Dwyer: Liberty Vs Liberalism

How many innocent children must die before the “Liberalism” is forever banned?

Let’s face it. Although the American nation is arguably the best nation on Earth, there are evil people among us. Some of them, perhaps, can overcome their evil and become good, eventually, but many will not. Based on disappointing experience of a decades-old Liberal experiment with unqualified tolerance and inclusion as a means with which to eradicate evil from our society, untreated evil will persist and may erode the foundations of our Constitutional Republic to the point that they are no longer sustainable or desirable. If we ever reach that point, the Republic will fall, and so will our living standards, individual liberties, and chances to pursuit the American dream.

From a proper perspective, the fact that evil and freedom are mutually irreconcilable in a well-functioning republic is obvious. Give liberty to a republic of good people and chances are that they will convert it into prosperity and happiness for all. Replace the good ones with the bad ones, and the latter will use their freedom to ruin whatever the former have built, and to turn happy lives that were once prevailing into hopeless misery. Arm them with deadly weapons and they will turn their country into a slaughterhouse. And the government, drawn from bad people, by bad people, and for bad people, with further exacerbate the damage.

It is exactly the detrimental impact of evil on sustainability of a society that led to emergence of nations like ours where vast majority of people are good in that they do not try to take advantage of others even if they can get away with it. It is not a coincidence that the most charitable nation of all, America, is also the most productive and prosperous one, while societies that can be better characterized as predatory than charitable have a tendency to not last, never mind the harsh lives that they have to offer to the majority of their members. Putting it simply, a wiser part of the humanity discovered, perhaps incidentally, that it paid to be respectful of other people’s lives, properties, and liberties, at least as far as the others returned the favor, so they developed their affinity for good and dislike of evil.

Given enough time for this kind of life experiences, as well as later societal rewarding the good and punishing the bad, these circumstantial attitudes towards good vs. evil dichotomy had been reinforced to the point where they became a part of the nature of the majority of the population in question. This can be viewed as simple adaptation in order to increase the said population’s chances for survival. Human beings are exceptionally adaptive, and the emergence of societies that were determined to eradicate evil from among themselves was itself a proof of societal destructiveness of evil and the grave risk that it posed to individual survivability.

Unfortunately, a cohesive group of ideologically-driven social engineers (“social levelers” would have been a better descriptor here) have decided to reverse the time-proven process of gradual improvement and replace it with implementation of their half-baked and untested ideas of moral relativism and non-judgementalism. They attempt to rationalize out and embrace evil rather than eradicating it, and to rid our society of its natural defense mechanisms against it, instead. Under the auspices of what is referred today as “Liberalism”, they have redefined “evil” to include in this category those intolerant to it. As absurd and self-contradictory as it seems, this line of attack on nation’s moral fabric has worked, as a series of mass shootings of innocent children in American public schools (mostly controlled by the Liberal establishment) indicates.

Evil individuals are not on their way to extinction. On the contrary, they are being protected by the misdirected Liberal dogmata of tolerance and inclusion. They enjoy all the liberties, once awarded to the good American people, in order to harm, kill, and inflict damage. The tragic effects of this kind of social engineering are predictable and should have been expected. The idea that good and evil can “peacefully” coexist is an unproven nonsense.

The Liberals claim that all they desire is to liberate all the people from whatever oppression and abuse they might have been subjected to. Many of them may sincerely believe that it is the actual goal that they are advancing. But taking into account the intrinsic mutual irreconcilability of liberty and evil, Liberal tolerance towards evil must inevitably lead to elimination of our individual liberties and not to their expansion, however gradual the said elimination might be. In the aftermath of recent tragic events in Texas and Florida, a movement towards elimination of individual freedom to possess and use firearms is picking up some steam. On its face, it’s logical; we cannot allow ourselves to keep and bear arms if there are enough evil ones among us to wreck havoc to our once peaceful and safe society. But this is a very deceptive “logic”; we are hard pressed to give up on one of our fundamental liberties in order to be able to better tolerate and include evil among us, which tolerance and inclusion were supposed to make us more libre and free. And so the Liberal vicious circle closes.

It’s still up to us to decide whether we are going to perpetuate the illiberal Liberalism in our society or to get rid of it and stand firmly on the side of time-proven model of a Western society as outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If and when we chose the latter, we must not rest until the evil among us is driven out of America. To that end, we will need to eliminate what is called these days “Liberalism” from our schools, governments, and lives. Nothing else will do. Until then, we will need our guns to protect ourselves from the evil people as well as from attempts of Liberal elites to submit us all to their superficially beneficial but actually dangerous ideology.

May 20, 2018

~ The Author ~
dwyer_thumbMr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s recent columns are posted at:
Links to his other commentaries can be found here: http://www.oocities.org/readerswrite/List_date.htm

2 thoughts on “Dwyer: Liberty Vs Liberalism

  1. d hedden

    At the core of suffered liberty, is the compound crime of a false doctrine of man’s sinful nature, so as to obliterate accountability for a condition of the heart that is a choice, a crime, instead of a disease. And the church is complicit when she attributes evil to innate composition, rather than choice so that she cannot hate evil, because it would involve self-hate, where self-hate is the core of full redemption, as the individual hates what God hates to see it nailed to a Cross.

    If man is constituted a self-existent creature, there is no appeal in Moral Law, in the same way, there is no appeal to the animal, whose disposition is to eat or be eaten and hardly pathological.

    Liberalism is an attempt to do what only God does: Define existence. Liberalism creates the false narrative, then constructs a religion to fix the problem even God won’t fix–a lie.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *