For a good part of my life I have thought of myself as a libertarian, but I realize now that I am better described by a new (if somewhat strange- sounding) term: liberal libertarian conservative, or LLC for short. The reason for this neologism is to acknowledge recognition of the fact that the major philosophical tenets of each of liberalism, libertarianism and conservatism are correct: Libertarians are right to be worried about Big Ugly Government (BUG) because of its tendency to act tyrannically; conservatives are right to be worried about the erosion of Western civilization, particularly as a result of liberal and especially Jewish influence of what is sometimes called the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG); and liberals are right to be worried about the influence of corporate capitalism, the wealthy and the Power Elite, whose influence has often been used 'by any means necessary' to suppress competition and silence critics. This of course is not to say that each of these groups do not differ on lesser issues, since they obviously do; it is rather to say that, because all of them are right in their basic outlook, it is a mistake of both philosophy and tactics that members of each school should not look for common ground with the others in their struggle. Indeed, the situation is much reminiscent of JG Saxe's famous poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant", where a group of blind men attempted to discern the essential nature of the elephant, all of them coming to totally different conclusions as a result of perceiving the different parts of their subject.
But if I am best characterized as an LLC, I have tended to emphasize the libertarian and conservative elements of my philosophy because liberalism is the accepted philosophy of the moment, and the extremes to which it has led us are extremely unpalatable. For example, in racial matters, liberals are right to think that men should be equal before the law, but wrong to think they are equal in intelligence, behavior, racial characteristics or in any other substantive way. In gender matters, liberals are right to assert that women should not be chained to hearth and home, but wrong to think that women can be just like men or that most women would be happy in a role other than that dictated by 'anatomy is destiny'. In sexuality, liberals are right that sex does not have to be rigidly limited to marriage, but wrong to think that sex is merely another form of recreation such as picnics or quoits. In homosexuality, liberals are right to assert that there is no argument about taste, and that there is no reason to regulate the behavior of consenting adults in private; but wrong to assert that homosexuality is equal in social desirability to heterosexuality, that homosexuals are fit for familial relationships such as marriage and child- raising, or that homosexuals belong as scoutmasters, soldiers, teachers or the like. In religion, liberals are right that God is dead, but wrong to think that an institution like religion, which has proved its value and staying power over thousands of years of social evolution, can be safely destroyed without first developing new institutions which will produce equally effective moral suasions and social stability. In short, by being half-right, liberalism has been worse than completely wrong, because what came before -- no matter how mistaken in some cosmic sense -- had at least passed the test of time, while liberalism has not only failed every test to which it has been subject, but is on the verge of leaving the world's greatest civilization in ruins, and in the process extinguishing the small but very special group of men and women who produced that civilization -- the white race -- in a genocide of the rising tide of Turd-world color.
As the first philosopher of LLC, I would opine that the most important single principle of the LLC philosophy is Lord Acton's dictum the "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Both libertarians and the Left are sensitive to Acton's concern, except that libertarians are blind to everything except government power, while the Left is blind to everything except the power of corporations, the rich and the upper classes. Conservatives, unfortunately, are less enamored of Acton's insight, since they are frequently members of the Power Elite and are thus unable to see anything threatening or corrupting about themselves; tho conservatives' on-again-off-again disapproval of BUG and ZOG at least gives them a tentative tie to Acton. But if LLC adopts the major postulate of all three philosophies, we must not forget the inclination of both liberalism and conservatism toward totalitarianism; nor, for that matter should we forget the inclination of libertarianism toward anarchy, a political state which is so unstable that it has never existed except in utopian imagination. As to totalitarianism, I find it amazing to see how others think they can make the world right by attempting to impose on society anything more than what the French call 'le minimum': Not only do such impositions usually fail, but they invite chaos and revolution. Thus the fatal attraction of so many to totalitarian policies is a confirmation of yet another adage that 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' And of course those, like the libertarians, who would wish to 'impose' anarchy, are doing little more than inviting thru fear of insecurity the very totalitarianism they seek to avoid.
The important thing to see about the competition among liberals, libertarians and conservatives is that the dynamics are that of a pendulum: When one philosophy gets carried to an unpleasant and unviable extreme, the pressures eventually mount to cause a swing in a different direction until yet another extreme is reached, whence the process is repeated. At the present moment, the extremes of the liberal philosophy are reaching a peak of abusiveness, and thereby generating strong pressures for a different and equally unpleasant extreme. The unique thing about liberalism, however, is that it has maneuvered society into such extremities that there is danger of a complete social collapse, carrying with it a significant possibility that the culture of two millennia and its standard-bearer -- the white race -- may be lost forever. We have all heard of the 'business cycle' with its continuing series of 'booms' and 'busts'; so it seems appropriate to name the pendulum-like phenomenon we have described above as the political cycle. And just as some believe that the business cycle is artificially induced by those in charge of the currency, so we may wonder whether or not the political cycle is induced by a deliberate extremitizing of political policies as a way of keeping the people preoccupied, after the fashion of the Report from Iron Mountain, which projected that society needed war or the moral equivalent of war in order to maintain its stability.
The great virtue in declaring oneself an LLC is to build bridges with potential allies who would otherwise reject you or be on the defensive against you. This is significant because it is always easy to find points of difference with others, and to create loud and lengthy arguments on the basis of these differences; while it usually requires great skill to unite on matters of mutual interest without allowing political intimacy to ignite the fires of conflict. Accordingly, whether it is true or not that the political cycle is an artificial construct intended to preoccupy men and keep them out of the habit of questioning the Power Behind the Throne (or Drone), we can see that embracing the LLC philosophy may turn out to be a novel and significant way to Win Friends and Influence People Politically, and that this philosophy may turn out to be the perfect way to damp out the Political Cycle.
Maybe it deserves a try.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *