What are your thoughts on Liberalism?

[Faísca]

I think everyone here is familiarised with Liberalism, notwithstanding I will post a small introduction to it accompanied with a link to an essay on it.

Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties. To understand this diversity in political traditions, we need to examine liberalism as a political theory and as a general philosophy. These latter two are the concerns of this essay.

[ Full Text ]

[Prussian]

In a few words a Self-hating, excuse making & parasitic ideological construct with it's socially damaging hallmark being rampant individualism over everything else.

[Theobald]

I have to point out that Liberalism in France and in the USA haven't the same meaning (I don't know in other European countries though).
While in the USA liberalism is a (generally leftist) political orientation that favors multi-culturalism, ... in France Liberalism is only an economical term (theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market, based on Smith's work), and there are people supporting economic liberalism in PS (socialists), in UMP/UDF (conservative) and even in FN, although they are stronger (and a majority) in UMP/UDF. I think French liberals (oten "rightist") would generally disagree with American liberals ("leftist").

Anyway I dislike both, economic Liberalism and political Liberalism.

[Ederico]

From a pro-European Nationalist perspective:

LIBERALISM: THE PRINCIPAL AND MOST DANGEROUS IDEOLOGICAL ENEMY OF OUR ETHNICITIES, OUR NATIONS, AND OUR EUROPEAN CIVILISATION.

LIBERALS: TRAITORS


From a Catholic perspective:

LIBERALISM: THE PRINCIPAL ENEMY OF THE FAITH, OUT OF WHICH ARISE OTHER ENEMIES.

LIBERALS: DEGENERATES THAT WOULD DEGENERATE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH.

NO CATHOLIC CAN FIND SYMPATHY WITH LIBERALISM AND LIBERALS WITHOUT CORRUPTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH.


I can write more elaborated ideological material on Liberalism, however I digress for the time being in order to keep things simple.

Perhaps Stirpes should get a dedicated Anti-Liberalism forum in order to create a European Nationalist think-tank to combat this plague on us all.

[Gatecrasher]

I will herewith refer to Liberalism as English or Classic Liberalism, also known as Libertarianism in the New World.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

LIBERALISM: THE PRINCIPAL AND MOST DANGEROUS IDEOLOGICAL ENEMY OF OUR ETHNICITIES, OUR NATIONS, AND OUR EUROPEAN CIVILISATION.

What would you propose in its stead?

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

LIBERALS: TRAITORS

That is an opinion.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

LIBERALISM: THE PRINCIPAL ENEMY OF THE FAITH, OUT OF WHICH ARISE OTHER ENEMIES.

Wrong.

Liberalism supports religious tolerance, as opposed to religious or dogmatic oppression of any kind.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

LIBERALS: DEGENERATES THAT WOULD DEGENERATE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH.

Again, a mere opinion.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

NO CATHOLIC CAN FIND SYMPATHY WITH LIBERALISM AND LIBERALS WITHOUT CORRUPTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH.

I disagree, as would millions of Catholic Christians.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

I can write more elaborated ideological material on Liberalism […]

Please, do.

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

Perhaps Stirpes should get a dedicated Anti-Liberalism forum in order to create a European Nationalist think-tank to combat this plague on us all.

Perhaps Stripes shouldn’t, to keep things more professional.

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

What are your thoughts on Liberalism?

It is a political and philosophic theory full of pragmatism and common sense in the service of which rests a wide field of practical experience to learn from. In other words it is a sensible theoretical construct.

[Gil]

Hmmm... economical liberalism is to some extent a good principle that has been around for ages but has been called "liberalism" only rather recently. Market liberalism, provided it is controlled (and yes, that is not an oxymoron) it is perhaps the best system of economics for a thriving nation, perhaps not the best for nations who are in recession though.

Liberalism as a social construct is based on the ideals of individualism which no matter what everybody might say exists in everyone, even in the staunches defender of nationalism: would you like to be equal or be considered equal (in the physical/mental sense) to the man beside you, regardless of his social status or race? Liberalism per se does not imply democracy, it implies the right to be an individual and the right to cultivate your being within the state. Liberalism in the US is another different subject, connected to pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-drugs, pro-minorities, a whole mix of things that in the classical sense do not fit in the definition of Liberalism.

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

What would you propose in its stead?

What about what was previously in vigour?

Wrong.

I suppose, for instance, Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X would disagree.

From the top of my head I remember the Encyclical from Leo XIII, Libertas. Or even Pascendi Dominici Gregis, by St. Pius X, but that's more on Modernists than Liberals, though it is related.

Liberalism supports religious tolerance, as opposed to religious or dogmatic oppression of any kind.

It might support it, but it doesn't exactly encourage it, as far as I remember, perhaps not so in the Classic Liberalism as you say, but Liberalism has almost always been associated with anti-clericalism.

Again, a mere opinion.

Not quite, as it is supported by several encyclicals.

I disagree, as would millions of Catholic Christians.

That's quite a logical fallacy you got there. I have yet to meet a Catholic who isn't Christian.

But regarding the question, I suppose those millions are also those who support the Second Vatican Council.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Manji

Hmmm... economical liberalism is to some extent a good principle that has been around for ages but has been called "liberalism" only rather recently. Market liberalism, provided it is controlled (and yes, that is not an oxymoron) it is perhaps the best system of economics for a thriving nation

I disagree. Economical liberalism is adapted to Anglo-Saxon mentality - as its success in UK and the USA (Reagan, Thatcher) shows it - but I don't think it can work in Europe (at least in France), where we need more regulated and planified economies. Especially from a Nationalist perspective.
But... What do you call a "controlled liberalism" ? If liberalism is controlled, this is not liberalism anymore. (By liberalism I mean, for instance, Friedman's theories, based on Smith's, Ricardo's, ... work)

[Gatecrasher]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

What about what was previously in vigour?

Be more specific, please.

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

I suppose, for instance, Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X would disagree.

From the top of my head I remember the Encyclical from Leo XIII, Libertas. Or even Pascendi Dominici Gregis, by St. Pius X, but that's more on Modernists than Liberals, though it is related.

They may disagree as it is their state given right.

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

It might support it, but it doesn't exactly encourage it, as far as I remember, perhaps not so in the Classic Liberalism as you say, but Liberalism has almost always been associated with anti-clericalism.

Anti-clericalism is not tantamount to anti-Catholicism since clericalism does not represent Catholicism per se. On the contrary, pro-clericalism is synonymous with anti-liberalism whereas being Catholic is not.

Liberals oppose clericalism because the latter seeks to institutionalise religion (esp. Catholicism), which is against the concept of individual liberty and the separation between Church and State as a means to abet that individual liberty.

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

But regarding the question, I suppose those millions are also those who support the Second Vatican Council.

I honestly cannot say.

This council was convoked a generation ago; those who support it can most likely be considered conservative.

However my point was that religion is gradually secularising, and it has little to do liberalism as a theory and political practice. Perhaps liberalism as a human tendency… but that is hardly anti-religious.

[Gil]

No, not really, controlling the market flow does not immediately goes against liberalism, it's simply, for example, a trait of mixed economy, the intermediate between laissez faire policies and statism.
I think statism is a deeply socialist policy which might be good for large, super-developed countries, but in a recession it causes only harm, specially since one cannot control market flow from the outside (no government practices protectionism anymore).
So, by controlled I meant a market which is free (liberalism) but is subject to government laws (statism) such as not to become a cartel-ridden institution.

A brief overview here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

I will herewith refer to Liberalism as English or Classic Liberalism, also known as Libertarianism in the New World.

Fine.

What would you propose in its stead?

A Nation-oriented/based social justice system. Man's spirituality priming over speculative financial interests and the interests derived of the capital. Make the State work for the well-being of a healthy society, not for the corrupted interests of the financial markets and the big companies.

In short, the opposite to English/Classic Liberalism (aka Libertarianism)... Social Nationalism.

That is an opinion.

It is a fact. They are traitors to the Nation and the People.

Wrong.

Liberalism supports religious tolerance, as opposed to religious or dogmatic oppression of any kind.

It is that so-called "religious tolerance" a part of what is killing the ancient and old spirituality of the peoples of Europe, and forcing alien and destructive religions to take over in Europe.

Again, a mere opinion.

I disagree, as would millions of Catholic Christians.

Although you are allegedly speaking for "millions of Catholic Christians", yours is just a mere individual opinion.

Perhaps Stripes shouldn’t, to keep things more professional.

I don't know about "Stripes", but I do know that the mission of Stirpes is to provide and honest space to true Nationalists of Europe, not any professional services. Merchantilism is not among our goals.

It is a political and philosophic theory full of pragmatism and common sense in the service of which rests a wide field of practical experience to learn from. In other words it is a sensible theoretical construct.

Which has had devastating effect over the Nations of Europe, and which is destroying what little is left of the Cultures and Peoples of Europe.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Manji

No, not really, controlling the market flow does not immediately goes against liberalism, it's simply, for example, a trait of mixed economy, the intermediate between laissez faire policies and statism.
I think statism is a deeply socialist policy which might be good for large, super-developed countries, but in a recession it causes only harm, specially since one cannot control market flow from the outside (no government practices protectionism anymore).
So, by controlled I meant a market which is free (liberalism) but is subject to government laws (statism) such as not to become a cartel-ridden institution.

A brief overview here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Ok, now I understand what you meant - and agree to some extent. I was just confused because here we use "liberalism" only to describe laissez faire policies ("government is the problem", Reagan, Thatcher, ...), and liberal economists would disagree with a mixed economy (since it combines capitalism and socialism).

[Gatecrasher]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

A Nation-oriented/based social justice system. Man's spirituality priming over speculative financial interests and the interests derived of the capital. Make the State work for the well-being of a healthy society, not for the corrupted interests of the financial markets and the big companies.

In short, the opposite to English/Classic Liberalism (aka Libertarianism)... Social Nationalism.

Liberalism is better since it provides the freedom for every individual to gratify his own spiritual needs to his pleasure. So as to not be tyrannical a regime must come from the people as opposed to some provisional “spiritual” control machinations manufactured by a group of elitists. But should I even bother telling you what most Europeans think about “Social Nationalism”?

The old European regimes that were based on religious rule were broken for precisely this reason.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is a fact. They are traitors to the Nation and the People.

Still it remains an opinion that contradicts fact.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is that so-called "religious tolerance" a part of what is killing the ancient and old spirituality of the peoples of Europe, and forcing alien and destructive religions to take over in Europe.

A non sequitur.

Liberalism is not concerned with “ancient spiritualities”. Liberalism is concerned with models of social interaction that are practical but is still tolerant of all religious convictions as long as they do not impose themselves unto other people. Thus it is their own business if people don’t wish to follow tradition as a whole or in part.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Although you are allegedly speaking for "millions of Catholic Christians", yours is just a mere individual opinion.

Yes, and one that is widely supported: CIA World Factbook: Spain

As you can see, your country is still majority Roman Catholic.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I don't know about "Stripes", but I do know that the mission of Stirpes is to provide and honest space to true Nationalists of Europe, not any professional services. Merchantilism is not among our goals.

Happy to hear that.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Which has had devastating effect over the Nations of Europe, and which is destroying what little is left of the Cultures and Peoples of Europe.

Proof?

[Gil]

I believe that government control can be good in the sense that it limits "savage" takeovers and "cliques" of mercenary merchants, limiting to some extent the formation of monopolies (just see what happened with american laissez faire and Microsoft...) but too much control will result in a "merchant government" which means more power to the high/middle-high class and a greater sense of class division. Pure socialism is good on the paper but as we all know some people simply lack the capacity to govern while others are incapable of proper handwork and hence mixed economy seems like a overly good solution.
ANyway, I think the real problem is that economies must be developed in the global sense because no matter how much you produce there is always a third world country that will gladly export their products for half or even lower than yoy because they employ cheap/slave labour. It's the same problem with immigration, immigrants eventually harm the nation because they are willing to do the same for less wage.

[Menydh]

Though further discussion maybe of [limited] interest for this particular thread, I must ask you first why you, a British and a Liberal, come to a forum which is dedicated to Europe and Nationalism. All you stand for opposes the very essence of Stirpes.

In your favour, I must say that so far you haven't tried to disguise this fact, and tried to pass yourself by some kind of nationalist.

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

Liberalism is better since it provides the freedom for every individual to gratify his own spiritual needs to his pleasure.

<