Daily Mail: Why liberals don't believe in tolerance

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Angus, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,079 Messages
    10 Likes Received
    JOHN LAUGHLAND: The sacking of Carol Thatcher, and why liberals don't believe in tolerance

    By John Laughland
    Last updated at 10:06 PM on 14th February 2009

    One of the dangers in studying history is that it can lead us to believe that the past is a foreign country.

    When we think of East Germany or the Soviet Union - totalitarian states famous for networks of informers whose tip-offs could ruin lives - we invariably assume they were so culturally different from us that their abuses seem incomprehensible.

    But one of the advantages in studying the present is precisely that it helps us understand how other countries made their mistakes.

    Our country is a long way from being an informer state such as those that existed behind the Iron Curtain. But the fact that Carol Thatcher was sacked by the BBC for an offensive remark made in private sets a dangerous precedent that recalls the denunciation society of East Germany.

    Thatcher is not alone. Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP, was refused entry to Britain last Thursday on the grounds that his anti-Muslim opinions are too dangerous to be expressed here.

    Somerset nurse Caroline Petrie was temporarily suspended for offering to pray for a patient. Last year a couple were prevented from fostering children because as Christians they disapprove of homosexuality.

    Even Prince Harry has been ordered to attend a 'diversity awareness' course.

    The Equality And Diversity Code Of Practice has now penetrated into every sphere of public life.

    All these cases have one key element in common - an element they share with totalitarianism: they have been supported by people who think of themselves as progressives.

    Ever since the French revolutionaries proclaimed 'no liberty for the enemies of liberty' - and used that slogan to justify genocide - it has been self-consciously progressive regimes, not conservative ones, that have evolved into totalitarianism.

    We think of communism now as a gerontocracy - government by old people - which was as socially reactionary as it was economically backward.

    That is not how communists saw themselves. They believed they were progressive radicals. Like today's liberals, they loathed colonial oppression, imperialism and nationalism.

    The reason states such as East Germany were able to set up such terrifying informer networks was that the people running them believed their model of society was threatened if people did not positively affirm their belief in it. And it was in the name of policing speech that the Stasi tried to police thought itself.

    Progressivism was even the ideology of the Nazis. They were moved to commit their worst atrocities by what Winston Churchill called 'the lights of perverted science'.

    In Britain, multiculturalism has become an ideology similar to these other progressive ideologies that seek to change the way things and people are.

    Progressives think instinctive forms of behaviour are bad because they have not been designed by a process of rational thought or implemented by the self-appointed guardians of progress.

    Progressives think of politics as a constant struggle - usually against an unenlightened populace. They always have to be 'moving forward', pushing the people further to make them conform to their ideas.

    The archives of the Stasi in East Germany, where the authorities believed their model of society was threatened if people did not positively affirm their belief in it

    This is why the totalitarianism in Eastern Europe was set up incrementally and over time - and why it is important to be aware the same thing could happen here. Starting with good ideas about ending oppression, communist regimes in Eastern Europe were not totalitarian at first.

    It took decades before the apparatus of state terror was set up. Although the German Democratic Republic was founded in 1949, the Berlin Wall was not built until 1962.

    In Britain, a similar pattern is emerging.

    The 'diversity' project constantly demands new capitulations from the conservatively minded. The idea of tolerance has been abused and turned into the pretext for an intrusive threat to people's livelihoods and liberty.

    It has been transformed into the ideology of 'multiculturalism' that demands Britain renounce all traditions in favour of those of newcomers. You can now lose your job if you do not share this ideology - if you do not think in the right way.

    Many in Britain have protested at these attempts to police private opinions and free speech. Our instincts are still sound - and progressives can't stand that.

    Public outrage has not changed the fact of Carol Thatcher's dismissal, so a dangerous precedent has been set. People are now afraid about what they say in the privacy of their own homes, in emails or on the phone.

    Obviously, liberalism is preferable as an ideology to communism or fascism. But it has similar contradictions and totalitarian tendencies.

    Multiculturalists may say you cannot impose your views on others, but they are frighteningly good at imposing theirs on all of us.

    British liberals claim to hate prejudice: in fact they have nothing but snobbish contempt for large swathes of the population, particularly those who live outside big cities and are over the age of 30.

    Public moralising has become the hallmark of those who otherwise excoriate old-fashioned morals.

    Although hypocritical themselves, liberals demand 'sincerity' from their enemies, for instance when someone is forced to make a public apology.

    Ultimately this is all gesture politics, but it is a sign of the decadence of a society if it is forced to become obsessed with signals that have little to do with reality.

    In that respect, too, modern liberalism is distinctly Soviet, demanding as it does public assent to a series of propagandistic ideals, however absurd.

    The sooner we realise the greatest virtues in politics are prudence, realism and honesty, the better.

  2. burmafrd

    burmafrd Benched

    43,820 Messages
    3,379 Likes Received
    One only has to read the posts of the libs here on the board to know this.
    TOLERANCE is a joke to them. They only tolerate what they believe in. As long as you agree with them its ok. They are total hypocrits because they CLAIM to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples differences. TOTAL BS.
  3. silverbear

    silverbear Semi-Official Loose Cannon

    24,188 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Takes a special kind of stupid to think that British liberalism is identical to American liberalism... oh, they have some common characteristics, notably an adherence to Keynesian economic policies, but they have differences too...

    But in burm's world, all liberals are the same, and anybody to the left of his extreme right wing position are liberals...

    And of course, for YOU to mock anybody's tolerance is a freakin' joke... you have no tolerance for anybody or any viewpoint that isn't nearly identical to your own... in fact, you are completely unwilling to even entertain notions that run contrary to your own preconceived notions...
  4. Jarv

    Jarv Loud pipes saves lives.

    7,969 Messages
    869 Likes Received
  5. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,042 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    Well, you are right about burm, but you could have also just as easily have been talking about yourself here.
  6. iceberg

    iceberg well at least we're not the browns Zone Supporter

    30,976 Messages
    3,683 Likes Received
    agreed. i've tried to tell him he's the same as burm but the flip side and he won't have it. at least burm knows he's "in your face" and fully admits that's who he is. just yesterday sb flat out said all repubs are liars. i had him back it down to "most*.
  7. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,740 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    Keynesian theory discusses a temporary increases in spending. What is temporary about welfare expansion and the increase of unemployment benefits? How do those things stimulate the economy?
  8. Jon88

    Jon88 Benched

    7,665 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It's a one way street with them.
  9. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The original intent of this thread was not so much a discussion on the merits of Keynesian economic theory or when/where it's applied, but the observation that heretofore self-annointed "liberal" political movements have had a serious aversion to the free expression of ideas. And yes, SB, that *is* a common thread among them all. And, the word "liberal" has been so severely highjacked by those wanting state control under the banner of "liberty" as to render the word utterly worthless in political debate.

    The fact of the matter is, what we see as "left-wing" or "liberal" political movements and ideology today is nothing more than the crecendo of the Progressive movement that swept through the US and Europe in the dawn of the 20th century. Some even call themselves "progressive" today, or at least tag their policies with that label.

    But what is "Progressive"? What was the underpinning worldview regarding mankind's relation to themselves and government that shaped it into what we see today? The worldview was simple: the idea that mankind can be perfected through a polical movement that guides opinions and policies toward that end of perfection through popular culture and government. A fellow companion to that end was the hijacking of science to further acheive their aims of a utopia. Phrenology and eugenics are but two of countless examples of this phenomena through history...create "science" from scratch for the express purpose of discrediting dissent (i.e. those who dissent are "less evolved", and we have "science" to back us up in this).

    The ultimate end of Progressivethink is that everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others...to paraphrase Orwell. Ideas are weighed not on their own merits, but rather by the extent to which they promote the pre-packaged worldview. Dissent is always catagorized, tagged, and labeled so as to avoid having to debate the matter...you're just "less evolved" if you cling to the "now discredited" notion of individual liberty. "Now discredited" is simply an adjective prefix "Progressives" use in front of any idea that refutes their pre-packaged worldview. "Discredited" by mere proclamation of same. If you continue to put forth antiquated and "discredited" ideas, then we shall weigh you, measure you, and find you wanting. After all, the subtle variations in your cranial structure, or the amount of melanin in your skin "proves" this..."scientifically".

    The end result we see today is the concept of "political correctness", where ideas counter to the "brave new world" again are catagorized, labeled and tagged and never to be discussed in public discourse. The penalty for breaking this unwritten public contract is ridicule, unemployment, and becoming a socio-political pariah. Only those promoting the "right" ideas may progress in their vocation or even accumulate friends.
  10. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    True, but this article doesn't seem to be about "adherence to Keynesian economic policies." It is about the social policies of each country as we struggle to accept an expanding immigrant community that often doesn't share the same ideals most of us were brought up and raised with.

    Seems to me that Britain has a lot of the same problems the United States has, and a lot of similar people are making similar arguments.

Share This Page