It’s not just a saying. It’s a reminder that all ideologically committed liberals follow the same internal logic as fascists.
No, it’s not. It’s in reference to liberals embracing fascism as soon as it becomes personally convenient or they face hardship (Which can be as little as personal criticism).
A similar idea would be the one expressed by the Phil Ochs quote "[Liberals are] Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. "
Hanania’s inclusion into the circle of acceptability began before the election of Trump. He is in there because he is good at using lib coded words, and it’s odd because he uses those words to endorse policies that are the exact opposite of what they claim they want. During 2023 he was writing about how black people were subhuman while he was being embraced by the libs.
The reason they embrace fascism is because the logical endpoint of liberalism in crisis is fascism. It is the same internal logic as fascism, just not taken to it’s logical conclusion, which is fascism. Liberalism of the past was literally the destruction of entire civilizations under the premise of ‘civilizing’ them. Phil Ochs is a clever song writer, but his words are not philosophy nor are they grounded in the historical nature of liberalism and fascism. The actions of liberals are always right of center, it’s just that their words will switch from one side to the other depending on whose vote they are courting. They are often just as much sophists as fascists are, it’s just they already hold the power so they don’t need to make any moves to grab it. It is about maintenance.
Progressives and neo-Progressives are pretty much 100% responsible for any kind of left wing policy in the U.S. and while you can argue they are liberals, ultimately their ideology stems more as a liberalizing of communist ideas, than a communizing of liberal ideas, usually cribbing from the socialist movements in the Midwest.
No.
I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. You’re saying a thing and that thing isn’t true.
The phrase originates with the black panthers who used it to talk about the exact same thing Ochs is talking about, how quickly everyday liberals would embrace fascism (Manifested through supporting racist policies as soon as it in any way affected their own social milieu) the moment it became convenient to maintain the status quo even though they may have previously espoused opposition to fascism.
Progressives and neo-Progressives are pretty much 100% responsible for any kind of left wing policy in the U.S. and while you can argue they are liberals, ultimately their ideology stems more as a liberalizing of communist ideas, than a communizing of liberal ideas, usually cribbing from the socialist movements in the Midwest.
The lady in that picture is a “Progressive” who supported genocide and is now openly embracing a nazi. AOC could not bring herself to oppose genocide. “Progressives” are liberals, there is no actual divide. All “Left wing” policies embraced by the US have been embraced by liberals as a reaction to internal and external pressure resulting in the need for concession by capital.
My bad. I wasn’t aware it came from the black panthers. I learned it as a part of an epistemology of liberalism lecture from a Marxist activist way back in like 2016. At the time I didn’t actually get it, as I considered myself liberal, but I will recalibrate what it is supposed to mean, since I just thought it was a general phrase.
AOC is neo-progressive at best, with the OG progressives being the ones in the 1890s-1920s who were into eugenics and public sanitariums, but also women’s sufferage and public libraries (which is why I kinda understood the want to rehabilitate the label), but she hasn’t even done basic shit so she might as well be a liberal at this point, no matter what she calls herself. There are neo-progressives who do oppose the genocide, but they don’t really constitute a real defined political movement or ideology. So I guess that is just liberalism too.
No, it’s not. It’s in reference to liberals embracing fascism as soon as it becomes personally convenient or they face hardship (Which can be as little as personal criticism). A similar idea would be the one expressed by the Phil Ochs quote "[Liberals are] Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. "
Hanania’s inclusion into the circle of acceptability began before the election of Trump. He is in there because he is good at using lib coded words, and it’s odd because he uses those words to endorse policies that are the exact opposite of what they claim they want. During 2023 he was writing about how black people were subhuman while he was being embraced by the libs.
It is.
The reason they embrace fascism is because the logical endpoint of liberalism in crisis is fascism. It is the same internal logic as fascism, just not taken to it’s logical conclusion, which is fascism. Liberalism of the past was literally the destruction of entire civilizations under the premise of ‘civilizing’ them. Phil Ochs is a clever song writer, but his words are not philosophy nor are they grounded in the historical nature of liberalism and fascism. The actions of liberals are always right of center, it’s just that their words will switch from one side to the other depending on whose vote they are courting. They are often just as much sophists as fascists are, it’s just they already hold the power so they don’t need to make any moves to grab it. It is about maintenance.
Progressives and neo-Progressives are pretty much 100% responsible for any kind of left wing policy in the U.S. and while you can argue they are liberals, ultimately their ideology stems more as a liberalizing of communist ideas, than a communizing of liberal ideas, usually cribbing from the socialist movements in the Midwest.
No. I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. You’re saying a thing and that thing isn’t true. The phrase originates with the black panthers who used it to talk about the exact same thing Ochs is talking about, how quickly everyday liberals would embrace fascism (Manifested through supporting racist policies as soon as it in any way affected their own social milieu) the moment it became convenient to maintain the status quo even though they may have previously espoused opposition to fascism.
The lady in that picture is a “Progressive” who supported genocide and is now openly embracing a nazi. AOC could not bring herself to oppose genocide. “Progressives” are liberals, there is no actual divide. All “Left wing” policies embraced by the US have been embraced by liberals as a reaction to internal and external pressure resulting in the need for concession by capital.
My bad. I wasn’t aware it came from the black panthers. I learned it as a part of an epistemology of liberalism lecture from a Marxist activist way back in like 2016. At the time I didn’t actually get it, as I considered myself liberal, but I will recalibrate what it is supposed to mean, since I just thought it was a general phrase.
AOC is neo-progressive at best, with the OG progressives being the ones in the 1890s-1920s who were into eugenics and public sanitariums, but also women’s sufferage and public libraries (which is why I kinda understood the want to rehabilitate the label), but she hasn’t even done basic shit so she might as well be a liberal at this point, no matter what she calls herself. There are neo-progressives who do oppose the genocide, but they don’t really constitute a real defined political movement or ideology. So I guess that is just liberalism too.
Thanks!