Liberal supersessionists claim to be worried about conservative secessionists when they should be far more worried about conservative supersessionists. The consensus we all live by is a fragile thing. It is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left.
And then the true conflict will begin.
Daniel Greenfield
The Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy
October 20, 2013
[H/T Kevin Baker.
Every paragraph in this awesome post could qualify as a quote of the day or week or even month. It is very, very good.—Joe]
I’ve come to realize my education has been sorely lacking in that I haven’t really understood what the labels “liberal” and “conservative” mean. Greenfield’s piece was like a tutorial for me. Thanks for the link, Joe.
“Liberal” is a lie to distract us from the reality that “liberals” are opposed to liberty. We now must make the important distinction between a “classic liberal” (one who advocates liberty, and a “modern liberal” (who is the enemy of liberty).
“Conservative” on the other hand still sometimes means what it means – having the desire to conserve, uphold, promote and live by the American Founding Principles of Liberty. But “conservative” is also used as a lie, and possibly a more insidious lie than the lie label of “liberal”. Self-described “conservatives” (who are fat, pale, white, white-haired, flabby Progressives with hair spray and make-up) are propped up as the ultimate examples and standard bearers of “conservatism” which of course then appears stupid, weak, blatantly hypocritical and at least a little bit creepy. Both Bushes, McCain, Pat Buchannan, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Mitch McConnell and Carl Rove are examples of that lie—hold up a blithering contradiction-in-terms as the example of a “conservative leader” and watch the conservative base shrivel in despair and disgust to the point where they have to get drunk before they can vote for one of those pukes.
When a slobbering, smelly jackass twit like McConnell is held up as an example of conservatism, and you fall for it, you’re likely to throw in the towel and push for the “Fundamental Transformation of America” the communists want, because obviously conservatives can’t be trusted..
Ayn Rand wrote about this very issue decades ago. Check out “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal”
I’m practically paraphrasing her.
See, responses like yours (thanks, btw) are why I’ve been hanging out here. You keep this up and I won’t be able to remain blissfully ignorant. Darnit.
“The consensus…is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left.
And then the true conflict will begin.”
OK, well it’s been destroyed already, or 95% so.
There is a problem with that statement though. The difference between us and the left (and let’s not mince words – they’re fucking communists) is that we live by standards and principles and they do not. The instant we abandon our standards or principles, we have become the left. They win converts. We’re now change agents for the Dark Side.
Some people are silly, and so they believe that our standards hold us back, that the idea of NOT being held to any standards is a strength that is practically insurmountable Nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality, the fact that we have standards and that we live guided by principles is our greatest strength, and no human power can defeat it in the long run but we ourselves, by abandoning it.
So while the author has said some very important things and made excellent points, I would ask him to hold his tongue on that last bit until he’s thought things through just a little more.