Liberalism - The God that Died
The thing you learn about liberalism and left-wing ideologies in general is that they typically don't understand many of the concepts they espouse. If you ask a liberal or a leftist what universal healthcare is, the assault weapon's ban, or Obamacare, they stare at you blankly until you get a sheepish reply that they can't actually tell you what it is. That is, not what it fundamentally; some can tell you what they think it is as an idea-of-an-idea, but as an actual policy measure they're completely bereft of even a concept of what it's supposed to be. Oh they will pretend to and defend it blindly, telling you that you MUST support it, or you are a nazi, fascist, racist, bigoted evil person that's worse than Hitler, and that every European country does it (they don't) so we must copy it (but they can't explain what it is outside of some vague concept), but when asked what it actually is, most can't define it. They will freely admit they don't REALLY know what it is. This is in part because most of these ideas or policies aren't even real things. But you have to support or it else you are a bad person. It takes the form of an almost religious like faith in the idea, except most religions at least understand what their own beliefs are supposed to be.
But while this is often clear with policy, it also tends to be true with political ideology fundamentally. If you ask a leftist what socialism is, most of them will act as if they know, that it means welfare and all good things of course, but they can't actually define it. When you do define it for them, they will proclaim they don't believe in Marxist socialism or that Marxist socialism really doesn't contain all the things it says in the communist manifesto and try to handwave away all the problems with it historically, by saying it's not "real socialism", despite the fact they can't even seem to define what "real socialism" even is or how it would be good for society. Let alone provide a coherent doctrine for it or an actual historical basis for it succeeding either. Many will point to Nordic models, despite the fact there is no Nordic or Scandinavian model, and these systems tend to have more privatized healthcare than we do, no minimum wage, mandatory military service, abortion limits capped below 12 weeks and flat taxes instead of progressive one's, the exact opposite of a socialist or left-wing progressive model, which tends to be based unironically on Venezuela, like Bernie Sander's plan. They're a vapid, substance less lot that focus more on good feelings of an idea of an idea rather than actual grounded thing or policy measure. Sadly, despite their attempt to be otherwise and often recognizing the failure of socialists, liberals tend to do the exact same thing but for liberalism.
Despite claiming to have made all western civilization and all of society being based around liberalism or liberal ideas, other than the complete lack of evidence, outside of vague generalities (I.E. All Good things are liberalism), they can't really pin down what it is or what core doctrine there is inside of it. Fundamentally it is not doctrine at all, rather a vague set of ideals, but it is treated as such. Even if there was a clear doctrine it would not make it good, but the fact it has none is endemic to the problem; it's essentially empty rhetoric. This is why it makes such a good trojan horse for communists and socialists to hijack and use to overtake universities, media organizations and other organizations in society. 93% of the media being left-wing and the majority of universities is not some kind of accident but rather a deliberate push to gain power. And thinkers such as Herbert Mercuse, the father of the new left who influenced entire generations of students, legitimately argued that only ideas from the left should be accepted while ideas from the right should be outright rejected, which has occurred because it was a rubric for his plan.
Liberalism claims to be the progenitor of the west, that all good things came from it and society is completely based on it. But naturally none of the ills of society can be attributed to it, because our society is not true liberalism, and "real liberalism has never been tried". They will tell you this unironically to your face and act as if they are different from leftist socialists while using all the exact same arguments to defend it. We were always liberal, and are always coming from liberalism, but we are not liberal right now as it's not real liberalism, but also liberalism is why everything is so good. Modern liberals which make up the bulk of liberals are not actually "real liberals", only the liberal and 5 other people they know are the real liberals and everyone else is an imposter. Something tells me this is little better than a psychotic delusion. You and 5 other people who are the "one-true-liberals" built all of western society and all modern liberals are fakes? Or, conservatives are actually secretly liberal and don't know it, thus robbing conservatives of all their accomplishments and giving it to liberals who they admit have failed in all their endeavors. It's maddening to a degree and obviously absurd, but stands as their actual claim to how society is ran or should be run.
Obviously, none of the American founding fathers believed in liberalism, European leaders, or really anyone else in the west until about the 1930's, when the past was retroactively rewritten to proclaim liberalism had created or somehow gained monopoly over things like Democracy, Freedom, justice and so on. The concept of Democracy, Freedom, Justice and other "good things in society" predate liberalism by nearly 2000 years, with the Romans and Greeks in particular having very complex ideas of Democracy and Republics thousands of years before thinkers like John Locke or Rosseau even exist. John Locke was never actually a major figure in government and never created a government based on his ideals; in fact just about every major liberal thinker had no involvement in running governments or crafting policies at all. They are self important academics, who's supporters proclaim retroactive credit for creating the west or modern western democracies, despite having no involvement at all. Many of the enlightenment figures never knew each other, were hundreds of years apart, and likely would have killed each other in real life had they ever met, with diametrically opposed views. Locke for example was a die-hard anti-Catholic who believed they needed to be removed from British society, while Galileo was a die-hard catholic with all three of his daughters joining the monastery. Other than their opposite and opposing views and their only likelihood of ever meeting in all probability being on a battlefield or as diplomats to resolve war disputes, they also did not know each other and did not form a coherent ideology. In fact none of the supposed enlightenment figures shared a coherent ideology at all, and one was never created at this time. To take credit for not only democracy and freedom but also things like science, facts and logic is an absurdity of the highest order. All of these things predate liberalism by thousands of years, and none of the people responsible for making these modern societies identified as liberal or even espoused liberal ideals.
The problem with liberalism is not the fact it's wrong about everything; because that's bad enough. It's the reason why, and the reason why is that the adherents refuse to be right, and make up their own reality. Fundamentally anything based on something so detached from reality is destined to fail, and because lives depend upon us being correct, hundreds of millions as a result of policy measures, it behooves us to be right and not just throw things at the wall and hope they stick. You have a moral duty in government to very carefully think through your ideas, as even slightly wrong ideas can be disastrous for millions of people. We can't be so cavalier as to just assume things, we have to be certain we are right. The Truth matters, and it matters especially for the most underprivileged in society with no power or resources to contest the issues of the day or survive a disaster should it come. This is in the end who liberalism hurts the most.
I should say, that I am not personally against ideas such as Freedom, Democracy, or Justice, and believe in a Republican form of government, with a constitutional basis and firm set of checks and balances as a rule and not as a back-up for the system, but my main issue with liberalism is that it claims ownership of this idea and acts like only it can be responsible for the good things in the west, which it demonstrably is not and it's own belief in is incredibly harmful for society. I am as against the "People's Republic of North Korea" as I am against a liberal Republic; it is ran by people who fail to grasp even the idea of what they are espousing, and this is no accident. The problem is with liberalism's idea of freedom, democracy, justice and so on, not with the ideas themselves.
The Primary Issue - Mixing the end results with the method
The primary issue comes in a very simple form; they've simply defined themselves as being correct. The key issue with all of the liberal and leftist thinkers ideas is in the fact they are already decided they are right, definitionally. That by writing it down on a piece of paper, it has made it so that their ideas are facts and can't be questioned. They confuse the outcome they desire (Freedom, Democracy, liberation of all workers etc.) with the methodology and can't separate the two. There is often more than one way to skin a cat, or to solve the same problem, and so a liberal might accuse someone of "wanting more dead kids" if they don't support gun control, because in their minds the only way to lower crime is through gun control and by no other means. The reality is more simple than this; one can lower crime in a myriad of ways without infringing on people's right, such as hiring more police, having better policing standards or methods, lowering poverty or other social problems, improving education and so on, and does not necessarily require gun control. While there is a dubious belief that gun control will lower crime to begin with, as disarming law abiding citizens will not disarm criminals and crime existed before guns and occurred at higher rates before it's invention, and most crimes do not involve guns at all, the left and liberals will insist that we must ban them as it is the only cure to the problem.
Similarly, a socialist will proclaim that the only way to improve the lives of the workers, often "somewhat", is to implement a socialist model of economics which historically has proven to fail. Ignoring the betterment of workers that has occurred within capitalism already and how the standard of living has drastically improved, they insist upon a broken model with a track record of failing and that has no explanation of how it will even work, just that it will. The problem is that they define themselves as being correct, that the only option ideologically is to support their methods. They confuse the outcomes with the methods; if you want to lower crime, you MUST ban guns, if you want to help workers you MUST give control over to the government, even if there's no logical evidence that this will work. A liberal democracy is the only real democracy and the only way a democracy can function, otherwise it's not real democracy, or it is unknowingly liberal. The same is true with every liberal position it follows the same pattern. It's not that there are different versions or views on things like Democracy, it's that liberalism can claim ownership of all these things.
Never mind that the Greeks and the Romans view of Democracy predate the concept of liberalism by thousands of years,
Liberalisms Origin - The enlightenment hoax
The foundational basis of liberalism rests entirely upon a lie, that the Enlightenment happened and was a real thing. Most modern liberal thinkers will acknowledge that no such Enlightenment really occurred, and that the so-called Enlightenment figures never knew each other, had no cohesive shared ideology, there was no established doctrine for it, and most were hundreds of years apart with Diametrically opposed views. Had many met in real life they likely would have tried to kill each other, as in all probability elites from each nation meeting like this would probably occur on the battlefield. Be it the notoriously anti-Catholic John Locke squaring up against Galileo or the French Liberals fighting the Germans, they probably would not have agreed on most of their ideas and the few that did meet in real life did not. While many try to lump Isacc Newton with John Locke as a part of the enlightenment,
Classical liberal Thinkers - John Locke
Steel manning Liberalism
Lets pretend for a moment that liberalism did actually get to claim Monopoly over democracy, freedom, and justice. Let's just say they invented these things in 1852 as rational skeptics and managed to produce all good things as we know it in the west and people unknowingly copied their wonderful ideas. This would still require liberals to take credit for all the bad things and ills these things have brought society, of which there are many. None of these ideas are self contained, self sustainable or stable and require a signifigant amount of outside help just to function. Liberals will often proclaim that if a system becomes authoritarian it can't be liberal, because by definition liberalism is only good things. Socialists often say the same thing, that it's "not real socialism" if it turns out bad as it has in almost every attempt to implement it in real life.
It should be noted that I am a proponent of liberalism.
