January 10, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – One of the great Brazilian political fads of our time is “liberal conservatism”, a kind of category that associates a “liberal position” in the economy, and a “conservative position” in culture and customs. This liberal conservatism preponderates between the Holabets, the Bolsonaretes and in the projects to which they are associated, like the farce of the Parallel Brazil and the like.
We are dealing with a clear and mass case of cognitive dissonance, that typically postmodern problematic condition in which people sustain fundamentally contradictory attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts.
The basis of this cognitive dissonance is the ignorance typical of its victims, who believe that liberalism is nothing more than an economic theory, completely unrelated to specific philosophical, political, social, cultural beliefs, ideas, and positions.
Reality is the opposite of that. Liberalism is, in the first place, a worldview, a theoretical and philosophical edifice, and its economic ramifications, while essential for this worldview and serve as the engines for the realization of this worldview, is not the most important element.
Under liberal hegemony in the post-Soviet world, this whole political-philosophical set of liberalism retreated into the shadows, became “given”, “peaceful point”, something that is simply accepted and not discussed, becoming the axis of the political debate even among the adherents of the Second Political Theory (communism) and of the Third Political Theory (fascism). This is what we call post-liberalism.
Only the economic aspect of liberalism remained in the light, the need to still confront the social-democratic and socialist remnants of economic alternatives to liberal capitalism, a contradiction that has not yet been definitively solved. In that sense, postmodern liberalism is like an iceberg. We can easily see only its tip, its economic aspect, but this is supported by everything that has gone from our eyes: philosophy, politics, culture, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc.
Hence it is impossible to disassociate economic liberalism from the whole liberal worldview, from liberalism as a philosophy and from political theory. And when we access this truth, everything is clear enough.
Liberalism has a specific direction in all these areas, a teleology that points to a “End of History” that clearly and clearly contradicts everything the so-called “conservatives” claim to defend. This is not very clear in the pamphlets and propagandists of liberalism, but it is quietly evident in its leading philosophers, from Kant to Rawls.
Liberalism is fundamentally globalist. Its teleology points to the construction of an absolutely integrated and globalized world, forming a Global Market, with no barriers to the free movement of people, capital and products. If nations are still left in this context of fully globalized capitalism, they will have a merely formal sovereignty.
Liberalism is fundamentally atheistic and antireligious. Just as in the pre-liberal world there was a theological and philosophical association between the figure of the state and the ruler with the figure of God, liberals buy this association with all its consequences. Religion in the liberal world, IF it has to exist, will be a purely private activity. Their presence in the public space will only be tolerated, unless we speak of a “diffuse religious feeling”, unrelated to any tradition, such as we find connected with the New Age movement.
Liberalism is fundamentally destructive to the traditional family. The emergence of the bourgeois “nuclear family” comes in the wake of the disappearance of the pre-modern traditional family. This individualistic “nuclear family,” based on private property, labor market relations, and consumption patterns first emerged in England, alongside capitalism, and spreads in the wake of the advance of capitalism. Liberalism overlaps the “traditional family” gradually, as it favors ever more radical levels of individualism, beginning with the enslavement of women in the capitalist labor market and culminating in the total dissolution of the family, propagated by mass media through models families based exclusively on “affection” and “individual desire.”
In all other cultural spheres, too, liberalism has pointed precisely in the opposite direction of what the “conservatives” claim to be, in relation to the LGBT question, to gender ideology, and several other issues. This is not a modern “opportunist” movement, as the left advocates, but it follows the fundamental logic of individualism and post-individualism that lie at the heart of liberalism.
The consequence of this “liberal conservatism” has been that liberalism has been able to bring the world closer and closer to its ideal of “End of History”, with all its harmful consequences, at the same time that it puts these consequences in the communist account. And the “conservatives” (who, in practice, end up no more than “light liberals”), useful idiots who are, nor even realize what is happening.
In this sense, everything the “liberal-conservatives” espouse is a farce. Its axiological notions are liberal and modern constructions. Defending imperialism, they steer the world towards globalism. Defending the bourgeois family they bury the traditional family. Defending the weakening of the state they weaken all traditional authority.
This is how post-liberalism seeks to crystallize its hegemony, until such liberal-conservatives are no longer needed and can be discarded.
If you know someone victimized by this sad pathological condition of “liberal-conservatism,” forward this text to him. Maybe you can heal him.
It is only possible to preserve something, especially that which is of value and positive in the past and in our roots, from a communitarian revolutionary vision, patriotic socialist, far from all liberalism, which is what we defend in the New Resistance.