The most important issue

Dimitri writes:

As it becoming clear from the recent discussions at VFR, liberalism (or leftism) is now in the process of changing its appearance again. First it was mainly economical leftism (socialism), then it took more cultural, environmental, scientific forms. Coulter’s book focused on those issues, and the fact that it was not outlawed means that liberals have abandoned those issues in favor of new ones. It seems that the main battle is now about nationality, statehood, open borders and the equality of all religions—the issues that you have pointed out in your blog, and which confront the beliefs of right-liberals. So please keep on your invaluable effort.

LA replies:

Excellent point. When I criticize liberalism, I focus on a particular dimension of liberalism which I call modern liberalism—equality, non-discrimination, the delegitimization of larger entities such as cultures and nations (if they’re Western)—and these in fact are the aspects of liberalism that are dominant today. Liberalism as socialism and centralization of power is important, as we still see in the growing statism of Europe and America; liberalism as scientific/materialistic reductionism is important, as we see in our culture’s ongoing degradation of man. But the main thrust of liberalism, the main force destroying our culture at present, because it is the moral obligation that transcends all others and that has the strongest hold over the minds of contemporary people, is the very one I speak about: the idea that we must eliminate all discrimination. This is the highest and holiest precept of modern liberalism, extending from the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to Pope John Paul II’s message that the work of Christ is “liberation from all forms of discrimination, rejection, and marginalization.”

And that is NOT the aspect of liberalism that conservatives such as Ann Coulter ever focus on, is it? Because they themselves either agree with it or are afraid to question it. Even openly anti-Muslim U.S. commentators who talk belligerently about waging a war to crush much of the Muslim world, will not advocate an end to Muslim immigration into the West, because that would violate the principle of non-discrimination. It is the belief in non-discrimination that is killing us, and it is only the rejection of that belief that can save us.

By the way, the conservative acceptance of the principle of non-discrimination proves my oft-repeated observation that the overwhelming majority of conservatives today are really liberals. No matter how conservative you may be on a variety of issues, if you still adhere unswervingly to the ruling principle of liberalism, then it’s fair to say that you are a liberal.

- end of initial entry -

Bruce B. writes:

Bravo !

I’ve sometimes been somewhat self conscious (not doubtful by the way) with respect to my shift rightward to the VFR school of thought. I’ve imagined the voices of my Republican friends saying that I am excessive in that my reading and thinking is so skewed towards immigration, the “National Question” as well associated issues (race, ethnicity, etc.) compared to other issues. I’ve been troubled that I couldn’t respond to these charges in an entirely adequate manner other than to say that what is self-evident to me is that this is all real and happening and fateful to my children and so I am not an alarmist. I had been thinking about writing to you to see what you might have to say to similarly defend yourself from such accusations given that your writings and thoughts are so skewed towards these topics (yes, you do write about other topics such as religion, morality, the culture wars, etc. but not so frequently).

Some of your writings had hinted at an answer for me: your comment that the “race is THE controlling issue in the civilizational crisis,” and your description of immigration as “the most fateful issue facing the country.”

I never doubted the weight you give to these issues for a second but I needed the rationale written down for my eyes to see and my brain to process. I think today’s entry provided me with some of this as evidenced in the following quotes:

“But the main thrust of liberalism, the main force destroying our culture at present, because it is the moral obligation that transcends all others and that has the strongest hold over the minds of contemporary people, is the very one I speak about: the idea that we must eliminate all discrimination. This is the highest and holiest precept of modern liberalism …..

“It is the belief in non-discrimination that is killing us [literally I might add] , and it is only the rejection of that belief that can save us.”

Jay M. writes:

You write,

“When I criticize liberalism, I focus on a particular dimension of liberalism which I call modern liberalism—equality, non-discrimination, the delegitimization of larger entities such as cultures and nations (if they’re Western)—and these in fact are the aspects of liberalism that are dominant today.”

While I agree with you, I don’t know how you could remove this aspect of liberalism from our society. The concept of equality is drummed into us as soon as we enter school. I remember quite clearly how in the first few grades in school, we had teachers emphasizing the equality of all people either through words or through posters on the classroom walls. It was assumed by all concerned (school principals and teachers) that education about one’s fellow human beings (through history and geography classes) began with the concept of equality. Evil simply reigns because there was no equality between individuals or nations.

This indoctrination begins at ages 10-12. I haven’t met one school teacher who believes otherwise. Visit any school classroom and you will see pictures and posters proclaiming the equality of “the human family.” To most school administrators this is such a fundamental concept that there is no controversy possible—it is basic and innocuous. One would have to overhaul the entire school curriculum and the attitudes it is based on.

LA replies:

I agree with what you say about the ubiquity of these beliefs and their (at present) unquestioned authority. But that is not an objection to my point. Obviously, the attainment of any large scale social aim that traditionalists believe in would require a radical change in the attitudes of the whole society, including the overhaul of the school curriculum. Traditionalism is not a reform movement within modern liberalism; it is seeking the end of modern liberalism.

The traditionalist critique of modern society begins from two insights: that modern liberalism is the dominant belief system of the modern West, and that this belief system is leading to the West to its destruction. From this it follows that, one way or the other, the rule of modern liberalism cannot survive. Either it will die when it has destroyed its host society, or its host society will overthrow it before it is too late. Since the demise of the rule of modern liberalism is, in my view, certain, it is not unrealistic to advocate new beliefs and new forms of society that assume and require its demise.

As always, I must add the qualification that defeating the all-powerful rule of non-discrimination does not mean the comprehensive rejection of non-discrimination or equality of treatment. Within a given social or cultural context, we operate under the same laws and moral rules. The idea of a society under a single rule of law assumes non-discrimination as to the way the law operates on the respective members of the society who are equally situated with respect to the law. However, the idea of a society under a single rule of law also assumes that the members of the society share a practical degree of like-mindedness as to their allegiances, their beliefs about right and wrong, and so on. People who do not share in that like-mindedness, e.g., Muslims who are committed to sharia, or Mexicans set on reconquista, are not members of that society in any real sense and cannot claim equality of rights under it. The sickness of modern liberalism is that it insists on non-discrimination even toward people who are wholly incompatible with and hostile to the society and whose inclusion in the society must destroy it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 24, 2006 09:19 AM | Send