Permissiveness and liberalism

The underlying motivations of liberalism are not inherently wrong. Compassion, empathy and the inclination to respect peoples personal choice is quite decent and the urge to create a society that reflects this has a sort of nobility to it.
   These simple drives can function fairly well in a more basic setting in which Natural Law imposes itself directly on us because they are limited by circumstances. The daily struggle for survival that Natural Law demands teaches us the importance of nation, the value of family and the ability to work and sacrifice for something greater than ourselves. We learn that violence is natural and what can happen when we loose. The more extreme degenerates would typically get weeded out either by the community or by their own inability to function. The basic drives that liberalism depends on are tempered by these realities, they are kept in proportion.
   Our basic drives evolved to fit an ecology governed by Natural Law that balanced them and curbed their excesses allowing us to function in a natural and fundamentally healthy way in spite of, or because of, the struggles involved. But we no longer live in an ecology governed directly by Natural Law. Through our cleverness we have developed ways to mitigate or avoid some of the limitations and struggles that are our birthright and we have combined this with super-abundance and hyper-stimulation. The result is grossly exaggerated instinctual drives with little immediate limiting factors in the short term:
   Grotesque parodies of compassion, empathy and self hate masquerading as morality.
   Obesity and physical weakness resulting from idleness and profligacy.
  Sexual perversion of every sort via pornography and promiscuity enabled by mass media, medicine and the deliberate destruction of the family and its function.
   Ignorance, selfishness, cowardice and arrogance in the guise of individualism.
   Mothers proudly murdering their own children in the womb and calling it their choice.
   The underlying motivations that gives rise to liberalism and permissiveness can exist within a hard setting because their excesses are curbed by reality. But they cease to function properly when placed in a softer and superficially more lenient setting.
   Liberalism and permissiveness fail because they have no internal coherence or structure allowing them to function without the direct imposition of Natural Law.  Like an amputated limb they are an impulse without a setting.
   Liberalist of one type or another will bleat their insipid "don't tread on me's!" and "Golden Rule's" as long as the boot of uncompromising Natural Law, the structure of reality itself, is held off their necks by better men than themselves. But in a world where the Fox MUST kill to survive and the Rabbit MUST run to live a little longer the 'golden Rule' is absurd, delusional and doomed.
   What could be more ridiculous than liberalism in a world of violent struggle and hard reality? What imbecile or madman could belive it? I did and i find that fact shame full and barely comprehensible now.
There are two solutions to the problem of instinct in the absence of immediately applied Natural Law:

   1. The 'Amish' Solution: Regress our technology to the point where Natural Law can more directly and immediately impose itself on us so that our drives assume their normal roles once more in the absence of hyper stimulation, super abundance and ease. Liberal drives revert to a simple respect for personal boundaries and common decency within a cohesive community that is bound together by need, shared values and race. This is effectively a lobotomy, it requires that we deny the full scope of what it means to be at least a semi-sentient part of existence. It means to deliberately learn nothing. It means growing potatoes instead of exploring the universe.

   2. The Will Solution: Act with discipline and a practical understanding of Natural Law to deliberately curb our excesses. To act in accordance with Natural Law as an act of will and choice not just because we are powerless to do anything else. To recognise that Natural Law isn't just the basic structure of reality but that its structure IS virtue and to live by it is the only true morality. This allows us to view life honestly and go to the stars as a whole, sane people.

It means to live and build our nations based on these truths:
   The morality of sentiment (liberalism) is the morality of a victim.
   The morality of might is the morality of a rapist.
   The morality of strength is the morality of nature. Anything less is betrayal, delusion and death.
   Every civilisation that progresses far enough encounters the problem of what to do when let of the leash of Natural Law for a time. Every civilisation that has proceeded us so far has failed this test and died one way or another.
   Will we be the first to pass the test and become an embodiment of Natural Law instead of just a glorified ape on its way to extinction?
   Liberalism and permissiveness were doomed from the start but without experiencing their siren call and seeing the horrific results how would we know?

"Liberalism is moral syphilis" J.Bowden.