On how I responded to the question “what is liberalism?”

In a recent conversation I said some interesting things. I said that of all the beliefs I have confronted in my life there is one belief system that I have grown to utterly despise. It’s called “liberalism”. I was then asked, “what is liberalism?” This is how I explained it as I understand it at this time:

LIBERALISM???

To begin with, I tend to view liberalism, probably, in ways beyond what many people may use the word. Liberalism, through the years, has taken on various forms of meaning. It tends to be viewed in a political, economic, or social context depending on who talks about it. Other people look at it from the “liberal versus conservative” point of view. I see it in a particular way. I see it as the culmination of a historical progression that, through the years, accumulated many different attitudes and points of view. In this way, it is sort of like a snowball rolling down a hill, slowly accumulating more snow as it rolls along. Because of this, it has many qualities. I tend to think that the liberalism I am most familiar with, and which I speak of here, was largely influenced by the Hippie Movement which, it seems to me, made it get ridiculous.

Negative qualities

When asked “what is liberalism?” my first reaction was: “In its simplest way, I would describe it as a philosophy of bleeding hearts, of people who cry over everything, of people who endlessly complain about everything.” I sometimes jokingly call it a “complaining philosophy from hell”. That was my first response but there’s a whole lot more to it. 

Another way I describe it is: “Liberalism is a pie-in-the-sky mentality that fabricates a utopian image of the world where everyone loves each other. When they try to make this utopian world a reality, it becomes a tyrannical controlling system. But they are so believing in their utopian world that they refuse to see what it actually does.” In this way, it is utopian, idealistic, self-righteous, controlling, and blind.

Another way I describe it is: “Liberalisms solution to everything seems to always be to change people and the existing way of things, usually to fit their ideological image.” In this way, liberalism tends to be intrusive and disruptive (as the existing way of things must change). It also makes everything personal (as we have to change).

Another way I describe it is: “Liberalism tends to have a negative view of humanity which they believe has to be reformed or changed to their way of thinking.” In this way, it is negative and anti-human. It is also intolerant.

Positive qualities

I tend to see that the positive effects of liberalism as:

• Its utopianism. This creates a tendency to “think outside the box”.
• Its desire to improve things. It is often motivated to make things better.
• Its desire to change things. There is a willingness to alter things to something better.

Because of these things liberalism has done a lot of good.

The matter of moderation

The problem is that there is a time and a place for the positive qualities. But liberalism has practically made them a religion, as if they are the only cause in life and that life revolves around them. In this way, they over emphasize them to death. Basically, liberalism is always trying to force its positive qualities and the effect of this is that it actually ends up undermining them. As a result, liberalism has a self-undermining quality. Because of this, liberalism is good when it’s not overly dominant. There’s a saying: “religion is a good thing . . . in moderation”. We can revise that to say: “Liberalism is a good thing . . . in moderation”. Liberalism is good and beneficial when it is used at the right time and for the right thing. It’s not good when it’s used all the time and for everything. This tendency to make liberalism the focus of life (that is, turn it into a religion) seems to reflect the religious element in its development (see below). In this way, the influence of religion, in a way, destroyed liberalism.

A CAUSE FOR DISGUST

I know that for me, and others, it is a philosophy that tends to provoke a disgust or a nausea. This has a lot to do with its behavior. Some other qualities that cause these reactions include:

• How they seem to always try to undermine, villainize, and destroy common human institutions and ways that have existed for thousands of years
• How many of their beliefs and points of views are ridiculous
• How they tend to be fanatical
• How they think they are always right
• How they think that their point of views are going to save us and the world
• How they try to force their beliefs and policies upon everyone else
• How they think we are supposed to change to their viewpoints
• How they preach and advertise their beliefs and basically shove their beliefs down our throats
• How they have no common sense
• How they needlessly drag everyone into things (for example, having the taxpayer’s pay for free health insurance for illegal aliens)
• How they try to make everyone exactly the same, often so there is no difference between people, even to the point of destroying the difference between male and female
• How they make issues over silly and nonsensical things
• How you have to walk on tiptoes around them because they are so oversensitive
• How they blow things out of proportion or make them out as something that they are not
• How they always seem to be at odds with society and seem to be anti-society

Liberalism is, frankly, an irritation that often seems to have no real purpose and which seems to never end. It is also very disruptive and, it seems to me, causes conflict between people usually because they are trying to change things to their way, have such ridiculous beliefs, or are so horribly oversensitive. They are often incredibly fanatical and there are times when it seems some liberals appear almost like a religious cult. 

HISTORICAL INFLUENCES

Liberalism is a result of historical circumstance that took a long time to develop. That’s what gives it its unique quality and pattern of thinking and its different qualities. It is also what gives it its “staying power” as it’s rooted in many old beliefs. 

If I would look at it overall, I’d say that liberalism is primarily a weird combination of Christian principles and democratic theory that have fused together through time. Because of this, I often want to call it “democratic puritanism”. This is because it has strong Christian and democratic influences. I use the word “puritanism” because it is a stricter form of Christianity. Since the Christian influence came first historically it tends to be dominant. As a result, many of the democratic qualities are as if built upon Christian attitudes creating something like a “political Christianity”. This is why I often describe liberalism as a new form of puritanical Christian belief system that uses political ideas.

Christianity and democracy seem to dominate a lot of liberal philosophy, at least as I see it, but they are not the only influences. There are many other influences that developed as it progressed. Some of the historical circumstances that contributed to the liberal philosophy, at least as I see it now, include:

1. The Renaissance
2. English puritanism 
3. The addition of political theory 
4. Victorianism
5. The fear of war and its effects
6. Social conflicts
7. The Hippie Movement

These have contributed many different qualities, attitudes, patterns of thinking, and such that have blended together through time. Because of the many different influences there are many different ways they combine and mix. As a result, there are many different forms of how the liberal philosophy appears, each emphasizing different things, thinking in different ways, and such. This can make it hard to define liberal philosophy. Not only that, it can combine with other beliefs, attitudes, and such. 

1-The Renaissance

The Renaissance (about 1500’s) puts emphasis the individual. This tended to put one at odds with society. This is because the naturally appearing restrictions of society conflicted with the individual. The naturally appearing restrictions of society became particularly controlling because of the Crusades which caused a tendency to create a “more Christian society” which means, of course, more control and restrictions. This led to a greater desire for the individual to be “liberated” from societies constraints, so to speak. As a result, there developed a point of view that emphasized being “free” or “liberal”. This, probably, is the beginning of the liberal philosophy but, eventually, history would change it into something totally different. 

The Renaissance created these things:

• The emphasis on the individual
• Being at odds with society
• The idea of being free from societies constraints
• The acceptance of new ideas

This emphasis on the individual, of being free or “liberal” from societies control, eventually led to the emphasis on the individual in religion which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation. This movement placed emphasis on the individual’s belief and faith with a lessening of the importance of the churches control and ritual. 

The version of Protestantism that most had a great impact on this philosophy, it seems to me, is English Puritanism . . . 

2-English puritanism

I have always felt that a lot of the “meat” of the liberal philosophy that I see has origins in English puritanism. This was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation and King Henry VIII’s abandoning the Catholic Church and creating the Church of England. Many people didn’t feel that King Henry VIII was strict or severe enough in his beliefs, so they created a stricter church that is supposed to be more “pure” to Christian belief. This is why they are called puritans.

Because of the conditions of how puritanism developed there developed a number of attitudes that were common in the puritan mentality, such as:

• A disappointment or lack of belief in established authority and in belief
• A willingness to go, and even attack, against authority and belief
• A willingness to create of a new belief opposed to the established belief
• A tendency to be stricter and controlling
• A tendency to fanaticism

All these as if laid a foundation to liberal mentality, or it seems to me. At this stage, though, it was almost all religious in quality. It also seems that it is at this time that there developed the strong “religious overtones” that persists in liberalism. This seems to show that this phase was critical in the development of liberalism. 

Christian puritanism helped create these attitudes in liberal philosophy:

• Its beliefs tend to be foreign, strange, bizarre, and often outright ridiculous – just as Christian belief was to the people they were trying to convert 
• They seem to think their beliefs will save us – just as Christianity professes to save us
• They try to “convert” people to their beliefs, as if we must change to their ways – just as Christianity tried to convert people
• They won’t change or alter their views as they believe they are absolutely right – just as Christianity believes they are right
• They think that the small, or disadvantaged, minorities should be placed first – just as Christianity preaches that the “last shall be the first”
• They think that we should all pay for the disadvantaged – just as Christianity preaches “charity”
• They tend to be fanatical – just as Christianity is often fanatical

3-The addition of political theory

Puritan belief became quite extensive and would begin to figure in English history. It played a big role in the English Civil War. In this way, English puritanism divided a country, splitting it in two, and causing a war. This tendency to divide a country is one of the characteristics of liberal philosophy, at least as it appears to me. Eventually, the puritan Oliver Cromwell would win over the Royalists. 

Oliver Cromwell’s reign would be a reign of puritan rule in which puritan mentality would dominate, justified by democratic theory which helped him win over the Royalists. This is the era when puritan Christianity would first be blended with democratic political theory. 

These ideas would be intensified and supported again in the French Revolution era which would more implant these ideas in the general population. 

This era would create things such as:

• The idea that the government is oppressing them
• The ideas that they are oppressed
• The fear of the government
• The idea that they can overthrow the government
• The attempt at trying to be the government
• The idea that there are other forms of government
• Their philosophy divides the country

These helps cause these liberal attitudes:

• They think everyone is the same – just as democracy professes “equality”
• They think they represent the “people” – just as democracy professes to be for the people
• They think they represent freedom – just as democracy professes freedom
• They think they can overthrow or change existing conditions – just as the English Civil War and French Revolution overthrew governments
• They try to control things – just as democracy is supposed to govern
• They are accusatory and blame people, usually as “oppressors” or something similar – just as democracy professes to be against “oppression”
• Their beliefs conflict with other people’s beliefs – which is what happened in the English Civil War and French Revolution
• Their beliefs can divide a country – which is what happened in the English Civil War and French Revolution
• They think they are trying to create a “new society” – this became a theme particularly after the French Revolution which reinforced the idea that people can recreate society

4-Victorianism

Victorianism contributed to this mentality. I would say that a significant part of Victorianism is that it was a social movement that created a sense of unity and importance of people. Much of this was caused by the French Revolution which instilled a sense of importance of the people (what can be described as a “democratic” sense). But it also came from things like consumerism and mass media which made people feel more important and influential. There was also a movement to act like nobility which emphasized manners and etiquette which created a sense of unity and belonging. This eventually created a snobbery. The effect of all this is that it created a quality of “blindly following the herd”.  

It was also during this time that this philosophy began to appeal to the female. This, from what I have seen, seems more to do with “following the herd” and snobbery than by any great belief in the philosophy. Even today, many females blindly follow liberal philosophy without even so much of a thought about it. What this did is not only make it prevalent with females but many female qualities began to be seen in liberalism. In fact, I would venture to say that there is a unique type of “female liberalism”. 

Victorianism caused a number of liberal attitudes:

• The idea that anyone can do things
• The idea of the importance of the people
• A snobbery . . . a presumption of importance
• The blind following of trend and mass opinion
• This philosophy began to appeal to the female

5-The fear of war and its effects

The wars of the 20th century added to the liberal mentality because of all the fear and horror they caused. These provoked much fear in the liberal mind. For many, this would be the “great cause” in the later part of the 1900’s. 

This caused these liberal attitudes:

• Fear of war
• Fear of conflict between people
• Fear of hatred
• Fear of damage to the world – beginning with a nuclear war and turning into fear of environmental damage or climate change
• Fear of the “evil of humanity” – coming from the Christian idea that humanity is inherently evil

6-Social conflicts

All the above have been mixed with many of the social problems that has happened. After WWII and the Holocaust there became a particular emphasis on race and hatred, at least in the US. In fact, the liberals have practically turned them into a religion. 

Often, any social problems the liberals “jump on” and impose their interpretations. But what has happened is that the liberal philosophy has distorted a lot of social problems, generally by doing things such as:

• Making social problems worse than they are
• Making specific people “bad”
• Making specific people “innocent victims”
• Creating many myths about problems and conflicts between people

As it appears to me, liberal philosophy seems to aggravate and create problems between people as well as keep many conflicts alive. 

7-The Hippie Movement

In the US the Hippie Movement played a big role in liberal philosophy. This movement, in the very late 1960’s, as if blended all the above into a specific philosophy that was catered to much of the population. As a result, many of the population began to believe it. Not only that, it began to display a power. This, in a sense, made it worse. What was once just a philosophy has turned into something more like a religion and world view.  

The Hippie Movement caused these attitudes:

• Fanatical
• A tendency to social hysteria
• A sense of “collective unity” that they think gives them power
• A strong belief that they are right
• Anti-society
• Anti-authority
• Weird ideas and points of view

After the Hippie Movement, liberalism went bizarre and got ridiculous. I tend to believe that this is the liberalism I am used to seeing.

This hippie-like viewpoint has gone up and down since its height in about 1970. It has particularly resurfaced since about 2016 with the problems surrounding Trump. Much of what we are seeing in the Trump-Biden era appears, at least to me, to be repeat of the Hippie Movement and its themes, though in a different way. 

SOME COMMON QUALITIES

Since this philosophy has developed over centuries it has developed many different qualities. I felt that there are many common qualities that appear in this philosophy, at least as it appears to me. These include:

• Goody-goody mentality
• Bleeding hearts 
• Self-righteousness
• Self-proclaimed saviors
• Fanaticism
• Tyrannical and controlling
• They force things to happen
• Their beliefs often divide a country
• Do things at others expense
• Lack of common sense
• Denial of reality
• A weird idea of the “people”
• A weird idea about the conflicts between people
• A weird idea of freedom
• A weird idea of equality
• Misuse or abuse of political and legal theory
• Idealistic
• A “Robin Hood” mentality
• Rewrite history
• Reactive to hysterias and panics
• Contempt
• Endless opposition
• Recreate society
• Break down society
• Hypocritical
• Fear and insecurity
• Paranoid
• The creation of myths

Goody-goody mentality

They seem to think they are always doing “good”. No matter what they do it is for good. Many are so believing in this that they would never even consider that they do anything bad or that anything they do can be bad. This goody-goody quality gives liberalism a naive quality, almost like children at times.  

Bleeding hearts

They tend to cry over everything. This seems to have Christian origins. Remember the saying, “Crying with the saints” or “crying over the evil of humanity”? This crying over everything often turns into a form of complaining. For some people, that is the appeal of liberalism . . . to complain and cry over things.

One thing this philosophy has shown me is that once a person starts cry over things, they can find things to cry over in everything. They cry because someone’s feelings have been hurt. They cry over the environment. They cry because there is garbage. They cry because an animal has to be killed to be eaten. They cry because someone’s skin color is different. They cry because someone is rich. They cry because someone is poor. One example I often use involves the business I am in. I’m involved with paper bags. Many of these bags have many layers of paper in them and uses a lot of paper. I once asked one of the guys I work with if people, meaning liberals, complained about this, about using all this paper. He said that there have been complaints about wasting paper. So, he said, many companies went to plastic. Some years later, they started to complain about using plastic it won’t decompose. What are we supposed to use then? No matter what we use there are problems with it. With many liberals there’s always something wrong with things. I also heard of a case where a film company wouldn’t use leather because it was “violent” meaning that cows had to be killed to get the leather. They used artificial leather. Of course, they don’t mention that the cow was killed for other things as well, such as food. I thought that silly, but I can think like them too. Couldn’t we also complain about the use of artificial materials used to make the artificial leather? What about the chemicals used in the making those materials? What about the toxic fumes the manufacturing of artificial materials creates? What about the waste and garbage it creates? How do you recycle it? You see, even I can think like them and find things to complain and cry over no matter what. In this way, the crying and complaining can go on and on and on. This bleeding heart mentality, of crying over everything, of continual complaining, gives them an irritating quality.

Personally, I think that there is something wrong with people crying over everything. It seems that a lot of it is nothing but a form of insecurity to me.  

Self-righteousness

They seem to think that they have a cause in whatever they do, as if they are privy to how to “save the world”. This gives them a horrible self-righteousness. This, of course, comes from the Christian influence and its cause to “save humanity”. 

Their self-righteousness has qualities such as:

• They are stubborn. There is no altering or changing their minds. Once they believe it they won’t change.
• They are right . . . and that’s the end of the matter. Since they are right there is no other point of view or solution. 

This makes them very narrow minded, biased, and difficult. This self-righteousness makes them hard to deal with, almost impossible. They won’t budge or move or change in any way.  

Self-proclaimed saviors

They tend to think they are the saviors. In fact, they have proclaimed themselves the saviors as if they have been given some special command from God. Its obvious this has Christian origins.

Some of the things they believe they are saving include:

• Any form of freedom
• The people
• The underdog
• The underprivileged
• The oppressed
• Democracy
• The environment
• The animals

Fanaticism

They tend to be fanatical in their beliefs and attitudes. By “fanatical” I mean that they believe they are so right that there is nothing else, as if all there is in the world is their beliefs. They have literally made their beliefs “the world”, as if it were the basis of “reality”. In this way, they have turned their beliefs into more than beliefs, but a form of reality, a religion. As a result, they think everything should change to fit their reality and they degrade or ignore any other form. Fanaticism makes it so that everything must be their way and no other way matters.

Tyrannical and controlling

They are always trying to change people and society to their ways. Sometimes, they will use laws and politics to try to do this. In this way, they are tyrannical, often forcing their ways on to people. As a result, they tend to be controlling. 

If one looks at their behavior one can see that liberal philosophy, professing to be “free”, is actually a controlling philosophy. If liberal philosophy took over, we would be restricted in what we can do and say and live in a controlled “liberal” society having to do things the way they want. 

I often say:

“When liberals are not in control, they are liberal, but when they are in control, they are ultra-conservative”

This means that they preach liberal views when someone is in power but when they are in power, they are very controlling. In a sense, when they are in control we need to be freed from their control! This is because, contrary to what they claim, the liberal philosophy is a tyrannical and controlling philosophy, probably more so than most philosophies. This becomes more apparent why they are in control of things.

They force things to happen

They often try to force their point of views to happen. They do things in ways such as:

• They will broadcast and advertise their views in front of people
• They will choose people because of their race or sex, for example, not because they are qualified
• They will create characters in movies, books, and such to emphasize their policies and beliefs (such as creating superheroes of every race, color, sex, and sexual orientation) 

In these ways, liberal philosophy is actually very propogandist and uses a lot of propaganda to try to force their views onto people and make them change. 

This trying to force things to happen makes them intrusive and disruptive. 

Their beliefs often divide a country

As I said above, their beliefs tend to divide a country into two. They often take the point of view of “my way or the highway”. This causes nothing but conflict. With this point of view what do you expect?

Some liberals seem like their intention is to do nothing but oppose society, no matter what it says. For example, I often hear some of them use an expression: “challenge societies perceptions”. My reaction is always the same, “why?” Why must we “challenge” societies views? Why must we challenge at all? What’s the point of all this? What are they trying to do? From what I have seen I think this opposing is blind, they are just going against society with no special motive. I think there is great contempt behind this (see below). It shows, I think, that behind liberal philosophy is a blind attitude of opposing society just to oppose it. This, it seems to me, originates from the Christian conversion where they were trying to change society which means to oppose pagan society. This created an attitude that persists to this day: oppose society just to oppose it. 

The effect of all this is that it tends to divide a country. When there is a philosophy that is intent on opposing society, regardless, then what do you think it’s going to do? One effect is that it is going to cause a division . . . them and us . . . and divide the country. 

Do things at others expense

It doesn’t seem to bother them to do things at other people’s expense. Many liberal policies are often to give a certain group of people something for free at everyone else’s expense. It doesn’t seem to bother them to have the taxpayers pay for something that they will not benefit from. Because of this, liberal policies often will tend to lead to a lot of debt or bankruptcy . . . and a lot of pissed off people because they have to pay for it. 

I’ve often been stunned how many liberals think that people who “have” should automatically give to people who “haven’t”, as if they should just be handed things. It’s as if being disadvantaged in some way automatically entitles you to get things for free. It also means that if you have anything you have to automatically give it away. It doesn’t take a genius to see that this reflects Christian beliefs.

Lack of common sense

Their fanaticism tends to make them have a lack of common sense. For example, they may start a program of giving everyone financial help, but they give no real consideration for how they are going to pay for it. As a result, liberals tend to squander money and resources . . . all for their cause. Their cause is everything. 

They also don’t seem to give any consideration for the consequences of what they do. Liberals don’t have a reputation for looking into the future. They typically only look at today and what happens today with little thought for tomorrow. 

Denial of reality

They are so fanatical over their beliefs that they often deny reality. If reality is not the way they want it, they tend to deny it or make it “bad” in some way. In this way, it can be hard to convince them that what they are doing is not good. Its not uncommon that their policies cause all these problems, but they will refuse to see it. Typically, liberals are not grounded in reality. As a result, they do not see the “facts” or “realities” of a situation.

A weird idea of the “people”

They seem to have a specific and weird idea of the “people” that is unique. They have qualities such as:

• They tend to view the “people” as some sacred entity. 
• The “people” is really an idea, not the people as they really are. As a result, they are chasing the “idea of a people” and not the people themselves. This means that they are not all that representative of the people which is contrary to what they think. 
• Typically, they view the people as helpless people that they must help or “save”. 
• Many think that they are true representatives of the people, their saviors, and their benefactors. 

One effect of this is that because they are focusing on an” idea of the people”, and not the people themselves, they have this tendency to be alienated from the people. 

A weird idea about the conflicts between people

They have a weird idea about what causes conflicts between people. It has qualities such as:

• Usually, their explanation is simplistic, often stated in a single word such as hate and racism. 
• Typically, these are reacted to as “that’s bad” and that’s it. 

It’s like a simple moralistic explanation and condemnation. I’ve seen none that looked at things in any great depth even to see that there are many reasons why things happen such as that what may appear to be hatred may not be hatred. 

A weird idea of freedom

They seem to think that they are representatives of “freedom”. Typically, what is “freedom” is their form of freedom. In many ways, their “freedom” is not a freedom at all. They just think it is. In reality, what they call “freedom” is nothing but their views. I often say:

“Freedom their way”

In other words, we are free only if its their version of freedom. And so, to believe in their views of freedom is what makes one “free” . . . at least in their minds. 

A weird idea of equality

They have some strange views of what equality is. This includes:

• They often think everyone is EXACTLY THE SAME . . . there is no difference between people – this is actually “levelling”, an idea that became prevalent during the English Civil War
• They often think that everyone should pay for everyone else as if anything we have is everyone else’s – this is basically communism
• They often think that equality is when disadvantaged people are raised above advantaged people – this is the Christian “the last should be the first”

Their weird view of equality gives them a weird perception of people and the relationships between people. 

Misuse or abuse of beliefs

They manipulate beliefs to justify themselves and, accordingly, this helps them get their way. In this way, liberalism is opportunist. Some beliefs they have done this to include:

• Political and legal theory. They often use these theories to justify their belief and cause not necessarily because they believe in them. Using these theories gives them power. As a result, they tend to overuse these theories for that reason. In fact, they overuse political and legal theory to the point that they end up creating a distorted view of these theories. This is exactly what they did. Theories they distorted include democracy, freedom, rights, oppression, and such. 
• Beliefs about conflicts between people and the motives of people in these conflicts. They’ve fabricated whole myths of “hatred between people” that don’t really exist. 
• The nature and identity of people. They are literally destroying people’s identities. They are even destroying sexual identity. In a “liberal world” no one will know who they are. 

The effect of the misuse and abuse of beliefs is that they have created a whole distorted view of politics, law, society, people, and the association of people. 

Idealistic

Liberalism is based in an idealistic phantasy image of life and the world. In this way, they are as if living in the clouds. Typically, this world is not based in “real world reality” but how they’d like it to be. What ends up happening is that they end up trying to force the world to fit this idealistic world. 

Because it is an idealistic image, that they have created, it tends to always have a “foreign” quality in the society. It often appears bizarre and outrageous to many people. It is so “foreign” that a person must often learn their beliefs to understand it. In other words, their beliefs are not naturally appearing or part of the existing way of things Because liberal beliefs are a form of idealism, and they are not naturally appearing, it often gives them an “alien” or weird quality. 

A “Robin Hood” mentality

They often have this view of taking from the rich and giving to the poor much like Robin Hood. Often, this amounts to taking from anyone not poor and giving it to the poor and disadvantaged. 

Rewrite history

They are so fanatical that they have even tried to rewrite history according to their viewpoints. For example, they will often over glorify people who are not usually mentioned in history, almost to the point that they are the cause for what happens. I’ve already seen people who have tried to rewrite history so that females practically created the modern world, or black people created America, or something like that. 

Reactive to hysterias and panics

Whenever there is some hysteria or panic, they tend to react to it, often going into a hysteria or panic themselves. As a result, they tend to blow things out of proportion and become too emotional about things. 

Contempt

It seems, to me, that at the base of this mentality is a contempt of people and society. This, it seems to me, is one of the reasons why this philosophy is so destructive. This contempt seems to be a result of its history and development. The liberal philosophy is rooted in conflict between people which entails a lot of bad feelings toward people. As a result, it has developed a contempt of people and society in general. This is usually hidden behind their “good intentions”. 

Endless opposition

Many liberals oppose everything society or authority says. If they say the sky is blue, they say it is red. If they say right is right they say that right is left. Sometimes this opposition gets ridiculous. Its like their intent is to oppose society and authority whatever it says or does. 

Recreate society

Particularly after the French Revolution there developed the idea that society can be recreated in whatever image they want. This gives them the idea that they can impose their will and way on society in whatever way they want. As a result, they think society is something like a clump of clay waiting for them to mold it into any shape they want. This often makes it so that they end up having an attitude of looking down on society, its institutions, and ways. It’s not uncommon that this makes them see society as something for them to destroy. The result is that they tend to break down society . . .

Break down society

They often seem to have a motive of trying to break down society, its traditions, customs, and ways. Some have such a contempt of society that they find fault with everything in it. The solution: to destroy it. I get the impression that some think that we should completely break down society and recreate it in their image. This point of view, it seems to me, harks back to the Christian conversion and French and democratic revolutions which is probably where it comes from. 

Hypocritical

Liberalism seems a philosophy that is hypocritical: it says one thing and does another. Often, they will contradict themselves or accuse someone of doing something and then do it themselves. Sometimes this hypocrisy is a way of saying, “you must do it our way, not your way”. This hypocrisy often makes it hard to tell what they are saying or mean. Often, they say things in a “good way” which deceives many people. Many liberals, I have found, are good at saying things in a “good way”. I’ve learned to be cautious of it. I don’t look at what they say. I look at what they do. 

Fear and insecurity

I consider liberalism to be rooted in fear and an insecurity. This comes from their history. They develop their beliefs to defend themselves from this fear. Because of this fear they push or force their belief onto other people as a way to ward off the fear. They often think that by changing society to their way they will get rid of their fear. In many ways, a lot of liberal beliefs are a defense against a fear and insecurity. 

Paranoid

Liberalism has a tendency to be paranoid. This isn’t surprising as the whole philosophy is based in fear of people. They often create all these threats that don’t exist or these enemies that don’t exist. 

The creation of myths

Liberalism has created many myths. These include:

• About human nature
• The associations between people
• The conflicts between people
• The association of people with the world and environment

They’ve created this whole weird viewpoint about life.

THE MALE AND FEMALE

Overall, I’d say that the “liberal male” can be described as castrated and something like a nobody. It seems to turn males that way. 

Overall, I’d say that the “liberal female” is an insecure person with a victim mentality. This philosophy seems particularly attractive to insecure females. They seem like they are frightened deep down and use liberalism as something like a defense. There also seems to have a “herd” quality, of blindly following people in the female. They seem to find security in this. These qualities, it seems to me, can be so prevalent that it creates a unique form of point of view that can be called “female liberalism”. As stated above, this seems to be created during the Victorian era. 

THE HYPOCRISY

The above describes a specific type of liberalism. To me, the word “liberal” means to be “free” in things. As I said above, it seems to originate from a reaction of how society tends to be rigid and unmoving. This seems to first begin to be seen in the Renaissance. It appears to be a response to the naturally appearing rigidity of society, particularly Christian society which became very rigid and strict after the Crusades. But, to me, that is all “being liberal” is . . . a response. Any defined liberal philosophy tends to lead, eventually, to the naturally appearing rigidity of society. This is because once a philosophy is practiced in society it tends to develop the naturally appearing rigidity. In this way, any philosophy of liberalism that is practiced in society ends up becoming strict and rigid, which is what it is supposed to be against. Because of this, there is an inherent hypocrisy in liberalism that permeates the whole philosophy: when they try to make things “free” they end up making it “unfree”. 

SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, AND THE HIPPIE COMMUNE

To me, there seems a similarity between liberal philosophy, socialism, and communism. This is because they are related historically and come from the same basic idea, but they are not the same as they developed differently. But, because they are similar, many liberals will tend to favor socialism and communistic views. This is why many liberal views sound socialistic and even communist.

During the Hippie Movement the liberal views they took made some hippies try to create “communes” which is basically communist societies. This is no mistake. It reflects the similarity between liberalism, socialism, and communism. 

If liberalism would have complete control they’d probably try to turn society into something like a hippie commune or communist society. But we must remember something about this: neither a hippie commune or a communist society worked! Do you think a liberal society will work too?

A VIRIS PHILOSOPHY???

It seems, to me, that a “purely liberal society” cannot live on its own. What it does is try to take an already existing society and change it to fit its views. Its intent, then, is not really in the creation of a society but in changing an existing one. It does not have the stability to do this so it has to try to alter an existing society. But in trying to change society it often ends up damaging it in some way. This changing, though, is like a forced takeover as they have to change things to fit its image. This attempt at trying to change society is one of the reasons why it fails and why it creates so many bad feelings against it. 

In some ways, this philosophy is not unlike a virus which attaches itself to another living cell, uses it to live, and ends up killing as it uses the cell to replicate itself. Like a virus, it has qualities such as:

• It is foreign
• It can’t live on its own
• It needs to live off of something else
• It gains its power from something else
• It tries to change this “something else”
• It is damaging in its effects

This virus quality is not unlike the Christian conversion, of how it brought a foreign belief into a society, tried to change it, often forcefully, and ended up doing a lot of damage. This same thing was done by communism. 

THE QUESTION OF “MENTAL ISSUES”

It seems, to me, that a lot of liberals have some sort of “mental issue” or mental insecurity. In fact, this philosophy tends to attract people with “mental issues” and insecurity, or that’s how it appears to me. To me, to say that you are a liberal is like saying “I have a mental issue” or “I have an insecurity”. That is based on my observation. Frankly, liberals have never struck me as stable people. 

Liberalism is like a philosophy that is often used to try to “solve” peoples issues and insecurity. The philosophy seems to help their issues and insecurities in ways such as:

• Their self-righteousness, and “following the herd” mentality, makes them feel “safe” and “stable”
• They project their problems onto other people, so they don’t feel they have problems . . . its other people’s problems
• They think that by solving societies problems they will solve their problems . . . which it doesn’t

In these ways, they as if sit in the comfort of their self-righteousness and project their problems onto everyone else. But what it does, in a way, is infect their problems into society. In this way, liberal society creates a society with “issues “, and which is “insecure”. This is exactly what they have done, or so it seems to me. It seems, to me, that this philosophy will eat away at society if it were to become dominant. 

GOOD POINTS???

There are many good points with liberalism. It has done many good things and made many good points but, in my opinion, its bad sides outweigh the good it has done at least in what I have seen of it. Its primary benefits seem to involve these things:

• In emphasizing the individual
• In pointing out the controlling and strangulating aspects of society
• In dealing with the disadvantaged
• In dealing with subjects that are normally neglected by society

These are all good points but they destroy it with their fanaticism, by blowing things out of proportion, shoving it down our throats, and such. This, it seems, got particularly bad after the Hippie Movement. 

AM I LIBERAL?

I think that the question of if I am liberal ir not depends on the situation. I take liberal views with some things and other things I’m conservative and in some things I am neither. The point of view I take depends on what we’re looking at. I find that, generally, when I look at things from an individual perspective I tend to be more liberal and when I look at things socially they tend to be conservative. This, it seems to me, is a common scenario. 

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen