I remember my first questionings of what is called left-liberalism just after I left university. I noticed that my right-on acquaintances wanted the state to take up the burden of family that they wanted to put down. They especially wanted to be able to have libertine love-lives. By promoting a cradle-to-grave state they salved their consciences: romance was sovereign (the ambiguity of the word love aided this segue), but Christian charity was to be maintained through the welfare state. The problem is not so much perhaps that liberals are wrong in their assessment of the trajectory of mankind, but that that trajectory is nightmarish: liberalism is not just an economic matter. In an imagined state of nature – pure liberalism? – there is varied mating success. The moment this is accepted as a fact of life, all egalitarian ideologies seem ridiculous. It was Christianity’s presumption of monogamy that was the foundation of all Western egalitarian law and progressivism, for better or worse. What has this to do with identity politics and borders? As follows. Any polity in which monogamy is not enforced in some way moves rapidly to being a kind of slave-state. A too large class of mateless males emerges and the second-class and undignified nature of their lives is impossible to cover-up. Ideologies of citizenship become laughable and the state becomes more authoritarian in order to maintain the blatantly unequal order, from the male point of view. Liberalism thus brings the end of consensual civilisation.
“A too large class of mateless males emerges and the second-class and undignified nature of their lives is impossible to cover-up”
Nothing to do with the average “incel” being a charming as a fatal road accident? Entitled whiners are rarely successful in the mating game.
igorslamoff
3 years ago
“In practice, identitarianism is principally a movement hostile to Muslim immigrants.” That is true. Moreover identitarianism has right-wing and anti-democratic tendencies. However the most powerful forces within Muslim minorities in Europe, namely salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood cluster, are themselves right-wing and anti-democratic, and are furthermore largely controlled by governments outside Europe that seek to advance their own interests in Europe and care little for the fate of Europeans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Thus European democrats must join to oppose both authoritarian movements that oppose Muslim influence and authoritarian movements that seek to expand the power of Muslim countries in Europe.
stephen17891789
3 years ago
“The abuse heaped on more than 17 million Brexit supporters in the UK and 60-odd million Trump voters in America by liberal exemplars of universal humanity is telling”
Hmmm … rather one-sided mud throwing. The earnest prof reveals his ideological biases. As an opponent of brexit I have been abused as a traitor, quisling, maniac, etc. I have had my life threatened. There are parts of the UK I would not now travel to for if I were honest about my opinions, my life would be in jeopardy. If I were not facing retirement I would certainly leave the country but I am not as energetic as I was 30 years ago. Fortunately I live in a neighbourhood where I feel relatively safe. Though I still see fleeing as a possibility if the UK leaves with no deal and the government blames people like me for the consequences. Thanks mum for the Irish passport! It seems inevitable that the mass of brexit supporters will seek scapegoats when brexit tuns out not to be what they wanted and we are building up to a Dolchstoßlegende of massive proportions
stephenmoriarty
4 years ago
What is commonly perceived as “diversity” – varieties of dress, food, etc. – is not the essence of the problem. The real issue is that government is the only means by which monogamy can be promoted to the whole of society. Therefore civilisation requires a single-minded and active state on this issue if not on others. Of course it is impossible to imagine such a state in the Western world today. Not only would such a premeditated social policy run into opposition from feminists and others, we can also feel sure that many of those with sufficient power to promote such a policy will feel no inclination to do so. The really necessary – illiberal – purpose of the of the state is the promotion of monogamy. Of course this requires a degree of “social cohesion”.
I remember my first questionings of what is called left-liberalism just after I left university. I noticed that my right-on acquaintances wanted the state to take up the burden of family that they wanted to put down. They especially wanted to be able to have libertine love-lives. By promoting a cradle-to-grave state they salved their consciences: romance was sovereign (the ambiguity of the word love aided this segue), but Christian charity was to be maintained through the welfare state.
The problem is not so much perhaps that liberals are wrong in their assessment of the trajectory of mankind, but that that trajectory is nightmarish: liberalism is not just an economic matter. In an imagined state of nature – pure liberalism? – there is varied mating success. The moment this is accepted as a fact of life, all egalitarian ideologies seem ridiculous. It was Christianity’s presumption of monogamy that was the foundation of all Western egalitarian law and progressivism, for better or worse.
What has this to do with identity politics and borders? As follows. Any polity in which monogamy is not enforced in some way moves rapidly to being a kind of slave-state. A too large class of mateless males emerges and the second-class and undignified nature of their lives is impossible to cover-up. Ideologies of citizenship become laughable and the state becomes more authoritarian in order to maintain the blatantly unequal order, from the male point of view.
Liberalism thus brings the end of consensual civilisation.
“A too large class of mateless males emerges and the second-class and undignified nature of their lives is impossible to cover-up”
Nothing to do with the average “incel” being a charming as a fatal road accident? Entitled whiners are rarely successful in the mating game.
“In practice, identitarianism is principally a movement hostile to Muslim immigrants.” That is true. Moreover identitarianism has right-wing and anti-democratic tendencies. However the most powerful forces within Muslim minorities in Europe, namely salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood cluster, are themselves right-wing and anti-democratic, and are furthermore largely controlled by governments outside Europe that seek to advance their own interests in Europe and care little for the fate of Europeans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Thus European democrats must join to oppose both authoritarian movements that oppose Muslim influence and authoritarian movements that seek to expand the power of Muslim countries in Europe.
“The abuse heaped on more than 17 million Brexit supporters in the UK and
60-odd million Trump voters in America by liberal exemplars of
universal humanity is telling”
Hmmm … rather one-sided mud throwing. The earnest prof reveals his ideological biases. As an opponent of brexit I have been abused as a traitor, quisling, maniac, etc. I have had my life threatened. There are parts of the UK I would not now travel to for if I were honest about my opinions, my life would be in jeopardy. If I were not facing retirement I would certainly leave the country but I am not as energetic as I was 30 years ago. Fortunately I live in a neighbourhood where I feel relatively safe. Though I still see fleeing as a possibility if the UK leaves with no deal and the government blames people like me for the consequences. Thanks mum for the Irish passport! It seems inevitable that the mass of brexit supporters will seek scapegoats when brexit tuns out not to be what they wanted and we are building up to a Dolchstoßlegende of massive proportions
What is commonly perceived as “diversity” – varieties of dress, food, etc. – is not the essence of the problem. The real issue is that government is the only means by which monogamy can be promoted to the whole of society. Therefore civilisation requires a single-minded and active state on this issue if not on others.
Of course it is impossible to imagine such a state in the Western world today. Not only would such a premeditated social policy run into opposition from feminists and others, we can also feel sure that many of those with sufficient power to promote such a policy will feel no inclination to do so.
The really necessary – illiberal – purpose of the of the state is the promotion of monogamy. Of course this requires a degree of “social cohesion”.