Liberalism and why I despise it

I despise liberalism, which isn't to say I am on the "other side," because I am most certainly not. Anyone who has known me for any length of time, even over the internet, knows that I do not vote or align myself with any political movement or party. Most people are stuck in a black and white mindset, so they think if you criticize one side, you must automatically be in favor of the other. Aside from being a nihilist, I am also an ideological anarchist, though I never refer to myself as such because that is a label that has been twisted and misconstrued over time as well. In its purest definition, anarchy simply means no government. Because I sometimes call myself an anarchist, doesn't mean that I actively champion anarchism or think that it would work in reality, because I don't think that at all. People have been made too dependent on the system (their controllers), and chaos would no doubt ensue if anarchy ever became a reality. But the relationship between the people and government is akin to a wife and her abusive husband, where she returns to that person time and time again, despite the abuse, because she has become dependent on that person for whatever reason it might be.

I simply do not support any form of government, and I would not care for a minute if government was to be dissolved or topple inward on itself, which I feel needs to happen. At this point I am completely in favor of everything falling apart, because this current system has nothing of use to offer anyone, though many have been conditioned to believe that it does through media and the educational system.

The reason I have a problem with liberalism and its various forms, more than any other political belief system, is because liberals believe the solution to social, economic and cultural problems is more government to deal with those problems. What liberals do not understand is that governments create problems to justify increasing in size and scope while holding on to their perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the public, taking people's freedom and wealth in the process, until you are basically left with a totalitarian nanny state, which is close to what we have today though it masquerades under the hollow veneer of so-called democracy, which is a ruse.

I never hear liberals address real issues like the monetary system and how it creates money out of nothing, while charging interest on fiat as a way of keeping people and entire nations in debt (enslaving them) to a private international cabal which control the militaries and governments of the world. Instead, liberals play into exactly what the power structure wants and needs to feed itself and grow, but not for the betterment of anyone or anything but itself as a vehicle of controlling the masses. Because liberals do not understand how the system works, they always buy into false solutions which often sound good and wholesome at face value, but are often anything but that. Hence the reason we have arrived at where we are today, and there is no other solution than for the system to topple on itself.

 

Absofuckinglutely!

 

in all fairness the terms liberal and conservative are both essentially meaningless in today's political world as they are both used to express a believe in certain hot topic wedge issues used by the powers that be to divide and conquer.

Liberalism was originally a term referring to those who wanted to change the status quo, believed in advancement and saw the benefits of consistent political change. I don't think any element of government believes or advocates this anymore. True liberals don't exist anymore. The same can be said of conservatives, actually.

 

Would Libertarians be an example then of true Liberals?

 

it would probably come the closest, although all political parties run the danger of stagnation whereas constant change is the fundamental tenet of liberalism, in its historical context at least.

 

The reason that this topic is impossible to discuss is because the meaning of the word 'liberal' is different in pretty much every society.

 

In all fairness...I don't see liberals or conservatives addressing anything like debt slavery, bank cartels, etc. Maybe Elizabeth Warren and and small handful of others have dared to bring those topics up but not many others from either party. I could think of quite a few things that piss me off about both parties and neither party has the spine to do anything about them. They just divide and conquer.

 

Rat my old mate

From our long discussions in the past, I (and other who talked to you) finally came to the conclusion that your right wing ideas had come about because of your belief in various conspiracy theories (at the time it was Lucifer worshippers taking over the world but maybe it is something different now).

That was the problem whenever people started asking questions or put up criticisms in the end it was clear that your views were not based in the rational but on the modern myths of conspiracy, any 'debate' went quickly down the rabbit hole to sup with the mad hatter.

LOL well we on the left know that some on the right (especially the right wing libertarians) like to keep shouting this, but it is a slogan and usually followed by something about freedom and taxation…

There you go.

 

It seems you have reading comprehension issues. Go back and reread his post because as it stands now the rest of what you say is not worth reading.

I mean, a grade school student would most likely be able to understand his point and would not make the mistake of coming to the conclusion you have...Did you let a struggling grade school student take control of your account??

No. I think it is just you who has the obviously glaring lack of reading comprehension skills...at least I hope so....

Never too late to go back to school .

 

It is not just him...

 

He is talking about some of Rat's ideas, not Rat himself or his overall ideology or affiliation by definition. Perhaps he did mean PR's ideology as a whole but I can't conclude that in above post. You can?

 

I'll post on this thread later.

 

you do know that he believes that there is some relationship between you, Piers Morgan, and the act of fellatio, don't you?

 

I agree on the main topic... that liberal policy is self-contradictory. While claiming they want freedom and justice, they grow the government whose sole power is to limit freedom and eventually creates it's own form of injustice.

I completely disagree with the idea of anarchy... it's a temporary state where the strong will seize power. And history has taught us that this usually ends very badly. So, you need a minimalist government to prevent that if nothing else.

Another poster mentioned that neither liberals or conservatives are doing anything about "debt slavery." If you're referring to credit and loans, that's a voluntary transaction people enter into... hardly anything like slavery. If you don't like it, don't participate. If poster was referring to the national debt, he's half right. The republican party used a government shutdown to force Clinton to take a balanced budget and many of the elected officials and even more of their voters continue to push for fiscal constraint... that's the bulk of the tea party/libertarian/constitution/conservative platform. On the other hand, liberals/democrats/leftists/statists continue to increase debt at higher rates than their opponents. Further, when pushed, they don't consider debt, a balanced budget, fiscal constraint, inflation, printing money, etc of any importance, often mocking those issues.

To another poster who complained about "equal opportunity" meaning everyone needs a free education. If your idea of equal opportunity is having someone else pay your way, then you must see the world as a really unfair place. Equal opportunity doesn't mean everyone gets a big flatscreen tv... it means they have the choice to go out there and EARN it. They can invest their earnings in education, a business, land... or they can throw it away on consumables. Just because someone else has access to more money, doesn't mean that someone took away your opportunity.

 

I agree. This is why I stated that I only support anarchy in theory.

 

Ah, I missed that distinction. Still... not sure how someone can support something in theory that they can't support in practice. For me, that would indicate that my theory was flawed, incomplete, or impossible.

 

It's impossible in light of things as they currently stand. It has to do with the dependency the system has created over time, and the chaos that would ensue if government was to be suddenly eliminated. That is the primary reason why anarchy would not work. Still, the idea of no government sounds nice to me, considering that governments throughout history have only served to control the population while making people believe they're somehow necessary for their survival.

 

It means that ideally he would like to see real Anarchy, but also understands that in this society it just isn't plausible. In a perfect world maybe...

 

Correct.

 

I feel the same way about the standard Libertarian platform. Although I consider myself a Libertarian and support almost all of their ideas , I also see the flaws they have when it comes to implementation. There are a few things about it that seems to indicate a fantasy. In a perfect world it would work great, but this world is far from perfect.

I can already hear Balbus saying something like "but if you see the flaws in their ideology why do you still support it?"

The answer to that is the wonders of a mixed government.