I am a Liberal

Only Jesus and MLK get official holidays celebrating their birthdays. I guess it makes sense since MLK has been deified by modern American leftism and thus deserves the trappings of divine status. But we needn't rehash the obvious implications of MLK's place in the American social and political landscape; the fawning over him makes even the apathetic cringe. Only Harriet Tubman receives an equally disproportionate amount of "love", as they say.

Wikipedia refers to MLK as "a national icon in the history of modern American liberalism." I ask though - what exactly is a "liberal"? Sure we know the limp-wristed, Pruis driving, sanctimonious American liberal well, but should this class justifiably call themselves "liberal"? Of course not, as the American version of liberalism does not uphold their own principles, imbuing white men with original sin and downplaying their accomplishments via insidious notions such as privilege. While MLK didn't champion this left-liberal race hatred explicitly, he sure seemed open to it and it likely did underlie his wealth redistribution initiatives.

On occasion, I have referred to myself as the "ultimate liberal", in that I afford everyone the same rights independent of their class, their background, or their race. The above statement would likely be classified as classical liberalism or libertarianism in the modern political climate, yet I diverge from these doctrines by extending the idea to collective groups. In sum, any group, Jews, American whites, French, Mexicans, Japanese, even nigs (I use it ironically here :) has the moral autonomy to choose their own collective fate. Sort of libertarian individualism, writ large.

Axiomatically, we should have the freedom to associate with whomever we please, the freedom to decide one's own life trajectory, and the freedom of independent groups to decide their own fate. If all those freedoms are God-given, both as individuals and as collectives, then HBD, immigration restriction, and race or ethnic-based traditionalism, is justified. Groups can decide who they permit into their own lands, an extension of the freedom to associate. In international law, these principles are called "right to self-determination" and the citizenry of a nation should have the freedom to put that right into practice as a collective.

Does this then make me a "liberal", as I apply these ideals equally to every group, even ones that are odds with each other such as Palestinians and Israelis? Is liberalism really about equality and blind justice or is it about imposed egalitarianism and white guilt? I'd say that liberalism has been co-opted by the American Left as the latter, though my conception above does not contradict the notion of "equal rights" and "liberty". In fact, it gives everyone "equal rights" while maintaining a respect for borders and national cohesion.

It appears that the Left has taken a healthy liberalism, one with which I would agree, and perverted it to meet their own ends of flagellating whites and propping up their pet minority groups. I'm afraid though that any pursuit of reclaiming the term "liberalism" by the Right will inevitably go the way of Glenn Beck's odd display back in 2010. He basically just started spouting leftist bromides, convinced that somehow he was combating leftism despite playing by their rules. In essence, the term "liberalism" may be beyond repair, so perhaps we should stick to "freedom" and "equality" as more potent and less sullied alternatives.