The Vanguard Papers: The Case Against Liberty

vanguardpapers
Liberty

For this article liberalism is defined as a political worldview that emphasizes the primacy of individual liberty, egalitarianism and free markets. Because both major contemporary American political parties embrace most of the same core tenets of liberalism this article should not be seen as an attack on either. Rather as a critique of the invisible fuselage that commands both political wings.

This article also assumes liberalism is viewed through the prism of the contemporary American political and social landscape.

Overseas

Liberalism is the most hardened form of Eurocentric supremacy. Liberalism was completely derived by European thinkers with an emphasis on Western European thinkers.  In America it assumes all other forms of social or economic thinking is inferior. It seeks to impose itself on all parts of the globe. In that respect we’ve replaced overt colonialism with a more covert form. However, make no mistake, this mode of thought will not compromise until global dominance and global hegemony is complete. Liberalism assumes itself to be the end of history.

Even with this global push for countries outside of America to bend to liberalism it seems that it can never be fully realized. In China they have something mimicking the veneer of a free market, but not really. On the social front in China, there is still the emphasis of the party over the individual. What is wrong with China, we ask? The George W. Bush policy of bringing (or forcing) freedom and liberty in the Middle East as an inherit right was an utter failure.

Russia is a belligerent state that can’t accept its place in the new world of globalism, of social and economic hegemony. The key to Russia’s success will be to ignore an expanding NATO and getting on board with liberalism. If not, do they have something better to offer? Keep in mind these perceived failures are always on the leaders or the citizens of the offending region. This begs the question: Is there an ideology that is supreme to liberalism? Of course not, we say! Not once does America assume that it may be liberalism under the banner of globalism that may be repelling these belligerent regions. Liberalism assumes itself to be universal. The limitation it may face is something that needs to be fixed on those it’s imposed on (The Fundamental Liberal Principle). Not once do we think liberalism isn’t universal. The burden of proof is on those that accuse liberalism as being a worldview that doesn’t have a universal application. The burden of proof is on those that resist liberalism.

Liberal economics assumes the individual is set for material pursuits, constantly hungering, consuming. The individual is meant to be a slave to material appetites. If not completely, then enough to maintain and expand the broader order. When this is met with opposition outside America, it’s something to be corrected or attacked. Again, see the Middle East.

At Home

Multiculturalism is the war cry…as long as it means that culture is acceptable to the appetites of the current American social climate. Tolerance comes with a thick rule book that is written in a language that can only be deciphered by the anointed figures that come and go as the social landscape changes, which is almost constantly. Finding the right thing to say, that won’t offend, is difficult. So, it’s best to stay silent.  Liberalism is an invisible tyranny that seeks to debase you to a homogenous unit that is only here to consume and comply.

The ultimate goal of contemporary liberalism is removing the individual from any group that may predate it.  Liberalism is obsessed with replacing organic groups with new, synthetic groups that can be better to manage and thus fit into economic and social models that are easier to control. Examples of groups that have been mostly replaced are traditional family, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationalism or even private operations that seek to impose their own norms on members. Any attempts to maintain these groups are outlawed or demonized. What is accepted are identities that are created after the onset of liberalism.

Liberalism is a systematic process of loss, a process of eliminating an identity. A process that is hostile to pronouns. Liberalism has even stripped away good and evil, right and wrong.

Liberalism does seek to free the individual, but not in the way that is rhetorically flaunted.  It seeks to free the individual from the burden of being tied to anything that makes a person unique. Common in the American social lexicon are proclamations such as: We are all one human family. There is no true religion only a universal spirituality.  There is only one human race. There are universal rights that we all possess. There are global human rights. Everyone and every group are equal. Any of this sounds familiar? There are no genders only social constructs, or if there are genders it’s a fluid arrangement. This kind of fluidity also extends to the arena of situational morality and ethics. This kind of fluidity ensures that the only absolute is the belief in liberalism. Are those sentiments designed to deprive the individual any kind composite identity that existed before liberalism? Any group identification that wasn’t created post-liberalism is cast aside to make way for a manufactured version that is acceptable to contemporary society. This means no collective power can be overtly expressed from groups such as race or religion and remain within the acceptable dichotomy of the left versus right dialectical farce.     

Individualism in practice under liberalism can be argued as the least humane form of societal doctrine. The individual is heralded in rhetoric, but in real application is stripped from any meaning. Alienation is often the result. The individual must have free speech, is the cry, but if exercised in any manner that is outside the ever changing norms of the moment could end in economic or criminal penalty or even violence. This is still a penal structure that is very much a form of tyranny.  Any defiance of the current social ethos is tantamount to blasphemy and much like the puritans, the individual is shunned or banished from whatever perch they may have held. This then exposes the lie of the individual in machine of liberalism in America.   

The republic itself is in many ways contrary to liberalism because a republic is a form of collective action. Nationalism is dangerous to liberalism because the claim is it can be a slippery slope to other forms of collectivism. This is largely a farce meant to keep the individuals from straying outside of the bounds of liberalism.

We have removed so much from the individual over the course of this experiment because all that’s left to remove is the human itself. Perhaps that’s where Transhumanism comes into the picture.

Liberalism is particularly potent in the arena of information. The cry of “fake news” is often times used as tool of degradation of any opinion that counters the relentless march of the liberal gulag.

The time of contemporary liberalism is likely in its last days simply because it’s technology that’s been exploited to its natural conclusions.   

Should we say farewell as a means of patriotism, as a means of well-meaning survival?

Time will tell.

Sal

Salvadore Ritchie
Follow Me

Salvadore Ritchie

Occult Enthusiast, True Crime Aficionado, Movie Philosopher. I keep secrets. I do YouTube Videos.
Salvadore Ritchie
Follow Me