Used to be completely liberal

>used to be completely liberal
>started really following politics
>end up right leaning and feeling genuine sadness Hitler didn't win when I think about it
How did this happen. Why did I end up like this

Attached: ECNKtupX4AAwASd.jpg (1152x2048, 413K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Don't let defeat bog you down fren.
Even though our forefather may have lost the battle; we have yet to loose the war.
As long as even one of us carries his ideals, the path to our hope will remain illuminated, and perhaps one day even be achieved.
Do as Hitler would have wanted, improve yourself and the people around you.
Most of all user, know that you are not alone; countless anons have been in your situation before.
Even if the world rejects you, you will always have a place here with us.

Attached: 1530580920708.png (680x757, 44K)

I would imagine it probably has something to do with your room temperature IQ and inability to critically analyze things, so you opted for memes and videos that made you feel good over anything hard, like reading things that weren't immediately in agreement with your current views.

But that's just a guess how you ended up like this. I could be wrong!

absolute strawman and goes directly against what I said in the OP

it could have been worse. You could have been arrested wearing a 'beta cuck 4 lyfe" t-shirt at some pointless protest

You're fucking retarded. Hitler was a drug addicted deviant. All he could have done is destroy what we've built. Nothing good ever comes out of Germany.

Remember, there's one more step...

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 545K)

Have a (you)

Attached: 1523800372865.png (238x220, 43K)

I didn't ignore you, I just judged that it was highly unlikely a barely literate Nazi sympathizing user on Jow Forums was ever actually "completely liberal". You may have thought so, but see my comment about your room temperature IQ and inability to critically analyze things.

Attached: 1502763566745.jpg (890x876, 66K)

Attached: 1568253335532.jpg (868x866, 77K)

If you started as a liberal it's too late for you

Same.
I think the biggest issue for me is seeing the way people act now that "they" aren't in power. Realizing that they were only happy because "they" were winning, and as soon as someone they don't like is in power it's time to protest and screech wherever they can in some vain hope that it'll do anything other than make people dislike.
Plus just growing tired of the fucking retarded 95% of the population.
My current plan is to just move out into the country and deal with people as little as possible.

If the population is 95% retarded, I assume you believe you're the lucky 5%? lul

Hey prove me wrong smart guy - list 10 books you've read pertinent to your "move right" that influenced you. Include at least 3 (I'm not even asking for halfsies) that were genuinely liberal or leftist and that you came away unconvinced or even had a "push you right" outcome.

fpbp

lmao no
Ok, retard.

Thank you for proving my point. It's genuinely a great feeling to know there isn't a single thinker amongst the Nazi lovers on Jow Forums. I was getting a little worried, but regular interactions with your ilk here has completely dissuaded me from any concern.

ok, retard

>list 10 books you've read pertinent to your "move right" that influenced you. Include at least 3 (I'm not even asking for halfsies) that were genuinely liberal or leftist and that you came away unconvinced or even had a "push you right" outcome.
God and Man at Yale
Democracy in America
The Doctrine of Fascism
Mein Kampf
The Origins of Totalitarianism
Dune
On the Jews and their Lies
On "The Jewish Question"
Culture of Critique
Democracy: The God that Failed

It happened to me when the left wing started acting like the ultra christfags.

>Dune
Why though? The Muad'Dib's rise and ensuing galactic JIhad weren't intended to be good things as far as the author is concerned.

Well you almost did it, but which of these are the 3 countervailing arguments from a left or liberal perspective? DUNE? lol


Save Dune, all I see here is mostly right-wing trash books further making the case for / pushing a right-wing or fascist viewpoint.

this but I was so liberal I cried when Trump won and I don't even live in USA

found out on my birthday, probably wouldn't've cried if it was another day

It turns out you're likely to believe a specific ideology if all you ever ingest is media that reinforces it. Eventually it becomes pretty terminal.

I'm far left, and I just laughed and said "I told you so" and "figures", and chalked it up to our continuing downward spiral of late stage capitalism. Liberals are the worst.

yeah that's why

>which of these are the 3 countervailing arguments from a left or liberal perspective?
God and Man at Yale
Democracy in America
The Origins of Totalitarianism
On "The Jewish Question
arguably Dune as well

What ideology do you adhere to? I bet it's a liberal one.

>God and Man at Yale
Written by BUCKLEY (conservative)

>Democracy in America
Alexis de Tocqueville (conservative)

>The Origins of Totalitarianism
I'll give you, maybe, haven't read it (but it's now on the list)

>On "The Jewish Question"
Have you read any of Marx's later works, or just this?

> Dune
Just stop

I don't know, I'm often told I'm "far left", but this is the US. You wouldn't be wrong to call me an adherent of dialectical materialism. I'm unabashedly anti-capitalist and anti-fascist, and would say I believe both to ultimately just be new forms of that age old institution of slavery.

Conservatism is a liberal ideology.

The Origins of Totalitarianism is a book by a jew about horseshoe theory.

>Have you read any of Marx's later works
Yes, but I like that one more.

Dune is arguably leftist because its main point is to undermine myths and religion.

> I'm often told I'm "far left", but this is the US.
Okay, so you're far left. Remember, the US was founded by left-wing terrorists.

> an adherent of dialectical materialism
Right, you're smarter than average but not very smart.

> I'm unabashedly anti-capitalist and anti-fascist, and would say I believe both to ultimately just be new forms of that age old institution of slavery.
Let's say around 105 IQ.

*forgot to add, since you need it told to you: Communism, like Libertarianism, is a liberal ideology.

Buckley is a liberal.

Have you read Howard Zinn's book about the history of the US? Characterizing the US "founding fathers" as "left-wing terrorists" is, at best, playing really loosely with definitions and taking advantage of shifting political winds over periods of time, they would in no way be left-wing terrorists today, they'd be ultra-rich conservatives demanding they pay less in taxes and totally OK with putting people in cages, so, you know, the GOP basically.

> Let's say around 105 IQ.
Are you really trying to judge my IQ from anonymous Jow Forums posts made while waiting in queue for a match of League? You must have an IQ of 180 or more!

> in 2019 still defining liberal however you want to make your argument, with a broad enough definition to include both communism and libertarianism in its umbrella

Define liberal, ya fuck. As you're using it. And give me an example of an ideology that isn't liberal by your definition. And while you're at it, acknowledge that in common vernacular in the US political scene today, "liberal" means "capitalist and not far-right or far-left", because you know damn well that's exactly how it is used.

Yeah man it happened to all of us here

Attached: 1559934562718.png (2192x2428, 171K)

Buckley is a conservative. "Liberal" in some historical context of the word, perhaps, but if you put him on Fox or CNN, he would be the one on the opposite side of the screen from the one they call the liberal, and it would be clear they're in different camps entirely. And you know this, you're being intentionally obtuse with your use of words.

This is honestly the crux of the problems with American politics.

Everyday Americans have been completely and intentionally confused on what words mean, so that they can mean whatever the capitalists want them to mean at any given time.

The government raising taxes? That's socialism. Celebrating diversity? That's socialism. Corporations existing? That's clearly socialism.

And of course, the Democrats use the same thing to their advantage, marketing any minor attempt at like, helping the poor, as "socialism."

Similarly, "liberal" means left-leaning Democrats when it suits, and it means "everybody" when it suits, and it means yourself when it suits, and it doesn't mean yourself when it suits. It's rather boring, honestly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

> In the first half of the 20th century, both major American parties had a conservative and a liberal wing.

Now how could they have both those "wings" if they're the same thing?

>Have you read Howard Zinn's book about the history of the US?
Yes, it's jewish trash.

> they would in no way be left-wing terrorists today, they'd be ultra-rich conservatives demanding they pay less in taxes and totally OK with putting people in cages, so, you know, the GOP basically.
As I said, extreme left-wing terrorists.

>Define liberal
values "equality" and views individuals and states as distinct and fundamentally opposed

>give me an example of an ideology that isn't liberal by your definition.
fascism is the catch-all for ideologies opposed to liberalism
On the other hand it's debatable to what degree various people believe in liberal ideals. Most demographics have certain points on which they reject liberalism.

> acknowledge that in common vernacular in the US political scene today, "liberal" means "capitalist and not far-right or far-left",
No. That's what it means to outright pretend commies. The vast majority of US citizens understand "liberal" to be anything to the left of the Republican party, a point which is quite far left and still moving.

Attached: camp.jpg (800x419, 307K)

You could similarly say that scarlet and crimson each have a blue and a red wing, however they are both shades of red.

> thinks anything to the left of the Republican party is 'quite far left and still moving', whilst the rest of the world looks at the US and sees the Democrats are almost far-right (strongly capitalist, in favor of state control, pro-largest-military-in-the-world, etc) and the Republicans as toying with if not actively fascist & far-right (also strongly capitalist, in favor of state control despite their words to the contrary on occasion, pro-largest-military-in-the-world, etc)

Overton windows are a bitch. And you're either toying with me or genuinely retarded if you think everything in the US left of the GOP is "quite far left and still moving". Genuinely fucking retarded.

The top definition of liberal when I type it into my browser: "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." That in no way describes the Republican party, or conservatives, and I'd argue does not really describe the establishment Democrats either, save on some social issues, which often seems less like a genuine belief in the change so much as just trying to find anything to distinguish themselves from their fascist GOP cousins.

America is already significantly right-of-center as seen from the perspective of most other countries, especially all of our European "Western world" allies and countries, and from a historical lens as well. I'd argue we're quite far gone into fascism, myself. That you think otherwise while seemingly pretending you're fascist means you're ludicrously uninformed and unawares you've already "won" (disappointed? didn't realize this IS fascism? corporate greedy overlords in charge of everything and using the state how they see fit whilst you're left to rot IS fascism, ya fucking morons), or, being intentionally crypto about it because it serves your ultimate purpose of continuing the slide further and further right until we fall right off the table altogether, which I guess I actually find a bit more respectable at least.

>"Liberal" in some historical context of the word, perhaps, but if you put him on Fox or CNN, he would be the one on the opposite side of the screen from the one they call the liberal, and it would be clear they're in different camps entirely.
"Liberal" in the context of mainstream politics is a moving target; Donald Trump is in many ways further left than Clinton or Obama.

>The government raising taxes? That's socialism. Celebrating diversity? That's socialism. Corporations existing? That's clearly socialism.
all true

>Similarly, "liberal" means left-leaning Democrats when it suits, and it means "everybody" when it suits, and it means yourself when it suits, and it doesn't mean yourself when it suits. It's rather boring, honestly.
"Liberal" is generally interchangeable with "left-wing." Objectively, almost all countries on Earth are ruled by liberals, but no countries at all are ruled by disciples of Locke.

>strongly capitalist, in favor of state control
does not compute
Capitalism = less state intervention
Regardless, economic ideologies are inherently liberal as they place cultural concerns beneath economic.

>pro-largest-military-in-the-world
Careful, you're starting to sound like a reactionary who doesn't support global women's and LGBTQIAP+ rights.

> the Republicans as toying with if not actively fascist & far-right
No, they're not.

>(also strongly capitalist, in favor of state control
again, you are very confused.

>you're either toying with me or genuinely retarded if you think everything in the US left of the GOP is "quite far left and still moving"
You misread. The GOP is quite far left and still moving. Name one sitting GOP politician who does not believe in woman suffrage or freedom of religion.

> willing to discard traditional values." That in no way describes the Republican party, or conservatives
Obongo was less pro-gay and pro-illegal immigration than Trump.

everyone used to be liberal. some just grow out of it. it's likely you will too.