Easterners tend to see liberalism at the root evil of the West. Conversely, when countries such as Hungary reject "liberal democracy" it's seen as authoritarian and evil. The East is correct that liberalism is a poison set against them, but they are wrong in identifying the enemy as liberals.
The leaders of the West are not liberal. They are either parasitic fiends, or else cynical, soulless psychopaths.
Liberalism does represent individualism against collectivism. This is largely a good thing, when society can afford it. Individuals are the heart of society, and collectives are tools to protect individuals in the form of compromises individuals make out of necessity.
Critics of the West assume its leaders want to drive individualism. They certainly don't. They want to rule. The West uses liberalism as a poison to dissolve all collectives, and then once society is fully atomized, the rulers rule unopposed as an invisible hand which the liberal society cannot name or even see. Attacks on family and tradition are attacks on threats or guards against the elites' power.
Democracy and liberalism are used to weaken and destroy a country's ability to resist takeover by the overwhelming funds and organization (and tech surveillance tools) of the West elites. 1/2
Easterners are wrong that collectivism is better. Westerners are wrong that the shadow rule of a sick elite is "individualism". The problem is that liberalism doesn't answer ultimate questions, and leads to nihilism. This is why the enlightenment finally failed in the late 1800s. Tradition doesn't know the answers either, but it has fake, stand-in answers that guard people against the psychopathic elite.
Westerners need to realize the liberal democratic society is a fantasy, and there is need for tradition and local power. Easterners need to realize that collectivism isn't good in itself, that it's meant to serve individualism, and liberalism itself is not the enemy, merely a tool. It is good in small doses, but the current dosage is toxic.
I used to believe in America but have learned too much about it. America always had elite cliques calling the shots. Old families with their own politics and games. At best, the statehouse was a forum where elite interests could be entered into the record so they were seen publicly, or else from time to time faction differences could play out publicly. The prevalence of those phenomena are weak. The elites learned how to keep their infighting mostly to themselves. The statehouse is theatre.
There's just no such thing as liberal democracy. There's no open forum or agora where issues are presented, confronted, debated and then via discourse and reason, become law and policy. It just doesn't work that way even in the slightest. Maybe sometimes within a bureaucracy, for marginal issues among wonks.
liberals only preach freedom when it's freedom from their enemies, tradition, opposition, and anything else they don't want to stand in their way. when they are in charge those graces are strangers at their gates it's just a cloak label left over from earlier days when the humble freedom fighters called themselves enlightened and free, then burned down the aristocracy even liberals who call themselves liberal today don't know shit about those who came before, they are just political whores riding the wave of power
Sniveling little Jewish degenerates like Trotsky, men who physically were not a match for anyone, even a woman could defeat them in a fight, proved to be the greatest mass-murderers in the history of the world when brainwashing liberals to do their bidding.
I don't think anyone refers to the leaders when they say "Liberals". Besides the fact that the term means almost nothing these days, it's much more likely they mean the regular people who bow down to those parasitic leaders. They are the liberals. The pawns, the biological-political weapons used to change your country, life and government. They specifically call themselves liberal so that liberalism and individualism looks bad, just like how they tainted nationalism by making it comperable to nazism.
Jonathan Davis
This thread is not getting the attention it deserves. Why is questioning the truth about democracy such a scary subject?
Nice user. Might I add that the "Nuclear Family" is one of their primary tools for maintaining the atomization of society
Xavier Brown
americans and zooms hecking love voting and media spectacle, like other user said. i dont really have anything to add except that >Tradition doesn't know the answers either, but it has fake, stand-in answers that guard people against the psychopathic elite. betrays your hand a little. hope you're not thinking of 'reforming' liberalism or returning to its true meaning?
Camden Lewis
liberalism will destroy society and the environment. thus liberalism bad.
Cooper Edwards
Yes, this is the Easterners mistake. They are from cultures which force people to bear the identity burdens of their communities. As a Westerner, moreover an Anglo-Saxon, we do not experience that. There's a distinct gap between self and family, and many of the family's burdens of identity simply are not borne by self.
Dugin for instance believes that tranny LBGT bullshit is trying to destroy the gender identity. To alienate people from belonging to the wider group. This is true in a strategic political sense. However, as a Western male, I do not "belong" to the group of males. I my self have a quality of being male. That quality is possessed by, you could say shared, by other individuals. However, we do not derive that quality from the "group" of males.
That is dumbass Eastern thinking, and where Easterners make the mistake. But, these mistakes and communal identity prisons are WHY Easterners haven't been spiritually hijacked by the Western elite parasite culture.
As I said, we are all individuals first, but we give up some of our individualism to belong to groups, and we do this to gain necessary protections. Protections that serve the individual.
Zachary Rogers
I disagree. You are saying "liberal" but you mean the ruling elite of the "Liberal West". Their agenda is not liberal. Liberalism is just a solvent they are using. The bureaucratic NPC types? Perhaps they think that they are champions of liberalism, but I doubt it since their view of reality is derived from the professional community to which they belong, and they support bureaucratic, centralized power.
There are no real Western liberals anymore. All you need to do to prove this is ask which Westerners are arguing for less government? Ha! None in the government. They aren't liberals, they just call themselves that.
Eli Scott
I kek'd. This is a wasteland of noise. A desert of commotion.
Easton Torres
did you maybe miss the part where i said both >t's just a cloak label left over from earlier days and >even liberals who call themselves liberal today don't know shit about those who came before ?
