now ur not even asking questions anymore, mr. bobblehead

except the inconsistency thing. politically, i am in favour of, and mostly in this order, a) things which benefit me, or b) at least do not scare me, or c) if they do scare me, at least have a payoff to benefit me in the end, or then finally d) scare bad people a lot. I think some people put d) a lot higher.

most political values are phantoms, that exist either on high intellectual levels, or in low blood-and-soil levels. when i agree with liberals, it is mostly on the blood-and-soil level [did u know im english?] which say you should basically try to be fair, open and honest to the people you meet. this is not really enough for politics, though, so it leaves a lot of airy whooshing space for intellectuals to put words in. liberalism is p. bad when it's rarefied because you end up having to be open and honest to people who you will never meet, probably for good reason, or who are not even people; and 'we're all in this together' becomes ALL MEN ARE EQUAL AND BROTHERS etc. etc. etc. intellectual stuff also promotes c) and d), which is p suspicious imho.

this is not a recipe for consistency. given a) how scary and b) how full of promise politics and politicians are, especially revolutionary politicians, this is a recipe for dextro-maoist anarcho-fascism aka 'seeing the bright side of everyone '