How Corporate "Liberals" Perpetuate Islamic Terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

Alright everyone. I need to bring up something extremely important. I need to talk about why corporate liberalism needs to die.

I've spoken about corporate liberalism many times in the past. It's basically what you get when a liberal receives corporate funding and then refuses to criticize the 1%. In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Clinton represented corporate liberalism. Sanders represented anti-corporate liberalism ... which is the only type of liberalism that is actually liberal

I frequently talk to people about this issue. When I do this, mainstream liberals will usually try to minimize the issue. "Whatever. Corporate liberalism isn't that bad. Why rock the boat?"

Still think that the corporate liberalism of Clinton and Obama is okay? Let's talk about Islamic terrorism.

I'll say something very obvious. People are afraid of Islamic terrorism nowadays. They are afraid because ISIS is a horrifying organization. The corporate left and the corporate right are addressing this issue in different ways. Neither group is addressing the issue properly.

Corporate Right: Lately, the corporate right has been saying "We need to smash up ISIS and keep Muslims out of the West!" The white working class has been eating this up ... except it's bullcrap. It's a false promise. The right-wing politicians want to help big oil make money ... because that's where they get funds. Bombing ISIS will likely recruit more terrorists. Furthermore, right-wing politicians aren't really doing anything to cut down on Muslim immigration. After all, corporate America needs more employees. Trump's "Muslim ban" is a false promise.

The right-wingers who truly want to destroy ISIS and keep Islam out of the West are typically poor people who have been duped. Some lower class Republicans will say "We shouldn't bomb the Middle East, but we should keep these guys out of the West." These lower-class Republicans don't seem to know how capitalism works. Capitalist countries usually end up with mass immigration eventually because the wealthy lobby for mass immigration. This is nearly unavoidable. That's why paleoconservatism is a political chimera. If it ever existed, it wouldn't be able to sustain itself for very long.

Corporate Liberals: When corporate liberals try to address the issue of Islamic extremism, they fall flat on their faces and then they make asses of themselves. There is really nothing that they can say! They're stuck! They can't vilify Islam. That wouldn't look liberal. They can't call out corporate America, because then they would lose their corporate funding.

Thus, corporate liberals will spew random buzzwords like "diversity" and "tolerance". They don't really have any other option ... and it's not working. That's why the masses are turning to the right. The masses are desperate to defeat ISIS. They will gladly take a false solution over a non-existent solution.

In order to defeat ISIS, we need to openly talk about the role of corporate America in controlling the US government and organizing the invasion of Iraq. One America left Iraq, they left their weapons there. ISIS later seized these weapons. The US military just keeps creating more terrorism because it being controlled by a mind-altering fungus called corporate America.

This is the main reason why the anti-corporate left must rise and speak up. Only we are capable of addressing the terrorism issue correctly. Our government is creating perpetual war because lobbyists, not voters, control it.

Until we create true democracy, the endless killing will continue.

Well, I for one am sold!

Yep!

The working class liberals need to know that there is a better way.

All that stuff about Sanders being a commie was a lie. All that stuff about Sanders being a misogynist was also a lie.
The corporate media tried to erase him and the ideas that he represents. The people's media (YouTube) will not allow this.

Never Forget: Sanders almost became the leader of the Democratic Party. He was the internet candidate. People promoted him online.

The internet was the lifeblood of the Sanders movement. As the internet grows, anti-corporate liberal populism shall also grow.

That's why we should be optimistic. The tide is shifting in our favor. Our mission will keep becoming easier every passing year.

This view isn't just simplistic, it is inaccurate.

I have very similar political views to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (I would consider myself more socially liberal but then I'm not running for election so I can say things like "legalise all drugs" and "open the borders"). I don't receive any corporate funding, because I don't have a significant platform - why would a corporation pay me?

"Corporate liberals" (we'd generally call ourselves neoliberals, we're usually called various terms ranging from the boring "centrist", accurate but misunderstood "liberal", and also terms like "social democrat" and "radical centrist" get thrown around) believe what we do for similar reasons as everyone else, the particular set of information we have been exposed to has led us to believe that they'd serve the world best.

Broadly, we think people should be allowed to do more or less what they want as long as they don't harm others (social liberalism), the government should provide essential services funded by progressive taxation in order to benefit the common good (social democracy), and that a business-friendly environment with free international trade raises the standard of living and benefits the common good, as long as businesses are responsible for any harm they cause (economic liberalism).

These have all been borne out by the past century of history, so most people who come to these conclusions have not been paid off, they've just learned.

Sanders, on the other hand, was quite authoritarian - the opposite of liberal. He wanted to impose all sorts of onerous regulations without any useful purpose behind them. For example, he wanted to "break up the banks" because a bank that is "too big to fail is too big to exist" - but the collapse of a small bank led to the worst global economic collapse in decades. There's no evidence that making banks smaller would make them better. Sanders was against free trade, he's against nuclear power, he's against genetic modification, he's voted down liberal immigration reforms, he has proposed sticking capital gains tax at 68% (!), and he's publicly railed against the "liberal elite" intellectuals. He is a socialist, not a liberal.

Now, onto the title topic:

Well, there's some threat of that. Bomb Mosul, kill a dozen terrorists and an innocent person, and that innocent person is held up as evidence that the West doesn't care about Mosul and so you should fight it. A compelling narrative.

Consider the alternative. Mosul and Raqqa left under ISIS control with no attempt by the West at liberation. I would suggest that would also be held up as evidence that the West doesn't care about Mosul and Raqqa and so you should fight it.

We might accept that the Iraq War assisted Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. How do you explain the rise of Boko Haram, now Islamic State in West Africa? There has not been a recent major Western intervention in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, or Cameroon which could explain it. What about al-Shabaab? It was founded as the Islamic Courts Union in 2006, and Ethiopia only invaded after ICU had been fighting the Somali government for seven years (with help from the Eritrean government). What about the situation in the Philippines? Or conversely, look at the lack of an Islamist presence in Kuwait despite the Gulf War, or in Kosovo, or Vietnam, or Sierra Leone, or Nicaragua.

Terrorists don't exploit Western intervention. They exploit lawlessness. Sometimes Western intervention contributes to lawlessness, but it doesn't have to. Sometimes a lack of sufficient intervention makes things worse, as in Syria and Somalia and Sudan. Sometimes an intervention makes things much better, as in Sierra Leone or Kuwait.


We can and do stand up to the illiberal aspects of Islam while also promoting the value of diversity and tolerance, particularly by not throwing ordinary Muslims under the bus.


Are they?

- We were told Geert Wilders' party would win the 2017 Dutch election. His party got 13% of the vote and gained five seats. The liberals, D66, got 12% of the vote and gained seven extra seats.
- We were told Marine Le Pen would win the 2017 French presidential election. She lost badly to a liberal hero, Emmanuel Macron. In the Parliamentary elections, FN came sixth, with 8 seats. The liberal party, Republic En Marche!, won 350 seats. A huge victory for liberalism.
- We were told that the Conservative party would win a landslide in the 2017 British general election. Instead, they lost their majority. This wasn't exactly a liberal triumph although we did gain a small number of seats. UKIP lost their seat and their votes collapsed.
- We were told that AfD were going to destroy the 2017 German elections and Merkel would lose power. While it's still a long way off, liberal-conservative Merkel looks set to keep her majority, and her challenger is a social democrat. The liberals did badly in 2013 but look set to do much better in 2017 and at least match AfD.
- And of course, Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party won the 2015 Canadian elections back before anyone was worried about the rise of the far-right (but not before the rise of ISIS).

Even in America, traditionally a hotbed of conservatism, Donald Trump gained fewer votes than Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. He only gained 0.4% on John McCain. If you had a decent electoral system then this wouldn't happen.

Also:

ISIS have already been defeated.