[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I am far less sympathetic to liberals, not only because I know their historical roots are *not* liberal, and that their desired end results are deeply offensive to traditional American values, often based in hatred and envy, that they do not seek to build but to tear down, and finally, that they embrace these loathsome ideas in a cultish, deceitful, and almost mentally ill manner. They do not have pattern recognition, and embrace failed ideas in an obsessive-compulsive way despite volumes of evidence to the contrary.

To start with are the euphemisms they use. The word “liberal” they apply to radicals, and have done so since radicals captured control of the Democrat party. And those who today are called “conservatives” by liberals, are actually moderates. In effect, “conservatives” are anyone opposed to radical change, which the radicals call “right wing”.

From the founding of the American republic, Americans have been at the forefront of spreading the democratic revolution around the world. First to overcome the kings and princes, then to fight against the tyrants, dictators and other tyrannies. As such, good Americans remain revolutionaries who offer democratic ideas to the oppressed of the world in how to improve their lives.

We do this both from kindness, and for our own benefit, because we have continually relearned that the only nations we can even halfway trust are the real democracies. Any other form of government will eventually lead them to be the enemies of democracy, and the initiators of war.

But in this noble endeavor, those Americans who want to spread the democratic revolution are always opposed by the Democrat party.

The Democrats have long played the nemesis to freedom and liberty for anyone, including their fellow Americans. They advocated and supported slavery, segregation, foreign tyrants, anarchists and fanatics, adored communism, and even for a time national socialism.

They did everything in their power to prevent America from fighting against such monstrous villainies. In recent decades supporting anyone who would oppose America.

Within our nation, they despise and seek to undermine our heroes, our traditions, our culture, our laws, our government, our symbols, our freedoms, our families, our economy, our religions and our morals. Had they to a person been replaced with Soviet agents, they could not have done more to damage our nation.

Do I want to persuade them to stop doing this? It’s more than too late to do this. It would be far better for them to be encouraged to leave America, to spread their nuisance to some other place.

But they are horrified with the idea of living in a land filled with others of their kind, because they know it would be a horrible place of poverty, despair and tyranny. Instead they want conservatives to continue to build, so the liberals have something to tear down, hate and despise.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

To start with are the euphemisms they use. The word “liberal” they apply to radicals, and have done so since radicals captured control of the Democrat party. And those who today are called “conservatives” by liberals, are actually moderates. In effect, “conservatives” are anyone opposed to radical change, which the radicals call “right wing”.

I have my own Newspeak-English dictionary:

objective :

reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)

liberal :

see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to journalists; always applied to anyone but a journalist)

progressive :

see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal"). moderate: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."

centrist :

see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal").

conservative :

rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that: "It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena (usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")

right-wing :

see, "conservative."

But your definition of "conservative," which as it happens I independently thought of not long ago, belongs in that lexicon.

conservative :

opposed to radical change of the sort which promote the idea that assigns authority to "liberals" while leaving the responsibility with those who work to a bottom line and therefore are subject to second guessing.