From discussing issues with self professed classical liberals over the last few days, its been made apparent to me what the core essentials of this extremely fashionable political perspective really are.
This is such a good thing, for until this sudden clarity, the concepts of classic liberalism have always been a bit murky to me. Now though, I understand fully what NZ’s “classic liberals” believe.
To be a “classic liberal” in NZ, one must-
1) Support homosexual marriage
2) Support the legalisation of marijuana
3) Be completely ignorant of the true historical conventions of authentic Conservatism and have read about or been “educated” on it from a leftist perspective only
4) Constantly slander Conservatives with smears based upon that ignorance
(Also, not compulsory, but extremely helpful if you can manage to arrange either a lesbian or homosexual sexual orientation for yourself.)
So there you have it readers. Do the test and see if you pass. Somehow, I don’t think too many readers of TrueblueNZ will qualify. Sad isn’t it? Obviously we must try harder.
TrueblueNZ 
13 responses to “How to be “Classically Liberal” In New Zealand”
I think you are correct.I am not an expert on this, but I believe that a “Classical Liberal” of the mid 19th century and one of today are two completely different creatures. It has always been a significant tactic of the left to infiltrate, absorb, overwhelm anything that represents an obstacle to the progress of their nefarious objectives. It must be a constant source of amusement to them to see the shells of their spent enemies fallen and degraded. I have a feeling that this tactic emanates from the philosophy of lenin, marx etc. but have never read them as they appear boring and are not particularly edifying.
LikeLike
[…] How to be “Classically Liberal” In New Zealand (truebluenz.com) […]
LikeLike
“but have never read them as they appear boring and are not particularly edifying.”
..and that they sure are.
My credo is simply “keep making government smaller”.
EOS.
I find its generally all I need.
LikeLike
The faux classical liberal of today is really just a leftist in disguise. The fathers of classical liberalism had a key defining characteristic which today’s liberals are sadly lacking; a moral baseline against which to measure themselves. It has been the goal of the left for decades to remove the concept of morals from our society. As W D Eaton said in his book ‘Liberal Betrayal of America and the Tea Party Firestorm’, one of the two commandments of nouveau liberalism is ‘Be Not Judgmental’. Combine the non-judgmentalist nature of progressive liberalism with the ‘freedoms’ of faux classical liberalism, and you get the 4 commandments Red has mentioned above. The fathes of classical liberalism would never have imagined society would become so depraved that their vision would become so corrupted as to include the 4 characteristics of the modern liberal. As I said, the progressive liberal and the modern faux-classical liberal are Wally one and the same. They have the same goal, which is to destroy the traditional family unit and remove the concept of morals from our society.
LikeLike
And also, they, (the left), are usually dirty, lazy, thieving bastards. Normal people are content to live their own lives, not wishing to live at the expence of their neighbours and community, and only wish to be left alone. And not be imposed upon by government leeches, parasites and bullies.
LikeLike
“destroy the traditional family unit”
Amen to that, liberal scum need a bullet. Time to fix the sickness from society. Lock and load. Fire the lefty lib into kingdom come. The only good liberal turd tapping lefty pollie is a dead one!
LikeLike
Wow dad that is harsh. Just look what damage the lying lib has caused in NZ.
World champs at child abuse. I only need one minute with our PM and things will change for the better!
LikeLike
Gantt,
That was very well said.
Funny thing is I have been jousting with this guy calling himself “The NZ Classic Liberal” (how come they don’t feel any embarrassment at such inflated self descriptions) and today, in replying to my question as to why he thought John Banks was Conservative, he followed exactly the same path as I have outlined in my post above. Almost as if it was a deliberate self parody.
These people really do think classic liberalism is expressed in tolerant attitudes towards homosexual marriage and or the encouragement of libertine type social mores. Weird. Just weird.
You can read the thread here.
LikeLike
Conservatives believe in small government…so small it will fit in your bedroom.
Old liberal joke.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I reckon your ‘classical’ liberal is simply naive. He believes people are inherently ‘good’ (in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary). He believes it’s possible to have no moral core (they tend to be the God-doesn’t-exist brigade), and to bring in his own special brand of kool-aid flavoured freedom in a country like New Zealand, where for decades the main freedom people have had is freedom from responsibility. He advocates obsessively his 3 core planks of freedom:
(1) homosexual marriage. This is the ‘classical’ liberal’s alliance with the progressive liberal in his attack on the traditional family unit. The progressive liberal longs to destroy the family, so the glorious state can take its rightful place in the rearing of children (see this, from Trevor Loudon). The classical liberal aids the progressive in his aims by (militantly) advocating domestic relationships other than Husband, Wife, Children. He either conveniently ignores or is ignorant of the fact that marriage is primarily a religious ceremony, and thus is unaware of his own hypocrisy in advocating homosexual marriage (since he doesn’t believe in God).
(2) drug law liberalisation. Only the most extreme liberal openly admits that what he wants is the decriminalisation of all drugs. He starts with marijuana, because of course the growing, selling and smoking of marijuana is a ‘victimless’ crime (or would be, if only it could be decriminalised so the police get out of the way). He either can’t or won’t see that marijuana is a gateway drug, that it is far more addictive and far more damaging than the other two drugs he tries to join in category with marijuana (tobacco and alcohol). Who believes for a second that if marijuana is derciminalised, cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine won’t be next on the list? Are people whose brains are addled by these poisons less likely to commit murder and mayhem, or more? And if these poisons are decriminalised are we likely to see a lesser, or greater number of people taking them?
(3) immigration law liberalisation, and open borders. The classical liberal in his naivete believes (for example) the Afghan, Iranian or Pakistani muslim immigrating to the West does so in the knowledge and acceptance that once arrived, he operates according to the law and customs of his new home. Again, he believes people are inherently ‘good’. He completely ignores the problems moslem immigration (for example) have caused in large tracts of London, or Paris, believing these problems are criminal rather than cultural. He either does not understand or wilfully ignores the fact that the Afghan, Iranian of Pakistani moslem (for example) despises him, his culture and everything he stands for and would love the opportunity to feature in a YouTube video with the classical liberal and a large knife as props.
I’ve gone on too long, so in brief summary: the ‘classical’ liberal is, in reality, not very different to the ‘progressive’ liberal. One is evil and the other naive, but in the end their goals are the same. Both have complete faith in theories which completely ignore human nature. Both either fail to understand or actively advocate the self-inflicted peril in which the West finds itself. And both represent a very real danger to those small portions of Western civilisation they haven’t already destroyed.
LikeLike
How I see it is that they have been co-opted into the same destructive nihilism that some of history’s greatest left-wing subversives have wanted. Everything these fools believe is “freedom” is always destructive in some way – personal destruction (drugs), destruction of a country’s culture and sovereignty (open borders), destructive of long established and cornerstone societal mores and institutions (gay marriage / adoption) and the literal destruction of others (abortion and euthanasia). You guys are right, it all comes back to these core issues time and time again.
LikeLike
And another very good comment at 23:29, Gantt.
How anyone can believe that human nature is “basically good” is beyond me – the evidence against this being the case is so profound as to be almost not worth even mentioning. The term “willfully ignorant” comes to mind – no one can be that naive.
LikeLike
Cathy Odgers as absolutely nailed it this morning. The paper-thin differences between the ‘progressive’ liberal and the ‘classical’ liberal.
Ms Cactus has penned an opinion piece for NBR. It makes for quite a good read and provides at least some insight into the faction-wars and lack of cohesion which drove ACT to an historic low even Labour would be ashamed of.
Anyway, here’s the money quote:
Here we have the ostensibly ‘classical’ liberal ACT party whose members are now voting for the ‘progressive’ liberal (Socialist) Greens. (1)queer marriage. (2)drug law liberalisation. (3)open borders. Total policy harmony.
LikeLike