In short, it is due to a shift away from White/Aryan origins to a contemporary judaized meaning. The word itself is emblematic of the racial struggle for control of Europe.
liberal, at Online Etymology Dictionary:
- liberal (adj.)
mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (source of Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”) but literally “to mount up, to grow.”
With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.
Liberalism:
Originally based on two main principles: liberty (freedom from constraints on speech and thoughts) and equality (every human born possessing “natural rights”, ala John Locke).
Contemporary, judaized liberalism is actually the opposite – granting special preferences to “protected classes”, and defining special “hate crimes” for offenses against them.
- Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.
The notion that liberalism seeks equality is a fraud. The reality is that it elevates non-Whites above Whites – jews are the archetype, elevated first and highest, above everyone else.
- With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word (liberal) acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823.[13] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[14] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.
- During the twentieth century, liberal ideas spread even further, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Liberalism also survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.
- As such, the meaning of the word “liberalism” began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”
What liberalism supposedly means:
- Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.
Meliorism:
- Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.
Liberalism, as a “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”, has become entangled with democracy.
Liberal democracy:
- Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.
- Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on which white to have for lunch;
Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the vote.
- A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
Liberalism as a Death Wish
Picking up where we left off. The meaning of “liberal”/”liberalism” is vague and has shifted dramatically over time. As Wikipedia phrased it, “liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. The shift in the meaning of the term reflects the shift in power from Aryan to Jew.
The title and focus of this installment was inspired by Weichseler’s pithy comment:
- In short, liberalism is a sugar coated racial death wish
Robert Frost’s witticism that, “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel”, is related, but begs the question. How could such a passive attitude ever become dominant? It couldn’t and didn’t. Such self-abnegating broadmindedness only reflects a strand of the older, Whiter sense of “liberalism” which never was truly dominant, and has at any rate been displaced by a jewish sense of “liberalism” which is not passive, but is instead more or less openly and aggressively anti-White.
Armor’s comment:
- Most people do not have strong political beliefs. They vote mainly according to what they think is in their personal interest.
My dictionary defines liberalism as “a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution”
This definition is at odds with the reality that “liberalism” helped trigger and was most advanced by war – specifically the American and French revolutions and World War II. “Liberalism” rose in revolt against aristocracy and hierarchy, the previously dominant “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. Only now that “liberalism” is hegemonic can it been seen as counter-revolutionary.
So, I think the word “liberalism” no longer means anything. It doesn’t refer to a coherent ideology. The Jews pretend to be liberals, which they are not. And the White liberals pretend they still believe in something, but they defer to the Jewish agenda and are held tightly in check. The incredible thing is how the non-Jews have accepted to go along with a new agenda that contradicts their former ideals.
Instead of studying liberalism, maybe we should start studying how dictatorship works, and how the whole population of a country can come under the rule of a small hostile minority.
The how, the mechanics, is important and merits its own focus, but what must come first is a recognition and understanding of the what, this “rule of a small hostile minority”. The shift in meaning of “liberalism” is emblematic – a symbol of both the how and what of jewish rule. We can do more than simply assert that “liberalism” is not a coherent ideology – it is useful to try to understand how and why it came to be so.
The perceived incoherence of “liberalism” springs largely from the fundamental incompatibility of its two supposedly primary ideas – freedom and equality.
As Richard Cotten noted, “Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal, and Equal men are not free.” Reality is not equal, equality is not real. Free from artificial efforts to force equality, human beings are naturally unequal. Freedom or equality – pick one.
In The New Blacklist, Pat Buchanan remarks on this quintessential dilemma of “liberalism”:
- Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation, who escorted Eich out, said in her statement: “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.
Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
George Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
What Baker is saying is that you have freedom of speech, so long as you use your speech to advocate equality.
George Lincoln Rockwell noted in the 1960s that the boundaries of the “liberal” mainstream are defined and policed by jews. Within that judaized mainstream there are essentially two poles – the “left”, representing the direction the system is shifting/”progressing” toward, and the “right” being the direction the system is moving away from, purging and excluding (e.g. Eich or Buchanan) as the outer bounds are moved.
The “left”, who at the time of French revolution were the promoters of equality, in opposition to aristocracy and hierarchy, long ago abandoned that pretext. “Leftists” today openly advocate in racial terms. They support identity politics and multiculturalism. In other words, they acknowledge and encourage inequality. They favor the moral and legal supremacy of non-Whites/”people of color”.
The “right”, who used to defend aristocracy and hierarchy, have gradually and continually given ground in a vain effort to avoid being psychoanalyzed as “racist” “sexist” “homophobic” “xenophobic” and “anti-semitic” by jews (whether “leftist” enemies, or supposed “rightist” allies). Today, when mainstream “rightists” talk about race it’s only to nonsensically insist that race doesn’t matter – because their favorite “conservative” is black and immigration is bad because it’s bad for black and brown people.
The self-described “traditionalist” jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster identified just about everything he didn’t like (which he couldn’t more specifically identify as “anti-semitism”) as “liberalism”. Upon scrutiny, Auster’s superficial blather about “liberalism”, which has been mimicked and praised by many other supposedly intelligent critics, was only so much dissembling. He talked about “liberalism” only to obscure and excuse the jewish role in it.
Auster was an effusive source of bogus explanations only loosely connected to reality, such as his misidentification of “liberalism” as non-discrimination. The limits of his own ability to discriminate were clear in his insistence of conflating jews and Whites as “whites”, even when the distinction between the two was most plain. The jewish nature of “liberalism” and Auster’s attempt to disguise it was evident, for example, in a key idea he often cited and immodestly referred to as Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. Roughly stated, the idea is that the worse “minorities” behave the more compelled “the majority” is to excuse them. Just so. Auster never tried to explain how this came to be. He apparently conceived it to apply only to certain “minorities” he himself liked to criticize. When pressed as to how his Law related to the jews he behaved very badly and excused them.
Auster very often distinguished between what he called “left-liberals” and “right-liberals”, but because he would not distinguish Whites from jews (except to defend jews) he almost never discussed the obvious differences between White and jewish “liberalism”. The one occasion I’m aware of where Auster did demonstrate that he could see the distinction was in an exchange with tribemate Paul Gottfried. Note how they still maintained the absurd pretense that the nature of the distinction is religious rather than racial:
- You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.
What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.
Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.
By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.
A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.
Liberalism as a Suicide Pact
For jews like Lawrence Auster and Paul Gottfried, blaming “liberalism” is a way of shifting blame away from the jews. Here is Auster’s description of their mutual understanding:
- Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.
By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.
A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.
So how does this White “liberalism” they describe work? They see that the broad-minded White “liberal” individualist don’t-take-your-own-side attitude is not just a poor long-term strategy for the individual, but leads directly to extinction for the group. So how is it that such passive, insecure nothings ever came to run the show?
The answer is that Whites don’t run “liberalism”, the jews do. It is specifically because jews define what contemporary “liberalism” is that White “liberals”, as effete as they are, have gotten and will continue to get the blame for it.
The litany of White sins – slavery, colonization, holocaust – is a jewish construct. It is jews driving the guilt-tripping that causes White guilt and negative associations with White group identity. “You aren’t liberal enough!” is the gist of it. Auster and Gottfried tack yet another item onto the list: “You’re so liberal you’re killing yourself!”
The shift in control over “the philosopy of society” (called “liberalism” ever since the American and French revolutions) from White/Aryan to jew is clearly visible in the shift in attitudes about free speech. Judge Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello v Chicago, in the wake of WWII, shows an increasingly judaized “liberalism” pushing back against White “liberalism”.
“This or that is not a suicide pact” has become a popular turn of phrase in the US. It traces back to Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello, which was motived not by a desire to prevent “suicide”, but to shield the jews from White opposition. Terminiello v. Chicago – Significance at jrank.org describes the background:
- Father Terminiello, sometimes called “the Father Coughlin of the South” because of his anti-Semitic rhetoric, was an Alabama priest who, at the time of this case, was under suspension by his church for distributing anti-Jewish literature. Well known for his controversial views on Jews, blacks, New Deal Democrats, and just about everybody else not white, Christian, and conservative, Terminiello came to Chicago from his home base of Birmingham. He was invited by a group called the Christian Veterans of America in 1946 in order to make a speech at the West End Women’s Club.
Terminiello’s appearance was attended by a capacity crowd of about 800. Meanwhile, a hostile mob of protesters, estimated at well over 1,000 people, gathered outside the auditorium. The tone of Terminiello’s speech, which straightforwardly attacked “Communistic Zionistic Jews,” African Americans, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others, incited the crowd outside to violence. Police were unable to contain the disturbance. Scores of rocks, bricks, bottles, and stink bombs were thrown, resulting in 28 broken windows, 17 arrests.
In the wake of the mayhem, an organization called the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee filed a complaint against Terminiello, claiming that he had violated a Chicago ordinance against disturbing the peace. The language of the ordinance declared it illegal to create a “diversion tending to a breach of the peace.” Terminiello was convicted and fined $100 for his role in the disturbance. Two higher Illinois courts upheld the conviction. Terminiello eventually brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Illinois courts, and overturned Terminiello’s conviction.
In a long, emotional dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson was clearly influenced by his own recent experience as chief U.S. counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. To Jackson, Terminiello’s language was too close to that of the fascists, whose defeat was considered important enough to justify going to war.
- There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
Here’s Metapedia’s page on Robert H. Jackson, to which I added a bit about Terminiello v. City of Chicago, Constitution not a suicide pact.
Here’s Metapedia’s page on Arthur Terminiello, which includes excerpts from his speech in Chicago. The portions referring to jews are most notable for their qualifications:
- “Now, let me say, I am going to talk about–I almost said, about the Jews. Of course, I would not want to say that. However, I am going to talk about some Jews. I hope that–I am a Christian minister. We must take a Christian attitude. I don’t want you to go from this hall with hatred in your heart for any person, for no person. . . .
“Now, this danger which we face–let us call them Zionist Jews if you will, let’s call them atheistic, communistic Jewish or Zionist Jews, then let us not fear to condemn them. You remember the Apostles when they went into the upper room after the death of the Master, they went in there, after locking the doors; they closed the windows. (At this time there was a very loud noise as if something was being thrown into the building.)
“So, my friends, since we spent much time tonight trying to quiet the howling mob, I am going to bring my thoughts to a conclusion, and the conclusion is this. We must all be like the Apostles before the coming of the Holy Ghost. We must not lock ourselves in an upper room for fear of the Jews. I speak of the Communistic Zionistic Jew, and those are not American Jews. We don’t want them here; we want them to go back where they came from.
During World War II, internal partisan divisions wracked the membership of the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee. Debate surged over the relevance of civil liberties in the Soviet Union, the ACLU’s defense of the legal rights of American Fascists, and endorsement of President Roosevelt and his economic policies. In 1945 the national organization of the ACLU accused the CCLC of partisanship and Communist leanings and threatened the committee with expulsion. In response, the CCLC disaffiliated itself from the national organization
More evidence that jewish “liberalism” means “suicide for thee, not for me” can be found in Liberal Democratic Values – not a suicide pact, at Jewish Issues Watchdog, “keeping an eye on jewish affairs”:
- [Peter] Beinart displayed unflinching resolve to advance and to defend his liberal-democratic values – down to the last Israeli.
It must be remembered that commitment to liberal democratic values is not a suicide pact.
To expect Israel to conduct itself in a manner totally divorced from the exigencies of its environment and totally detached from the nature of its adversaries and their manifest goals – as reflected both in their declarations and in their deeds –is a position that reflects neither moral merit nor political prudence
- THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.
It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.
Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.
Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”
Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.
http://age-of-treason.com/2014/05/27/li ... /#comments