The Tyranny of Liberalism
By Israel Shamir
Modern
Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a
major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This
line is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate
whose elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the
identical message
James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism.[1]
A “liberal tyranny” may strike some as oxymoronic if not a
contradiction in terms since Liberalism likes to represent
itself as the neutral ground of freedom rather than as an
ideology and as an arbiter of religious pluralism and freedom
rather than an anti-religious ideology. Liberalism is the
ideology than denies that it is such a thing; ask a liberal and
he will tell you he is against the dominance of any ideology or
of any religion.
In our attempt to pierce this protective
colouring we shall apply some ideas of the late German thinker
Carl Schmitt who learned of liberalism the hard way. After
Germany was subdued and conquered in 1945, Carl Schmitt lived
for a while in the Soviet and the American occupation zones,
which were later converted into the German Democratic Republic
and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis of his
comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed
that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to
compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that
Schmitt give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the
Russians never asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist
Manifesto. This personal experience led Schmitt to conclude that
the Modern American Liberalism is not an ideology-free
live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive ideology, and an
ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he greatly
disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power
threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea
global imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason
he welcomed the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force
capable of containing the American ideological drive.
In recent years with the American invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share Schmitt’s
realization that Liberalism is an aggressive global ideology
calling for certain principles to be implemented world-wide by
force of arms. These principles can be described either in
positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and an oyster
would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different
ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let’s
have a look at the menu from a dual perspective.
·
Human rights OR
denial of Collective Rights.
·
Minority Rights OR
denial of Majority Rights.
·
Non-governmental
ownership of media OR exclusive right of Capital to form public
opinion.
·
Women rights and
protection OR dissolution of family.
·
Homosexual unions OR
denial of the sanctity of marriage
·
Antiracism OR denial
of “the need for roots” in Weil’s terms.
·
Economic
self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in theological
terms agape and charity)
·
Separation of Church
and State OR freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on
Christian mission in the public sphere.
·
Public elections of
government («democracy»), limited by voters’ conformity to the
liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic self-determination.
Carl Schmitt postulated an important
assumption: every ideology is a crypto-religious doctrine, or in
his words, «all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine
are secularized theological concepts». Let us compare Communism
and Liberalism in the light of this insight.
Though it originated in the West, Communism
first arose in the society formed by the Russian Orthodox
Church, and it had
many features one would expect to find in a secularised
Orthodoxy[2].
Poets felt it well, and
Alexander Blok sang of Christ “with the blood-red flag,
invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a
white crown of roses” leading his Twelve Red Guards[3].
In the late Soviet days, the Russians
proclaimed the Christian principle “Man is to Man a Friend,
Comrade and Brother.”[4]
The Russian Communists despised material comforts as had their
Orthodox predecessors, and placed their
sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church)
and solidarity above all other virtues.[5]
Solidarity and Catholicity are features
shared by ideologies Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda
Bauer, the Yad Vashem Memorial director, the High Priest of the
Holocaust cult, in a speech given to counterbalance the Tehran
Conference,
said:
“There are great
differences between National Socialism, Soviet Communism, and
radical Islam, but there are also some important parallels. All
three are or were religious or quasi-religious movements.
Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was
central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was
Nazi ideology that was the central factor that produced the
Holocaust; Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that
everyone in the Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same
applies to radical Islam.”
[6]
This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of
Carl Schmitt’s words, rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it
has theological underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did
not mention one important ideology, contemporary with the three
and at war with them. Just recently, some fifty years ago,
Marxists-Leninists, National Socialists and Liberals sorted out
their differences on the battlefields of Europe. Why does the
Liberal Bauer give a pass to Liberalism?
Beyond being coy, Bauer’s significant
omission has an important theological message: Liberalism’s
claim to transcendence. A liberal places liberalism above
“ordinary” religions and ideologies; on a higher plane than any
religious or ideological construct. The adepts of any ideology
other than Liberalism are “totalitarians” or “fanatics”, in the
eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the only possessors
of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old
Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level
above the “pagans”. Theoretically, this attitude of superiority
was inherited by the three great religions of our oikouménè, of
Eastern and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it
wasn’t internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider
himself a cut above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern
Judaism (widely divergent from Biblical Judaism in other
respects) preserved this unpleasant claim to superiority of its
predecessor.
Bauer’s reluctance to name the religious
component of Liberalism provides us with a clue pointing to
something he might wish to conceal. But here
is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek parallels in
the three indicted movements, he positions their common
antagonist:
“All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy:
the Nazis murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport
all Soviet Jews to
Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should
die. The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud
and clear.”
If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his
assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head
of Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier.
If he does not believe his own claim, he is a liar and a
defamer. The story of “Soviets planning to deport Jews” is an
Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar bill and
thoroughly debunked, too.[7]
If Stalin and Hitler had read Bauer’s talk in 1940, they
wouldn’t have gone to war. But what is important for us is that
Bauer construes every modern movement based on solidarity,
catholicity and community as “anti-Jewish”, while Liberalism is
as Jewish as gefilte fish.
What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars
follow Weber and describe Liberalism as secularised
Protestantism. Others pay attention to its anti-religious
anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised Satanism.
The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry
based on the “heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their
de-socialised Consumers”.
Armed with Schmitt’s thesis and Bauer’s
testimony, we may conclude: the “liberal democracy and human
rights” doctrine carried by the US marines across the Tigris and
the Oxus is a form of secularised Judaism. Considering the
predominance of Jews in mass media and especially among the
media lords, it is only natural that the ideology they promote
is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish
attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this
“non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique”
Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique”
love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the
Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are
stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is
written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their
attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands
next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a
sine qua non for American politicians. Bauer describes the
horror of possible Nazi victory in such telling words: “There
would be no Jews, because they would all be annihilated. This
would end history as such”. In other words, history in Bauer’s
eyes is about Jews. No Jews – no history. The rest of mankind
are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.
Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to
Judaism, and this is the only religion protected within the
dominant Liberal discourse. When some Russians tried to apply
the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic anti-Christian
diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish bodies, but by
the White House and by the European Community as well. This
week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be
removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The
airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in
“cultural anthropology.” New York city schools won’t allow
mention of Christmas but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the
silly Kwanza because they are all multicultural whereas
Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good source for the war
against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.) Every
reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights
bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to
Jewish religious symbols.
When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian
Communism, conquered lands, they shared their faith and their
resources with the conquered. Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net
supplier to its “satellites”, and spent a fortune supporting
Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states. After
1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of great industrial
enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly lacked before
their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of the
more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR’s liberal
destroyers was “enough of feeding foreigners”.
Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order
to rob and destroy them. For forty years of Jewish rule in
Palestine, not a single building was constructed by the
authorities, but thousands were demolished. Although thoroughly
secularised, the Jewish state embodies the paranoid Jewish fear
and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of the
Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and
loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq
turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that
have been fully subdued by the Liberals – Haiti, Malawi – are
the poorest of all.
Hold on here! you’ll say. What a load of
trash! Judaism is one of the great monotheistic religions;
Judaists believe in the same God we Christians and Muslims
believe. Judaists are our comrades in the common struggle
against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in common with
the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of
globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial
of roots, destruction of family and of nature. It’s the other
way around: Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the
sanctity of family, the preservation of nature; Judaic
communities are well known for their solidarity and mutual
support, for tradition and for the togetherness of people
united-in-God.
This is strong objection; and apparently it
shatters our identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism.
But only apparently; for this objection is based on faulty
premise. Judaism (like the Roman God Janus) has two faces; one
facing the Jews, and other facing the Goyim, non-Jews. It makes
two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to Goyim. This is the
difference between Judaism on one hand, and Christianity, Islam,
Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths place no demands
on non-adept except for the call to become one. The only thing
the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become Christian.
Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is
almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But
Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the
misfortune to be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew,
and thus the goy is forbidden to have a religion, he may not
celebrate his own religious feasts, he may not help his
brethren; he should be an economic animal. Secularised Judaism
tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for Judaism-for-Jews has its
sacral core.
Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described
fit Judaism-for-Goyim.
·
Denial of Group
Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group rights. Jews are
entitled to participate in the society as a group, but non-Jews
should play as individuals, an attitude of “You have individual
rights, we have group rights”. Communal property of goyim is
considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take
over the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only
about confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion
is permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers’
solidarity should be broken, trade unions must be dismantled,
but rich men’s solidarity is permitted. Privatisation is such a
denial of group rights: if an asset does not belong to a private
rich person, it is up for grabs.
·
Minority rights and
denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a non-Jewish majority has
no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this is fully inherited
by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the victory of
Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media
de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were
called the “Aggressive and obedient majority” as opposed to the
Enlightened Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened
discourse in the West usually contains a hidden reference to
John Stuart Mill, Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear
of the majority’s tyranny.
·
Private (as opposed
to public) ownership of media, or the exclusive right of rich
men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned paper is usually
contrasted with “free media”, as if a newspaper belonging to a
rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to a state,
to a church, or to a trade union.
·
Women’s rights and
Homosexual rights. Judaism does not recognise the goy’s family.
This is fully inherited by liberalism: liberals do not believe
in the non-privileged man’s family and want to dismantle it.
·
Antiracism for a Jew
is a tool in his natural struggle against the indigenous
population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism allows for the
importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine trade unions
and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.
·
Judaism considers
welfare a unique feature of Judaic community, while the goyim
are not allowed such prerogatives as agape for mutual aide and
protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare, unless it
serves to support their companies and corporations or as a
government policy to foster support for immigrants and
demographic upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national
communities and to racialize politics.
·
Freedom of
anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not fight Judaism,
but carries on a relentless struggle against Christianity. In
liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church for its
teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.
·
Democracy. In the
liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with the liberal ideas,
your voice is not counted; a defence against
the Tyranny of
Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for whom
you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel “a
democracy”, though the majority of its goyim have no right to
vote, and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking
the “Jewish majority”. The democratic victories of Hamas in
Palestine, and of Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal;
in Serbia, they repeated the elections until they obtained the
sought-after result.
·
Thus we come to a
conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularised Judaism
for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious pressure, as its
proponents claim.
Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this
strange ideology? A probable answer to this can be found in
British history.
Recent studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th
century, pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and
established an “apartheid society” of 10,000 invaders in the
midst of 2 million natives. They eventually outbred the natives:
“An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have
quickly established themselves by having more children who
survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and
economic advantage. They also prevented the native British genes
getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting
intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country
culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has
a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a
principally German language,” writes Thomas.[8]
Thus, some of the British population have an
inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy
connected with apartheid and with application of “Judaic”
principles. The Jews have no copyright on being nasty; and the
quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth has more to do
with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain was
Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but
along came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic
ideas of the Old Testament, followed by the import of their
Talmudic reading from the Netherlands during the Orange
Revolution. The Catholic religious muzzle came off, and the
enclosures devoured traditional England. In this great bout of
privatisation, the landlords partitioned, privatised and fenced
off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors, they
disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes,
of “the goyim” of the New Order. They applied their strategy in
Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and
caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons,
Americans and Australians have the memory of the successful
strategy; this makes them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to
quasi-Judaic measures.
Certainly, colonisation and ruling military
caste formation did not occur only in Britain. There is the
Aryan Conquest in the Indian tradition, or Frank rule in France.
The French solved the problem by the National Razor of Dr
Guillotin in the Big Terror of
1793, where the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly
voiced by the middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the
Polish nobles claim that they are descendants of non-Slavic
Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary Poles who are Slavs. This
“Sarmat” claim of the Polish nobility (which entails contempt
for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important reason why
Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community ever
to exist on earth.
Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal
Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper
and lower castes. Indeed, in the US,
60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few
have billions they can’t possibly spend.[9]
This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the
ruling minority. It is so successful, that eventually the ruled
majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate its
success. But its full extinction is not to be desired: brought
down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist claim, offered a small
niche, Liberalism can be useful in any solidarist society like a
ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just should not allow to
freeze us out.
|