>But I think that liberalism offers a gentler version of the
>same dynamic, except that instead of protecting the idea of
>ethnic/national, we embody that sense of belonging and define
>ourselves according to the institutions that must be
>protected. Which then invites a close relationship between
>liberalism and fascism because the people who want to
>dismantle (or even explicitly challenge) those institutions
>make themselves into a dangerous enemy-within who wants to
>challenge the source of our safety and security. Only instead
>of a gender or religion or ethnicity, the source is those
>institutions.


yeah i don't know man...that feels like a bit of a reach to me. I need to know how you're defining liberalism and if that definition includes progressivism...

>This doesn't make the institutions themselves bad, just our
>devotion to them.

'devotion' is doing a heavy lift here. Institutions are important..they aren't the end all be all, but they serve a function in any healthy society.


>
>I've stopped heading somewhere useful awhile ago, if I was
>ever heading there in the first place. Thanks for replying. I
>really appreciated reading your view of how our attachment to
>this deceptive sort of freedom grows, develops, and so becomes
>really tough to uproot.

you're welcome..and word. this is an important discussion that needs to keep going on this Board. too much mindless crap on the first page

d