Liberalism: Its History and Origins

Post Reply New Topic

Conservatism defers to tradition, the wisdom of the ages, so we understand that it is our inheritance, passed down through the ages. It is a common error to assume that liberalism, though, is a recent invention, a scourge that has laid waste on America only since the 1960s, but the errors of liberalism have been with man throughout history just as has the wisdom of conservatism. Liberalism has its origins in human nature, but its history as conscious political philosophy must be traced as well.

Psychologically, liberalism represents the strivings of the undisciplined child. The child wants to play, shirk its chores, and be naughty. It wants to be told it is a unique little snowflake that can do what it wants. It can dishonor its father and its mother. It can disobey God. It can covet its neighbor's property. It can spite its nation. The child is unruly and must be trained: to learn the customs and traditions that will make it good and productive. So liberalism has always been with us as the early developmental stages of the child. Here it is not pathological; we simply teach the child the wisdom he needs to know his place in the world.

Historically, liberalism as a conscious political trend has been with us for at least the past few centuries. In America, it dates to the Revolution when King George III preyed on the childish impulses of the colonies' more degenerate elements, offering them rewards to be disloyal to their country (America, not Britain). King George implanted in this roguish band an ideology that would become the root of American liberalism: hatred of country. They attempted to sabotage General George Washington and the Continental Army in its fight against the Redcoats; Benedict Arnold was their leader. After Britain was defeated and acknowledged the independence of the United States of America by treaty, the liberal faction turned to subverting America without openly professing a loyalty to a foreign king. They opposed the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, hating freedom. For a while, the liberal influence waned in America, flush as it was in the glory of revolution and freedom, the liberals frightened into the shadow. But they remained. America's liberals were profoundly influenced by the writings of Europeans Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, seeing the rising specter of socialism as a fitting creed for liberalism in America (liberalism is a shape-shifter, being truly nothing more than a childish revolt against tradition and legitimate authority). In the 20th century, liberals had secured even the presidency; Woodrow Wilson can be remembered as America's first liberal president. Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly expanded liberalism's reach in all of America's political institutions and laid the groundwork for liberalism's later corrosion of even the basic moral fabric of society. The New Deal established the federal government as a permissive, anything-goes mother, giving her child a hefty allowance without requiring chores or other responsibilities. This culminated in grown adults acting out their childish and basest impulses en masse during the chaos of the Sixties. The God-ordained social order was completely ignored. Self-proclaimed thinkers spread sophistic lies to establish an anything-goes attitude toward sexuality, religion, civic duty, industriousness, art, and other factors of civilization.

Liberalism has now nearly completely crushed the Democrat Party and now threatens the Republican Party from within. Thankfully, patriotic Tea Partiers have been vetting our candidates more carefully, primarying the wolves in sheep's clothing. Liberalism, in satisfying base, animalistic lusts, would send our once proud nation on a nihilistic course. It must be resisted.

You're too good at this tongue in cheek stuff, NeantHumain.

terms such as liberal and conservative mercurially change throughout time.

centuries ago, liberals wanted to spark revolutions to overthrow monarchy and divine right of kings to create democracy, allowing leaders to be put into place by vote rather than lineage.

conservatives at that time, saw revolution as too bloody, violent, and unstable, to an extent, they were right, though eventually we were able to have a world with many democratic countries.

it is commonly said that conservatives dislike change and liberals like change, but i think it is not that simple.

Being a conservative is politically unnatural because they hold on to outdated traditions and don't accept change.
The only thing certain in life is change. We must accept change.
Conservatives in America still take the bible seriously and are not very open-minded to the belief of others.
You obviously did not check your historical facts. Liberalism first became a powerful force during the age of enlightenment and John Locke is often credited for the creation of liberalism.

The tea party is a nationalist,neo-fascist movement. This thread is very well-written and deceitful. You could be the Joseph Goebbels of tea party.

I think your definitions are specious, so examining your argument would be pointless.

Said argument would also happen to be sarcasm as well, so examining it outside the context of humour would be pretty pointless as well.

Yawn. Yet another NeantHumain whinge about Tea Partiers dressed up as satire. I just find it amazing that any White American can look at the Tea Party (a bunch of other White Americans waving placards calling for lower taxes) and decide that they are the biggest danger to the harmony, security and prosperity of the US. From what I hear, most Tea Partiers are liberals anyway, inasmuch as they care more about abstractions like "freedom" than about their own race and culture.

I would disagree that what goes by the name of "conservatism" is the only alternative to liberalism. And I would point out that Benedict Arnold was loyal his motherland; it was the revolutionaries that helped sever the colonies from their European roots, which you might say paved the way (although it took a while) for the "liberal" so-called melting-pot that America has become.

Apart from that, much of what is contained in the first three paragraphs of the OP seems pretty accurate, so I'm not sure where the humour is supposed to come from.

If only that were the case!



If you'd seen Neant's other posts about the Tea Party, you'd know he was being tongue-in-cheek. I admit it's not easy to tell by looking at the original post alone.

Care to provide a bit of background for the bonkers assertion that the Tea Party is 'neo-fascist'? They seem to be national conservative and libertarian, it appears to me. A bit like some of UKIP's lot.

Its status as really an astro-turf meta-political movement puts in in a similar vein as other fascist groups, in addition to racist, scapegoat overtones and deification of the founding fathers as theocratic libertarians (or something equally absurd), through historical revisionism

Lots of political parties have astroturfing movements and it doesn't make them racist or fascist. I don't read a lot on US politics.

Why is the Tea Party 'racist'? I'd like to hear this one? I suspect they're just anti-mass immigration (as many conservative parties are across Europe, many of whom aren't at all racist - though some are), which isn't racism outside the deluded heads of One Worlders.

Its not that it is racist in what they write about what they stand for, but more the attitudes of many members. There has been a lot of internal controversy due to the actions of many of these outspoken individuals

Also its more the fact that it is representative of meta-politics that it can be compared to fascism. But not really through direct ideological cognates. It is inaccurate to refer to them as a fascist party, but it is accurate, in my opinion, to compare their two styles of politicking

Ah. The same might be said of most anti-immigration political parties in that some of the members can hold unpleasant views but, to be honest, that's up to them as long as they don't drag the party itself into it.

That said, the same can accurately be said for nearly every political party under the sun.

Probably. It is all a game. The Art of the Possible

Some lefties are more conservative than you'd think. The situationist/bohemian pinko-types have a problem in attacking the culture of selfish materialism and social anomie in name only. Real humanists should call for social responsibility in the private as well as the public sphere. I'd just rather see a more rational take on morality that's focused on creating a nurturing environment and reducing harm.

Yea, I realize I'm responding seriously to a satirical thread. I don't care.