New World Order 'liberalism' vs. John Locke's 'liberalism'

Read Hanne’s The Herland Report.

At this point in history, the West is leaving behind its belief in classical, traditional values and the nation state, merging private corporate power with state funds in a liberal approach to accomplish the fourth industrial revolution. So we are told. But is the attempt to forge a new world order where the billionaires rule us all a “liberal” development or the very opposite?

Are we not living through a remarkable resurfacing of precisely the anti-liberal movements that permeated pre-World War II thinking? Its race theories, its biased media that do not attempt to cover broad perspectives but retain a strict propaganda structure, its socialist group control, the use of fear to subdue the population, its large corporations in close cooperation with government control, its disdain toward particular ethnic groups – Jews back then, whose properties and assets simply were confiscated and stolen by the Nazis and never returned to the owners. In other words, private property rights annihilated for those of ethnic origins “we do not like.”

So what does it really mean to be liberal? Today’s definition of “liberal” is a million miles away from its original meaning. To be liberal is now associated with rebellion against traditional morality and family responsibility, advocating for free sex in a hedonist climate that legitimizes selfishness and disregards the obligation toward others; evaluating individuals according to race.

When we look back in history, the father of the original form of liberalism, the Christian philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) was “an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers,” according to Wikipedia. When Locke defined liberalism, he spoke of individual rights but not without its corresponding duties and responsibilities to society as a whole. His liberalism was not a quest for the liberation of man from his responsibilities, but rather the very opposite.

Locke was a strong defender of tolerance for religious groups and the right to have different opinions – what we would call “free speech.” Needless to say, free speech and respect for plurality is obviously among the unwanted ideals for the New World Order system currently being implemented. Locke, on the other hand, argued that the government should have limited powers in order to avoid the abuse of power, with clear obligations toward its citizens.

The 1600s were brutal in Europe. Wars were raging across the continent. Locke himself had to spend years in France for fear of returning to England, as he was associated with political figures there who had lost favor. It was in this period that Locke defined liberalism and theories of human rights. His writing aimed at defining the need for freedom of choice, for tolerance and respecting each other’s differences in order to coexist. One of his books was titled “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” arguing for ecumenical Christianity. Locke was a defender of pluralism, stating that enforcing political or religious uniformity would only lead to social disorder, rebellion and chaos.

Jeremy Waldron shows in “God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought” how Locke’s belief in God permeates his very thinking. Locke saw man as sent into the world by God’s order, to go about and do His business as His property and workmanship. He derived his fundamental political theory from biblical texts, insisting that people could not understand the law of nature without the assistance of the teachings of Jesus.

Locke states that the very concept of freedom as well as equality is originally derived from Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Consequently, to him, all men were created as free, rational beings, and therefore democratic governments needed to acquire approval for the political decisions of its people. His thoughts are clearly reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

As the democratic structures in Western nations arguably are in the process of being removed, transnational globalist forces are working in high gear to steer firmly away from John Locke’s liberalism. We are entering an age of remarkable intolerance for the natural plurality among men.

So, do we stand or do we fall after the classical Western values upon which this civilization was built are removed? What happens when differences of opinion is no longer accepted? When private property rights are no longer upheld? When Western institutions are no longer respected and justice for the widow and fatherless is no more? Will we survive the New World Order’s anti-liberal values, and who will then defend the powerless?

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts