Friday, November 9, 2012
In this Age of Decadence, Is Liberalism For Real or Just an Affectation?
We tend to see American society in terms of conservatives and liberals. But how deep is liberalism among liberals? And what exactly is liberalism in an age when the biggest struggle for justice involves cross-dressing transvestites? Ever since the demise of economic Marxism, many commentators have noted the rise of 'cultural Marxism'. Could it be that economic liberalism is over and has been supplanted by 'cultural liberalism'? Sure, there is big government, but it seems to exist mainly to collude with and bail out Wall Street and big corporations that provide most of the funds for politicians of both parties. In terms of economic policy, there may be no great difference between the two parties. Republicans did little to curtail big government. GOP used to talk of term limits but when they took Congress in the 90s, they dropped it like a hot potato. Both parties are for Wall Street, free trade, rich getting richer, meritocracy, and etc. If GOP is the party of the rich, how come the richest areas in America--the downtowns of big cities--are totally blue and Democratic? How come Silicon Valley is almost entirely Democratic? How come Facebook and Google gave 99% of their donations to Democrats?
Of course, liberals are aware of this. Especially since the Clinton presidency, the 'New Democrat' policy of the Democratic Party has favored free trade globalist business and entrepreneurs over the blue collar working class. The new Democratic elite saw the white working class as unreliable--many were Reagan Democrats, 'racist' in Archie Bunker fashion, and overly 'patriotic'. The Unions were also seen as arrogant, corrupt, and etc. If Jewish elites supported Obama to tame the Negroes, Jewish elites in the 90s supported Clinton to tame the Unions. Clinton and Gore gave us NAFTA, and the great sucking sound was heard across the nation. But Democrat elites didn't mind stabbing the white working class in the back since GOP was even more globalist and free-trader and wouldn't be able to attract them either(and the 2012 election proved it). The liberal Silicon Valley kings of the 90s wanted globalism. They wanted to work the entire world to rake in their profits. They didn't want to get entangled in fights with unions in American factories. Much better to build factories in China, India, Vietnam, and Puerto Rico. And Hollywood wanted to expand its franchise all over the world, and globalism was key. Hollywood liberals say they love diversity, but they sure don't care about 'cultural imperialism' and 'cultural genocide' carried out by (Jewish-controlled)American culture around the world.
Liberal elites, not 'rich conservatives', were the main beneficiaries of globalism and stabbing white working class in the back. (To be sure, unions were indeed corrupt and rotten and deserved some kind of butt-spanking. In order to survive, unions too have become globalized. No longer patriotic and pro-white, it now panders to illegal workers in America.) These facts are pretty dire. The fact is globalist liberals have been getting richer and richer while others have gotten poorer and poorer. NY has one of the biggest wealth gaps in the world. It's a city of financial lords and professionals and.. waiters and cabbies. If Americans woke up to this fact, the globalist liberals--many of them Jews and liberal wasp turncoats--could be in trouble. The fact is 'economic liberalism' is dead. Unions are dead unless they are government unions. But when push comes to shove, even government unions are coming under pressure in blue states like NY, Michigan, and Illinois. And though Democratic elites publicly howled about the Republican governor of Wisconsin, they were secretly happy with his policies. They were happy to have a 'conservative' do the dirty work for them. Easier to shift the blame.
Also, 'affirmative action' is really a war waged by rich white liberals on poor whites. It's not rich white/Jewish lawyers or rich white/Jewish doctors or rich white/Jewish computer engineers who are being hurt by 'affirmative action'. It's 'working class' white firemen and police men and other whites working at the lower rungs of society. Liberal elites wasps and Jews satisfy black demands by sacrificing lower-rung white jobs to blacks while the elite jobs are mostly kept by rich white/Jewish liberals. Notice that the Jewish share of the economic pie at the top keeps expanding while the white working class and middle class share of the pie keeps shrinking. This is the new economy of the liberal elites.
Since liberal elites are economically no different from pro-rich Republican elites, the only way to maintain liberalism is as a 'culture', and so there is 'cultural liberalism'. Since liberal elites are rich and getting richer, they can only prove their 'progressive' worth by cooking up stuff like 'diversity' and 'gay marriage' and 'green' consciousness and 'slut pride' and other nonsense.
In a way, liberals have become the new conservatives in their appeal to cultural issues. Remember how rich conservative used to win over a lot of non-rich people through cultural conservatism? School prayer, pledge of allegiance, family values, and etc? Yeah, like George H.W. Bush really cared about the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. Since economic conservatism had little to offer to many non-rich folks, the appeal was to affectations of culture.
Now, liberal elites, the richest people in America, pull the same thing. And so, we have one hysteria after another about 'homophobia' and 'war against women'. While it may seem that liberalism is triumphant, it is actually in big danger. Beware when everything seems to be going your way; one can easily mistake dusk for dawn. When the tidal wave reaches its peak, it's about to tumble and crash. The end of the Reagan presidency and the election of George H.W. Bush and the fall of the communism seemed as though conservatism was triumphant. But in fact, it was a time when American conservatism was in most danger. It lost its greatest and most useful foe: the Evil Empire. It was badly losing the Culture War, and the New Economy was being created by liberal boomers like Steve Jobs.
The moment when conservatives seemed most victorious was really just a swan song, especially since without the great enemy of communism, conservatism just got gutless with Bush and Quayle or mean and nasty with Gingrich(or bland and dull with Dole).
Similarly, 2012 is not a good time for Dems. It doesn't matter if they'll win all future national elections. Without the GOP as the Evil Foe, Dems will have to bear all the blame. And the divisions within the Democratic party will start to widen, especially as Democratic Party is really owned by superrich Jews and privileged gays. Blacks, browns, and others will start wondering why Jews and gays got so much while they got so little. With the demise of 'evil white man', it won't be so easy for Jews and gays to lay all the blame on 'evil greedy nasty racist mean-spirited toxic odious noxious conservative white guy' for all social problems. What will become plain for all to see is that the Democratic Party is the party of the superrich. It's the party of rich Jews and gays who used 'diversity' to defeat white wasp conservatism. Blacks and browns have been USED by the Democratic elites. They never owned the party. Obama has been a useful cover for Jewish power. And Jewish elites in the Democrats will of course keep on using cultural liberal gimmicks like the 'historic first female president', the 'historic first Hispanic president', and etc. But as each president sucks up to superrich globalist Jews, it will become evident that all these politicians are puppets of rich globalist Zionist Jewish power. If white conservatism can play one role in the future, it is to exploit this division within the Democrats. Even if white conservatives can no longer win national elections, they can get revenge against Jews. Another thing white conservatives can do is support Palestinian rights, just like Jews supported black rights in South Africa under apartheid. Eye for an eye.
Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter yammer about 'takers' and Hispanics, but if they had real courage, they would admit, "Jews did this." And neocon moles in the GOP likely colluded with liberal Jews to undermine white gentile power.
Since economic liberalism is pretty much dead, the new liberalism survives as cultural or symbolic liberalism. Same thing in China. Economic communism is dead and in its stead there is cultural or symbolic communism: Maoist symbolism to shroud the 'culture of greed'. Since the Jewish-black alliance has been weakening over the decades, there is the symbolic alliance via the mulatto Obama who was totally the creation of Jewish money and power.
Paradoxically, it could be that so many privileged liberals are culturally liberal because they are behaviorally and economically conservative, the corollary being it could be so many underprivileged conservatives are culturally conservative because they are behaviorally and economically so liberal.
To clarify this, what do we mean by 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
In this case, 'conservative' means hard-working, success-driven, concentrated and focused, intelligent, disciplined, family-oriented, responsible, community-oriented, and trustworthy.
And 'liberal' means fast and loose, unstable, reckless, easy-going, immature, self-indulgent, hedonistic, self-centered, and etc.
Now, there are many trashy liberals, but elite liberals are behaviorally very 'conservative' as defined above. They were good little kids, did their homework, focused on success, responsible and trustworthy, mindful of others, and later become responsible parents. For them, such habitual 'conservatism' is second nature. They take it for granted since it's in their behavioral blood. They don't wax about conservative values since they have so much of conservative behavioral instinct in them. If you're responsible by nature, you don't have to think constantly about the value of responsible behavior. People without legs think about having legs. People with legs just use them and walk around to do other stuff; they don't think about legs. Elite liberals, being behaviorally conservative nature, don't think much about 'conservative' values since it defines their behavior every moment of every day. Having conservative habits is enough. They don't need the habit turned into a 'value'. (In contrast, many unsuccessful and irresponsible conservatives cling to 'conservative values' since it serves as some kind of compass in their topsy-turvy unstable lives.) Just like people with legs don't walk just to walk, those with conservative habits don't use them just be conservative. People walk to go to places. And elite liberals use their conservative habits to liberally venture into new ideas and possibilities.
This may be where Jews have a decisive advantage over East Asians. Jews have conservative habits but use them for liberal venturousness. East Asians have lionized conservative habits as the highest virtue. So, if Jews study hard to think new thoughts and do new things, East Asians study hard to maintain the old virtues. Jews have conservative habits but liberal attitudes. East Asians have conservative habits and conservative attitudes. It may be changing in the US as East Asians become Americanized, but it seems more like they are bowing before the new boss: the Jews. As such, Asians will always be followers than leaders.
While dumb and trashy liberals, lacking conservative habits, indulge in stupid liberalism--like Lindsey Lohan among others--, liberal elites work with a higher form of liberalism. Having conservative habits, liberal elites went to good schools, worked very hard, are very dedicated and committed, very serious and sober in their thoughts. For them, liberal freedom doesn't mean obeying the lusts of guts and groins as the case is with trashy liberals. It means using higher freedom to find things of higher value and deeper meaning. There's a world of difference between a trashy liberal whose culture revolves around video games or gossip magazines and higher liberal whose culture revolves around classical music, serious literature, and intellectual stuff.
The difference is the higher liberal has conservative habits--plus of course higher intelligence--that drive him or her to freedoms of higher value. There's a big difference between readers of People magazine and the New Yorker.
Consider the author of BATTLE HYMN OF TIGER MOTHER, Amy Chua. She's a liberal but a habitual conservative. And though her husband may be easier-going than she is, he too is a habitual conservative as he's focused on studying, going to top schools, being a responsible father and husband, and etc. If you were to just look at their habits, they are very conservative. And though Chua says her friends were shocked by her hard parenting ways, the fact is most high liberal parents are also into success, hard work, stable relations, and drive their kids to make the social climb.
Most Jews are habitually conservative, and it's because their habitual conservatism comes so naturally that they don't bother with conservative values but instead on using conservative habits to find, discover, and conquer new things.
A values conservative looks at the hammer and waxes about its importance as a tool. A habits conservative--or higher liberal--just uses the hammer to hit the nails; he thinks of the hammer not as the end but as a means to other ends.
It is no wonder then that so many Jews, elite wasps, and East Asians have become liberals. They mostly take their habitual conservatism for granted. Why think conservative when conservative habits are a part of your very being? Why not use conservative habits to be liberal and adventurous in thought? Also, even as conservative habits are very useful, they are kinda boring, 'lame', and square. Especially in America where everyone is supposed to be marked by his individualist 'difference', it's not enough to be a model citizen with responsible conservative 'bourgeois' habits. One has to have some spice, some pizzazz, and that comes with liberal affectations. So, if you're a habitual conservative who went to good school, has a good job, a loving family, and etc, it's all very nice but it's 'boring' and 'lame'. You want to be 'different'. And so, there is the affectation of 'cultural liberalism'. So, in the areas of habits, you could really be as conservative as a Mormon, but by going to art galleries and praising some post-modern art or by espousing 'gay marriage', you can come across as 'different', 'special', 'radical', 'rebellious', or whatever. Or, if you're a successful Hollywood producer, you might win some 'culturally eccentric' points by having a Che Guevara poster in your office. But these are mostly affectations. Do higher liberals really want to live in a social order run by the likes of Che Guevara? Do higher liberals really want to live next to poor blacks in the name of equality? Do higher liberals really want elite institutions to look like America? For the sake of fairness, do Jews really want Wall Street to be only 2% Jewish? Does Amy Chua and her husband really want to live in a 'diverse' community with too many blacks and browns? Chris Matthews says he lives in diverse Washington DC but his neighborhood is actually almost entirely white. And notice how Hyde Park is closed off from the rest of the black community in the South Side of Chicago. So, much of liberalism is really an affectation than a form of real-life practice. And so much fuss of this affectation is made because it diverts our attention from the sheer phoniness of elite liberal reality.
For most Christians, Jesus is just a symbol or affectation worn as a golden necklace. Cultural liberalism has the same kind of appeal. That way, higher liberals can live the good life of stability and privilege but put on airs of 'social justice' and 'being radical'.