Biden says homosexual “marriage” is “inevitable”
Top headline at The Daily Caller:
The story is no surprise, since Obama himself said the other day that his supposed opposition to homosexual marriage (which has been an obvious fake all along) was “evolving.”
I suppose now that the clownishly smiling “conservative” columnist Michael Goodwin at the New York Post will declare once again that candidate Obama in 2008 fooled him with his protestations of centrism, while the grimly sage-like “conservative” Charles Krauthammer, with thousands of his conservative listeners taking notes, will tell them that Biden is right and that homosexual “marriage” is inevitable,” just as Krauthammer said that the homosexualization of the military was inevitable, and just as he said that socialized medicine is inevitable.
This is the way liberalism wins. It wins with the help of conservatives whose opposition to liberalism is not serious. It wins, for example, with the help of conservatives who declare that such and such liberal threat is not something we need to worry about, and who then, when that liberal threat has taken over the country, declare that it’s now too late to oppose it and we must accept it.
What is the common element in both stages of the “conservative” dialectic? It is to squelch actual opposition to liberalism. In the early stage of the threat, when it could readily have been stopped, the “conservatives” say it’s not a threat, so don’t do anything about it. And when this supposed non-threat has actually gained power, the same “conservatives” say that it’s too late to do anything about it, and that being a good conservative means accepting what the country has done and not making a fuss about it and not being disruptive.
Without the assistance of these unserious and false conservatives, liberalism could not win, or at least its victories would have been much harder to achieve. Which is what I’ve been saying at this site for the last seven years, while any number of critics have condemned me in the harshest terms me for attacking my “fellow conservatives” instead of making nice with them and helping them help liberalism take over.
Kathlene M., who sent the item, writes:
When liberals start using words like “inevitable” in the media, they’re trying to bamboozle people into accepting their agenda without questioning it. We cannot fall for the liberal’s big lie.LA to Kathlene:
I changed “Big Lie” to “big lie.” “Big Lie” (in caps) has a specific meaning: falsely accusing the target of your attack of the very thing that you are doing to him. Classic example: Hitler justifying his invasion of Poland by saying that Poland was about to invade Germany.Karl D. writes:
The “Inevitability” clause that many Conservatives seem to use on many issues including gays in the military drives me insane. With that thinking, why did anyone bother to fight Hitler or the Japanese Empire? Or the Cold War for that matter? After all it was “Inevitable” that Hitler would take over Europe. It was “Inevitable” that the Japanese Empire would absorb all of Asia. At the height of the Cold War it was “Inevitable” that Communism was going overtake the planet. The only thing I find inevitable about these “conservatives” is that they will fold like a cheap suit when confronted with the liberal law of Inevitability.LA replies:
When conservatives use the “Inevitability” clause, they are really confessing that they don’t oppose the “Inevitable” thing and so don’t want to bother opposing it. Someone who really opposes something doesn’t call it inevitable.Kathlene M. replies to LA:
Thanks for the correction. I always assumed that the “Big Lie” was Hitler’s idea that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over again to the masses, they will come to believe them over time. Thus I referred to the Liberal/RINO Lie of Inevitability in this manner because it reminds me of that. Already I see on comment boards that liberals are producing polls showing that the trend is for acceptance of homosexual marriage. Don’t buy it. Polls showed the same thing in California giving the same false impression of inevitability. Thankfully the majority rejected that view.LA replies:
For all I know, you may be right. Maybe my definition is too narrow and specific, and Big Lie has a wider definition than I thought.Dean Ericson writes:
Wouldn’t you know, Wikipedia has an entry for “Big Lie:
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, for a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
Eh bien, I stand corrected.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 24, 2010 01:04 PM | Send