Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world
ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed
expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost,
modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism,
sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there
are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and
what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may
not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating
uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads
to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress,
only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has
having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where
you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s
center, is what modern liberalism is all about.

Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the
theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment
are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance."
Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some
quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more
than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the
circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is
unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational
truths.

While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy,
there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a
dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never
been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals
believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business
is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly,
however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals
believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the
conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of
production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up
of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such
things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality
made up of good-hearted people).

Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new
meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government
should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed
individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between
economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation
of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the
foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States
fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure
domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote
the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to
themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces
that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior
rights to the various states within the country and those who
distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate
every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise
to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and
the states superior sovereignty over a central government.

Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic
sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is
actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century,
everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to
mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism
(liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of
the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the
late 19th century came modern liberalism.

Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became
modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl
Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard
of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in
which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in
which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What
most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original.
All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same
revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria.
This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist
society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of
the power.

It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on
The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of
the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was
the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by
the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776,
barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of
Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only
a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society
for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of
Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century.

By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States,
the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism,
which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came
up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over
the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a
philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens
and a focus on individualism as opposed to community.











On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:14:23 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...


The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....

Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place
by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It
wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about
improving the quality of life.

Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals
with socialists.

Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.

In the tactics, not the goals.

That's for starters.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

...

Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals

"Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S.
citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of
$80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday."

That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things.

So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to
socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much
more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in
terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?)

Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know
the difference between socialism and liberalism?

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your
right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll
fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as
you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals,
and other "pork" in peace.
--
Kali

"This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."
-Sen. John McCain

"What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point." -Pres. Barack Obama