What is Liberalism? (or a history of Western thought)

caamib wrote

Well, not exactly...

It is more about how feminism today is viewed as equality. There are some feminists who are completely egalitarian but most are still very anti-egalitarian and misandric.

Of course, I agree that there can be no equality biologically.

That whole post is actually a message to de facto egalitarians, no matter how they call themselves, that they're being naive, though.

Egalitarianism isn't quite the same as equality.  One can have an egalitarian system giving equal rights to the sexes that recognizes the difference between the sexes.  I discussed this here:

http://www.coalpha.org/Double-Standards-tp6354329.html

I think the problem with MRAs is that they fail to recognize the difference between the sexes and so only fight for equal rights for men.  This fails to account for the differences between the sexes and the problems this can cause in a poorly designed society, egalitarian or not.

Firstly I realise that biologically men are dominant with respect to women (thus superior). I think that we can all agree on that point, although what a feminist would say is unclear.

Secondly fschmidt has said that women think differently to men and has said that they are rather child like (in the past). My own view is that women are quite strange, but occasionally I find an intelligent female who competes in a useful way, so it's not clear why some women seem so strange and make such unwise decisions. The UK is different I guess.

The term 'troll' like the term 'liberal' is not one that I fully understand, but I'm probably more likely to be a 'liberal' than a 'troll'.

I solve problems. However it is not that I am looking for solutions, it is that I primarily provide solutions. On top of that it is not that I choose to provide solutions to specific groups, it is that I work on strategy myself and deploy how I see fit. I do not accept that if feminism is a problem that it should just be left to destroy a culture. You can choose to do that, but I will not. My concern is not to complain (as you have heard many times from other people) but rather to gather details and understand how they fit together. Initially I am here because you placed Elliot Rodger's name at the top of your forum and I was searching for that to assess the current interpretations. So - I am investigating Elliot Rodger with a view to developing solutions. As you probably realise the issue has not been resolved. This is my agenda.

That I may be for or against your group is incidental. At the moment I can't even tell if you are right wing or left, and if you gave that indication I would then be unable to tell if your definition of right wing was the same as mine? For example 'Sexual Utopia In Power' is produced by 'THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY' a right wing organisation (a far-right racially obsessed US Magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occidental_Quarterly) thus if you recommend this it means that CoAlpha must be right wing but I suspect that you disagree? Likewise I am Left Wing. Thus if you agree to being right wing you could then say that I am not on your side. In the UK the Liberals are Left Wing.

The outer forum contains enough data for my study, but many of these ideas are quite new to me. Also although it may seem that I am trying to confuse people it is my lack of understanding. Yes you could think of me as an idiot however putting the pieces together does allow me to drive a wedge between people in a tactical way (as you have seen) so clearly I'm not that dumb. It doesn't make me a troll as I am not that active.

Solutions take time as you know.

ShaunS wrote

Initially I am here because you placed Elliot Rodger's name at the top of your forum and I was searching for that to assess the current interpretations. So - I am investigating Elliot Rodger with a view to developing solutions. As you probably realise the issue has not been resolved. This is my agenda.

What exactly is the issue/problem that you want to solve/resolve?

At the moment I can't even tell if you are right wing or left, and if you gave that indication I would then be unable to tell if your definition of right wing was the same as mine?

The title of this forum is "CoAlpha Reactionary Forum" and reactionary is generally interpreted as far right.  But I am not thrilled with a one dimensional view of ideology.  I believe in traditions and the study of history as a way of solving problems, but I have no affection at all for modern conservatives.

I thank you for your reply.

The issue with Elliot Rodger is obviously the guns and bullets, not to mention the other weapons. Let me put it to like this: What if he had joined your group? How could you have helped?

Because this issue has not been resolved the same events will occur again (and again, and again). He failed. His message was lost. His strategy didn't work for him or the culture surrounding him. So the requirement is to have a strategy that would have worked, and it would be best for that strategy, to achieve personal success rather than being an attempt to modify the entire culture.

I can say for example that being in the presence of a group of females for a regular period of time and simply maintaining contact is usually sufficient. If he had been employed in a mixed environment this would have helped.

I'm glad that you're right wing as this accounts for the moderately hostile behaviour of your members. I too dislike such labels and similarly I'm not exactly thrilled with the Labour Party in the UK (that I'm a member of). My concern is that any solutions that are developed would tend to be NEW and thus modernistic and thus progressive and therefore Liberal. This perhaps limits you to past solutions as you have indicated.

In general 'feminism = equality' may perhaps refer to it's origin. The point of a large pyramid where all of the other feminist concepts are extended from this original argument. I think that the best strategy is to draw a distinction between EQUALITY and FAIRNESS, splitting the feminist world into two halves. They can have identical wages for an identical job because that would be FAIR. A focus on the fairness and a removal of the equality for the sake of biology. This argument is off topic here and needs to be in a different thread.

It would be helpful to have a thread for definitions that could be pinned to your start page. Those definitions would need to be the CoAlpha versions. What we need to do next is to finally round off this thread by answering the original question. Although you posted this it doesn't really seem to have answered or provided the interpretation which is why this thread is so long (for example you didn't say that it was Left Wing and that needs to be said for foreigners like myself). What I will try to do next is to write a definition of 'American Liberalism' which will take some time. Others can then write their own or criticise, so that the final word can by used elsewhere.

ShaunS, please note that this thread is over 3 years old and my interests and opinions have changed in that time.  My interest in politics is much less now than it was then, so I can't really be bothered to start a new thread about liberalism and political definitions.  However I will respond to posts of others here where I have something to say.

Regarding fairness, it actually isn't fair to pay any 2 people the same wage for the same job because it is virtually certain that one person will do that job better than the other.  The ideal is simply to allow the employer to decide how much he wishes to pay his employees and not ask him to justify this in any way.  If he pays unfairly, he will suffer from lower productivity from his employees.

And finally, Elliot Rodger:  If this is your issue, let me assure you that we at CoAlpha have the best solution that you will find anywhere.  Unlike others who would try to change Elliot Rodger's views which, I can assure you, would be very difficult to do, we at CoAlpha would agree with Elliot Rodger on his basic beliefs but urge him to consider alternative solutions instead of shooting up his local town.  We would encourage him to see prostitutes for sex and to go abroad to date and to socialize with us for sane conversation.  In other words, we would meet his needs in a nonviolent way without asking him to change his beliefs.  So I believe that the best way to prevent violence from people like Elliot Rodger (and I believe there are many such people) is to introduce them to this forum.

I found this:
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/social%20development/vol16no2/jsda016002005.pdf?origin=publication_detail

ShaunS wrote

I found this:
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/social%20development/vol16no2/jsda016002005.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Not bad.  So why would you, as a liberal, post this, and do you agree with it?  My response to this article would be this:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/interview-with-alexander-dugin/

At the moment I am still studying American Liberalism which in the UK is not understood (or is concealed). I don't have the benefit of being American so it's not immediately obvious to me. Although we do have this in the UK it is not labelled or categorised. This article has some great definitions.

Communitarianism is something that I was not aware of. Henry Tam in the UK wrote the book on this and it would need to be studied. It has been adopted on the sly by many political parties both here and in America. These parties are not referring to it by name because it's too similar sounding to Communism, and it used to be authoritarian (presumably right wing). It was apparently a feature of Tony Blair's 'New Labour' in the UK. So this is academic politics and they may be just looking for a better weasel, a better method of control. It may be the solution that overcomes Liberalism.

Globalisation is something I'm generally in favour of but didn't realise that it mean't ramming Western culture down the throats of foreigners. How would we persuade the French to speak English (or American)? Perhaps Communitarianism will simply be a better way of selling the same thing?

If you are against Globalisation it's best not to attack that head on as in America you would be classified as a terrorist (perhaps that sounds dumb but read the military view on that). So you might support Communitarianism as a way to oppose globalisation without being criticised. As it was originally authoritarian it looks useful to right wing groups. Currently it has aspects of Left and Right wing ideas so using it as a cultural ideology would not be criticised.

The above is politics (and I would rather study Forex trading). I think that in the context of being against Liberalism this seems to be in the area where this encourages Feminism which results in a poor society, so really the question is whether Communitarianism would help? It would seem prudent to focus on Feminism rather than politics. Equality was mean't to be an experiment and the expectation was that females who were not equal would fail and men would say "I told you so".

I don't know if I am for or against it, as more study is required. The truth is the truth and it will be Right Wing, Left Wing, or Central, and it will tend to vary (and be all of those things). Communitarianism also has these qualities so it resembles the truth. It would make a good political ideology for a break away group, and it would avoid criticism.

I consider politics almost irrelevant.  What I care about is culture, and feminism is more of a symptom of a failed culture than a cause of it.  Culture fails when people lose the feeling of moral obligation to each other.  Feminism is just one symptom of this.

This is why I reject the Communitarians, because their focus is political.  My ideal politics is basically libertarian, because I don't think the government has much of a role to play in culture.  The primary responsibility for culture lies with religion.  The West has failed because the Western religions have failed.

Your answer is quite confusing. Your ideal politics is libertarian although you are against liberalism?

My view is that religion is really the authorising power of a political structure. So first you would have a political structure with it's rules and traditions, but those would then be enforced by the power of a God (from which they are supposed to have come from). It is this power of a God that has failed. In the modern era that has been replaced by the power of Science backed up by the threat of the atomic bomb. So science has become the new religion and is used to enforce the political structure. Thus the modernistic practical setting.

We run the risk of needing to define culture? I don't think that the CoAlphas are a political organisation and politics does not directly solve any of the problems or issues that your group is dealing with, although it may well be the cause. This begs the question of whether the culture is a product of liberalism or the byproduct of a lack of religion.

Science is indeed the current power, and it's main advantage is in being transferable from one person to another. Being factual it's rather undeniable. Your religion would need to be as powerful, but would need the new facility of allowing that power to be transferable from one person to another while keeping it out of the hands of external culture. That's something which science achieves through technical language that it uses deliberately to keep outsiders out. Science is also new, it's not something that your failed traditional cultures had to the same extent. While science continues to add new discoveries it it not limited by traditional initial contact with a God and the resultant fixed dogma. Your new religion would need to be especially appealing to women?

As you have suggested creating a new religion would be difficult. A new technology based on sound may be extracted from the Old Testament perhaps? The power of sound-waves has not been realised but such a technology would be very appealing to many people.

I think of liberalism vs conservatism not in terms of religion, but in terms of ecology and science.

If any of you are familiar with ecology and evolution, there is a selection theory known as r/K selection theory.

Now why would I say any of this? It is because these selection theories tie into liberalism (in the progressivist/radical sense) vs conservatism (in the reactionary sense).

r selected species favor conditions where there are optimal conditions for maximum breeding. r-selected individuals tend to have plenty of sex as early as possible, especially premarital sex. So as a result, they are more promiscuous and favor single-parent families with multiple individuals. There is also no in-group loyalty, as typical of co-alphas. Think Shaniqua and her ten children from at least eight different fathers. I doubt Shaniqua would mind if any of her children suffer a tragic fate, since she can at least make more children until she reaches menopause. All would be well for Shaniqua and her brood until there aren't enough ideal conditions such as adequate food. But in a liberal society, she'd be given plenty of cash in her EBT card to feed her children. Children are seen as expendable and adults continue to mate.

K selected species favor conditions where there are optimal conditions for maximum survival with little resources. Now this brings up the co-alpha ideal, mainly because co-alphas thrive in environments where the conditions are harsh and resources are minimal. K-selected individuals are competitive and aggressive and look for ideal individual mates to pair bond as a monogamous couple. K-selected individuals are known for high parental investment in offspring, as well as mating at a later age (to conserve body energy). K-selected individuals would have strong in-group cohesion as typical of co-alphas. K-selected individuals do badly within conditions of excessive resources, since the r-selected individuals would take everything away from them.

What we are witnessing within the past decades is a trend from K-selective investment to r-selective investment. If the resources are all gone, what will happen next? Then nature shifts equilibrium to favor the K-selective individuals and it would be very possible to see a resurgence of co-alpha society in the future. Better start to learn how to plant your own garden and learn to farm. As well as keeping unwanted intruders out of your garden.

Humans are a K-selected species naturally, so adopting an r-selective strategy is detrimental. Human empires were founded by co-alpha K-selected individuals while those same empires fall overnight due to omega r-selected individuals. Therefore, r-selective behavior is evolutionarily backwards compared to that of K-selective behavior in humans. But at the same time, liberals tend to have less children than that of reactionaries/conservatives. Because liberals favor premarital sex with as many partners as possible. On the other hand, co-alpha people favor having monogamous families with huge parental investment, preferably as many children as possible depending on resource availability.

To round off this thread, this is my definition of American Liberalism:

This is considered to be a Left Wing ideology.
A declining belief in God, and a greater belief in human reasoning.
Liberalism appears to be a form of religious thinking (but a different religious thinking).
It's tempting to suggest that Liberalism might be slightly Satanic (Baal worship for example)?
Liberalism promotes feminism.
Liberalism embraces many ideas that are speculative and unproven.

Liberalism affirms the autonomy of the individual (egocentric liberal individualism).
Liberalism emphasizes right at the expense of good and self at the expense of society.

Liberalism encourages the excessive pursuit of the individual's private interests at the expense of the interests of others, the good of society, and the overall welfare of humanity. Liberalism is a selfish ideology.

Having said the above though, it's clear that liberalism is very attractive because it seems to offer so much to the people that follow this ideology (or the few that can). It must be assumed then, that where the liberal gains, some other person looses and the problem with this is that the liberal doesn't care.

There is a sense then that liberals are very competitive and therefore not very co-operative.

* If Liberalism is Satanic this would account for a lot, and perhaps provide methods of fighting back.