Yet I yearn for the days when voters knew a lie from the truth
Belly,
They do, isn't it obvious to you ?

Dear individual,

Like the one which says the Coalition are better managers of the economy?

Dear Hasbeen,

Rubbish.

Perhaps reproducing the whole piece might assist you.

Quote;

Frank Wilhoit

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 protects 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 millennia, 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.

Cont..

Cont..

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.

End quote.

You must be right SR. There are no alternate out groups in socialists/communist countries. They have all been mudded or sent to the gulag. Keeps them off the street, or writing bulldust posts or letters to the editor.

You certainly must be given the crown for bulldust SR. No one does it better than you.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write;

“You certainly must be given the crown for bulldust SR. No one does it better than you.”

Unlike you I made every attempt to delineate what were my words and what were those of Frank Wilhoit. I'm pretty certain there was nothing in what I have personally said in this thread could be adjudged bulldust or otherwise unless you were determined to piss in the wind.

So why don't you tell us where Mr Wilhoit has got in wrong rather than just flap your gums as you have wont to do.