It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please welcome the newest political ideology - Muscular Liberalism

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Muscular Liberalism



en.wikipedia.org...


Muscular liberalism is a form of liberalism advocated by British Prime Minister David Cameron that describes his policy towards state multiculturalism. The aim of the policy is to build a national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism as state multiculturalism failed in integration of societies with the beliefs, policies, and values of host country.

Cameron coined the term in a speech in Munich on 5 February 2011. According to David Cameron, "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We've failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong."

Critics and speculators believe "muscular liberalism" will be the new "ism" which Britain will follow to tackle growing religious terrorism and extremism, subsequently adapted by all European countries including Commonwealth Nations.


Muscular

• Ban preachers of hate from coming to the host country.
• Strictly prevent the allocation of public money and donations to groups not being used to tackle extremists.
• Barring organisations that incite terrorism at host country and abroad.
• Judging the religious organisations acceptability to operate in host country based on universal human rights, support for democracy and encourage integration with host country basic values.
• Strengthening national identity by allowing people to follow their religion but subscribe to the identity of their host country, by saying "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner too".
• Prevention of extremism in universities and prisons.

Liberalism

• Promoting ideals of democracy where people elect their own government.
• Promoting universal human rights with equal rights to women and people of other faiths.
• Freedom of worship and speech.
• Promoting equal rights irrespective of race or sex.
• The rule of law.

This is a new ideology formed in 2011 by United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron during his speech in Munich, Germany in regards to the failure of state multiculturalism leading to violence, segregation, and terrorism in the West. It is pushing for the unity of all people in a nation towards a common goal and holding dear certain beliefs such as democracy, rule of law, equal rights, etc…

In my opinion this is exactly what we need to take back our countries. I would recommend every country, not just in the West, adopt these policies to defend their national independence and rich cultural heritage against any person(s) or organization(s) which try and break it down.
edit on 2/20/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Yeah thats all well and dandy, but the separatists and extremists that are causing the problem, are not going to change just because some guy says everyone should get along.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


Telling people to get along and taking action against those who do not want to get along are quite different things indeed. We must see if Mr. Cameron is willing to enforce his own rules as laid out here.

We can at least hope, can we not?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Hooray for Mr Cameron!!

This has been bandied around for years in the U.K under various guises. The former Government even brought in a Citizenship test for immigrants.

I agree multiculturalism has failed abysmally, but this is mainly due to insular elements, brought about by racism from the indiginous people. It really isn't about cultures, faiths ,beliefs. It's about being accepted into U.K society and being given a chance. Unfortunatley despite various discrimination legislation introduced since the seventies, the MSM pick on particular stories relating to particular groups of society, in order to raise tensions. This in turn creates insular elements and extremism.

If you look at the Australian model, so called muscular liberalism has been in place for decades. Regardless of faith, culture, beliefs, citizens are Australian first. However, they do have a strict immigration policy and unfortunately for whatever reasons the U.K have been weak on this front over the last twenty years.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
This muscular liberalism is very similar to classical liberalism, where one of the main justifications for government to exist was to actively protect individual and personal liberties. Cameron nailed it again, IMHO.

edit on 20/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
On first impressions, the name 'Muscular Liberalism' comes across more like a form of barbarianism. The points that are laid out all sound good, maybe 'Tolerant Liberalism' fits a bit better?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I have a problem with this. You cannot both restrict freedom of religion (and thought) and "promote" it at the same time. Unless of course you only accept religion and thought that fits in well with the "host country" in the first place. Take for example bans upon the traditional Muslim headdress for women. You could justify such a ban under this philosophy, citing equality for women, etc. But then you have a real problem with the "freedom of religion" part.

The part about "extremism in universities" is particularly troubling, as extremism can be defined rather loosely, and governmental interference could easily lead to a kind of thought-crime, where ideology itself were criminalized.

It's a culture war. As such, it should be fought on the ground, in the culture, through its art, media, and, yes, universities. I take this as an example of government using a divisive issue to further assert its control agenda. If indeed, the government has contributed greatly to this cultural problem with its own immigration policies, it does seem to be another example of causing a problem in order to create "solutions" which greatly increase its own power.

We'll be fine, as the culture of freedom wins on its own merits, in time.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Extremism generally translate to violence. Have you talks, debates, art, media and other forms of cultural competition, just leave the conflict out. None of the main religions promote the use of violence unless in self defence, except for a few rare cases. The hospitals and courts are busy enough and for social harmony these few rare cases have to go.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Would you mind rephrasing your point? I reread it several times and still do not comprehend the essence of what you're saying.
I suspect we may have a difference of semantics only. Not sure though...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Well Misoir, looks like you have found a new ideology to define your ever-changing political beliefs. Good for you?

Muscular Liberalism is liberal fascism, plain and simple.

People often mistake 'fascism' for 'nazism' and think that all fascists are racists or intolerant towards other religions or whatever. This could not be farther from the truth. Fascism is an extremely widespread ideology in the Western world, and you are advocating it right now.

Let's have a look at Mr. Cameron's proposal for liberal fascism;

1)Everyone must act the same, and respect the rights of all people
2)Everyone must think the same, and endorse Liberalism
3)Everyone must be the same, and become 'British'

The problem with 1) is that you are effectively forcing everybody in a so-called free state to obey the law, unflinchingly, unfailingly. The rights of British subjects are not claimed to come from God, as in America. They are granted to the public by the good will of the Monarch and the acts of Her parliament. British subjects have no innate rights, whatsoever, and so this demand really amounts to that tired Orwellian phrase, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM; obey the law and you are free.

The problem with 2) is, as has been pointed out by joechip, that you cannot have freedom of thought and simultaneously denounce freedom of thought.

The problem with 3) is that 'British' is a totally made up identity that has always, ALWAYS been used to oppress people. London has used 'Britishness' for centuries to justify their oppression of Welsh, Scotian, and Irish people. Of course, that leaves out the brutal atrocities that were committed overseas in the name of making British the indigenous people of the Empire. Tell me; how can you at once be free and required to identify yourself in a certain way?

Allow me a quote:

[H.G.] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be ‘fascist’ means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a ‘liberal fascist’ would pursue fascist ends but in a ‘liberal’ or at least more ‘liberal’ way


Cameron is both of these things. He is trying to use the authority of the state to force liberalism on everyone (first definition) and is trying to create a fascist state in which everyone is forcibly assimilated into a 'British' identity, within which they are given significant leeway, especially when compared to the tempting example of the USSR.

Moreover, there's this nice quote from Benito himself;
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Who loves corporatism more than the party of Thatcher?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Most of the worlds main religions provide a lot of good principles and stories to live by and help support a generally well functioning society. Different religions do have different ideas about a lot of things, most of these are fairly harmless, just different ways to do things. A few of these different ideas are harmful and this is where the problem is. I see nothing wrong with how you portrayed a cultural war should proceed, perhaps the term war is not quite right because the main thing with this ideology is that no one gets hurt. This the reason against extremism. There are many peaceful ways that different cultures can express and compete their beliefs and ideas and these do make for a very colourful and vibrant city.

Not all with multiculturalism has been easy as some people do take personal offence over things another person can see nothing wrong with or has trouble trying to understand. With so many different cultures it does take time to find the common ground and there have been many problems along the way. To try and manage this problem the government has basically said 'I know you are all different with different ideas but we must live together as civilised peoples, now that's enough with the conflict!'. There will still be arguments and debates, but when things start to get physical and nasty the legal system will step in to resolve this conflict. Over time the legal system will adapt and change as these new cultures are absorbed into the community, but through the slow, usual processes of community acceptance. The line has to be drawn some where and I support where it has gone.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Well Misoir, looks like you have found a new ideology to define your ever-changing political beliefs. Good for you?


Hmmm.... where did I say this is my ideology? I did not say that. And I do not adhere to any ideology.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Muscular Liberalism -


Sounds like some sort of neurological disorder



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   


There will still be arguments and debates, but when things start to get physical and nasty the legal system will step in to resolve this conflict. Over time the legal system will adapt and change as these new cultures are absorbed into the community, but through the slow, usual processes of community acceptance. The line has to be drawn some where and I support where it has gone.
reply to post by kwakakev
 


When things get "physical and nasty" is already quite well covered by the legal system, it does not need to "adapt and change" to deal with violence. This appears to be an attempt of the government to interject itself into what is essentially a cultural "clash" (as, agreed, 'war' may be a bit strong) and in so doing assert control over areas it now has little influence over. I find this much more troubling than the "clash" of cultures in the first place.

In the states there have been attempts to label those associated with freedom movements, even constitutional defenders, as extremists. While some proponents of these ideas may indeed use "extreme" methods, the overwhelming majority are law abiding citizens. The government has no business criminalizing ideology, and cannot be trusted to do so.

A nation is not "multi-cultural" because it decides to be so. It is a fact of cultural geography. In America, we are finding the same sort unmelted "melting-pot" with our spanish-speakers from the south. Instead of integrating with the larger culture as immigrants have in the past, retaining only vestiges of their former culture, we find more and more spanish language channels on our tv's, neighborhoods flying Mexican flags, etc. While this is disturbing to some Americans, who expect the narrative of the "melting-pot" to be some sort of promise, what it boils down to is; the freedom we espouse cannot be subject to our approval of its resulting ideas, religions, or yes, even languages. Otherwise it's not freedom.
edit on 20-2-2011 by joechip because: grammar



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Who would have ever thought that mixing together groups of people who have hated each other for centuries would be a bad idea?


Better to ask yourself "why" they would do such a thing. Then you will have your answer.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I really see nothing wrong with more activelly protecting and promoting the liberties and human rights western civilization established with the sacrifices of many lives in the last centuries, especially when they now could be endangered by extremist religious ideologies.
Saying this is some kind of fascism is like saying feminism or fight against nazism was fascist, or even original renaissance humanist movement was fascist, which is obviously nonsense.
Cameron, in contrast with idealistic dream-wold salloon "intellectuals" of the unlimited multiculturalism movement which would I think even condone cold murder if the murderer said its part of his culture, realised one important historical truth:


‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’
Edmund Burke


If this is liberal fascism, then I am liberal fascist, and proud of it!



edit on 20/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   


I really see nothing wrong with more activelly protecting and promoting the liberties and human rights western civilization established
reply to post by Maslo
 


I see nothing wrong with that either. This new approach, or ideology (it's hardly an ideology, really) does not strike me as protecting liberty, but rather curtailing it, if we define liberty in a remotely similar way. I fear we don't. Liberty does not mean cultural integration and hegemony in my definition, but I fear it does in the PM's and perhaps your own.
The liberty that "western civilization established" isn't the freedom to believe and behave as a westerner...or in the ways a westerner is comfortable or familiar with. This "muscular liberalism" strikes me the same way "compassionate conservatism" did...very disingenuous, Orwellian, even.

If you undermine the liberty at the heart of your nation, because you fail to trust in your culture's inherent resiliency and greatness, you have essentially crapped in your own pool so your "dirty" neighbors/houseguests don't help themselves to a swim and befoul your pool.

That you just crapped in.

Excuse my metaphor, I get carried away. But you get my point I hope. I do share a sense of cultural identity with you and feel that the best things about western civilization (liberty,equality,opportunity) are terribly served by governmental overreach into matters of culture and religion such as this. As I said before and truly believe, we will be fine. In other words, tolerate the cultural differences, isolate the true "extremists" through embracing policies that don't radicalize the common person, realize that successive generations will "westernize" a great deal on their own, because we're just that cool...and awesome. Because freedom is that cool and awesome.

Let's stay that way.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
If this is liberal fascism, then I am liberal fascist, and proud of it!



edit on 20/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
Good! Preach it from the rooftops! I want people to know and to respect liberal fascism for what it is. I am rather fond of it, myself. I want the People to know the name of what they are constantly demanding, and I want them to say it loudly and proudly. If there is one thing that can cure the cancer of the world, it is honesty.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Misoir
 


I agree multiculturalism has failed abysmally, but this is mainly due to insular elements, brought about by racism from the indiginous people. It really isn't about cultures, faiths ,beliefs. It's about being accepted into U.K society and being given a chance. Unfortunatley despite various discrimination legislation introduced since the seventies, the MSM pick on particular stories relating to particular groups of society, in order to raise tensions. This in turn creates insular elements and extremism.
so it not due to the fact alot of the new comers just come for the money and don`t want to be included many muslims see our women as whores to be abused and disgarded. the honest ones will even tell you that themself. some hate the way things are but are stuck because its what the book says thats the way its got to be and connot be changed.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I'm on board! Just a few questions, though.


Ban preachers of hate from coming to the host country.

What's a 'preacher of hate' sound like? Hate of . . .? How are we defining hate? Maybe we should phone up the Ministry of Truth for clarification.


Strictly prevent the allocation of public money and donations to groups not being used to tackle extremists.

Umm . . . like the girl scouts? What groups are we talking about? Does this include Christians too? Like, should the Salvation Army be preparing to go to war with the Westboro Baptist Church?


Barring organisations that incite terrorism at host country and abroad.

Sounds good to me! Still a little fuzzy on who we're calling terrorist these days, but, all I know is that the less of them, the freer I feel!


Judging the religious organisations acceptability to operate in host country based on universal human rights, support for democracy and encourage integration with host country basic values.

Governments being allowed to judge the worthiness of religions? Nope, nothing could go wrong there.



Strengthening national identity by allowing people to follow their religion but subscribe to the identity of their host country, by saying "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner too".

"Sure, be whatever you want! Just so long as you acknowledge Caesar's a god too."


Prevention of extremism in universities and prisons.

Are we privatizing the thought police or is this going to be a government program?

edit on 23-2-2011 by Boreas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join