Everyone is born a liberal (leftist) and must learn conservatism (righteousness). Learning conservatism begins with learning morality. Everyone understands the difference between good and bad, but children must be taught the difference between right and wrong, and leftists strive to indoctrinate them by teaching them wrong.
Liberalism is born of ignorance and bred on immorality. Liberal thinking is the immature thinking of the unlearned mind making decisions based on insufficient or incorrect information. Young liberals are easily misguided by propagandists and deceivers, and it can take decades to overcome their indoctrination to learn to think for themselves and examine the facts in a critical manner.
This leads to liberals being told one thing and reinterpreting what is said in their own minds to something completely wrong. For example; it’s like telling a woman, “You look beautiful today,” and she retorts, “What? Do you think I look ugly all the other days?” There are many subjects that liberals reinterpret in a dysfunctional way.
What you say and what they hear:
- You say, stop being a deadbeat, drugged up parasite and get a job
- They hear, I want to make you my slave
- You say, I’m not paying for your birth control, pay for it yourself
- They hear, I want to take away all birth control from women
- You say, I support the police to protect us from criminals
- They hear, I’m a racist who wants to kill black people
- You say, I want to own a gun to protect myself from criminals
- They hear, I want to shoot up children at school
- You say, marriage is a sacred union of a man and woman to start a family
- They hear, I’m afraid of my own homosexual desires
- You say, I want to stop Islamic Jihadi’s terrorism, rape, and murder
- They hear, I am a Christian bigot who hates other religions
- You say, I want to stop illegal aliens from taking America jobs
- They hear, I’m afraid of beings from other planets
This kind of dysfunctional, neurotic thinking IS from another planet!
Liberals say Christians suffer from Islamophobia. They have no comprehension of the dangers of Islam because they are completely ignorant of the teachings of Muhammad. It’s not an irrational fear when they’re really trying to kill you. You cannot negotiate with someone whose only demand is that you become a slave to their religion or die!
Further examples from television and government:
Women of “The View” said they wanted to make Carly Fiorina more visible in a campaign of men. Then they say she looks demented when she smiles. When Fiorina calls them out they tell her to sod off saying they are helping her. All that can be said of that is – with friends like that…
There’s a term for people who think and act like this in the real world saying one thing and doing the opposite – they’re called two-faced hypocrites.
Like Obama who says he wants an all “all of the above” approach to producing American energy and then crushes oil drilling and coal mining. Liberals say Obama is too dignified to mock Republicans, and then he mocks Republicans saying, those presidential candidates who say they’ll take on Putin can’t even take on liberal debate moderators. America’s dumbest voters eat this up and they still believe Obama is making America better for them as more and more of them join the ranks of welfare and food stamps voter slaves.
The fact is, Republicans shoved the CNBC debate up the moderator’s rectums alongside their heads. Democrats won’t debate on any conservative network. Who’s the one that’s afraid? The CNBC debate was supposed to be about the candidate’s different economic plans. Did anyone hear a question about the economy, or was it all “are you a comic book villain,” “do you know math,” “are you going to shut down the government?”
Liberal thinking is dysfunctional logic resulting from years of being indoctrinated by socialists. These people want to corrupt America and influence young people to vote against their own best interests. They are taught lies in school that capitalism makes only a few greedy people ultra-wealthy, but socialism spreads the wealth around.
They are not taught history that proves capitalism lifted two billion people out of poverty and created a Middle Class, while socialism sucked the wealth out of nations, putting it into the hands of the government that kills everyone who does not submit to them. They are not taught morals to respect others, work hard and save to get ahead, and do your share toward making America great. The Left has taken America apart and is transforming the greatest nation in the history of the world with lies about how “unfair” it is for America to be wealthy because her citizens “stole” from other countries. America never stole resources from any other nation as proven by the fact that every nation with which America has conducted trade has gained great wealth in the process, and this is where liberal ignorance leads them to all of their erroneous beliefs.
19th century liberalism was the opposite of 21st century liberalism. The term liberal has been hijacked by socialists and their “social justice” agenda. What was called liberalism in the 19th century is called conservative Christianity today. What Churchill said about liberalism and socialism in his later years demonstrates how the change was occurring after the introduction of Marxism.
Socialism is the ideology of Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists, and Islamists, all of which demand the individual become subservient to the State.
Liberalism is for the galactically stupid and batsh*t crazy!
At the 3rd GOP debate Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Christie shined, Bush flopped, and CNBC was crushed
The Great Obama Depression 2009-present
Voting Democrat means giving criminals more rights than citizens
Related articles;
The America hater’s War on taxpayers, police, and patriots
Anchor babies – making thieves family
Raining on Obama’s parade of “deadly dangerous” climate change
Moslem invasion and rape of Europe
Other articles;
Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad
Young liberal wisdom; a series of unfortunate beliefs
Proof of fraud – the Democrats agenda to tax Americans
Black Lives Matter – an analysis of America’s newest hate group
You don’t need science to prove global warming is a scam
(Please like and share this with your friends. Let them know the truth. To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)
(Debate: Honest people wishing to debate will post their remarks in the comments of the article. Dishonest people wishing to dissuade people from reading the truth will post in the comments of a link.)
Liberals Backwards Think 
Very nice post – I very much enjoyed the reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pathetically ignorant, factually wrong and offensive. I am sure someone more effective and intelligent than me will answer this bigot better than I could.
LikeLike
“Offensive!” “Bigot!”
Well, I for one am convinced! Thanks for the excellent rebuttal Ms. Trahon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ms. Trahon, what do you find offensive and ignorant in this article? Also, “Factually wrong” should be easy to prove. Yet you simply leave without any clarification or expansion on your comment. You are essentially screaming, “You JERK! I hate you!” and then storming off.
Those are the actions of an immature personality. Modern American Social Progressivism creates such as this. It is an anger toward anything you don’t understand or agree with, combined with an inability to properly express your own viewpoint or to address opposing viewpoints.
You are the quintessential cave-man stomping up and down and waving your club at the man with fire.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am sure there are many who are “more effective and intelligent than” you, but they wouldn’t be the ones who would “answer this bigot better than” you. They would be the ones decidedly putting you and your ilk in their place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Liz read the post; but here is what she thought,”It scares the hell out of me that I’m such an illiterate liberal; I just can’t admit the truth. I can’t face the fact that I’m one of the real deniers.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barbara Burke Trahon is “Pathetically ignorant, factually wrong and offensive.” She admits that she is not very intelligent. She would make a very good Democrat unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very good information not found elsewhere!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Edited excerpt from a JPFO article by S. Thompson M.D. >>>>>> One of the main mental processes liberals use is “Projection”. It is a defense mechanism which is an unconscious psychological mechanism that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept. They operate without our awareness, so that we don’t have to deal consciously with “forbidden” feelings and impulses.Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him. All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it’s common to hear people say “I’d like to kill my boss”Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such “unacceptable” emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that “good people” never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them. This is especially true now that education “experts” commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment. To protect themselves from “being bad”, they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.
Also look up/search “Denial” and “Reaction Formation” to better understand why “Liberals” think the way they do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great article and sooooooo true! It seems liberals have absolutely no common sense in most cases. Ans liberals are so skilled at not listening to reason but amazing at getting away with their lies and attacks. Then, a huge part of the uninformed, unthinking citizenry believe the lies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent, Smithers, excellent!
LikeLike
I’ve often wondered what the prevalence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is among self professed liberals. I have no data but would not be surprised to find out it’s at a high rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey man, I think that you should take a step back from this path and reassess your assumptions. There is so much negativity here that is completely unnecessary and unproductive. I feel for you and how that negativity must permeate your being. Progressive and conservatives ideals are best when they meet in the middle. This is borderline hate speech, and doesn’t further any conversation or opportunity therein.
Peace and love,
Tyler
LikeLike
Tyler, I had the great blessing of growing up in the greatest country in the history of the world. You are growing up in a country that is falling apart. The history of this country, and the world, that I have studied for most of my life is that nothing modern “progressives” propose is progressive, but is a regression to totalitarian government control. You think being against that is negative? You need to put down the medical marijuana so you can think more clearly. It is borderline psychotic to say patriotism is “extremist hate speech.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey dustyk103 I’m not from the right or the left and I was actually thinking your comment made sense until you became judgmental about medical marijuana. I think you need lay off those government sponsored pharmaceutical meds and go all natural.
Also you must have grown up in Singapore then because the US has never really been considered the greatest country in the world except by its own citizens myself included. Unless you consider greatness… military greatness then yes we are that. Singapore was recently voted best country to live in and Costa Rica was recently voted the happiest country in the world. Happy is my definition of greatness.
LikeLike
Sorry, luv, but I’ll have to disagree – not about marijuana. Far as I’m concerned the government has no business legislating morality or people’s use of drugs. If they want to dull their minds then that’s their choice.
Singapore and Costa Rica might be nice places to live, but that’s because most of the people who live there have lots of money, and it’s mostly because they moved there after making their fortunes in the U.S. But both are tiny places that can be easily overwhelmed by an invader. Meaningless in the scheme of things.
America is the greatest country in the world because it has lifted its citizens out of poverty into a new Middle Class that didn’t used to exist. Not only did she lift her citizens, but she has lifted two billion people of the world up thanks to trade, and more billions are alive today thanks to medicines supplied by America. Most of all, every war in which America has engaged, unlike any nation throughout history, instead of raping the loser and making them pay for the war, America has spent her wealth rebuilding them. In addition, whenever disaster strikes anywhere in the world it is Americans who rush to help, Americans who donate their wealth, their time, and even their lives to make the lives of others better.
No nation in history can make the same boast. That is why America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, and everyone in the world knows it. The only people who despise America are those nations whose leaders want to conquer others and are stopped because we stand in their way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This might be the dumbest sh*t I’ve ever read in my entire life. LOL Who has the time to make this stuff up?
LikeLike
Ignorant people mock what they do not understand.
LikeLike
Unfortunately you’ve missed the irony in your comment dustyk. This article literally mocks liberalism. Ignorant perhaps?
LikeLike
This isn’t mockery – it’s observable facts. If it were mockery I would have made it funny, but there is nothing comical about it. Just because a liberal is insulted by it doesn’t make it mockery. “If you want to make a conservative mad tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal made tell him the truth.” Had he understood what he was reading then he would have said something more intelligent.
LikeLike
Contemptuous language is enough. The Cambridge dictionary suggests that ‘to mock’ is to ‘make something appear stupid or not effective’. You do this.
I have to hand it to you though, this article is quite amusing, had me laughing. To quote you, ‘socialism is the ideology of Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists, and Islamists’, and to conflate these ideologies as such, is laughable. That is a clear, agenda driven statement, and nothing more. You don’t like a certain ideology (which is fair enough) however to make your point you try to associate it with other ideologies which have been frequently criticized, in an attempt to convince the mindless of what you are saying, that is pathetic. Use evidence. Perhaps turn to some peer reviewed, academic journals before making these broad sweeping, ill informed claims. If you can provide evidence from leading academics that support your assertions, it would make your article credible and worthy of consideration. Not once have you used reputable, empirical, peer reviewed fact in your article. It is purely conjecture.
Also, this article is one big generalisation and misrepresentation, and I’m sorry, but that is not an accurate description of liberalism. Liberalism sits within capitalism, it is not there to replace it, the world is driven by capitalist endeavor and that won’t change in the near future. A liberal way of thinking in national politics literally just means the implementation of equitable measures and services put in place so the most needy can have access to the basic needs for their subsistence. This is governed by legislation to minimise instances of people rorting the system. Keep in mind that so many people, including the top 1% and MNC’s ‘rort the system’ on a daily basis through tax evasion which conservative politics often turns a blind eye towards. Why should the every day person pay as much tax as they do, but the most wealthy and huge billion dollar companies pay so little in terms of percentage? That is so unfair. Everyone pays tax, and that money should be returned to the population through services and infrastructure. (A liberal belief).
Liberals are concerned with the collective, their fellow human. It’s not an individual based movement. Therefore, a compassionate approach to dealing with people of all backgrounds is the chosen method. Regarding Islam, to quote you, ‘you say, I want to stop Islamic Jihadi’s terrorism, rape, and murder’, and in response any logical, forward thinking liberal, would say, ‘you’re completely correct, I agree with you 100%’. Any sane liberal hates and despises terrorism as much as the next person, be they conservative or whatever political leaning they have, and that is a fact. However, liberals know that the vast majority of people from the Islamic faith are not terrorists, and are therefore happy to provide sanctuary for them. They believe that you cannot judge an entire group of people based off the actions of an absolute minority. Just as so many Christians don’t literally interpret every element of their holy book and aren’t fundamentalist, the same can be said about the vast majority of Muslims. You will only be considered a bigot if you suggest every Muslim is a threat and consequently don’t deserve rights, because that is nonsense. Also, the immigration process involves strict screening, and therefore hard for potential terrorists to get through. You should be more afraid of homegrown loony’s with guns who shoot up innocent victims. This occurs much more frequently than any Islamic violence.
Finally, to quote you,’you say, I want to stop illegal aliens from taking America jobs’. How can people with zero cultural capital (which is a product of the immigration process, meaning any qualifications and skills they may have acquired in their former state, are now effectively worthless) take the skilled jobs of American citizens? They can’t. Also, you say they are illegal, how on earth can they then get a job? That would be the quickest way to deportation. If they can find a job, the best these people can hope for is unskilled labour. Hardly a threat to the everyday American. If they are somehow able to ‘take your job’ maybe that requires a little self-reflection on the part of the person who lost their job. Also, if these people are accepted into America, and granted citizenship, are they not then American?
p.s. There is so much more I could respond to, but I won’t. Also, I’m not going to reply.
LikeLike
Thanks for responding here on my article rather than some silly link where no one would ever see this.
Contemptuousness is not mockery. Highlighting the ludicrous is not the same as mocking the legitimate. It is just meant to display the illogic of liberal arguments.
I do not falsely conflate the sub-ideologies of socialism. The fact is that all of these are totalitarian ideologies no different than monarchies, feudalism, despotism, or any other dictatorship as proven over the last century. They all fall under the category of totalitarian governments.
As for your statement, that I need to provide links to peer-reviewed, academic journals for legitimacy of my “broad sweeping statements” that you claim are ill-informed, this is an article I wrote in response to such claims;
License to teach – the authority of liberalsbackwardsthink.com
Your argument of the definition of liberalism is one I’ve seen many times that is based on the 18th-century definition of liberalism. This is the 21st century and liberalism has been taken over by socialists. Their ideology is nothing like the ideology of the Founders. Teddy Roosevelt and JFK were both old-school liberals. But the Clintons and Obama are the opposite.
The problem with Islam is not that some people are radical while most are peaceful. Terrorists are not created by the West. Terrorists are created by the teachings of Mohammed. Just like Hitler, only a small percentage of Germans were actually Nazis, and a larger percentage supported them. These were enough to subjugate the rest of the population. This is the same case with Islam. Mohammed knew that if Christians were permitted to evangelize that most Moslems would turn away from Islam, which is why he made laws that no churches could be built or re-built once destroyed, and that any who leave Islam do so under penalty of death for apostasy.
Gun control is not the problem in America. Control of criminals, psychotics, and foreign terrorists is the problem. Taking guns from law-abiding citizens nothing except make them more vulnerable to these horrors. One liberal suggested a national gun registry could be used to list the homes of gun owners on the Internet. This kind of ill conceived logic is why liberalism fails. He thinks he will “shame” gun owners, but what he would do is tell criminals where to find guns and what homes to invade that are unprotected.
As for illegal aliens taking jobs, I never said they took skilled jobs. They take unskilled jobs, the kind of jobs teenagers were would get as they begin in the workforce. You ask how on earth can get a job if they’re illegal? Try asking your government. How do 12+ million illegal aliens subsist in the USA if not because government and employers turn the other way? It’s the same answer as to why there are so many illegals able to cross our borders into our country.
So I thank you for your response and this opportunity to enlighten you and others who believe your arguments. This is the way for liberals to learn rather than shutting down debate as they are taught to do in college.
LikeLike
hello, sorry to get involved, however, totalitarianism emerged from within all those political models, however you suggest they all operate under a system of socialism, and that is wrong. Fascism for example is diametrically opposed to socialism. Socialism is essentially an economic model stipulating state ownership of the means of production, property etc and the subsequent spreading of wealth. Fascism is the direct opposite of this. No criticism about you calling them totalitarian, however they have very different ways of operating, The Nazi’s, fascists and imperialists by definition are not socialist. Totalitarian, yes, but socialist no. There is no argument which can be drawn on to suggest otherwise. It appears ‘Lol’ was critical of your suggestion that those ideologies are all socialist. I think ‘lol’ would agree that they are all totalitarian.
If liberalism had been taken over by socialism, it would be socialism. Socialists are in the minority, and Obama and Clinton certainly are not socialist. If you believe they are, can you provide examples as to why you say this. They conduct themselves as ‘Lol’, in the earlier comment suggests. Liberalism has not turned into socialism, I can assure you. You suggest you see the argument mentioned by ‘Lol’ a lot, probably because it is a reflection of contemporary liberal belief. I can assure you that it is, because I am a liberal, and I share those views. There are some socialists, but there are a lot more liberals running around.
Your paragraph about Islam and Nazi Germany does not make sense, I’m struggling to determine its relevance, I assume you’re trying to say that not all Muslims have to be terrorists, enough just have to support terrorism, as your reason as to why Muslims are a threat? Sorry, I can’t see the relevance in your comparison with Islam and the Nazis. Your paragraph in this regard does not have a logical flow. Islam and the rise of Nazism are completely different. There is no comparison. The Germans elected the Nazis because of the terrible condition of their society due to post WW1 sanctions. They turned to Hitler because he offered a strong voice and apparent strong direction in lifting Germany out of poverty. They turned to him because they perceived a need for someone who suggested ‘strength’. Consequently, a comparison to Islam is completely nonsensical, unless you’re suggesting Muslims in the majority have a social threat they need to overcome and to do this they need terrorism? Which is a silly notion for so many reasons, so I hope it’s not what you are arguing. There is no social catalyst at present in the Islamic world to make a comparison to Nazi Germany relevant. Muslims are fleeing Syria and other nations in the area to escape ISIS etc. These groups, unlike the Nazis have no sovereign power, they are essentially insurgent groups using terrorism as a tactic, I can’t see how one can compare a sovereign power (German Nazis) to Islamic terror groups. Muslims are being killed just as much as everyone else by Islamic terrorism, that’s why many are fleeing. These refugees have no intention of militarizing or supporting the actions of the fundamentalist few. So many Muslims speak out against the actions of these groups. Your argument assumes Muslims of all descriptions are fundamentalist or at least support fundamentalism, they don’t. The evenglising Christians point is also a stretch, the fear you believe Mohammed had for this is interesting, why do you assume Muslims would want to become Christian? They are both Abrahamic religions and very similar. I hope you don’t think that one religion is better than the other. Live and let live if you ask me. Accepting these refugees, means they don’t have to fear death because of apostasy or any other crazy fundamentalist threat that they would experience if they had to remain in Syria.
Look at Australia, biggest gun massacre in the world in the mid 1990s, the conservative government at the time bought back all the guns and then banned them, and not a single gun massacre since. No one in Australia carries guns, and no one is having their homes invaded by criminals on a regular basis. People just go about their business safely, and there is very low gun violence. Admittedly there are still deaths by illegal guns, however, that is only related to gang violence, the general population is not affected by this. People with issues, are not able to get guns and commit violent crimes against innocent people in schools or wherever. It has continued to work in Australia.
I’m not from America, so I can’t speak to that situation. However where I live we don’t have a situation anything like what you speak of.
Your last paragraph is silly, liberals are not taught to do that in college. They are taught to engage with issues. In my experience, it tends to be people on the right who like to shut down arguments with vitriolic, illogical yelling
LikeLike
Thanks for you questions, qwerty. Since you covered four different subjects, I’m going to answer each in a separate post to save reader’s time if they don’t want to wade through it all to find the answer to one question they want. I’ll start with;
Gun control: You think Australia is such a great example of how gun confiscation made people safer? Do you think there are fewer homicides because fewer people are killed by guns? Here’s the list of Australian gun massacres of which you are unaware. It took me all of ten seconds to find it on the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
So, you see, there have been gun massacres in Australia since relieving all citizens of their guns. There have also been massacres by knives, fires, clubs, etc. Taking guns away from citizens does not make them safe from mass murderers.
The problem in the USA is not gun control, it’s criminal control. Inner cities became free fire zones in the 70s and 80s which is why we enacted the concealed weapon laws in the 90s. Since then shooting crimes went down because criminals didn’t just have to fear police, but also armed citizens. But as you can see by what has happened under Democrats the past few years in their attacks on police protection the murder rate has gone up. Again, this is not due to guns, but due to allowing criminals to run rampant.
We didn’t have this problem before the 60s except during the Prohibition era when government denied people their mind-numbing drugs and criminal empires grew out of the boot-legging trade. When Prohibition was lifted the death rate went down until Democrats convinced Nixon to re-institute the war on drugs. Frankly, I believe Democrats want there to be more shooting deaths so they can cry that we need guns to be confiscated. Once guns are out of the hands of law-abiding citizens it will be much easier to control them. Every totalitarian government in recent history has done exactly that. The ruling class can more easily steal from the peasants if the peasants have stone-age weapons.
LikeLike
Liberalism and college: Modern liberalism is not what it was under the Founders. According to classic liberalism, I am a liberal. Modern social liberalism is socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Today I’m no longer called a liberal because socialists changed that by the end of the 19th century. Today classic liberals are called conservative Christians. We believe in a modern society guided by Christian morality, not “progressive” society guided by atheist relative morality.
Students are supposed to be taught critical thinking in college as I was way back when, but they’re not. In America you don’t see liberals speaking on campuses being denied speaking, shouted down, or assaulted, but it happens to conservatives all the time. If you’re watching the riots and assaults at political rallies none of them is by Republicans against Democrat candidates. It’s all Democrats attacking Republican supporters.
Why do you think the media is upset about Reagan’s removal of the Fairness Doctrine. That doctrine kept conservatives from having a voice in the media. Since that was lifted we’ve had numerous conservatives take to the airwaves. The reason FOX News has more viewers than other cable news media combined is because they actually have both sides debating the issues, and the liberals always have to lie about events and policies and lose the arguments. This is why liberal media wants the doctrine to be reinstated so they can shut them down. Liberalism doesn’t survive a debate in which both sides are exposed.
As for the people on the right you say shut down arguments with vitriolic, illogical yelling, I submit to you that they are the exception because there are stupid people everywhere and when the other side doesn’t want to listen to them they get vehement. Unfortunately, if you examine the record on college campuses in America you’ll find this happens a hundred times more from the side of leftists.
LikeLike
Islam and Germany: The comparison between Islam and Germany is simply about how a small, fanatical group can overcome and enslave the larger population. You seem to know a good deal about 20th century German history, but what do you know of 7th century Islam?
I’m trying to explain that the problem is not Moslems, it’s Islam. Muhammad was the Hitler of his day except that he was successful in establishing his fanatical cult as the dominant force in the region. Try here to understand the history of Islam;
As for the refugee problem you should pay more attention to the news. It is not women, children, and old people, but young military age men who are invading Europe. If they were refugees why would they be making demands on the governments of Europe and their people to accept their culture? There has been a massive problem of rapes in Europe because in Moslem countries women who travel alone without male companions are unprotected and fair game for any man who wants to rape them. There are stories all over the Internet about what’s happening in Sweden, Germany, and elsewhere about refugees mass rapes of European women.
Would you say Europe must adapt to them or they must adapt to their hosts? Why is it mostly men and so few women and children that they must go out and rape European women? This whole problem stems from a conflict that has been ignited and supported by Obama assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in overthrowing leaders who kept Islamists in check. They are not refugee, they are invaders, and Europeans are demanding their governments send them back! And the governments are ignoring them because Obama threatens to cut them off from American aid if they do.
LikeLike
Totalitarianism and liberalism: Totalitarianism did not emerge from any other ideology. It is the root of all others. It’s government control, which you say is what socialism is but don’t seem to understand that they are all the same. How is Nazi controlled government unions so different from government owning all businesses? Either way the business is under the control of the government. And as history has proven, government owning businesses is not beneficial to the people who just become worker drones like modern China. Only those in government prosper while everyone else just subsists. America is the only nation that allows people to rise and become wealthy from their endeavors without government trying to take it all – until Democrats got total control. That is what makes America exceptional to all other nations.
Socialism and fascism are not opposites. Opposites would be one being absolute government control and the other being unregulated anarchy every man for himself. As for liberalism becoming socialism see the post about liberalism in college. I hope this helped to answer some of your questions. If you have more or would like further details please feel free to ask some more.
LikeLike
qwerty (at least his name’s easy to tap out on the keyboard) states that Nazi, by definition, is not socialist. Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It’s right there in the name! That’s like our Totalitarian in Chief stating that ISIS is not Islamic when Islamic is there in the title. Perhaps qwerty is so used to Liberals naming things as the exact opposite of their actual intent (Affordable Healthcare Act, for example) he became confused on this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liberals will argue correctly that names are not always indicative of ideology. The Soviets call themselves a republic as does Communist China. East Germany called itself democratic and we know none of them were anything of the sort. The thing is that this is what leftists do as you say to confuse people of their true intent, just as Democrats campaign on conservatism and then enact policies that are liberal/socialist. But when they openly declare themselves to be socialist they are actually being honest because they feel secure like Bernie Sanders does that they have successfully duped people into believing their are benevolent (which Hitler did and why he was elected Chancellor). But they have been taught that socialism/communism is the opposite of nazism/fascism, that one is the extreme left and the other the extreme right. The problem is that both are the same kind of people with the same agenda and there is no substantial difference between the two. I go into this in an old article; https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2013/07/19/left-vs-right-the-true-paradigm/
LikeLike
Pingback: Dysfunctional Liberals - Sanctuary Cities - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site
This is just very, very wrong. First of all, you are equating liberalism and socialism, two diametrically opposed views. Liberalism supports the free market, social justice, and individual choice. This does not mean that the government should not intervene in economic matters, it simply means that government intervention should expand, rather than diminish, freedom. A strong welfare state can still exist in a liberal capitalist country if it serves the common good. Socialism, however, advocates public ownership, complete redistribution of wealth, and abolition of private property. Most forms of socialism (except democratic socialism) contend that a revolution is needed to implement these radical changes. Democratic politicians like Obama fall into the former camp. Obama is in no way a socialist. His actions have resulted in a stronger welfare state that exists in harmony with capitalism and free enterprise.
LikeLike
I’m afraid you confuse socialism by subterfuge, deception, and stealth, with liberalism’s openly contrary thinking. Creating a welfare state is opposite to capitalism and free enterprise.
LikeLike