Liberalism is based on the egalitarian and humanitarian principle that all people share humanity equally, and that this humanity is a higher good than any nationality or ethnicity.
Now, what is the Right's objection to this?
I'm playing devil's advocate here :-
>Not all people are equal, because some are more virtuous and others less, some more intelligent and others less, etc.
But the egalitarian principle does not necessarily require a levelling where all distinctions between people are abolished, and their various degrees of moral and natural excellence covered up. Admittedly, that is how many liberals, envious of the excellence of others, have abused the egalitarian principle, but it is not a necessary part of it. All the egalitarian principle requires is that all men, regardless of their individual excellence, have a certain fundamental love and respect accorded to them, because of their humanity.
>Some cultures, nations, ethnicities are manifestly superior to others in civilisation, art, and science.
This is the same as the first objection, except applied to a group rather than an individual. It's not that all other cultures should be respected regardless of their moral and natural deficiencies, although many liberals have interpreted it this way.
>Amalgamating all nations into one global state, all cultures into one global culture, interbreeding the various races: destroys the identity of peoples and reduces diversity; the beauty of many ancient cultures is lost.
OK, but why can the one global state and culture not be superior to any and all of the individual cultures? Were the Romans wrong to go around Europe conquering barbarians and turning them into Romans? Isn't the love for your individual ethnicity and nationality a kind of romanticism and nostalgia, and isn't humanity a superior quality to mere ethnicity or nationality? Shouldn't ethnicity and nationality be sacrificed for the sake of a higher quality, namely humanity?
>>76717120
In order to create a superior humanity tje bottom feeders would have to be removed, civilization is the sum of its part, if whites are superior to blacks then any civilization that is a fusion of them will be worse than a purely white one.
Some alt-Right types disdain for Christianity because they see it as the first to teach something like the egalitarian principle, as when St. Paul says that in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, master and slave, man and woman, etc. - all are equal.
There is a saying of Jesus' that the lords of the gentiles "lord it over them", but that Christian leaders should act as servants of those whom they lead, and he demonstrates this by washing the feet of his disciples, as though he were there servant.
I think the egalitarian principle means the abolishing of lordliness, the idea that men who have a superior position in society should act and feel superior to those beneath them. This puts an end to all the refined manners and dress of nobility and all the pageantry of kingship and knighthood, but it makes way for a more human love. Now being a low man in society isn't seen as something to be ashamed of, and you shouldn't envy the rich or powerful man, neither should the rich or powerful man disdain the weak and poor. I know that liberal egalitarian society is full of envy of the rich and disdain for the poor, but I think this is more because it is a de facto oligarchy run by a wealthy elite, rather than a truly liberal society based on egalitarianism.
>>76717396
Is that necessarily the case though? If you killed off all of the dumb chads who would do all the menial work? Blacks are inferior intellectually but are often superior physically, so they would have a place in society that requires physical strength.
>>76717396
Also this is why we advocate ethnic nationalism, because its prefferable to genocide. And more humane. Also its true for all things in life that competition breeds success. A monocultural one world superstate would stagnate, degenerate and die.
>>76717120
>Liberalism is based on the egalitarian and humanitarian principle
> "postulate"
>>76717120
Liberty (defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views) can be effective in certain fields (such as economics) but rests on assuming the individual expression of others is inherently good for no good reason. Given the Enlightenment's focus on reacting from the Thirty Year's War and how modern morality works, it's easy to see that this is just trying to find a way to appeal to consensus as modern morality seeks no actual justice nor believes in such but rather is an exercise in conflict resolution.
Many ways of life can be destructive or unfulfilling. The belief that all of us are truly different that is implied to defend this is unsubstantiated as most differences tend to be expressions of more core principles. The well-sounding promises of "freedom" of the will are accepted because people want it to be right. However the will changes and there is no given reason for it to change is the person is truly free else it would be depending on something to help arbitrate. No, rather, the will seeks the good.
Discerning that is, of course, the hard part and where academic discourse should lie.
>>76718549
>>76717120
And to add, liberty and equality are vague as goals in themselves as they add no detail on how far these views should go and what elements should restrict them. You haven't even asserted the non-aggression principle with these two goals.
Promoting these two are goals in themselves will make the society move towards them and attempt to realize their concepts in a purer and purer since. There is little here but the people's opinions to assert the value of elements that may be tossed aside (such as human rights when unborn).
Liberalism is more about human freedom, the root word is freedom.
There may be some liberals who want to "force" equality and make everyone the same but that is not the ideology.
Also leveling the playing field isn't the same thing. Is it right that baby a comes into the world with every advantage and baby b has to crawl through miles and miles of shit and piss to get anywhere in life?
I don't think anyone is forcefully amalgamating all races into one. Even the most staunch multiculturalist just wants to have a society that brings in all types of people and they live side by side with their different cultures.
>>76717120
you cannot extend your nice principles onto people who dont adhere to them.
>>76719366
tell that to the Romans or any imperials in history
>>76720255
and see where they are now
