In an era where sustainability is one of the most common buzzwords spread by liberals worldwide we have the right to ask ourselves: Is Liberalism itself sustainable?
Liberal ideas carry a lot of real world attributes which we commonly define as positive, like tolerance, human and civil rights, advance of knowledge, higher life standards, novelty by free minds - just to mention a few.*
However, Liberalism bears also a terrible pain. It carries at its womb a time bomb that will bring to its own destruction. Either this aggressive tumor or one of its complications will kill liberalism. Its self assuredness and pacifism.
Modern liberalism is pacifist. Its main stream adherents do not want to fight in real wars. Actually, many times they do not want to fight at all. The belief in Liberalism embeds the belief in man kindness, benevolence and an ever improving world. So, if the good always win and if everyone are good, why should one fight at all.
This liberalism is light years away from the much more realist founders of liberalism or the revolutionaries of the French Revolution, who lived the oppression that they wanted to oust with their liberal ideas.They knew they had to fight and die for the life they wanted.
Modern liberals, mainly western ones, have never felt oppression, commonly the worst thing they went through is unemployment.We grew up in welfare states, we saw too many movies in which the good guys always win and whenever we felt blue we could just open the TV to watch a movie, read a book, go for a drink or go shopping. We didn't have to be out fighting for our families' or ideas' survival.
If you have ever participated in an elections campaign, felt the stress in the days before the elections and celebrated with multitudes a victory, you probably know that feeling of an essential battle been won. A tide of strong feelings that you didn't know exist in you. But, a few days later the feeling is gone. This emotion, this fervor lacks in the liberal movement and when it exists it is commonly turned in the wrong direction.
Some additional characteristics add to the clinical history of our soon to be defeated liberal camp.
Liberal people make little children, while non liberals tend to have many.
Liberal communities (if you can call community to an agglomeration of individuals) tend to be tolerant to ideas that threat their way of life even in a violent way, while non liberal communities do not reciprocate and do not allow liberal ideas to freely enter their realm.
Liberals tend more than others to focus on career and material achievements over ideology and community life. Individualism is venerated while the general good which requires an effort to defend is left for others to do. It is a kind of outsourced values implementation. NGOs to which we contribute from time to time, tweet their links, share their Facebook posts or rarely manifest for are the perfect conscience purifier.
Our family life is a sterile from ideas and actions, and even when it is full with ideals passed to our children, we are rarely activists - thus teaching our children what hypocrisy and that a good liberal doesn't have to stand for his ideas.
Liberal which are activists prefer to reprimand their own community or other liberal communities for not being liberal enough towards others, while exalting non-liberals as mere noble savages. It is safer to verbally castigate a liberal society, since the attached price tag is low. When you attack a non liberal society you may be required to pay higher prices which almost no contemporary liberal is willing to pay.
Living such a sweet life, never having to really fight for your way of life and convictions, tunes down our instincts. Most of us are not able anymore to correctly identify who are the essential rivals. This is easily exemplified by cooperation of leftist organizations with dictatorships and undemocratic regimes. So, either these organizations aren't liberal or they are blind and cannot recognize the enemy. Maybe they cannot take seriously any enemy - after all they believe, the good guys will always win.
Human character is shaped like that of other animals through struggles, combats and playing-training towards them. When daily life is left out of any existential struggle and when we are educated that nothing is worth fighting for, we suppress those basic instincts.
The elites which carry the ideas of every regime are always the first ones to become complacent, lose their instincts and take the path towards the extinction of their own regime. Elites, being spoiled and living well, tend to become cosmopolitan, less provincial and supposedly more and more liberal. This is a stage of suicidal liberalism. Liberalism like any other idea must keep its vitality. It must have a Carthage to rival with if it wants to avoid petrification.
* These 'positive' and benevolent attributes can be considered such only in certain situations. When being a 'good guy' gets you or someone from your family/community killed by the 'bad guys' in your neighborhood, there is no meaning anymore to 'being good'.
Sometimes I feel that Hollywood is one of the main problems of the modern liberalism. Darwin taught us that the fittest, the fiercest and the strongest survives. Extremists, dictators and racists twisted the ideas trying to justify some of the most horrible deeds in human history. Liberals decided that they will negate and turn their back to any notion of Darwinism in politics and society. This is where Hollywood gets into the picture. It seems that liberals truly tend to believe that the good guys will always win. I find no possible explanations to that but two - stupidity or watching too many Hollywood movies.
Hi everybody! Wake up! Bad guys do win if you do not fight back! You cannot assume that wife beaters and child abusers will change their ways nor you can assume the same about crazy extremists, people who think a certain deity allowed them to kill others or deprive their women from basic rights.