Liberals don’t have any consistent political line beyond supporting what is currently beneficial to empire.
For Tibet, they say that the principal of self determination for nation states trumps the theocratic nature of the state.
However when it comes to the Eastern Ukrainian regions, self determination takes a back seat to stopping Russian expansion, labeling that as an outcrop of an ethnosupremacian.
Yet the concept of opposing ethnosupremacist ideology goes out the the window when it comes to supporting Russian opposition figures like Navalny, who are forthright with their ethnonationalism, now the issue becomes Putin’s subversion of democracy or the people’s will.
This subversion of the people’s will is however not accounted for when the average Tibetan today and at the time (largely enslaved) welcomed the intervention of the Communists against the theocracy. The issue here is now that the Communists invaded and invasion of one power by another us unacceptable.
Unless in the case of a place like Libya, where Ghadaffi was suppressing the will of the people-
And I could keep going in infinite circles. My point being, that liberals are not upfront with their actual consistent beliefs. Notice I did not say they are hypocrites, because is my view, in order for them to be a true hypocrite they would have to hold some attachment to their stated principles but it’s very clear they do not.
The consistent principle that liberals do hold on to unwaveringly is the principle of imperial supremacy of their states. Anything that aids that goal falls in line with their principles, anything that doesn’t is discarded.
Yeah. Most people hold a mostly unexamined, self-contradicting bundle of accumulated Gramscian common sense, which was constructed from imperial core bourgeois ideology.
However when it comes to the Eastern Ukrainian regions, self determination takes a back seat to stopping Russian expansion, labeling that as an outcrop of an ethnosupremacian.
It was NATO expansion, though, not Russian!
where Ghadaffi was suppressing the will of the people-
Was he, though?
I’m just stating the often cited reasons that liberals support certain decisions made by their empire. It doesn’t need to be true, it just needs to something they can point to aa a reason for why whatever western plot is sowing discord.
I know. I just don’t want the
narrativelies to go unchallenged.
The liberal mind is a slew of self contradictions. They have feelings about everything but no logical understanding why they have those feelings. Many will literally electrocute themselves to avoid logically processing their feelings into thoughts.
Slight pedantic note, from your friendly Safety guy, Ibwill read the article it does look interesting, however afyer reading the abstract the correct term is electrically shock themselves, electrocution is only the correct term when it results in death. So while I cannot say that your statement isnt true, I do doubt it, and the article only mentons electrical shock.
My appologies for being that guy
It’s the perfect servile ideology. With all these contradictions stirring in your head you can never make sense of politics and either fight against your class or decide “this could be good or bad, there’s no way to tell” while the US bombs another country.
Most libs nowdays would not support the french revolution, you know the thing that is the fundamental to liberalism.
Liberals only believe in white supremacy. Everything else is made up on the spot to try justifying it
If someone is skeptical of this claim or thinks it’s an exaggeration, please read Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter-History.
Liberals support liberalism, unless there are socialists/communists, then they support fascism to destroy the socialists/communists. A liberal is only a liberal as long as liberalism remains unquestioned. They uphold multi-party systems as the pinnacle of “democracy and freedom” except for communist parties which they will happily ban and pretend there is no contradiction there.
The US DNC only sued to keep the “socialist” presidential candidate off the ballot in swing states, last cycle, and left solidly red/blue states to include them.
Do liberals really believe in the ‘separation of the state and the church(religious institution)’? A lot of them are very sympathetic to Theocracies, e.g. The Vatican City, Tibet etc.
As long as there is a dictatorship of capital.
I feel like most people you ask will only think about their own country, as in “I don’t want to live in a theocracy, there should be a separation” and do not think about other states that way.
Liberals do not believe, they do as they are told.
I think its dishonest, disingenuous, and a little dangerous to treat libs like NPCs. they do have thougts and beliefs its that they hae not grappled with the controdictions within them yet.
These contradictions lead to them doing as they are told tho. It is not that they’re NPCs, it is that the hegemonic character of liberalism results in it being replicated in all forms of media, which in turn teaches it to the person consuming it. Thus the liberals are told that liberalism is best and imperialism is good for them, their ungrappled contradictions within their beliefs and thoughts then lead to them doing as they are told.
As liberalism does not promote the holding of any beliefs, liberals do not hold any. With enough time they’ll(as a mass of people) believe anything, thus nothing.
