The liberal agenda would never be successful if they stopped finding “victims.”
Wahh wahh wahhh....
The "liberal" agenda would never be successful if they stopped finding “victims”
. . . because "liberals" (I took the liberty of inserting scare quotes around the word in your original post because "liberals" are about suppressing liberty and are better styled governmentists) subsist by criticizing, condemning, and complaining. That is the natural behavior of associated journalism. Because without the check of internal competition, associated journalism naturally promotes itself by tearing down everyone else's reputation.Governmentists are called "liberals" because advocacy of liberty - true liberalism - was popular, and the opposite - what I call governmentism - failed under the brand name "socialism" in America. So in the 1920s in America the journalists helped those who helped themselves (i.e. who helped journalism promote itself by criticizing the productive) by inverting the meaning of "liberalism."
And so we need a different word than "liberal" to describe those who stole our label and ran it into the ground. I coined "governmentism" as maximally descriptive since governmentists systematically choose to use euphemisms (e.g., "the public sector," "public schools," or "society") for the word "government." They will say, "Society must feed the children," and mean nothing other than that government should do it.