Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

• Frank Wilhoit

deleted by creator

How do people become such pieces of shit?

Chrystia Freeland, author of Plutocrats, says that the present trend towards plutocracy occurs because the rich feel that their interests are shared by society:

You don’t do this in a kind of chortling, smoking your cigar, conspiratorial thinking way. You do it by persuading yourself that what is in your own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else. So you persuade yourself that, actually, government services, things like spending on education, which is what created that social mobility in the first place, need to be cut so that the deficit will shrink, so that your tax bill doesn’t go up. And what I really worry about is, there is so much money and so much power at the very top, and the gap between those people at the very top and everybody else is so great, that we are going to see social mobility choked off and society transformed.

40 days should be indefinitely until management changes. As in, those who “kissed the ring” must leave.

“Deeply concerned.” How reassuring.

I still don’t want to think he’s a bad person, but for me, why he is a bad person is because zero “too-big-to-fail” CEOs went to jail during the immediate aftermath of the '08 crisis.

He could’ve nationalized the banks that were underwater. Even temporarily. The DoJ had ample evidence, precedent, and prosecutorial room to make heads roll. He was the one person who had power to do so. “Yes, we can!” became “No, I won’t.”

He’s not the only one in my lifetime to screw the American people, but as a young 25-year-old man, his betrayal stung the most in the wreckage of 2008 into '09. I voted for him. I thought I genuinely liked him.

When it came down to it, he’s actually like all the rest. Socialize the losses; privatize the gains.

Eat the billionaires. Sic semper tyrannis.

UnDeshittification

Makes more sense to me if the prefix “en” is used in “enshittification”.

“slams”

I eat beef (occasionally) due to its excellent flavor, versatility in cuisine, and high complex protein density.

Protesting against a government with ample amounts of 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft, drones with Hellfire missiles, and plenty of rubes who are giddy at the prospect of shooting the populace they’d supposedly sworn to protect is a fool’s errand.

Wildcat strikes “are de wei”.

I moved to the Netherlands from the U.S. in July of 2022.

My opinion now? There are morons everywhere. I think more, per capita, back in the U.S. of A.

The world is a circus, but in the U.S., you have front row seats.

deleted by creator

Ach, beat me to it.

I feel Word of Blake could work for the Trumpers but part of them seem similar to Katherine Steiner-Davion sycophants.

As an aside, I always preferred House Davion in the Inner Sphere, however my first loves were the Warden Wolves and the Ghost Bears. Honorable mention to the Nova Cats and a hale shout-out to The Wolf’s Dragoons.

plausible explanation for this level of incompetence

Competence is irrelevant. He’s not here to “govern effectively”, he’s here to dismantle the U.S. and its allies and turn them into vassal states for the CCP, Putin Regime, the House of Saud, and any other authoritarian who wants in on the action.

Lotsa butt-hurt heroes of the proletariat in the comment section.

Throw your Molotov-sippy-cups nice and hard so the commissars can see, sweeties!

This toke’s for you!

(Sighs)

My sincerest apologies for killing a delectable morning buzz, but my eye twitches due to my slight 'tism when I see the “should/could of” error.

It’s not you. It’s me.

Could of have made

or

Could of Could’ve made

Sure, dude. Sure.