well, Poggo, if you are/were a well educated > 70 years old European which still remembers the true meaning of many terms, like Liberalism and Socialism and can tell the difference, then I would agree with you.
But then you must the be a Republican if you are an American, supporting real Liberalism - freedom of speech, you must reject wide spread censorship in the US and the EU, condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone.
I can continue what Liberalism is and what you must comply with to call yourself a liberalism. Do you?
And what of said above is present and even more, what is not exterminated with white hot iron in the US and Europe of Liberalism which I described?
If course I agree that True Liberalism cannot be a tyranny, but present US and European "liberalism", represented by Democratic party, LGBT aggressive mob and EU beurocrats is an opressive tyranny, which brutally suppressses any opposition.
I use recent American and Western European understanding of the word "Liberalism".
I gave you examples, you so far talk with slogans.
.Whelp number one above all, **YOU** do not tell **ME** what I "must do" so let's get that straight right off the bat. You loaded a world of rhetorical detritus in there, much of it only quasi- or tangentially related to Liberalism, but that's priority one and it may tell you more about me than what follows.
I am not European though I have spent considerable time there, but that time has pretty much zero to do with any political philosophies, as that's not what I was there for. I do not believe terms (Liberalism, Socialism, whatever) need to be
remembered, but simply understood. I do not see learning (anything) as a finite endeavor; it is never "finished", therefore one doesn't "remember" as if an event from the past.
I am not a Republican, or any other political party label -- I've never seen any point in joining/affiliating with a political party. It's like Fecesbook, the question being "what will this give me that I don't already have?" the answer being "nothing". I do not believe in binary thought, ergo I do not believe the universe is made up of two atoms called "Democrat" and "Republican". That's absurd. I absolutely do support Liberalism, but then I also understand what it is, and what it is not --- and what its opponents ceaselessly try to pervert it into. They will always be opposed as long as they're dishonest about it.
As a Liberal I do reject censorship, where I see it, but again I'm aware that there walk among us those who cry "Censorship!" where it does not exist, apparently unaware of the distinction between being "censored" and being "not entitled". For example Rump and "social nets moguls", presuming that means Tweeter and Fecesbook et al. Rump is not
entitled to troll the whole world using somebody else's platform. That access is up to that electronic venue, and frankly I think they waited WAY too long to put a stop to what was obviously socially destructive and self-obsessed behaviour --- but that irresponsible delay was their choice, not mine and
certainly not Rump's. **** him and everybody who thinks like him. And I don't use any of that shit myself, I've always seen it as pointless narcissism and a complete waste of time, consequently I neither know nor care how many "Rump supporters" --- as if that label could even be defined in the first place ---- may have been booted off. WHO CARES. That would be like worrying about how many slugs are on the golf course right now. That's
their problem.
I am invested in the stock market but I really don't give a shit what the Exchange chooses to list. Again that's their call, not mine. But related to this I CAN discern the distinction between social pressures and politics, only the latter of which has anything to do with laws or the Constitution. Social pressures, such as making cigarette smoking "uncool", are the true Democracy. The prevailing social winds determine in what direction they blow. And sometimes, often in fact, they go overboard before the pendulum swings back. Democracy is messy. One should feel free (and I certainly do) to oppose those winds when they do overblow, but that has nothing to do with Liberalism unless it crosses over into the realm of Law.
Not sure what the bit about "white hot iron" means but to conclude, Liberalism is absolutely NOT represented by "the Democratic party, LGBT aggressive mob and/or EU beurocrats", whatever they mean, *NOR* have I EVER suggested it is. Liberalism is a
philosophy, not a political party, not a "mob" aggressive or otherwise, not a gaggle of "bureaucrats". It is independent of ALL of that. It DISbelieves in social class striation, which is why Liberalism is diametrically opposed to racism and/or bigotry. Liberalism simply believes that government derives from the consent of the governed and that it stays out of the way of those governed except where it must intervene simply because no other entity can do it, such as building infrastructure. It has absolutely ZERO to do with who's wasting their time on Twatter, what the **** a tiny ice cream company in Massachusetts chooses to call its flavours, or what books the Dr Seuss estate chooses to discontinue. If it was meddling in any of that --- it would not be Liberalism. A Liberalist (preferrred term for person) may be a Democrat, a Republican, a No Party like me, a bureaucrat, a plumber, a Twatter, any or none of the above. Again, dichotomy is for those who self-confine to binary minds.
And finally just to add, I'm also aware that there are myriad wags on this site who intentionally misrepresent it by portraying some of these "bureaucrats' or Twatters or whoever, as "Liberals" when their actions clearly indicate otherwise (such as for example
this yahoo whose post just appeared in my notifications --- cluelessly he finds a word on the street and thinks he can make a projectile out of it by packing it in bullshit, never bothering to find out what the word is made of). They do this in order to construct what we call a Strawman argument, which is a fallacy and as such, incompetent argument. One must presume they do this because they're scared shitless of what Liberalism is --- freedom.
The meaning of
Liberalism does not change just because some asscrack politicians of the 1940s try to hitch it to the infamous "Red Scare" or because George Bush in 1988 chooses to spit the word as if an insult. It is in fact what our nation is founded on, and those tactics are plainly dishonest. They are essentially the same thing as dick-tating "what you must do" and as such will always be vehemently opposed, as all dishonest rhetoric must be.
It is me who must explain to you what it is 
