#7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense
A Reference Library
Capsule: #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense offers exactly what the title implies. If all Americans understood the basic principles of ideology, individual liberty would not be under threat in America. Once the reader understands the dichotomy between the two major categories of ideologies they will naturally conclude that collectivism should be rejected as reactive and anti-freedom.
To Be Useful A Scale Must Measure Something
Focus: Which offers more personal freedom? The collectivism of contemporary liberalism, or the individual liberty of contemporary conservatism. Or, in other words, which equals a voluntary slavery to the state?
Details: #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense measures ideological fundamentals based on liberty denied and liberty protected. This simple solution avoids the common pitfalls in other scales like grouping liberty-loving minimalists with anarchists and nihilists, contemporary liberals with classical liberals, contemporary conservatives with turn of the twentieth century conservatives, and the often deliberate misplacing of fascism and Nazism. As the title implies, after hundreds of years of debate, finally, ideological classifications are now categorized in a scale that makes intuitive, logical sense.
Why is this important to the N.C. Essay Series? It is because contemporary American liberals are convinced that their ideology stands for liberty, while everyday liberals further undermine that same liberty with their collectivism. This new scale reveals at a glance the precise relationship between liberty and all ideologies, including liberalism.
Excerpts: ~There are basically two ways to govern a society. One is to administer a society. The other is to rule a society. Can you distinguish the difference between the two, American neighbor? An administering government has as its prerequisite view to interfere as little as necessary to maintain order in what it sees as a civil society. A ruling government has as its prerequisite view to coerce a ‘proper’ order from disorder in what it sees as an uncivilized society. One administers from the right side of the center tipping point. One rules from the left side of the center tipping point. Conservatism is about administering society. Liberalism is about ruling society. Here, let me give you a metaphoric example to illustrate the difference.
Walls are a good representation of a government’s intentions. The West Bank wall in Israel was erected to keep terrorists out. This was an administrative move to preserve the civil society within Israel from attack from without. The Israelis see themselves as a civil society threatened by those who would damage that civility from the outside. This is how contemporary conservatism views the governing of a society – the enemy is without. Whereas the Berlin Wall was erected between the two Germanys shortly after the Second World War to ‘civilize’ what the government of East Germany viewed as an uncivil society within, that given its choice would leave and migrate to a free West Germany. The East German government did not trust its own citizens to make ‘proper’ choices, so it imposed its own choices on them. Anyone who disagreed and attempted to cross over to the West was shot on sight. This is how the left, which includes contemporary liberalism, views the governing of a society – the enemy is within. The contemporary liberal views his own society as uncivilized and only civilizable through coercive government action. So walls must be erected to this effect.~
The following ideological subclasses are examined: Military Rule, Despotism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Communism, Fascism/Nazism, Theocratic Rule, Slavery, Nihilism/Terrorism, Anarchism, Progressivism, Neoliberalism, Statism, Unionism, Feminism, Secularism, Environmentalism, Animal Rights, Pacifism, Centrists, Moderates, Independents, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Minimalism, Classical Liberalism, Neofeminism, Traditionalism.
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
Ideology – Wikipedia:
~Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.~
• Defining contemporary ideologies
Let’s define our contemporary ideological terms of reference. The measure of our Nuclear Counterarguments Ideology Scale is graduated by the amount of individual liberty permitted and protected by each group of ideologies. There are four major ideologies divided into three leftwing and one rightwing. [See scale below.]
As I mentioned in #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, this essay series is specifically aimed at members of the liberal and transitional subgroups. As for those who favor one of the totalitarian subgroups, I think that professional psychological help might be a more productive place to start, although Deprogramming Liberalism may possibly be able to contribute to the reversal of this condition as well.
Ideologies are divided into two major groups, leftwing and rightwing. Conservatism embraces all of the minor rightwing ideologies, whereas liberalism only represents a fraction of minor leftwing ideology subgroups. Transitional leftists definitely lean more toward liberalism on some or many issues, but seem to think they can mix oil and water. On the extreme left are all of the iron-fisted and chaos-oriented authoritarian subgroups. Everyone who has even the slightest awareness of politics can be placed in a combination of a primary ideology and a number of secondary ideologies, sometimes even contradicting each other. The leftwing does not necessarily always equate with big government control. Remember our scale is based on the amount of individual liberty, not control. The anarchist and the nihilist don’t believe in big government control (at least initially), but they still oppose individual liberty (more shortly).ac
• Table – Nuclear Counterarguments Ideology Scale
You may be wondering why there are so many leftwing categories and so few rightwing, American neighbor. First, there really are no divisions within the rightwing when it comes to liberty. There are a few nuances, but liberty is liberty. The many divisions on the left are based on the amount of liberty tolerated in particular areas of life. In other words, there is really only one way to implement liberty as a principle, but many ways to institute tyranny. On the left everyone thinks they have the right balance of liberty and tyranny, and that everyone else should accept their chosen amount. Those on the right reject any amount of tyranny, preferring minimal limits based on a civil society of liberty. When you revealed in #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, that you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor, you placed your core value on the right side of the liberty scale.ad
300-word pages of text = 43
Reference citation links = 8
Recommended-reading links = 9
Profound insights = 22
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Air Force B2 Spirit
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• What’s not included
Except for under theocratic rule, religion is seldom useful in defining ideologies because of the many variances from country to country, and sometimes in different regions of the same country – India for example. Militia groups and cults are also hard to pin down – although many are civil and rightwing, some are more akin to anarchists and authoritarian. Libertarians come in so many different flavors it is hardly worth the trouble except for the most popular one which is conservative libertarianism. (Here, if you enjoy splitting hairs: [y3c8cs]) Communitarianism is a minor offshoot of liberalism emphasizing positive rights.
Populism is not so much an ideology as a political strategy of honing one’s political message into an us versus them argument. Liberals (and authoritarians) do however favor this sort of politics – the poor versus the rich, minorities versus whites, the people versus the corporations, etc. Populism is the pitting of groups of people against each other on issues other than ideology for the sake of political expediency. It is usually a cynical taking advantage of the ignorance of voters to get their vote. But once the voters have voted the ‘proper way’ their supposed grievance that was played upon for their votes is often ignored, or if implemented results in unintended consequences.ae
• Contemporary conservatism
Contemporary conservatism is a liberating ideology. It goes beyond just a belief in liberty to a production and protection of liberty. Definition in a nutshell: Contemporary conservatism is the selected mindset of a liberated society providing and protecting the ability of each individual to manage their life with minimal collective limitations. Today’s conservatism is the ultimate liberation ideology. Conservatism is an ideology that offers liberation for all who are oppressed by left of center collectivist ideologies. This includes not only the oppressed, but the collectivist oppressors as well. It is not only those who believe in individual liberty that benefit from application of individual liberty, but those who have previously embraced collectivism are also freed from their unwitting voluntary slavery as well. More than anything this also defines the purpose of the N.C. Essay Series. It is not only about freeing society for the sake of my belief, American neighbor. It is for the sake of all who are oppressed by collectivism, but especially those in America who erroneously espouse collectivism as a type of liberty and need liberating from it the most – contemporary liberals.
As noted in the previous essay, contemporary conservatism is an evolutionary development from the classical liberalism of the previous century, and the minimalism of the century before that. In effect today’s contemporary conservatives stand on the shoulders of the classical liberals and minimalists of the past. Minimalism is a uniquely American creation. The founders were all minimalists who feared the potential tyranny of big, authoritarian government. Never before had the limiting of government combined with maximizing individual liberty been the main focus of a nation’s governing charter. It was an exceptional ideology that produced an exceptional country. The minimalist’s motive is civility with rights for everyone, along with a goal of maximum possible individual liberty with minimal collective limitations.af
• Fathers of contemporary conservatism
Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Locke are, among a long list of others, including the founders, the fathers of today’s conservative movement. To all, liberty of the individual along with the civility of society were the primary concerns of their ideology. Contemporary conservatives have taken the torch passed to them from the classical liberals of yesteryear who took it from the minimalists before them. This is where most Americans align themselves when polled as compared to moderate (transitional) or liberal (liberal being the least selected choice of the three). [*ycvapqh] Real contemporary conservatives are recognizable by their minimalist values of limited government and maximum individual liberty. To this end they are also American constitutionalists, valuing the principles of the founders and the Constitution they wrote. Contemporary conservatives today focus on preserving and re-acquiring great American traditions like a truly free marketplace, with much less regulation and government intrusion, true freedom of speech without the policing of political correctness, unquestioned patriotism, an adherence to the limitations of the Constitution as originally intended, and strict adherence to law and order to produce and maintain a civil society. Beyond minimalist values however, most conservatives are also evangelists of liberty, unreserved from utilizing aggression against tyranny to liberate oppressed peoples of the world. The majority of conservatives see this as a duty of free people towards the oppressed, also realizing that as the future unfolds unless proactively engaged, rogue nations and terrorist groups are likely to become more dangerous with easier access to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, along with improved delivery systems and strategies. [*4784ms3]ag
Neofeminism arguably has its roots from the late nineties when liberal feminists refused to condemn and even defended President Clinton’s misogyny over subordinate women. The whole premise of the liberal woman’s movement was exposed as nothing more than hypocritical liberalism (the double standards principle). Feminists threw their own feminist ideals under the bus when their rock star liberal President became what should have been a textbook example of what they were supposed to be opposing. This left the woman’s movement in limbo with no focus, no leadership and no societal influence, so feminists resorted to a perpetual whine that America has simply tuned out. Even the liberal media became bored with them. Feminism was dead. Dead. The treatment of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries confirmed this (this will be dealt with in N.C. essay #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry). But at the same time along came Sarah Palin and shortly after, the Tea Party. Neofeminism was born and today’s strong, successful women who embrace their femininity and morals are now valued as some of America’s leaders. After being called a particular vicious name of a sexual nature Sarah Palin summed up the current relevancy of liberal feminism:
~ “I need NOW’s defense like a fish needs a bicycle.”~ [4gj4aep]
Update 2014: It turns out that the “War On Women” actually began with the feminists of the 1990s. Hillary has since blamed herself for being a failure as a wife to excuse her husband’s philandering. [lp78l7j] So, women, if your husband cheats on you, it is your fault. And the appropriate response is to attack the women your husband has sexually harassed. Now that is a “War On Women”. [nbnw6gt]ah
• Traditionalism versus secularism – Liberalism = demographic death spiral
Related to neofeminism is traditionalism, or what is often called social conservatism or traditional values. It is often pigeonholed by liberals as religious doctrine forced onto society, but in reality it is about public morals and population demographics. The morals side is related to the civil society aspect of conservatism. Without a civil society liberty is diminished, and without morals civil society is impossible, and without a civil society a healthy replacement birth rate is also impossible. Secular liberalism promotes a suicidal, collective mentality where its social norms inhibit a replacement birth rate; a disparaging of traditional marriage and nuclear families, a focus on materialism over family values, an easy credit attitude that promotes debt early in life, a promotion of sexual ‘liberty’ and libertinism, a de-emphasis on adoption and emphasis on abortion, and easy divorce with punishing repercussions that keep men from marrying or remarrying, keep women from finding a man who wants more than to just hookup, and teaches children that marriage and a family are not worth the trouble. This is a relatively new phenomena in the world because modern secularism is relatively new and can only exist in a culture advanced enough to cater to an overly self-centered attitude.
Without a replacement birthrate a country will die within a few generations. For this very reason many of both Western and Eastern European nations are trapped in this quandary and have had to resort to high volume immigration policies that are in the process of swamping their natural citizenry with foreign, primitive cultures. (Heard of the Islamification of Europe? ‘Mohammed’ is the most popular name for newborn males in England [bpwf29b]). This leads to a less productive, smaller and younger portion of society with less resources having to support a much larger, older, self-satisfied and demanding population with which they have no national, cultural or familial affiliations. There is no money saved for your Social Security and Medicare – it must be taxed from current taxpayers or borrowed. Additionally, there are trillions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities. [8tlf5v8, q7wve6k] This naturally leads to cultural and generational resentment and an eventual and inevitable law of diminishing returns, where the average standard of living enters a parabolic decline. Eventually, this situation will inevitably force secularism to revert back to its Margaret Sanger progressive roots by again demanding eugenics, especially for seniors and the handicapped, to solve its health funding problems. Drastic austerity also becomes inevitable as economies collapse.
To a lesser extent Canada is caught up in this demographic problem. Japan is in serious trouble (in 2012 more adult diapers were purchased than baby diapers), and Russia is dissolving before our very eyes, American neighbor (there are eleven million more women than men and the population is already in severe decline). Most of the advanced western countries of Europe are well below a replacement birth rate. Even China with its huge population is in trouble because of its one child policy that has resulted in 35 million more young men than young women (this divergence is continually expanding). Ditto the demographics in India. Without a balance of women, young men are much more likely to turn their frustrations to crime, snowballing the uncivil aspect of society, and leading to ever more demographic decline. With a dwindling respect for family values America will eventually also succumb if it continues along this path (America is already slightly below a replacement birthrate). [*6d7qy7d] It is callous to think as today’s liberals do, that this is only a problem for future generations, so why worry about it? Party on! The secular and libertine aspects of liberalism are selfish choices which say, “America is for me today, not for the children who follow me – why should I worry about tomorrow?” It is today’s children and grandchildren that will be stuck living the unintended consequences of liberalism’s secular and libertine demographic implosion.
Notice in the accompanying bar chart [7cyfp2g, 4jtrbb] that the percentage of children in the U.S. population is in a steady decline. Also notice that the proportion of Hispanic children in America is significantly increasing (almost one in four children are Hispanic), as is the percentage of seniors. This means that in the near future there will be fewer taxpayers overall, and fewer of those taxpayers will be of means (a high proportion of those Hispanic children are immigrants or children of immigrants with little education or advanced work skills, who will produce proportionally less government tax revenue). And there will be more seniors demanding that meager revenue. Although the abortion rate is falling, still about one in five pregnancies results in an abortion. Normalizing homosexuality also adds to the overall problem, and a declining marriage rate further complicates matters. [*7z2j4o6]
Update 2014: The numbers in the above bar chart are from prior to the 2014 Obama surge of Latino children illegally entering the country and not being deported, so the trend is now accelerating.
Update 2014: Headline 2014 = Shock: 80% of U.S. population growth is from immigrants, resources being sucked dry [lkp96af]
Consider that the ratio of government budget expenses to entitlement spending in the mid-sixties was 3:1. [mmor9hn] By the early seventies it was 1:1. In 2012 it was 1:3. By 2022 it will be 1:5. Most of that entitlement spending goes to seniors whose percentage of the population continues to climb, while the proportion of the population that produces the taxes to pay for those entitlements is decreasing, and all the while, liberals encourage social mores that will only accelerate the problem. The above chart is a picture of a suicidal demographic implosion in process. Liberals are slitting America’s wrists.
Then add to the above mentioned libertine attitudes a liberal economic attitude of easy credit like unlimited student loans, credit card living, and subprime mortgage rates, coupling those with poor economic policies that are producing the current Obama Malaise with its depressed employment climate, and you have an accelerated demographic failure. [qedzjwm]
So it does not matter whether you agree with the doctrines of social conservatives, American neighbor. Your personal opinion is in fact irrelevant. Although the solution is about moral choice, the problem itself is simple arithmetic. It only matters whether you love your country enough to desire a continued prosperity with ever-increasing living standards and life spans for your children and grandchildren. Simple math tells you that a normalized society of easy divorce, single parent families, homosexuality and abortion equals a demographic makeup that is antithetical to a continuing prosperity. For instance, it doesn’t matter whether you are staunchly pro-abortion or adamantly pro-life, a prosperous American society cannot survive the demographic death spiral of killing a high proportion of the population before birth. By creating an entitlement system where many Americans are wholly dependant on government payments to subsist, while at the same time demanding societal norms that limit population growth to pay for those entitlements, liberals have placed America in a position where an economic fallout is inevitable.
The only way to preserve and perpetuate the goals of ever-increasing prosperity and life spans is to generate a sufficient replacement population and produce a melting pot mentality in immigrants. Think about this, American neighbor. From 2003 to 2012, 114,260 civilians were killed in the Iraq war for an average of about 12,700 deaths per year according to the Iraq Body Count project which documents each death. [lfa3h77] Calculated in 2005 (no doubt the numbers are much higher now in 2013), over 9,000 Americans per year are killed by illegal immigrants. [kuf6v82] That’s 25 innocent Americans needlessly killed every single day. America is in a virtual war with foreign infiltrators on American soil – and liberals are supporting the other side!
Immigrants that do not accept and embrace the traditional values of America are as much a threat to America’s future prosperity as are secular Americans. Do you think immigrants with foreign values will wish to accept a diminished standard of living to pay exorbitant taxes to keep selfish secular Americans alive indefinitely in their old age? Hardly, American neighbor. The only way for America to produce a sufficient replacement population is for the majority to embrace the principles that do so – traditional values. To reject them as does secularism is to condemn American society to an inevitable demographic death. It really boils down to two simple questions for you, American neighbor. Do you want to be taken care of in your old age, and do you want the American Dream for your children and grandchildren? If your answers are yes then reject secular and libertine liberalism and instead embrace traditional values for America’s society that will ensure its future. You don’t have to personally agree with them all. You simply must accept them as mathematically necessary for the future prosperity of the nation. If you choose not to accept them, you choose doom for America, your grandchildren, and your senior years.
Update 2014: Now in June of 2014 it has been discovered that the American fertility rate is in freefall. [*lohjsjz]ai
• Transitional ideologies
What identifies the Transitional ideologies is the willingness to straddle the leftwing-rightwing divide, cherry picking from both sides. This, however, firmly plants them on the left as at least occasionally willing to sacrifice liberty for what is supposedly viewed as practicality. Many Centrists, Moderates and Independents just want to get along, and see middle of the road compromise as the civil course of action. They are particularly susceptible to the liberal crisis engineering strategy. Neoconservatism has evolved over the last few decades from being of mostly Jewish American origin to being more inclusive, famously being described as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”. Originally neoconservatives were refugees from liberalism in the sixties and seventies who could no longer tolerate liberalism’s increasingly sympathetic leanings toward communism. Now it is viewed more as conservatism with an empiricist and militaristic agenda. In fact neoconservatism is somewhat less individualistic than vanilla conservatism, in some areas leaning towards centrism and beyond. To the disappointment of many American conservatives (and me as well), President George W. Bush turned out to be a neoconservative with his compassionate conservatism that seemed little more than an excuse to mix some liberal leaning policies in with his conservative ones.
Some like to call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But one cannot be socially liberal if one is fiscally conservative. Social liberalism demands that social government programs be paid for with ever higher taxes, especially at the local and state level. That isn’t fiscal conservatism. And then we have the demographics quandary of secularism which promotes libertinism, under which social liberalism falls, just explained above. A demographic demise due to socially liberal ideals leads to a financially bankrupt country – hardly fiscal conservatism or liberty.da
Conservative libertarians differ from conservatives, preferring no role in the policing of the world and a de-emphasizing of defense and a domestic security apparatus. They also distrust domestic policing more so than traditional conservatives, and have more leniency for public libertinism. They also seem to have no clear and consistent position on abortion. Almost everything that differentiates them from mainstream conservatism leans left away from a civil society. They are the utopians of the right (or the middle, to be more accurate), paralleling Dewey’s vision of a society with little governing authority, but without Dewey’s educational indoctrination of collectivism toward that end. In effect, c-libertarians embrace the liberty afforded by conservatism, but water their wine with libertinism and utopian ideals like peace through detachment.
This basic difference between c-libertarians and conservatives can be explained in this way: Conservatives are determined to preserve liberty for the future through proactive policies against future threats in the present, whereas c-libertarians are willing to risk the future of liberty by demanding what they see as principled liberties today. So conservatives saw the invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive strike against an inevitable assault on future liberties, in that if Saddam Hussein was not stopped, the UN sanctions would fail in the near future, Saddam would again be allowed to sell his oil without limit, procure weapons and materials for building WMDs without limits, and be back in the terrorism business full-bore (see #22 The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!”). Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a preventative measure against a sure future threat to liberty worldwide and in America. C-libertarians reject this reasoning as a diminishing of liberty today through the accompanying necessity of a larger American military machine, and the principle that until provoked, America should not show aggression. Conservatives recognize that the civil society requires that liberty must be actively defended in the present against very real potential future threats. C-libertarians seem to think that liberty can defend itself on principle alone without proactive action – a position that can only be described as idyllically naive.
C-libertarians also support a loosening of societal laws on prostitution and recreational drugs, support gay rights, and dither on the issue of abortion. All of these libertine positions threaten the future of liberty in America by undermining demographic factors necessary for producing a replacement population that can preserve liberty through a strengthening of the civil society (see U.S. Demographic Death Spiral above).
• Contemporary liberalism
Contemporary liberals are an extension of old-style, pre-sixties progressives with healthy doses of old style fascism and modern corporatism mixed in. All are utopian ideologies (we explored these in detail in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, and the previous essay). Remember this from the first essay:
~Liberalism is not about the individual liberty that you have just chosen – it is about collective submission and dependence. The only real responsibility for the liberal is voluntary submission. Here is the definition of today’s liberalism in regard to individual liberty: Contemporary liberalism is the coerced mindset of a command-style society requiring each individual to submit to collective management of their life while believing their submission to be an act of individual liberty. Liberalism is a seductive delusion, and in this sense liberals truly are victims of their own ideology. Fear drives liberals to give up their individual liberty for the comfort and protection of the herd (more later). Liberals voluntarily submit themselves and encourage all others to also submit, and to any who resist demand that they too submit to collective management of their lives. This makes liberalism an anti-individual liberty ideology, but don’t try telling that to a liberal without some context – they truly do believe that coercive collective management is the actual definition of individual liberty.~
Today’s liberalism has nothing in common with the individual liberty-based classical liberalism of the last century. Contemporary liberalism is about managing society and differs from authoritarianism only in the means of delivery and extent. One uses the nuances of persuasion, deception, intimidation and corruption, while the other is much quicker to resort to brute force. As was illustrated in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, contemporary liberalism has developed as a compulsive paranoid ideology. It is not just that liberalism demands control to implement utopia. It is that liberalism produces a paranoia that leads to the demand for control. Remember in that essay we discussed liberal perceptions of the motivations of both liberals and conservatives. Then in the previous essay to this one we discussed various ideological elements that make up the two ideologies of contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism, like libertine versus moralistic positions, entitlements versus responsibilities, etc. We learned in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, that contemporary liberals are motivated by a desire for utopia, but in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion it was revealed that the real motive behind the desire for utopia is paranoia. Liberals are motivated by fear – they are terrified of anything that hinders or is perceived to be unhelpful in ‘fixing’ their world. This spurs their desire for even more control, shifting the ideology ever closer to all-out fascist tyranny.ak
• No honorable fathers of contemporary liberalism
Unlike the rich history of contemporary conservatism which includes notable classical liberals and minimalists in many academic and professional fields, there are relatively few notable progressives that contemporary liberalism can point to as historic mentors. In fact, besides the aforementioned John Dewey, there are really only a few other non-politicians; Margaret Sanger, John Maynard Keynes and Father Charles Coughlin, along with three former Presidents, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt who, as mentioned before, I like to call FDRHoover (this will be explained #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). We have already discovered that John Dewey was very influential on American society in a tragic way. Margaret Sanger’s influence as a Nazi sympathizer, eugenicist and founder of the right-to-selectively-kill movement in America provided even more tragic results than Dewey – tens of millions of dead Americans (this is part of that demographic problem explained above). John Maynard Keynes is a phantom liberal icon. Liberals think they follow his economic policies, but they have no clue what they really are (more in N.C. essay #11). Father Coughlin was a radio preacher in the 1930s with an audience of more than thirty million to whom he preached FDRHoover’s big government message. All three progressive Presidents were utter failures, as you will soon see. As an addendum, Saul Alinsky might also be added to the list, although he is rather modern to be considered an historic mentor.al
• No individual is equal in liberalism
Liberalism is a dichotomy of politically correct control along side a libertine crossing of natural moral boundaries. The contemporary liberal is nothing like the classical liberal, even though he claims allegiance (dealt with in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). Whereas conservatives view everyone under the Constitution as equal, liberals are subhumanists. In relation to their collectivist ideology everyone is considered to belong to one or more subhuman classes, generally defined by the amount and type of suppression each class is perceived to suffer, or oppression a class is perceived to dispense (where each group fights in regard to this scale). In effect, liberalism holds that no individual is equal. Every individual in society is considered flawed by classification as either a victim or victimizer that can be judged based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, income level, schooling, political position, environmental position, industry, geographical location, etc. By these judgments everyone can be collectivized into groups. In liberalism there are no equal individuals – only flawed groups in need of top down control to unite them in utopia. This is fascism.
Liberalism is an ideological system where individual rights are surrendered to the state and where group rights are instituted as paramount. The primary goal of liberalism, and by extension the Democratic Party in America, is that you and everyone else, accept and indeed embrace a top down collective directing of your lives. In short, liberalism is a compulsive paranoid delusion produced as a result of societal conditioning that in turn produces a dependence on a governing elite to make proper collective decisions for each person, instituted through coercion. The manufactured paranoia is a fear of evil opponents attempting to stop progress toward a collective utopia.am
• How liberalism grows
It is mostly an ideology pushed by academia and the public school system and elements of the church, where the people elect representatives who slowly over the years implement a group rights mentality on society leading to ever more overbearing government taxation, regulation and control. Natural moral freedoms are eroded and replaced with pressure to conform to the new paradigm. Generally, it is accomplished through legal means, initially with the approval of the electorate, and later regardless of their approval, as elitism dominates the democratic process (Obamacare for example). Corruption is legalized. Unions and NGOs (non-governmental organizations like ACORN for example – an equivalent fascist-styled Blackshirt group [yhqkgdl, 3j76qjh, abd736l]), and international governing and regulatory entities (like the UN, World Bank and Interpol) are given inordinate powers and funding to influence government decisions and enforce the approved leftwing ideological agenda. Even more typical of fascism, businesses that ingratiate themselves to the elite politicians in control, and their sycophantic unions are granted favorable regulation and government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., while businesses not in favor are penalized with regulation and official and unofficial demonization (like the coal industry). Through entitlement programs voters are bribed with their own tax money and money taken from their children for their immediate benefit (deficit spending). Another favorite fascist tool, the populism of class division is used to pit the lower classes against the higher classes, and racism is used as a populist political wedge issue. To see how ridiculous liberalism can get, do a search for >stupid California laws<. Though certainly humorous, real people’s liberties have been removed by these hundred’s of draconian and absurd liberal (fascist) laws. Here’s a list of news stories about ridiculous nanny state laws: [qa97mbb]
Of course liberals portray themselves as the guardians of civil and human rights. But liberal rights are not about liberty. Liberal civil rights generally fall under tyranny or libertinism. Affirmative action is tyrannical and populist, oppressing one person’s rights for another’s benefit (also a symptom of paranoid delusion). Political correctness is also mostly based on tyranny (and even more paranoid delusion). On the flip side, so-called sexual rights for teens are not examples of liberty but libertinism, and abortion is not so much a right of liberty as it is right of libertinism for women and a right of tyranny over the unborn. If you are not sure, ask yourself who’s life is affected more – the mother’s or the child’s? With abortion the mother oppresses the child with her supposed rights trumping the child’s (more in #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present).an
• Impossible utopia
Liberals condemn conservatism for its natural morals of individual responsibility, and then replaces them with collective morals like a collective right to healthcare, a collective right to education, or a collective right to retirement benefits. Unlike the natural morals of conservatism where individuals are held responsible for their application, liberal morals are the responsibility of the collective state, so individuals are not responsible for their own healthcare or their own education or their own retirement, the collective state is – progressive-fascism. Conservatism holds the individual accountable for his own personal conduct and charity to his neighbors, whereas liberalism holds the individual unaccountable for himself, but only the collective is accountable for everyone. Giving is an individual thing. Taking is a collective thing. Liberalism is not about giving – charity (dealt with in a subsequent essay). It is about taking and redistribution – Marxism. There is nothing truly moral about it – it is immoral.
Classical Liberalism (liberty)
Progressivism (masses) – Utopia – Modern Corporatism (elite)
Contemporary liberalism is a utopian image of opposing goals (remember, liberalism is built on irrationality). One side sustains just enough talk of liberty to convince its adherents that their utopia is all about freedom. This is a remnant of contemporary liberalism’s long-lost connection to classical liberalism (explained in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). The flip side to a belief in liberty is a belief in the coercive government control of fascism to force a utopia onto a reluctant country (dealt with in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia and the previous essay). An adjacent side offers the ‘benefits’ of progressivism for the masses along with an opposition to elitism (see essay #4), while the contradicting opposite side represents modern-day corporatism where the elite in government reward selected elites in the marketplace and penalize others (explained in the previous essay). This is the messy ideological makeup of contemporary liberalism in a nutshell. They think that they believe in a utopia of liberty while using tyranny to suppress liberty to get there. They also think that they are the champions of the ‘little guy’ while supporting a corrupt system where elites reward elites and punish enemies. We end up with liberals at once proclaiming to be for a liberated society where equality rules, while at the same time supporting and electing an elite who reward other elites and forcibly remove liberties from society. Contemporary liberalism is made up of two stark contradictions consisting of four components aimed at producing an impossible utopia. Completely irrational.
Progressives were the original utopianists in America, dating back to before the turn of the twentieth century. They believed liberty could be gained and better preserved by expanding government mandates and benefits to the citizenry and reducing the elitism of tycoon’s monopolies in the marketplace. Fascism is the constant expansion of government control through legislation, regulation, manipulation, intimidation, and the institution of a desired public mindset onto society (political correctness). The economy is steadily transformed from a consumer demand capitalism into a government command capitalism. William Taft was the last mostly progressive President of the United States. Herbert Hoover was the first to overtly adopt Euro-fascist governing strategies into progressivism, and FDRHoover established progressive-fascism as the dominant ruling ideology in America (much more on this in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). Often liberal rhetoric, governing, and even legislation matches that of authoritarians. Liberals especially despise religion as a basis for moral or legislative decisions, as well as consumer demand capitalism, wishing to replace them with secularism and government command capitalism (more shortly). The laughable contradiction of liberalism is the unshakable belief that the more the government regulates and takes control of society, the more this will produce liberty for all. This is the state of today’s liberalism – irrational contradiction. It rewards some industries with government favors (carrot and stick capitalism), claiming benefit for the economy, while penalizing other sectors and ignoring the damage done to the economy there (in actual fact both strategies damage the marketplace and the economy as a whole). It desires a utopian, civilized society, but disdains the morals that civilize a society. It takes money from the future through deficit borrowing and spending to give to those in the present, but expects the future to perpetually be more prosperous than the present. It takes money from young, productive workers still trying to succeed in life and gives it to old retirees who have already succeeded in life. It penalizes and disincentivizes success with unbalanced taxation and regulation, and rewards failure with handouts and bailouts. It desires an efficient healthcare system for all, but then restricts market competition which is the only way to produce the desired efficiency (much more in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel). It desires a world-class education system, but then institutes government command style mediocrity. It desires a prosperous economy, but then regulates the economy to death. Everything about liberalism is based on playing stupid. It commands liberty for all – by taking liberty away from all.ao
• Progressives versus liberals
The subgroups of liberalism all have their own unique cultic traits, but unite under the belief that government control should trump individual liberty (at least for their constituency). In the recent past most contemporary self-identified progressives I had encountered denied being liberals as though ashamed to be associated with the extreme wing of liberal activism. Now, just a few years later the trend seems to have reversed. From what I can see, self-identified progressives are ashamed (more like embarrassed) of liberals, and self-identified liberals feel the same about progressives, but they both basically desire the same ends by the same means, just to varying degrees. Neoliberalism is a somewhat nebulous term that mostly falls under the liberalism umbrella, but is less entitlement oriented than liberalism and more sympathetic (relatively) to consumer demand capitalism.ap
Statism is equivalent to Euro-socialism, actually an advanced evolution of progressive-fascism based on government control with the power to reward with protection from penalty, and penalize in every sector of society as seen necessary. Statists are much more authoritarian than vanilla liberals, but many liberals aspire to statist goals.aq
Unionism is organized groupthink intimidation, the equivalent of an association of manipulating collaborators that bully employers, governments, employees, taxpayers and voters to accept two obviously unequal lines as equal. [*3cpylzc] Essentially, unionism today is an example of collectivism on a small-scale. Everything ugly about the collectivism of unionism is magnified in collectivism on a national level. While unionism had a legitimate role one hundred years ago, it’s purpose today is not fair pay and working conditions, but unfair, inflated pay, unrealistic benefit and retirement packages, and ridiculous working conditions that include as much time being paid for not working as possible. Their original purpose for improving working conditions in primitive and emerging economies has long since been replaced in America by federal and state labor laws. Their continued existence, besides being about greed and control, is actually about the fear that sees the free marketplace as some sort of evil monster supposedly attempting to eat up their members and spit them out into poverty. This type of compulsive paranoid delusion often leads to aggressive tendencies to protect the collective nurture of big mommy union. Collective bargaining rights are really rights to intimidate. Unions are now simply what liberals project onto conservatives – self-serving and greedy bullies who use intimidation to line their own pockets at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, having evolved into no more than organized racquets that launder mandatory union dues to the Democratic Party who then reciprocate by creating laws to strengthen the racquets and line the pockets of unions. Don’t believe me, American neighbor? Have a look at this chart: [*7muxqn6] (This malfunction of fair play using taxpayers money to politically influence taxpayers could easily be curbed by outlawing any organization that receives tax money in any way from contributing to or spending on political parties or organizations. This would rule out all government unions and any union working on a government project – and those companies as well.) But unions are much more than sugar daddies to the Democratic Party. They are also the goon squads (Blackshirts) of Democrats, bussed into events to strong-arm their liberal agenda. Proving that unions are outdated dinosaurs of a bygone era is the fact that removing mandatory union dues so workers have a choice of whether to contribute to a union or not has resulted in nine-tenths of workers opting out of paying dues.
~According to Michigan’s Mackinac Center, using data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3% over the same period in forced-unionization states. … These good wages came from good jobs. Employment in right-to-work states expanded 2.4% over the same stretch vs. a 3.4% decline in non-right-to-work states.~
~According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states (excluding Indiana, which passed a RTW law in early 2012) “were responsible for 72% of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.”~
~RTW states experienced large population gains of 15.3% from 2000 to 2010, compared to 5.9% in non-RTW states.~
~…in its most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association said “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11% of total spending for the union.~
Unions are also tax exempt organizations. Since they are thoroughly self-serving organizations whose aim is to profit their members, there is no reason they should not pay taxes – talk about not paying their fair share! Permanent unions are expensive to employees and completely unnecessary. [*84j7gn5] If employee negotiation is absolutely necessary a legal contractor could do the job every few years for a minute fraction of the cost of a permanent union. Having developed from labor rights organizations of the distant past, unions have since metastasized into bloated economic millstones around America’s neck that unfairly manipulate elections as well. Government unions claim they aren’t overpaid and over-benefited. If that is the case let’s open up the process to private sector non-union competition. If the government unions are not overpaid and over-benefited they will win the bid and the argument – won’t they?ar
Feminism became a liberal advocacy group along with the birth of contemporary liberalism in the 1960s. But feminism became mostly for elite liberal women and excluded minority groups. Not overtly, they just refused to allow anyone to be a feminist spokesperson unless they were connected to the inner core. Their only significant tie to minority and non-elite women was their push for abortion rights. As mentioned above, old seventies style feminists are mostly irrelevant today, except for their significant influence on American campuses, and except that they and related groups like Planned Parenthood are sugar mommies similar to unions for the Democratic Party, receiving taxpayer money and passing it along to Democrats. (They too should be banned from economically participating in the political process unless they stop taking taxpayer money.) They recently began a national campaign to get Rush Limbaugh off the air. Their inaugural protest of Limbaugh in L.A. drew a whole “seven” protesters. Seven! While feminism throughout its long history, back to the 1800s, promoted and achieved many just causes for women’s rights, liberal feminism has turned those who have embraced it into dour, judgmental, unhappy women lacking in femininity. They are the cranky, bitchy, spinster aunts of American society. It seems nothing is ever satisfactory. Everyday their paranoid delusion searches for something new to whine about supposedly related to women’s rights. Liberal feminists have transformed the word feminism into an epithet that is now quite naturally spit out of the mouth, conjuring up images of broken up fetuses and angry wicked-witch-of-the-west women on TV screaming about some eminently forgettable thing or another. Feminists have simply become caricatures of themselves.as
• Minor liberal subgroups
Secularism is another liberal paranoid delusion, the fear of religion – a sort of religiophobia. Environmentalism is where the western communist movement has evolved since the 1960s – the classic watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside (again more paranoid delusion). Euro-socialism is only one example of statism. Japan is also a nanny state, along with recent converts, Great Britain and the U.S.A. Sadly, my own country of Canada is a well established liberal, nanny state. Animal rights groups tend to parallel environmentalism. Anti-war groups blow with the wind. When there is a Republican President all wars are bad. When there is a Democratic President, most wars are not so bad.
All of the liberal subgroups unite in their desire for utopia as coerced by the state through the fears of their various paranoid delusions. Though claiming to be the defenders of liberty, practically everything they espouse and do diminishes it.at
Whereas liberalism is the implementation of incremental utopian goals in generally free societies through co-opting governing mechanisms of control, authoritarianism is control at the point of a gun where utopia has been achieved – at least in the minds of those in control. The state retains control over all rights. Individual liberty is minimized. Outright tyranny is the norm. Slavery, whether to individual elites or to the government is not uncommon to totalitarian regimes, and abortion is universal except under some theocratic rule. Religions are often persecuted. Mass murder and political persecution are norms. Communists especially have employed anarchy to mass murder their own citizens, often by the millions.
Quick question, American neighbor: Where in America’s founding documents is the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”? Of course, the answer is nowhere. This is the maxim of Marxism. It is exactly the opposite of what America stands for: Rugged individualism and an entrepreneurial spirit, minimal government, personal responsibility, equality, charity, liberty. But considering that the American educational system is based on liberal indoctrination it is not surprising that 42% of Americans actually believe the above quoted foundational doctrine of Marxism is supposedly from an American lexicon. [*2ugaotw] No wonder liberals are so sympathetic to big government style Marxism and hate American traditions. What do you think Barack Obama meant when he told Joe the plumber that “it’s good for everybody” to “spread the wealth around”. This is Marxism disguised in conversational language. Obviously Barack Obama is a shining example of America’s public education system – and an adversary of almost everything the founders envisioned for America.
Authoritarianism is antithetical to liberty, but only by degree more so than liberalism. It is often the result of utopianism taken to its end result. Ask any despot and they’ll tell you their country is utopia, or the closest thing to it.au
• Nihilism/terrorism, anarchism & minimalism
Nihilism is an emotional response of civil disorder displayed as riots where one destroys one’s own neighborhood. An example of this would be the L.A.-Rodney King riot. In transitional societies it has often been utilized by desirous authoritarians, who entice and welcome nihilism as an opportune tool to position themselves as saviors of an out-of-control society. Other descriptive words associated with nihilism are oppression, insurrection, lawlessness, disorder, turmoil, discord, disarray and pandemonium. It is not really an ideology, but more of a psychopathology, always transformational, often leading to authoritative crackdowns or even war. Nihilists are often love/haters. They tell themselves they love something, and they hate with a passion whatever they see as opposition to what they imagine they love. In America this is often a natural extension of liberalism with their pseudo-love/hate for America and its traditions. Terrorism is a branch of nihilism in that it embraces total ruination and chaos, and can include self-destruction, whether personal, or of one’s surrounding neighborhood or country (think Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik). But it may also be separate from nihilism when used as a calculated strategy of insurgency. Then, it is simply war.
Like libertarianism there are many flavors of anarchism. We’ll touch on four types of anarchism that are pertinent here. One, like nihilism, is also a transitional phase of psychopathology in a period between governing authorities as when a country is embroiled in war and citizens are in turmoil with little organization, or it may be an unorganized opposition making a statement, like car burnings in Paris, or it could also be semi-organized mayhem with little coherence of the actual problems supposedly being protested, as with the Occupy Wall Street protests, but unlike nihilism or terrorism it is not deliberately self-destroying. At Left Forum 2012, a mingling of various leftwing groups, Michael Moore says, “Thank God for the anarchists”, referring to the Occupy Wall Street protestors, to the cheers of those in attendance. [7nmltem]
The second anarchism is a type of ideology, usually embracing the realm of conspiracy theorists and often complete rejection of the establishment, including laws and institutions, and often religions. Contemporary anarchists are usually frustrated extreme liberals and statists who have concluded that civilized reform has failed and so they resort to a counterculture lifestyle that often results in political violence. To find these kinds of anarchists check out any G8 meeting – they’ll be the ones throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the police and smashing store windows. These types of anarchists are often associated with collectives and communal living of sorts, and libertinism.
Our third type of anarchism parallels John Dewey’s utopia in many ways, where government becomes unnecessary and society is supposed to be a workers’ paradise. Noam Chomsky, quoted in essay #4, calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist.
The fourth kind of anarchism is not an ideology, but a deliberate political strategy of calculated tyranny to produce political chaos, often imposed through the application of intimidation and crisis peddling for the purpose of enforcing desired political and societal goals. Authoritarians repeatedly employ anarchy or more specifically chaos as a political strategy. This is done through hyping some societal fear or crisis and using intimidation to silence critics. The political chaos strategy and crisis engineering are based on the use of tyrannical intimidation and crisis fear tactics to override laws, civil rights and individual liberties. This is a prime example of this liberal principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Essentially, to overcome voter resistance, chaos through crisis engineering is used as a strategy directed at emotional hot button responses to prevent any critical analysis and facts from producing doubts in their proposed expansion or maintenance of their control. The Wisconsin union protests of 2011 were an example of crisis engineering to divert public attention from their adverse effect on the state budget and economy with the result of almost eight million dollars worth of damage to the capitol building. Global warming is another example where opposition is characterized as of evil motivation, not based on reasoned debate.
In order to fully comprehend our ideological scale we must understand the contemporary relationships between nihilism, anarchism and minimalism which on face value may seem to overlap. However, here is how they place on our scale:
Nihilism – Anarchism ……………………… – Center – ………… Minimalism
What we need to understand most is that nihilism and anarchy are extreme leftwing ideologies and strategies, opposed to civil rights and liberties, while minimalism is the epitome of civil rights and liberties.av
• The ideological evolution of America
Of course, our ideological scale is mostly contemporary, so it can only be a loose measure of the ideological evolution of America from its founding to the present but, nevertheless, it can be used to poignantly illustrate the development of the country throughout the centuries.
Step 1: The United States of America is a constitutional state. [*4s8wmth] It is the most unique country in the world, where the founding documents on which the legal and moral framework of the state is presented as limitations on the ruling class – the government. To ensure maximum liberty the U.S. Constitution assumes complete freedom first and then allows by definition certain, selective and limited government controls. (This is the opposite of liberalism which presumes governing sovereignty first and demands that any opposition find constitutional contrast second – and then claims a “living constitution” can effectively be ignored anyway – as explained in the previous essay.) The Constitution restricts governing reach by limiting what the government is allowed to control. At the founding of the country America’s ideology could be described as being as close to ideal minimalism as could be practical. The federal government actually had very little control. The states were the real powers.
Step 2: With the industrial age came an unprecedented interconnectedness throughout the country and a ramping up of federal regulations and laws, modernization and civility. The wild west became civilized and governed. Basic rule of law manifested itself throughout the continental U.S.A. This represents an ideological shift to classical liberalism on our ideology scale.
Step 3: The progressivism at the turn of twentieth century began a dabbling with big government. The Roaring Twenties temporarily shifted the country back to classical liberalism, but with the New Deal of the Great Depression era, came the birth and establishment of big government, and the ideology of the nation stepped over the center tipping point of our scale. For the first time the state became the driving force in American society as it directly deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. Fascism was directly incorporated into the governing style, producing a progressive-fascism. Many supposed relief programs and other policies like protectionist trade were enacted, but later, during the war, were thankfully dismantled. Social Security is the most notable program that has survived. But more importantly, the precedent was set for government manipulation and interference in the American economy and society even though it proved to be a complete disaster, extending a three year recession into a fifteen year depression. This was the beginning of the end of true classical liberalism as the predominant governing ideology in America. What has grown into contemporary liberalism was given birth with Hooverism and FDRHoover’s extrapolated New Deal, Dirty Thirties.
Step 4: The sixties brought the Great Society. It took the New Deal’s precedence of government manipulation and interference and ran with it. Hoover’s and FDRHoover’s dreams of progressive-fascism in America had been cut short in the early 1940s. The New Deal was put on hold. It was rebirthed as liberalism in the mid 1960s as the Great Society. Intrusionist government again went from a part time position in the proverbial stock room, to a seat at the White House cabinet room table. Many domestic programs were introduced and the welfare state made its entry into American society. The most notable programs entrenched were welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps (all of them are currently bankrupting the country). Contemporary liberalism was on its way to becoming the predominant governing ideology in America.
Step 5: In late 2008 a major shift in government control was initiated with the financial crisis/housing bubble bust and subsequent election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, a liberal with a long history of supporting statist ideals and progressive-fascist tactics. For the first time since the Great Depression the government positioned itself as a savior of the economy. Prior to this some recessions had prompted a moderate amount of government meddling in the economy, but the response to the 2008 crisis dwarfed any previous interventions. American society then truly matched contemporary liberalism on our ideological scale, and with the Obama administration it was taking the next step into full-blown liberal statism with its legalized economic, moral and constitutional corruption. The crisis engineering strategy of intimidation and scare mongering came into full implementation. Modern corporatism was expanded to an exponential degree. This was all evidenced by a liberal government that executed its own narrow agenda while ignoring the will of the people and the restrictions of the Constitution. This led to the 2010 “shellacking” of Obama’s agenda and the Democratic party as a whole. With the advent of the Tea Party we will see if this new movement to the right can be sustained and will produce real conservative results (so far it has within the Republican Party and at the ballot box in 2010).
America was built from the bottom up, but is now run from the top down. It was founded based on a freedom from government control, but an increasingly contemporary liberalization of American society has reversed the founders’ purpose so that now the government rewards its chosen winners (favorable Wall Street banks, Google, GE, unions, lawyers, green industries), and punishes its chosen enemies (big oil, big coal, big pharma, the health insurance industry), and is manipulated by corrupt, agenda driven NGO power groups and sugar daddies like George Soros and Hollywood elites.
It is easy to see, American neighbor, that America is on a slippery slope away from what America was created to be. It can probably be argued that in the early years of the country a move toward (not to) the middle of the spectrum from the original minimalism was an inevitable and somewhat desirable outcome as America became a more dynamic and modernized country embodying a more centralized government with more reach necessary to prevent a breakup of the union. However, the step over the center tipping point has placed the country in a directly contradictory position to that of the founders. There is no doubt that today’s contemporary liberalism is a progressive-fascist corruption of the founding fathers’ vision for America. And this is not just my conclusion. 77% of Democrats, 81% of independents, and 92% of Republicans disagree with the current direction of the country away from the Founders’ vision. [yzv25tj]aw
• Ideological walls
The above chart loosely measures the extent of liberalism and conservatism reflected by party votes over the years. Above the zero line indicates the equivalent of more contemporary conservatism (individual liberty) and below equals the equivalent of more contemporary liberalism (collectivism). Republicans have become more conservative since Reagan became President, and Democrats have become more liberal since WWII.
There are basically two ways to govern a society. One is to administer a society. The other is to rule a society. Can you distinguish the difference between the two, American neighbor? An administering government has as its prerequisite view to interfere as little as necessary to maintain order in what it sees as a civil society. A ruling government has as its prerequisite view to coerce a ‘proper’ order from disorder in what it sees as an uncivilized society. One administers from the right side of the center tipping point. One rules from the left side of the center tipping point. Conservatism is about administering society. Liberalism is about ruling society. Here, let me give you a metaphoric example to illustrate the difference.
Walls are a good representation of a government’s intentions. The West Bank wall in Israel was erected to keep terrorists out. This was an administrative move to preserve the civil society within Israel from attack from without. The Israelis see themselves as a civil society threatened by those who would damage that civility from the outside. This is how contemporary conservatism views the governing of a society – the enemy is without. Whereas the Berlin Wall was erected between the two Germanys shortly after the Second World War to ‘civilize’ what the government of East Germany viewed as an uncivil society within, that given its choice would leave and migrate to a free West Germany. The East German government did not trust its own citizens to make ‘proper’ choices, so it imposed its own choices on them. Anyone who disagreed and attempted to cross over to the West was shot on sight. This is how the left, which includes contemporary liberalism, views the governing of a society – the enemy is within. The contemporary liberal views his own society as uncivilized and only civilizable through coercive government action. So walls must be erected to this effect.
This is why conservatives are proud of America and liberals are ashamed of America. Conservatives view America as civilized. Liberals view America as yet needing to be civilized (the process of achieving utopia). When you have a conservative President like Ronald Reagan he describes America as a “shining city on a hill”, but when you have a liberal President like Barack Obama, he goes around the world apologizing for America. Reagan saw his job as President to lead America by removing interior walls like overbearing taxation and regulation, and erecting exterior walls like a strengthened military to defend and defeat the enemies without. Barack Obama sees his job as President to rule over America to ‘fix’ its supposed uncivilized deficiencies by erecting walls within like Obamacare, increasing taxation and regulation, and sicking the IRS on the Tea Party, whether Americans want them ‘fixed’ or not. Obama also believes in tearing down walls that protect America from enemies without, by forgiving illegal immigrants, by giving terrorists Miranda rights, and by implementing highly restrictive rules of engagement in war, often leading to frivolous prosecutions against America’s own armed forces who are heroically defending their country.
Remember, liberalism is a form of compulsive paranoid delusion. Interior walls are a method of attempting to mitigate that paranoia. Liberals don’t always declare that they are fearful and ashamed of what America stands for (well sometimes they do), but their actions scream louder than their words. Liberals are forever erecting walls to fight the enemy within which they see as an uncivilized society in need of civilizing, and thus they create incivility through the controls they implement. Who are the enemies – the targets of their paranoia? Those who are not educated by their government-run public education are enemies, so financial and regulatory walls are built to force even those who do not wish to participate in public education to send their children to public schools and financially support them anyway. Workers are walled in by being forced to join unions and pay dues that is then used to support the same politicians that erect the walls that enclose them. Whatever is beyond the rulers’ control they wish to have control of – like healthcare. The first wall is government healthcare for the elderly with Medicare. The next wall is government healthcare for the poor with Medicaid. Next is a wall of regulation defining what insurance companies must insure even if those needing insurance don’t desire it. Another wall is erected to disallow competition by restricting which insurance companies can operate in which states. Liberalism attempts to ram government-run healthcare through Congress to erect a wall against the private healthcare despite that 89% of the American people liked the healthcare they receive without additional government interference. [mxhd99] Of course, the ultimate healthcare wall for liberal rulers is when everyone is forced to participate in a universal government healthcare system where all choice has been removed – the end goal of liberals. We could go on with so-called environmental protections used as excuses to erect more walls. Commerce regulations build walls that stifle business. Almost any issue can be recognized by whether it builds interior walls that restrict and remove liberties, or strengthens exterior walls that preserve and strengthen the liberties within.ax
• The maze of liberalism
Today’s liberal politicians have as a goal to change the balance of control between voters and government. The Constitution was created to make politicians dependant and fearful of voters. Liberals are attempting to reverse this and make voters dependant and fearful of government by exerting more and more walls of control over society and individuals. In 2009-10 liberals were in control and felt invincible – a very dangerous thing for the country. Better that the government always has a reserve of fear for the wishes of the electorate. That fear keeps limits on those who govern. Without fear those who govern become insufferable and intoxicated with power. That was the state under the 44th President with a parallel majority in both branches of Congress. Liberals have pushed government control and spending to a point that is unsustainable. Corruption is entrenched. Surely America will reap the unintended consequences of this rampant liberalism far into the future, even as it is doing so now with the current malaise resulting from the financial crisis and housing boom implosion. The government’s ham-fisted intention of taking advantage of the situation to implement its desired liberal agenda (“you never want a serious crisis to go to waste”) despite that it is inevitably prolonging this Obama Malaise, just illustrates that liberals learned nothing from their forbearers who implemented the same ‘solutions’ during the Great Depression with disastrous results (more in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?).
How is a resort or a secure community built? They are surrounded by secure exterior walls that preserve the quality of life within. But how is a maze devised? It is an endless building of interior walls that limit a person’s liberty at every turn. Liberalism is furiously erecting a maze in America where every turn and corridor eventually leads to government regulation and dependence. This is not how one directs one’s own life, American neighbor. Liberalism is about others directing your life, walling you in at every turn. Only by demolishing interior walls and focusing on building and maintaining exterior walls can a secure American Dream resort be built for everyone.ay
• Individualist versus collectivist
Like a spider phobia liberalism resides in the subliminal belief system. And like an irrational fear of spiders liberalism is a phobia. Liberalism is a fear of seeing oneself as an individual. A liberal can never be sure as an individual what new pairs of lines they should view as equal and what new pairs as unequal. You see, American neighbor, it is not their individual decision to make. It is the collaborators’ decision, which are otherwise known as the collective. To make that decision for them self would be to act apart from the collective and as an individual. This is a strict no-no. So a liberal must be ever subconsciously looking back over their shoulder to be sure of what the collective says they should believe about anything new. Or old. Something under a Republican President might be considered negative, but for political expediency’s sake, become positive under a Democratic President (that double standards thingy). The liberal must always be aware of the two lines the alphas are portraying as equal today – they may not be the same as yesterday’s – or tomorrow’s.
The liberal is a collectivist and the conservative is an individualist, but we are all naturally born as individualists. Collectivists are then developed through societal programming from people who would have otherwise naturally become individualists. By extension liberalism develops into the fear of liberty – a fear of individualism (paranoia). It is the fear of being isolated. It is the fear of living as an individual. Liberty is about the freedom to choose and make decisions for oneself. Liberty is anathema to the collective, because the collaborators make the decisions for the collective, not individuals for themselves. Utopia is when there will be one all-embracing collective. Because the self-interest of individuals threatens the collectivism of utopia, individualism is viewed as evil.
This directly relates to the difference between self-interest and groupthink. The individualist quite naturally lives his life based in major part on his self-interest, and also practices his politics based on his self-interest, thus deciding what would be best for himself and the country. The collectivist abandons his self-interest for the greed of groupthink, allowing the collaborators to make his political decisions for him. This can produce an interesting dichotomy between conscious beliefs and subliminal beliefs that results in an American citizenry that overwhelmingly polls conservative or moderate, but often contradictorily lives and votes liberal. [ycvapqh] Many Americans poll conservative or moderate more so than liberal because they answer the polling question with their conscious belief system. They consciously and rationally see themselves as conservatives in favor of liberty of individual rights, or at as least moderates. But then, they live their lives as an automaton through their programmed subliminal belief system often in a direct contradiction to their own stated ideology. This is their conditioned liberalism covertly at work in their little daily decisions. This explains how many confessed conservatives and moderates often vote and live by liberal principles. It also explains how after voting liberal some Americans may then oppose specific liberal legislation once their conscious belief system is engaged. This is true for those of all political persuasions, whether Democrats, Republicans or Independents. Americans, in their conscious belief systems overwhelmingly know that conservatism is preferable to liberalism, but their subliminal belief system is still so petrified of spiders that they live their lives to avoid them every day. This is how a liberal can affirmatively answer our essay #1 question that they would prefer to have the freedom to direct their own life, but then live their whole life incrementally giving up their freedoms to liberalism and the walls it erects around them.az
• Deprogramming lessons
Liberals embrace the noble lie principle in regard to liberty, American neighbor: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. They actually believe that liberalism stands for liberty, but we have seen just the opposite. This is a result of the conditioning principle: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. They believe in big government intervention and manipulation – progressive-fascism: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. These views are a result of a fear that without coercion society can’t reach utopia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. The liberty of self-interest is antithetical to liberalism: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. It is the paranoia of liberalism that leads to a ruling attitude to force utopia on the nation: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.
Now we have a picture of how various contemporary ideologies line up. On the extreme left is a complete lack of civilized governance, rights and liberties, supplanted by a ruling attitude of elites-know-best, erecting interior walls of a statist maze. As one moves to the right a civil, free society of primarily self-governance becomes more prevalent until one reaches the minimalism of conservatism, which ironic to its name, equals maximum of civil rights and liberties combined with a minimal but civilized administration. Which do you prefer, American neighbor? Oh yeah – you answered that in essay #1. You said you wanted the freedom to make your own decisions in directing your life. No maze for you. So again, please answer our MCTE question from above: “Would a society based on the ideology of individualism or collectivism allow you more freedom to direct your own life?” No-brainer – huh?ba
• Deprogramming exercise
Although a little dated and limited in the ideological definition of anarchy, this video is still very worth watching: [*yd52mm2]
• Humor, sort-of
Again from my “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file under the banner of: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. Funny headline about president Ronald Reagan’s one hundredth birthday:
~NBC’s Andrea Mitchell accuses GOP of misappropriating Ronald Reagan to push conservative politics~ [45yyrfm]
And the quote that provoked it is just as humorous:
~ “People are trying – Republicans in particular, obviously trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes now.”~
Those damn conservative Republicans! Imagine trying to “appropriate” a former conservative, Republican President. Is nothing sacred?