The word liberal has undergone changes since the 19th century. A classical liberal was one who believed in liberty. The modern word “libertarian” has essentially replaced what was once meant by the word “liberal”.

The modern use of “liberal” is nebulous. It can mean different things to different people. So, in order to establish its basic definition, which we must have to proceed rationally, let me just use the Wikipedia definition. Yes, some can deride Wikipedia. But, I searched for an essential definition of modern liberalism on other sites, and found Wikipedia’s entry for “Modern Liberalism in the United States” to be perfectly adequate. It says…

Modern liberalism (often simply referred to in the United States as liberalism) is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a regulated market economy. Economically, modern liberalism opposes cuts to the social safety net and supports a role for government in reducing inequality, providing education, ensuring access to healthcare, regulating economic activity and protecting the natural environment.” (1)

Now, perhaps some would have a problem with this definition. I would listen to points made to improve it. Yet, it seems sufficient. And, thus, I start my argument that there is a growing trend of overt evil and insanity in modern liberalism by saying that, first, this ideology, at its essence, is an authoritarian philosophy. By authoritarian I’ll just use Google’s definition of “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.” (2)

The reason why I say modern liberalism is authoritarianism is right in Wikipedia’s definition. It’s not necessarily the part about upholding civil liberties, which I too uphold (though what liberals mean by this term can often be the exact opposite meaning held by a classical liberal). However, in the claim that it supports equality, social justice and a regulated economy, and in the claim that it supports a role for government in reducing inequality, providing education, ensuring access to healthcare and regulating economic activity, I say it is overtly authoritarian.

Sure, all those aspects sound nice. They sound caring and necessary. But I say they’re just pretexts for righting wrongs ultimately caused by, or totally invented by, government that are used to justify increasing the size and scope of government powers over society. They’re pretexts for more rules, and the subsequent enlarging of budgets and agencies intended to enforce those rules, so the ever-increasing number of scumbag bureaucrats can feed on the productive class, among other malevolent goals. Modern liberalism is almost entirely contrary to the natural law, and consequent free-market, or capitalistic, conception of society that the Founders of America intended which, as I said in my post One of the greatest lessons in all history from the United States of America, proved to be a 5,000-year leap forward for mankind.

I reject liberals can deny liberalism is authoritarian. I reject that human nature has, as they like to say, progressed to a point where classical liberal values are now an evil. And I reject that the status quo of the role of government in American society is good and necessary.

However, liberals can disagree. They can say all those points of Wikipedia’s definition are virtuous and necessary. They can say other things to further their arguments, and, frankly, it’s incumbent upon me to engage civilly with them, as rational discourse is the way to arrive unto the highest truths.

Furthermore, I’m not saying those professing Wikipedia’s modern liberalism are evil or insane based on what I’ve said about it so far. Overt evil’s not in the hearts of most of them. They truly believe in the ideology’s ostensible compassion and benevolence. They believe it’s a force for good.

After all, human nature, and how mankind should live for the goal of attaining the greatest happiness, are complex subjects. To get correct understandings, as America’s Founders had many correct understandings, requires a love of lifelong self-education, and reading books, which most people don’t have the time and energy for, unfortunately. Thus, misunderstandings of these complex subjects are natural. Those who posses them, again, I’m not saying are evil. I’m just saying I believe those misunderstandings are wrong, and therefore lead to evil.

However, in the past five years, modern liberalism has begun to forcefully promulgate new views that are absolutely and unequivocally EVIL and INSANE. Yes, I would categorize abortion and Joe Brandon’s vaxx mandate as such. Yes, I think it’s incumbent upon us to recognize them as evils. I intend to write more on them. But, this new strain of the liberal pathogen is also clear-cut in its immorality, and certainly worth talking about. Let me explain.

I recently read a book called Liberalism: Find a Cure by an internet pundit named Mark Dice. He’s out of Los Angeles. He’s on YouTube. A great portion of his videos are his clowning CNN and other woke leftists. That can often make his material seem like mere entertainment. He admits this. But his work is more that. He’s tracking the evolution of the liberal doctrine as it degenerates into ever deepening levels of literal evil and insanity. This one book of his I’ve read reflects his deep intelligence, which is the ultimate inspiration for this blog post.

Liberalism: Find a Cure has a satirical title, and drives home critical points that make clear that modern liberalism is, in fact, degenerating from a mere political-economic philosophy to codified insanity, the acceptance of which makes some appear to literally have a mental illness – hence the liberal pathogen, and the need to “find a cure”.

The titles of his chapters are an Introduction, Imaginary Racism, Cultural Appropriation, Anti-White Racism, Gender Identity, The Gay Agenda, Incest, Transgenderism, Transracialism, Trans Species, Feminism and Sexism, the Breakdown of the Family, and a Conclusion. Each chapter recounts many examples of the above dynamics. They prove my charges of hatred and insanity. Many examples are flat-out shocking.

Until reading this book I was under the presumption that this overt insanity was relegated to a few zealous believers. However, this new variant of the liberal pathogen is much more widespread than I thought. Again, the countless examples Dice enumerates in every single chapter prove this.

What are those examples? Well, they are too many to list here. I recommend reading this book. However, as regards to my charge of evil, and the charge of insanity, which are in the title of this post, I will highlight two chapters, one for each charge, though every single chapter can be used.

I will develop this argument in the following post. I’ve written enough for now.

In ending this one though, I must say that whatever presumption of innocence of modern liberalism’s proponents are due – and they’re still due a lot – is nonetheless waning. Yes, a majority of liberals are still not going to say all white people are evil and that men can have babies. But will they remain silent in opposing this? And does not silence essentially condone this?

And to be clear, there are a lot of people who identify as conservative who keep their mouths silent on this matter because they’re afraid, and that’s wrong too.

But I’ll just end here.