This Tuesday will mark 32 years since the Rwanda genocide, so many liberal outlets will come out with their pre-written articles about how terrible it all was in hindsight.
The Western liberals in power (when it mattered) said explicitly then that we shouldn't get involved there because it wasn't in our 'national interest'. That is the difference between them and us. We want to help people, they will decide with consultants whether helping people is worth it or not.
It has always been that way, at least during my lifetime.
I personally interviewed a Rwandan survivor refugee, and it was way, way, waaay worse than you can possibly imagine.
Actually, France hatched the genocide plan because the Tutsi were sitting on all the valuable minerals and refusing to allow France to destroy their environment by mining it. All the radios that were used for propaganda, all the pangas and other weapons were imported from France.
But don't think the UK and US were unfeeling about this catastrophe! Indeed not. They waited for the rivers of blood to slightly dry, and then punished France by kicking them out, and taking over Rwanda themselves as the "post" colonial powers.
So these weren't "liberals" actually watching on, they were the typical white supremacist fascists who control the Western countries.
Oh dear. Did people actually BELIEVE we are "liberal societies"? Only as long as the ruling classes power is unchallenged...
Did you do the interview for a media outlet, or something else? If its available online I will check it out.
The French have always been despicable throughout Africa, even the aftermath of the genocide - under French control - where they helped Hutu killers flee and launch attacks across the Congolese border. It is disgusting on so many levels. And, like you pointed to, the lives of human beings were considered less than the strategic control over mineral deposits.
No, as it happens she joined a course I was on, and the "interview" was over some chats as I walked her home a few times (She later dated and married one of my close friends, who was also on the course).
So none of it was recorded... it would be another decade before phones could be used to record such off-the-cuff moments.
Naturally, she was biassed in her story with regards to the Hutu (Who were already unhappy with the racial-apartheid division of wealth and land in the country, unsurprisingly), but her facts on the French role fit with everything that had come out, or was unexplained.
The U.S. administration under Bill Clinton avoided involvement.
But so did:
Conservative governments elsewhere
The UN broadly
Most of the international community
This was a systemic failure of states, not a partisan ideology acting alone.
You’re right to call out hypocrisy after the fact
You’re wrong to pin it cleanly on “liberals vs. us”
The real story is worse:
When genocide isn’t tied to strategic interest, states—left, right, or otherwise—often stall, hedge, or look away."
The Democrats (liberals in general) of the Clinton era are not the liberals of today...so attacking people for hypocrisy 30 yrs ago today is dishonest. Today, among Democrats, 77% view Israel as committing genocide and even the hesitant Democrats are shifting to blaming Israel, as the vote in the Senate on the Sanders bill to stop arming Israel (27 Dems for, 17 oppoised) shows. It is highly like with 3/4 of Democrats calling out genocide that Democratic politicians will not align.
Bullshit! When team Biden was in there, NOT A PEEP about funding death and destruction all over the world including the ongoing genocide. The current Democratic Party is the same as the Clinton led one. All performative. Covertly fascist, Trump is their dream come true to give them political cover to achieve their fascistic agenda. One party
My liberal friends have a blind spot. It’s ok if Billy raped little girls with his Epstein club but oh…million white woman marches for abortion rights because their liberal heroes (propagandists) told them that’s most important and ignore everything else. I’m not blind, but I do hate when activists are blinded or fooled by political tribalism
Republicans fear their far right base. Democrats abuse and gaslight their far left base.
And the "far left" base of Democrats is not even far left - it is simply the Left. Since the Democratic party sold out to the oligarchs and their billion dollar Wallstreet corporations decades ago.
Power lasts long after leaving office. Hillary and Bill Clinton are still incredibly powerful: in the media, education system, influencing the party direction, think tanks/foundations etc... Most of them people were politically active until they died, and their legacies passed on to the current crop.
the current Democrats are stuck in the past but if Biden, Schumer, and Jeffrey's don't make that clear, I don't know what I can say.
The Clinton's are toast, Biden is gone, Schumer is on the way out along with Jeffreys. A new generation, mentored by Sanders, is rising to replace them. Lend a hand or get out of the way. With 77% of Democratic voters believing Israel is committing genocide, how many running for office will be willing to stand against them? Of the 5 most approved politicians (per polls) in the US today, 3 are democratic socialists (Sanders #1, AOC #3, and Mamdani #5) and nearly 2/3 of the Democratic voters prefer socialism to capitalism. For those Rip Van Winkles who think we are back in the Clinton era of moving to the right, wake up! The times they are a changin and you can either deny it or lend a hand. The Sanders bill to ban arming Israel (ending genocide__ whjich has gone from 2% of the Dem vote to 65% last year) is coming up again. Do you want to oppose it?
The Clinton's are still massive power brokers, Biden was president a year and a half ago, the others still lead the party and represent outdated views. Earlier you made it sound like all these points of comparison were irrelevant but I'm just seeing more evidence they all relevant
- Universal Healthcare in America (FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL BY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) couldn't even get a public option under Obama. Couldn't even get a vote on the floor under Nancy Pelosi
- Military Spending. Voted in by Democratic LIBERAL party without fail. Now at a trillion dollars a year and still being approved.
- Increasing tax Breaks for the Rich? ABSOLUTELY approved and made permanent by LIBERAL democratic party.
- Sucking the cock of Israel year after year? Supporting a Genocide full throatedly under Joe Biden. Without a qualm, LIBERAL democratic party
- Betraying the American ordinary working class by interfering and blocking Union Strikes - from Joe Biden's Railroad workers injunction, to the refusal of party to do jack shit with Nurses in Wisconsin: your LIBERAL democratic party
- Legalizing stock trading and open bribery in the halls of Washington DC, where there is now 16 Lobbyists for every public servant politician in DC. LIBERAL democrats love the money in DC. Hell, half of them are multi-millionaires now. Obama as soon as he left office was making 400K speeches, and now lives in Martha's Vineyard
- Pushing false propaganda upon the American people, such as pushing the RussiaGate Hoax upon the American people for years with Rachel Maddow and other deep state propaganda outlets: fully supported by LIBERAL democrats
- Sabotaging any efforts by extremely popular Left politicians, such as the remarkable campaign of Bernie Sanders who garnered the support of ordinary Americans in a fashion not seen by the corrupt LIBERAL democratic party since Roosevelt - making sure no true LEFT candidate gains a leading role in the party - but instead we're left with Chuck Schumer and the rest of bought off corporate Democrats to this day
-Bailing out Wallstreet instead of Mainstreet under Obama, during the Occupy Wallstreet campaign that Obama did whatever he could to subvert: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
- Bill Clinton gutting the Welfare system in the US and destroying the manufacturing base with NAFTA. These are the LIBERAL democrats Dale wants you to worship
What's not to love about LIBERAL DEMOCRATS folks? You got Dale Ruff here trying to gaslight Caitlin and others as if the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS really are here for you. What a load of shit.
The times they are a changin......I don't gaslight. I am a gadfly that exposes lies. I am not a liberal, not even a Democrat but I know that only liberals and leftists working together can stop the genocidce and wars and defeat the fascists, just as in WWII> even Karl Marx said that even communists should work with liberals on common goals. I welcome your civil criticism but pity you for resorting to personal attacks and gutter talk.
The U.S. played an enormous role for the lack of a U.N. response though. They refused to even use the word genocide for well into the second half of the 100 days. If the U.S. declared a genocide was taking place, the rest of the world would have followed and acted according to the genocide convention, in my view. So the Liberal ideology was crucial and exposed (as it has always touted human rights). Though I agree it wasn't limited to just liberals. The most powerful government on the planet just happened to be a liberal one.
I mean, I agree, but they are considered by most people to be liberals. The Starmer government where I live in the U.K. and the new Labour movement is considered Liberal too, though it has committed genocide in Gaza, supported the genocide in Sudan, and is helping the U.s. and Israel take over the whole Middle East (though they're finding it harder than expected, clearly), and demonising migrants. I guess you're referring to the technical meaning, I'm referring to the sort of cultural meaning.
Jordan, parsing such propaganda is WHY people go to college to learn the actual terms and what they actually mean.
Are we at the point yet where Trump can also be called "Liberal"?
Or Hitler. Heck, perhaps even Stalin.
When terminology becomes so loose, it becomes absolutely meaningless except as dog-whistles.
The Kid Starver regime should actually be called a "Socialist" regime, according to the Party blurb, - does that fit?
It can get confusing because OVERALL Western countries are called "Liberal democracies" - ie, the elements that make up a working democracy, are the Liberal values. So "Liberalism" is baked into the pie - and politicians will not admit they have every intention of undermining those democratic systems from within. So they pretend, hide, and claim they are "Liberals" when thay are OVERTLY fucking FASCISTS - if indeed not outright Nazis.
And the Corporate media is perfectly happy to keep up this illusion, because they are all in cahoots.
The college system welcomes the Clintons. I think hillary literally teaches university courses in that system. So I don't think they teach that the Clinton family are nazis or even conservatives
Clinton's are the "NICE" type of Imperialists for the vassals, FF.
They leave scraps for the other powers, paint over the atrocities with nice sounding words for the cameras, and practise smiling... in epstein island mirrors.
I will respond, even though I know I'm arguing with AI 🤣
The U.S. has/had enough power to spearhead and coordinate an international response to genocide. This is a fact. The U.N. is beholden to the U.S. (look at its response to Gaza ffs).
If the Clinton administration used the term when the red Cross and those on the ground used it (in the first few days and weeks), many lives would have been saved. I agree earlier that the U.S. isn't the only responsibility actor, of course the killers themselves, the French, and other nations played important roles. But the U.S. would have initiated a response and reduced the death toll drastically if it acted, as a world leader or state that genuinely cared about these issues. Here is a good article if you want more details:
You are arguing with the messenger based on primary sources. I don't disagree with the point the US could have with an earlier response had signficant influence, only the claim, which while not AI lacks primary sources to support (AI comes with primary sources; that is its strengths, often dismissed by those who provide no source at all!) that the world would have have acted." When the US did respond, the world barely acted. I will note the article you link to uses the term "genocidal denial" to condemn Clinton (whom I also condemn) in a dishonest way:
" . “Genocide denial” isn’t quite accurate
Holocaust denial = claiming the genocide didn’t happen
What the U.S. did was closer to:
evasion
semantic hedging
delay in acknowledgment
They weren’t saying:
“This isn’t happening”
They were saying:
“We’re not prepared to formally label it yet” And this because a formal label of genocide would require certain actions the US was not willing yet to take, so it spoke of "acts of genocide," hedging the issue. I find this shameful but the article overstates the crime.
What matters today is not what Clinton did 30 years ago but supporting the Sanders bill to ban shipment of arms to Israel, which last year got 2/3 of Dems on board, and now coming up for a vote again, will likely gain momentum. What matters is to support this effort to build a strong majority to stop the genocide ongoing in Gaza.
AI hallucinates, gets things wrong, doesn't have critical thinking abilities, and doesn't just use primary sources (unless forums like reddit count as primary sources)
Both the Republican party and Democratic party lost relevance with the ordinary Americans since Citizen's United.
Both parties represent only the very rich in the US. Neither party has passed any legislation for ordinary Americans of any note now for decades.
You might as well believe in Peter Pan, if you believe any dramatic change will occur at all with the next US election cycle. Breaking News: it ain't going to happen.
Clinton was hardly a liberal (except on some domestic issues): "Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center—often termed "Third Way" or "New Democrat"—to regain electoral power in the 1990s, adopting fiscally conservative, pro-business policies while keeping progressive views on social issues. While he was a Democrat, he is generally considered a moderate or centrist, not a traditional progressive liberal.
Move to the Right (Moderate Shift): Clinton championed welfare reform ("ending welfare as we know it"), tough-on-crime legislation (1994 Crime Bill), and deregulation of financial sectors, which were traditionally conservative areas." Nor is he in power today. Today we see real progressives like Sanders, Khana, and other democratic socialists rising to power replacing the old guard.
The use of political rhetoric that pigeonholes ways of thinking into some sort of birds- of- a-feather packages are impressive, but do they really convey what people are capable of?
The rhetoric in your comments are truly impressive for those who are immersed in political arenas, but in the final analysis, do they truly reflect the conditions that have prevailed?
I cannot answer your question, tho I sense it is sincere, because it so vague. What conditions that have prevailed limit my "rhetoric?" And their is no final analysis because things are changing fast with a public that two years ago was 90% behind Israel now disapproving and 77% of Democratic voters calling out genocide and the socialist/progressive wing of the party rising to power. And Trump now trapped in a quagmire of his own making (prompted by Netanyahu) that will lead to a shift in power in the November elections. We are watching a river, not a pond. Things are changing rapidly and our discourse must reveal that fact.
You write: “Things are changing rapidly”, no offence and I do agree somewhat, but for thousands of children who were slaughtered in the Gaza genocide, things didn’t change fast enough, with both Democrats and Republicans officially supporting the genocide .
In black and white parlance, I would ban all political parties , period.
I think what I am trying to convey is that sometimes we get lost in the translation of words. Words can entrap as well as liberate ideas.
For example, you stated that 77% of Democratic voters call out genocide who favor the socialist/progressive wing… for someone who is not familiar with political jargon, like myself, I like to believe what Greta Thunberg labels “ empty words”. .
In essence, isn’t the voting part of a democracy, which simply means the majority rules? In that sense, aren’t Republicans and Democrats all democratic voters?
I think what I am trying to point out is that the two parties to which you are referring mirror the gist of Greta Thunberg’s words, nothing more.
By 32 years past, they had been bought out by the ruling elite, so they had to make up a story of rationalization in order to live with themselves, and probably also to keep the "liberal" vote, even though their plebian constituents came to matter less to them over time.
Were you not alive during the Civil Right Act, where liberals threw their southern base into the hands of the Republicans, in order to pass the Act? This was not comfort but sacrificing a pillar of their power. Are you not aware that democratic socialist Bernie Sandes whose bill to ban shippng arms to Israel, which got 2/3 of Dems on board last year is coming up for another vote soon, the same Bernie Sanders who said of the victory of Trump: "The Democratic Party abandoned the working class, and so the working class abandoned the Democratic Party" ?? The party is now in the process of returning to its New Deal roots in being the party of the working class, and while success is not guaranteed, trashing those seeking to make this transformation guarnatees it will fail. If you want to stop genocide in Gaza, one of the most effective things you coud do is let your Senator know you will not vote for him if he opposes the Sanders bill. And let anyone know that trashes Sanders they are unwitting assets of AIPAC, which is also trashing him for calling out genocide and since 1988, promoting conditioning aid to Israel on its treatment of the Palestinians and now at full throttle. Lend a hand, or get out of the way: change is coming and you can be part of it or help it fail.
Liberals are comfortable with the status quo. They want some changes but none that would benefit the majority, just enough it helps them stay in their comfort zone.
You don't think Medicare, Social Security and expanded healthcare benefit the majority? Liberals do not push radical change but without them, there would have been no change at all, not Civil Right Act, no Voting Rights Act, no vote to ban shipping arms to Israel, etc. Without cooperation between liberals and leftists, nothing would have changed and nothing will change. If you have an alternative, what is it?
Funny, Dale talking about Social Security, an Act that occurred in 1935 under Roosevelt (90 years ago). And pretends the Democratic party is the same as it was then. What have these fucks really done of any significance - since then for the American people? Other than the 1960s Civil Rights Act?
This is the kind of phony Liberal shit the real Left in the US now has had to put up with for decades. This kind of gaslighting. Caitlin and others calling out the endemic corruption in the Democratic party and the Liberals who support it - but Caitlin then is the "crazy" one.
It's like a cotton farm plantation owner coming out and telling his slaves: if it weren't for him, they wouldn't have their huts to live in, or the breadcrumbs of food on their table. Their slavery would be even worse! Meanwhile, every year the Plantation is making record profits in the billions soon to be trillions. And the slaves are being whipped even more (and raped).
Dale praises the Social Security Act of 1935, passed 90 years ago as an example of democrat probity and devotion, but at the same time insists that the democrats and liberals of Clinton's time, well within living memory, have nothing to do with the Team D of today. Even Obama might as well be ancient history.
Hell, a few years ago, goodthink liberals and democrats railed against Trump’s genocide in Yemen - only to flip, the moment that genocide became Biden's genocide.
When the House Committee on Impeachment of Nixon brought charges prior to Tricky Dick's resignation, it concentrated on things specific to Nixon's behavior, not policies fundamental to the outrages of all US presidents. Throw out the rotten apples but save the barrel. This is the liberal philosophy: the system's fine. Just change the party, the individuals, but keep the insane policies; no problem with 'Murica.
For those in the U.S. who support the D's and say "Just wait til the Mid terms" I say Fuck you, fuck the R's and Fuck the Zionists. One more thing this Easter. Fucking cancel Israel and it's supporters. I almost sound Presidential.
I've known which side of this binary I am on, for 50 years. It is an intrinsic feeling that makes you feel like you are always swimming upstream against a strong current. Without constant vigilance, I can find myself floating downstream with the current of neoliberalism and resting in the eddies of the democratic politics here in the US. Its Caitlin and groups like this, that pull me out of the eddies and push on.
Yes, I agree with you. If we are truly wanting to resist we also have to see that WE and Israel are the two most powerful interlopers in this world. We don’t come from the land we are occupying. Other nations, including Iran, have strong old cultures, morals and integrity they live by. We don’t abide by anything but our own power, the racist propaganda we have always learned as truth, and the want, want, want of everything. WE must change. (Thank you for your work. I will support you when I can)
My ancestors come from this land. Yours may not. But more importantly we all need to get to the point where we realize that all humans come from all land, that Earth is home and not some make-belief mythologized politically demarcated subsection of it.
Well done for publishing and saying - Peace be upon you by Gaza and Jerusalem - Honour and victory are the allies of the axis of resistance and its allies, and humiliation and shame are for the axis of evil, Epstein Class (USA, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, NATO Governments, Zionist and Israel) and its allies.
More blame games without defining what is meant by liberals, as 8 million hit the streets to protest fascism and war a week ago. This is getting tiresome. Only an alliance of liberals and leftists can take down the fascists; dividing them with attacks on liberals instead of the fascists is something the fascists love.
"Marx advocated working with liberals in specific, tactical scenarios, despite his fundamental critique of liberalism as a capitalist ideology. He believed in forming coalitions with progressive liberals to defeat reactionary, feudal, or conservative forces and to achieve democratic reforms that could pave the way for socialist transformation."
Exactly. The nauseatingly tone-deaf “No Kings” shit, which comes straight down from D party messaging operatives and couldn’t be less organic, is actually the perfect
illustration of the difference between liberals and actual activists
"No Kings" Parades - pretty much the same Anti-Trump (Anti-Republican) movement we've gotten now from the "Lesser of Two Evils" Democratic party for decades. Being Anti-Trump translates into Democratic party doing jack shit for the next 8 years. Then a billionaire demagogue even worst then Trump will get voted in.
Meanwhile, psychotic, off the chart funding still continues for Israel and the MIC.
"Liberal" and "Conservative" are just words of convenience in politics. I for one am neither. I believe strongly in family values and loyalty . I believe strongly that it is our duty to learn to accept all people for their personal beliefs and lifestyles I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks any group should be promoted to promote the political concept of "diversity" . We are all people with the same needs and desires. none of us have the right to impose our beliefs on others. It is enough to explain your opinions to others and let them decide for themselves whether they wish to believe as you do. Any form of force in imposing your beliefs on others is inherently evil. Violence only begets violence. the only justification for violence is if you or your loved once are physically threatened. This includes open war, manipulated food shortages and criminal activity of others. It does not include the fear that your neighbour may wish you harm if there is no actual physical transgression. The history of Western "culture is one that violates every facet of love and decency. We must all learn to love one another or there will soon be no one left to love. I wish everybody peace and increased understanding of those whose beliefs and cultures differ from ours. It is the only way..
I support every word you have written. I am neither liberal, anti imperialist, conservative, democratic, or any label about anything those in power deliberately bring in to separate people into groups, I am just me. I disagree with any labels about anything at all. If people don't realize that when they apply a label about anything, whether it's about beliefs, generation labels, any label at all. The minute a person uses a label about anything, they have fallen into the trap those who would control us have laid.
They can label me a boomer, an anti this or anti that, as belonging to a certain group of any kind and prove they haven't really discovered the game being played on them. This doesn't mean they are good or bad people, it only means they have realized the truth about some things and still have more to learn. We are all individuals living together where unfortunately there are people who wish to control us and unless we want the kind of world you describe, we doom ourselves.
Yes that realization was a rude awakening for me! As long as the status quo remained, the dems in particular were happy just blaming the reps! And nothing ever changed!
What a load of crap. One can find "anti-Imperialists" across the political spectrum, even US Conservativism can churn out "Isolationists".
Equally, one can also find left-wing "Imperialists", who truly believe their own ideology should be forced onto other cultures and peoples; and who have little problem producing the weapons to do so because they bring "jerbs to unionised workers".
As though its only "Liberals" who don't want to get out of their 'comfort zones'!
If only Liberals had any integrity left to stand on - other than repeatedly running on: "Trump is bad". Yeah, like we don't already know that schmucks.
jamenta, there are REAL liberals - the ones being arrested in the streets for protesting active genocides and wars of choice - and then there are fascists who love to pretend and CALL THEMSELVES "liberal", but the only Liberal values they hold (Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association fx) is some 'right' to stack money without any taxation.
That is not in the SLIGHTEST bit fkin Liberal.
It's not Caitlin's fault, Australia has never been known for its high educational standards, and one of the two Fascist ruling parties also misnames itself the "Liberals". Needless to say however, Caitlin would not accept Kid Starver's regime as "socialist", despite THAT party's name, but hey ho...
Could I spend several hours scrolling through tens of thousands of news reports, cross-referencing given names of those arrested, with a hack of legally-protected private voting records, just to satisfy the curiousity of some online Rando who can't quite believe that any of those tens of thousands arrested across the Western countries would call themselves "liberal"???
Work the answer out yourself.
Or, if that's too tricky for you to manage, why don't YOU spend all those hours looking through those reports and records, and prove that none of them were "Liberals" instead of wasting MY time?
Your "argument" is as follows: "If you cannot provide me with any names of the WW2 Wehrmacht of conscripted soldiers who were liberal, we have to assume they were all fascists/socialists".
You're fucking batshit Mr High.
Are you SERIOUSLY attempting to argue that of those hundreds of Boomer pensioners arrested in the UK alone, incl former doctors, judges, lawyers, even military officers if memory serves, THAT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN OF LIBERAL PERSUASION?
And you genuinely want ME to take YOU seriously???
Fuck off mate, just fuck the fuckety off. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Kirk - probably Israel, definitely Zionists, as anyone with a braincell knew by the end of the first week - incl you, Jam.
Rich - it was actually a suicide, of course. He suicided himself, and disguised it as a street robbery. I'm sure Killary was absolutely distraught that a wikileaks whistleblower in the DNC office were so depressed they killed themselves.
JE - probably about the same number of "elites" who were criminally busted over the similar 'Jimmy Saville' affair in the UK, where thousands of children were abused in several state and private institutions for over 3 decades.
I hear what you are saying. I think it boils down to an argument of syntax, though. You mentioned one of the imperialist parties has co-opted the label "liberal". So, fuck the label. Fuck it in the ass. It's just a word. Why are you attached to it? And I do not doubt you've met anti-imperialist conservatives or anti-imperialists who wanna shove their beliefs down throats. No doubt from me about that whatsoever. So, why stick with the labels? Why not just abandon them altogether and focus on the behaviors? I think the piece written (at least from my American pov) takes aim at those co-opted liberals and not the people who may have been arrested at protests and self-identify as liberals. Stop self-identifying as anything but a motherfuckin human being.
But there's something that's not so easy, and that's the language.
Liberal, liberty, liberalism, - there is clearly a common root, and one deep in the language. It is a view that the State/Corporates should be legally restricted from their worst possible behaviours towards the individual. Fx, if you say something the PTB don't like, that should be your RIGHT to do so. This was brought by Liberalism. Or what if you didn't want to be a Plymouth Brethren Christian like everyone else around? Then you got religious freedom from Liberalism. Liberalism, Liberty - see how they interact?
Now, Anarchism is to Liberalism, what Communism is to Socialism, and Fascism is to Conservatism. And I've been a comfortable soft-left Anarchist for some decades - that means my own philosophy, ideals, social goals etc, are informed and built upon the philosophy of Liberalism.
For me "Liberalism" isn't just some empty word you throw at vanilla people, it's part of a millennia+ long battle that brought 90% of the improvements we take for granted today.
But I'm not "just" a liberal - I can understand, follow, and even argue leftwing and conservative positions too. I CHOOSE to self-define as a liberal because, although all positions have validity and benefits (And negatives), ultimately I do BELIEVE that a good society is built upon individual freedoms, once essential and midlevel needs/wants are fulfilled.
The ultimate point of reference is the individual human. Not the State, Party, Corporate, Hierarchy.
Is the world not better off without people who commit genocide, steal people's land, houses, and starve them to death? Oh wait. Is that antisemitic? Oh well...🖕!
This Tuesday will mark 32 years since the Rwanda genocide, so many liberal outlets will come out with their pre-written articles about how terrible it all was in hindsight.
The Western liberals in power (when it mattered) said explicitly then that we shouldn't get involved there because it wasn't in our 'national interest'. That is the difference between them and us. We want to help people, they will decide with consultants whether helping people is worth it or not.
It has always been that way, at least during my lifetime.
I personally interviewed a Rwandan survivor refugee, and it was way, way, waaay worse than you can possibly imagine.
Actually, France hatched the genocide plan because the Tutsi were sitting on all the valuable minerals and refusing to allow France to destroy their environment by mining it. All the radios that were used for propaganda, all the pangas and other weapons were imported from France.
But don't think the UK and US were unfeeling about this catastrophe! Indeed not. They waited for the rivers of blood to slightly dry, and then punished France by kicking them out, and taking over Rwanda themselves as the "post" colonial powers.
So these weren't "liberals" actually watching on, they were the typical white supremacist fascists who control the Western countries.
Oh dear. Did people actually BELIEVE we are "liberal societies"? Only as long as the ruling classes power is unchallenged...
Thank you for the additional info.
Did you do the interview for a media outlet, or something else? If its available online I will check it out.
The French have always been despicable throughout Africa, even the aftermath of the genocide - under French control - where they helped Hutu killers flee and launch attacks across the Congolese border. It is disgusting on so many levels. And, like you pointed to, the lives of human beings were considered less than the strategic control over mineral deposits.
No, as it happens she joined a course I was on, and the "interview" was over some chats as I walked her home a few times (She later dated and married one of my close friends, who was also on the course).
So none of it was recorded... it would be another decade before phones could be used to record such off-the-cuff moments.
Naturally, she was biassed in her story with regards to the Hutu (Who were already unhappy with the racial-apartheid division of wealth and land in the country, unsurprisingly), but her facts on the French role fit with everything that had come out, or was unexplained.
Name one European power that has not practiced this protocol. They are all guilty.
Name one Country that has not followed that protocol!
I can't see what your message was a response to (either my app is playing up or is confused by the thread and side conversations)
But I definitely don't think other European nations are good on these issues.
"This wasn’t a uniquely “liberal” failure.
The U.S. administration under Bill Clinton avoided involvement.
But so did:
Conservative governments elsewhere
The UN broadly
Most of the international community
This was a systemic failure of states, not a partisan ideology acting alone.
You’re right to call out hypocrisy after the fact
You’re wrong to pin it cleanly on “liberals vs. us”
The real story is worse:
When genocide isn’t tied to strategic interest, states—left, right, or otherwise—often stall, hedge, or look away."
The Democrats (liberals in general) of the Clinton era are not the liberals of today...so attacking people for hypocrisy 30 yrs ago today is dishonest. Today, among Democrats, 77% view Israel as committing genocide and even the hesitant Democrats are shifting to blaming Israel, as the vote in the Senate on the Sanders bill to stop arming Israel (27 Dems for, 17 oppoised) shows. It is highly like with 3/4 of Democrats calling out genocide that Democratic politicians will not align.
Bullshit! When team Biden was in there, NOT A PEEP about funding death and destruction all over the world including the ongoing genocide. The current Democratic Party is the same as the Clinton led one. All performative. Covertly fascist, Trump is their dream come true to give them political cover to achieve their fascistic agenda. One party
Blind hatred is not only bad analysis but bad strategy. It is also a personal disaster for you.
Dale's response to any criticisms made of him, after he comes out attacking Caitlin's essay. You're the problem, not him.
My liberal friends have a blind spot. It’s ok if Billy raped little girls with his Epstein club but oh…million white woman marches for abortion rights because their liberal heroes (propagandists) told them that’s most important and ignore everything else. I’m not blind, but I do hate when activists are blinded or fooled by political tribalism
Republicans fear their far right base. Democrats abuse and gaslight their far left base.
And the "far left" base of Democrats is not even far left - it is simply the Left. Since the Democratic party sold out to the oligarchs and their billion dollar Wallstreet corporations decades ago.
Those people 30 years ago are also overwhelmingly powerful today. Its almost the same people running the U.S.
"Almost none of the top decision-makers from the 1990s are in power today.
Core leadership during the Rwanda era (mid-1990s)
Bill Clinton — long out of office
Madeleine Albright — deceased
Warren Christopher — deceased
Anthony Lake — no longer in government
None of the top-tier officials who made Rwanda-era decisions are currently running U.S. policy.
The closest thing to continuity
A few figures from that broader era remained active for decades, but even they are now largely out:
Joe Biden — recently in power but not today (2026)
Hillary Clinton — no current office"
Power lasts long after leaving office. Hillary and Bill Clinton are still incredibly powerful: in the media, education system, influencing the party direction, think tanks/foundations etc... Most of them people were politically active until they died, and their legacies passed on to the current crop.
the current Democrats are stuck in the past but if Biden, Schumer, and Jeffrey's don't make that clear, I don't know what I can say.
The Clinton's are toast, Biden is gone, Schumer is on the way out along with Jeffreys. A new generation, mentored by Sanders, is rising to replace them. Lend a hand or get out of the way. With 77% of Democratic voters believing Israel is committing genocide, how many running for office will be willing to stand against them? Of the 5 most approved politicians (per polls) in the US today, 3 are democratic socialists (Sanders #1, AOC #3, and Mamdani #5) and nearly 2/3 of the Democratic voters prefer socialism to capitalism. For those Rip Van Winkles who think we are back in the Clinton era of moving to the right, wake up! The times they are a changin and you can either deny it or lend a hand. The Sanders bill to ban arming Israel (ending genocide__ whjich has gone from 2% of the Dem vote to 65% last year) is coming up again. Do you want to oppose it?
The Clinton's are still massive power brokers, Biden was president a year and a half ago, the others still lead the party and represent outdated views. Earlier you made it sound like all these points of comparison were irrelevant but I'm just seeing more evidence they all relevant
I believe in Peter Pan! I do, I do!!
- Universal Healthcare in America (FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL BY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) couldn't even get a public option under Obama. Couldn't even get a vote on the floor under Nancy Pelosi
- Military Spending. Voted in by Democratic LIBERAL party without fail. Now at a trillion dollars a year and still being approved.
- Increasing tax Breaks for the Rich? ABSOLUTELY approved and made permanent by LIBERAL democratic party.
- Sucking the cock of Israel year after year? Supporting a Genocide full throatedly under Joe Biden. Without a qualm, LIBERAL democratic party
- Betraying the American ordinary working class by interfering and blocking Union Strikes - from Joe Biden's Railroad workers injunction, to the refusal of party to do jack shit with Nurses in Wisconsin: your LIBERAL democratic party
- Legalizing stock trading and open bribery in the halls of Washington DC, where there is now 16 Lobbyists for every public servant politician in DC. LIBERAL democrats love the money in DC. Hell, half of them are multi-millionaires now. Obama as soon as he left office was making 400K speeches, and now lives in Martha's Vineyard
- Pushing false propaganda upon the American people, such as pushing the RussiaGate Hoax upon the American people for years with Rachel Maddow and other deep state propaganda outlets: fully supported by LIBERAL democrats
- Sabotaging any efforts by extremely popular Left politicians, such as the remarkable campaign of Bernie Sanders who garnered the support of ordinary Americans in a fashion not seen by the corrupt LIBERAL democratic party since Roosevelt - making sure no true LEFT candidate gains a leading role in the party - but instead we're left with Chuck Schumer and the rest of bought off corporate Democrats to this day
-Bailing out Wallstreet instead of Mainstreet under Obama, during the Occupy Wallstreet campaign that Obama did whatever he could to subvert: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
- Bill Clinton gutting the Welfare system in the US and destroying the manufacturing base with NAFTA. These are the LIBERAL democrats Dale wants you to worship
What's not to love about LIBERAL DEMOCRATS folks? You got Dale Ruff here trying to gaslight Caitlin and others as if the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS really are here for you. What a load of shit.
The times they are a changin......I don't gaslight. I am a gadfly that exposes lies. I am not a liberal, not even a Democrat but I know that only liberals and leftists working together can stop the genocidce and wars and defeat the fascists, just as in WWII> even Karl Marx said that even communists should work with liberals on common goals. I welcome your civil criticism but pity you for resorting to personal attacks and gutter talk.
LOL
You don't gaslight ...
Pelosi? Schumer? Sanders?
The U.S. played an enormous role for the lack of a U.N. response though. They refused to even use the word genocide for well into the second half of the 100 days. If the U.S. declared a genocide was taking place, the rest of the world would have followed and acted according to the genocide convention, in my view. So the Liberal ideology was crucial and exposed (as it has always touted human rights). Though I agree it wasn't limited to just liberals. The most powerful government on the planet just happened to be a liberal one.
Clintons = "LIBERAL"?!?!
Pretty sure if you mapped them onto any European analysis of Politics, they would come out barely short of far-right - if short of that at all.
Calling those two scum "Liberal" is like saying that "Neoliberalism must be liberal".
Just typical Southern racists, Imperialists, supremacists, corrupt to the bone, and very, VERY, right-wing.
I mean, I agree, but they are considered by most people to be liberals. The Starmer government where I live in the U.K. and the new Labour movement is considered Liberal too, though it has committed genocide in Gaza, supported the genocide in Sudan, and is helping the U.s. and Israel take over the whole Middle East (though they're finding it harder than expected, clearly), and demonising migrants. I guess you're referring to the technical meaning, I'm referring to the sort of cultural meaning.
Jordan, parsing such propaganda is WHY people go to college to learn the actual terms and what they actually mean.
Are we at the point yet where Trump can also be called "Liberal"?
Or Hitler. Heck, perhaps even Stalin.
When terminology becomes so loose, it becomes absolutely meaningless except as dog-whistles.
The Kid Starver regime should actually be called a "Socialist" regime, according to the Party blurb, - does that fit?
It can get confusing because OVERALL Western countries are called "Liberal democracies" - ie, the elements that make up a working democracy, are the Liberal values. So "Liberalism" is baked into the pie - and politicians will not admit they have every intention of undermining those democratic systems from within. So they pretend, hide, and claim they are "Liberals" when thay are OVERTLY fucking FASCISTS - if indeed not outright Nazis.
And the Corporate media is perfectly happy to keep up this illusion, because they are all in cahoots.
The college system welcomes the Clintons. I think hillary literally teaches university courses in that system. So I don't think they teach that the Clinton family are nazis or even conservatives
Well said!
Despicable as the Clintons were and are, Team D and the european catamites swooned over them and continue to do so.
You can bet your last euro, if the Fat Boy or his wife were made president today, europe and Team D would be all in for the genocide.
Same could be said for Obama, even more so.
Clinton's are the "NICE" type of Imperialists for the vassals, FF.
They leave scraps for the other powers, paint over the atrocities with nice sounding words for the cameras, and practise smiling... in epstein island mirrors.
Murdering children is okay, as long as you don't misgender the poor dears, which would be intolerable.
"If the U.S. said genocide, the world would have acted”
"That’s the weakest link.
The Genocide Convention doesn’t automatically force intervention—it obligates states to act, but how is vague.
Even after the U.S. began acknowledging “acts of genocide,”
→ there was still no rapid intervention."
I will respond, even though I know I'm arguing with AI 🤣
The U.S. has/had enough power to spearhead and coordinate an international response to genocide. This is a fact. The U.N. is beholden to the U.S. (look at its response to Gaza ffs).
If the Clinton administration used the term when the red Cross and those on the ground used it (in the first few days and weeks), many lives would have been saved. I agree earlier that the U.S. isn't the only responsibility actor, of course the killers themselves, the French, and other nations played important roles. But the U.S. would have initiated a response and reduced the death toll drastically if it acted, as a world leader or state that genuinely cared about these issues. Here is a good article if you want more details:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2016/05/bill-clintons-shameful-genocide-denial
You are arguing with the messenger based on primary sources. I don't disagree with the point the US could have with an earlier response had signficant influence, only the claim, which while not AI lacks primary sources to support (AI comes with primary sources; that is its strengths, often dismissed by those who provide no source at all!) that the world would have have acted." When the US did respond, the world barely acted. I will note the article you link to uses the term "genocidal denial" to condemn Clinton (whom I also condemn) in a dishonest way:
" . “Genocide denial” isn’t quite accurate
Holocaust denial = claiming the genocide didn’t happen
What the U.S. did was closer to:
evasion
semantic hedging
delay in acknowledgment
They weren’t saying:
“This isn’t happening”
They were saying:
“We’re not prepared to formally label it yet” And this because a formal label of genocide would require certain actions the US was not willing yet to take, so it spoke of "acts of genocide," hedging the issue. I find this shameful but the article overstates the crime.
What matters today is not what Clinton did 30 years ago but supporting the Sanders bill to ban shipment of arms to Israel, which last year got 2/3 of Dems on board, and now coming up for a vote again, will likely gain momentum. What matters is to support this effort to build a strong majority to stop the genocide ongoing in Gaza.
AI hallucinates, gets things wrong, doesn't have critical thinking abilities, and doesn't just use primary sources (unless forums like reddit count as primary sources)
Both the Republican party and Democratic party lost relevance with the ordinary Americans since Citizen's United.
Both parties represent only the very rich in the US. Neither party has passed any legislation for ordinary Americans of any note now for decades.
You might as well believe in Peter Pan, if you believe any dramatic change will occur at all with the next US election cycle. Breaking News: it ain't going to happen.
Clinton was hardly a liberal (except on some domestic issues): "Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center—often termed "Third Way" or "New Democrat"—to regain electoral power in the 1990s, adopting fiscally conservative, pro-business policies while keeping progressive views on social issues. While he was a Democrat, he is generally considered a moderate or centrist, not a traditional progressive liberal.
Move to the Right (Moderate Shift): Clinton championed welfare reform ("ending welfare as we know it"), tough-on-crime legislation (1994 Crime Bill), and deregulation of financial sectors, which were traditionally conservative areas." Nor is he in power today. Today we see real progressives like Sanders, Khana, and other democratic socialists rising to power replacing the old guard.
Dale,
The use of political rhetoric that pigeonholes ways of thinking into some sort of birds- of- a-feather packages are impressive, but do they really convey what people are capable of?
The rhetoric in your comments are truly impressive for those who are immersed in political arenas, but in the final analysis, do they truly reflect the conditions that have prevailed?
I cannot answer your question, tho I sense it is sincere, because it so vague. What conditions that have prevailed limit my "rhetoric?" And their is no final analysis because things are changing fast with a public that two years ago was 90% behind Israel now disapproving and 77% of Democratic voters calling out genocide and the socialist/progressive wing of the party rising to power. And Trump now trapped in a quagmire of his own making (prompted by Netanyahu) that will lead to a shift in power in the November elections. We are watching a river, not a pond. Things are changing rapidly and our discourse must reveal that fact.
Here’s another example Dale..
You write: “Things are changing rapidly”, no offence and I do agree somewhat, but for thousands of children who were slaughtered in the Gaza genocide, things didn’t change fast enough, with both Democrats and Republicans officially supporting the genocide .
In black and white parlance, I would ban all political parties , period.
I think what I am trying to convey is that sometimes we get lost in the translation of words. Words can entrap as well as liberate ideas.
For example, you stated that 77% of Democratic voters call out genocide who favor the socialist/progressive wing… for someone who is not familiar with political jargon, like myself, I like to believe what Greta Thunberg labels “ empty words”. .
In essence, isn’t the voting part of a democracy, which simply means the majority rules? In that sense, aren’t Republicans and Democrats all democratic voters?
I think what I am trying to point out is that the two parties to which you are referring mirror the gist of Greta Thunberg’s words, nothing more.
How many current members of Congress were in Congress in 1997?
Exactly, the what's in it for me greed and powerlust.
By 32 years past, they had been bought out by the ruling elite, so they had to make up a story of rationalization in order to live with themselves, and probably also to keep the "liberal" vote, even though their plebian constituents came to matter less to them over time.
Were you not alive during the Civil Right Act, where liberals threw their southern base into the hands of the Republicans, in order to pass the Act? This was not comfort but sacrificing a pillar of their power. Are you not aware that democratic socialist Bernie Sandes whose bill to ban shippng arms to Israel, which got 2/3 of Dems on board last year is coming up for another vote soon, the same Bernie Sanders who said of the victory of Trump: "The Democratic Party abandoned the working class, and so the working class abandoned the Democratic Party" ?? The party is now in the process of returning to its New Deal roots in being the party of the working class, and while success is not guaranteed, trashing those seeking to make this transformation guarnatees it will fail. If you want to stop genocide in Gaza, one of the most effective things you coud do is let your Senator know you will not vote for him if he opposes the Sanders bill. And let anyone know that trashes Sanders they are unwitting assets of AIPAC, which is also trashing him for calling out genocide and since 1988, promoting conditioning aid to Israel on its treatment of the Palestinians and now at full throttle. Lend a hand, or get out of the way: change is coming and you can be part of it or help it fail.
I believe in Peter Pan! I do, I do!!!
Liberals are comfortable with the status quo. They want some changes but none that would benefit the majority, just enough it helps them stay in their comfort zone.
Exactly. Comfort is key.
You don't think Medicare, Social Security and expanded healthcare benefit the majority? Liberals do not push radical change but without them, there would have been no change at all, not Civil Right Act, no Voting Rights Act, no vote to ban shipping arms to Israel, etc. Without cooperation between liberals and leftists, nothing would have changed and nothing will change. If you have an alternative, what is it?
Funny, Dale talking about Social Security, an Act that occurred in 1935 under Roosevelt (90 years ago). And pretends the Democratic party is the same as it was then. What have these fucks really done of any significance - since then for the American people? Other than the 1960s Civil Rights Act?
This is the kind of phony Liberal shit the real Left in the US now has had to put up with for decades. This kind of gaslighting. Caitlin and others calling out the endemic corruption in the Democratic party and the Liberals who support it - but Caitlin then is the "crazy" one.
It's like a cotton farm plantation owner coming out and telling his slaves: if it weren't for him, they wouldn't have their huts to live in, or the breadcrumbs of food on their table. Their slavery would be even worse! Meanwhile, every year the Plantation is making record profits in the billions soon to be trillions. And the slaves are being whipped even more (and raped).
Dale praises the Social Security Act of 1935, passed 90 years ago as an example of democrat probity and devotion, but at the same time insists that the democrats and liberals of Clinton's time, well within living memory, have nothing to do with the Team D of today. Even Obama might as well be ancient history.
Hell, a few years ago, goodthink liberals and democrats railed against Trump’s genocide in Yemen - only to flip, the moment that genocide became Biden's genocide.
What vote to ban shipping arms to Israel? Schumer and Jeffries suck AIPAC's ass every day...lol
When the House Committee on Impeachment of Nixon brought charges prior to Tricky Dick's resignation, it concentrated on things specific to Nixon's behavior, not policies fundamental to the outrages of all US presidents. Throw out the rotten apples but save the barrel. This is the liberal philosophy: the system's fine. Just change the party, the individuals, but keep the insane policies; no problem with 'Murica.
For those in the U.S. who support the D's and say "Just wait til the Mid terms" I say Fuck you, fuck the R's and Fuck the Zionists. One more thing this Easter. Fucking cancel Israel and it's supporters. I almost sound Presidential.
Meanwhile, Chuck the Schmuck still head of the Democratic party. *smh*
Deport the traitors.
No offense to the name Chuck - just using it with Schumer! 0.0
I've known which side of this binary I am on, for 50 years. It is an intrinsic feeling that makes you feel like you are always swimming upstream against a strong current. Without constant vigilance, I can find myself floating downstream with the current of neoliberalism and resting in the eddies of the democratic politics here in the US. Its Caitlin and groups like this, that pull me out of the eddies and push on.
The word imperialist is not as accurate as supremacist. what is going on today is Satanic theology based on supremacist tribe.
Yes, I agree with you. If we are truly wanting to resist we also have to see that WE and Israel are the two most powerful interlopers in this world. We don’t come from the land we are occupying. Other nations, including Iran, have strong old cultures, morals and integrity they live by. We don’t abide by anything but our own power, the racist propaganda we have always learned as truth, and the want, want, want of everything. WE must change. (Thank you for your work. I will support you when I can)
My ancestors come from this land. Yours may not. But more importantly we all need to get to the point where we realize that all humans come from all land, that Earth is home and not some make-belief mythologized politically demarcated subsection of it.
Well done for publishing and saying - Peace be upon you by Gaza and Jerusalem - Honour and victory are the allies of the axis of resistance and its allies, and humiliation and shame are for the axis of evil, Epstein Class (USA, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, NATO Governments, Zionist and Israel) and its allies.
can not be said enough. loudly and repeatedly.
More blame games without defining what is meant by liberals, as 8 million hit the streets to protest fascism and war a week ago. This is getting tiresome. Only an alliance of liberals and leftists can take down the fascists; dividing them with attacks on liberals instead of the fascists is something the fascists love.
"Marx advocated working with liberals in specific, tactical scenarios, despite his fundamental critique of liberalism as a capitalist ideology. He believed in forming coalitions with progressive liberals to defeat reactionary, feudal, or conservative forces and to achieve democratic reforms that could pave the way for socialist transformation."
Bleh. A blind and boring take on what Caitlin wrote. Take a hike.
the entire essay supplies a description of what is meant by liberals.
8 million hit the streets…. for parades.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/03/no-kings-in-america-real-resistance-in-rome-how-liberal-democrats-and-aipac-allies-hijacked-the-movement-while-italy-actually-fights-empire-and-genocide/
Exactly. The nauseatingly tone-deaf “No Kings” shit, which comes straight down from D party messaging operatives and couldn’t be less organic, is actually the perfect
illustration of the difference between liberals and actual activists
"No Kings" Parades - pretty much the same Anti-Trump (Anti-Republican) movement we've gotten now from the "Lesser of Two Evils" Democratic party for decades. Being Anti-Trump translates into Democratic party doing jack shit for the next 8 years. Then a billionaire demagogue even worst then Trump will get voted in.
Meanwhile, psychotic, off the chart funding still continues for Israel and the MIC.
Liberals in the U.S. like to performatively rage against half the war machine.
"Liberal" and "Conservative" are just words of convenience in politics. I for one am neither. I believe strongly in family values and loyalty . I believe strongly that it is our duty to learn to accept all people for their personal beliefs and lifestyles I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks any group should be promoted to promote the political concept of "diversity" . We are all people with the same needs and desires. none of us have the right to impose our beliefs on others. It is enough to explain your opinions to others and let them decide for themselves whether they wish to believe as you do. Any form of force in imposing your beliefs on others is inherently evil. Violence only begets violence. the only justification for violence is if you or your loved once are physically threatened. This includes open war, manipulated food shortages and criminal activity of others. It does not include the fear that your neighbour may wish you harm if there is no actual physical transgression. The history of Western "culture is one that violates every facet of love and decency. We must all learn to love one another or there will soon be no one left to love. I wish everybody peace and increased understanding of those whose beliefs and cultures differ from ours. It is the only way..
Any political system can be made to work tolerably well,if and to the extent it is run by non-sociopaths.
I support every word you have written. I am neither liberal, anti imperialist, conservative, democratic, or any label about anything those in power deliberately bring in to separate people into groups, I am just me. I disagree with any labels about anything at all. If people don't realize that when they apply a label about anything, whether it's about beliefs, generation labels, any label at all. The minute a person uses a label about anything, they have fallen into the trap those who would control us have laid.
They can label me a boomer, an anti this or anti that, as belonging to a certain group of any kind and prove they haven't really discovered the game being played on them. This doesn't mean they are good or bad people, it only means they have realized the truth about some things and still have more to learn. We are all individuals living together where unfortunately there are people who wish to control us and unless we want the kind of world you describe, we doom ourselves.
Tribes and labels short-circuit critical thinking.
See, Ruff, Dale, whose critical thinking boils down to "my team! My tribe!"
I've just ploughed my way through that particular morass. I love your first sentence, it is so exact.
Dale is like a budget version of Squealer.
😄😆
We've never been further from free market capitalism. How's it working out? Authoritarians are almost universally socialist or communist..like Barry.
Yes that realization was a rude awakening for me! As long as the status quo remained, the dems in particular were happy just blaming the reps! And nothing ever changed!
What a load of crap. One can find "anti-Imperialists" across the political spectrum, even US Conservativism can churn out "Isolationists".
Equally, one can also find left-wing "Imperialists", who truly believe their own ideology should be forced onto other cultures and peoples; and who have little problem producing the weapons to do so because they bring "jerbs to unionised workers".
As though its only "Liberals" who don't want to get out of their 'comfort zones'!
Absolute tosh.
If only Liberals had any integrity left to stand on - other than repeatedly running on: "Trump is bad". Yeah, like we don't already know that schmucks.
jamenta, there are REAL liberals - the ones being arrested in the streets for protesting active genocides and wars of choice - and then there are fascists who love to pretend and CALL THEMSELVES "liberal", but the only Liberal values they hold (Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association fx) is some 'right' to stack money without any taxation.
That is not in the SLIGHTEST bit fkin Liberal.
It's not Caitlin's fault, Australia has never been known for its high educational standards, and one of the two Fascist ruling parties also misnames itself the "Liberals". Needless to say however, Caitlin would not accept Kid Starver's regime as "socialist", despite THAT party's name, but hey ho...
Could you please come up with a list of names of these real liberals being arrested?
Could I spend several hours scrolling through tens of thousands of news reports, cross-referencing given names of those arrested, with a hack of legally-protected private voting records, just to satisfy the curiousity of some online Rando who can't quite believe that any of those tens of thousands arrested across the Western countries would call themselves "liberal"???
Work the answer out yourself.
Or, if that's too tricky for you to manage, why don't YOU spend all those hours looking through those reports and records, and prove that none of them were "Liberals" instead of wasting MY time?
I accept your surrender, Mr. all caps lickspittle.
The brevity of my responses as compared to yours is reflective of whose time is more valuable.
The brevity of an idiot.
Your "argument" is as follows: "If you cannot provide me with any names of the WW2 Wehrmacht of conscripted soldiers who were liberal, we have to assume they were all fascists/socialists".
You're fucking batshit Mr High.
Are you SERIOUSLY attempting to argue that of those hundreds of Boomer pensioners arrested in the UK alone, incl former doctors, judges, lawyers, even military officers if memory serves, THAT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN OF LIBERAL PERSUASION?
And you genuinely want ME to take YOU seriously???
Fuck off mate, just fuck the fuckety off. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Any news on the arrests being made in the Jeffery Epstein pedophile ring Gnuneo? I imagine they will take place soon right?
And Charlie Kirk and Seth Rich - any news on who really murdered them?
Kirk - probably Israel, definitely Zionists, as anyone with a braincell knew by the end of the first week - incl you, Jam.
Rich - it was actually a suicide, of course. He suicided himself, and disguised it as a street robbery. I'm sure Killary was absolutely distraught that a wikileaks whistleblower in the DNC office were so depressed they killed themselves.
JE - probably about the same number of "elites" who were criminally busted over the similar 'Jimmy Saville' affair in the UK, where thousands of children were abused in several state and private institutions for over 3 decades.
But what was your point?
I hear what you are saying. I think it boils down to an argument of syntax, though. You mentioned one of the imperialist parties has co-opted the label "liberal". So, fuck the label. Fuck it in the ass. It's just a word. Why are you attached to it? And I do not doubt you've met anti-imperialist conservatives or anti-imperialists who wanna shove their beliefs down throats. No doubt from me about that whatsoever. So, why stick with the labels? Why not just abandon them altogether and focus on the behaviors? I think the piece written (at least from my American pov) takes aim at those co-opted liberals and not the people who may have been arrested at protests and self-identify as liberals. Stop self-identifying as anything but a motherfuckin human being.
I also hear what you are saying, ennui.
But there's something that's not so easy, and that's the language.
Liberal, liberty, liberalism, - there is clearly a common root, and one deep in the language. It is a view that the State/Corporates should be legally restricted from their worst possible behaviours towards the individual. Fx, if you say something the PTB don't like, that should be your RIGHT to do so. This was brought by Liberalism. Or what if you didn't want to be a Plymouth Brethren Christian like everyone else around? Then you got religious freedom from Liberalism. Liberalism, Liberty - see how they interact?
Now, Anarchism is to Liberalism, what Communism is to Socialism, and Fascism is to Conservatism. And I've been a comfortable soft-left Anarchist for some decades - that means my own philosophy, ideals, social goals etc, are informed and built upon the philosophy of Liberalism.
For me "Liberalism" isn't just some empty word you throw at vanilla people, it's part of a millennia+ long battle that brought 90% of the improvements we take for granted today.
But I'm not "just" a liberal - I can understand, follow, and even argue leftwing and conservative positions too. I CHOOSE to self-define as a liberal because, although all positions have validity and benefits (And negatives), ultimately I do BELIEVE that a good society is built upon individual freedoms, once essential and midlevel needs/wants are fulfilled.
The ultimate point of reference is the individual human. Not the State, Party, Corporate, Hierarchy.
Is the world not better off without people who commit genocide, steal people's land, houses, and starve them to death? Oh wait. Is that antisemitic? Oh well...🖕!