27 07 10 - 18:24Breaking from the tradition of assuming that every human choice is logical, I choose to instead assume that every human choice is personal -- meaning that it's all for the gain of the individual at the expense of the people and objects around them. (Unless you're Schopenhauer, this is probably a reasonable assumption.)
People pick beliefs to get themselves ahead. This blather about ideology and helping others -- it's all horseshit. When someone tells you they're really interested in helping the poor, ask yourself: what's the real action here? The action is that they can tell you, and you're socially conditioned/a sap so you'll believe they're the better person, and give them leeway or higher social status for it.
When it comes to liberalism, we see a movement that spreads much like an infectious disease. When enough people in the room have it, others knuckle down, too. This is mainly because it's a competitive philosophy of appearing more altruistic than others. "I want to help the poor" sounds really good and if you don't have something to compete -- I help the environment, I wash the shorts of Manchester United -- you're going to sound like a heel.
Of course, this has nothing to do with reality; it's appearance, no different than what you dress, the car you drive, the products you buy and the fancy things you say to girls so you can poke your weiner into them. Dongs.
My guess is that liberalism is composed of two groups:
(a) The sophisticated manipulator
From an analysis of iPad owners:
Consumer research firm MyType conducted the study, in which opinions of 20,000 people were analyzed between March and May. The firm's conclusion was that iPad owners tend to be wealthy, sophisticated, highly educated and disproportionately interested in business and finance, while they scored terribly in the areas of altruism and kindness. In other words, "selfish elites."
They are six times more likely to be "wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50 year olds," MyType's Tim Koelkebeck told Wired.com. WIRED
These are the people who know how to look good and stay on top of the heap. They're using iPods because these are status devices. You're in the big leagues now, boys!
(b) The clueless ingenue
The other group that feeds into the liberal bandwagon are self-described victims.
Inevitably, this skews toward the young, because until you've seen how the world works, you assume most things work for nonsense or corrupt reasons. And often this is true, but not always, and the ones that youth tend to attack (war, violence, inequality, business) are rarely those; it's the ones they don't criticize, like their own entertainers and their big opinions, that are most corrupt. But the end result is like the old adage: a little information is dangerous. Youth, and people who are stuck in bad situations like entry-level jobs and tiny city apartments, feel like victims because they know their place in the universe is powerless, and they don't understand why things happen as they do.
This group is perfect fodder -- "useful idiots" -- for the first group, because they know how to be savvy and say the right things to come across as knowledgeable and having an "alternative" to how things are, which the victim assumes is bad/evil.
Together these two groups help lead society away from having a goal toward having pity for individuals, and thus spending all its effort being inward-looking, and therefore missing out on how it has stagnated and is in decline.