The word "liberal" is inseparable from capitalism because it was, from the outset, the political language of the new bourgeoisie. The freedom of the liberal is the freedom to make money.  Its roots in the French Revolution make the class content unmistakable.  In America the term is deliberately mis-categorized to obfuscate rule by the monied class.  But in truth the freedom of the liberal has nothing to do with letting one's freak flag fly. 

I've never really understood the term "Liberal" as it is used in politics.  I used to think it meant Archie Bunker's "Meathead" son-in-law, a college age long haired semi-hippie 60's era protester type.  Compared to Archie, he was supposed to seem enlightened, but also dumb-funny, as in you are supposed to laugh AT him.  Liberals were sorta weak kneed lefties.

A little later I learned about Brit politics, divided into "Labor" and "Liberal" parties.  In this case, Labor was the lefties and Liberals were the righties.  Then there was the Global concept of "Neo-liberalism", which didn't seem liberal at all but more a buttoned ddown version of corporate fascism.  With all the competing definitions and usages, I couldn't find any meaningful definition.

Here in this article, the author has his own definition of what Liberal means.

Liberalism defines almost our entire social and political order in the west. Much of this is institutional: a free press, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers, governments hemmed in by constitutions, the sovereignty of the people. Some of it reflects philosophical commitments: individual freedom as the foundation undergirding specific freedoms of speech, association, conscience, religion and trade; a belief that government rules by the consent of the governed and that all citizens are equal. And the overarching character of this arrangement is clear: less hierarchy, fewer hang-ups, fewer social mores, more and easier diversity. A world of choice, and ever-proliferating choices. And, taxes aside, it's progress without sacrifice or serious restraint. Each individual person pursuing their individual dream would make life better overall.

This definition seems to be just a re-statement of the IDEALS the FSoA was supposedly founded on and what the Constitution is supposed to codify into law and  our political system.  It's what all of us were taught in our High School Civics classes.  Many if not most Amerikans think the FSoA, at least at one time in the past actually reflected this definition.  Most clearly UNTRUE is that "all men are equal".  Hardly, there is a huge range of intelligence from dumb as rocks to Einstein, economic power from Richer than God to Dirt Poor, Photogenic and well spoken to hideously ugly to stunningly beautiful and so on.  All of these characteristics which make them different result in unequal power distribution in the society.

The REALITY is not just that it never has been true in the past,  it's that most of the assumptions aren't true either.  The Press hasn't ever been free, it's always been a money making biz.  Reporters have to make a living, papers gotta  sell.  Goobernments aren't hemmed in by separation of powers, they are just side-stepped or ignored when inconvenient.  Goobermint doesn't rule by consent of the governed, it does so through force and the application of punishment (prison) for disobedience.

With the underpinning assumptions untrue, why would anyone expect using them as principles to organize a society would work?  Just declaring them as ideals doesn't make it true and nothing actually operates this way. This is the source of the disillusionment in the society.  Nobody believes in this nonsense anymore because it just isn't true.

RE

Darwin Award Winner!

How big was it before the injection?  How much bigger was it supposed to get?  Did he have a chance to use it at least once before he cashed in his chips?

How small does your Johnson need to be before it's worth risking your life for a bigger one?  Is it really that awful to have a Teeny Weenie Weiner?  I mean, maybe one of those Micro Penis situations,

 but could an Injection really make one of those much bigger?  If it's already say 5" and an injection brings you up to 7", is that going to make a huge difference in your sex life?

RE

I'd go a step further and say I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Banks & Oil companies themselves who are sponsoring the various Sabotage claims being attributed to the Ruskies.  Cui Bono?  The more of Ruskie Oil export they can take offline, the higher the price they can get for high priced unconventionl Oil plays here, enough to keep it profitable.  Inspire the rest of Europe to send missiles at Ruskie Oil production infrastructure makes perfect sense.  Of course, the brilliant strategy could backfire if the conflict goes Nuke. 🙄

RE

No worries.  I'm sure they'll stick to just Tactical Nukes. 😒


RE

Diesel is definitely the more important distillate as far as oveerall inflation is concerned.  Gas just affects Happy Motoring, Jet Fuel Fearless Flying, but Diesel hits the prices of everything we eat, every toy we buy, every McMansion being built and every mine digging rare earth minerals out of the ground.  How much it costs your city to do snow removal this winter and how much to pump the fresh water and the sewage.  Up go the taxes to pay for it.

The Inflation is bad enough, but if/when real shortages develop, the very life blood of industrial society drains away.  It's like Bleeding Out for the whole civilization.  Drones & Missiles hit a few more refineries and we'll get there sooner rather than later.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Sep 03, 2026, 01:35 PMThe three fictional superstates of the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

Very thinly disguised fictionalization.

Eurasia = Europe + Russia

East Asia = China + Japan, Korea etc + Australia/NZ

Oceania = N & S Amerika

Orwell ignored Africa.  Black folks didn't count.

RE