Why I’m Not A Liberal

First and foremost, we both have to agree with what liberalism exactly is

Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity whereas liberals believe in equality of outcome.

That’s it. That’s as simple as it gets.

Example 1: Grammar schools

Grammar schools are schools where a child needs to pass an IQ test in order to gain access to study there. In the UK it’s called an 11+ Test (or 11 Plus), that if they score high, they’re allowed into a grammar school and if they score low, they’re not allowed to enter, so they have to enter a normal school (comprehensive) like everyone else. In the UK, the test is taken at age 11.

America probably has the same thing but they call it something else.

Liberals want grammar schools banned and conservatives want them to remain.

The liberal argument is that if children who attend grammar school have better grades and better life chances after leaving school, along with (often) better teachers, then all children should be able to benefit from such higher quality things, on the basis that everyone should have access to a high quality education instead of being resigned to the lesser quality schools with worse grades and worse teachers.

The conservative argument, is that banning grammar schools won’t improve teaching standards and children’s grades, that it’ll actually make things worse for BOTH the higher performing and lower performing kids. Conservatives say, that when you have a classroom with children of different skills, different learning styles, different talents, that if you put them into the SAME classroom, it causes BOTH the grades of the lower and higher performing kids to become worse, as the teacher CANNOT teach two different lessons in the same ONE hour, as they CANNOT ADAPT their teaching style to accomodate to TWO types of kids within the SAME hour, as there’s only so many hours in a day.

Liberals think that allowing grammar schools reduces the grades of lower performing kids, as they are denied access to grammar schools.
Conservatives think that banning grammar schools reduces the grades of BOTH the lower and performing kids, as teachers cannot adapt to teach 2 types of lessons in the same hour.

Liberals want grammar schools banned, conservatives want them to remain.

Hence the equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

Example 2: Encouraging women to enter STEM and creative arts

Everyone knows that STEM courses and STEM jobs are full of mostly men.
About creative arts, you have to be more specific about the type of industry it is (music, film, writing) and the type of job (behind the camera, in front of the camera, managorial, grinding the gears, etc).
Well anyway, in the UK, 82% of songwriters are men, according to PRS that allows british musicians to get royalties for their music. Under british copyright as far as royalties are concerned, music producers are also classed as songwriters.

To simplify the argument, let’s forget about any discrimination, role models, discouragement, etc, against women.

The conservative policy to get more women into these roles is to have a
1) After school club, for school girls (or boys and girls if it’s a mixed gender school) to try out various subjects of their own choosing, for 1-3 hours at school after 3pm. They choose what clubs they’d like to attend.
2) Taster Week or Taster Month, where everyone in the school spends 1-2 weeks participating in a list of subjects, where by the time the Taster Month is over, they’d of completed every subject, as the list has to be completed in sequence for every child.

The liberal policy is to expand this even further
3) Bootcamps and workshops, which are same sex spaces (for women)
4) Affirmative action for people who are under-represented in certain industries (women)

The whole point of 3 and 4 is to ARTIFICIALLY inflate the statistics, which is why they are same sex spaces only for women, to achieve a 50/50 split.

Hence the equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

at least in america I don’t think being a liberal means you have to believe in equality of outcome and if it does I need an explanation of that

Oh yes it does also exist in america!

Example 3: The Nanny State being used for Public Health

Do you know what the nanny state is?
The nanny state is when the government tries to ban or make illegal, consensual actions between two people, that don’t affect anyone else. This also applies to if they include obstructive taxes or regulations on things, to make them less favourable by force.

  • Sugar tax
  • Fast food advert regulations
  • Mandtory parental controls on the internet
  • Banning buy one get one free (BOGOF) and three for two (3-4-2) offers in supermarkets

Who do you think knows more about what is good for you, if it ONLY affects you?
You or the government?
Obviously that’s you. Especially if the people complaining are not in the same room and there’s no victims.
Well that’s what the nanny state is.

Well what liberals do, is use the same logic from the “nanny state”, to move it into HR, Human Resources, to then dictate what you can and cannot do in the workplace.

Example 4: IQ Tests are scrubbed

  1. Intelligence is genetic
  2. IQ is a good measure of intelligence and the best measure we have so far in 2023
  3. Liberals believe that intelligence is environmental and conservatives believe that intelligence is genetic
  4. Liberals believe that kids who went to grammar school, perform better due to being born into money as middle class, whereas conservatives believe it’s due to the children being naturally (or genetically) born more intelligent (If that was true, why don’t middle class children out-perform working class children at school? Oh the cognitive dissonance!)

IQ tests nowadays are SCRUBBED to make intelligent people appear more stupid than they actually are, in order for liberals to underplay and invalidate the value of intelligence to succeed in life and contribute to society.

Here’s an interesting fact.
Did you know that IQ tests are SCRUBBED nationwide nowadays?
That’s liberals for you, political correctness gone mad.

When you do an IQ test with the Mensa Company, they don’t really give you your “raw IQ”, instead they analyse everyone who scored the same amount as the same age as you, calculate a range, percentile and cumulative frequency for it, to then start WEIGHTING the scores, to ensure that the resulting scores are then given a more evenly distributed score.

So someone who’s “raw iq” is high, let’s say Top 20%, then they’ll give you your “weighted iq” that’ll be in the Top 60% or bottom 40%.

They ALWAYS give you your “weighted iq” whilst NEVER giving you your “raw iq” whilst FAILING to disclose that they did this and refused to give you your real (raw) iq.

Another thing they do on OTHER IQ tests, is that they ARTIFICIALLY inflate the maximum possible score, even if it’s statistically and practically impossible for 10,000 people to gain the highest possible score or the top 10% score.

So if someone is in the Top 2%, they’ll make the person LOOK more stupid than they actually are, by showing that they’re in the Top 15%, by them ARTIFICIALLY inflating the upper bound or maximum possible score.

And yes I have sources to prove this.

That’s not real liberalism!

It’s what the mainstream media promotes

Yes it’s exactly what the mainstream media promotes.

You cannot show me any self-published bedroom bloggers who meet your alleged liberal pseudo-definition, outside what I claim it is

That’s true.

On the flip side, any right-wing or conservative books won’t be published, unless the person monkey-branched

Those conservative commentators who you see as famous, influential and successful and with MONEY, they had to do a “bait and switch” to MONKEY-BRANCH into where they are today.

Milo Yiannopoulos started out as a technology journalist for The Telegraph.
Steven Crowder was doing video game parodies with lip syncing with parody songs, for teenage and pre-teen boys. He deleted those videos.
Jordan Peterson was just doing classical standardised psychology that was very counselling orientated, which means from 1930s and beforehand.

The ONLY reason why they are successful and financially affluent now, is because they MONKEY-BRANCHED as they already had a stepping stone from something ELSE

That’s the only way a conservative writer can become successful in this world, to monkey-branch after pivoting from another topic.

Imagine if some teenager was a conservative who was pitching blog articles and books to newspapers, magazines and book publishers, do you think they would publish it?
………………………
No.

But then you can have liberal writers as teenagers, just pop-out from nowhere, simply from sending ONLY pitches to publishers.

1) Abi Wilkinson, journalist for The Guardian with a mainstream book publishing deal
2) That Caroline feminist woman with a french sounding name [-] who wrote Invisible Woman, mainstream book publishing deal
3) Laci Green who started out from her bedroom who then got to work for MTV News and Discovery Channel

If you are conservative, you CANNOT become successful by doing those things, just by MERELY sending pitches to publishers from your bedrom

that's patently false

The idea that the mainstream media and book publishers, don’t publish conservative books or have much conservative guests or presenters on because it’s not politically correct, it’s true. To say otherwise, is wrong.
Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder ONLY got famous because they monkey-branched to pivot from a completely different topic.
They would have NEVER got famous, if they were pitching to publishers about their proposed conservative books from articles from Day One, it just would of NEVER of happened.
It’s true.
If it’s not politically correct, it won’t get published.

Liberals exhibit a Self Determination Fallacy which causes them to campaign for regrettable goals they’ll reverse ferret over

I like to call it, the self determination fallacy

In this world, there’s a lot unfairness and injustice. War, poverty, disease, disability, natural disasters, death etc

Now imagine that a person lacks agency in their life. To me, there’s 3 types of agency….

  1. Changing the outcome of your day-to-day life
  2. Exerting influence over the people around you
  3. Seizing opportunities to influence the long term outcome of your life, months and years down the line

Sadly not everyone has agency in their life.

So going back to this self determination fallacy, imagine if I said at 19 “I could ever write a non-fiction book” or at 17 “I could never write a novel”

Well to them, if I can’t do it while also using my talent to become skilled at writing short stories or later on a novel, then what chance do they have of doing so, if they haven’t done those things?

Another example, what if I make a joke that women are better at opening umbrellas than men, or if I say something more controversial like “women perform better in academia like schools and universities, despite scoring lower on IQ tests, because women have a better memory than men, which makes women more suited for memorising the countless factoids and trivia that’s needed for passing exams and coursework”

Well to them, the severity or ramifications of the statement in regards to the merits conveyed, the social setting context of how and why it was expressed or how anodyne or trivial the assertion and what it alludes to, to a liberal, it is completely irrelevant to then be straight up disregarded

All that matters is that it VIOLATES the self determination fallacy. Any assertion that suggests or even alludes to any genetic advantage a man has over a woman, on a cognitive levels and vice versa, it makes the liberal think that they have less agency in their life to later achieve things, seem much less than they’d once imagined.

The self determination axiom is considered SANCROSANCT like the bible so it is never wrong and never to be questioned.

If you think about carefully, mulling it over, about how liberals reach their opinions on sociopolitical issues, if you’re a conservative, then your greatest issue with them is not so much their opinions but instead the “analytical approach” that they use the reach their conclusions after them seeing a problem or outcome disparity within the demographics.

So when a person who’s detained in a mental hospital is discharged to be released into the outside world (the community) who then further goes onto commit suicide, the liberal politicians, media (BBC) and quangocracy, blames the NHS and fines them (the specific NHS trust), as if somehow, it’s their fault that the woman committed suicide, when suicide is a complex issue caused by a multitude of overlapping factors.

In my opinion, under the Self Determination Fallacy, it’s easier to blame the NHS for her committing suicide than it is to blame the outside world, or even admit that there’s lots of things in the world that you don’t have control over, like a lack of triple agency. To see things my way, evades liberals. It should be of no wonder, why liberals implemented the Sugar Tax which made the fizzy drinks have less sugar in them for fear of higher prices, as a diktat to obstruct them, whereas Tropicana orange juice has more sugar in it. That’s the flawed cognitive bias and type of thinking they have with the analytical lens.

Failed By The NHS: Callie’s Story

In my opinion, if I was the government, I would NOT of fined the NHS after Callie’s suicide after she got discharged into the community.

It’s the same logic behind Sunset Yellow food colouring being banned in the UK, that made the scottish Irn Bru drink notorious for staining carpets. It’s easier to blame the drink for making kids hyperactive, than it is to blame their parents for not feeding their children properly as those children are probably lacking a healthy and balanced diet.

What is a reverse ferret?

Liberalism uses security by obscurity

The less people who can understand it, the more successful they’ll be at implementing it, as they can take advantage of their useful idiots who advocate for their activism like turkeys voting for christmas. This deserves another article in its own right.

But….But….But….what about the pervasive or systemic harm that liberalism aims to prevent and counteract?

Let’s try putting ourselves in the shoes of your average straight, white, male, to understand how oppressive it must be to have your freedom of speech constantly attacked. Imagine how hard it must be to check every word that comes out of your mouth? To no longer be able to casually refer to sluts, fags, trannys, fatties, whores, or darkies? To longer feel safe while indulging in sexist banter at the water cooler? To have to remember what pronouns your friends use? (Here we go with that “idpol” malarky, like what is bi, queer, pan or nonbinary anyway?) To have women calling you out on your rape jokes? To be told that your favourite Osama Bin Laden joke is ‘islamaphobic’? To have to remind yourself multiple times a day that women and other lesser beings are now considered fully human and expect to be treated with the same respect that has always been afforded to straight, white, men?

It must be tiring. It must start to feel like maybe you shouldn’t say anything at all. People constantly tell you constantly to educate yourself. But you are educated, you reply, you spend your time reading Squawker and the Daily Mail, fountains of knowledge and fact. You reassure yourself that this is all part of a conspiracy by The dysfunctional psychological forces driving intolerant political correctness, the open promotion of misandry, and the progressively ruthless suppression of free speech.

source from headstuff

Maybe I need to come up with a better source from a liberal quote, well quote, as it seems too gendered towards straight men, as maybe there needs to be something about race, religion, sexuality, disability, nationality and whatever else in there. But you get my overall point though!

I’ve covered that over here.

Or if you’d like to read the 411 Primer and concise and comprehensive clarification of why exactly I believe the various ideologies I do, for the more harder to define sociological ones, you can start with Your Label My Stance. Especially the collectivism sucks part, based on the ethical principles of which we base our personal morality.

But….but….but….conservatism is far worse than liberalism and what we currently have now

See the links in my previous heading. More importantly, the collectivism sucks part, about the principles of morality. This is where the liberal phrase “the politics is personal” fails, as they aim to distance themselves from the people in the media who appear extreme, a cancel culture warrior or a moral authoritarian. Just look at what principles these liberals use to dictate their morality, then you can argue with that, even if the change they want seems inconsequential and insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

If liberalism is so bad, then how come the majority of the cultural institutions are liberal

  1. A more theoretical approach about the analytical lens
  2. Theresa May expanding the Public Sector Equality Duty
  3. Tony Blair’s Common Purpose, conspiracy theory
  4. Liberals using a splinter cell structure
  5. You maybe can see the campaigning but definitely not the canvassing
  6. Tony Blair’s Supreme Court
  7. Liberalism uses newspeak
  8. Liberalism uses security by obscurity (in more ways than one).

This deserves a new article in its own right, I think I’ll write it later, if someone else hasn’t written about it first. Well someone already wrote number 2 on The Telegraph and number 4 on the Daily Mail.

I said to other people and will always say, that when these (liberal) changes happen, that liberals denied would of happened at the time, that when the changes did happen, that they were orchestrated, that they did NOT happen of their own accord. The liberals probably would disagreed with that opinion.

In my opinion, when you look back, from then to now, to see how we got from then to now, you’ll see that it was

  1. Sequential without jumping
  2. Accumulative (each step directly follows onward logically from the one before it)
  3. Orchestrated (people wanted it to happen, years and decades before it did)
  4. Harmonically embraced by the general public (even if lots of people disagreed with it at the time, there was a statistically significant subset of the population, who wanted it to happen, or if they were ambivalent or indifferent, then they had no complaints when it did happen)
  5. Peer driven acceleration (the general public not only complied with it or encouraged others to do it but they also helped to advance it even further than it ever was)

There was no intervention, there was no upthrowning. There was also no committee appointed revolutionary leader. It was more peer driven than you think and more orchestrated than you think. Nobody just got put into some leadership position or executive position, to just be signing contracts to be making new laws and rules, to the dumbstruck flabbergasted shock of the general public. Actually the general public gave them more approval and kudos than you think

An analogously strange notion of equality

Thatcher's Last Stand Against Socialism

They’d rather have the poor poorer, if it means the rich are less rich.

MARGARET THATCHER

Examples of this being true with liberals

  • Banning grammar schools
  • Double-dipping with Inheritance Tax where the money is taxed first upon the parent’s death then second upon the dead parent transferring it to the child.

See my comment to this article, Tim Cook warns of privacy ’emergency’ in attack on social media and search engines.

This has nothing to do with protecting users privacy and everything to do with protecting Apple’s profits. Apple is a hypocrite. It’s just a way to centralise monopolistic power by shutting out competitors.

It’s like rich farmers with tractors telling poor farmers ploughing fields with cars, that governments banning tractor wheels helps smaller competitors by only allowing car wheels to be sold.

Big Tech and Big Tech funded digital rights charities like Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla Foundation and Open Rights Group claiming that third party cookies help billionaires exploit working class commoners, is one of the biggest examples of astroturfing in this decade.

Google and Facebook control 90% of online advertising and Google pays Apple $15 billion a year to be the default search engine.

Have you SEEN how much it costs to advertise on “old media” like television, radio, billboard and print?To advertise on the highest rated TV show in 2007 before broadband internet, Coronation Street, it costs £50,000 for 30 seconds for 8-14 million viewers.

Performance data advertising that allows advertisers to see the impressions, clicks and clickthrough rate, along with personalised advertising that uses demographic data to target adverts it helps to make advertising CHEAPER by creating more granular targeting that has less bidders and less competition that benefits small companies. Apple’s iOS changes have harmed MILLIONS of Small companies who advertise on Facebook

You can see this when

  • Liberals were happy when the WHATWG consortium (led by Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Opera, Nokia), wrestled control of web standards away from the independent W3C. Liberals on Reddit and Hacker News were happy about it, to later regret it when now WHATWG is de facto controlled by Google with no other companies having any considerable stake of control.
  • Liberals were happy to have third party cookies banned by default by the various web browsers (Chrome, Brave, Firefox), until they noticed that it allowed Google and Facebook to further control their 90% duopoly on online advertising, whilst Alt-Tech gets sued out of existence from the colossal lawsuits and legal fees and regulatory compliance costs.
  • Liberals were happy to have adblock be the socially accepted and general consensus but when newspapers started putting their articles behind a paywall, they don’t like it. So they can’t do adverts, can’t do crowdfunding like Patreon so now it’s a paywall. Also lots of publishers have boycotted Google First Click so the first 1-3 page views of a blog/news article, doesn’t show the full article any more.

Liberalism, by nature and its core tenets, it’s a moral authoritarian

Liberals do not believe in people freely making their own consensual decisions, as they want to violate those freedoms, by implementing vice laws (laws that prohibit consensual behaviour) in order for them to force the outcome. If you don’t believe me, simply wait for the next 10-15 years and you’ll see I was right in hindsight but I knew it was like that as a teenager.

Conclusion

Related Posts