Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Liberalism is authoritarian by nature. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and live and let live.
Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that requires equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.
Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesnt care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you dont physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.
In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.
The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.
Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the thought police mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. (hate crime law) In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.
Liberalism, by nature, is anti authoritarian. The only thing that is authoritarian by nature is people who think that the best way to accomplish their goals is by use of force.
Perhaps the ideal is anti authoritarian. When the ideal meets human nature, however, authoritarianism is necessary because human nature simply doesn't subject itself to the will of the state. If you can't look and see how far liberalism intrudes into your life, then you need to remove your blinders.
Do you live in the US? I have lived here for my whole life which has been quite a while. I have seen liberalism at first creep into the nation and then become a tidal wave. Tell you what, prove to me that liberalism doesn't become authoritarian by naming 3 things.....just 3 things that you can do today that involve no government interference at the federal, state, or local level without getting into the most mundane aspects of your life.
When I was young, I would have had a more difficult time naming things that the government did interfere in than things that it didn't. So go ahead...prove how liberalism doesn't creep into and take over every important aspect of your life.
A democracy does not require a constitution.. period.. false argument...
It's also an argument that no one made.
A democracy has no required adherence to any law or constitution.
Possibly, but I am also right, as the quote above establishes. Marx saw democracy as a means to an end - not an end in itself. Also keep in mind that he said, "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." That is not democracy.
Read more at Karl Marx Quotes - BrainyQuote
You misspelled "horribly convoluted".
I'm not the one arguing against dictionaries.
Oddball -
You're only interested in looking at dictionaries as a crutch to try and support your completely baseless arguments....And you've failed.
Much of the posting from weaker posters on this thread has amounted to "the dictionaries are wrong". The historians are wrong. The books are wrong. History is wrong.
Well, no, actually the dictionaries are not wrong. You guys are wrong.
And 99% of the world will wake up tomorrow and use dictionary definitions that makes sense and that everyone agrees on, and you guys will wake up wondering why no one agrees with you.
A democracy has no required adherence to any law or constitution.
Actually it does - because inherent within the idea of democracy is the separation of the judiciary and legislative wings.
A democracy has no required adherence to any law or constitution.
Actually it does - because inherent within the idea of democracy is the separation of the judiciary and legislative wings.
Separation of the judiciary and legislative wings is not "inherent" with the idea of democracy. The Greeks didn't even have a judiciary. They invented democracy.
Possibly, but I am also right, as the quote above establishes. Marx saw democracy as a means to an end - not an end in itself. Also keep in mind that he said, "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." That is not democracy.
Read more at Karl Marx Quotes - BrainyQuote
Let me ask you, in the absence of any state or government - who is in charge?
"Dictionaries are often wrong,..."
Wrong? A meaning of a word might evolve, but the dictionary only indicates what the word meant and how it was used up to the time of publication.
Three months.
That's it.
Just spend three months with the Nazis on Stormfront and you will never delude yourself ever again that Nazis are left wing.
It won't happen though. You fools love your delusion too much, and are too chickenshit to challenge your mental illness.
And you are afraid of Nazis. You might hear some shit out of them that sounds like stuff you often say. You might find yourselves feeling strangely comfortable around them.
Seriously, I wish you guys knew just how incredibly hilarious you sound trying to paint them as left wing. I really do.
Three months.
That's it.
Just spend three months with the Nazis on Stormfront and you will never delude yourself ever again that Nazis are left wing.
Bullshit.
Most of the Stormfront JOOOOOOOO haters are very left wing. They claim that Bush and the JOOOOOOZZZZ rigged the WTC and the Bilderbergs and Rothschildes are oppressing the workers on behalf of the Illuminati (JOOOZZZ)
Stormfront are a bunch of Jooo hating Occupoo Wall Street morons.
You clearly know nothing about them except superficial shit.
I take it you are too chickenshit to actually spend time with them.
Go and tell them Obama is just like them. That would be priceless!
Wake up, before it is too late for you.
The conservative movement is losing more and more adherents.
This is actually the natural progression which occurs as a group moves toward totalitarianism.
The UnConservatives are moving toward national socialism. They do not know this consciously. In fact, it is important they do not know this. This is why they must be deluded into believing Nazis are left wing. It's circular logic: Nazis are left wing, I cannot be a Nazi because Nazis are left wing.
The Nazi movement, like all wild and crazy movements, begins by forming a very small, but very passionate core. It purges and prunes away all the chaff. It denigrates old heroes and former adherents as it becomes more and more extreme. It runs off more and more people until just the hard core remains.
Nazis party members made up less than three percent of the population when Hitler came to power.
After 9/11, America lost its collective mind. We gave birth to the totalitarian Patriot Act, Homeland Security (just think about name!), and waterboarding of prisoners.
Then came the financial crash, and this pushed millions of people even further into the darkness. Many plunged into the abyss of the irretrievably insane.
You see them every day. Right here on this forum.
The wannabe Nazis cling to the "socialist" in "national socialist" as evidence Nazis are left wing.
But have we not seen the schizophrenic nature of the GOP attacking government entitlements one day, but then defending them when Obama tries to cut them the next?
The wannabe Nazis say Nazis are liberal because they believe in a strong central government.
Did we not see the birth of the Department of Homeland Security and the miltarizing of our domestic police during the peak of the conservative heyday? Warrantless wiretaps anyone? NDLs anyone? The attempt to deny constitutional protections to US citizens in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld anyone?
Unconservatives are militaristic, if nothing else.
The deluded also don gigantic blinders to the racialist half of nazism. This is because it makes them extremely uncomfortable to hear some of their own rhetoric echoed back at them. The attacks on multiculturalism. The hatred of homosexuals. The anti-immigrant rants. The stereotyping of all Muslims as evil. This hatred is becoming more and more naked by the day.
And now we are even beginning to see anti-semitic rhetoric on the rise. Diatribes against international Jewish bankers. The old favorites are making a comeback.
We also see classic projecting of these Nazi tendencies onto Obama. Invented dictatorial behaviors.
All the signs are there. These people are right on the edge.
During the Great Depression, Nazis were quite popular in the US. As were Communists. Each side competed for the minds of the masses.
There was even a Glenn Beck. His names was Charles Coughlin. The story of Coughlin's devolution in his thinking is a cautionary tale.
Nazis used to fill auditoriums in America. People get fearful during hard times and if someone comes along to tell them it isn't their fault, and that it is the fault of (Muslims, Jew bankers, negroes on food stamps), that person can go far.
They don't have armbands today. They won't be waving swastikas. But they do have their flag pins and slogans and such. They are inventing a neologism.
Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.
Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.
Here is SSDD:
Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government
Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.
In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.
Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."
"In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
Myth: Hitler was a leftist
