tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post8558479272728662545..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Sounds mad but it is liberal morality at workUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41110128605016091142017-02-01T13:45:22.460+11:002017-02-01T13:45:22.460+11:00I don't think it would have been supported by ...<em>I don't think it would have been supported by those older liberal figures. But that's to be expected. The liberal principle has unfolded over time.</em><br /><br />I think the craziness and the evil consequences were inherent in liberalism right from the start. Liberalism always was la-la land thinking.dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67329000867118333162017-02-01T13:42:45.935+11:002017-02-01T13:42:45.935+11:00But I struggle to think of this neo-Marxist poison...<em>But I struggle to think of this neo-Marxist poison as "liberal".</em><br /><br />True enough, but I struggle to think of it as Marxist. I hear don't much about the class struggle or economic justice or even the redistribution of income (in fact we've seen a redistribution of income towards the rich).<br /><br />Cultural marxism is in fact anti-marxist. The aim of cultural marxism is not to bring about socialism. Its aim is to defend a particularly vicious form of crony capitalism. Cultural marxism is funded by billionaires and by Wall Street and they certainly are not aiming at bringing about the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br /><br />Globalism is not even a wrong ideology. It's not ideological at all. Its only objective is to keep the power and wealth in the hands of billionaires and Wall Street.dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6750224099942815312017-02-01T11:53:23.660+11:002017-02-01T11:53:23.660+11:00Progressive Liberalism solves this by giving moral...<i>Progressive Liberalism solves this by giving moral precedence to those they perceived to be the most marginalized in society</i><br /><br />Good point. I think this explains why feminists are so keen to police male behaviour. Feminists encourage women to let loose sexually but any sign of men doing the same is met with gasps of horror (e.g. the college men who rated women and were banned from sports). Not saying that men should follow the feminist example, but there is a clear double standard. It is all typically justified on the grounds that women are the oppressed group and men the oppressors - the assumption is that men already have all the autonomy they need and that women are just trying valiantly to 'catch up' - but the reality is that men are just being expected to fit in with whatever female choices happen to be.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-48472512733507524742017-01-31T19:05:54.697+11:002017-01-31T19:05:54.697+11:00I don't think it would have been supported by ...I don't think it would have been supported by those older liberal figures. But that's to be expected. The liberal principle has unfolded over time. One generation takes it so far and then thinks it has gone far enough. The younger generation thinks that there are still "injustices" or "inequalities" as defined by the liberal principle and so takes it several steps further. It is all thought to be part of a liberal progress to a condition of equal freedom. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47658856124089163432017-01-31T18:39:44.238+11:002017-01-31T18:39:44.238+11:00The BMA's decision is clearly a manifestation ...The BMA's decision is clearly a manifestation of the current Left-induced insanity.<br /><br />But I struggle to think of this neo-Marxist poison as "liberal". Would the BMA's decision have been supported - or even understood - by Locke, or J.S. Mill, or W.E. Gladstone? By any normal definition they are all liberals - but this current madness has nothing to do with their worldview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17369447747856376372017-01-31T16:13:51.815+11:002017-01-31T16:13:51.815+11:00A women who gives birth is a mother, whether the c...A women who gives birth is a mother, whether the child is put up for adoption or not.Mark Moncrieffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07988061141727262837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82972833544952019652017-01-31T11:04:46.822+11:002017-01-31T11:04:46.822+11:00Perhaps a pregnant women who is going to put her c...Perhaps a pregnant women who is going to put her child up for adoption doesn't want to be called an 'expectant mother'?charliedeltohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12822576568610162437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72337658923353897182017-01-31T04:59:50.401+11:002017-01-31T04:59:50.401+11:00"The moral equation for liberals is the idea ... "The moral equation for liberals is the idea that each individual should be able to define their own life schema as they wish, as long as it does not interfere with others doing the same thing." This is where Liberalism falls apart. Nobody lives in a vacuum or to borrow the opening line of the poem 'No Man is an Island' by John Donne "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Our actions have consequences that affect everybody around us both negatively or more importantly positively. When we base our morality on the choice of freedom to define ourselves as individuals we run into the problem of moral relativism. The question becomes then who has the moral authority or who is given precedence to define their own identity over others? <br /> Progressive Liberalism solves this by giving moral precedence to those they perceived to be the most marginalized in society. For example Feminism gives moral precedence to women to self-define themselves and create their own unique identity to the detriment of men; E.G. no fault divorce, abortion, a positive spin on sexual promiscuity, and promoting corporate careers over motherhood. Another example is the LGBT movement, in order to create a unique identity Christian Marriage must be redefined, our biological sex made not to matter. Finally, pulling headlines from today's news about refugees not being admitted into America is a prime example of Liberalism answer to the question: Refugees are marginalized and must take precedence over the citizens of the host country in which they intend to stay. However, this moral equation is not only limited to Progressive Liberalism, but is also allowed in Economic Liberalism and Libertarianism. <br /> In Economic Liberalism, the entrepreneur/owner of business is given precedence over the community, family, and even the country/nation state in which they belong to. A prime example of Economic Liberal morality being applied to society would be the issue Donald Trump brought up during his election campaign; That owners of business would fire all their American workers and shut down the factories (Which would devastate local communities, families, and destroy marriages.) in order to build factories overseas and hire foreign workers while selling their product back to the American People without having to pay any tariff or tax. This is being done all In the name of profits and the bottom line to be given back to stockholders or as bonuses to the CEOs and board members of the company for a job well done. Other examples of Economic Liberalism are foreign worker visas being used by tech companies to replace American workers in high skill, high paying jobs. No thought is given by these companies, having been given all the blessings that their nation offers, are willing to understand the burden that they have placed upon their fellow countrymen. Thus the economic immigrant is given precedence over the citizen of the host country.<br /> Christopher Griebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16209938541650313603noreply@blogger.com