Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Liberals Have, Also, Irreversibly Lost the War for Ideological Supremacy

Liberals Have, Also, Irreversibly Lost the War for Ideological Supremacy

Some readers might have noticed that one commentator on this blog likes to dutifully regurgitate establishment democrat talking points. According to him, anybody who does not agree with the “official version of events” is part of some Russian disinformation campaign or stupid. While I started writing this post to comment on that mindset, it quickly became obvious that it was just one manifestation of a much bigger problem. So let me help you connect the dots by highlighting other manifestations of the same problem. Have you noticed that, within the past 5-10 years, liberals (rather than CONservatives) have become obsessed with censoring anyone with whom they disagree. Ever wonder why that change occurred and why within that particular timespan?

How did we reach the point where LIEbrals, rather than dumbfuck CONservatives, are obsessed with performing overt and fake displays of public morality. Why did LIEbrals become the thin-skinned snowflakes they used to justifiably accuse Conservatives of being. Why are LIEbrals obsessing over “ideological purity” like the CONservatives they used to mock? To understand how this change occurred, we have to first understand why CONservatives were once obsessed with censorship, ideological purity and displays of public morality. The short version is the supporters of dying ideologies will always try to delay the inevitable end through appeals to censorship, increasingly ridiculous displays of ideological fidelity and obsession with purity.

CONservatism entered its terminal phase sometime in the mid 1980s and has been effectively dead since 2006-2008. While there are many reasons for its demise, most come down to some version of the ideology failing to provide its believers and potential recruits what they wanted. In other words, CONservatism failed once it became obvious that the ideology was fundamentally fraudulent and unable to address the real needs for majority of its followers. So why is LIEbralism also failing and why is the speed so much higher than for CONservatism? To better understand this peculiar fact, we have to first talk about what both ideologies are really about. Yes.. neither ideology is what its ardent supporters claim them to be.

The thing is.. CONservatism in the west after WW1 was never about retaining traditional mores and worldviews. It was a logical framework, aka scam, to justify the power of rich people and corporations over everybody else. CONservatives were never interested in preserving traditions or guaranteeing socio-economic stability. Those were just buzzwords they invoked for conning, often willingly, stupid losers with delusions of becoming filthy rich. That is why, among western countries, modern CONservatism was strongest in post-WW2 USA. CONservative support of social issues such as racial apartheid, prayers in schools, anti-abortion stances etc was therefore always about appealing to white trash stupid enough to care about such useless bullshit.

While the last COnservative resurgence (during 1980s) in the west died out in Europe by the late 1990s, it persisted in North America for a few years longer. CONservatism in this country was publicly discredited largely due to a series of spectacular and costly failures during and by the Bush43 administration- from the failed occupation of Iraq to Global Financial Crisis of 2008. But what about the recent resurgence of right-wing parties across Europe- some might wonder. See.. the thing is, right-wing populism and proto-fascism is not CONservatism, even though there is a small degree of ideological overlap. Now let us get back to how CONservatives handled their slow-motion demise during the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Some of you might be old enough to remember that, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a renewed attempt to ban pornography, “violent” video games and push for “traditional” values. They also did other tone-deaf and stupid stuff such as ignore the HIV crisis, tried to to stop the movement for gay rights and censor network TV when everyone was buying satellite TV dishes. By then, all the genies they feared were already out of their metaphorical bottles. CONservatism was increasingly seen as the ideology of stupid, old and out-of-touch losers. It did not help that modern LIEbralism, aka NeoLIEberalism, was now the default ideological choice of rich assholes who wanted to appear “hip”. The many public failures of Bush43 presidency were the final nails in the coffin of CONservatism. That is why Trump was able to defeat every last establishment CONservative in the 2016 republican primary, and with ease.

But what does any of this have to do with the ongoing failure of LIEbralism? As it turns out, a whole fucking lot! The thing is.. LIEbralism, was never about opposing CONservatism or doing any of the other things it pretended to care about. LIEbralism, at it core is the ideological sibling of CONservatism, albeit one that tries to portray itself as more the enlightened among the two. That is why LIEbralism is perfectly fine with everything problematic about CONservatism, except the parts that make them look unenlightened. That is why LIEbrals and corporations will support LGBTQ parades while simultaneously paying their employees starvation wages and denying them healthcare. Similarly LIEbrals love to masturbate to the sound of “woke” labels such as “Latinx” rather than treat real Hispanic people as equal human beings.

This is also why LIEbrals love to celebrate a deeply problematic Neo-LIEbral such as Obama even though he started five more wars in Africa and a couple more in middle-east, was responsible for millions of Hispanics to be deported and millions of black people losing their homes in aftermath of housing bubble. But.. but.. didn’t he pose for photos with a few old black women and children in the Oval Office and give empty inspirational-sounding speeches? See.. LIEbrals differentiate themselves from CONservatives by where they studied, what they wear and eat, how they speak and other superficial stuff. They so because, in every aspect which matters, they are no different from CONservatives. The former just try to be better at scamming people than the latter.

So why, then, did this group who appeared to have prevailed over CONservatives by the mid 2000s get so thin-skinned about “mean people” and “dissenters” so quickly after their supposed victory? Some of you might believe that this had something to do with being the only game in town. The realty is much more complex. As mentioned earlier, LIEbrals and CONservatives are simply two faces of the same group of people and all those “culture wars” were largely for the purposes of distraction and entertainment for the masses. But why did this fake show last for multiple decades? Well.. it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, for the first 3-4 decades after WW2 the west was the most affluent part of the world and most people who live in societies that seem to be doing OK don’t ask inconvenient questions.

The second reason follows from the first. Societies experiencing continuously rising standards of living and expectations tend to focus on superficial issues and controversies while simultaneously ignoring deeper and more systemic challenges. There is a reason that the post-WW2 american society was dominated by “culture wars” rather than anything deeper such as changing the shitty underlying system. The show went until the combined effects of deindustrialization, neoliberalism and financialization of the economy and society at could no longer be papered over or ignored. But why would that cause the public image of LIEbralism and trust in its institutions to implode much faster than CONservatism?

Well.. it comes down to an undesired, but predictable, result of the collapse of CONservatism. Long story short, after its public collapse in 2006-2008, LIEbralism was the only game left in town. Now LIEbrals could no longer blame their inability to do the ‘right thing’ on resistance from CONservatives. Unfortunately this was also the time when the post-WW2 economic western economic ‘miracle’ started to implode in a very public manner. Turns out that LIEbrals has no real solutions to problems of their own creation other than imposing more austerity, pushing for fiscal CONservatism, spouting bullshit about lifelong education and basically anything other than tackle the problems plaguing most people in their countries. There is a reason why right-wing populist leaders and movements exploded in popularity across western countries after 2010.

The LIEbral reaction to these developments has been highly counterproductive, to say the least. For starters, they doubled and tripled down on empty bullshit such as identity and racial politics, “environmentalism” and celebrity culture aka stuff most people do not even pretend to care about. But what they did next was especially dumb, even by their standards. See.. these idiots had the bright idea that lecturing and trying to shame people into not talking about their real problems was a winner. And they tried really hard to pull the shit off by using their domination of certain institutions to amplify their message, which had the unfortunate (but also predictable) effect of deep-sixing any residual public trust and credibility. The election of Trump in 2016 was the final straw and seems to have broken their mind.

It seems that LIEbrals now firmly believe that nothing short of overt censorship, trying to stifle the speech of their opponents and pretty much anything other than admitting that their ideology was also a scam is the way “forward”. They do not want to believe that the previous state of affairs is dead, discredited and cannot be restored. Since this post is already a bit over 1500 words, this is a good time to wrap it up. Will likely post a followup based on reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    November 8, 2019 at 1:59 am

    The interesting thing about liberals and conservatives …
    is that the Nazis: were conservatives, censored books, jailed people, talk about purity …
    Now the liberals: censor books, jail people, talk about purity …

    Both bunches are power-hungry assholes, but they always want somebody else to do their dirty work (I don’t think Hitler did the mass executions on his own), and they like to say “just following orders”.

    As RooshV has experienced, both bunches are also racist against ethnic men, in overt and covert ways. They can go die in a fire.

    • P Ray
      November 8, 2019 at 8:07 am

      Another way to look at it, is by a comment I read:
      A tyrant(conservative) will point his gun at you to get your cooperation out of fear, and a progressive(liberal) will point his finger at you to get your cooperation out of guilt.

    • Tty
      November 12, 2019 at 10:47 am

      RooshV is a self-hater who worships white women, so if he experienced racism from white women that’s basically karma.

      • P Ray
        November 12, 2019 at 8:05 pm

        Any political movement that wants the help of ethnic men – either via their participation or from their tax dollars from jobs in their country that have shortages – but doesn’t do anything for them, is a con job – whether liberal or conservative.

        Saying “I’m not racist” while either doing nothing against racism, or “We’ll get to your problem after the big issues are done” is also doing nothing against racism.

        The idea that it the racism comes from women or men as a “stops the argument” statement is moronic, because … a lot of these woke people are virtue signallers and liars, who talk about non-racism, but only control the cock that comes their way, not the vagina.


        I notice in your statement dismissing RooshV … you didn’t say he was wrong.

        Thanks for the heads-up and for proving what I’ve said is correct.

      • P Ray
        November 14, 2019 at 10:17 am

        Don’t forget this little gem for all the social justice warriors (women) out there:

  2. Jay Fink
    November 8, 2019 at 4:45 am

    Excellent analysis.

  3. MikeCA
    November 8, 2019 at 11:20 am

    This reads like some stream of consciousness diatribe. The world is not black and white. Conservatism and liberalism are merely labels that are thrown around, sometimes as badges of honor and sometimes as smears. Of themselves they mean nothing.

    I have always been aware that even their most ardent supporters often don’t believe their own bullshit.

    You need to analysis the men and women who wear the conservative and liberal badges, what they actually believe and what issues they actually try to address. When you do that you discover a whole range of believes and attitudes that do not fall neatly into a two dimensional analysis.

    Agree.. but the real problem is they are both different faces of the same ideology aka corporatism.

    Neither conservatism or liberalism are dead. They will simply reform themselves around new ideas and new leaders.

    So tell me.. how was Trump able to run over 16 establishment republicans as if they did not matter? Why did HRC lose to Trump in 2016?

    • doldrom
      November 8, 2019 at 3:32 pm

      MikeCA. You are such a dependable fellow.

  4. MikeCA
    November 9, 2019 at 11:38 am

    “So tell me.. how was Trump able to run over 16 establishment republicans as if they did not matter? Why did HRC lose to Trump in 2016?”

    Following the passage of civil rights and voting rights bills in the 1960s, the Republican party moved to appeal to Southern whites who had previously voted Democratic. The Republicans used issues like state’s rights and law and order to appeal to Southern whites without mentioning race. Later issues like affirmative action were added. This is sort of a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge, you know we are really racists” campaign, but the racism was never explicitly talked about.

    In spite of never saying it out loud, all the racists migrated to the Republican party and became the base of the Republican party.

    Trump won easily because he was much more explicit with his racism. This excited the Republican base which were tired of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge routine.

    Another factor is the Foxification of the Republican base. A large percentage of the Republican base listen to Fox News and in particular to the evening opinion programs. These opinion programs are mostly just entertainment programs design to appeal to the Republican base.The opinion programs engage in over the top name calling and hysterical arguments vilifying Democrats and liberals. Trump was the only candidate to use that same over the top language to attack his political opponents. Trump sounded much more like the Fox opinion hosts than any of the other serious candidates.

    One of the reasons Trump is still so popular with his base is because in their view he is doing a great job of trolling Democrats and liberals, mostly on Twitter. They don’t care if Trump accomplishes anything as long as he sends out his daily tweet storm to own the Democrats.

  5. Minto
    November 9, 2019 at 2:29 pm

    Based on this article, it seems like you are against the deportations of illegal Hispanics, hate corporations, and want medicare for all. That is the same exact wants from the most Far Left of LIEberals like AOC, Ilhan Omar, basically, the Squad. So what exactly do you mean that LIEberals are dying, when you’re one to support their “give me everything for free” ideology, and think Bernie Sanders is the solution when he doesn’t understand an ounce of economics?

    • P Ray
      November 9, 2019 at 10:37 pm

      I figure nowadays you can always, in the major powers, “give me everything for free” because …
      1. all countries in the world print money, BUT
      2. other countries decide how much your money is worth compared to theirs, BUT
      3. because much of the debt of the US is held by other countries, they don’t want the value of the US dollar to go down.

      So, tell me how it is not possible for the US to “give me everything for free” under those conditions?

    • November 10, 2019 at 3:42 pm

      If the US didn’t get involved in Dubya’s endless wars and Bankster Bailouts, imagine all the shit that money could be spent on. Infrastructure, space exploration, Healthcare that actually lengthens people’s lives while increasing the quality of their lives. But I must be a dirty filthy commie who wants a handout if I dare ask why wages aren’t increasing in relation to worker productivity.

  6. November 10, 2019 at 3:39 pm

    This will make MikeCA cry…

    • MikeCA
      November 10, 2019 at 5:46 pm

      What? You think this kind of stuff upsets me? Why?

      When Kamala Harris ran for DA in San Francisco, she made a campaign promise to never seek the death penalty. Shortly after she was elected, a man was arrested for killing a police officer. Under heavy pressure from the police union and US Senator Dianne Feinstein to seek the death penalty, Kamala Harris stuck to her campaign promise and did not seek the death penalty. Essentially the rest of Harris’s career as DA was spent trying to get the police to trust her again.

      Note that DAs don’t go out and arrest people. They pick and choose which cases the police bring to them they will prosecute. There is no question that Harris prosecuted a lot of cases she probably should not have, trying to show the police she could be a tough on crime prosecutor, but she did stick to her promise not to seek the death penalty.

      Kamala Harris easily won the CA Senate seat. Her opponent was another Democrat, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. I voted for Harris because she did far better in the debate than Sanchez. I have no idea why she decided to run for president. I have no intension of voting for her.

  7. Gern Blanderson
    November 14, 2019 at 5:59 am

    I am late to this article. This is long article that touches on a broad sweep of the characteristics of ideological movements. My thoughts are that most movements come to and end when the one or two major goals of the movement have been achieved. After that, the groups that gained power will descend into insanity to try to hold onto the power and money. Then the movement becomes absurd and the public moves on.

  8. November 15, 2019 at 5:45 am

    The elephant and the jackass may as well be the walrus and the carpenter.

    “I like the Walrus best,” said Alice, “because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.”

    “He ate more than the Carpenter, though,” said Tweedledee. “You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn’t count how many he took: contrariwise.”

    “That was mean!” Alice said indignantly. “Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.”

    “But he ate as many as he could get,” said Tweedledum.

    This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, “Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—“

    — From “Through The Looking Glass” by Lewis Carol.

    Read that again “Through The Looking Glass”. What was Lewis Carol telling us with his stories? What did he see in the looking glass? Ha!

    Here is the poem itself…

    The sun was shining on the sea,
    Shining with all his might:
    He did his very best to make
    The billows smooth and bright–
    And this was odd, because it was
    The middle of the night.

    The moon was shining sulkily,
    Because she thought the sun
    Had got no business to be there
    After the day was done–
    “It’s very rude of him,” she said,
    “To come and spoil the fun!”

    The sea was wet as wet could be,
    The sands were dry as dry.
    You could not see a cloud, because
    No cloud was in the sky:
    No birds were flying overhead–
    There were no birds to fly.

    The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Were walking close at hand;
    They wept like anything to see
    Such quantities of sand:
    “If this were only cleared away,”
    They said, “it would be grand!”

    “If seven maids with seven mops
    Swept it for half a year.
    Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
    “That they could get it clear?”
    “I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
    And shed a bitter tear.

    “O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
    The Walrus did beseech.
    “A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
    Along the briny beach:
    We cannot do with more than four,
    To give a hand to each.”

    The eldest Oyster looked at him,
    But never a word he said:
    The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
    And shook his heavy head–
    Meaning to say he did not choose
    To leave the oyster-bed.

    But four young Oysters hurried up,
    All eager for the treat:
    Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
    Their shoes were clean and neat–
    And this was odd, because, you know,
    They hadn’t any feet.

    Four other Oysters followed them,
    And yet another four;
    And thick and fast they came at last,
    And more, and more, and more–
    All hopping through the frothy waves,
    And scrambling to the shore.

    The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Walked on a mile or so,
    And then they rested on a rock
    Conveniently low:
    And all the little Oysters stood
    And waited in a row.

    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
    Of cabbages–and kings–
    And why the sea is boiling hot–
    And whether pigs have wings.”

    “But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried,
    “Before we have our chat;
    For some of us are out of breath,
    And all of us are fat!”
    “No hurry!” said the Carpenter.
    They thanked him much for that.

    “A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
    “Is what we chiefly need:
    Pepper and vinegar besides
    Are very good indeed–
    Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
    We can begin to feed.”

    “But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
    Turning a little blue.
    “After such kindness, that would be
    A dismal thing to do!”
    “The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
    “Do you admire the view?

    “It was so kind of you to come!
    And you are very nice!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “Cut us another slice:
    I wish you were not quite so deaf–
    I’ve had to ask you twice!”

    “It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
    “To play them such a trick,
    After we’ve brought them out so far,
    And made them trot so quick!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “The butter’s spread too thick!”

    “I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
    “I deeply sympathize.”
    With sobs and tears he sorted out
    Those of the largest size,
    Holding his pocket-handkerchief
    Before his streaming eyes.

    “O Oysters,” said the Carpenter,
    “You’ve had a pleasant run!
    Shall we be trotting home again?’
    But answer came there none–
    And this was scarcely odd, because
    They’d eaten every one.

  9. P Ray
    April 19, 2020 at 1:25 am

    The reality of many of these movements is …
    they only gain cachet with notoriety …
    but at the same time, individual followers become leaders through unpredictability …
    because if there was a leadership program for oppositional promotion …
    it would actually just be going through the motions and not really innovative …
    plus would take out the office politics in BOTH LIEberal and CONservative movements …
    taking the wind out of their sails effectively …

    kind of like this:

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: