Why liberalism is stupid

Liberalism's keynote is that making the individuum free to make his/her decisions according to his/her reason and intellect will create the best society because what is best from an individual point of view is best for society as a whole. This is a contentious statement in itself, of course, but there is a more glaring issue with liberalism: the faculty for making reasonable choices must be built up by developing the mind through education. This is called "culture" and comes from the same root as cultivation and agriculture, i.e. a deliberate and artificial modification. Culture doesn't reproduce by infesting all children who come of age, and culture involves a weeding out of bad seed: in other words, mental violence and subjugation.

In other words, liberalism can only work when there is a single dominant culture forced upon the people which sets the standard of refinement and decency. Destroying that culture, installing "multiculturalism", "pluralism", "relativism" and other supposedly more free societal forms doesn't help liberalism - it kills it.

That's why the modern "liberal" states are made up of physically repulsive (fatasses and don't exercise), mentally immature (don't even read books or understand basic science), morally defunct (cheating, lying, selfish, don't understand the concept of duty) CONSUMERS enslaved by greedy corporations to lead a life that doesn't bring them happiness (the happiest nations are in the Third World), children (Westerners are going extinct), wisdom (stupidity is their banner) nor even a healthy life (always gulping on anti-depressants and other drugs). This is like leaving your daughter in the company of literators and composers versus the company of a drug-dealing gang - both are groups of mentally free and emancipated people, but the quality of the free choices they make is not the same.

Liberalism is dying under its own weight and only the new Conservative revolution will save the West and bring freedom instead of free-dumb.

>>18
Is there not a contradiction in what you say? Does not God exist merely to allow us to celebrate our weakness? Is it not true, that the practice of prayer is a way of admitting and accepting our weakness? When we pray, we are consciously choosing to give up our independence and autonomy, place it in the hands of another. Is this not weakness? And when we encourage prayer, are we not celebrating weakness?

Traditional morals are built upon celebration of weakness. We define rules to hold ourselves back, removing free will from ourselves and transferring it to concepts which rule over us. We desire structure, because even those who are powerful, those who are on top of the power structure, consider themselves too weak to face reality for what it is.

To question morals is a sign of strength. It means we are creating our own path, no matter how difficult it may be, rather than submitting to others who control us by giving us an easy path forward. Thus any and all institutions which encourage conformity and discourage questioning are telling us to celebrate our weakness, that aspiring to strength is shameful and wrong. It takes strength to defy our authorities, and even more strength to survive on our own, without their guidance.

And this is exactly what liberals do. They see the true strength as existing in individuals, not in the artificial structures individuals submit to when they fear their own strength. And that is why you despise them, because when someone is the unquestioned owner of their own strength, you cannot control them. You see them as unnatural, because you have learned to see the true nature of humanity as something foreign. And there is a reason why the history of the world is gradually tending towards liberalism. It is because no container can last forever. Society tries to create a barrier to protect us and itself from reality, but entropy guarantees that no such barrier will stand indefinitely.