Serban V.C. Enache
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Serban V.C. Enache via Hereticus Economicus:
Years ago, whenever I saw a comment saying “liberalism is a mental illness,” I would shake my head, bewildered on what such a statement means. But after hearing more and more liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that some sort of synaptic misfire happens in the brains of these people. I saw a recent material on RT live, sadly, I couldn’t find a link to the particular piece, on gender-neutral uniforms being adopted in some schools in the UK. One of the two guests interviewed on RT, Linda Bellos Obe, confessed to being a lesbian, a feminist, and a grandmother [nothing wrong with these things], said she is in favor of school uniforms [again, nothing wrong with that] and that she supports the ban on skirts in schools – all skirts, not just miniskirts, ALL skirts. Then she stated that girls [in schools] object to boys “fetishizing” them. Come again? And this person is a “equality law specialist.” That’s absolutely frightening… She makes the case for [gender-neutral] school uniforms that children and people in general like to be part of a club; and that the uniform signifies membership to that club. That’s just an argument for mass-conformity, something that the ‘cultural left’ fought against decades ago; but it seems that fight wasn’t about liberalization, or the goal was changed / mutated in the meantime. Hence the label “regressive progressive.”
To quote George Carlin, I wouldn’t want to be part of any group in which you either have to wear a hat, or you can’t wear a hat. In school, I experienced both systems: uniforms in primary school and just a dress code in high school [no obscene or vulgar outfits or offensive messages on outfits]. Obviously, the latter system gives the student a lot more leeway and I prefer it. The liberal feminists of today seem bent on shackling women to their political agenda and political organizations, instead of persuading them via a set of moral principles. The former path takes little brain power expenditures and brings in cash, the latter path requires actual work put into debates – and if we’ve learned anything during the last ten years or so, liberals don’t want debate, because such a forum “allows racist and sexist viewpoints to be heard.” That’s the exact same logic religious fundamentalists would invoke, such a forum “allows heretical and blasphemous viewpoints to be heard.” It’s the same logic the Establishment uses to prevent alternative / reformist POVs to spread among people.
I fully agree with the other person who was interviewed, Chris McGovern from CRE. I believe his position was completely sensible and in the interest of both straight and non-straight students. Whether the school in question has a uniform policy in place or not, girls should be able to wear pants if they want to; girls should be able to wear skirts if they want to. Ditto for boys [ever heard of kilts?]. But Linda Bellos Obe, the so-called “equality law specialist,” labeled dissent on this issue among the left as unwelcome infighting. In other words, we mustn’t work out contradictions, because that diminishes the tribal strength. Promoting ‘gender neutrality’ by opposing the manifestation and expression of the feminine is unjust as it is absurd, and it is unworthy of a so-called free and tolerant society.
Now, to the issue at hand. If the parents are down with gender-neutral uniforms, that’s fine. But don’t tout this particular norm as a great leap in human progress, because, if anything, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a policy that limits free expression.
The communist countries of the 20th century and of the 21st century didn’t ban skirts for girls! Not even the Bolsheviks could come up with such a ridiculous thing as to ban skirts, with the possible exception of China under Mao Zedong. But hey, now we know from whence the contemporary liberal-feminist doctrines stem. The communist regime in Afghanistan [prior to the US-backed Talibans collapsing it] allowed women to wear skirts, including miniskirts! If a liberal feminist from the 21st century would have warned an Afghan woman from the ’80s that a skirt makes men “fetishize” her, she would have said you’re crazy, get out of my way, I need to go to work. Here are some pictures. School girls in the [former] Soviet Union. School girls in Cuba. School girls in North Korea. School girls in Venezuela. Women in the [former] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
Today’s liberal ideology, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is on some issues more oppressive than Bolshevism. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC interview with Noam Chomsky from 1977, in which he accurately explains contemporary liberalism. I don’t know if Chomsky still feels the same today; regardless, his assessment from ’77 was spot on.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Putin responds to Elton John on lgbtq issue.
https://youtu.be/3rAU62JkPzs
Do I really have to listen to Elton’s opinings on life? Isn’t a guess good enough? Anyway, we all know Putin’s take on it, same as most of the world’s take on it since Adam and Eve and that weird person in the background. “Do what you will but don’t give us a chill by pretending you’re the mainstream.”
who cares Elton john is a neoliberal capitalist swine like all the right wing
This is, to my thinking, a confused discussion. The sort of modern ‘liberalism’ that the author (S. Enache) and Chomsky protest against is, I would argue, not all that different from classical liberalism; rather what we have on our hands today is the inevitable outgrowth of classical liberalism. Both contemporary and classical liberalism see the State (and any authority it wields) as artificial and often inimical to the interests of the ‘individual’. Classical liberalism typically (though not always) avoided the sorts of ‘tribal conflicts’ we encounter today by an appeal to a theory of ‘natural rights’. These ‘natural rights’ were… Read more »
Post Modernism has KILLED liberalism. They claim everything is a social construct, including biology.
Rights are a fiction, but a fiction worth defending and expanding whenever and wherever possible. If Natural Rights theory failed, then social constructionism have failed to a higher degree of magnitude.
The modern liberal wants to destroy sovereign nation states, just like his neoconservative counterpart.
Both should jump off a cliff and do Humanity a service.
I agree completely with what you say here Pierre. Post modernism has, indeed, ‘killed liberalism’. And social constructionism has, as you say, failed “to a higher degree of magnitude” than classical liberalism. My point (which seems to have upset some readers) is simply this: *No* empiricist theory of ‘rights’ (or morality) can succeed in establishing their necessity and universality (i.e. their ‘objectivity’). Classical liberalism was built (unfortunately) on a metaphysical ‘sand castle’, and has been unable to defend itself against the onslaught of modern ‘subjectivism’.
There were no doubt shaky grounds, but the onslaught was quite artificial, and not at all spontaneous.
Western intelligence services has spent many trillions of dollars over the decades to finance moral degeneracy and intellectual bankruptcy in the world of arts and letters.
And to set culture aside for a moment, see Michael Hudson on economic rent – 3 minute vid.
“modern ‘liberalism’ not all that different from classical liberalism”
LOL. You’re the one that’s confused.
Tell us some more about how the “penis is a social construct.” Tell us how chromosomes are “man-made.”
Tell us more about how you modern liberals redefined racism to be a phenomenon that only caucasians engage in.
You have missed the point of what I said ‘Forgotten Pleb’. I was *not* advocating the ‘social construct’ doctrine of modern liberalism (quite the contrary) What I said–or what I tried to say–was that the objectivity of rights that classical liberalism sought to establish could not be sustained. The intention was good. However, the theoretical mechanism was flawed. An empiricist metaphysic (as is presupposed by all forms of classical liberalism) is incapable of establishing the necessity and universality of rights.
Wow, those Kabul miniskirts from the 70’s are telling me that there’s some giant clock out there somewhere running backwards. Thank you, Zbigniew. Unleashing your salafist simians on Afghanistan was real big of you.
the term is neoliberal and its a far right ideology that loves Rothschild banking and tax breaks for the globalists
You are mistaken. Neoliberalism, in ideological terms, is mostly associated with German ordo liberalism and Monetarism, neither are “far right” ideologies. Far right economic policies usually involve State-led investment and regulations, and, at the very least, protection of domestic industries / markets.
Mother tells one of her toddler twins that he’s a girl & wants hormonal treatment for him + gender change operation.