Progress as Pathology: How Liberalism Went From Bold Ideas to Brainrot

Liberal Decadence

Contemporary liberalism, as is reflected in the ideologically captured university system, has become pathological and operates without correction, as it tears down the foundations of society. It’s an ideology so far up its own ass it cites itself in casual conversation. See the image below to a piece of “research” so nakedly politically biased it would likely give the lay reader the impression that colleges have gone too far to the right (imagine thinking something so preposterous, lol!). Interestingly, this came from that university I unfortunately attended called The University of North Texas. Not surprised they’d put out a piece of steaming garbage like this. You don’t even have to get past the highlights section to see how ridiculous it is.

This is real published research. You can’t make this up.

“Conservative ideology was associated with a positive view of Trump.” Wow, you don’t say? “Conservatives are malevolent and psychopaths.” Oh, and look at this! They found that liberals have a benevolent disposition, in stark contrast to those mean old conservatives!

Equally as devoid of a real hypothesis is the opening abstract. Like, how fucking stupid is that "we studied conservatives and found they are more likely to be right-wing (authoritarians) than liberals"? Like, no fucking shit? You don't say. You studied conservatives and liberals, and found that conservatives are more conservative than liberals? It's in the fucking name. You may be thinking, “Well, what did liberals score on left-wing authoritarianism?” Oh, they don’t think that exists. Laughable.

OK, so what do we know from the literature? What is actually true of conservatives is that conservatives are more prone to tradition, social stability, the importance of established hierarchies, and preserving institutions.

However, most research, while accurate in its trait identification, is often overshadowed by how incredibly biased the authors are. Listen to this absolute drivel written by “academics” on Britannica, a formerly respected encyclopedia:

A common way of distinguishing conservatism from both liberalism and radicalism is to say that conservatives reject the optimistic view that human beings can be morally improved through political and social change.

Saying that the view of social change is inherently an optimistic position is the first tell that the authors have a clear bias. Most social change throughout history has been bad; it ends in disaster, and the plan is scrapped. That is, after millions of people die. Just in the 1900’s we had revolutionary change in Russia (approx. 20 million dead), Germany (approx. 15 million dead), and China (approx. 65 million dead), to name the worst. So in that sense, conservatism is prudent, not unoptimistic.

Of course, we can’t say all change is bad; we need social change to explore new ideas. So in a perfect world, conservatives critique the new ideas, and liberals invent and try to implement the ideas. The best ideas can win or lose before resulting in disaster. Well, no actually. According to the authors, those conservatives have the baseless opinion that a planned econmy doesn’t work.

“Attempts by philosophers and revolutionaries to plan society in advance… are misguided and likely to end in disaster, conservatives say.”

Successful “philosophers and revolutionaries” have never tried to plan a perfect society “in advance”. There is a modern conception that revolutionaries in the past had everything planned out before they did it. This is completely untrue. For Example, the American Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.

People genuinely think they can solve all these problems with a pen, never having done the task themselves. And if you let them, they will try. Be warned.

Have they ever read a history book? Of course not, not their “field of study”. Again, keep in mind this is supposed to be an explanation of conservatism, not a criticism. But they really can’t help themselves, as we will see.

“…many authorities on conservatism have been led to deny that it is a genuine ideology, regarding it instead as a relatively inarticulate state of mind. Whatever the merits of this view, it remains true that the best insights of conservatism seldom have been developed into sustained theoretical works comparable to those of liberalism and radicalism.”

Yes, conservatives have never developed theoretical works. Oh wow, all the beautiful works of the liberals! What a dumb statement, I mean really. As if all the great works of history were written by liberals. The ego is absolutely astounding. But who am I to criticize? Liberals have the beautiful works of Marx, the loser poet who got millions killed.

Some good estimates based on solid research. Note the author omits the National Socialists, aka Nazis, just as communist as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So why does modern liberalism so often prioritize novelty, reform, and upheaval, even when previous reforms are still left unfinished or worse, in complete disarray?