Liberalism, a word used by so many but understood by so few, but that is the defining word of our modern (or more accurately Post-modern) age. What is Liberalism? in America the word “Liberal” is used to refer to those who hold any political position deemed Left of center, while in Europe the term Liberal is used to describe those who support any Laissez-faire economics, and in Non-Western countries a Liberal is someone who promotes “reforms” to make their society more “progressive”, “open”, “tolerant”, “Democratic”, or any other fuzzy term that essentially means make their country more “Western”. Your probably wondering which definition is closest to the true meaning of “Liberalism”. Surprisingly, all of these definitions are both right and wrong in their definition of Liberalism, due to the fact that all of these definitions do incorporate at least one aspect of the meaning of Liberalism, however none of them encompass its full meaning.
Liberalism is an ideology that views the individual as the primary subject of human society (unlike Fascism which views Race/Ethnicity as the primary subject, and Marxism which views Class as the primary subject), and is based on the fundamental principal that viewing the primary subject of human society as being anything other then individuals (i.e. collective units such as race and ethnicity as in Fascism and Class as in Marxism) is a violation of the liberty of the individual (hence the term “Liberalism” being derived from “Liberty”), and that the role of the state is to protect the fundamental “rights” of the individual, and that it should interfere as little as possible in the economic and social endeavors of the individual. Thus Liberalism, is basically the ideology of radical individualism, viewing the individual as being the fundamental subject of human existence.
This means that from a ideological standpoint, Liberalism is a broad umbrella that includes any ideology that is rooted in (and takes for granted), Liberal Democracy (a political system that affords individuals the feeling that they have many “choices”) and Neoliberal Capitalism (an economic system that is based in the ideal that the government should interfere as little as possible in the economic endeavors of the individual i.e. Private ownership of the largest corporations, Low taxes on the wealthy and Corporations, minimal regulations on corporations, and a small safety-net that is big enough to prevent social unrest but is small enough not to require heavy taxation), and Cultural Liberalism (the idea that the government will value protecting the rights of the individual i.e. human rights, over defending the traditional values and cultural identity of the country, and will even seek to destroy them as a way to further the rights of the Individual), which is basically the entire acceptable political spectrum of western politics (i.e Centre-Left ideologies like Social Liberalism and Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism, and Centre-Right ideologies like Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism and Conservatism).
I’m sure any Conservatives or Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists reading this will be shocked/offended that I am saying their ideologies are rooted in Cultural Liberalism (something Conservatives think their fighting) and Neoliberal Capitalism (something Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists think their fighting). However the answer for this is surprisingly simple, even though Centre-right conservatives think their valiantly standing against Cultural Liberalism by “conserving” the traditional values, they are really just conserving the status quo, hence the fact that after decades of fighting against the legalization of homosexuality in the western world, within the last few decades they were forced to accept its legalization, and instead had to face a new onslaught in the form of Gay marriage, which despite their valiant efforts has now been legalized in virtually every Western country in the last 10 years, and know they are forced to accept this and wait for next onslaught (most likely the widespread acceptance of Transgenderism), which will probably work as well for them as the last two. On the other hand even though Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists have been railing against the onslaught of Neoliberalism since the 1980s, they have been virtually powerless to stop it, and over the past few decades they have slowly but surely moderated their stances (just a few decades ago most European Democratic Socialist supported State-ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, today hardly any do) and are now in the weak position of desperately opposing austerity measures that would gut the safety-net (in Europe), or desperately demanding the expansion of a pitifully small safety-net (in America), and in both cases all they are accomplishing is pacifying the working class (their basically doing the bidding of the 1% they claim to hate).
Why are these supposedly Centre-Left and Centre-Right ideologies so ineffective at defending the principals they are suppose to stand for? The answer is because they are rooted in participating in the Liberal Democratic process, they end up unwillingly supporting positions they claim to oppose, because the Liberal Democratic process retards them from taking any concrete steps to defend their principals i.e they say let’s wait for the next election to undo the damage, however by the time their back in power it’s to late and the Liberal Democratic process (and the wealthy donors that fund them) stop them from changing anything. So in reality Ideologies like Conservatism and Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism are basically two flavors of the same Centrist Liberal ideology that give voters the false choice that their will be change after the next election (Social Liberalism and Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism are honest that their flavors of Liberalism, hence the fact it’s in their names). Thus, the Liberal Democratic political system that sells itself as “offering political choice to every individual voter” is a fraud, that only offers voters a choice between several flavors of the same ideology (or in America just two). This means that Western Liberal Democracies are really De-Facto One-Party sates due to the fact that all these parties on the ballot support the same ideology, which is ironic considering how hated and despised the historical Fascist and current (and historical) Marxist One-Party states were/are by the governments of these Liberal Democracies.
Surprisingly, the most insidious aspect of the Liberal ideology is not the fact that it promotes a fraudulent political system that offers fake choices, but the fact that due to its basis in viewing the primary subject of human society as the individual, it seeks to destroy all collective units (Race, Religion, Ethnicity, Class, Family, etc.) especially those of Non-Western societies, and break them down to a toxic stew of rabid individualism, that creates a nihilistic, atomized, hedonistic society based on a culture of death (the modern Western Culture represented by Hollywood and promoted by Western NGOs in Non-Western countries) that due to unfortunate geopolitical events that have befallen its primary ideological competitors (Fascism was dealt a decisive blow after World War II, and Marxism was extremely weakened after the fall of the Soviet Union), is rampaging across the planet with the full support of the most powerful empire in human history (the U$), and if left unchecked over the rest of this century will destroy everything that stands in the way of its radical utopian Individualism, up to, and including, Liberating the individual subject from the constraints of the Human Species (this will most likely be accomplished by the emerging technologies of the fourth industrial revolution such as Artificial Intelligence, Cloning, etc that can be applied to various insane Transhumanist endeavors). In conclusion, all of us who hold Illiberal beliefs on both the Far-Left and Far-Right must come together to create a common consensus, so we can destroy our common enemy before it destroys everyone and everything we love and believe in.