Why Liberalism and Socialism are Twin Evils

by The Editor

Why Liberalism and Socialism are Twin Evils
Traditional Britain Group Vice-President Gregory Lauder-Frost discusses the rise of Liberalism in the Twentieth Century and its effect on the nation.

by Vice-President Gregory Lauder-Frost

The history of Liberalism is part of the broad Left. Until Labour really got off the ground in the 1920s the Liberals were the Left. They had a very left-wing anti-conservative social programme (the Reform Bills broadening the male franchise were theirs) and correctly understood that they could destroy the aristocracy and the traditional hierarchy in particular and therefore the patriarchy in general by increasing the franchise and bringing in democrazy at every possible level of society. (Essential read on this is "The Diehards - Aristocratic Society and Politics" [before The Great War] by Gregory D. Phillips (1979). This was the beginning of communistic levelling which the socialists would later claim was really their idea. Since The Great War they gave the franchise to women (this was always a Liberal Party objective). It is interesting to note that women in France never voted until after 1945. Again this tipped the balance, as on balance most women are liberal-left. (A bit like Labour's idea of flooding the UK with immigrants who would permantly vote for them).

However the Liberals saw the man in the street as just an economic unit. (This is why Thatcher and Cameron are always talking about GDP and profits.) The Liberal Party throughout the 19th century opposed the industrial reforms put up by the Tories. The removal of women and children from the mines is a good example. They opposed this on the grounds that the labour market "should be able to find its own natural level". This is the kind of thing Thatcherites say today. One of the ways Liberals destroyed the landed classes was free trade and the removal of agricultural protection for UK farming. There were other ways of addressing profiteering (to which as free-market Liberals they were not in principle opposed to) but they saw also that here was another opportunity to pulverise the old regime. It is interesting to note how liberalism evolved as if we go back in time the Whigs contained very considerable numbers of the landed classes (the Dukes of Devonshire, for example). By the 19th century the party had been effectively taken over by an overtly political class which one might argue was urban orientated. The Labour Party which started out depending on industrial workers (replacing the Liberals in this respect) depends today on urbanites.

The fake Conservative Party was infiltrated by liberals in the 1930s when it became clear that Labour had become the second force. (They were right on this, as until Cameron's coalition the Liberal Party had been out of power since the 1920s). Likewise, when Britain's realistic communists realised they were going nowhere under the Communist Party banner, they moved into the Labour Party. It was largely (but not absolutely) the liberals in the Conservative Party in the 1930s who formed the "war party" faction in the CP, led by Churchill, who was a political liberal. After the war the Conservative Party went into nosedive on Toryism and became slowly taken over absolutely by Liberals. They simply walked out of the empire, caved in to the USA at every turn (lest we forget Suez), and having been seriously frightened by Labour's 1945 victory adopted an increasingly leftist platform. Gone were the days when the Conservative Party stood for cast-iron beliefs and principles. Now it was just about getting elected and staying in power. These liberal conservatives, as much as any other party, are responsible for the mass immigration which, unchecked, will spell the end of the UK and the British nation. They were also free-traders, something the pre-WWII conservatives were against. This has resulted in the emasculation and destruction of British industry making the UK dependent on imports.

Economic liberals care nothing for nation-states (much as communists believe in the socialist international, for different, political, reasons) as they interfere with profits and particularly so where taxation is concerned. Economic liberals and socialists run the EU and it is one of the reasons they want the UK in it, because they wish to homogenise absolutely everything for trade, including open borders. Again, its all about profits. This destroys localism, national identities (and eventually it will destroy languages as one will eventually triumph just as French was the international language for centuries), national customs, national heritage and national pride. It has to. People end up being just cogs in the wheel of finance, without any identity. The liberals have teamed up (in spirit) with the socialists to destroy traditional society; to wreck traditional established society. They abolished the Death Penalty and introduced or concurred with social changes that even communists would have balked at. They have concurred with the left-wing class war agendas to destroy the House of Lords which has served us well for 1000 years; they hate the hereditary principle; and they continue to apply Inheritance Taxation which is essentially a socialist wet dream. They today consistently use the full language of The Left, such as "racism" and as we are currently seeing, "anti-semitism" etc., and introduce legislation designed specifically to oppress freedom of speech which is not within their left-wing goalposts. Many refer to this as "liberal fascism". They now teach children that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is normal and that, by inference, the traditional family unit cannot be "normal" (otherwise it would mean homosexuality was abnormal). These concepts go against both God and nature. Again, communists would not have gone this far in the total deconstruction of traditional society. Just as Christ said "the poor will always be with you", homosexuals have always been with us also, but covertly, in private. I commend Professor Patrick O'Hear's excellent book "After Progress - Finding the Old Way Forward" (1999).

O'Hear addresses how we became traditional in almost everything, things which can be traced back to the beginning of civilisation. Until the French Revolution and the 19th century drastic political change in almost every country was unheard of and largely unnecessary. Liberals adopted a great deal of the French revolution's agenda. Amend and engage in subtle change by all means. But go over the top and you enter the bottomless chasm. Place your country in the hands of bankers and merchants (plutocrats) and those only concerned with putting you on a treadmill for profits will rip the soul out of you and your people. (Just as we've always had the poor with us, we have always had capitalism too and this has been an engine of progress in many respects; but now we have vulgar, ruthless ungentlemanly capitalism.) In this respect Marx has a point, but communism, like liberalism, is not the answer. The old ways were balanced, socially and politically, and were the best.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.