The very same people harping about “gay rights” would also be writing scatting opinion articles against something or other they believe was a moral perversion (for example, men who used sex dolls) with not the least bit self-awareness about how those articles were very much like those that used to be written against homosexuality, just with a different group being targeted.
The middle class in that place is big on doing what is fashionable and makes them look good socially (keeping up with appearances) which means certain minorities which are now fashionable to support get a lot of loud, performative support, but those actions are seldom driven by actual Principles about Freedom (quite the contrary, the place is big on people “knowing their place” and has a ton of laws meant to silence and push-back on those who are loudly contrarians outside a few “permitted” domains).
Having lived in a couple of places in Europe, including Britain and The Netherlands, in my opinion Britain is actually unusually conservative for an European country.
Well, it’s American-style “liberal”: hard neoliberal with some of performative (rather than principled) moral liberalism.
It’s definitely not Liberal in the sense of taking a principled stance for people’s freedom, as made painfully obvious by what they’re doing against anti-Genocide protestors.
I would even say they’re more towards the Authoritarian side than the Liberal one.
The USA built itself off genocide and colonialism and has spent the last three centuries expanding its empire to every continent (and has long-since been an attack dog for Israel).
France endorsed liberty, equality, and fraternity at home and horrors abroad in Haiti and Algeria.
To the credit of the Liberal Party, they were much less imperialist than the Whigs they derived from or Tories. This is not to say that they were truly opposed to imperialism. Cecil Rhodes was a Liberal.
In all of these cases, the colonial adventures did not occur despite liberalism but were justified by it. We must bring enlightened civilization to the savages, you see. Locke and Mill, two foundational British figures of liberalism, were both supporters of colonialism.
Why has liberal-ruled Britain become attack dogs for Israel?
Britain was never liberal.
The very same people harping about “gay rights” would also be writing scatting opinion articles against something or other they believe was a moral perversion (for example, men who used sex dolls) with not the least bit self-awareness about how those articles were very much like those that used to be written against homosexuality, just with a different group being targeted.
The middle class in that place is big on doing what is fashionable and makes them look good socially (keeping up with appearances) which means certain minorities which are now fashionable to support get a lot of loud, performative support, but those actions are seldom driven by actual Principles about Freedom (quite the contrary, the place is big on people “knowing their place” and has a ton of laws meant to silence and push-back on those who are loudly contrarians outside a few “permitted” domains).
Having lived in a couple of places in Europe, including Britain and The Netherlands, in my opinion Britain is actually unusually conservative for an European country.
So much for “liberal” government.
Well, it’s American-style “liberal”: hard neoliberal with some of performative (rather than principled) moral liberalism.
It’s definitely not Liberal in the sense of taking a principled stance for people’s freedom, as made painfully obvious by what they’re doing against anti-Genocide protestors.
I would even say they’re more towards the Authoritarian side than the Liberal one.
Because liberalism is a hypocritical ideology.
The USA built itself off genocide and colonialism and has spent the last three centuries expanding its empire to every continent (and has long-since been an attack dog for Israel).
France endorsed liberty, equality, and fraternity at home and horrors abroad in Haiti and Algeria.
To the credit of the Liberal Party, they were much less imperialist than the Whigs they derived from or Tories. This is not to say that they were truly opposed to imperialism. Cecil Rhodes was a Liberal.
In all of these cases, the colonial adventures did not occur despite liberalism but were justified by it. We must bring enlightened civilization to the savages, you see. Locke and Mill, two foundational British figures of liberalism, were both supporters of colonialism.