Tuesday, January 22, 2013


Part Two of Five

THE ANTI-LIBERAL LIST

Broken Down into Five Parts 

Twenty Statements Each


One of the many faces of liberalism

[When first presented we recommend treating this as a TRUE and FALSE Quiz, then asked for elaboration on any point or points in particular.  Now we’re revealing answers of our own to which you are invited to respond as fully and furiously as you like.   ~ FT]

21. Liberals would disarm and disband the military, if they could.

FT: False. A tremendous over-simplification.  Instead of disbanding it, liberals would prefer to castrate it –– feminize it –– and turn it into yet another social service organization –– a goal towards which they have already made great strides.

22. Liberals, when talking politics, forget years of friendship and become tediously didactic, and, if left unchecked, will subject you to passionate polemical rhetoric in support of their pet causes. Even at cocktail parties –– they do not hesitate to catechize and badger you with legalistic thinking at the drop of a hat.

FT: True! Perhaps not of all liberals at all times, but certainly true in my personal experience with the New York elite. 

23. Liberals blame non-liberals for criminals' acting the way they do.

FT: False. Again that's simplistic nonsense, but a large grain of truth lurks within. The tendency to blame "society" for the bad behavior of underprivileged minorities is great among liberals.

24. Liberals tend to conform blindly to the pseudo ideals with which they've been indoctrinated.

FT: True! They'd be the last to admit it, however, of course.

25. If liberals had a motto it might be: The Government and the Criminals Among Us Are Your Only True Friends.

FT: False!  Liberal candidates, however, do rely heavily on the votes of misfits, miscreants, and malcontents to aid them in winning elections.

26. Liberals would advocate protecting the environment for "The Speckled Flat Tailed Manure Worm" –– or whatever –– even if the policy deprived hundreds of thousands of the currently unemployed from getting jobs.

FT: True –– at least in part. There are many cases where environmentalists have balked the use of privately-owned land for industrial development. The reasoning behind this environmental extremism seems flimsy –– and probably specious –– to the average person.

27. Liberals talk about Civil Rights for everyone, yet defy long held, immensely popular tradition by doing everything possible to balk and thwart overt displays on public property of anything related to Christianity.

FT: True! In the liberal mindset some groups are, indeed, more equal than others, especially when they are members of a minority.  

28. Liberals tend always to complain and condemn. They seem arrogant, enraged, condescending and dismissive of opposition.

FT: True! Just listen to them when they get up on a proverbial soapbox, if you don't believe me –– and look into their eyes. 

29. Liberals want to place more and more restrictions on what you are able to purchase –– for you own good, and the good of society, of course.

FT: True! It's been a happenin' thing for a long time now.

30. Liberals would like to fine you ever increasing amounts for failure to cooperate with recycling programs.

FT: Dubious! They might like to, but right now it's not practicable, so I wouldn't worry much about it –– yet. The tendency is there, however.

31. Liberals would make an ostentatious display of mourning the execution of a mass murderer, but would not shed so much as a crocodile tear for even one of his many victims.

FT: True –– in the sense that media focus is always on demonstrations of support for convicted killers, and rarely-if-ever on any signs of contrition from perpetrators or empathy for the victims.

32. Liberals use affected catch phases such as "time out" or "time in," normally reserved for toddlers in everyday communication with adults.

FT: False –– probably. I've never heard of such a thing, although liberals tend to use buzzwords and catch phrases compulsively and follow trends with less hesitation than most conservatives.

33. Liberals tend to be cowardly, so they admire and look up to criminals for strength.

FT: False! Sounds like poppycock to me, although popular culture –– a phenomenon largely created, fed and guided by liberals –– tends to glamorize and romanticize gangsters, serial killers, prostitution, infidelity, perverse degenerate behavior in general, and well-known villains. That process started soon after Prohibition.

34. Liberals have a rule when attacked by a criminal: Roll up in a ball and suck your thumb.

FT: False! Rubbish! Nonsense! Balderdash! What liberals want victims to do is drop their drawers , bend over and say, "Come and get it. After you're through you'll find the wife and kids in the attic. GO FOR IT, only please don't hurt me."

35. Liberals want the criminal to sue you, if you defend yourself in any way that hurts the criminal, physically –– or even psychologically.

FT: True and False. It's not so much that they want victims to be sued, but they have a passionate belief that criminals –– even violent ones –– have legal rights that must be respected at all costs.

36. Liberals would encourage you to hug everyone in sight, even when you have the flu.

FT: False. An embarrassingly stupid remark.

37. Liberals are well known for pushing themselves into your space, getting in your face, and lecturing or badgering you about issues they think ought to concern you. They are famous for doing this at inappropriate times such as cocktail and dinner parties.

FT: True! True! True! True! TRUE!

38. Liberals want to force every available vaccination upon you –– even against pathogens you are in no danger of catching.

FT: False –– probably. I have not heard of this, myself, but I am aware that liberals push for conformity to the medical orthodoxies of our time. Liberals do not believe you ought to be allowed to think for yourself, particularly on matters where you have not earned a college degree or an official certificate of professional expertise. 

39. Liberals want to outlaw toy plastic guns of all types for children, because they think it teaches them to act violently.

FT: True –– probably. There have been enough cases of Kindergartners being suspended from school simply for pointing an index finger and saying "Bang Bang! You're dead!" to warrant this belief.

40. Liberals claim to hate bullies, yet they fully encourage outrageous bullying by The State against those who publicly advocate and promote policies held in contempt by liberals –– or oppose liberals espouse.

FT: True! Liberals never seem to realize that The Authoritarian-Totalitarian State is the most fearsome bully imaginable.







40 comments:

Always On Watch said...

FT,
I'm baaaack!

I fully admit that taking a few days off from blogging was pleasant indeed. Of course, Tammy and I DID discuss politics and read a few news stories on the web. But we also went out for lunch, visited Wildstar (who got her copy of Arsenal autographed), went shopping, and watched the DVD Play Misty for Me. Amber showed off the last night that Tammy was here. What a hoot Anber's antics are!

Now, to the topic of this blog post....

With regard to Question 22, I have found that my liberal neighbor avoids like the plague all political discussions with me. Could it be that I've won our debates too often? Maybe. He's never again brought up politics since Thanksgiving dinner 2008 when I debunked one of my liberal neighbor's proclamations that had no evidence (Obama's SAT scores).

Always On Watch said...

38. Liberals want to force every available vaccination upon you –– even against pathogens you are in no danger of catching.

Via the public education system's policies related to vaccination. No vaccine for whatever, no admission.

However, I do fully support certain vaccinations, particularly those related to epidemics and pandemics. I do not count the flu as one of those epidemics but rather as potential epidemic. Diphtheria and smallpox are a different matter entirely.

FreeThinke said...

Good to see you again, AOW. You've been missed.

I'm glad you were able to enjoy a pleasant change of pace, however.

As for #22, if you have the patience and intestinal fortitude to give as good as you get -- and better -- I suppose these exchanges are all right, but I would much prefer to adhere to the old custom of never talking religion, politics, money or sex at social gatherings.

Nothing could turn a Cotillion into a Carnival of Carnage faster than introducing controversial opinions on any of the above.

Perhaps The Federal Government ought to require everyone to pass basic courses in Good Deportment at a "Finishing School" before turning citizens loose on society? ;-)

Now THERE"S a novel idea!

Always On Watch said...

FT,
Years ago, I ceased bringing up politics or religion at the dinner table at my neighbor's house. Their adult son, however, always insists upon discussing politics. Well, nearly always. This past Thanksgiving and Christmas, he preferred to stick to the topics of movies and sports. I never have much to say about the latter.

-FJ said...

Emma, Emma, Emma, Emma...

FreeThinke said...

Good for you, Thersites. You recognized her face -- and doesn't that face tell you everything you'd ever want -- or need -- to know about the GD Bee-Eye-Tea-Sea-Aitch?

Anonymous said...

Ft when you lie down with dogs you are bound to wake up with fleas. Think about that when you pal Round with Emma and Shaw

Ducky's here said...

24. Liberals tend to conform blindly to the pseudo ideals with which they've been indoctrinated.

-----
Probably written by a right wing evangelical.

Silverfiddle said...

26. Liberals would advocate protecting the environment for "The Speckled Flat Tailed Manure Worm" –– or whatever –– even if the policy deprived hundreds of thousands of the currently unemployed from getting jobs.

Ask the former farmers in California's Central Valley about that one...

FreeThinke said...

Thank you, SIlverFiddle, for providing information in support of one of these statements, some of which I have identified as patently absurd.

Im glad you now realize this is not about "hate" at all, but about trying to validate or invalidate rationale and conjecture from all points of view.

I am still hoping that that some of our more responsible liberal friends will come here to explain how and why some of these assertions are wrong, if they disagree my own -- tentative -- assessments.

Three more installments should see us through the week. Please come back -- frequently -- if you can find the time.

Ducky's here said...

FT would you really call Emma Goldman a "liberal"?

You really have to stretch the term to include her and she has more in common with Silverfiddle than supporters of the contemporary welfare state.

Just pointing out that you really need to refine your categories.

Waylon said...

I don't often agree with Ducky, but I have a hard time envisioning Emma Goldberg as fitting either today's conventionally accepted definition of liberal (seemingly accepted by both liberals and conservatives, for some strange reason), or the original idea of liberalism, Classical Liberalism.

She seems to have been a disillusioned anarchist/socialist who became squeamish at the reality of the blood-lust of the Bolsheviks. She even managed to insult the Fabians at a meeting with the higher powers of that group, H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, because she spoke out against the brutality of the Bolsheviks which the Fabians would have preferred to remain silent about.

There's likely a line dividing anarchists from libertarians, sine there is a clear distinction to be seen between no government and limited constitutional government.

I do like your choice of Emma Goldberg as an image for the discussion of "liberalism" although the definition of liberal/socialist/communist/Marxist needs to be stretched to include her. She is an interesting subject, though.

Ducky's here said...

27. Liberals talk about Civil Rights for everyone, yet defy long held, immensely popular tradition by doing everything possible to balk and thwart overt displays on public property of anything related to Christianity.

FT: True! In the liberal mindset some groups are, indeed, more equal than others, especially when they are members of a minority.

--------
Two things:

1. Are the suits brought by activist atheists or liberals?

If activist atheists then why do you assume they are liberals rather than Libertarians?

2. Where do you stand on the establishment principle and why do you think mandating Christianity is promoting freedom?

Thersites said...

Emma certainly was no "classical" liberal. So who would "claim" her today? I think we can get "some" idea from the list of those who spoke at a Memorial for her passing...

After Ms. Goldman's passing a memorial service was held in New York. I took the time to do a little research on some of those who spoke.

Here's a quick rundown of some of the peeps.

John Haynes Holmes, Unitarian minister (note that Emma Goldman was not exactly a fan of religion), pacifist, anti-war activist. He helped found the ACLU.

Roger Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU. Some of the ACLU's landmark cases took place under his direction: Scopes, Sacco and Vanzetti, and the challenge to the ban of James Joyce Ulysses (Joyce as in the Joyce foundation? hmmmm). He was a one-time Communist, though he later denounced Communism, but continued work in the ACLU. Jimmy Carter awarded him a Medal of Freedom.

Norman Thomas was a 6-time presidential candidate (that's cool) for the Socialist Party of America (doh!). He championed Progressive causes.

Rose Pesotta was an anarchist and feminist labor organizer.

Harry Kelly was another anarchist and a lifelong activist in the Modern School movement.

Dorothy Rogers, an early civil rights activist (now honestly I do think that's cool), and a staunch defender of FDR's New Deal (dang it).

Leonard Abbot: he presided :), radical thinker, socialist, also into the Modern School thing.

Martin Gudell was Emma's guide while she was in Spain, he worked with the propaganda department of the CNT-FAI's (nice).

Rudolf Rocker, an anarchist without adjectives. (I think that means whatever the heck he wants it to mean.) He was active in the Social Democratic Party (SPD). He was part of a wing called Die Jungen (The Young Ones), who were unwilling to wait for the predicted collapse of the capitalist society (that was Marx's prediction), and instead wanted to bring it about by revolution.


Hmmm... the likely suspects... often referred to as "modern" Progressives of the "New Left" variety. She certainly did anarchist bomber Louise Berger, Mike Klonsky, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn proud.

Ducky's here said...

Farmer, are we talking about the new left or liberals.

You get my meaning. Stop playing Mickey the Dunce.

Thersites said...

We're talking Liberalism 5.0. The New Left's ultimate surrender to corporatism and crony capital.

Thersites said...

...every man a low paid corporate Prole with a guaranteed "window seat" on the government directed economy that produces Lada's nobody wants or buys.

-FJ said...

Get with the program, duckman.

FreeThinke said...

PLEASE try to understand that I am not here to quibble over the fine points that supposedly separate Marxists, Bolshviks, Stalinists, Socialists, Fabians, Progressives, Liberals, Collectivists, Anarchists, Feminists, Laborites, Civil Rights Activists and "Liberation" movements.

You may tinker with the artificial constructs academicians have devised to make themselves feel important all you like, but the POINT is that ALL these various movements and isms are branches limbs and twigs from the SAME tree.

You have to call it something, because listing all those terms over and over is too cumbersome, so "liberalism" will just have to do. Besides the "list" that inspired this discussion did not originate with me, and it aimed it's wrath, scorn and indignation at "liberals."

A while back I coined the term TYRANNISM to cover it all -- including "Theocracy" by the way -- but the term never caught on, so "LIBERALISM" it must be.

Of course Emma Goldman was in no way a "Classical Liberal," but very few people have the vaguest idea of what that means anymore, BECAUSE of the deliberately confounding, disorienting, obfuscatory activities of a large collection of firebrands who sought to "level the playing field," achieve "Social Justice" and transform reality into Utopia by undermining the foundations of Civilization by unseating the Rich, destroying Religion -- particularly Christianity --, destroying the Family, reinterpreting Western History in the most pejorative light, redefining Right and Wrong, and perverting our sense of Morality.

The unifying factor among all these various "movements" and "isms" is that each was founded, developed and implemented by born TROUBLEMAKERS or misguided, hopelessly naive DO-GOODERS.

Waylon said...

FT, I don't consider myself to be "tinkering with the artificial constructs of academicians" but simply pointing out that seeking a catch-all label for the most vile of theories to enslave mankind and settling on the term "liberal" to represent all these ideological constructs seems odd to me, since it seizes a comparatively decent idea in history that actually did advance the rights of mankind while delimiting the power of the tyrannical minority over the majority of humans on the planet.

All I'm saying something rotten in the state of America and this label seems to me to be one of the items of reeking stench, especially when all you have to do is tune into FoxNews and hear the term sneered at you on a daily basis.

It's probably to enhance a better understanding and avoid misunderstandings to use precise meanings and I see nothing wrong with the specific labels of synonymous usage of socialist, communist, Marxist, progressive and Fabian as meaning the advancement of the tyrannical state and subjecting of the enslaved majority to used, abused and disposed of by the minority of the elect.

FreeThinke said...

Hi, Waylon,

Thanks for your thoughts. It's funny, because I had Ducky in mind far more than I did you, when I posted those last remarks aimed at academic hair-splitting.

I don't know much about popular perceptions in Canada, but here in the US the term "liberal" was usurped by the early progressives, because their rhetoric was not going down too well, so they decided to switch and call themselves "liberals."

The term stuck for a long time here n the states, until a large number of folks caught in to the rottenness of the game "liberals" have been playing. so guess what?

They're back to calling themselves "progressives" once again.

I don't give a rat's rump wHAT they CALL themselves. A skunk by any other name would still stunk out loud.

At any rate they're all "Marxists" at heart -- at least as far as I'm concerned.

Classical Liberals are few and far between these days. Ron Paul may be the only one among the prominent politicians who might qualify.

Ducky's here said...

FT, surely you care whether you're called a Nazi, Fascist, conservative, white supremacist, Randoid, fundamentalist, dominionist, paleoconservative, crunchy conservative or just a refugee from a juggalo convention (look it up).

FreeThinke said...

Sticks and stones, Canardo.

STICKS and STONES!

And wasn't it you who told me, "Never let your enemies define you? }

;-)>

jez said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jez said...

How does your neologism 'tyranism' differ from established terms such as 'totalitarianism' or 'authoritarianism?' And does it include classical liberalism?

FreeThinke said...

Unless I completely misunderstand the term, Jez, Classical Liberalism is the antithesis of arbitrary authoritarian rule.

Why "Tyrannism?" (I would insist in the double-n, as in tyranny by the way. ;-)

I think most of us are weary of the established terms, partly because they have become so instantaneously polarizing they are now quasi-inflammatory. Also, as I've mentioned any number of times, the shifting use of terms by crypto-Marxists has caused so much confusion -- as it was fully intended to do -- it has rendered those terms terms virtually meaningless.

My contention is that in essence there is no appreciable difference between the supposed opposites Fascism and Marxism.

They meet back-to-back on a circle. In practice BOTH lead to the same abominable place -- Tyranny, Despotism, Totalitarianism, Subjugation, Exploitation and Victimization of the populace.

Tyrannism -- possibly a new umbrella term -- neatly covers all forms of governance that result in a population enslaved by a regime. That leftists would like us to believe their policies work "for the greater good of all," does nothing to obviate their dismal effects. Those supposedly "enlightened," "humanistic" policies still result in enslavement.

I would add that hierarchy of one kind or another remains a necessary evil.

Libertarianism -- as conceived and practiced by our Founders -- was intended to be the least hierarchical, least arbitrary, least dictatorial form of governance ever. It never worked perfectly, of course, and was doubtless fraught with inconsistencies, but it worked astonishingly well until Abraham Lincoln -- through sheer force of will amid a tragic confluence of events -- made himself our Dictator.

"Progressivism" has continually sought to undermine and defeat our Constitution since it's inception.

Waylon said...

FT, in Canada there are more than two parties and they are left of center, including the Progressive Conservatives which, of course, are touted by the media as being right wing and even "extreme right wing" by some of those on the left. The Liberal party is more to the left and then the New Democratic Party which is what I think the so-called progressive left calls itself. To confuse things even more there are regional parties which are popular in areas with strong regional agendas, like Quebec where ethnic fires are stoked similar to the color agenda used by demagogues in your country to inflame passions and divide people ethnic/color lines.

FreeThinke said...

Oh, Waylon, semantics create so many causes for perplexity and misunderstanding, don't they?

Sometimes I wonder if these days haven't caused me to become downright anti-Semantic? ;-)

Thersites said...

I find ducky's disdain for white trash extremely telling. He'd defend gangsta' in a minute, but put a teardrop tattoo on a white boy and the duck goes high dudgeon.

Racist, much?

Thersites said...

For a Modern, self-proclaimed Leveller, you sure hate Whiteboys.

Thersites said...

I guess Defender's all hate Peep O'Day boys.

Klan, meet nalK.

Thersites said...

btw - When are you renouncing money and moving to that Catholic Worker monastery again?

FreeThinke said...

"I find ducky's disdain for white trash extremely telling. He'd defend gangsta' in a minute, but put a teardrop tattoo on a white boy and the duck goes high dudgeon."

In his case hating "white trash" must be form of "projection," don't you think?

FreeThinke said...

BTW, just as point of interest, has anyone ever heard anyone speak of "low dudgeon?"

Waylon said...

FT, I like that new term: anti-Semantic.

It does get to the real problem with the semantics of politics today, all seemingly slanted leftward.



Joe Conservative said...

...not until now.

Joe Conservative said...

...and you're right, FT. I don't think that ducky's ancestors are listed in the GMSD. They must have waited for much later boat...

Joe Conservative said...

erratum - GSMD.

jez said...

21. liberals are perhaps less gungho about military adventures than Bush.

22. applies to any zealot.

23. Liberals don't think it's stupid to try and understand why crime happens. Might even be helpful.

24. see 15

25. risible.

26. A mass extinction event is not preferable to unemployment: discuss.

27. Is it displays of xianity, or the assumption of xianity that some campaigners resist?

28. Sure: if you're a conservative, it's probably because you think everything's fine. If you're a liberal, it's probably because you think things need to change.

29. True -- it's liberals who insist on certain standards of safety for food, drugs, toys etc. Remember the good old days, when the kids could play for hours with a spike?

30. Probably something like this already happens to companies.

31. False.

32. applies to Americans.

33. Bravery is rare whatever your politics. And popular culture's fascination with crime and wrong-doing started soon after the invention of story-telling.

34. Avoidance if you can manage it is better than getting into scrapes, even if you're good at fighting. I'm not good at fighting, so I'd just try to lawyer my assailant to death instead.

35. Everyone has access to the law.

36. A range of attitudes to personal space are represented in every political movement.

37. anyone who acts like this is more noticeable. How do you know how many liberals you didn't notice because they were quiet?

38. I'm happy with the set of mandatory vaccines in the uk. In america overtreatment is common, and that probably extends to innoculations.

39. I know no evidence of this.

40. in other words liberals support enforcement of the law?

Anonymous said...

Liberals are Ass Holes, don't agree with me? Just look at Ducky!