What defines a Liberal C.A.C.L's Criteria
Who is a Liberal?
Defenders of Private Property
Perpetrators of Profiteering
Upholders of the Establishment
Exploiters of Workers
Cucks for Corporations
Innate love for Celebrities
Open disdain for all political radicalism
Utopianism and Disdain for Political Strategy A Certain and Distinct Individualistic Mindset-derived from ideological background- ^Vapid Individualism^
A liberal is not just socially liberal, in fact they come in many shapes and sizes. The average neoconservative can be convinced not only into undeniably agreeing to major ideological points of socialism, ex: [Neoconservative asked if they believe in the right to own resources other people use, they say no, so you believe the people own the right to own resources the community needs, yes, congratulations you are a socialist, NO!]. Now before your confused as to why i said Neoconservatives are liberals, i will be mapping that logic throughout this first part of this article where i will be nailing down who i consider to be liberal.
Defining the Liberal
To me a liberal is someone who supports liberal democracy, thus the title of 'liberal' i feel can be allocated to many people who think of themselves as "anti-liberals". An "anti-liberal" liberal is probably going to be either your neoconservative and Paleoconservatives. We'll get into that in a second but first we need to establish that this also happens on the other side as well. In the 'anarchist' line of thought (or rather of what todays society views anarchist belief to be) those who claim to be 'libertarian socialists' seem to distinguish intrinsically liberal beliefs, perhaps as a result of such "socialist" influencers such as, Vaush, Socialism done Left, and many others who would appear to have an ignorance regarding key leftist ideals. This clear liberalization of leftism in the US has lead to many people perceiving that the Overton window has somehow shifted left. This is however clearly false as you can see that is is not the leftist being influential in politics as a leftist but rather, a leftist acting liberal to get reforms. This is a very important phenomenon to consider when looking at the atrocity of liberal democracy; regarding this trend you can see a similar conservative 'liberalization' phenomenon during the Regan period. It is clear that liberalization of ideology is a powerful tool that has been swung against anti-liberal action for years, the left leaning 'shift' in politics is not the changing of political systems or action but rather stopping ideological praxis through bureaucracy. A liberal will wield the power of inefficient governance as a methodology of which to convince and bait leftists into a stagnated process of 'law and justice'. | To give a brief summary: Liberalism and similar ideologies are negative to society because of their continuous attribution of positivity to the practice of denying the right to praxis/actualize real ideological goals which will liberate the working class.
Neoconservatives & Paleoconservatives
One might seek to question the man who would go so far as to call a Neoconservative a liberal, i would say it is all but the most apt description. I would start of with saying that the average Neocon loves the republican party, more so the Romney type but that's sort of irrelevant. Now if we start with this assumption we must look at the foundations of the republican party. What are the foundations of the republican party you ask? Classical liberalism. However there is a clear distinction here as it only takes it's roots from classical liberalism, which begs the question where the majority of the parties policy comes from. Reagan is where a majority of the party wishes to stand, and what must i ask was Reagan's economic policy? Neoliberalism. This is the logic to describe exactly why i classify neocons to be simply Neoliberals in a conservative mask. Since these ideologies (NeoLib and NeoCon) both have the exact same policies economically, and very little differences regarding other matters, i don't feel the need to pretend they are substantially different.
Paleoconservatism
One might expect i have had a harder time explaining exactly why paleoconservatism is inherently liberal, but it is not very hard. Assuming you know what paleoconservatism is you will understand this to a varying degree. Paleoconservatism is the protected, reactionary response to the rejection of classical liberalism's principles in the modern age. This results in a extremely patriotic, authoritarian, founding father-lover, that also really loves religion and is normally a conservative christian or catholic.
They use the same systems as always when going about and carrying out the governance of a nation. This shows very clearly that Paleoconservatives wish to preserve classical liberalism & Liberal Democracy-albeit with a far more reactionary ideological stance-being more 'openly anti-democracy'. Because ultimately at the end of the day, a liberals job is to silence other ideology, what better way than by closing the border and the economy to be more subservient to the state. By centralizing power a paleoconservative is merely a state liberal, an authoritarian liberal state that wishes to enforce widely disliked ideological reforms. However it must be known that these reforms would not be 'progressive' they would be conservative. This is because as i see it and as many others know it to be, that paleoconservatism is reactionary towards the social liberalization of humanity in recent years. This is why i believe that Paleoconservatism, Neoconservatism, Classical Liberalism, and Neoliberalism are all slightly different mixtures in ideas that; coincidentally lie in the same ideological framework i hate: Liberal Democracy.
Addressing this Articles Claim in the Title
I would like to address the bold claim of the initial title of this article, i will do this now. "All Liberals Are Leftists in Denial" what do i mean by that? I mean to point out the fact that the most famous and well known liberals tend to be (on the left and right) to be those who seek economic populism.
Essentially liberal candidates present themselves as a more "left leaning economy type" or a more "right leaning economy type" and no matter who they choose they tend to always choose they one they trick the people into believing benefits them.
The economic populism of Donald Trump was remarkable as his statements did not change the reality of a fucked market economy which is slowly losing steam, to china, the seemingly new economic powerhouse. I would argue that the simple fact that liberalism and it's other ideological 'buddies' work to create the most popular economic system, the economic systems most preferred-somewhat unknowingly-are left wing economic systems. They appeal much more to the more communitarian trend of peoples in society. I believe that at it's most productive liberalism wishes to emulate a welfare state-while simultaneously being a market economy-while suppressing other viable ideology via educational systems (indoctrination centers). While simultaneously pretending the phrases "politics is diverse", "you can accomplish anything", "we don't know why so many people are mentally ill", "Markets that are free are good, but we need to restrict them", are either contradictory inherently or imply some contradiction in the Praxis of the ideology of liberalism. and that i believe is the biggest problem with liberalism, It is self contradictory.
I find liberalism to be a unsustainable, uncontrollable, bipolar and a degrading hegemonic political philosophy and ideology
This is the first article in a series of articles, An unpragmatic man may call:
"Everything i don't like is Liberalism"
Comentarios