Classical and neo liberalism are not the same so when one is talking about liberalism they should specify the one they mean
In this thread both types being discussed as if they were actually the same when they are entirely different from each other
Jakob and James are talking about neo liberalism while WW III and Peter are talking about classical liberalism
I am a classical liberal not a neo liberal and see nothing in common between them at all hence the distinction
Of course the mode of operation of the hypnotic subterfuge of the masses has been that of staying hidden, far out of eye sight while pretending, scapegoating, that all is that other guy’s fault, “We are here only to protect the innocent from those evil men”. But despite attempts to be totally hidden and quite, unavoidably blatant evidence eventually rises;
“Hate Speech” laws to protect your freedom of speech. “Hate Crime” laws to protect your freedom to act. Forced racial bias hiring policies to protect against racial bias. Media and films maximally inundated with racist and gender propaganda in order to prevent racist and gender propaganda.
“We are here to liberate you from your freedoms.”
The mentally ill cannot detect their own arrogant rational fallacies. They are too busy blindly hating.
And that is what actually, really does qualify them as truly mentally incompetent, disturbed, delusional, and true sociopaths.
Except that they can’t see the distinction and thus bow to their own hatred of what is themselves = “psychotic”.
Well, if liberalism is a proven mental illness then it is beyond their control.
Objectivism, on the other hand [think VO or RM/AO], is only a mental illness if it can be proven that those who embrace it [as a psychological defense mechanism] are also mentally ill.
Conservatives are no better than liberals. Both groups politically have more in common than both would care to admit as the world order each supports is practically the same.
How is articulating the self destructive tendencies of both political liberals and conservatives constitute a liberal worldview? Do you think before posting things?
Not in-depth but I made a basic statement that both are equally destructive of which you haven’t tried to refute. Perhaps you can articulate the opposite if that is what you’re suggesting.
The endless corruption of all political affiliations and identities is enough for me to quantify evidence. No standard of measure? I use their own standards of measure to make my own judgement.
What do you propose to see against left/right – and especially, why? What is anything worth at all? How does that work, that things are worthy anything - to you, and in general - ? All this is what drives the whole possibility of a value-dichotomy.
You say the dichotomy is bloated and empty. But is there a fullness somewhere?
Wherever this fullness is, there is power and the potential for ideas of power.
Left/Right is an idea. It commands power over all those that think in its terms. This of itself gives it a substance. But if you can see through artificial distinctions and drill into deeper layers, you need to disregard what you look down on and engage your power directly.
There really is only one idea left to man and that is the living sense of truth, as the opposite of it is closing in on us.
There is “the sword” and not much else.
We live in interesting times. No time for weak hearts.
I see global civilization at an impasse where it will inevitably destroy itself and I see nothing, I mean absolutely nothing that is going to change this whether it is from the left or right.
Current values are inefficient or impractical and this why civilization will destroy itself where no mass movement from anything and anybody will stop that.
Who or what truth? Yes, there is the sword and threat of violence behind every corner. It is the only constant behind humanity.