Liberalism Is the Murder Weapon

A society that drives its members to desperate solutions is a non-viable society, a society to be replaced.

— Kathy Acker, Eurydice in the Underworld

Liberalism can only be understood in terms of negation. It is not a constructive force but a rebellion against the notion of authority. Its cornerstone, the much-touted idea of “freedom” (or “free-dumb” for the initiated), is inherently negative, representing freedom from constraints rather than a positive assertion of something beneficial. This notion of freedom is nothing but a pathway to the disintegration of the societal organism. In its most advanced stages, liberalism engenders a form of cancer, wherein not only the authority of the state is challenged but even the foundational structures of society and the family are subverted. Consequently, according to Francis Parker Yockey, divorce is given equal standing with marriage and the hierarchical relationship between parents and children is dismantled.

To fully appreciate the depths of this decline, one must ponder the Middle Ages. This was an era when the exuberance of youth manifested itself not only in societal customs but also flourished in the arts, poetry, philosophy, and religion. The culture of the Middle Ages was established with pillars of collective spirit and higher purpose, a marked contrast to the individualist fragmentation that characterizes modern liberalism. The Middle Ages were a time when every aspect of life was infused with a sense of belonging to something greater — God and a community of eternal souls — a principle that unified and guided all human endeavors.

Liberalism, in its myopic vision, erroneously views mankind as fundamentally harmonious and good, leading to the conclusion that individuals should be left to their own devices. Consequently, various aspects of human activity become self-centered and disconnected, functioning independently as long as they do not disrupt or exceed the loose and minimal guidelines set by society. This perspective negates the necessity of an entity that binds individuals into a supra-personal, cohesive whole that gives meaning and direction to individual existences.

Thus, art becomes an island unto itself, transforming into a pursuit that exists solely for its own sake, detached from broader societal purposes. Each sphere of thought and action, from religion and science to philosophy and education, functions in isolation, severed from any overarching authority or unifying principle. Religion is reduced to mere ritual, stripped of its power to convey metaphysical truths, while literature and technology exist in autonomous domains, driven by self-referential goals. The state, diminished to a caretaker role, particularly in economics and law, safeguards these disparate activities through patents and copyrights, while neglecting the essential organic authority.

This splintering calls to mind William Burroughs’ critique of contemporary society, where the compartmentalization of experiences and pursuits leads to a loss of meaningful connections and collective cohesion. Burroughs observed that modern society, like its art, has become a mosaic of isolated shards, each disconnected from the larger human experience. This atomization can be seen in Kathy Acker’s work as well. Acker explored the disappearance of linear storytelling and coherent identity, which can be interpreted as the dislocation and loss of meaning in a fragmented cultural landscape and also symbolizes the broader breakdown of the organic authority that once provided coherence and direction to society.

Humans, above all, fear the power of intelligence. Driven by this fear, they scramble to gather and confine knowledge within rigid frameworks of so-called “facts.” In their terror, they strip intelligence of its potential to challenge and transcend the status quo, imprisoning it in a central repository of accepted “truths.” This fear of intelligence further highlights the limitations of a liberal worldview that fails to recognize the need for a central purpose that can guide individuals and societies beyond mere adherence to established norms.

Liberal pacifism, much like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand, avoids confronting the pressing reality of protecting the innocent from the predators. It clings to the naive and unrealistic belief that the wolves will somehow renounce their predatory nature and embrace peaceful coexistence. This delusion reflects a categorical misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of power and authority, and a refusal to acknowledge the necessity of defending the vulnerable against those who would exploit them.

Liberal multiculturalism can be seen as an expression of the Western ideal projected onto the global stage. This ideology, despite its intention of promoting “inclusivity and tolerance,” embodies a subtle yet pervasive ethnocentrism and even racism. It signals an implicit, and sometimes explicit, conviction in the superiority and universality of “Western values,” often disregarding the rich complexities and diverse realities of other cultures. This projection not only fails to appreciate the unique historical and cultural contexts that shape different societies but also tends to impose a homogenizing narrative that overlooks the particularities and intrinsic worth of non-Western traditions.

The notion of a singular, dominant cultural framework capable of encompassing all human experiences is emblematic of a deeply ingrained hubris, which can inadvertently perpetuate cultural hegemony and diminish the authenticity of global cultural diversity. By attempting to universalize concepts such as individualism, secularism, and rationality — often regarded as hallmarks of Western thought — this ideology risks marginalizing other worldviews and undermining the pluralistic construct of global civilization. This approach, much like the colonial attitudes of the past, suggests a form of cultural imperialism that assumes the adaptability of all cultures to a Western paradigm, thus neglecting the traits that lie within each unique cultural heritage. In essence, the presumption that Western ideals possess a superior claim to universality disregards the importance of Franz Boas’ still valid concept of cultural relativism.

Leftist liberals, entrenched in their dogma, remain blind to the adverse consequences of mass immigration. They are unable to see the forest for the trees, failing to recognize the broader patterns of societal disunity. Their singular focus on a narrow concept of “morality” blinds them to the multifaceted nature of human existence and leads them to overlook the lessons of history. In their almost religious belief in the malleability and educability of humans, they attempt to reshape societal norms through linguistic and cultural engineering. This misplaced faith in the unlimited potential for human transformation is not only detached from historical wisdom but also reminiscent of the ancient Greek warning: those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the path charted by liberalism is not one of progress but of decline, leading inevitably to the implosion of the cultural and societal casing that once held Western civilization together.

Constantin von Hoffmeister, author of the book Esoteric Trumpism

Source