The sacred cows of aggressive liberalism

The cancer of the idea of ​​liberalism is that it is unable to stop breaking down the limits/laws/customs. Almost all of his objectives have a positive core, but he pushes every idea to the extreme, so at some point it necessarily becomes a socially destructive, destructive idea. Let's take a look at the five great "sacred cows" of liberalism.

One of the basic principles of today's liberalism is that all authority and hierarchy must be destroyed. The germ of the idea was a realistic seed, since the privileges of birth and position really had to be eliminated. At the same time, the overworking of the idea has necessarily become a force that destroys society, as it favors mediocrity and often leads to indecisiveness. Politics is an excellent example of the spread of mediocrity, nowadays there are no politicians of similar quality De Gaulle , Adenauer or Kennedy The international financial oligarchy only needs smooth politicians without authority and will, US President Joe Biden is a shining example of this type.

If a conservative head of government stands up for his principles, he is immediately slapped with the nebulous concept of "authoritarian". Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is at the center of constant and sexist attacks because he is a talented politician. For ten years, the left-liberal politicians and their media have been running a discrediting campaign against our Prime Minister. He is branded a dictator, even though the French president has much wider powers, but E. Macron is on the "good side". It is noteworthy that the destruction of authority also extends to the destruction of the authority of the state. What kind of state is unable to protect its borders?

Another prominent area of ​​the destruction of authority is art. Previously, each branch of art had its own specialist authority, whose decision could not be appealed. This undoubtedly made it difficult for those looking for new paths, because it acted as a filter, but the real talent - if they were persistent - was able to break through this wall. It is also true that many artists remained poor because they were only recognized after their death. While the arts were supported by rich financiers and the church, the professional authority was the client/financier. This is how the great, classical works were born. However, when the support of art was taken over by the impersonal state, a lack of authority took over, and the liberal "let all flowers bloom" became the slogan. That is why nowadays there is no one who separates the artistic work from the lousy, the kitsch, the tasteless, the ugly. And those who demand unlimited artistic freedom mostly hang on the "state's baubles. ” D. Murray writes in his book “The Strange Death of Europe”: “The most important answer is…missing. Why can't art pick up the thread where religion left off?... many contemporary artists today are not looking for eternal truths, beauty and goodness, but simply say to the audience: I'll wallow in the mud with you... "

The destruction of authority in society results in a lack of models and the collapse of culture. Before the Second World War, social injustice was immeasurable in Hungarian society, but at the same time, the aristocracy and the nobility set a model to be followed in culture and behavior. During and after the war, the role model was destroyed or driven away, and the nation was left without a cultural model. Thus, first the prole became the model to follow, and then, after the regime change, the celebrity. As a result, today's public life is permeated by an oppressive atmosphere of proletarian pretentiousness and liberal jerks. And social media is an information dump where everyone can give their opinion on anything. Where Aunt Mari's opinion about vaccination is worth as much as that Béla Merkely Széchenyi. To a large extent, this is the reason why nearly four hundred thousand elderly people in our country still had not been vaccinated before the fourth wave. And in many countries, they are protesting against vaccination and restrictions, while hospitals are operating at the limit of their performance capacity. The destruction of authority in important matters unfortunately results in uncertainty, inability to make decisions, or bad decisions.

And the destruction of authority is raised to a philosophical height by the idea of ​​the Open Society. Liberal philosopher János Kiss: "In an open society, there are no infallible authorities who would decide for us what is true, what is good and what is right..." This is the vision of another utopian social experiment, which believes that there is no need for a charismatic leader, things will be fine by themselves direction they turn. However, the lack of authority - especially in times of crisis - can have tragic consequences. We can see the consequences of this drifting philosophy in the leadership of the Union, whether it is the handling of the economic crisis or the Covid epidemic. Unfortunately, liberals interpret authority in an extreme way and consciously confuse it with dictatorship.

Another big watchword of liberal goals is liberation. The liberation of serfdom, the abolition of the colonial system, and the embrace of oppressed minorities were all correct objectives. Women in the XIX-XX at the turn of the century they were still really oppressed. Women were hit by barriers to education, voting, and employment. Their fight for equality was therefore a positive movement. At the same time, after the Second World War, feminism became a socially destructive idea, because it has now reached the point of denying motherhood. In Anglo-Saxon countries, some women with an extreme interpretation of freedoms proudly wear T-shirts with the inscription "I had an abortion", others wear badges with the inscription "My mind, my body, my choice". Liberals are unable to resolve the tension between motherhood and career because they overemphasize the role of career. As a result, work done at home has become a curse word, but the same for others, done as a service, is self-realization itself.

BarWould it be worthwhile to conduct a survey to find out what percentage of women feel that they have made a career and realized their dreams? The wild drive of feminism is the female soldier who swears to kill instead of giving birth to children, as well as the wrestlers, boxers, etc. who give up their femininity. Generally speaking, it is a blurring of male and female mentality. Extreme feminism has now brought the developed, so-called, to the brink of a demographic catastrophe. "liberal democracies" , even though, according to the Hungarian model, the conflict between motherhood and career can be reduced to a tolerable level with an appropriate family policy. Women deprived of the experience of motherhood do not even know what they have lost! The newest amazing goal of feminism is to liberate women from childbearing! The standard-bearer of this idea is Anna Smajdor , who in 2007 explains her terrifying vision in her work "The moral command of ectogenesis". According to supporters of ectogenesis, the artificial uterus is already available. This aspiration far surpasses the Nazi-style eugenics, fashionable between the two world wars, and Hitler's imagination! Even embryos selected on the basis of breeding criteria can be implanted into the artificial womb, and even slaves can be bred with this procedure. Today's extreme, progressive liberal no longer knows any moral limits, he imagines himself as God!

Homosexuals were condemned by society in many countries until the Second World War, and Hitler even sent members of this group to concentration camps. The abolition of their disadvantageous discrimination was therefore a legitimate demand. But the liberals couldn't stop there either, Pride became the day/week/month of gay pride. However, one can only be proud of one's own achievements, not inherited tendencies! But it doesn't matter that the gender movement has no scientific basis, since it denies the validity of natural laws! However, the situation is even worse than this, because an unfavorable trait for society - childlessness - is nowadays given euphoric respect, based on a false green slogan. Because overpopulation threatens the third world and not the white man's society. The violence of the movement is shown by the fact that our children have already been targeted, under the code name "sensitization". The elimination of discrimination against homosexuals has now led to the spread of sexual deviance, and has even become a norm to be followed, a "European value", even though it is disintegrating the basic cell of society, the institution of the family.

The so-called according to rights defenders, the concept of liberation includes the unprincipled embrace of deviant minorities who make the living conditions of the silent majority miserable. This group includes drug addicts, noisemakers, graffiti artists, vandals, profanity, haters, people living in public spaces, etc. In this case, two rights face each other: the unrestricted freedom of deviants and the right of the silent majority to peace, purity, and security. It is strange that, according to liberals, the rights of the deviant minority are stronger. This philosophy forms the basis of the "city for everyone" movement. The obvious result of this was the destruction of Budapest during the mayorship of Gergely Karácsony. The sad thing about the whole thing is that this movement - due to its doctrinaire nature - is incapable of solving the real housing problem. In the past, laws and customs gave order a livable framework, today only the law matters. If, on the other hand, everything is regulated by law, it will be the phalanster itself, and if not, then we are moving towards anarchy. The elimination of customs from behavioral norms and the liberation of deviant minorities from all norms has now turned into minority terror.

The favorite field of the liberals is integration, in Hungary it is mainly the catching up of the Gypsies. The goal is noble, but the method of raising it has never led anywhere due to the doctrinaire liberal approach. A fine example of this is Gyöngyöspata. A social problem can only be solved if both parties want it, and both parties recognize their own responsibility for the problem's origin. In contrast, liberals believe that all problems are rooted in the prejudices of the majority society . However, this principle, which is false to the core, binds the will in knots and prevents the aggrieved party from doing something to improve its situation! We are victims, we don't have to do anything, everything comes to us without much effort - think and say the so-called gypsies taught by human rights defenders. And when the court awarded HUF 100 million in damages to the parents of children with deviant behavior who skipped school, it was a slap in the face of mainstream society. Gypsy children and their parents can learn from the compensation that it is more profitable to litigate instead of studying, because the so-called to support lawyers. At this point, the practice of liberal principles becomes a socially destructive force.

It should be noted that the method of catching up with Gypsy children is a pedagogical and social issue, and not a legal one! And the success of integration is largely a matter of quantity. If the proportion of Gypsy children in a class is too high, then the integration is stuck or even reversed, and then the parents of non-Gypsy children are forced to transfer their children to another school. The way of integration advocated by "rights defenders" deepens the problem instead of solving it. And America - where destructive liberal ideas have been flowing for thirty years - has already reached the point where there is talk of abolishing the examination system in schools where children of color perform worse than white children. Instead of integration and catching up, downward leveling is taking place in the most advanced liberal democracy!

The next great "sacred cow" of liberalism is unrestricted freedom of speech and opinion. Freedom of speech and opinion is the cornerstone of any democracy, but when it is unrestricted, it often incites hatred and backlash by hurting feelings. Violating religious sensitivities is particularly vile and dangerous. What provokes only moderate disapproval in our country is already a reason for acts of terrorism in the West, due to the fanatical religiosity of Muslims. Despite experience, liberals insist that mocking the Prophet Muhammad is a right of freedom. In general terms, it is intolerable that the society must tolerate the fact that one group invades the psyche of another on a daily basis. An extreme interpretation of freedom of speech poisons the quality of life, fuels an atmosphere of civil war, where there is no longer room for meaningful dialogue, public discourse revolves around pseudo-problems, and agreement on issues of national destiny is no longer possible. Unlimited freedom of speech is the most effective tool for "ditch digging" in politics.

A serious distortion of the principle of freedom of speech and opinion is the use of lies as a political tool. Unfortunately, lies have become the left-liberal opposition's most effective tool for politicking. There are no lies for which left-liberals apologize. Lajos Korózs didn't bat an eye when he failed in his report with the fake paramedic, he didn't resign from his parliamentary position. And the proof of complete amorality (immorality) is when left-liberal intellectuals Ferenc Gyurcsány's mafia-like öszöd lie told in private circles - "...we lied morning, night and evening..." - into a truth, and Ferenc Gyurcsány did not resign after the lie was made public. . Klára Dobrev, as a candidate for prime minister, is still proud of her husband's lies. But the situation is no better in the Parliament of the European Union, where a flood of well-proven accusations is hurled at Hungary and Poland. The pinnacle of mockery of the principle of freedom of speech and opinion is the politically correct way of speaking, which makes it impossible to bring real social problems into the public discourse, as well as the violation of nebulous "European values", which brings countries down and keeps millions of people in existential fear. And in America, diversity officers already check the correct use of words at universities. Where has the liberal idea of ​​freedom of speech sunk? The classic of the Enlightenment, Voltaire, even professed the following: "I do not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death so that you have a way to express it." The liberals of our time have already dismissed this principle, introduced terror of opinion and taste under the banner of freedom of speech.

Tolerance and respect for human dignity is one of the liberals' favorite mantras , but this idea has completely turned upside down. Active tolerance - so as not to offend others - has been distorted into passive tolerance, the offended party must tolerate everything under the holy banner of freedom of speech. It has become a motto: take responsibility for yourself, say it, show it, don't pay attention to anyone! As a result of all this, politeness is slowly being pushed out of public life. György Konrád's admonition (about Jews) remains a word shouted in the wilderness: "Do not do to others what you would not wish for yourself! Behave as you expect others to behave.” And the parliamentary comments of the left-liberal opposition drip with hatred instead of the minimum of obligatory respect. Tímea Szabó and Péter Jakab are fighting hard in this Alpár competition , and the left-liberal politicians of the European Parliament are also entering this competition. And the opposition's hateful style continues to circulate in social media, which then causes immeasurable damage to society's behavioral culture. If it is possible to speak in this way in the parliament, then in civil life as well - the citizen can say. The prime target of hatred is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose human dignity is trampled in the mud daily by the opposition without batting an eye. The most disgusting way to do this is the O1G password popular in left-liberal circles. Today's liberalism has completely lost patience with those who hold different views and respect for those who hold views that differ from the mainstream. Our left-liberals overcome this by saying that the public figure has to endure more than an average citizen. The correct interpretation of more: everything!

As a summary, the conclusion can be drawn that liberalism has now become a destructive, socially destructive idea, as it was unable to stop after fulfilling goals useful to society. The reason for this is that without a task, the warriors and politicians of an idea would lose the reason for their political existence and the basis of their livelihood, so they always have to set new and new goals, even if it unravels the fabric of society. The transformation of the liberalism of our time into an extreme, intolerant idea was described as follows by university professor László Tőkéczki (What does liberalism mean to us today? - Credit, V. éf. 1992/1.) : , the equality of thoughts and ideas... After the community "power union" and the state no longer stood behind the old ideals, from that moment on the aggressive anti-conservatism of the representatives of liberal-libertine ideas turned into an obnoxious, "modern" crusade... The "sons of freedom" became dictators, they became inquisitors.”

Author: Pál Bartha

(On the cover photo: Liberal shouters: Péter Jakab and Tímea Szabó. Photo: hirolvaso.com)