The Liberal Hill to Die On



Originally published 19 August, 2017.

The Liberal Party has chosen their hill to die on and we are watching their slow death. A party whose values are riddled with contradictions, a consequence of their wilful ignorance of the foundation of these very values. What is this blind-spot which has led them to a self defeating and poorly defined position?

This inquiry begins with what the Liberals profess themselves to believe: individual freedoms and free enterprise. The individual freedoms being those of thought, worship, speech, and association. Their free enterprise being not putting limits on people through disincentives.

While mouthing support for freedom of association, this value is only pursued as far as realpolitik permits. Made unflinchingly obvious in Turnbull’s Gender Diversity Reform Program – an equality policy – and Howard’s Multicultural Australia Policy – an integrationist policy. These two positions reveal their actions are manifest contradictions against freedom of thought and association.

Liberal backbenchers are currently divided over 18C. This reveals that freedom of speech, and by extension thought, is not truly so strongly held as a value by the Liberals. Note that MP David Coleman explains that his diverse (largely Chinese) electorate is against changes to 18C.

From the proclaimed freedoms of thought, worship, speech, and association, only worship remains unmolested. Worship can be fairly considered a proxy for ethnicity, thus the sole freedom Liberals truly hold as a value is freedom of worship, and by proxy ethnicity (in being a citizen).

The economic disincentives Liberals oppose are those of burdensome taxation and bureaucratic red tape. Combined with the espoused freedoms, clearly Liberals value individualism over collectivism. A sensible position, as individualist societies have higher social cohesion, national wealth, and happiness. What Liberals have failed to account for – their blind spot – is that there are population differences in individualism (also see here) with Whites being more individualist than non-Whites and Anglos being more individualist than non-Anglos. These population differences in individualism have been found to be linked with differences in gene variants, thus these variations are ethnic and not cultural.

There exists an irreconcilable conflict between the Liberal values of individualism and free-market economics, and the Liberal value of diversity. Focusing on the desired national character of Australia by the Liberals as one of individualism and free-market economics, we must recognise from where national character originates. It is a character born in an organic way from the people, and not superficial subscription identities which are common posturing tools in diverse politics. As the invisible hand is the market, the people are to national character. Necessarily, an Australian character of individualism and free-market economics must be rooted in the Australian people from whom it is produced.

Australian farmer photo
Photo by Powerhouse Museum Collection

A major faction within the centre -ight collective that is the Liberal Party is the conservative faction. This more socially motivated faction is currently identified by their opposition to gay marriage. As they are called conservatives, one must wonder, what is it that they are conserving? As the conservatives of past decades would regard contemporary conservatism as somewhat progressive, it must be concluded that the conservative today is concerned with conserving the result of past concessions and defeats. Truly, conservatism in contemporary Australian politics is the greatest tragedy and farce. These spineless politicians and pundits hijack the well-meaning sentiments of a great many Australians by appealing to their desire for traditional normalcy and common sense, while deceiving their audience and constituents into wrongly believing the foundation of any such tradition has not been and is not being savagely eroded.

This leaves the only ground on which a Liberal value can stand on being economics. These economic desires motivated by individualism are clearly unachievable without pursuing the sort of demographics who share such a disposition. The Liberals active support for free-market economics is in conflict with their at times tacit, at times active, support of diversity. It is most perverse that economics are being put forth as a value, because economic policy is a means enabling the desired Australian character. The Liberals fail to identify the core from which their policy emerges. One is reminded of Nietzsche’s lamentation “God is dead”, written to convey how Christianity as the core of Western values, once removed will, from the inside out, gradually lead to moral decay and eventual nihilism; so too the Liberal failure to acknowledge the core of their values for the Australian character as being rooted in who the Australian people are ethnically is, and will, lead to the decay of their desired policies.

A hill to die on is the ground you hold no matter the cost. Holding the free-market ideology as an end in itself, without realising individualism is an ethnic trait, will destroy the people who value individualism. The consequences of ethnicity are being espoused while this source is being rejected, thus leading to both perishing. Racial aliens may pay lip service to the values now, but look only to countries where they are the majority and see how things will happen if they become so here.

Africa poverty photoLiberals are ignorant of the core of their values as being an expression of certain peoples and not universal ideals, and consequently their superficial ‘values’ are riddled with contradictions. To achieve the Australian character sought through the self-proclaimed Liberal values, Liberals must focus on demographics. Ignoring this, they are being displaced by peoples who fundamentally reject their beliefs and its foundation: them. Liberals have chosen their economic hill to die on, to die their slow death.

Some reading may have contentions with the positions of this article. Such as pointing out that I explain the benefits of individualism and then promote white collectivism. I respond that you have put forth an individualist-collectivist false dichotomy, and that individualism is completely compatible with and benefited by operating within an established collective which agrees with it. Another possible contention being that I connected too swiftly Liberal desires and a white populace through use of only a single data point, that of the white propensity to individualism. This is certainly not the only reason a Liberal would be concerned with demographics, but given the focus of this article it is the most relevant. If you truly value democracy and freedom of association, think on this: had the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 been put to a referendum between 1947 and 1966, what would the result have been? Should the Liberals continue to verbally support their so-called values while remaining silent on demographics, they reveal themselves as what many suspect they are: craven, borderline-nihilistic opportunists concerned only with realpolitik, and deserving only of our contempt.