What Was Liberalism? #1 Ideology & Violence | Philosophy Tube


In the United States of America, I understand that the word ‘liberal’ means pretty much anybody politically left of Sauron. But
in my country, the UK, we make a distinction between Liberalism with a capital L and the Left Wing, which is even further Left than that. Liberalism is a very popular and influential
position with a fascinating history. So, in this 4 episode series, we are going to meet
the Liberals. Liberalism is an ideology. What does that mean – what is an ideology? Well, ideologies determine what facts are important and what actions are acceptable. So for instance, it is a fact that the Sun is 93 million
miles away. Okay, that’s interesting and it is a fact but it doesn’t really form the central
plank of anybody’s political ideology: to political ideologies that fact, although interesting, isn’t really that relevant, whereas other facts would be much more important. For instance, it is a fact that the human
species is diverse: we have different body types, skin colours, hair colours, eye colours, all sorts.
To a liberal ideology the facts about diversity might not be very important when it comes to deciding
how we build a society – liberalism tends to say that diversity of peoples and ideas
is a good thing, with some exceptions as we’ll be seeing later on. Compare that to a fascist ideology, which might take a fact like, ‘Human beings are diverse’ and make it a very, very important fact, and say off the back of it that some people who don’t fall into certain categories should be treated differently. There we see how the ideology works: it takes certain facts, prioritises them, and then says, “These facts mean that this action is what we should be doing.” So we can see that no matter how much somebody
insists their ideology is based “purely on the facts” that’s never the full picture.
Nobody’s ideology is based on every single fact there is; an ideology determines which facts are the most relevant, even which things get to be called facts, and what actions are
okay given the facts it decides to focus on. Interestingly, liberalism often markets itself
as not an ideology. Other ideologies, like fascism, often own it, but liberalism
has a continuing history of claiming to be neutral, objective, and based purely on
the facts. So much so that Francis Fukuyama famously claimed that Liberalism was “the end of history” – the final answer to politics, rather than just another ideology
that will someday pass away. Of course, we’ve seen already that this image Liberalism projects is a false one:
It is an ideology and like all ideologies emphasises and even constructs the facts that it finds relevant. There’s nothing more ideological than claiming to not have any
ideology. It’s appropriate that we just mentioned fascism
actually, because that ideology highlights an important job of political ideologies specifically – a political ideology identifies who are the acceptable targets of violence. So fascism might say that violence is okay against people who don’t meet the definition of whiteness that fascists use. A Left-Wing ideology like Leninism might say that violence is acceptable if it’s aimed at certain oppressive classes. And what about Liberalism? Who are the acceptable
targets of violence there? Well, here we’ve hit on something very interesting. Liberalism often markets itself as nonviolent.
As essentially benevolent, wanting “liberty and justice for all.” And those are great ideals to have. But every ideology says that. Everybody believes that they’re the good guy and nobody seriously says, “My ideology is incredibly violent and nasty and horrible!” Liberalism also markets itself as “moderate” or “centrist,” and again, yeah, everybody thinks that their ideas are moderate and sensible, but just saying that doesn’t make it so: the devil is always in the details. If we look at the history of liberalism we
notice a trend. It places a lot of emphasis on things like civil rights and freedoms. Great! But if we go back to the founding texts, writers like John Stuart Mill and John Locke, they
build explicit exceptions into their systems. And making exceptions to the normal rules is a defining characteristic of liberal ideology in practice. Classical liberals like John Stewart Mill
and John Locke wanted liberty but they made exceptions for “barbarians” and “savage
races” – it was okay if they didn’t have liberty. And the kicker is, men like
Mill and Locke were to be the deciders of who is savage. Mill loved the idea of liberty but he didn’t
think Indian people should be at liberty to run India. At least, not until British people
had taught Indian people how to run India “properly,” where “properly” was a)
to be decided by the British, conveniently, and b) basically meant in a way that allowed
Britain to profit, also conveniently. Locke did the same thing with Indigenous Americans
and Canadians, as we’ve discussed on the show before. This practice of making exceptions doesn’t
just appear on the pages of philosophy but also on the pages of history. For instance the founding fathers of the USA preached “liberty and justice for all” but we know that they made some exceptions to “all” because they also owned slaves. One thing my country is very good at today is preaching all kinds of freedoms and nice things for people, but denying those same things
to immigrants. The fact that somebody is an immigrant is deemed to be very morally
relevant and so apparently legitimises certain kinds of behaviours towards them, like imprisonment without trial, that otherwise would be against the rules. There we see liberal ideology in
operation: making exceptions to the ordinary rules in order to justify violence against somebody on the basis of some fact that it thinks relevant. Incidentally, it’s important to realise
that although all political ideologies legitimise violence somewhere and all claim to be moderate
and objective, that doesn’t mean they’re all the same or all equally good choices.
It just means that it’s not enough to believe the marketing: you’ve really gotta dig down
into an ideology and understand its guts to decide whether it’s for you. So we’ve said that liberalism is an ideology
and that despite its marketing it likes to makes exceptions to its own rules. What else can we say about it? What else does it mean to be a liberal? Well liberalism is often quite individualistic. What do we mean by that? Well a shallow take
would be that liberals view people as individuals. The reason that’s a shallow
take is because yeah, everybody thinks that No matter what their ideology is everybody agrees that people are
individuals. What we mean then is that liberalism says
when we look at a society, the units we should be using are the individual.
We analyse a society in terms of the decisions that individuals make, we describe a society as basically a collection of individuals, and when we explain what happens in a society the kinds of explanations will reference individuals. Margaret Thatcher, once famously said, “There
is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”
That’s a Liberal way of looking at the world. Actually that’s a good point: although Thatcher
was a Conservative, and normally we might think of liberals and Conservatives as opposites,
in fact she was still a capital L liberal. She still bought into the individualism, still
talked about rights and freedoms but made exceptions in a lot of cases, and still as if Liberalism was an invisible ideology. She’s still what you might call a “Classical
Liberal,” as is a lot of the American Republican party, despite also being small c conservative. Compare Liberalism’s focus on the individual
with, say, a Marxist ideology, which might say that when we look at a society we should understand it in terms of class
and how different classes conflict. Or fascism which says that we should understand society in terms of a superior white race struggling against inferior other races. There’s one last big feature of Liberalism,
and that is capitalism. And we’re gonna be learning all about that in Episode 2. In this Episode we’ve
learned that Liberalism is an ideology and what that means in terms of the violence it legitimises and the facts it deems relevant. We’ve also seen that it markets itself in a certain way but it makes exceptions to its own rules sometimes. If you’d like to learn any more there’s a whole bunch of recommended reading in the doobleydoo. If you liked today’s lesson, I have a tip jar at Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube, think of it like me putting a hat round at the end of the lecture. Or Patreon.com/PhilosophyTube is where you could make a monthly donation to help me keep making videos like this one. And don’t forget to subscribe.

100 thoughts on “What Was Liberalism? #1 Ideology & Violence | Philosophy Tube

  • In the first thirty seconds of this video, you convinced me that we need to make the same distinction about liberal left wing in America.

  • There has to be a way for us all to get along so we don't end up in a bigger mess than we already are.  I continue studying what Mark Passio calls Natural Law, and he makes a good case for how it can help save our world, but like you mention, in any ideology, the devil is in the details.  If you haven't watched his "Streetwise Spirituality," video here on YouTube, please do.  He clearly defines and differentiates violence from force, so if you are correct about all ideologies committing violence, then Natural Law would not be an ideology .  Really appreciate your presentations.  I have a LOT to learn.

  • I think you are actually too generous to Locke. In my opinion, everything he ever wrote can be summed up as "The specific injustices to which I have been subjected are the worst possible injustices, and mark their perpetrators as indelibly evil. The injustices from which I have benefitted are simply the price we should all be willing to pay in order to prevent the more important kind of injustices – once again, those which i have personally suffered.

  • On going back and reading some of our founding U.S. texts, it seems that violence was only acceptable against those that didn't pay taxes and couldn't own property. This was made very clear about the native tribes, but it also implies slaves, women and children. With children still unable to pay taxes or own property today, I wonder if this isn't why we're still so tolerant when it comes to physical discipline towards children. It also explains our current general resentment and ill treatment of illegal immigrants.

  • Linguistic/spelling note: I would say Thatcher was a small-L liberal. At least here in Canada, where the Liberals are a party (capital-L Liberals), I spell liberal with a small-l for the ideology.

  • 3:34 Na-ah. Leninism would say what is acceptable is violence against those opposing the vanguard party of communism – therefore anyone that could in some way displace Lenin or wish to displace Lenin. In its literal application, it is no different to a fascist ideology in many ways.

  • 8:36 The I wouldn't say the struggle in fascism is always race-related, more about groups of people with a certain identity – whether its their nationality, or their values – a conservatism to the next level even.

  • legal immigration don't get trialed in america? holy shit you gouys are fucked. and no. not everybody thinks people are individuals….sigh

  • If you're so far to the left that to you a Liberal and a Conservative are the same thing then you might be an extremist's extremist!

  • Britain detaining refugees without trial just makes britain less liberal but it says nothing about liberlism itself. wtf how is making exceptions to liberalism relevant to the ideology of liberalism ? Founding fathers having slaves is totally irrelevant when judging their writings.

  • It is a mistake to use the term liberalism in the ways it is used here. We put too much stress on words used by previous generations and writers. Words are not magic – they do not construct reality, they reflect a reality or 'reality' within the minds of individuals and groups of individuals.
    It is a lot easier to apply such labels to systems created by eponymous heroes – Marx in particular. It is not sensible to claim we can know anarchism or conservatism or whatever. The most complex of all ideologies is liberalism. Defining 'liberalism' is a bit like defining 'the west' or 'modernity'. I see little or no acknowledgement of philosophical principles to the problem of ideology in this video. Much of this drivel is part of the leftist drive to label mainstream thinking as 'far-right' or extremist or sanctioning unjust violence. This is a childish attempt to drive classification and acceptable discourse to the left. Many people who reflect 'the liberal' world view have been attacked and or shut down on campus and wider society. Much of that mindless activism and opportunism has been subsidised by the very bourgeoisie the left claim to hate.
    Very poor.

  • It’s strange to me (from the us) that the members of the generic liberalism are Liberals while members of an official party are liberals (ell size). Us Yankee Doodleedoos do the opposite where if you generically believe in democracy you are a democrat and if you are affiliated with the Democratic Party you are a Democrat. Am I right in noticing that the convention is swapped like that? Capital letters are actually kind of a funny thing and for a long time you could find dramatically different conventions all over the English writing world so it wouldn’t surprise me. Anyway I’m normally not a style guide type of nerd but this caught my eye. Or it catched my eye? Either way Everyone knows that real Alphas don’t ask for permission to embiggen their letters Case And Pointe DJT’s bizarre twitter style of capsing words he thinks his base likes as being Good words that we Love.

  • You really don't understand capitalism. It's didn't emerge after the English civil war. It has always existed it just didn't come to be understood and studied until the enlightenment.
    This idea perpetuates the whole series .

  • Your Criticism of liberalists: they were not liberalistic enought….

    I have to agree with that, but regardless you are a fuckin idiot and a coward pls get the facts straight

  • And here I thought Liberal just meant leftwing.
    Looks like I identify as a leftwing socialist now.
    Sigh that feels better

  • "…there, we see liberal ideology in operation: making exceptions to the ordinary rules in order to justify violence against somebody on the basis of some fact that it deems relevant". Really?

    I like your videos. But here's some unsolicited strategic advice from a youtube nobody that you'll probably never read: if you have any ambitions of converting political rivals, this sort of rhetoric is liable to backfire.

    Looking through your videos, most of your more (apparently) dubious, uncharitable, or tendentious claims seem due to leftwing bias. In many cases, you may in fact have strong implicit arguments, or there might be some you could develop. But that's not enough. 'Opponents' (in this case, classical liberals) are just going to dismiss you as an ideologue. What is needed is to critically engage the key points of contention, rather than play to your base and make contentious assumptions.

    Regarding the substance of the above claim: What's contentious is that it is liberalism that is at fault for these cases of exception-making, violence and exploitation. It's not obvious that it is. Such behaviour could easily be explained by contingent features of certain self-proclaimed liberals throughout history – features completely unrelated to liberal ideology. After all, any ethical system can be incorrectly implemented and espoused by hypocrites. What needs to be shown is that it is somehow part of the logic of liberalism that it produces these sorts of problematic consequences.

    Best,
    Rory

  • Liberals are a class of people that do not participate in common sense nor do they possess critical thinking skills. They see what is considered bad, to be good and what is considered good, to be bad. These are people who bring attention to problems that don't exist; they find ways to be seen as victims and waste money and time. They are adamant fault-finders. They detest people who don't share their thoughts and understandings. They aren't interested in blending in or conforming to social norms or longstanding, conservative views. They love attention and refuse to shut up. And do not expect them to make any sense.

  • Now I want to create a political philosophy that relies on the distance between the earth and sun as a core plank.

  • I feel that you were not very objective with your comments of Fascism. It seems to me that you genuinely believe that Fascism is an ideology which can only be practised by white people, however this is just simply not true.

  • And, you know, there's no such thing as pressure or flow. There are individual particles and there is mechanics.

  • thatcher picked up after the worst aspects of classical liberalism but at the same time, she was actually far to the right of adam smith, who had promoted the labor theory of value and influenced karl marx despite being capitalist in other ways

  • Making exceptions to general rules is actually a way for people who believe in the existence of general rules to hide the infuriating neccessity of diversity of rules for different sociopolitical scenarios

  • Economic liberalism is all about treating corporations as individuals and not allowing government to interfere with them. Social liberalism emerged later when it was really how much damage economic liberalism was doing. Think Dickens' London. But it was not socialism, it was helping people to help themselves – still individualism.

    I think the Political Compass differentiation between left and right economically, i.e. between a centrally planned economy and a free market economy on the one hand, and authoritarianism and libertarianism on the other is very important. Stalin was authoritarian left, Kropotkin was libertarian left (or anarchist). Thatcher was authoritarian right, Friedman was libertarian right. Hitler was an extreme authoritarian, but an economic centrist (pro free enterprise, but also highly protectionist). So called "far right" groups are often economic centrists of an authoritarian and nationalistic type.

    Ironically Hillary Clinton was more in favour of free markets than Donald Trump i.e. to the right of him economically. And he turned into a protectionist which is a hard-left policy. But he is far more authoritarian than her. All American politicians are liberal, the whole country is founded on the pursuit of liberty. Even Bernie Sanders is not really a socialist, though he calls himself that. He would be a centrist in the UK.

    Anyway, in this view liberalism is the right wing. To be a social liberal is still associated with the right. The left do not help people to help themselves. They take care of others needs for them with no expectation of a quid pro quo. Liberals want people to work for the dole; socialists see this as punishment for being out of work. Marx wanted the workers to own everything and run society – which could hardly be further away from what Stalin and Mao did.

  • Capitalism is evolving as unchecked into an over-hiearchicalized society of needs attachment, its irrational waste considered personal beyond consideration or fairness – as the random standard, sometimes honored, often loved, and respected in all these ways as allied rights more than any competing inclusion of the least reasoning, whereas the purpose of life is the highest, our minds' gifts too often diverted from pain if not outright destroyed now as a condition of war. It's a place for the mere naturally coldest effficient species transforming energy and power's use and cherishing its victims – mostly as food, the terror of their condition as life's possibilities occurring among unchecked ambitions as life itself.

    Sing!

  • This explains a lot about your position, I originally had no idea what you were on about when you described liberalism as a community of strength.

  • "Fascism sees a struggle of a superior white race struggling against inferior other races"

    Therein we see on of the inherent contradictions of fascism. "White people, are, like, just the best" existing at the same time as this notion that they're also subjugated (no matter how much power they actually hold), put upon by and struggling against the "inferior" others. Simultaneously the great big strong pure Viking Ubermensch, and weak, bullied, and craven. I think that's a pretty foundational piece of doublethink for fascists, to be honest.

  • Old video, I know, but I find the definition of violence and ideology fascinating, especially when I try to apply it to something like Pacifism and what sort of violence it justifies. Of course there are many forms of pacifism, and some forms of pacifism do justify violence through things like police action or revolution/civil war, but other forms of absolute pacifism would justify no violence whatsoever, maybe making the only form of violence justifiable that which is directed only to oneself, either by the self or by some external force.

    Perhaps an example of this comes from my own country with the Moriori of the Chatham islands who practiced a form of pacifism out of necessity to preserve resources on their barren island. However, this lead to their genocide when invading Maori from the mainland invaded and enslaved, slaughtered and cannibalized them to near extinction.

    Does this perhaps lets us say that an absolute pacifist justifies violence maybe not by volition, but by inaction, so long as someone else is committing the violence?

    P.S I love your work and have watched everything multiple times. Its been especially useful as someone who is going through school and trying to work out what to make of the world around them. Especially when so many people my age, especially young men, seem to be more interested in toying with right wing ideas by proxy of "Anti-sjw" content and its parallels with mainstream meme culture and to the alt-right. This series was also particularly useful for tackling much of the liberal ideology entrenched in my parents' generation, especially with regard to the impending climate crisis. I suspect you'll be glad to hear that you have achieved the impossible and changed some minds! My mother and I now attend XR meetings, and we are eagerly plotting the destruction of Neo-liberalism!

  • i learned from this dude more philosophy than i learn in full semester from university thank you good sir

  • Omg I finally understand. I usually fall asleep in these kinda videos .I didn't.. and I understood 😃 thank you random handsome guy from YouTube. Subscribe 😊

  • May someone in the comments explain to me the exception rule? The exceptions are made by many political ideologies, well in their transformations, at least in the implementation part. Many thanks.

  • I've always been so confused about other countries politics because in aus our more conservative party is called the Liberal party and this has helped me understand the difference a bit more

  • 4:40 Yes, Liberalism is an ideology and, yes, in practice it makes exceptions to normal rules. But ALL ideologies that have been practiced do that. So it defines all ideologies not just Liberalism. Saying it's exception making is a defining attribute of Liberalism is discredit the meaning of "defining".

  • Hey buddy, good work out there. What's your take on Chomsky's assertion that Marxism was an evolution of classical liberalism, and that neoliberalism emerged as it was realized that socialism was liberalism's logical end?

  • John Locke and John Stuart Mill are not the best examples you could have used and shows how you skew the message to fit your narrative. Go to the basics, the point where almost every scholar agrees the ideology started, Adam Smith. I think you will find that he was a compassionate individual who studied moral philosophy to large extent and his economics are derived from that. You can't be a philosopher and just pick the negative aspects unless you're explicitly criticizing said ideology and based on "What Was Liberalism?" as a title i think you are misleading your audience, you're not teaching us about liberalism from a neutral standpoint and weighing the options, you're building a narrative structure with pinpoint accuracy to deliver your obviously anti-liberalism message. I don't know if that was on purpose or not, and i don't really care, a true philosopher has to be fair for me to take him/her/them seriously.

  • re-listening. I know this may sound like an apology or excuse for slavery, but the FACT is that America was founded after 1791, after the war had been declared in 1776.

    However, European colonies in the region since 1492 or so, when Columbus (or more his cruel peers) made slaves of the indigenous of the Caribbean and Florida, as well as Mexico.
    Then colonists moved in along the eastern seaboard of North America, and the 13 colonies were gradually established. Ergo, slavery as a core commercial enterprise for farming and trade had already existed for some 200-300 years before the Constitution.

    Ergo, there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER the more enlightened Founders who personally opposed slavery could invite people and colonies to a new Govt and new Constitution in which the first promise was to free the slaves, aka seize their valuable property. Obviously, many were SERIOUSLY committed to keeping their slave-property, so serious they were willing and eager to launch a war with Washington DC and the entire North at Fort Sumpter (and prior battles in Kansas/Missouri) just to prove that point. Ending slavery required a lengthy intellectual and violent opposition to slavery by many until the change became inevitable, just as the South feared it would. Cassius Clay Jr was one of those abolitionists who faced murderous mob violence, and fought back violence with his own violence, for his meddling in the slavery issue.

    This movement for a revolutionary "civil war" with Mother England arose in part for economic reasons but also religious reasons. There was a drive for freedom FOR various Christianity after a period repression by the Church of England, but also a heightened commitment to libertarian limits on religion, and for some, freedom FROM religion. Specifically state-religion. Religious nuts were extremely nutty where they movements with a lot of numbers took hold. Spanish Catholics murdered French Hugonauts in Jacksonville, then Drake from England later attacked the Spanish at St Augustine. It was not easy to smooth over differences between Catholics vs various Protestant Christians (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.)

  • If Liberals believed in Diversity they wouldn't try to suppress white people OUT OF EXISTENCE or as they say it in schools: "genocide of whites". FYI. Equality is IDEOLOGY

  • I hate the american definition of liberalism because if you're leftist you are compared to a lot of people you disagree with

  • So many people instantly want to tie any ideology to the level of social inclusivity practiced by its adherents, which is absolutely not obvious to me. To illustrate, I am a conservative right-wing libertarian and the only just economic system I believe in is laissez-faire capitalism, and at the same time I am also a vegetarian and an animal rights activist. In this sense I am much more inclusive than a lot of social justice lefties for example.

    What I want to say is that the question of who we include in our society and the question of how we organise this society are basically unrelated to each other. The fact that Athenean democracy excluded women doesn't raise any questions about the idea of democracy itself, and similarly the fact that Jefferson owned slaves, because he didn´t think that black people were actually people, is totally meaningless when we discuss the idea of liberalism itself. And the reason for this is not some kind of historical relativism, but that these are two fundamentally different questions that need to be answered separately by every society.

    Yours truly, from the Right.

  • wait, i may be dumb here but last time i watched this video i swear it said what is liberalism, not what was liberalism

    should we be concerned, if so?

  • The classical liberalism that people like Jordan Peterson are always trying to bring us back to was pretty much a shit stain on human history

  • "Nobody says, 'my ideology is incredibly violent, and nasty and horrible.'" — well now, that just sounds like a challenge! j/k

  • You said all political persuasions are just different kinds of ideology who all think they are obviously true and center perspective. Now political persuasions are shared sets of ideas just like religions are. Religions are ideologies that all think they are obviously true and center perspective.

    How then is being “islamapjobic” somehow morally wrong but being “fascism-aphobic” not?

  • It may seem from watching youtube that Liberalism in the USA describes anybody to the left of Sargon. That is certainly how the right, not famous for nuance, uses the word. However, there is a real left in the USA that criticizes "Liberals" all the time, though they strike me as using the term just as vaguely as conservatives do. And I find it problematic when they spent more time insulting Liberals that the actual right.

  • So I hear things like "Conservative with a small ''C'" or "Big 'L' Liberal" and I'm not sure what that means exactly. Can someone explain?

  • I did not agree with your point on immigrants – 'immigrants' who enter the UK legally are not imprisoned. The rule of law is important to us liberals.

  • Ideology says which facts are important when we make violence. Liberalism state, that we should minimize individual suffering. And when your real goal is actual change and improvement, and when you think more or less realistic, you wouldn't tell slaveholders that we must free slaves. Too short video for such topic. Bad

  • Why do you ask for money at the end of each video? You are a WHITE DUDE! You should NEVER give money to WHITE MEN! Just the fact, that you even dare to ask for money, shows that also you are nothing more than a racist sexist bigot, just like all the fascists. Shame on you!!

  • In my view these political ideologies should act as generalized descriptions of beliefs instead of a templated proposal for our views. liberalism is support for liberation from an influence, fascism is support of influencing enforcement, Republicanism is request based enforcement through an oligarchy. All ways work when the valued constituents are accounted for by the enforcing class. Fascism to achieve liberal ends is still fascism. If we can acknowledged control as such and not vilify it due to the potential, while still making people aware of their potential for violence, we can really start to communicate.

  • A marxist doesn't view humans as classes, but as individuals. That is why Karl Marx wanted to get rid of Capitalism, since it created classes.
    When liberalists tries to defend their ideas they talk about how perfect and open minded they are. But in reality they are happy to see a sharp difference between wealthy and poor. They just don't like the word bourgeoisie and the word proletariat, since they remind them of socialism.

  • So Liberalism makes exceptions to its rules of liberty 'for all'…so do all ideologies, the all make exceptions. European fascism makes exceptions to white supremacist ideas of the sanctity of the white race and their superiority depending on one individuals mental faculties or political opinions. What I am curious about is whether or not there is a systematic explanation to the exceptions made by Liberalism, in defiance of its purported ideology? 

    Could be mentioned later in the series, but haven't gotten there yet, and I wanted to feel included.

  • So, your main criticism of capital-L Liberalism in this video is that it recognizes citizenship? Surely a nation must not conflate citizen with non-citizen—unless you wish to abolish nation-states altogether. Also, I wouldn't conflate "processing migrants" with "violence," unless of course we're willing to change the definition of violence itself. Surprisingly ideologically-driven analysis, here.

  • I came from a liberal Jesuit university so this is actually scary and new for me. LOL. But I'm really drawn to it. Besides, even in the university, there were many Literature professors who were Marxists. I suspect there were more Marxists in other humanities courses.

    Oh… and communists are being hunted down right now in my country. So, I guess this is really scary. But fuck it.

  • "Indians can't rule themselves until we teach the how to do" the same attitude still survive until these day amongst the so called progressive and liberals. For example i see a lot of liberals and progressives trying to reinforce the word Latinx instead of Latino or Latina on disadvantaged Spanish speaker from Latin countries because they deem it as inappropriate and sexist by American western standards. This akso can be applied when America tries to smear other countries like Cuba or Venezuela and intervene in their business. Tjis is a purely western mindset because westerners and especially liberals see themselves in higher moral grounds than every other ethnicity and culture which they deem savage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *