"What is the end game, liberals?"


At the opening of Liberals May Regret Their New Rules (h/t Ed Driscoll), Kurt Schlicter recalls his experiences while deployed in Kosovo, in particular the increasingly despotic behaviour of the Serbs.

Which brings us to America in 2015. It's becoming a nation where an elite that is certain of its power and its moral rightness is waging a cultural war on a despised minority. Except it's not actually a minority - it only seems that way because it is marginalized by the coastal elitist liberals who run the mainstream media.

People will eventually find out.

Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It's an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It's an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.
That's a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.

This should worry them, he writes, "for the coastal elites are uniquely unsuited to a world where force rules instead of law."

Ain't that the truth.


The Roman Empire ran like that for 502 years Western Perversion or 1479 years Eastern Perversion. Even our latte sipping, lily livered, limp wrist, lick spittle, liberal elites can last a generation.

Orders and terrorists crossing and a terrorists enabler in the whitehouse and the nobel peace prize commity of idiots

I admit forthright that this is a second-hand idea (about 10-15 years old) I'm putting forward here. I wish I could remember the title of the article and the name of the author so I could properly attribute it. But anyway, the point was this...

Liberals main power over conservatives lies in the fact that they know that conservatives want to be "good people." For conservatives, part of being good means obeying and showing respect for the law. Therefore, all they (liberals) generally have to do is write a rule on a piece of paper and call it a "law" and conservatives will generally accept it. If the law goes against the spirit of liberty, the conservative might be upset, might speak out, and may want to repeal the law repealed. But, in the meantime, they will adjust their behavior (if not their minds) to conform to whatever is written on the paper. Thus liberals need the law on the paper only long enough to establish the idea as a cultural norm.

The author pointed out that this is the main flaw in a constitutional republic that relies solely on a piece of paper. As I recall, the whole point of the paper was to make the case that a constitutional monarchy has some perks over a republic because, in the case of the former, you can have an actual person who is above politics (the monarch) weigh in on whether or not a new law goes against the "spirit of liberty."

That is why Prohibition was so much more troublesome in the US than in any of the Commonwealth countries where it was tried. In Canada (for example), provincial attempts at prohibition died quiet deaths because common law relies on a spirit of liberty. And, in the end, everyone knew that that spirit was being violated. In the US, on the other hand, the 18th Amendment led to all the ensuing misery because, from the American point-of-view, there is the Constitution (i.e. the piece of paper) and nothing else. If the piece of paper says it, then it must be correct...even when it violates the spirit of liberty.

For my part, I have doubts that it will end well. The Constitution is supposed to be a reflection of the culture and spirit of the people...not something that is forced on the majority. Constitutional-loving Americans have a problem: If they were able to snap their fingers and magically make all politicians suddenly become 100% on-board with the spirit of the founders, they would be doing it against the will of (if not a majority then at least a large percentage) the people.

I wants my Civil Rights!!!!!!

As Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit so neatly puts it, you deal with liberal aggression by punching back, twice as hard. They are punks, and should be treated as such. The fundraiser for the pizza joint in IN is a good example, but the complete defeat of Rolling Stones rape hoax at Univ of VA is even better. Now, Rolling Stone must fire the perpetrator of that hoax, a "social justice warrior" masquerading as a journalist, named Sabrina Erdely.

Bryceman, that's a fascinating and useful viewpoint. But I'm unsure that there is that meaningful a difference between a constitutional monarchy and a republic. England in 1640 was a constitutional republic, yet the country erupted into a decade of civil war precisely because the King was attempting to rule without the will of Parliament. The Monarch was in this case in no way above or beyond politics.

The 19th century was filled with examples in Europe of popular, middle class-led revolts against constitutional monarchies. In most cases, they were triggered by perceived violations of the unwritten constitutions by the monarch. So it may only seem today that constitutional monarchism works better because the political crises that affected them are now all in the past. To me, the difference between an activist monarch and an elitist oligarchy such as modern progressivism is immaterial. It may be nothing more than an accident of historical timing that The Great Republic is now in trouble, whereas in Europe and Canada the activist monarchies were beaten into submission centuries ago.

The larger issue is in your last paragraph regarding the Constitution and its nature. You're absolutely right about it's supposed to reflect the spirit and culture of the people. Key point: at the time it was written. But the past 50 years of progressivism have moved in an opposite direction. The Constitution was about freedom of choice. But modern progressivism is about restriction of choice. The growing tension between these two is inevitable. And I agree with you entirely; it will not end well.

It is an unpleasant fact in history that, in every culture which has gone through extensive political, constitutional and social change, the method of change has always been violence. The United States has already gone through one severe spasm of violence over political, constitutional and social change in 1862. It will not be the last.

Thank you EBD for posting Kurt Schlicter's commentary, and to bryceman and cgh for their comments.

If there is in fact a "boiling point" in the US it is unfortunately not much out in the open. The Tea Party seems to have stalled and the Senate and Congress elections last fall were not conclusive enough to stop Obama's agenda. Obama does not care what the will of the people is, he is determined, as he promised, to fundamentally change the United States. Even the US military has been corrupted with purges and appointments made to further Obama's agenda. In my view the "boiling point" is on simmer currently.

The same thing is happening in Canada and PM Harper's government has not stopped the cultural Marxification of our country, only slowed the process a little. It seems dubious that PM Harper will be returned this coming fall and then the Obama agenda will be forced on Canadians with gusto through an the Obama lite Trudeau.

Over the weekend just past, two of our daughters and their families were home for Easter. Inevitably the conversation discussed the "pizzaria" story and the Trinity Law discipline story. The consensus was that Christianity and democracy are under sustained and open attack by the cultural Marxists. They mentioned a fear of what Schlicter talks about.


I don't disagree with anything you say. For the example of the English form of a constitutional monarchy, I didn't say it explicilty, but I meant to imply that it reached its optimum point between the English Civil War and the adoption of the (English) Bill of Rights as more and more restrictions were placed on the monarch.

All of my life, I have been a die-hard republican - nattering on about "separation of powers" like our American cousins. Then, after I read about how Her Majesty sent representatives to Ottawa shortly before the 1982 adoption of the Charter and Trudeau was forced to explain himself as to why he was depriving Canadians of some of their natural rights as British subjects, I suddenly came to appreciate that unique concept of separation of power even more. Imagine if Obama could be called to account for Obamacare that way. Made to answer to someone who couldn't be hook-winked, couldn't be bought, and couldn't be BSed with statements like "We just have different interpretations..."

Of course, no system is perfect. Fat lot of good it did us. We still got the Charter. But there is something appealing about having a human representation of the "constitution." A head of state whose only power is the nuclear option of effectively forcing the state into a civil war (metaphoric or literal) when elected representatives overstep their bounds.

My feeling is the US system is superior when you have a Reagan or Coolidge as president. When you have a Nixon or Obama, then the monarchy might be preferable.

"So at the end of the day, if you want a society governed by the rule of force, you better pray that you’re on the side with the guns and those who know how to use them."

Hence, why they are pushing so hard to remove the right of the individual to have guns.

Many Liberals know they're pissing off the people with the guns. That's why their trying to get rid of them, both the guns and the people who own them. Deep down smart Liberals are scared.

Oh yeah, those Serbs were just pure evil. Being raped and murdered by Albanian muslim filth for generations - and then wanting to do something about it - is just the worst thing imaginable.

Here's that paragon of Chosen virtue, Madeleine Albright, expressing her righteous opinion on the matter of Serbs - the people who unfortunately saved her pathetic life in the 40's - when confronted with blowback from her fight against Serb evil. Oy Vey!


Agreed in full, Bryceman. I too am a staunch republican despite my quibbles above. I'm not sure it's so much the individuals who happen to be President so much as it is the larger body politic. It seems clear to me that there's a substantial body of opinion in the United States which no longer believes in the basic principles of the Constitution. In that sense, Obama is a symptom and not a cause. And it's been this way for quite some time. The basic premise of the Constitution is equality of opportunity. The progressives want equality of outcome, and there's no reconciling those two. Equality of outcome is only possible by significant constraint on those who succeed in the interest of those who do not. Ultimately that's only achievable by constraining basic freedom.

And so we have the current situation of a President who cannot get what he wants by the constitutional process. So he resorts to executive decree. That didn't work well for Charles I and it won't ultimately work here. It happens in every system; sooner or later another much-needed Oliver Cromwell will come along and put a final and bloody end to it.

The mathematician Euler once said that all logical systems end in paradox. The paradox of the progressives is that the logical continuation of their equality of outcomes will be a grinding tyranny which most of them today would find utterly abhorrent.

Bryceman, further to my above, one could argue in support of this thesis that the US is effectively degenerating into monarchism. We had Bush I, followed by Clinton I, followed by Bush II. Among the competitors for the throne in the Oval Office now are the putative Clinton II and Bush III. Along with the Kennedys and some others, we are clearly seeing the emergence of dynasticism. I'm sure none of us here is unaware of the irony.

Yeah well, I can see the US is getting perilously close to an emotional event.

Last time, no one had any idea what the consequences were.

I can understand that folks packed picnic baskets to go witness the first Battle of Manassas (Bull Run)....

Despite notions contrary....these matters are generally conducted between factions of the military rather than citizen militias.

There is nothing civil about civil war.

"Oh yeah, those Serbs were just pure evil. Being raped and murdered by Albanian muslim filth for generations - and then wanting to do something about it - is just the worst thing imaginable."

None of the parties in the Balkans - Kosovo Albanians, Bosniacs, Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes and Serbs - have covered themselves with much glory.

The collapse of Yugoslavia was a sad, sorry episode and the blame rests solidly with its constituent peoples.

All of them.

"We had Bush I, followed by Clinton I, followed by Bush II. Among the competitors for the throne in the Oval Office now are the putative Clinton II and Bush III. Along with the Kennedys and some others, we are clearly seeing the emergence of dynasticism. I'm sure none of us here is unaware of the irony."

And for this they tossed out poor old George III...

The pizzeria furor and the decision by 75% of the BC Law Society to decertify Trinity Western Law School are clear indicators to me that you're right that this is ultimately an attack on Christianity. The social engineers have no idea what they're doing but that isn't going to stop them from doing it. Progressives (both Marxists and Marxists-lite), liberals and even some conservatives in our part of the world have all become obsessed with this mania to legitimize homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The only group of any size that opposes this are the Christians.

I can't look down on the progressives because I was once one of them. If I were still an atheist and a leftist I'm certain I too would despise Bible-believing Christians for their 'bigotry' but I now know that I was wrong about God's existence. Since God has created us He obviously knows best how we are to live and has the right to correct us when we foolishly think we can change what He has designed. Once one realizes that we are not simply the product of primordial ooze plus billions of years of accidental changes, the complementary natures of male and female become impossible to ignore.

However, those who think we who have had our eyes opened are instead merely ignorant prisoners of religious tradition are not going to understand. I wouldn't have and you couldn't have convinced me. We who believe in Jesus Christ are in for some trouble. The thought that comes to me, probably because Sunday was Easter, is "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

That doesn't mean we shouldn't contend for the faith which has been entrusted to us. Just that how to do this will likely be beyond our natural abilities.

Like sasquatch says, "There is nothing civil about a civil war."

This could well end up like Cromwell's time where the Parliamentary New Model Army members said Bible verses while pot shooting Royalist authoritarian thugs. Not that Cromwell was not also a dictator in the end, but Parliament did go forward in the end and was considered a major British hero by Milton and Carlyle, although not by old Winnie. His attacks against Catholics was also not a very Christian effort.

Forgive them but fight them. Or we go back to the Marxist Dark Ages. By 1929 there were many Russians that fervently wished they had supported the not without major faults White Army.

Nice try, small... but I just saw on Drudge that nobody is going to get fired over this bit of "journalism"

Libs/leftists/progs/SJWs have been conducting warfare for at least a half century in the slow march through the institutions. There's been virtually no resistance. Their outrage is a spasm of indignation at such affront to their indisputable righteousness. I hope they all fry.

I've said before that the end-game of liberalism is law of the jungle. The powerful carry on as they wish, unrestrained; the weak are trampled, robbed and forced to submit to the predations of the powerful, discarded when they are of no further use. The elite will initially use money to insulate themselves in their cocoons from the chaos which they've brought upon those outside but eventually even this will be inadequate as the society they create becomes increasingly violent, disrespectful and predatory and eventually realizes that the remaining elite are simply fat sheep to be preyed upon in their turn.

Yeah well, some of us did protest but we were ridiculed for "seeing REDS under the beds"....

Then the Verona files showed that there were indeed Reds under the beds including one that resided at 24 Sussex....as my dad suspected....another Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Forgive them but fight them.

I agree. There is no point in capitulating to people who are delusional. Still I'm not optimistic about the outcome of this battle in the short term. The numbers of the indoctrinated are increasing.

In the long term there's always hope that people may come to their senses. None of us has any idea exactly what will happen, any more than my parents had any concept in 1935 what the next 70 or 80 years would bring. It's always something of a surprise. I'm a Christian but not a pacifist. It would make no more sense to not fight the Nazis, for example, than to stand by and watch someone murder your child. Strive for peace where possible, but may we fight valiantly when necessary. And somehow, I must never forget to attend to my own inner condition. It's never an option for me to hate my enemies, tempting though it can be.

In the ultra long term, we Christians need not fear. When He who made the cosmos returns all will be made right. Until then we have our work cut out for us.

The Liberal end game is spelled out in Orwell's 1984 and on the Georgia guide stones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestone

The advance of collectivist totality will only end on a battle field - this to was foretold, but not on any new-age Gaia stone henge.

cgh and bryceman:

The problem with Constitutions, Charters, Bills of Rights etc. is they get thrown to a judiciary for interpretation and adjudication. The American Republic was formed with the judiciary and it's powers baked right in. Its role, its powers, and its limits were defined at the outset by the founding fathers. There was agreement that the constitution and the bill of rights that followed were first in line in protecting the individual against the tyranny of government.

In parliamentary democracies, the common law has formed the basis for adjudicating disagreements between individuals and between the crown and individuals. The general will of the people and what they will accept has been formed over time through countless supplications before the crown and court. The imposition of the charter after the fact has brought it into direct conflict with the common law and placed an added political responsibility on the judiciary to arbitrate the conflicts. Increasingly we have seen a politicized judiciary creating law by fiat or re-interpreting a less than well thought out Charter and challenging parliament to overturn it. Without the charter the cases that have caused this conflict would have been resolved through common law.

Unfortunately, in both systems, of late we have since politicized and activist courts acting beyond their historically recognized roles.

In the progressive world there are no absolutes. Everything including morality is relative. Progressives fail to understand the pandora's box that is opened by such an assertion. They cannot perceive any situation where a majority or the will of the people could turn against them by just such a world view. Thus you see them tying themselves in knots as they strive to establish relative pecking orders for race, gender, religion, victimhood etc...

"In the long term there's always hope that people may come to their senses."

We can hope, but unless someone can correct me it has not happened anywhere yet at any time. The mob will make the decisions, and in fact already is in many areas of society. As Occam says, it will take blood in the streets. It has gone too far and as Steve E suggests, even the judicial system is corrupted into ideological factions, mostly radical left, and even the so-called conservatives are heavily infected with progressiveness.

What our forefathers fought for for 8 hundred years is being eroded by the father of the left, Karl Marx. The Jacobins are winning at the moment. The Girondists are being replaced by the Mountain. Liberal democracy is dying.

I'm not hopeful about the future of North America and I didn't mean to give that impression. I should have said there's a slight hope that minds may be changed. I see this as a culture in serious decline. Too many people have been thoroughly indoctrinated in leftism and liberalism by media, academia, and politicians.

Yet I want to resist my natural inclination toward pessimism. Things look very bleak and I expect the worst, but still hope for a reversal in the current trend toward our society's demise, unlikely though it may be.

I agree, as I have four children and twelve grandchildren that I do not wish to live in the hell on earth that children and grandchildren of my great uncles and great aunts had to live under for seventy years.

The collapse of Yugoslavia was not a sad thing. Yugoslavia should not have existed in the first place. The fate that befell Yugoslavia is the likely fate of any multicultural state. Multiculturalism is a totally unnatural form of societal organization.

I never went to Yugoslavia myself, but I know a lot of people who did and they pretty much concur that the Serbs were the good guys.

I am prepared and looking forward to the coming civil war.

You forget that Marxism is utterly dead in the US, and is an increasingly unstable house of cards propped up only by John Boehner and McConell. If a Republican gov results from the 2016 election, the internal politics of he GOP will force the progressive leadership to take a wrecking ball to the present gov and rebuild it on Constitutional principles.

From the last link: "The ludic fallacy is mistaking a model, especially a model of human behavior, for the real world."

'Global Warming' in a nutshell.

Agree that the Serbs were the good guys.
Get used to the idea because we are going to have to do what the Serbs did to try and survive the Muslims among us in the not distant future.


If Marxism is dead in the US (and Canada) why is it being trumpeted and taught in almost every educational facility and by about two thirds of all the politicians?

Forcing communities to take illegal aliens which should all be sent to live in Washington D.C.(District of Crinimals)with the other crinimals especialy the big bad scumrat Obama

It's dead among the populace, the only thing that matters in the long run.

The Constitution was an enumeration of, a limit to the powers of the central government. It is dead, a meaningless document ignored by those it is supposed to constrain. I know what will be done about it - nothing, until we have had enough of the masters and their rules. Then the Civil War will seem like it was aptly named.

Leave a comment


November 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Recent Comments

  • MarkD: The Constitution was an enumeration of, a limit to the read more
  • small c conservative: It's dead among the populace, the only thing that matters read more
  • Spurwing Plover: Forcing communities to take illegal aliens which should all be read more
  • Ken (Kulak): If Marxism is dead in the US (and Canada) why read more
  • Oz: Agree that the Serbs were the good guys. Get used read more
  • nv53: From the last link: "The ludic fallacy is mistaking a read more
  • small c conservative : You forget that Marxism is utterly dead in the US, read more
  • Sean: I am prepared and looking forward to the coming civil read more
  • minuteman: The collapse of Yugoslavia was not a sad thing. Yugoslavia read more
  • Ken (Kulak): I agree, as I have four children and twelve grandchildren read more