You would do well to distinguish between "real" liberalism and "fake liberalism," the latter of which is better referred to as progressivism; note that TFA make

You would do well to distinguish between "real" liberalism and "fake liberalism," the latter of which is better referred to as progressivism; note that TFA makes reference to progressivism about a dozen times - 4x more than liberalism, which should be properly understood through the works of, for example, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. [0] All in all the hypocrisy both 1) amounts to a language game of hymnal prompt-response, akin to LLMs, or perhaps a Roman Catholic church service; 2) is a deliberate tactic to exploit the principle of explosion [1]: "from a contradiction, anything follows." Firstly: even outside of California, yet in cities or locales within its sphere of influence, the hypocrisy can be demonstrated and observed for yourself by testing peoples' actual abilities to overcome innate prejudice and bias, their propensity for inclusivity and diversity, their desire to actually materially improve the positions of the less fortunate, etc. but without telling them that you expect them to respond in the usual progressive manner. If you ask a so-called progressive what they are doing to be more "diverse" and "inclusive" of "marginalized groups," or how they are creating a "safe space" for "allies," like an LLM they will be prompted to respond in the expected manner with all the shibboleths and hallmarks of progressive speech and vocabulary; yet if you observe their action without first prompting them as such you will find that the outcomes of their actions are anything but, and they are subject to the exact same prejudices and biases as even the staunchest bible bashing conservative. The only difference is that they know how to conceal these biases by spewing out the appropriate words when prompted, cloaking themselves in the language of virtue much as a Catholic might when asked to "lift up their hearts": We lift them up to the LORD. It is nothing more than hymnal prompt-response, where the words are recited by mere rote without actually being able to put the word into practice or abide by its teachings, hoping that language alone will grant you access into heaven. The dynamic is also elaborated upon in Liam Kofi Bright's White Psychodrama [2]: Hence beyond sloganeering and support for piecemeal reform (supporting candidates who combine radical slogans with piecemeal reform policy will be especially tempt- ing) they are unlikely to engage in any sustained push for large scale change. Thus their insistence upon the policing of language with programmes such as the "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," [3] the introduction of various neologisms into the lexicon, and the redefinition and appropriation of various words with already long-established and agreed upon meanings - "liberal" being one such example, but far from the most salient. Secondly, while remaining on the topic of language: it's through this Orwellian redefinition of common vocabulary such that words mean their exact opposites that contradictions can be manufactured, and language can be twisted any which way to mean anything at all at any time. When your language, and thus the formulation of your ideology, lacks internal consistency, it becomes possible to use it to justify and prove any statement whatsoever [1]; truth, after all, is relative, and merely the product of an oppressive regime exercising its power over the oppressed, and so there is never any stable ground upon which all propositions may be measured and judged on equal merits. The ground is always shifting, and so the rules of engagement can always be redrawn from one discussion to the next, one person to another, with no unifying principle underlying the entire ideology. Thus, hypocrisy is not a failing of progressivism, it is a feature, and hence the progressives branding themselves as "liberals" despite violating basically every basic precept of liberalism: egalitarianism of all people, irrespective of the accidentals of race, gender, appearance, etc., and freedom of expression [4]: We believe in judging people based on their personal character, not based on their group identity, and Liberals used to believe in that too. It used to be the basic precept of a liberal ideology, to look past people's race, their sexuality and their gender and just judge them as individual human beings. That is what “liberalism” was; that was the meaning of the word. Now, it means exactly the opposite; it means that there is nothing more important than a person's group or other identity. The Ministry of Liberalism is anything but liberal, and it is high time that people see through this Orwellian linguistic charade. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion [2] https://philpapers.org/archive/BRIWP.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/BRIWP.pdf [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20221218155108/https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/ehli https://web.archive.org/web/20221218155108/https://itcommuni... [4] https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-208/hansard https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitti...