The British author Paul Weston has sent us another essay, this one on the topic of modern liberals. Needless to say, Mr. Weston does not think highly of today’s liberals.
Now, I have to say that some of my best friends are liberals. They are well-meaning people who support abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and a large and proactive role of the federal government in peoples’ lives — all for their own good, of course. These are not evil people; they are friends who happen to hold different political opinions, and we can agree to disagree.
But Mr. Weston has a slightly different and more ominous kind of liberal in his sights. Read his article and see what you think.
Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
by Paul Weston
Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive, educated, successful, and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of the West in 2007.
Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.
How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.
As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white-faced and shaking with genuine anger, would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today — Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism.
We see this in their extreme and hysterical reaction to those who disagree with them, their apparent hatred of Western civilisation, of Israel, of free speech, traditional education, our history and the leaders who helped make us what we are, of religion and of America — both internally and externally. And whilst they are busy hating the very society and culture which enables them to parasitically survive and prosper we see their love affair with all the ideologies that threaten our society, manifested in pro third-world immigration, multiculturalism, radical feminism and until very recently, Communism (oh, if only they could have made their economy work), and, of course, Islam.
And here the first of their varied pathological contradictions is exposed for the sane world to see — how is it possible for them to sympathise with Islam, a political ideology that runs counter to every issue they apparently deem of transcendental importance? One of the pet words of abuse that the Liberal love to smear their opponents with is Nazi yet are they so blind they cannot differentiate between the white Nazis of 1940 that we “right wing” classical liberalists went to war with and the brown Nazis of 2007 so admired by the “left wing” liberals of today?
Just look at the comparisons; Nazism was a racially supremacist, totalitarian, Messianic movement with an avowed aim of global domination; an ambition for which they were happy to use military force. They genuinely believed they were the master race and all others the sub-race. They promoted their ideology via overt propaganda in the brainwashing of their children; they wished to eradicate Jews and homosexuals; they thought women fit only for childbirth, the kitchen and the bedroom; and, finally, they thought nothing of killing their critics. Islam is… exactly the same. It is the 21st Century reincarnation of the Nazi Party and as every white European is now the new Jew or a member of the new sub-race, so Islam becomes our worst possible sweat-soaked nightmare as an enemy. And the Liberal’s new best friend.
Not content with ensuring that a new Nazi party is fostered and encouraged to grow within the West, the Liberal also works to ensure that his own society is traduced and destroyed from within. He does this by accepting the edicts of subversion planted by Soviet Moscow, with whose ideology and global ambitions they were not entirely unsympathetic. It says a great deal about the Liberal that he sympathised with an ideology penned by a man with an unhappy childhood and catastrophic adult life whose bearded scribbling led to a flawed revolution carried out in the wrong country at the wrong time which subsequently reduced the Soviet working man (at the expense of millions of deaths) to queuing for bread in Moscow whilst the capitalist working man was queuing for beer in Ibiza.
When the Communists were forced — purely by geographical necessity — to waylay their tanks used so successfully in the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they turned instead to the use of Western liberals as their fellow travellers/useful idiots to create economic and cultural mayhem within their own countries, as a prelude to the post anarchic emergence of their longed for Communist International. To this end Western liberals attempted to destroy blue-collar industry via Trades Union action and white-collar commerce by the ruining of education through “progressive” educational techniques. In keeping with their Soviet counterparts they sought, and still seek, to abolish religion and morality, and — via feminism — the family.
They do this, as we well know, by their capture of the media and educational establishments within which they use the same brainwashing techniques geared toward the same ends as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (see: Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education). The political brainwashing of children is a manifestation found only in totalitarian societies. With past dictators it was a necessity to enable permanent power; in the West today it portends a coming dictatorship — why else would they do it? Although Lenin, the propagandist ancestor of today’s BBC or CNN, was the originator of the brainwashing of children, it was difficult, given the technology of the time, to systematically brainwash the adults, but the BBC and CNN have simply taken his practice and adapted it to an international, far reaching audience, surpassing even Hitler.
Hitler, whilst adopting the Lenin’s techniques for indoctrinating children, took adult indoctrination to a whole new level, as stated by Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments: Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in histor. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technological development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought….” What he could have done with twenty-four hour TV does not really beg the question because CNN and the BBC are doing it anyway, subtly perhaps, but this is an even greater method — given time.
Hitler was intent on using such propaganda in order to form the Master Race, Lenin the New Socialist Man, but what exactly does the Liberal of today wish to bring about? It is not, despite his insistence, The One World, Socialist, Multicultural Man, because this is where the Liberal deviates from the slavish following of his ideological ancestors — who at least attempted to advance their own countries — and sets up the indigenous population of his own country as the hate figure to be vilified. Hate figures are always necessary in warfare or dictatorships, be it Oceania, the bourgeoisie or the Jew. The white, male, heterosexual, Judaeo-Christian European now fulfils this model by dint of his imperial past and his supposed present day oppression/exploitation of non-whites, females and homosexuals.
That the lumpen masses are relatively unconcerned is due not merely to their lack of cogent reasoning but to their numerical advantage. Why should they feel threatened by people they seldom see and via media censorship, rarely hear about? But demographics suggest that the white European will become a minority all across the West within the next fifty years, in some countries even sooner. This reality, coupled with our acceptance of the type of abuse reserved historically for Hitler’s Jews and Lenin’s middle/upper-classes should cause us grave reservations. What on earth is the Liberal thinking of when he introduces “Anti-Racist” maths into school lessons or “Whiteness Studies” into university lectures? Can he not see where this leads, how can he be so blind?
Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”.
The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none-too-attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly – the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future international consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about.
It is not conservative policy that has resulted in millions of our children leaving school ill-equipped to succeed in our First World economy, and it is not conservative policy that brainwashes these children into a blindness to the racial dangers they will face in later years. It is not conservative policy that causes drug-addicted lower classes to live in crime and squalor whilst the metropolitan liberal elites indulge themselves with recreational drugs, and it is not conservative policy that has bought about the destruction of the family and the serial sexual abuse perpetrated by this month’s “mummy’s new boyfriend”. It is not conservative policy that confines the elderly to their houses for fear of becoming the victims of violent, moral-free children, and it is not conservative policy that allows these feral children to have no fear of the police. It is not conservative policy that has turned the West into an outpost of Arabia and it is not conservative policy that threatens the white European with the very real possibility of eradication well before the end of this century. And finally it is not conservative policy that criminalizes any person who dares point out any of the above.
Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead. This is another pathological contradiction that so assuages his ideology. By any objective analysis the path he has set Western society upon can only end in anarchy and racial based civil war, out of which must arise either an Islamic West or a counterrevolution led at best by a Pinochet, at worst a Hitler. From the cohesion and peace of the 1950’s we are descending into the bitter ideological struggles of the 1930’s Weimar Republic, the reds versus the brownshirts, the liberal left versus the “far” right. Whichever is the winner, there can be only one absolute guarantee; the liberal infidel or the liberal traitor will be the first up against the wall. How can they be so blind?
Perhaps the answer to this lies in Tammy Bruce’s book “The Death of Right and Wrong” which ranks as a necessary read in her exposure of the damage caused by liberal ideology. Tammy Bruce was a high-ranking activist in the National Association of Women (NOW) but became so disgusted by their attitudes that she broke ranks and started to write from the compassionate “right”. She believes the driving force of the Liberal to be “Malignant Narcissism”, a mental condition attributable to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by parents, authority figures, or peers.
Bruce quotes psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg, who describes it thus: “This pathological idealisation of the self as an aggressive self clinically is called malignant narcissism. And this is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others’ trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them.”
Tammy Bruce then goes to say in her own words: “The core components of this syndrome are pathological narcissism, paranoid traits and aggression. Self-preservation, self-promotion and maintaining power are all traits that prevail in the malignant narcissist. The people and issues they supposedly serve exist only to be exploited for their own benefit”.
Bruce then concludes with this damning comment: “I have participated at both the local and national levels of NOW; I have spent time with other feminists and gay special-interest groups and their leaders; I have worked in the entertainment industry and all forms of news media; and I have worked with political campaigns for democratic candidates. I have also spent time around universities. I can say with full confidence that what I have seen driving and controlling the actions of the Left Elite in all these venues – culturally, politically and socially – is malignant narcissism. Issues are used and people exploited for the sake of power. Malignant Narcissism is the god of the Left Elite.”
One need not look far to see examples of this. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Cherie Blair, Jane Fonda, Marx and Engels, Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Greer etc etc. The list of liberals and dysfunctional childhoods is endless. Liberalism and mental dysfunction go hand in hand, leading to the reality that is the West today; our dysfunctional elites so consumed with virulent self-loathing that they are happy to preside over the eradication of the society they feel so damaged them. The West has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics have taken control at all the various levels in all the various institutions that shape our future.
So, after fifty years of the ongoing, politically correct, liberal revolution what exactly has the Liberal achieved? That they have partially destroyed our race, culture, society and countries is not in question, but neither is it a result of well-intentioned incompetence. It is success on a massive scale, if you measure success as evil intent. They have caused untold hurt to the poor, the young, the vulnerable and the elderly and as they did this they utilised the propaganda and repression techniques descended directly from the two most evil empires in history, Nazism and Communism.
Their present flirtation with Islam is proof, if further proof is needed, that the appeal of brutal totalitarianism overrides their professed love of feminism and homosexuality, thereby redirecting onto themselves Hitler’s statement with regard to the liquidation of opponents: “The morally squeamish intellectual may be shocked by this kind of thing but the masses are always convinced that right is on the side of the active aggressor.” Perhaps this is why they favour the bellicose invasion of their countries via third world immigration and multicultural propaganda, but what this realistically shows is that they are consumed with such a loathing for the West and indeed themselves that they favour their own ethnic and civilisational demise and are characteristically unmoved that they will take us down with them.
To compound obscenity upon obscenity they deliberately camouflage this wanton, genocidal destruction under the banner of tolerance, diversity and equality. They are worse than the Nazis, they are treacherous Nazis. In answer to the opening question of this essay, they are not balanced, sane people, and they are not liberals. Their actions speak louder than their mendacious words; they are self-hating malignant narcissists. To call themselves liberal is as duplicitously self-serving as were a genuine Nazi to promulgate the same views he held in 1940 yet call himself a liberal today. Politically correct liberalism IS Nazism coupled with Communism, whilst classical liberalism is the ideology of we right wing opponents. They are insane, or so utterly evil that that in itself is a form of insanity.
We scribblers and readers of the supposed political “right” are not by nature terribly interested in politics. We were never radicals, activists or wannabe revolutionaries. That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live. Without them I would suggest that the vast majority of us would be content to mow our lawns, raise our families, pay taxes, give to charity and support benign political parties. YOU the Liberal have made us what we are today, YOU the Liberal have bought us into existence. Just as a peaceful man may be driven to assault a paedophile that molests his child, so we exist as a counter to your ongoing damage to our countries and by default our children and future children. Your belief that we will go quietly into the night is only further evidence of your arrogant disconnection from reality or sanity.
But now, with the advent of the Internet we have access to information that validates what we suspected but could not prove, and the means of using this information to spread and facilitate a defence. We’ve rumbled you, my liberal friend, you can no longer censor us out of your insane destruction of our countries and our cultures. You have lost your grip on the means of information and if you think that you are the self righteously angry defenders of the oppressed, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You have no idea how oppressed you make us feel, how angry we are, or how many we number. This justifiable anger is directed principally at the malignant narcissist liberal whose intention has always been to destroy, but you, the middle class liberals filled not with hatred but with well-intentioned guilt must understand that you have been duped, your alliance with politically correct liberalism is just as destructive, and we have had enough.
You, the Liberal, must understand that the people whose race and culture is being slowly swept away by politically correct liberalism are the very people who built the civilisation you have inherited. If this civilisation were to die we would become a tribal Iraq, Somalia or Yugoslavia. So I implore you, recognise the reality of what is happening, reappraise your idea of liberalism and channel your guilt not into the past but into the future, the guilt you would surely feel — you must surely feel — if you allowed your children and your grandchildren to inherit a Third World society, with all that implies, bought about by you — The Liberal.
(c) Paul Weston 2007. (Available to reproduce without financial gain)
A lot of rhetoric on the topic of Islam ricochets around the blogosphere and in the media every day. Islam is a deadly danger and must be eradicated on the one hand. Muslims are victims of persecution by Islamophobes on the other hand. Assertions such as these are uncheckable and irrefutable, since they are based solely on ideology.
Swedish reader LN emailed me the image at right, showing the front page of today’s Danish tabloid 
[In] “Blogosphere: The New Political Arena,” [Keren] suggests individuals who bare their souls in blogs are isolated and lonely, living in a virtual reality instead of forming real relationships or helping to change the world.
What Europeans often don’t understand is the deep cultural meaning behind American gun ownership. It’s not about pragmatic government policies, or effective social policy, or the practical consequences of private firearms. It’s not about how good a shot the average bozo is with his pistol.
The Pentagon said Tuesday it had stopped selling surplus F-14 parts, announcing the step after congressional criticism of security weaknesses that had given buyers for countries including Iran access to the aircraft parts and other valuable gear.
Tibi makes many valid points regarding the cowardice and censorship in Europe these days, and he should be given credit for consistently criticizing those Muslims who are pushing for the gradual implementation of sharia in Western lands. I hold him in higher esteem as a thinker than some other self-proclaimed reformists such as 
Let me start with my position on the question of world civilization or clash of civilizations. One: I am for world civilization, and I reject the ‘clash of civilization’ argument. Two: The problem is not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of civilization and barbarism.