Minds_Of_Anti-freedom.md 2.8 KB
Freedom
The collectivsts decry the convoy as being anything that can be criticized to diminish its legitimacy and help build an image that, upon presentation, a casual observer would agree it is something to be loathed and feared. Some of them appear to do this out of misplaced disdain, and others out of sheer spite. Spite against life? When they claim these convoy participants are Fascist, what is their working definition for Fascism?
They see their proposed path as liberation, or at least that which could or should be liberation, if only everyone would believe in it and work towards it. We will have a liberated consciousness because we finally all believe and agree that the current state is unacceptable and we are all willing to demand change.
At such a point, it is truly a process for liberation, and that is better than a process for Fascism, which is exactly what all processes are liable to become (Marcusian paranoia).
What are all these dimensions and positions which come to be seen as Fascism?
- Vaccination-refusal
- Carbon footprint contribution
- Refusing to participate in more comprehensive digital identification
- Apprehension towards ESG
Anti-Freedom Mindset
We shall investigate the progression of thoughts and emotions through which one comes to abhor the non-compliant.
Non-Compliant
By non-compliant we mean those who end up being characterized with any of these descriptors:
- Pro-freedom
- Anti-lockdown
- Anti-mandate
- Antivax
- Covid skeptics
- Classical liberal
- Libertarian
There are obviously more ways of characterizing this, but this gives us a sense of whom it is to which we refer.
Possible Modes of Perception
Boundaries
Conservatism is often illustrated through analogies involving borders and boundaries, be it in the sense of keeping organisms within their respective demarcated zones. Boundaries are not just limits for physical movement, but also exist in the sense of a threshold at which point they are not open to consideration of new ideas which challenge old norms.
This latter form can be examined further, to state that although we could gauge ideas based on their degree of radicality, and the degree to which a majority of persons might consider it radical, but also that this can be misleading, depending on the use of language. That is to say, if it becomes customary to commonly use a concept or figure of speech, you could come upon, for example, an environment where language which describes something as "challenging the norm" might be utilized because it is a well declaring something which is a moral good, or which signifies that one is in touch with the trends of the culture. If, at this point, it becomes a cultural norm to find opportunities to declare that one is admiring or supporting something which challenges norms. But, if this becomes the case, how are we still pushing boundaries?