Amerika == Liberalism: The Nation

Americans on here who have been redpilled, may have accumulated some dissonance in values over the last election cycle; when they were required to reduced the purity of their true values and argue within the ideological framework of the republican talking points.
This thread is to remind all of you that America itself is a nation founded on the Liberalism; hence it is the apothesis of tradition. It is a nation that revolted against tradition, and any "Conservatism" we see is merely preserving that very modern and liberal point of rebellion.

This is an obvious, but constantly under-stated point; which I believe is crucial to the formation of any American seeking authentic traditionalism.

This is very evident from America's obsession with rituals, a longing for tradition and regionalism, and - most notably - 18th Century garb. This is proof of a want for tradition; identity: but obtained only through a vain and inauthentic aesthetic manner. It truly speaks to the dissonance of being an American: a nation founded on progressiveness and a rejection of tradition; yet who's character constantly pines for that very thing it discarded.

The entire character of America is not British. Even the notion of free speech, individual property rights, and self-armament ALL already existed in Britain.
I make this thread to remind or inform any Amerikaners here that the American identity is wholly; entirely British. As an American, if you wish to obtain genuine tradition: you must come to understand that you are not merely a nation of Liberal ideals; nor a Pan-European nation: but a British nation that has been in denial of this fact.

heres the thing tho.

conservatives today are trying to conserve liberalism, and liberals today want nothing at all to do with locke, adam smith, thomas paine or jefferson.

I understand, that in other countries like france liberal still means liberal, but in the US, unless you are discussion philosophy or have an idea what it means liberalism doesnt mean Liberalism

>discussing philosophy*
fixed

In a lot of ways, the Liberals are mostly correct: America cannot profess to be anything else than a nation of ideas; divorced from the concept of race or tradition. Accepting this: it brings understanding as to why Republicans are in such a bind to be able to conserve anything: they are unable to make any true argument for tradition, as they can only conserve form that point which divorced itself from tradition. For them to obtain any true sense of tradition: they must go beyond conserving, and revolt against the Liberalism which the country was founded on.

Now, some of you may disagree with that point, and bring to attention such instances as "British men of good character". This prooves nothing of America being a explicitly British nation; but rather an implicit one; and that its dissonant denial of this fact is what has caused it to slowly become neither.

liberalism really does mean Liberalism: its just that Republicans and conservatives would that they could argue beyond that, yet find themselves not able to escape that framework.

the us is a circus

>liberalism really does mean Liberalism
no, it really doesnt, its not even fucking close, and it has nothing to do with progressivism. Except that progressives in the US started calling themselves as such because they were no longer liberals.

Liberalism is arguably an extremist individualist philosophy "every man has a Property in his own Person."(two treatisies of government. locke). In contrast with feudal collectivism where the subjects were obligated to obey and protect the soverign (leviathan. hobbes).

Progressives and modern neo-liberals are collectivists. Its literally the opposite of liberalism.

Is it hard to imagine America as a Constitutional Monarchy, with Dominion status?
If you asked the contemporary American, most would say it is unthinkable, and yet they would, at the same time: yearn to uphold traditions, the origins of which they have deracinated themselves from, and (most ironically) mythologise their past rulers in hero cults.

Your arrival, dear cousin; is aptly timed.

I also want to add. Because I dont want this thread to die before I thoughtly btfo the cunt / leaf shitposting voltron.

That even though the US revolted against england. It wasnt specifically because of any ideology other than england's was being violated.

England was denying rights assured to all english citizens by the magna carta, to american english citizens. This was the reason for revolution.

>Progressives and modern neo-liberals are collectivists. Its literally the opposite of liberalism.
I see this thread really was needed. You are still caught up in mainstream Republican talking points. Like many here during the election, they strayed from the path of redpill momentarily and reduced themselves to the framework of Liberalism.

Careful that, in arguing against modern Liberals; you don't end up then defending true Liberalism.

Liberalism is great, its just too bad that neo-liberals have no fucking clue what it actually is.

I also tend to specify lefties if I'm talking about democrats / socialists.

I see by your Reddit-spacing that you are new here. Welcome: newfriend.

Part of the redpill is understanding the inherent illogic in "individualism". There is no such thing as individual. No man is an island; or sovereign from a larger collective. Though, within a collective, men may treat each other individually, yet the reality of this world is that survival is dependent on in-group solidarity.

America is a nation in denial of its essence of British character.
Individualism has always been an ideal exclusive to Europe.
Ironically so: as we are the only ones to uphold these values; and the only ones stupid enough to project them onto out-groups: hence our current demise. Thus: individuals deluding themselves to be such, will be over-run by groups under no such illusions.

Neo-Liberals really do fulfill the tenets of the ideology: that the Anglo man can be substituted by a Negro or Mexican, and uphold the same values. It is you who has no clue that Liberalism is an ideology which cannot stand: for it posits that our ideals can be adapted by any race; or that America would maintain the same character if its ethnic stock were entirely replaced.

bumping with some pics

...

>I see by your Reddit-spacing that you are new here.
"reddit spacing" is a meme, and not an old one.

>Part of the redpill is understanding the inherent illogic in "individualism".
no
>There is no such thing as individual. No man is an island; or sovereign from a larger collective.
Incorrect
>Though, within a collective, men may treat each other individually,
yes
>reality of this world is that survival is dependent on in-group solidarity.
negative. Group solidarity is not necessary. Individuals co-operating is necessary. In liberalism this is the idea of voluntary association.

>America is a nation in denial of its essence of British character.
>Individualism has always been an ideal exclusive to Europe.
I'm nearly 100% english. My dad's parents were both english, my mom's familly goes back to the mayflower.
I dont know that individualism is exclusive to europe, but liberalism is definitely european.

>Ironically so: as we are the only ones to uphold these values; and the only ones stupid enough to project them onto out-groups: hence our current demise.
Locke based his entire philosophy on protestant dogma. Its not possible to justify liberalism by any other religion AFAIK, if you have something contrary I'd like to see it. A liberal can identify that a person has basic human rights, and also agree that that person has no business being in their country. These are not contradictory ideas.

>Thus: individuals deluding themselves to be such, will be over-run by groups under no such illusions.
Voluntary association means that both groups should agree to collaborate. Europe is fucked because they are collaborating with people that hate them and are against their liberal ideals. This is collectivism, not individualism.

>Neo-Liberals really do fulfill the tenets of the ideology: that the Anglo man can be substituted by a Negro or Mexican, and uphold the same values.
If negros and mexicans choose to uphold those values, I would see no issues with associating with them. If they dont so they shouldnt be here.

>It is you who has no clue that Liberalism is an ideology which cannot stand: for it posits that our ideals can be adapted by any race; or that America would maintain the same character if its ethnic stock were entirely replaced.
If we are positing that Liberal and protestant mexicans and blacks exist then yes, it would be reasonable to let them into a liberal country.

>"reddit spacing" is a meme
no shit
You clearly are from Reddit, though.

I fucked your mom

At least just admit you're a Redditor.

...

You're a moron. The United States blatantly copied the British form of government. Our Parliamentary system is quite similar. The monarchy was barely relevant by that point anyway. The leaders of the revolution were all the wealthy upper class, many of whom weren't even born in the country. Universal suffrage for white males wouldn't come till half a century later and universal suffrage period wouldn't come for another 150 years. The United States was not liberal until the abolitionist movement was in full swing. Even at the start of the movement most abolitionists were racists themselves who thought blacks were inferior. It wasn't till long after it started that egalitarian sentiments arose.

Slavery was abolished or out or practice in virtually all of Europe before it ended in the US. Socialism and communism became popular in the US after most of Europe and it probably had the least profound impact on American politics aside from fighting against it. America has consistently been less liberal than Europe. You're confusing a generally liberal world order with America being a liberal country. It's just that all countries are somewhat liberal right now and have been for some time in a historical context.

...

What business is it of yours what the burgers do?

I'm honestly surprised any of them even replied

Okay burnout but where does Deus Vult fit into all of this?

America is more religious than Rome. Checkmate, shitposter.

>The United States blatantly copied the British form of government. Our Parliamentary system is quite similar. The monarchy was barely relevant by that point anyway.
This is mostly in line with my points, though. he US is pretending otherwise than this.

I don't agree that the main values of the people is Liberal; but its true that the country was founded on this idea. My whole point was about this dissonance.

So true. Has anyone in the Alt-Right read "Democracy In America" and unironically stayed with the Alt-Right?

Again: America's implicit values are mostly in opposition to it's explicitly stated (Liberal) values.
Yes: Americans are, in reality, more traditional and religious than most: despite claiming to be a Liberal nation on paper.

I've had an account on reddit since 2012, I dont think I've logged into it since 2013.

I've been posting here Sup Forums since 2007, a couple years on couple years off, Sup Forums has been a regular board for me since 2011-2012.

also /k/ and Sup Forums

not that any of that matters because i'm Anonymous.

>What business is it of yours what the burgers do?
>EU flag

top bait

We do have one tradition that we can depend on, and that is Christian morality. America may not be a nation founded on tradition, but it is founded on Christian ideals and logic, and thus has a foundation stretching back thousands of years.

He's not wrong, he's just wrong in the way you are thinking about it. Jefferson basically plajuriized the preamble of the declaration of independence from locke (the father of liberalism). The part that you are missing is that Liberalism the philosophy is fundamentally opposed to modern neo-liberalism and what typically pretends to be "liberal" in modern political discourse.

>You're a moron. The United States blatantly copied the British form of government.
yes, but as refined by the federalist ideas of locke.
>Our Parliamentary system is quite similar. The monarchy was barely relevant by that point anyway.
True
>The leaders of the revolution were all the wealthy upper class, many of whom weren't even born in the country.
True
>Universal suffrage for white males wouldn't come till half a century later and universal suffrage period wouldn't come for another 150 years.
Because Locke
"The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society"
Government was literally only established in order to protect property. So people that did not own property were not allowed to participate.
>The United States was not liberal until the abolitionist movement was in full swing. Even at the start of the movement most abolitionists were racists themselves who thought blacks were inferior. It wasn't till long after it started that egalitarian sentiments arose.
it was not liberal in a modern sense perhaps, but drawing that line between what liberal actually means and what people suppose it means are different.

expand on this.
alt-right would include monarchists, though?

>Slavery was abolished or out or practice in virtually all of Europe before it ended in the US.
True
>Socialism and communism became popular in the US after most of Europe and it probably had the least profound impact on American politics aside from fighting against it. America has consistently been less liberal than Europe. You're confusing a generally liberal world order with America being a liberal country. It's just that all countries are somewhat liberal right now and have been for some time in a historical context.
In fact, you are confusing what the Tv says "liberal" means with what it actually means. And as a consequence what OP is saying it means.

>If negros and mexicans choose to uphold those values, I would see no issues with associating with them. If they dont so they shouldnt be here.

But they don't. At all. They have collectivist leftist values because that gets them the most gibs

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just supposed a hypothetical where it would reasonable to allow them to participate in society.

you mean antithesis right?

apotheosis means something... different

ah, you're right
quite silly of me

that's the point of your ideological failure, though:
abstract hypothetical idealism detached from racial reality

i was really hoping for more Canadians ITT

...

...

...

...

...

...

you're using nigger logic

>you: blacks cant co-operate in society
>me: well then they shouldnt be allowed to participate
>You: youre idealism is detached from race realism it doesnt work

dont be a retard.

My comment was in response to:
>just supposed a hypothetical
>If negros and mexicans choose to uphold those values, I would see no issues with associating with them. If they dont so they shouldnt be here.
your entire Liberal ideology is a detached hypothetical

also, you've contradicted yourlself:
>well then they shouldnt be allowed to participate
you're still denying race and over-individualisng

but yeah didn't make this thread expecting to run into someone actually defending Liberalism - wew

this thread was made to remind/alert those actually redpilled that they may have fallen into liberal talking points during the election, which they've still yet to shed

>your entire Liberal ideology is a detached hypothetical
its not, as you pointed out in OP America = Liberalism the country, the entirety of civilization is directly or indirectly based in liberal ideology.

Liberalism is reality.

There is no contradiction. You can take liberalism agnostic to race realism, and if race realism is real than liberalism does exclude incompatible people even while agnostic to the idea of race realism.

I've said this like 3 times already. You keep making the same non-sequiter.

Can't I hate both parties and just wait for societal collapse?
Also yeah, the entire revolution was partly because American nobles were assblasted about British being snobs to them
president was an office made to mimmick the current power of the british king (which the US wanted Washington to be their king but Washington didn't want to be king, he also warned of political parties fucking everything but no one listened)