Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

Such niceties didn't trouble English football when the little-known Wenger arrived in 1996 to coach one of the few English clubs to rival Manchester United in fame and éclat.

All true, but it still does not take us to the heart of the matter. But without one crucial factor they would not, even in combination, have led to the barbarity of the Manchester attack.

Still others spread the net of blame wider, and cite the failures of recent British foreign policy, and in particular the destabilisation by Western forces of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, which has led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists who may have nurtured Salman Abedi. One explanation comes hard on the heels of another. No, the point we must address squarely is Abedi was an Islamic fanatic. All recent attacks — in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Stockholm and anywhere else you care to think of — were done in the name of Islam.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world.

Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

Stop wasting time with undesirables and sign up today to meet the conservative match of your dreams!

Arsène Wenger does not, in the normal run of play, give interviews.

While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article, In May 2011, he published an article in Psychology Today that explored why black women had been rated less attractive than those of other races in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Subsequent critical independent analysis of the results showed that the difference in assessed attractiveness held for three of the four data sets in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and that there was only a statistically significant race difference in younger women and that it disappeared by early adulthood.

In response to ongoing controversies over his stated views (such as African countries suffer chronic poverty and disease because their people have lower IQs, and black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races), he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today, and his employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.