Posted by Steve Turley ● Jul 17, 2019 1:59:24 PM

Liberals Are Losing the Ideological Battle against Nationalists!!!

I have been rather impressed to see the amount of articles that have been written of late that recognize that pattern or trend that we have been analyzing for years now, and that is how liberals, globalist center-left and center-right liberals are increasingly losing the ideological battle against nationalist populism that is on the rise all over the world; and like we have said over and over on this channel. This in many ways is just the beginning, the world is turning more and more to the nationalist populist right. And I came across one article in particular that was analyzing the recent Indian election, the national election in India where the BJP, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is the single largest democratic party in the world, won their national elections for the second time in what was nothing less than a massive landslide. Now, the BJP, if you do not know, they are India’s nationalist populist rightwing party. They are a thoroughly Hindu Nationalist party, and this journalist noted that their victory is part of a wider global trend of victories for nationalist populist candidates and parties that has been going on for the last few years, and he asks the question as to why, why are liberals losing everywhere we look? Why are they losing the ideological battle to nationalists populists? And he gives a rather obvious answer. I mean, obvious in the sense that reveals just how fool-hearty liberalism really is.

Simply put, nationalism is integral to maintaining a nation, if you do not have nationalism, you do not have a nation. Nationalism gave rise to the modern state system that liberated tens of millions of people from colonial imperialism, and democracy is the direct result of this nationalism, the nation-state provided freedom from the tyranny of imperial projects, and national is integral to the very structure of that freedom. Liberalism is all about LIBERATING us from these nationalist sentiments, and as such, it ends up becoming just another form of cultural imperialism, whether it is coming from the Bolsheviks or the Bullies in Brussels or Big Tech censorship, wherever liberalism raises its ugly head, it always involves imposing highly IL-liberal policies on populations. So I really like how practical and simple this fellow put it.

But I think we can dig deeper. I think we still have to ask the question: Why now? Why is this massive rebellion happening now? Where was it 50 years ago, or 10 years ago for that matter? To really understand what is going on here, I think we have to dig deep in terms of the tectonic shifts that are going on around the world. What I am talking about here is that we have to understand that liberalism, and I use that term as a general catch-all phrase for all leftist movements and ideologies. In other words, the term liberal, as I am using here and as it is generally used today refers to any and all leftwing ideologies and movements, and the key to understanding leftwing ideology is its relationship to what scholars call ‘modernity’. Ok, so that is really important to get, you have to understand liberalism as rooted in the philosophical notion called modernity or modernism. 

Now, modernity or modernism is basically the belief that science and scientific rationalism is the one true way of understanding the world for all people, times, and places, scientific rationalism is viewed as the one-size-fits-all way of knowing the world for everyone. IF you disagree with that vision, IF you believe that superstitions, particularly religious superstitions are more important than scientific rationality, then you are by definition a savage, you are primitive, you are still living in the Dark Ages. The 18th century Enlightenment enthroned scientific rationalism as the one-size-fits-all way of knowing the world that defined a future of progress centered on a new foundation for universal human solidarity. Religions in the past could not unite us, it is really that simple, religion, rather than unite humanity ends up dividing humanity, and it ends up dividing humanity because religion is inherently irrational, which of course entails the belief that if humans were to collectively embrace rationality and its scientific outworking, we would in fact realize an era of human unity and solidarity that the religious and dark ages before us have thus far thwarted. 

And so, modernity gave birth to three major political, economic, and cultural systems that dominated the 20th century: modernity gave us liberal democracy, it gave us communism, and it gave us fascism. Liberal democracy was touted as the one-size-fits-all political system, communism was touted as the one-size-fits-all economic system, and fascism was touted as the one-size-fits-all cultural and ethno system. Now of course, World War II took out fascism, so the ensuing years became a stand-off between the other two modernist systems, and with the fall of the Soviet Union on Christmas of 1991, ideologues like Francis Fukuyama told us that we had reached the end of history, that liberal democracy won the battle of modern ideologies, easy peasy right? There were three major modernist alternatives and liberal democracy won the day. 

The problem with this end-of-history notion is that it failed to realize that it was not so much communism that had died, but rather, the real victim was MODERNITY itself. You see the problem we are facing today in the 21st century is that no one believes that scientific rationalism is the one true way of understanding reality anymore. Populations are what we call postmodern today; they are no longer modern in the strict philosophical sense. It was the scholar Lyotard who recognizing by the late 70s that western populations had largely abandoned the modernist myth, the modernist enthronement of scientific rationalism as the one-size-fits-all way of knowing the world, and this abandonment has only increased over the last decades. Today, it is almost impossible to find anyone on a college campus or in a corporate boardroom defending the notion that there is only one way of understanding the world, there is only one meaning for all peoples, times, and places. 

We today are post-modern, we value plurality and diversity over a one-size-fits-all conception of life. But here is the key, if you get this, I think a lot things start becoming clear, here is the key, even although modernity has been largely rejected by global populations, that rejection is not stopping Western elites (our elites in the realms of realms of politics, corporations, film, art, music, entertainment) from exporting the fruits of modernity in the form of globalization, in the form of a one-size-fits-all political, economic, and cultural system for all peoples, times, and places. What we have to get in terms of the overall tension, or the pressure that is building up in our world today is that even though the vast majority of global populations have rejected modernity as a philosophical system, we nevertheless continue to live WITHIN modernist institutional structures in the form of globalization. We continue to be surrounded with globalist politics and globalist media and globalist universities and globalist monetary policies and globalist legal systems, and globalist human rights and grievance politics and on and on, THAT is the pressure that is building up, we no longer believe in modernity, in the philosophical foundation of this one-size-fits-all political, economic, and cultural system, and yet that system, that globalist system, continues to dominate our world at the hands of its ruling political, economic, and media elite. 

And so, what has happened is that this powder keg has started to blow, this pressure has begun to explode, we are seeing nothing short of a massive backlash going on all over the world against modernist globalism, where populations are once again reasserting their nation’s customs, cultures, traditions, and religions as mechanisms of resistance against globalization’s anti-cultural dynamics and its secular, elite aristocracy. And there appears little question that we are seeing this clash play out everywhere, whether it is the nationalists vs liberals in the United States or Brazil or throughout Europe and India and Japan, or whether it is the corporatist globalist media vs alternative media, or the modernist Marxists in the church vs conservative traditionalists, everywhere we look we are seeing this clash, this crisis in modernity. 

And so the fundamental reason why liberals are losing the ideological battle to nationalism is rather simple, liberalism is inextricably and ideologically linked to a collapsing belief system, in being postmodern, we are inevitably post-liberal. The ideological norms of liberalism today, particularly its commitment to open borders and human rights and grievance politics are becoming increasingly unintelligible, even among the grievance groups, we are seeing them begin to break-up into their own versions of tribalism. For over a decade, we have been noticing an increase in tensions between Latinos and African Americans, or think of the complete incompatibility between Muslims and gays and lesbians. We are finding in places in England, where school districts have a majority Muslim population, they want nothing to do with the LGBT wing of grievance politics, and feminists are increasingly uncomfortable with the whole notion of transgenderism, as we are seeing women being knocked out of competitive sports by transgenders. Liberals Are Losing the Ideological Battle against Nationalists because liberalism is dead, it is philosophically dead, which of course also explains why they have become so hysterical and so extreme at all levels. Liberalism is unraveling, and as a result, one could argue that liberalism is NOT losing the battle against nationalism, liberalism has already lost.

Comments