There are a lot of Classical Liberals who will likely still say, "You're setting up a strawman because I'm a Classical Liberal and I do not agree with Progressivism." These people are further up the mountain, and because they themselves haven't fallen down the slope that lies in

Many Classical Liberals (especially ones that are personally socially conservative) object to this and say they don't support the Progressive insanity of the Great Awokening. Granted. But Liberalism itself cannot say "No" to these things, which is precisely why they all happened.

Liberalism prides itself on the Rule of Law as a check against arbitrary power, but who gets to define what's arbitrary? And who enforces the law? One of the greatest revelations of the last five years is that laws are written and ultimately enforced by men, and men are not

In their desire to be free from the tyranny of a personal sovereign, Classical Liberals forgot that someone still has to actually write and enforce the law. And if it isn't them, it'll be someone else. What they forgot is that the law is fundamentally a moral teacher, not merely

Liberalism's third principle, equality before the law, began as a moral claim to equal dignity. But in a world divorced from any metaphysical foundation by Liberalism's own assault on anyone and anything that claimed divine truth, it couldn't merely maintain the principle of

What is someone who falls on the losing side of Liberalism's "natural aristocracy" going to do? Meekly accept their own inferiority and the word of those who hold all the world's talent and wealth for themselves? Is he going to see the wild divergence between people as the result

Every time the Right points out the "hypocrisy" of modern Liberal regimes doing illiberal things like trying to ban the AfD in Germany, arresting right-wing presidential candidates in Romania, shutting down the bank accounts of Canadian truckers, trying to imprison Trump, or

Classical Liberals argue that Progressives hijacked the system and turned it into a form of managerial tyranny. But Liberalism was not hijacked. And we know this because it's not just modern Liberalism that tolerates no dissent. Classical Liberalism is not neutral about itself

The moment Classical Liberals began to venture into the realm of openly applying the Friend-Enemy Distinction, they revealed which side they're truly on. They're happy to defend Liberal apostates from the Left. But they excommunicate dissidents from the Right with terms like

@ChristianHeiens So, your alternative is what? A theocracy?

@ChristianHeiens It was a system created to hide who became the tyrants. It was a revolt against legal actions that were uplifting the common man. It was a revolt of the aristocracy, not the peasantry. Your journey is not complete. Keep reading history.

@ChristianHeiens Of course, all versions of this collapse under mass immigration from populations that disagree. Individuals who just want to be left alone can only do so if the institutions of power are aggressively purged of anyone who disagrees with that aim.

@ChristianHeiens I think that’s a decent umbrella defense but does not quite capture the case you’re making *against* Liberalism. I think what you’re really against is more Immanuel Kant cosmopolitan liberalism which is proto-globalism. Go contrast his essay on Perpetual Peace versus Vattel’s Law

@ChristianHeiens Fantastic summary

@ChristianHeiens The truth is that liberalism thrived over the foundations of the ancient regime, the good times that create weak men. Now, that all spiritual heritage is destroyed, we are forced to return to the real world where survival is all that matters… no one eats “tolerance”.

@ChristianHeiens TRVTH NVKE

@ChristianHeiens It protects the individual from tyranny, but by the same hand cuts away at any communal power above that individual. "Liberty" and "Power/Force" are two sides of the same coin. Liberalism is a permanent revolution against any higher order - good or bad.

@ChristianHeiens @threadreaderapp Unroll please.

@ChristianHeiens Although many liberals do believe as you described, not all liberals believe that civil liberties are a fundamental right because of certain principles about the nature of the individual. I say that civil liberties are afforded for reasons of prudence.

@ChristianHeiens This isn’t so much a criticism of classical liberalism as it is a critique of a CL without a Christian foundation. I would argree that progressivism is the logical end of classical liberalism without Christianity, but that’s a different issue.

@ChristianHeiens @identity_pol @VDAREJamesK you should get Christian on sometime to discuss the rise in post-Liberalism in the Right, would be really interesting

@ChristianHeiens People confuse Liberals with Leftists.

@ChristianHeiens How’s that doing against corruption of the youth through public vulgarity in visuals and music?

@ChristianHeiens Since your thread continues on with why you reject it, I will suggest a book I found helpful. Do We Need God to be Good by C.R. Hallpike gets to the heart of the problem. Specifically, in your bullet 1 you say God or Nature gives these rights. Hallpike explains the implications

@ChristianHeiens @threadreaderapp unroll

@ChristianHeiens Very cool thread, I'd like to see more steel manning.

@ChristianHeiens The ancient Greeks had the same problem with their cycle of direct democracy: 1. Democracy is permissive 2. Disorder grows intolerable 3. Vote for tyrant to restore order 4. Depose the tyrant to restore democracy There's nothing special about liberalism that causes this.

@ChristianHeiens "Liberalism" has developed it's own tribalism, it's own priests, it's own hierarchy. "Everyone do what you want all the time." Isn't an expression of true freedom but absolute privilege. To only "do what you want", someone else must trouble themselves to feed/shelter you.

@ChristianHeiens Very good. From beginning to end

@ChristianHeiens Well said.

@ChristianHeiens @Chad_Kosciusko Liberals are not liberal. Democrats oppose democracy. Diversity isn’t. Inclusion doesn’t. Equity ranks. 2025 is 1984.

@ChristianHeiens all of this is to protect the property of oligarchs, "tyrants" are people who try to redistribute land or cancel debts to the enserfed

@ChristianHeiens Even the claim that liberalism is the most successful engine of freedom and flourishing requires we use liberalism as the standard. Yes, material conditions are better, but that’s not a teleological category anyone before Locke would’ve accepted for flourishing.

@ChristianHeiens Liberalism has been the most successful engine of human misery in history. It overthrew monarchy, built constitutional governments, didn't end slavery, expanded civil rights for millions who never should have had a say in how government works, and put billions in usury.

@ChristianHeiens Your critics against classical liberalism are based. But hoppean libertarianism is the solution, because of apriorism and acknowledgement that truth and objective morality exist. In a private law society, the hijacking of the institutions by progressivists is not possible.

@ChristianHeiens I believe it was Tocqueville who argued liberalism's cornerstone is individual equality which leads to the widely held belief that all desires are equally valuable and worthy.