Yes. There’s a reason why reactionary people flock to bias and low-information platforms. It’s because they aren’t very intelligent and they don’t seek out information to form their decisions. Conservatives are literally (frequently, but not exclusively), politically illiterate. The ones who are intelligent are the ones directing the sheep.
Nah. Instead, in Poilievre’s case — and some others —it’s a dim view of reality.
Reality is an inconvenience to these fucks.
I don’t want people who lie, grift, and con to be in power anywhere. Especially mean-spirited, divisive, angry little boys like PP and 45/47.
It’s been said: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” ~ Frank Wilhoit (Ohio)
Accountability is for the poors. The powerful, the change-agents of history, move beyond accountability. Or, so they practice. Every so often, one falls from grace; another rides rough-shod over sensibility; a third is investigated, tried, convicted, forgotten, then released to wither and die in obscurity. Often, people forget.
As much as I enjoy Wilhoit’s Law, it always gets leveraged in a way that pointed at supporters of particular political parties.
The thing is, Wilhoit uses a fundamentally different definition of “conservstive” from what most people mean. He’s not pointing out the MO of a given political party in that quote. He’s criticising the very nature of the state, and of a stratified society.
Which is fair. It’s just not the kind of thing you pull out to thumb your nose at political opponents.
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.
Are the liberals also responsible for the fucking deluge of lowbrow WWE shit that’s spamming it up too? Is there a Venn diagram of Liberal voters and wrestling attendees I’ve never seen or something?
I cannot wait to see this bulldog in power and tread water time and time again because he has no policy. He’s been a barking mutt his whole career. Useless twat.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Conservatives really are stupid no matter where they’re from, huh?
Yes. There’s a reason why reactionary people flock to bias and low-information platforms. It’s because they aren’t very intelligent and they don’t seek out information to form their decisions. Conservatives are literally (frequently, but not exclusively), politically illiterate. The ones who are intelligent are the ones directing the sheep.
Nah. Instead, in Poilievre’s case — and some others —it’s a dim view of reality.
Reality is an inconvenience to these fucks.
I don’t want people who lie, grift, and con to be in power anywhere. Especially mean-spirited, divisive, angry little boys like PP and 45/47.
It’s been said: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” ~ Frank Wilhoit (Ohio)
Accountability is for the poors. The powerful, the change-agents of history, move beyond accountability. Or, so they practice. Every so often, one falls from grace; another rides rough-shod over sensibility; a third is investigated, tried, convicted, forgotten, then released to wither and die in obscurity. Often, people forget.
I’ll add this quote as well - “conservatives don’t have policies, they have enemies”
As much as I enjoy Wilhoit’s Law, it always gets leveraged in a way that pointed at supporters of particular political parties.
The thing is, Wilhoit uses a fundamentally different definition of “conservstive” from what most people mean. He’s not pointing out the MO of a given political party in that quote. He’s criticising the very nature of the state, and of a stratified society.
Which is fair. It’s just not the kind of thing you pull out to thumb your nose at political opponents.
The whole comment, for reference:
The liberals put sand in my shoe while I was sleeping!
Weird, the liberals pissed in my pants when I was
passed outsleeping.Amazing how Liberals can constantly do everything bad no matter how much power we grant conservatives.
Classic fascist playbook … their opponents are always simultaneously powerfully oppressive and unbelievably weak
Obviously, this was a result of Chrystia Freeland telling people to cut Disney+, which was, uh, also obviously Trudeau in disguise, I guess?
Didn’t know Trudeau was actually Agent Smith…makes sense though I suppose…the Tories want us to think that he’s the entire Liberal party.
Let’s not give this shit stain publicity
Are the liberals also responsible for the fucking deluge of lowbrow WWE shit that’s spamming it up too? Is there a Venn diagram of Liberal voters and wrestling attendees I’ve never seen or something?
Are you suggesting someone give pp the chair?
Thank goodness it’s not just mine
Are… are the liberals in the room with us right now?
It’s really not the Beaverton.
Fully thought this was the Beaverton at first
Not the only global price increase he’s blamed on the Liberals, but at least it’s transparently stupid.
He has exactly one move, but it’s a real crowd pleaser.
Poilievre is out here doing the “thanks Obama” meme earnestly
Polievre couldn’t find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.
Arr, matey.
Netflix, prime, Hulu, and anything else that makes billionaires wealthier can be found on the high seas.
The federal version of buck a beer. lol.
Petty polieve- your cost to Netflix and chill is going up.
Ah yes, it was all those liberals tuning in to watch the brother of some YouTube guy beat up an old man.
I cannot wait to see this bulldog in power and tread water time and time again because he has no policy. He’s been a barking mutt his whole career. Useless twat.