What would the defeat of liberalism consist of, and how would it be achieved?

Van Wijk writes:

It seems to me that the only way we’re going to get out of having to battle bills like these over and over and over again is this: somehow, the Deciders must be made to understand that they have more to fear from us than from foreigners who may or may not vote for them. I think a certain amount of genuine fear would be exceedingly healthy for them, and would remind them that they are in fact public servants rather than monarchs. As to how we can apply this fear short of revolution, I do not know. As we’ve said many times, these people live in their own little universe, totally removed from the peons whose lives their policies affect.

As the saying goes, “You want a donkey’s attention, bring a pole down between his ears.”

What we need is a fierce and fearless leader, an Oliver Cromwell of our own, to wield the pole, and introduce fear into the lives of those who would condemn us.

LA replies:

This gets back to the problem I spoke of yesterday, that we’re facing a force aimed at our destruction which is resistible though inexhaustible. We have to keep winning every battle; they only have to win one. And that leads us to Van Wijk’s point. We can’t go on fighting on the defensive forever, because ultimately they will win. But what would a decisive victory for our side consist of? It would consist of toppling the ruling liberal ideology. Ok, but how would that be done? What would actually have to happen in order that the leftist desire to destroy our civilization no longer commanded enough support to threaten us?

To give an idea of the size of the problem, let’s imagine a scenario better than anything we can currently reasonably hope for. Let’s imagine that millions of people have opted out of the dominant liberal ideology. Let’s imagine there was a real traditionalist conservative opposition in this country, with a mainstream public presence, publications, and organizations to support it. By itself, that would still not mean the defeat of liberalism. The dominant liberal ideology would still be doing everything it could to destroy the West, would still coming relentlessly forward as it is now.

So, again, what would mean, not just an increase of strength and conviction on our side, but the actual defeat of the liberal side, meaning that liberalism has lost both the will and the ability to keep waging war against us?

And the only thing I can think of is that enough liberals have renounced liberalism so that liberalism ceases to be the dominant force. Just as Islam cannot be reformed, it can only be ended by Muslims leaving Islam, in the same way liberalism cannot be reformed, it can only be ended by enough liberals leaving liberalism.

That’s the non-violent way that liberalism would be defeated. The violent way would be though some kind of civil war within the west, using violence and intimidation to cow liberals. Or some kind of anti-liberal coup within each Western country. But such a coup would not be accepted by the majority liberal population, which would have to be put down by ruthless means, or at least their leaders would have to be. Such an internal struggle within Western societies would destroy them.

No. The only scenario I can imagine by which liberalism is defeated and the West is saved is by a voluntary exodus from liberalism. And it seems to me that two conditions would be needed for this to happen. First, as I’ve often written, the catastrophic consequences of liberalism must become so plain to people that they stop believing in it; and second, there must be an alternative belief system in place to which the apostate liberals can transfer their loyalties.

- end of initial entry -

Charles G. writes:

One of the biggest problems with getting liberals to recognize the inherent destructiveness of Liberalism is to get to those liberals who don’t know they are liberal. I know many “conservatives” who have been swimming in liberal waters so long, they no longer realize they are simply a variant of Liberalism. They still adhere to the same silly “tolerance” and universalism they were marinated in all their lives. If we could just pull these people out, our task would be infinitely easier. Also, there are many genuinely fierce liberals hiding within the conservative ranks. They are moles. They do tremendous damage. These creatures need to be smoked out.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 15, 2007 09:10 PM | Send