It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Many people who consider themselves Liberals are actually Statists and/or Authoritarians

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Here are some definitions:

Liberty
n. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
n. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
n. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

Liberal
adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
adj. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Liberalism
n. State or quality of being liberal.
n. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
n. The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.

Statism
In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Authoritarianism
A form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime. Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:

1.) Limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
2.) A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
3. Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
4.) Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.

Modern dictatorships use an authoritarian concept to form a government.

Sources:

Wordnik
Wikipedia
edit on 30-6-2017 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I think a lot of this stems from key misunderstandings amongst most people who use the word 'liberal' as an insult.


You can have left-wing liberals, you can have right wing liberals.

Just as you can have left wing authoritarians and right wing authoritarians.



Also a lot of it is a question of perspective. Look at the highly emotive gun control issue for example. On the far-right Republican side you've got people who think those evil liberals want to be all statist and authoritarian and regulate away their guns.

But on the other side you've got people who want to live a life free from gun violence, and they look at the hardcore gun people and see a group of people who say 'from my cold dead hands'.


One person's authoritarianism is another persons desire to live free from gun violence.



And of course your description of an Authoritarian government pretty much describes the state of US politics today.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ


Here are some definitions:

Liberty
n. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
n. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
n. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

Liberal
adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
adj. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.


I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with being a liberal, or a libertarian, according to those definitions.
I have a huge problem with authoritarian governments. Too many rules. Too many irrelevant laws.

Apparently freedom is bad these days.....



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Progressives (a fascist ideology) hijacked the liberal movement and corrupted it a long time ago. A true liberal would never support their aims.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Exactly; the liberal movement has been hijacked by pure radicals and fanatics. The sad part is, I don't see any central leaning liberal, doing anything to take back their movement from radicals.

Where are all the educated liberals? Do they even exist anymore? Where are the likes of John Rawls?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Progressives (a fascist ideology) hijacked the liberal movement and corrupted it a long time ago. A true liberal would never support their aims.


That must mean different things to different people too. Progress as opposed to no progress.
Progress means to advance. To move forward. To improve upon. To evolve. To not stagnate.
And now it's bad too?
Freedom bad.
Progress bad.

The words don't match their meanings anymore



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   


Many people who consider themselves Liberals are actually Statists and/or Authoritarians


Does anybody correctly self-identify in this world as a Statist or Authoritarian? Where is there a Statist Party or Authoritarian Party?

Anyone with a political agenda who claims to be anti-authoritarian is talking through their anti-hat, as it were. As in the antipode of their hat where the sun never shines. The foolish old 'Liberal' mentality I observe around me basically amounts to, "What! Those people are stupid. Only we know how to run the world properly and help those in need. So let us seize control of the governmental process by any means necessary, and show them once and for all."

That's a pretty big assumption, but then again it is an understandable response to the times.

It also happens to be the basic philosophy of Republicans and Republicanism.


edit on 30-6-2017 by Namdru because: because



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Progressives (a fascist ideology) hijacked the liberal movement and corrupted it a long time ago. A true liberal would never support their aims.


What is the majority of msm?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit

originally posted by: UKTruth
Progressives (a fascist ideology) hijacked the liberal movement and corrupted it a long time ago. A true liberal would never support their aims.


That must mean different things to different people too. Progress as opposed to no progress.
Progress means to advance. To move forward. To improve upon. To evolve. To not stagnate.
And now it's bad too?
Freedom bad.
Progress bad.

The words don't match their meanings anymore



The name of a movement does not mean they represent that name.
Freedom and progress remain good and noble causes to support, but "Progressives" have nothing to do with either, whether it be now or when their fascist ideology first started in earnest.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

I think it started with the West bombing countries in the name of democracy; we will destroy a country, turn it into chaos, but we're doing in for benefit of the people living there.

Words lost all their meaning; now they've become just an excuse for a certain group of people to push their agenda onto others.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

We used to have progressive conservatives in Canada. We still might. The PC party. Conservatives were too traditionalist for some, so they added progressive.

In every different country, the politics are too different, and all mean something different enough to matter. Liberals in Canada, or Europe are different than liberals in the US. Or so it seems.

I took a test once (political compass.org - I think is the link)
In the states I would be a libertarian anarchist ....but I hate the social justice movement. They've lost the plot.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Yeah, with friends like the west.....can I blame the American government?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

I'm sure old CG would agree 100%. And his pal Aldous Huxley too.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
And the people calling themselves antifascists behave in a very fascist manner.
I seem to reacall this was predicted by someone quite some time ago so maybe we should rename them as...

The Predictables?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

Hitler's entire Aryan ideology was built on the foundation of American Eugenics, his authoritarian disposition in part inspired by Italian Fascism.

American Eugenics was the core of the "Progressive" liberals at the turn of the 20th Century.

American Eugenics was the ultimate most sophisticated racism of the time.

The KKK were authoritarian "liberal" eugenicists at this same time as Hitler and the Nazi's, and the Italian Fascists were all goosestepping around.

Now lets sort of pretend the "Southern Strategy" never happened (southern Republican's not bothering to try to get minority voters after they had been the champions of the Civil Rights Movement), and that after the Democrat's fought and voted against Civil Rights how they quickly switched to embrace the changing tide and made directly racially appealing to minorities as the party platform as if they're their saviors all the sudden and it was them all along that fought for civil rights).

Look around what do you see: the most ultimate sophisticated authoritarian racism once again being wielded by the Progressives. Sure, it's not one race over all others (thats old stuff). Now its all races over the one, where the logic is they cant possibly be racist. And with that "(with our new 21st Century open model of racism) we're against (the old model of) 'racism' so we cant possibly be racist", then they roll out "Anti-Fascism" which goes "we're globalists against nationalistic fascism therefore we cant possibly be Fascists".

Even though above all groups in the modern era the new brands of 'Progressive Liberals' are the most 'Stereotypical Fascist' (authoritarian going around beating up and shooting their political opponents), and even fit the 'Textbook Fascist' mold (the merger of state and corporate power wielded by centralist planners). In case you're scratching your head, the DNC is every bit as much corporate puppets as the RNC. In fact, this past election Hillary took in some $1.5 BILLION mostly from corporate interests.

And as would have been predictable by the social psychologists / social engineer fountainheads that came up with this new progressive liberal movement (which is clearly a re-imagined model from social movement insights learned in the 20th Century ala Nazism, Fascism, Eugenics, the KKK, Civil Rights Movement, etc), in a few short years of this stuff going mainstream we're seeing digital book burnings, goosestepping violent angry mobs (BLM and many other related brands), race wars, mass murders, a looming civil war AND attempted overthrow of the democratically elected government now that the authoritarians lost their first election, and so on.


edit on 30-6-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ


Many people who consider themselves Liberals are actually Statists and/or Authoritarians


And likewise many people who consider themselves conservatives are actually Statists and/or Authoritarians.

Anyone who wants to use the force of government at the end of a gun -- and that's exactly what "laws" are all about -- to force their will on others are "statists" and "authoritarians." Perhaps the only distinction I can draw between the "left" and the "right" authoritarians is that the "left" is more likely to force me to do something against my will (as in bake a cake), and the "right" is more likely to prevent me from doing as I will (no gay marriage for you!).

Two sides of the same coin.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I agree with the OP. I know quite a few liberals and some of them are that way, they are constantly spewing negative stuff and cutting down anyone who does not agree with them. The majority are decent people though. Conservatives got their extremists too, but usually these extreme groups are not liked or followed by conservatives. The hate groups are actually the opposite of what conservatives believe in but those in the hate groups seem to say they are conservatives when the fact is they have hardly no conservative aspects in their beliefs. How can a radical group be conservative? It makes no sense, conservatives usually want to slowly change and make sure that changes do not cause social problems.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

That's right! The Neocon's of particular note. And note that I called them out on this very thing, with my same insights as I now call out the mongrel horde, back in 2007:
Neoconservative (Nazi) Mind Control was used by Bush



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Boadicea

That's right! The Neocon's of particular note. And note that I called them out on this very thing, with my same insights as I now call out the mongrel horde, back in 2007:
Neoconservative (Nazi) Mind Control was used by Bush


Excellent OP -- thank you for sharing the link!

Your point is well taken and it seems to go hand-in-hand with another tactic I learned of while researching NLP, in which one conditions others to identify with their "leader" to the extent that any attack on the "leader" is a personal attack on themselves... and Bush played that to the hilt. "If you're not with us, you're against us." If I dared criticize Bush taking military action in Afghanistan or Iraq, then I wasn't just criticizing one decision of Bush... I was criticizing -- hating! -- Bush personally, as well as anyone and everyone that agreed with Bush, and therefore I must hate "real" Americans. It couldn't possibly be that I thought there were better options for the USA to take... nope, I was just an American hater.

I'm sure you can explain what I'm trying to say much better than I just did, but I hope I explained it well enough that it made sense!



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Aye, 'Progressive' is a very interesting word too.


Progressive ideologies are those that say racism is not okay anymore, sexism is not okay, misogyny is not okay.

And some people clearly find that very very threatening, and have come to believe that being progressive is akin to being the devil.


But at heart, progressive liberalism is a very good thing indeed. It means more freedom, more equality, more peace.


Some might argue this is why elements of the far right have devoted so much time and energy to creating propaganda to try and make people afraid of 'progressives' 'liberals' and the entire concept of 'social justice'.

Because really, why would anybody NOT want society to be just?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join