#anti liberalism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bookshopsbizarreblog · 10 months

Text

Nimona

Oh my gods what a show. I read the graphic novel back in high school, and so I was decently excited when I saw that it was being made into a movie. But I never could have prepared myself for what I just watched.

I was honestly expecting some inoffensive fluff. A fun summer watch with a bit of heart and some generic positive messaging. Maybe a few unexpected twists, but overall just something to fill the void of a day sans classes. And I am so glad I was wrong, because this film is an absolute gem.

Without spoilers, the themes in it ran so much deeper than anything I had even hoped for, to the point where I only recognized some of them from a gender studies class I just finished a week ago. There were literal manifestations of the internally destructive nature of normative social ideologies. There was cultural imperialism's casting of alternative modes of existence as inferior and transgressive. There were dominant narratives and how seeking to change them from within can all too easily get co-opted by pre-existing power structures.

And those are just the things related to a single uni class I just took which were big enough for me to point out.

Not everything in it gets directly addressed, and I wish that there had been more in the film about how class and race can intersect with all of those other dynamics and each other. The knights and their institute are white in both theme and skin tone, while many of the non-nobles have darker skin tones. The primary protagonist is from among them, and his appointment is a major inciting incident in the film. Again, trying to avoid spoiling things, there was a lot of possible set up there which didn't get fully realized. Some nods were made to it later in the film, but it wasn't the primary focus.

But even beyond all of those, there were more political critiques which did come across loud and clear. Chief among them being a rejection of the liberal notion of "removing the bad apples." Nimona is deeply concerned with systemic critiques and even subtly advocating the notion that sometimes systems need to be torn down before equity can be had. Well, I say subtly because initial advocacy for such is deliberately a bit over the top and hyper-destructive, while the ending heavily implies it without outright stating it. But the last "end credits scene" is literally an 'A' in a heart, soooo....

Anyways, I absolutely loved Nimona, and if you like queer themes, chaotic shapeshifters, social deconstruction, progressive messaging, sci-fi knights, gays who remain unburied, or even just gorgeous animation, then you'll probably like it too

#nimona #nimona film #nd stevenson #gender studies #lgbtq #queer shows #lgbtq rights #systemic change #systemic oppression #systemic discrimination #anti liberalism #animation #ballister blackheart #ballister boldheart #ambrosius goldenloin #nimona netflix #nimona graphic novel

20 notes · View notes

gaydiation-poisoning · 6 months

Text

I was about to reblog a great post about an ex harry potter fan falling out with the series cus of the shit JK Rowling pulls, but I couldn't after a paragraph of "Oh but you don't have the right to make bigots feel unsafe"

"I know you're oppressed but you don't have the right to scare or hurt your oppressors feelings, you should be focusing on HEALING!!" Is such typical wishy washy spineless liberal garbage, imagine being so privileged you think people can 'heal' from oppression.

Making fascists feel unsafe or even terrified is one of the LEAST violent methods of dealing with them, and I don't think these yellow bellied dumbasses want to know what the other ones are.

Anyway harassing bigots is great actually and don't let any online whinging crybabies convince you otherwise through "oOuuGhh bUt that's mEAN!!!"

We're talking about systemic oppression here babes not playground fights

✨Being a pain in the ass to fascists is always morally correct✨

#leftist #anti liberalism

16 notes · View notes

nando161mando · 17 days

Text

Tankies call me a liberal, and liberals call me a tankie...

4 notes · View notes

definitely-not-the-kgb · 9 months

Text

It is time to say it.

You. Yes, you, the person reading this. Yeah, I am talking to you directly.

If you are a liberal - in the American sense, mind you - and you are reading this: Go read Marx. If you do not want to do that, fuck off with all the other Liberals in the GOP. Yes, you heard me correctly. I just called "Conservatives" "Liberal". Did I shake your world? Did I topple your fucking little cloud castle? Did I spook you? Flabberghasted you, even? Well, guess what: You are not a leftist.

Being progressive does not make you a leftist. Under any fucking definition of the word. It makes you a vaguely decent human being, I am willing to hand that to you, but I am not even going to commend you for it because it really doesn't: It's the bare -god-damn- minimum.

If you use "Socialist" and "Liberal" interchangeably: Go fuck yourself.

If you use "Liberal" and "Leftist" interchangeably: Go fuck yourself.

Liberals are not even centrist: they're centre-right wingers. You're centre-right wingers. All you liberals reading this. Reject the American political spectrum. Reject your stupid-ass big-tent Democratic slogans; reject the bastard bourgeois who bomb kids.

You heard me. Fuck your Obama, fuck your Biden, fuck your Teddy -goddamn- Roosevelt, he was an imperialist pig. Do you idolise JFK? Get the fuck out of here. Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Do you even know what he did to the Mexicans?? Go read a fucking history book, then read Marx, then come back, and then maybe we can talk, and conceivably you could call yourself a leftist.

So long as "Liberals" (Which really only means Social Democrats, Third Wayers, Social Capitalists, Neoliberals, Ordoliberals, Bleeding-Heart Libertarians, and other such capitalist supporters, right-wingers and moderate rightists in American terms) are considered "Left Wingers" or "Leftists" or call themselves those names, the Left will be unable to act.

Liberals are not leftists and, I would like to add, Liberals cannot be progressivists. Capitalism is inherently conservative: it cannot generate genuine progress because real progress and change can only originate within the proletariat through revolutionary action, both political and cultural (See my piece on Situationism.).

In short: If you consider yourself a liberal and a leftist, and you think we communists and socialists are on your side... Stop thinking that, and if you want to be with us, pick up a book, or an audio-book, or both, or one of the many actually leftist resources such as this beautiful site and read, get educated, become a leftist, a true one, one that wants to change things for real. I might make a post clarifying the part about capitalism being inherently conservative, but that's for the future. Until then, study your theory for the sake of my sanity (So that I no longer must hear Liberals being referred to as "Leftists") and for the sake of Humanity so we may change things for real.

#communism #politics #marxism #leftism #lgbtq #anti conservative #anti capitalism #antifascism #anti reactionary #anti liberalism

11 notes · View notes

naomiinyun · 15 days

Text

Ai vem a pessoa, falar que são os "pensamentos/crenças limitantes" que não permitem que a gente alcance os nossos objetivos, quando a gente sai na rua e vê pessoas passando fome, literalmente só usando drogas pq é a única perspectiva de "vida", quando as pessoas não estão vivendo de vdd, quando a única realidade possível pra elas é a rua, caralho mano, eu acredito em 'resgates de vidas' passadas, mas porra, não dá pra fechar os olhos diante disso, achar normal, nem nada do tipo, pode ter o karma e os caralho, mas não da pra fingir que a realidade não é essa aqui que vivemos, eu não consigo, não dá pra não ter empatia no mínimo.

Also, falar em "ativar o arquétipo do Tio Patinhas", que caralho é esse kkkkkk é show pra caralho utilizar das ferramentas da espiritualidade pra trabalharmos nosso autoconhecimento, a cura, etc etc, mas não dá pra se alienar ao ponto de achar que ascender uma vela pra Exu, outros guias, fazer banhos, "Cocriar", vai resolver os problemas. Cara, somos da classe trabalhadora mano, proletariado, como a maioria das pessoas.

Ai vem com esses papo "Coach Espiritualista Neoliberal", que aliena pra caralho, mano do céu kkkkkk existem limites, existe uma linha tênue entre ter crenças e práticas espirituais (ligadas a uma religião ou não) e viver fora da realidade, achando que é tudo pelo karma, pelos processos de evolução e foda-se Kkkkk É foda como a ideologia dominante fode a mente das pessoas ao ponto de não terem o mínimo de empatia, olharem só pro próprio umbigo.

Só um desabafo, em pt br mesmo que tô sem paciência, meu deus me ajuda por favor. :D

#anti capitalism #anti imperialism #anti colonialism #comunismo #communism #marxism leninism #marxism #br #brazil #pt br #anti liberalism #brasil #vent #my thoughts #naomiinyun

6 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 11 months

Text

By: Richard V. Reeves

Published: May 24, 2023

One hundred and fifty years ago this month, John Stuart Mill died in his home in Avignon. His last words were to his step-daughter, Helen Taylor: “You know that I have done my work.”

He certainly had. During his 66 years of life, Mill became the preeminent public intellectual of the century, producing definitive works of logic and political economy, founding and editing journals, serving in Parliament, and churning out book reviews, journalism and essays, most famously his 1859 masterpiece, On Liberty. Oh, and he had a day job, too: as one of the most senior bureaucrats in the East India Company.

What is too often forgotten about Mill is that he was as much an activist as an academic. Benjamin Franklin exhorted his followers to “either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” Mill, like Franklin himself, is among the very few who managed to do both.

For Mill, liberalism did not only have to be argued for, it had to be fought for, too. He campaigned for women’s rights and was the first MP to introduce a bill for women’s suffrage into Parliament. He was a fiercely committed anti-racist, strongly supporting the abolitionist movement in the United States, and the North in the Civil War. Mill also led a successful campaign for the right to protest and speak in London’s public parks. In Hyde Park, the famous Speaker’s Corner stands today as a tribute to his victory.

And unlike many of his 19th century peers, Mill’s thought remains vividly topical even today. In fact, Mill is more in the spotlight now, and more needed now, than he was two decades ago. My own book about Mill was published in 2007 and although it received polite, even somewhat enthusiastic notices in the right places, back then, the case for liberalism, which Mill still makes better than any other, hardly seemed like a pressing concern.

What a difference a decade can make. On every front—economic, political, philosophical, cultural, the very idea of liberalism is being questioned, and threatened. Here I’ll just take on two of the challenges to Mill’s variety of liberalism: a growing skepticism of the value of free speech, and post-liberal attacks on liberal individualism.

Why does free speech matter? Mill believed that the pursuit of truth required the collation and combination of ideas and propositions, even those that seem to be in opposition to each other. He urged us to allow others to speak—and then to listen to them—for three main reasons, most crisply articulated in Chapter 2 of On Liberty.

First, the other person’s idea, however controversial it seems today, might turn out to be right. (“The opinion … may possibly be true.”) Second, even if our opinion is largely correct, we hold it more rationally and securely as a result of being challenged. (“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”) Third, and in Mill’s view most likely, opposing views may each contain a portion of the truth, which need to be combined. (“Conflicting doctrines … share the truth between them.”)

For Mill, as for us, this is not primarily a legal issue. His main concern was not government censorship. It was the stultifying consequences of social conformity, of a culture where deviation from a prescribed set of opinions is punished through peer pressure and the fear of ostracism. “Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough,” he wrote. “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.”

Mill never pretended that this would be easy, either at a personal or political level. The humility and openness that is required is hard-won. Our identity as a person must be kept separable from the ideas we happen to endorse at a given time. Otherwise, when those ideas are criticized, we are likely to experience the criticism as an attack upon our self, rather than as an opportunity to think about something more deeply and to grow intellectually. That’s why education is so important. Liberals are not born; we have to be made.

That’s why it would be a good idea for all students to read Mill’s arguments for free speech (and there’s even a free illustrated edition, titled All Minus One available from Heterodox Academy, edited and with an introduction from Jonathan Haidt and myself, which I’ve drawn from a little here.)

Mill has become relevant again as the primary intellectual target for post-liberal scholars like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule. For them, Mill’s writings are the headwaters of an atomistic, anti-institutional liberalism that has led to a hollowed-out culture.

In his influential book, Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen is clear that Mill is the principal villain. “Society today has been organized around the Millian principle that ‘everything is allowed,’ at least so long as it does not result in measurable (mainly physical) harm,” he writes. “We live today in the world Mill proposed. Everywhere, at every moment, we are to engage in experiments in living…”

Yeah, no. That’s mostly not the world we live in. And it is certainly not the world Mill proposed. Deneen accuses Mill of being the “midwife” to a “deeper liberal imperative to equalize individuals' opportunity to be liberated from entanglements with others, particularly from the shared cultural norms, institutions, and associations that bind a people's fate together.”

Crediting Mill as a founder of progressive thought, Deneen goes on: “Progressivism aims above all at the liberation of an elite whose ascent requires the disassembling of norms, intermediating institutions, and thick forms of community, a demolition that comes at the expense of these communities’ settled forms of life.”

As a description of Mill’s moral philosophy this is absolute nonsense. It is of course true that Mill worried about the tyranny of custom. He wanted people to be reflective about the plan for their own life, and the extent to which it was compatible with customary forms of life. The claim that Mill wanted to set a wrecking ball on every custom, every institution, every tradition is one that could only be made by someone who has either not actually read Mill, or who is engaging in some egregious misrepresentation. It’s not even a straw man. It’s just a pile of straw.

Here’s what Mill wrote in On Liberty (with my emphases):

“No one’s idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character. On the other hand, it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth as to know and benefit from the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character. The traditions and customs of other people are, to a certain extent, evidence of what their experience has taught them; presumptive evidence, and as such, have a claim to this deference…”

Mill’s view on tradition and custom, then, is that they are very likely to contain the wisdom of the ages, of the accumulated weight of human experience and, yes, of experiments in living. That’s why it would be absurd to ignore them, and why they have a presumptive claim to our deference. But Mill also insists that we should not follow tradition and custom blindly. We should “use and interpret experience.” Mill believes that customs and traditions not only can change over time, but that they should. The alternative, which is Deneen’s only defensible position, is that somebody somewhere should decide, at some point in time, that our traditions and customs be cast in stone.

Deneen is wrong about Mill, and thus wrong about liberalism, and therefore wrong about everything.

Even though the post-liberals are unwilling to engage with the real Mill, as opposed to their ersatz version, it is a testament to his lasting value that he is still the primary target. Mill spent his life thinking about and working for a society that could balance the value of continuity with the necessity for innovation and progress. Again, nobody said it was easy, a lesson we seem to be learning all over again. But if we need inspiration, we’ll always have Mill.

We forgot to keep fighting for liberalism as, like science, an ongoing process rather than a destination. This blink in attention opened the door for the anti-liberalism of both the post-liberal woke and the pre-liberal religious who want to take it away from us and implement their own particular hellscapes. We got so used to liberalism that we took it for granted and became complacent. When we get it back, we need to learn from this mistake.

#Richard Reeves #Richard V. Reeves #John Stuart Mill #liberalism #liberal ethics #liberal values #post liberalism #anti liberalism #freedom of speech #free speech #individualism #innovation #progress #religion is a mental illness

12 notes · View notes

troythecatfish · 2 months

Text

youtube

4 notes · View notes

intersexfairy · 3 months

Text

if 2 people were said they'd give you 10,000$... with the conditions that you had to pick one of them to give it to you, and if you took it, they'd kill someone else... you probably wouldn't take it - even if one of them was saying they'd give you an extra 10,000$ if you chose them. right?

well that's kind of what you vote blue no matter who fucks sound like with Joe Biden openly and directly supporting the genocide of Palestinians, among other awful things and (predictably, purposefully) failed promises.

maybe take a chance to put aside your own benefit and actually fight for a better world for once in your fucking life instead of caving into the system that is oppressing millions upon millions of people, leading to death and suffering.

3 notes · View notes

resistancemarxistblog · 1 year

Text

Combat Liberalism (1937)

Combat Liberalism is a pamphlet written by Mao Zedong in 1937, on the topic of the continuous ideological struggle between Communism and Liberalism within the Communist Party of China.

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

Sourced from Marxists.org.

#mao zedong #maoism #cultural revolution #marxism #marxism leninism #marxist #leftism #leftist #socialist #socialism #liberalism #anti liberalism #communist #communism #chinese communism

29 notes · View notes