Not even close
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
They are liberal, by definition. They are liberal because their most important value is *individual freedom*. Freedom for an individual also means open borders (because an individual needs to be free to live where he wants). It also means child trannies, because in their mind even a child should have the freedom to take hormones. It means that for them a nigger should be able to marry a White woman, because again, it's all about the *individual* choices.
They of course want to persecute those who oppose individual freedom, which is not a contradiction at all, as theorized by (((Karl Popper))).
Republicans are also liberals, because individual freedom is their most important value too. They are just less extreme because they compromise individual freedom for homos and foreigners, but their ideological foundation is identical. This is why the Republicans have been losing since the 19th century: because they are just a milquetoast version of the Democrats.
That's one of the reasons for which I consider 'national libertarianism' or 'libertarian nationalism' to be nonsensical and intellectually indefensible. Anything less than the universal is only defensible through a rejection of freedom: if we fail to eliminate this value from our belief systems, the universal (one global government, one mixed race, one global economy, etc.) actually becomes inevitable.
There is also the equalitarian aspect: equality for an individual also seems to necessitate open borders, because an individual's equality can be construed as deficient in some way if he cannot live where he wants. Liberals, unlike Leftists, do arbitrarily defend economic inequality, and so they will not insist that the poor should be free to live in wealthy neighbourhoods. But they will never again defend most other forms of inequality, such as the racial inequality that keeping racial others out of any particular place necessitates ('positive discrimination' aside). It isn't possible to maintain indefinitely the liberal nationalism that, for instance, White Australia was governed by for sixty or so years, because people will eventually realize that contradictions exist between liberalism and nationalism, which in Australia eventually led to liberalism's absolute triumph.
So the Democrats (and Republicans) are arriving at the same destination, the universal, by means of two paths.
> [Republicans] are just less extreme because they compromise individual freedom for homos and foreigners
As you are aware, Republicans are today more arbitrary and less dogmatic than Democrats. The arbitrary boundaries that they (and many Democrats) still defend, such as the notion of freedom *except* if you're an illegal immigrant, will eventually wither away if we continue on this path. The 5,000,000-40,000,000 illegal immigrants in America figure is actually an excellent achievement from the perspective of he who defends an as absolute and purified form of freedom as humanly possible, because it demonstrates that one of the last remaining obstructions on the road to its realization - America's national borders - is being defeated.
This is also why Leftists and liberals hated The Wall so vehemently. The Wall represented yet another attempt to place an arbitrary roadblock on the road to the realization of an as absolute and purified form of freedom as humanly possible. America had almost realized globalization in all but name, only for enough people who are less dogmatic about freedom to suddenly elect Trump who then proceeded to put up a few, feeble last-ditch defences to stop it, such as scuttling the Trans Pacific Partnership, and, of course, The Wall. Walls are anti-freedom: they close rather than open; they are opaque rather than transparent.
This is why I think it is logically incoherent that Leftists and liberals still live behind walls in their personal lives: keeping people out of their own homes ultimately represents yet another arbitrary constraint on freedom. If they were free from contradictions, which they are not, they would extrapolate their views of The Wall to their own walls and insist that they also be torn down. But the (true) Right is free from contradictions: we extrapolate our views of our own walls to The Wall. They are thus contradictorily pro-wall but anti-The Wall. We are thus non-contradictorily pro-wall and pro-The Wall.
As for Vlad's response, he does mention things some of which have made me rethink liberalism's relation to freedom in the past. My response is that liberals often also use harm avoidance (most notably, J. S. Mill) as a heuristic. The idiots all thought that Covid would cause immense harm (even though, anecdotally, only one person that I personally know well 'got Covid', and he, suspiciously, also happened to be one of the few who were vaccinated, and Covid was completely overblown in hindsight), so abrogating the following: freedom from mask mandates, freedom of bodily autonomy (e.g. freedom from vaccine mandates), and freedom to own a firearm, are not necessarily incongruent with liberalism.
They probably also thought in terms of conflicting freedoms: for instance, if we aimed for total elimination, it seems like we could either vaccinate everyone or have indefinite lockdowns. Thus freedom of bodily autonomy, such as freedom from vaccine mandates, collided with something that they saw as more important, such as freedom of movement or freedom to travel.
One also has to keep in mind that these people are flagrantly materialistic. After all, liberal democracy and 'capitalism' are often thought of as the political and economic counterparts of each other (e.g. in the works of the Leftist Marx and the liberal Fukuyama). (Of course, there are also tensions between liberalism and democracy, *a la* Schmitt, which we won't go into here.) Vaccinating everyone probably seemed to them to be economically more viable than indefinite lockdowns, which many liberals argued would 'crash' or 'destroy' their beloved economy. In conclusion, they could have thought of it in at least three ways: in terms of harm avoidance versus freedom, in terms of conflicting freedoms, and in terms of material well-being versus freedom. Pair all that with panic and uncertainty and it's easy to see why everything that they did at the time of Covid was extreme and unhinged. We were just lucky that we weren't facing something like the Spanish Flu, which would have caused incredible damage if these imbeciles and manchildren were running the world coeval with its rise.
In the end, total elimination completely failed and the Russo-Ukrainian War came along, which was more important to both Leftists and liberals. We now had an imagined Far-Right threat to defeat, a crusade against the Far-Right to be won. Covid alarmism thankfully died around that time. Other than the brief surge of interest that accompanies each new strain of Covid, everyone largely came to accept whatever Covid is as a basic fact of life.
Of course, it was actually freedom and equality that gave the world Covid. You might remember that when the Trump Administration first began placing travel bans on several countries, that the mass media decried it as 'racist'. They insisted that Covid wasn't serious and that it was being used as an excuse for racism. Kamala was the anti-vaxxer, saying that she would not take 'Trump's vaccine' that was being 'rushed' in time for the election so that Trump would look to be America's saviour from Covid.
But Biden's election was like flipping a switch in Leftists and liberals from Covid scepticism to Covid alarmism: all of a sudden, Covid was going to wipe out humanity, anti-vaxxers were all 'Far-Right', not wearing a mask was to be an 'attempted murderer'. The world descended into a Covid-induced insanity. I vaguely recall that there was even such as a crazy thing as 'hug a Chinese' at the time. Of course, due to similar clashes between freedom and equality we all remember that Covid alarmism left the George Floyd protests untouched. Social distancing was compulsory until the moment you joined Antifa or BLM. Why? Because the cause of racial equality overrode Covid alarmism.
These two values, freedom and equality, are a disease upon the late-modern world. Practically every evil of today is justified by them; even worse, practically every evil that could ever be can be justified by them, and practically every evil that will ever be will be justified by them.
Liberalism requires the idea of equality, as the liberal imagines that a high or extreme degree of individual liberty will bring the best outcome. This is why the opinion of a 18 year old girl who wants to cut off her tits is considered of equal worth as the opinion of her father who tells her that this is insane.
Interestingly, libertarianism is also based on equality. While classical liberals (like Hayek, for example) happily concede the idea of the government providing a safety net (knowing that *someone* will need it), the libertarian believes that every individual can make the best choices for themselves and therefore any social policy is unnecessary. The libertarian believes that anyone can plan for his private healthcare, for example, or be free from addictions. Therefore every individual is endowed with the same degree of critical thinking and prudence that the libertarian himself has.
Right wingers, on the other hand, know very well that most people are not able to take care of themselves and therefore power and control over individuals for their own good is necessary.
Freedom to wear a mask? Nope
Freedom to choose to get the poison shot or not? Nope
Freedom to buy your own health insurance if you want to? Nope. Obamacare. Forced.
Free to own a firearm if you want to? Nope
Democrats are largely the marxist faction of jews. They believe in collectivism. Really they just believe in what the jew tells them but this sect of jew bullshitters lead them on about the working people and collectivist bullshit. Such as Bernie Sanders. Definitely not "liberal" in the classic definition of the word that you cite.
The closest thing to a LIBERAL according to your definition is a Ron Paul libertarian.
I really do believe it is inappropriate and misuse of language to call modern American Democrats Liberals. What do the rest of you guys think?
Other than that, it's mostly about taxing the rich, banning guns, oppressing white right wing extremism, etc.
They don't even market themselves as "liberals" and I might argue that actually Republicans call Democrats "liberal" more than i hear Democrats refer to themselves as this. It's all misuse of language. I make mistakes sometimes and misuse language. I correct myself when i can. I suggest we stop calling democrats "liberals"
It's not the only word that jews hijack and change the definition of. Go look up "Marriage" in an old dictionary. It will specifically state that it is a partnership between a man and a woman. Jews changed that in new dictionaries. You could go word by word and study how jews have gradually tried to hijack and change and destroy our language.
You should really rethink your definition of "collectivism" is you think that. *We* believe in collectivism because we believe in an interest which is not just the sum of all our individual interests: the survival of the White race and of our culture in a historical context.
Liberals believe exclusively in *individual* freedom and they don't recognize any other value. Their impositions are all motivated by the need to preserve the *individual* well being of individuals (especially themselves!). They tell you to wear a mask and get vaxxed and don't own a gun because they think that you are a danger to other people if you don't, therefore you violate *other people's* individual freedom and safety. There is no contradiction in their thinking. You can argue against them on facts (e.g. vax causes more harm than good, guns save more lives in self-defense, etc.) but their ideological reasoning is sound and consistent.
The reason we on this forum are not liberals is because we put other values as more important than individual freedom: primarily, the survival of the White race.
As to your question, perhaps the most appropriate term for the Democrats of today is **progressive**. This is because on top of the liberalism which I explained, they also push for other things such as the promotion of niggers and faggots above and behind what mere liberalism would achieve.
You may have arguments why you disagree with individualism. I'm not here to argue against your criticism of individualism. That might be a debate for another day.
What I am arguing is that Democrats do not fit the definition of individualists. The collectivist welfare policies, for example, are not individualist. The way they identify racial minorities is a collectivist attitude toward these races of people. They don't see sodomites as individuals, but a collective group of sodomites that they must protect as a whole. And for reasons previously stated i do not believe they are liberal in the sense that they believe in individual freedom. The only personal freedom they advocate is for white women to kill their own babies without the permission of the father or anyone else. And this is only because kikes have ulterior motives to sabotage the White race and White civilization as a whole and sacrifice babies to their father the devil.
I'd also disagree with the notion that Democrats are best described as "progressives." Depends on what your definition of "progressive" means. Most misconstrue it as meaning "progress" or the abandonment of tradition or cultural norms to evolve or progress with changing circumstances. But progressivism leads to the decline of civilization so I think it is dishonest to call that "progress." If progressivism preceded the climax or height of civilization then perhaps you could call it progress. But progressivism, as i see it, seems to precede the downfall of civilization. But i haven't given you a good definition for us to have a good debate on it.