#illiberal

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

[unsolicited-opinions]

Thinking about this analogy from @philosopherking1887:

#"pro palestine" is the left's version of "pro life"

#that's a good analogy

#it's never been about saving babies/ palestinians

#we know this because pro-lifers are happy to let kids starve after birth

#and pro-pals don't give a shit what hamas does to their own people

#it's always been about punishing women for sex/ jews for surviving

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

When I was researching my book on anti-democratic politics, I found a striking pattern in modern incarnations of it — that these movements, almost uniformly, claim their most aggressive anti-democratic policies are actually defenses of democracy. While Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election, for example, he insisted that he wasn’t trying to steal an election — but rather to “stop the steal” Joe Biden had already pulled off. When Trump returned to power this year, I expected to see the same rhetorical maneuver deployed to justify his inevitable power grabs. And indeed, many of Trump’s Day 1 executive orders did exactly this. Take, for example, Trump’s revival of Schedule F — a move that, in theory, could allow Trump to fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with MAGA cronies. Such a move would be a serious threat to democracy, in that it would consolidate key powers of state in the executive’s hands in a manner that proved crucial to the rise of elected authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Yet in the text of the order, Trump sells the move as a vindication of democratic principles. Because the president and vice president are the only executive branch members “elected and directly accountable to the people,” they must be able to assert greater control over civil servants “to restore accountability to the career civil service.” The same is true of other executive orders that might aid in Trump’s efforts to consolidate power. An executive order on “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” does not provide any concrete protections against abusive surveillance or internet control practices. It does, however, order the attorney general to set up an inquiry into Biden administration policies that could serve as a pretext to harass and dismiss federal employees who don’t share Trump politics. An order claiming to combat the “weaponization” of the federal government similarly does very little to prevent Trump from, for example, ordering the attorney general to investigate his political enemies or the IRS to audit them. In fact, it lays the groundwork for two separate probes into Biden administration policies that could end up targeting both federal employees and private citizens.

[...] Going forward, Trump will almost assuredly not do anything as blatant as abolishing elections. Instead, every move will be given a democratic defense, every power grab described as a victory for the American people against the “deep state.” The aim is to make the reality of the situation into just another partisan debate, where Trump says one thing while Democrats (and the media) say another. The erosion of core democratic principles, like separation of powers and political noninterference with government functions, will appear to many like a perfectly normal part of democracy. [...]

The global spread of American-style authoritarianism

As democracy became ideologically dominant around the world, similar practices became popular globally. Today, its most sophisticated practitioners are elected executives who have worked to take down democracy from within — people such as Orbán, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Narendra Modi. Orbán describes his political project, which in reality is the construction of an authoritarian kleptocracy, as an attempt to wrest back control of Hungarian democracy from Eurocrats in Brussels — with specific tactics, like restricting LGBT speech on television, being sold as an extension of the Hungarian people’s will. When Netanyahu attempted to impose political controls on Israel’s judiciary in 2023, removing the sole formally independent check on his majority’s power, he argued that he was merely reasserting the people’s control over unelected branches.

Fascist-in-Chief’s democracy-eroding EOs serve a purpose: baselessly claim to protect democracy while simultaneously undercut democracy.

[jinruihokankeikaku]

Breathing deeply and pretending I didn't just read a piece in a liberal newspaper arguing for the abolition of the presumption of innocence, the right to silence, and/or the right to a jury trial this morning. Again.

[reynard61]

The sofa sodomizer and his TechBro money suppliers don't just want to sodomize sofas...

[anziewouldliketodriveatank]

John Darnielle gets me reading the bible at 19:30 on a Saturday like noone else

[straynoahide]

another sign of democratic malaise in western/adjacent societies. ukraine, israel, now south korea. the liberal democratic world is under threat from within and without. we have to believe in and defend our values more than ever.

[gulyas069]

the spectre of "populism" in European politics has been turned into the argument that a policy being popular is inherently bad, and the less the people you govern like being governed by you, the more "democratic" you are

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Michael Deacon

Published: Apr 3, 2024

For young people today, finding a partner of the opposite sex must be dreadfully hard. But this isn’t because of the pressure to look like an Instagram gym buff, or the horrors of dating apps, or the fact that no one under the age of 30 seems to drink alcohol any more.

It’s because these days, young men and women have got absolutely nothing in common.

Seriously. All of a sudden, they appear to have developed completely different values. It’s unprecedented. In the past, the two sexes tended to hold roughly similar views on politics. But research compiled over the past five years shows that in Britain – and indeed other Western countries – young women have become more progressive, while young men have become more conservative. And the resulting ideological gap is now staggeringly vast. 

Alice Evans, an academic at King’s College London, is writing a book on this phenomenon, entitled The Great Gender Divergence. She says it’s been caused by a variety of factors, including “social media bubbles” and “economic resentment”. Whatever the reasons for it, though, I think there is a vital point we’re in danger of missing. Which is that only one of the two sexes is strictly responsible.

Recently, the Financial Times published some charts illustrating how the gulf between young men and women has grown in each Western country. And in every chart, there is an unmistakable pattern. The political views of young men haven’t actually altered all that much. Their drift to the Right has been really quite gentle.

The political views of young women, however, have changed dramatically. Their move to the Left has been abrupt and profound. In truth, then, this cavernous ideological divide is almost entirely attributable to them.

Which is curious. Because, whenever the divide is discussed by politicians and commentators, they make it sound as if the problem is young men. They fret endlessly about how young men today are being “radicalised” by nasty Right-wing YouTubers such as Andrew Tate, or horrid Right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump. 

Yet they never apply this word “radicalised” to young women. Why not? I suspect it’s because these politicians and commentators tend to be progressive themselves. Therefore, they see no problem with young women becoming drastically more progressive. In their view, the more progressive someone is, the better. So the fault lies entirely with young men, for failing to emulate young women’s lurch to the Left.

Personally, though, I think this lurch Leftwards should alarm us all. The future of Western civilisation is already threatened by our collapsing birth rates. And this sudden ideological chasm between the sexes is only going to make the crisis worse. No one’s going to be forming couples at all any more, if, on every first date, the woman asks, “What do you think of Gramsci?”, and the man replies, “He’s the type of striker Man Utd are crying out for.”

It’s a chilling thought. So clearly something must be done. Politicians must spend less time obsessing over the radicalisation of young men, and start paying attention to the radicalisation of young women, instead.

As it happens, the Labour Party has announced that, when it’s in power, it will help to combat the influence that Andrew Tate has on boys. Surely it would make more sense to help combat the influence The Guardian has on girls. 

Otherwise, the only way young men are going to get a girlfriend is by frantically boning up on George Monbiot and Owen Jones. And if that’s what the future has to hold, perhaps Western civilisation isn’t worth saving, after all. 

[ Via: https://archive.md/WlLXk ]

==

Apparently, it's not "radicalization" when you're calling for the extermination of the Jews; so sexist and racist that you call everyone else "oppressors"; teaching kids about the objectively true mythology of metaphysical "gender" thetans; advocating for the compulsory elimination of all privately-owned property and its forcible redistribution; and/or chanting for the dismantling of society itself.

No, that's not radicalization. It's just the self-evident values of all right-thinking people.

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️

[unsolicited-opinions]

The Western far left: The far right is antisemitic, so we clearly are not!

The Western far right: The far left is antisemitic, so we clearly are not!

North American Jews:

The only difference between you is that the far right pretends to care about Israelis and the far left pretends to care about equity and justice.

Neither movement supports critical thinking, truth, or honest consideration of good faith arguments from those with whom they disagree.

Members of both movements immediately discard any facts which injure the ego-saving narratives they tell themselves about themselves.

Both movements are allergic to nuance.

Neither movement is a friend to the Jewish people.

[sarahowritesostucky]

A response to "Milking" : Isn't she sweet?

🥰A lovely series of comments I received from a kindhearted and intellectually mature fan.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Harry Litman at Talking Feds:

On May 29, 2010, Hungary was a liberal democracy with a free press, robust civil liberties, judicial independence, and a multi-party political system. That day, Viktor Orbán, who previously had been Prime Minister, returned to power after a free and fair election driven by voter discontent over the incumbent government’s handling of the 2008 financial crisis. In his years out of power, Orbán had established an iron grip on the Fidesz party, and had remade it in his image into a right-wing populist body. In short order, Orbán’s government, having commandeered the legal and political system, eviscerated judicial independence, installed a loyalist judiciary, attacked and undermined the free press, enacted election laws that hugely advantaged Fidesz and put an end to free and fair elections, labeled dissenters foreign agents and restricted their activities, and overhauled the constitution to centralize and consolidate power. Propped up by these perversions of democratic rule, Orbán remains in power 15 years later. The international community and European Union have relatedly condemned Hungary’s democratic decline, but to no avail. Orbán’s moves have sufficiently weakened opposition parties that they lack the means to topple him within the new ground rules he has established, even though his popular support now sits under 30%. Large scale demonstrations in October called for an end to elements of Orbán’s oppressive rule. But, of course, there’s an immense difference between protesting from the outside for a restoration of democracy and using the tools of a vibrant democracy to change the party in power. Donald Trump, who returns to official power at noon today, has consistently expressed admiration for Orbán as a “tough” and “smart” leader and a “strongman.” In his debate with Kamala Harris, he rebuffed Harris’s assertion that world leaders didn’t respect him by citing Orbán, “one of the most respected men.” After his election victory, Orbán and Trump had a phone call, after which Orbán announced “big plans for the future.” Then last month Orbán came to Mar-A-Lago to visit with Trump and Elon Musk.

Trump will take his oath of office as President today, and if past is prologue, he will be lying. In the last few months, even before taking office, Trump has used strongarm tactics to bring both houses of Congress to heel. He has laid plans to reconstruct the government under the dominant principle of loyalty to his personal interests, and to punish any official who defies him. He has attacked the free press and seduced and intimidated their owners to grovel. As of this very day, America is a backsliding democracy.

The overriding question becomes whether different forms of resistance can limit the backsliding and preserve a core of constitutional rule to nurture back to full health after Trump leaves the scene. Even though it seems to wash over in the majority of citizens, it is no exaggeration to say that the future of American democracy is on the line. A bitter lesson of the Trump age is that the constitutional rule that we had taken to be iron law, molded in the very words of the constitution, in fact is underpinned by softer cultural norms that Trump has been able to shred. Only 10 years ago, the prospect of a Hungary-like devolution of the world’s strongest and most enduring democracy would have been laughable. Now we can actually see the descending path to authoritarianism and the benchmarks along the way. Because they depend ultimately on norms and the shared dedication of the people, democracies are fragile. When a constellation of weaknesses combines with the ascent of power of a vicious strongman, they can be gutted. It happened in Hungary, and it can happen here.

Agree 100% with Harry Litman here: What remains of a democracy in the USA is now officially resembling Orbán-era Hungary.

[tanadrin]

still annoyed by the tiktok i saw once of someone smugly declaring the Federation was “an empire” and that this point was so obvious it brooked no debate

like

you have to apply for membership! it’s a post-scarcity utopia that has transcended the need for money! this meets no definition of an empire, except that it has some of the aesthetic trappings of liberal democracy, and edgy online types like to refer to liberal democracies as “empires” when trying to discuss the more general phenomenon of imperialism.

[l-in-c-future]

The future of US liberal democracy 3: the fall of freedom and the rise of illiberalism

Nierman and Sachs continued to describe the rise of illiberalism in USA in chapter 3 of their book Cancel Culture: from rage to redemption in a world gone mad.

Restrictions of freedom

Restrictions of freedom can be imposed by citizens and governments, whether they are from the left or right sides of the political spectrums: the communists; the ethnic-nationalists; the blackshirts ( squadristi); the skinhead; a theocratic government or a secular government.

In fact, these seemingly contracdictory ideologies share one common value: they are all authoritarianists or populists who believe that so long as the majority agree to revere a certain ideology, even that is individualism and the freedom to define and shape individualism, then the WHOLE of the society should obey the will of the majority.

Authoritarian populism from both sides of the political spectrum are very similar but such ideologies are contradictory to the concept of individual freedom as understood by the Founding Fathers and classical liberalism philosophisers who inspired them.

Populism is not far from authoritarianism

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and other Founding Fathers were correct in warning that citizens would feel fear and angry in a society that had lost philosophical and moral anchorage.

They are eager to react in close authoritarian populistic behaviours in respond to different views and opinions. The situations will get worse. Regardless of whether the cancel intentions come from the left or right side of the politics, it will erode our much treasured democratic principles.

For centuries, USA had been proud of being the world's leading example in the championship of the rule of the laws, compliance with proper procedures and maintainance of liberal thoughts. Unfortunately, this world is slowly being twisted to a dystopian Orwellian world. There are a lot of similarities between 17th century and 21st century.

The ways people are witch hunted (for whatever reasons) in today's society are very similar to the fundamentalistic belief held by the Puritans during the colonial period within an intolerant society.

In our era, the red "A" in the Scarlet Letter is ironed on the hunted preys' reputation and goodwill via internets, especially social media, executed as mobilised mass trials over the cyberspace.

The icons of such apexes can be seen throughout Trump's election campaigns and his past and soon to be another term of governments. Trump consistently uses derogative, denouncing and vulgar languages to diminish his opponents by molding them into some sort of despicable figures. He started a political norm to ridicule and insult his opponents and election contestants. He wiped out the remains of civil discourse. He subverted what SHOULD BE appropriate decent speeches and manners. USA suffers from the bad consequences.

A more radical imbalanced society

The two parties system in USA has been producing more and more authoritarian/populistic election contestants to fit the tastes of their loudest and most active voters in the initial elections. These people demand more ruthless and less civilised behaviours from their politicians.

A thick layer of stratosphere is created by the rapid increase in the numbers of radical politicians from both sides of politics with the aid of their respective media platforms to fit the tastes of their own electorates. The environment is flavourable to cradle more political organisations that embrace extreme and radical behaviours.

Politics from both sides see each other as enemies. Even they don't compete to death, they will exhaust every mean to hit each other badly. There are too many people from both sides of the politics believe that it is inevitable to sacrifice freedom in order to win. Both sides consider that restriction of the freedom of the other side has instrumental value to achieve what they think of as 'the best interests' for the future of their country.

BOTH sides of the politics have misintepreted what was the freedom envisioned and laid down by the Founding Fathers.

Consequence: Their ignorance of such freedom have created a radical imbalance society where people live with fear and fill with rages.

Because of this, a society that is supposed to be without fear is plagued by another kind of fear.

[thenewdemocratus]

Michael Shermer: Why I'm No Longer Woke

Source:Skeptic publisher & blogger Michael Shermer. Source:The New Democrat “Before the transmogrification of the word woke into the pejorative slur against far-left politics it represents today, I would have called myself woke—and even a social justice warrior—inasmuch as I believe in civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, and the continued expansion of the…