve R:

      Thanks, I believe I may have commented at VFR even before Larry Auster became a contributor. (He eventually took VFR over – and changed its domain to – from Mr. Kalb when Jim converted to Roman Catholicism and put up his Turnabout site). I also participated in some other long gone website of Jim Kalb’s before he created VFR, not to mention Usenet before websites even existed. (I first ‘met’ Jim online some time in the early 90’s).

      But I am pretty sure I swiped the ‘self created through reason and will’ language from Mark Richardson (Oz Conservative). Just going from memory on that, but he was also one of the jurassic VFR commenters.

      • And Mark Richardson’s “autonomy theory” of “self-creation” was as good as it goes, but faliled to recognize that the mechanisms of “self-creation” were “tolerance” (acceptance of pain) and nondiscrimination (indiscriminate thought and action) creating “radical autonomy” as perpetuating self-annihilation where tolerance plus nondiscrimination equals the surest path to self-annihilation. The whole process is very straightforward. Once a new created self is actualized, it is particular and static. Ergo, the new created self is no longer autonomous. So in order to gain back one’s autonomy, one annihilates his NOW old “new self” in order it be replaced by a new “new self.” Overtime, one recognizes that his real autonomy is actually in annihilating himself rather than creating a new self (more autonomy in destroying than creating). In short, by not advancing “autonomy theory” to “radical autonomy” theory (as I once implored Richardson to do), he is now an intellectual of the right GIVING COVER to “liberal” self-annihilation under the auspices of self-creation. He is facilitating “liberal” self-annihilation with a half-truth. So he is not yet a convert to wS as the wS will not facilitate in the liberated acts of self-annihilation.


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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.