- 16 Jan 2021 13:48
#15150095
question taken out of context from another thread, that think is good debatable opinion for this subforum ...
maybe I am reading the point too literal. but must say liberalism per-se is not the ultimate nuseffect even less lasting goal of the enlightenment era, but its meer consequence of the hype for overthrowing the prevalent ethics in the Christian Realm back then ...
yes it could be said that in face of western feudalism liberalism became game changer that lead to capitalism, but for social or individual freedom this wasnt case - if we consider that the enlightenment era was politically managed by freemasonry [1] and if so then for sure they just manipulated with Lady Liberty and liberalism while they overthrow royalism, after what they actually imposed again modern direct (revolutions) or indirect (usury) colonialism! for them in question is just freedom to worship illuminism, in same time imposed on small door to every "citizen" as "freedom" iconography! must say we are all blinded by their secularism although even in their idealism as paradigm of freedom there is no room for liberalism, if we know that their ideal is enlightened superhumanity, thus determinism instead free will! actually through the Free Will we can say that Christianity promotes true liberal idealism, something that as concept is present in freemasonry just on level of religious propaganda ...
... think that in any field applied, after the industrial revolution, liberalism is not supported by equality but mostly imposed by elitism, its just fable for the masses, even worst they are mislead to believe that they are free but actually from every aspect they are modern slaves that exists just to polish particular society ...
... yet when it comes to overcoming moral boundaries on any level, then indeed we could say liberalism as misused is excuse for exploitation occupation decadence mammonism etc. simply its negative freedom from aspect of existential equilibrium in our civilization!
So in my opinion there is no positive liberalism in true sense, even less as such to be ultimate fruit of the enlightenment era that became real standard for common good, this proposition on other hand opens another question > is it possible to be found economical balance between socialism and capitalism and that to lead to some form of eaudaimonian centrism!?
annatar1914 wrote:@Political InterestLiberalism is the lasting and final fruit of the ''Enlightenment'' and the modern era we live in, it's assumptions are almost universal, but something is lost in the humanity of it's partisans I believe. And this contributes to the personal and social pathologies of this era in particular above others.
maybe I am reading the point too literal. but must say liberalism per-se is not the ultimate nuseffect even less lasting goal of the enlightenment era, but its meer consequence of the hype for overthrowing the prevalent ethics in the Christian Realm back then ...
yes it could be said that in face of western feudalism liberalism became game changer that lead to capitalism, but for social or individual freedom this wasnt case - if we consider that the enlightenment era was politically managed by freemasonry [1] and if so then for sure they just manipulated with Lady Liberty and liberalism while they overthrow royalism, after what they actually imposed again modern direct (revolutions) or indirect (usury) colonialism! for them in question is just freedom to worship illuminism, in same time imposed on small door to every "citizen" as "freedom" iconography! must say we are all blinded by their secularism although even in their idealism as paradigm of freedom there is no room for liberalism, if we know that their ideal is enlightened superhumanity, thus determinism instead free will! actually through the Free Will we can say that Christianity promotes true liberal idealism, something that as concept is present in freemasonry just on level of religious propaganda ...
... think that in any field applied, after the industrial revolution, liberalism is not supported by equality but mostly imposed by elitism, its just fable for the masses, even worst they are mislead to believe that they are free but actually from every aspect they are modern slaves that exists just to polish particular society ...
... yet when it comes to overcoming moral boundaries on any level, then indeed we could say liberalism as misused is excuse for exploitation occupation decadence mammonism etc. simply its negative freedom from aspect of existential equilibrium in our civilization!
So in my opinion there is no positive liberalism in true sense, even less as such to be ultimate fruit of the enlightenment era that became real standard for common good, this proposition on other hand opens another question > is it possible to be found economical balance between socialism and capitalism and that to lead to some form of eaudaimonian centrism!?