.... 

4) You asked "secularism or atheism ?", and that is a reasonable question.  Nevertheless, there is a lot of empirical evidence that "the Russian Revolution, National Socialism, and European welfarism" were/are anti-religious in nature.  For the first two, that is beyond question. The case of European welfarism is more disputable. Its professed intent is obviously secularist and not atheistic, but its practical effects make that a moot point.  As Belien points out, state-dependency undermines individual responsibility and morality.  Whereas true religion in the past of Western civilisation stressed individual responsibility and the INDIVIDUAL's moral duty of 'compassion' (i.e. social responsibility), modern welfarism takes away individual responsibility and imposes social duty (as interpreted by the ruling 'elite') from above with force (through taxes and the police).  In that sense, religion used to be compatible with individual freedom, whereas welfarism undermines it.

 

 
5) I agree with you on Turkey. Both the impact of IMF stabilisation programs (over the past fifteen years or so) and the prospect of EU entry have led to economic liberalisation in Turkey. This was a departure from the 'socialist' economic policies of the 'old' secularist Kemalists in Turkey.  The AKP has wisely embraced this 'new capitalism', just like the communist party of China has done.   Paul Belien MAY be right if he thinks that the Turkish electorate wants to avoid the "European disease" (of welfarism) - although I doubt it - but he would be surely wrong if he thinks that the Turkish electorate (particularly the AKP) has embraced the American people's 'freedom' agenda (including of religious freedom).

@ Kapitein Andre

 

1) Your first point is a semantic one.  From the context it is clear that Belien is using the word "liberal" in a 'social values' sense, which is the contemporary American interpretation.  Understood in that way, his assertion that liberalism and secularism have become "almost synonyms" is largely true.  The Democratic Party's elites in the USA pursue a secularist agenda, although (for obvious tactical electoral reasons) that party is not openly anti-religious in contrast with many European 'liberal' parties.

Classical 'laissez-faire' liberalism has become a marginal phenomenon in western civilisation in general, limited mainly to 'libertarian' circles.   The distinction between liberals and conservatives today is largely a matter of social values, or morality if you will, and is no longer much concerned with economic policy. 

Things were different a hundred years ago, because western civilisation then exhibited more commonality of 'social values' than today.  In those days conservatism and liberalism tended to be close to synonyms  - in opposition to 'socialism' - because political struggles were then mainly about government economic policies (and about individual voting rights), but not about social or moral values (about which there was then little dispute).  This is no longer the case, and won't be for a long time.   It does not take much brains to understand that the current 'allies' of islam in the west, i.e. the political liberal left, will be the first major victim of 'conservative' islam in the future.   This has already happened in Iran, after the Khomeinist revolution 25 years ago, and why leftist westerners today would think that it won't happen to them in the future is a massive example of 'kopindegronderij'.

 

2) I agree with you that the American revolution in the late 18th century was a "liberal democratic" one, but in the 'old' sense of the world "liberal", i.e. in opposition to political absolutism and in the pursuit of political freedom.  It was not a revolution in the pursuit of libertarian 'anything goes' social or moral values.   Thus, Belien is right too, i.e. it was a conservative revolution in the sense that its major figures did not question conservative social/moral values, but rather stressed personal responsibility and civic duties for individuals, which is quite different from contemporary "liberalism".  

 

3)  Your references to Spain (1868) and Russia (1917) miss the mark.  They do not disprove - but rather confirm  - Belien's point that European revolutions in the 18th and 19th century replaced absolutists by totalitarians.   The Irish war of independence was an 'exception', and it occurred much later, i.e. in the 20th century.

Similarly, your reference to the "Thirty Years war" is wholly inappropriate and misses the mark.  The fact that some European wars, several centuries ago, might have been conducted in the name of 'religion' (although the real reasons obviously often had more to do with the exploitation of religion by temporal 'absolutist' leaders) in no way undermines Belien's examples of more recent European 'disasters' (in the 20th century) resulting from a descent towards "a nihilistic and atheist agenda".

....

Paul Belien: "It is not a coincidence that liberalism and secularism are almost synonyms. Liberals want to replace God by the state."

 

This cannot be ascribed to liberalism, or at least classical liberalism, and is therefore misleading*. The Democratic Party, not unlike its counterpart in Canada, the Liberal Party, adheres to reform liberalism, whose social and economic policies are left-of-center, albeit not as left as democratic socialism. These policies include the "liberal welfare state" and "multiculturalism," which again are roughly midway between the laissez-faire attitude of liberals and conservatives and the revolutionary one of socialists and communists. Moreover, contemporary conservatives have more in common with classical liberals than they do traditional conservatives: the primary difference being social values.

 

Paul Belien: "Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in America was, in a sense, older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When Americans rebelled in 1776, they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution."

 

Not exactly. Despite the arguably extreme religiousity of the Puritans, their rebellion was a liberal democratic one. This rebellion succeeded where the English Civil War had failed, and was influenced not only by Aquinas, but by Locke, the figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, and by assorted figures from Great Britain and the Continent e.g. Voltaire. However, absolutism, oligarchy and social stratification had a pedigree dating long before their consideration by Greco-Roman philosophers.

 

Paul Belien: "Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onward, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even more extreme form: totalitarians."

 

Not exactly. This whitewashing is vulnerable to counter-examples such as these below:

 

• Glorious Revolution in Spain (1868)
• February Revolution in Russia (1917)
• Irish War of Independence

 

Paul Belien: "Here lies the origin of the European disease, which arose from the systematic loss of faith in the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian moral legacy, and an increasing reliance on the state as the source of order, authority and legitimacy. That disease culminated, after causing two world wars, in the creation of the European Union (EU) as a superstate, the god to absorb all gods, with a nihilistic and atheist agenda."

 

I suppose atheism guided the Thirty Years War?

 

Paul Belien: "...the spirit of the 1789 French Revolution was totalitarian. The same secularist spirit inspired the Russian Revolution, National Socialism and European welfarism."

 

Secularism or atheism? It is no surprise that socialism and national socialism were stronger in those parts of Europe that suffered not only from socio-economic inequality but the devastation of war, rather than the United States, which was entering its economic pre-eminence.

 

Paul Belien: "People who are not prepared to make sacrifices for the future do not invest in children."

 

Agreed.

 

Paul Belien: "Turkey’s recent election results indicate that the Turkish electorate wants to avoid the European disease. Let us hope that the American people will be equally wise next year."

 

It is arguable that the AKP was forced to moderate itself due to the possibility of military intervention. Were Turkey's secular parties able to provide liberal democracy, even if nationalistic, they would be a better choice for Turkey than the AKP with its heritage. Furthermore, is it not true that the National Socialists were intensely preoccupied with the future of Germany, hence their emphasis on breeding, etc...?

" Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in America was, in a sense, older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. "

In other words, the Americans are even more European than we are, because their European temperament has not been hindered by an overbearing administration. Yet we still hear Americans saying that they envy our old history!

" an increasing reliance on the state as the source of order, authority and legitimacy. That disease culminated, after causing two world wars, in the creation of the European Union (EU) as a superstate, the god to absorb all gods, with a nihilistic and atheist agenda. "

The EU is now evolving toward a superstate, but it was not created as a superstate. I used to think the EU would eventually become useful to keep in check the totalitarian tendencies of the french state (or of other states). For European citizens, we could have imagined a system of checks and balances between the EU and the European states. But we are not heading in that direction. The EU thing has now absorbed the nihilistic agenda of the extreme left. I still think we need a European Union, but it should work in another way. Part of the problem probably lies with the constituent states.

We have to identify where the totalitarian tendencies of the EU come from. In france, there is a cult of "the State" with a capital S. It is argued that everything should be controlled by "the State" because only "the State" is neutral and really cares for the public good. For example, parents should not be allowed to open their own schools. It seems that "the State" is a philosophical abstraction. But in reality, the authority of "the State" lies in the hands of a small clique of Frenchmen living mainly around Paris. They have been passing on their curious ideology from generation to generation and lining their pockets at the same time. They have no particular competence, but they get to decide everything in our place. Now, we have to ask the same questions about the EU: who is the EU nomenklatura, and where does their ideology come from ?

Thank you for an overwhelming experience. It is embarrassing to note that I have never understood this:

Their traditions were rooted in the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life, including his economic activities.

You have given me much to think about and for that I thank you. Another embarrassing moment came when I read about Turkey. But it explained a contradiction I thought existed.

Why would women who weren't wearing a burka support the election of a government that was supposed to be Islamist? As usual the answer being so simple was missed...I had been lied to about the nature of the government the women supported.

Pierre Legrand

The Pink Flamingo Bar

Influenced by Islam problem, old split of socialism (Left) vs capitalism (Right) is changing, now it is liberalism vs conservatism. Liberals support globalization and muslim immigration, conservatives oppose it. Liberals may be right and left, as well as conservatives. With the new split, people who recently were in one camp may find themselves in the other. Why I say that? Because mr Belien, a classical pro-capitalist right-winger, finds himself on the same side as the Turkish islamist government.