What "IS" a Liberal?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 007, Dec 4, 2004.

  1. 007

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    May 8, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Cuttin through the Bull #66
    What is a Liberal?
    Copyright © 2001 By Ray Thomas 05.21.01


    A caller to the Rush Limbaugh show asked a question the other day that really brought him up short. Me, too. The question was: "What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative?" This question is so basic that we who have been studying this phenomenon for many years forget that there are still people out there who are just beginning to study the ways of the power seekers in their efforts to be in control of everything we do. So let's try to answer that question:

    First of all, you must completely ignore the dictionary definition of "liberal" and "conservative." They no longer apply. "Liberal" ("Classical Liberal") used to mean much the same thing as "conservative" means today: reverence for individual rights and a government that does only one thing: protect us from threats, both domestic and foreign. "Conservative" ("Tory") in the days of the Founders meant those who wanted no change. They wanted to remain subjects of the King of England and many would undertake to be spies to accomplish that. Remember, the American Revolution was supported by only about a third of the population of the country. So what do those words mean today?

    *Liberal: The term "liberal" today is almost synonymous with "Socialist." Their "core beliefs" are that all men are their "brother's keeper." That no individual has the right to live for his own sake and must put the betterment of others before that of themselves and their loved ones, hoping (in vain) that others will put theirs ahead of their own. They adhere to the old altruistic maxim: "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." This means that "need" becomes a demand on the earnings of those who can, and will earn for themselves for the benefit of those who can't, or won't do so.

    So what you earn, even the property that you have paid for with the fruits of your work, literally the "sweat of your brow," does not belong to you, but to any lazy moocher that demands a "share." That is a "collectivist" theme. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and many other such "isms" that demand a "share" of the earnings of the producers of this nation are all "collectivist" themes. Collectivism is the "root term" to describe all these ""isms." The liberals determine their success by how many people are on welfare and dependent on the government for their daily bread. They believe that we are free to do whatever we want, and make others accept it, and never, never 'judge," or criticize. They have, in this instance, created another group you don't dare criticize, along with Jews and blacks: gays. This stifles free speech. They're all for "free speech" so long as it doesn't say something they don't want said.

    *Conservative: Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the primacy of the individual. They believe that the government has no responsibility to provide a single person with a living, or even a little bit of help. They're not against charity, but they are against forced charity with someone else's money. At the same time, they believe in individual responsibility, rather than collective responsibility. They determine their success by how many people don't need welfare, and can do for themselves. They promote moral behavior (sometimes too vigorously, to be sure) and far from forcing others to do what they demand (for the most part), merely want to maintain the right to simply criticize what others do when they violate the conservatives' moral standards. Today, to criticize a Jew, a "black leader" or the gay lifestyle leaves you open for vituperative criticism from the liberals and, in some cases, a lawsuit.

    So to simplify: liberalism is about collectivism and conservatism is about individualism. Collectivism is the philosophy of choice for those who would run other's lives, because it allows them to do so.

    Of course, there is today a third choice:

    *Libertarian: Under Libertarianism, you have the right to do anything you wish, so long as by doing so you don't violate another's right to do the same. That's about a simple as it gets. They're growing fast, no matter how much both other major parties want to deny it by playing up reverses in voting totals in the last election. They remain the third largest national political party and have many elected Libertarians in office. One day, they will have a president in office. If they would concentrate more on local elections, when that happens that president will not be alone in Washington. Further, those local and regional officeholders will make it more probable that a Libertarian president will be elected.

    Of course, there is a problem with the liberals: they want to be able to "micromanage" the lives of everybody else. They want to be "the boss" in all things. They are the architects of the "bureaucratic society" we have today where you have to obtain and pay for a "permit" to do about everything it's possible to do. To go, "hat in hand" to some arrogant, overbearing bureaucrat and ask his/her permission to do things that are your natural rights. "Permission" you should not have to ask for, from someone who should not have the right to grant it.

    They are the architects of the "welfare state" we now have, where a very large segment of our populace are literally government dependents, completely dependent on the government for the smallest thing. In creating these large numbers of dependents, they are creating votes to keep themselves in office. They continually use "class warfare" to keep these dependents hating those elusive "rich," who are, according to them, anybody who earns more than $75,000 a year. There are lots more of "the poor" than there are of "the rich."

    They are the "power seekers" whose every move is designed to give them more power over the rest of us. To get us to give our permission to take this power, they use the "Hegelian Principle," or "crisis government." Under the Hegelian Principle, there are three points:

    CREATE A "CRISIS" or blow an existing one far out of proportion to its importance;

    PUBLICIZE THE "CRISIS" far and wide until people, believing it to be a major problem, demand a "solution."

    OFFER A "SOLUTION" that takes away one or more rights and usually more tax money. A result not able to be gained without the prior conditioning in steps one and two.

    Every day it seems, there appears yet another "crisis" in the news (usually several). And every "crisis" is played up in the liberal-friendly press until we literally demand our own enslavement. I'd bet if you thought about it, you could name each one of today's "crises" and be able to follow them as they work themselves into new laws or regulations that stifle us further. This scam is one of their most basic, and it has been used for longer than I can remember, because it works like a charm, and most of us haven't tumbled to the hustle yet. We may never "tumble" to it, but I'm trying to inform as many people as I can so they can "read between the lines" when the liberals come up with a new "crisis" and oppose them. If we oppose these scams in greater numbers, maybe we can stop them, or at least slow them down,

    Liberals have one answer for every "crisis." More and bigger government. They've got most of us conditioned to believe that whenever there is a problem, it's the government's responsibility to solve it. But that's not true. It's our responsibility, as individuals, to get together and solve it ourselves without their bumbling, incompetent interference. And without having to buy a "permit" to do so.

    Liberals are unprincipled liars who demagogue every issue to further condition us to believe what they want us to believe. They work hard to make sure they are never accountable for their actions. Thus the condemnation of anyone who is "judgmental." Being "judgmental" is a huge sin to the liberals. But they forget that we must judge people and situations in order to know how to respond. Their very prohibition on being "judgmental" is their "judgment" that "we are too judgmental."

    Conservatives, who believe in individual effort, personal responsibility for our actions, and responsibility, don't believe that the government is the answer to every problem or "crisis." They don't practice "government by crisis" as the liberals do and they themselves still haven't "tumbled" to the liberals' use of the Hegelian Principle.

    One final thing: a Democrat is not necessarily a liberal, although the liberals have taken control of the party generally and party politics is based on collectivist principles. There are members of this party who may be conservative, or even Libertarian. Likewise, you do not have to be a conservative to be a member of the Republican Party. The terms are not synonymous in reality. But collectivists do effectively control the Democrat Party today while individualists do not have that much control over the Republican Party. They are represented, but do not control it. The Libertarian Party is made up mostly of solid individualists and, while they do have their problems, they are the nearest thing we have today to the "classical liberals" who created this republic.

    If there are any out there who still don't yet completely understand the difference between liberal and conservative, please write me and I'll try to make it more clear to you.


Share This Page