Liberalism -> equality -> utopian idealism -> multiculturalism -> disaffection, social isolation -> blame, hatred, terror
Good, at least Scourge is trying to identify the social aspect of it. Crow: just because you recongise the reason behind someone's actions doesn't mean you condone it. I'm sorry if it's not 'conservative' to look for social reasons behind crime: but there is a large penis one can place in their mouth if this is a problem for them.
However the above picture is too simplistic: and begs the question: from whence liberalism?
Also, too 'Hegelian' (not in method in ontology): Not rooted in material/economic factors enough (come on, nihilists, you can't get rid of that pesky marx!)
How about this:
Science -> technological rationalism (steam engines, steel, roads, linking of huge new markets) + economic rationalism (division of labour) -> urbanisation of workforce + education of labour (both needed by the new industrial economic machine) -> industrial revolution
-> severing of old rules of association (caste, family, tribe) -> creation of new associations (classes, labour unions) + bureaucratisation ('rational' as opposed to 'organic' construction of society) -> Liberalism
--- (insert cold war) --- information economy, high technology -> manufacturing moves offshore -> increasing flexibility of labour market (two tiered: high skilled technocrats + low skilled service workers (nothing being 'made' anymore) -> post-industrial revolution
-> multiculturalism -> social atomism -> the end of history and the 'last man'.
Still in this process the average human being has been 'liberated' from arbitrary forms of association and allegiance. They have gained 'equality' via the above process, or, recognition as individuals: thymos, and also material-prosperity to boot! Just because 'liberalism' (or more accurately, the historical process that produces liberalism) produces a few murderers here and there means zero. The overall direction is solid in that most people are satisfied (liberalism wouldn't stick if this were not the case, and nearly every culture on earth would not either be a) liberal or b) on it's way to liberalism (economic and social)).
You are walking against the tide if you think this is all going to 'wind back' any time soon. There is a direction to modern history: the above dialectic is driven by two deep facets of human nature: 1) desire, and 2) recognition/status. People have gained much, you would HAVE TO recognise on an objective analysis. They also have lost ('traditional' forms of association), but the question is: what is the balance between factors gained and factors lost: Do you really think the direction of history will change. From where will the new contradiction arise?
Environmentalism? Maybe - but I think we NEED a high level of technology to escape environmental problems, so the post-industrial society won't vanish: and if it doesn't vanish, neither will the forms of association it promotes over older forms vanish
. This is the key point.
Religious fundamentalism? - Maybe. Fukuyama pronounced that history had ended in the 90's, and then 9/11 happened! But I don't think it's likely that this will spread enough to challenge the direction of history (to post-industrial liberal societies). As Islamic societies go through the above economic revolutions (the material engine of history - as they will - because it is driven by 1) human desire and 2) human recognition or thymos), they will, necessarily, go through the associated social revolutions too.
Liberalism, or a particular 'modern' pattern of how human beings associate into groups, is caused by a complex economic-historical process. This process is in turn driven by 2 deep parts of human nature. Liberalism is not something we can simply throw off via cultural-criticism. It's driven by something more real than ideas: a huge economic-historical process.
We can read as much Evola as we like, but those parts of 'human nature' he is (really) talking about: stoicism, asceticism, etc, mean shit to an aspiring young man with a hungry family. He (and more importantly, his fellow countrymen in the thid world) is/are going to engage him/themself(s) in the above economic-historical process in order to achieve 1) material prosperity 2) reconigition as an individual with rights and freedom of association. Evola was a wealthy baron who never had to work a day in his fucking life.
And to bring it back to the subject of this thread: Liberalism does cause terrorism sure, but in 0.0000000000000001 per cent of the population. All stages in the process of history produce friction: the point is where the overall
direction is headed, and whether liberalism will indeed represent the 'end of history' where no new fundamental
contradictions will arise that will challenge the system.