The Conservative Rebel
The Conservative Rebel dares the next generation of American Patriots to resist the tyranny of cultural Marxism and government overreach – all from the perspective of a right-wing teenager. It delivers bold and unapologetic takes on today's most controversial issues that you won't hear anywhere else – seasoned with just that snark and dry wit you crave. Take a chainsaw to the official narrative and learn what the talking heads won't tell you.
The Conservative Rebel
5 Liberal Lies Everyone Believes
Today we're dismantling 5 of the most dangerous liberal lies almost every conservative – probably including yourself – believes. From democracy to our idea of liberty to equality itself, we'll destroy the most sacred dogmas of America's bipartisan liberal religion.
If You Enjoyed This Episode, Please Share It Leave a Review
Follow on X for More Great Commentary: https://x.com/CnsrvtvRbl
Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theconservativerebel
Follow on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ConservativeRebel76
Email Your Comments, Concerns, Insults, and Death Threats to ConservativeRebel76@gmail.com
The degree to which liberal radicalism has colonized Americans' minds, including conservatives' minds, is shocking. The very ideas held up as the core principles of conservatism and the foundation of this country. From democracy to equality to separation of church and state are the very ideas responsible for the collapse of our civilization. Today, we're going to dismantle five of these dangerous liberal lies that almost every conservative, probably including yourself, believes. So make sure you stick around to the very end, because each lie we're debunking gets exponentially more taboo and more dangerous until we reach lie number one, which may make you rethink your entire political worldview. You're listening to the conservative rebel. Almost everyone agrees that liberty is a sacred American dogma, which is why it's so alarming that almost everyone, including conservatives, has a radical liberal view of liberty that inevitably leads to moral chaos and societal collapse. Most people think liberty means I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want, for however long as I want, and no one can stop me unless I start punching people. We've all seen tons of people, even those who are appalled at the wickedness in our culture, throw up their hands in the air and say, Well, this is America. They should have the freedom to do that. They should have the freedom to do drugs and parade their depravity in front of children, and pretend they're married as two men and kill their own baby in the womb. They should have the freedom to transform my culture and my country, the country my children will have to grow up in, into a godless cesspool of unparalleled moral degeneracy. But that isn't freedom, and that isn't liberty. In fact, that's the opposite of liberty. Doing whatever you want isn't true freedom, it's the tyranny of license. License is the absence of restraint. License is the emancipation of mankind from all his moral obligations and from all accountability to anyone other than himself. License means you get to live in your own little bubble of egomania and self-worship, pursuing whatever fleeting animal pleasure or perverse desire happens to be dangled in front of you like a carrot in front of a donkey. But liberty, as the great British statesman Lord Acton said, is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought. Liberty can't exist without some form of restraint. It's not a value-neutral condition. It has to be ordered toward the good. It is not an end, it is a means to an end. And just as the government has a moral obligation to protect the lives and property rights of its citizens in order for a free society to exist, it also has an obligation to defend religion and morality. It has to order our valueless anarchic license toward the good. As the great conservative Edmund Burke argued in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, liberty must be limited in order to be possessed. It's only when our license is limited that it can become true liberty. Think of driving. If there were no traffic laws, no speed limits, no lanes, no right of way, what do you think would happen? Our entire road system would devolve into chaos. Tens of thousands of lives would be lost. Crashes would be constant, resulting in massive pile-ups, and you would be playing Russian roulette with your life and the lives of your family every time you drove anywhere. The liberty of having a driver's license would be gone. Removing the limits on your license didn't give you more liberty. It destroyed the liberty you had. And by the way, if you want to hear a deeper dive on the difference between liberty and license, I did a whole episode on that topic, if you want to go check that out. Lie number four. The government school system propagandized generations of Christian pupils into thinking that, under the Constitution, church and state must be separated and the government must be secular. And today, most Christians accept this without question. But if the Founding Fathers supported separation of church and state, someone must have forgotten to tell the Founding Fathers. Because it's an incontestable historical fact that our country was not founded with a secular government, with separation of church and state as its core principle. Your teacher lied to you. The United States was founded as a federation of openly and explicitly Christian governments, with established state churches funded by taxpayers, with religious qualifications for anyone who wanted to hold public office, with government enforcement of Christian morality, and even anti-blasphemy laws. Now, what does having an established state church mean? Well, that meant that in nine of the thirteen states, a specific Christian denomination was the official denomination of that state. That meant it was at least partially subsidized by taxes from the citizens of that state, and that office holders were required to have church membership in that denomination. In some states that established church was something more traditionalist and high church like Anglicanism, in others it was something like Congregationalism. But even the least strict states, like Pennsylvania, still required, at bare minimum, belief in God and the Bible's authority. And yet not one soul in the federal government breathed a word of protest about any of this. No one was marching in the streets denouncing this as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. No one took any of these states to the Supreme Court, because it wasn't a violation of the Constitution. All the First Amendment says regarding religion is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, Congress can't just decide that Anglicanism or Catholicism or Presbyterianism is the official church of America and start forcing you to tithe to it. The federal government has to let the states have their own state churches and leave the decision of which Christian denomination to join to your conscience or to the discretion of the state governments. So by the left's own standards, every state in the early republic was a Christian nationalist theocracy. That means that by the left's standards, Christian nationalism and theocracy are precisely what the founding fathers intended. So the next time a leftist throws separation of church and state at you and claims you're violating the First Amendment, remember who actually founded this country. If you're interested in exploring this topic further, check out my recent podcast on Christian nationalism. And real quick, if you're learning something, please follow the show on your podcast app and smash that download button. It helps great content like this reach more people. Now let's get back into it. Lie number three. As if that's some self-evident, inarguable fact. But it's not. In fact, it's such a bad argument that it refutes itself. Anyone who says, you can't force your morality on me, is a hypocrite. Just by saying that, he's forcing his moral belief that it's wrong to force moral beliefs on others on you. He doesn't actually think you can't impose morality on other people, he just thinks he should be the only one in the world who's allowed to do it, and people who agree with him should be the only people who are allowed to do it. So that falls apart pretty quickly. But we shouldn't just impose Christian morality in our personal lives, we should do it with the force of law. That might sound shocking and radical, but almost every single person agrees with this, they agree that we should impose morality with the force of law, whether they realize it or not. If you think any laws at all should exist, you agree with me because all laws force morality on people who disagree with that code of morality. Why is murder illegal? Think about that for a second. What gives us the right to not only indefinitely imprison but actually kill people who refuse to abide by our morality of thou shalt not murder? We all know the answer to that question. Murder is illegal because it is morally wrong. And if murderers disagree with that, if their values don't align with ours, guess what? We still get to force our morality on them and ruin their lives forever if they don't cooperate with it. And it's not just laws against murder that are like that. Laws against theft, assault, drug trafficking, they all force moral beliefs on people who vehemently and violently disagree with those moral beliefs. In short, either we can and should force morality on others, or we should abolish all laws without exception. Now, you could argue, banning murder is justified, but banning, say, gay marriage or some non-violent immorality isn't okay because murder is violent and gay marriage is not violent. But what reason do we have to draw the line at violence? Because enforcing morality beyond that is controversial? Because people will call you a bigot for it because it makes your tummy hurt? The idea that we can only outlaw one type of immorality and not another is ultimately arbitrary. The only reason violence could ever justify outlawing something is because violence is morally wrong. Either legislating morality is inherently wrong or it isn't. And if it is inherently wrong, then banning violent immorality is also inherently wrong. And once again, you've arrived at the conclusions of left-wing anarchism. Now you could say that people have a right to live the way they want if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that that right is nowhere found in the Constitution or any of our laws. Which means that leftists, as secularists, must appeal to a universally binding, all-powerful authority higher than any government, superior to any constitution, that vested them with specific, objective, discernible rights, in other words, God. They have to argue that God gave them the inalienable moral right to live a life of moral degeneracy God explicitly condemns. In short, all the arguments fall apart. It's either fine to enforce controversial moral beliefs on other people against their will, or we should abolish all laws and all government and run the whole country like an inner city hellhole. Those are the only logical options. Moral beliefs will be legislated. The right just has to decide whether it will be our moral code or the left's moral code. Lie number two. Democracy is the best form of government. To fully debunk the lie of democracy, we need to begin by clearing a few things up, starting with the nature of government. A government or a state is an organization with a monopoly on the use of force over its territory. All non-state organizations, private businesses, private charities, etc., have to convince you to voluntarily do what they want, to buy their products, to donate to them, to cooperate with them. The state just says, do everything we tell you to do, or we'll send people with guns to your door to throw you in a cage or kill you. If you think I'm exaggerating, try not paying your taxes. Sooner or later, the people with guns will come after you. That's just the nature of government, but unfortunately it's inevitable. If one state gives up its monopoly on force, criminal gangs or warlords will gladly take that monopoly on force within the territory that the original state decides to stop enforcing its laws. So democracy can't be the best form of government because there is no best form of government. They're all based on violence, they're all fundamentally coercive, they're all evil products of man's fallen nature, even if they are all inevitable facts of life. So the state doesn't by nature protect our rights or protect the good, but it can be restrained and ordered toward those ends. You can chain down the Leviathan, but you can't kill it. For this reason, democracy, like any form of government, is evil and unjust, but good insofar as it chains down the monster and orders its power towards the good. And now that we understand the very limited sense in which any form of government can be good, let's attack democracy specifically. The case against democracy is threefold. It's bad in theory, worse in practice, and inferior to alternative systems. Let's start with the theory. According to the cartoon version of politics you were taught in school, democracy is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. But there's one small problem. The word people is never defined. It's nothing more than a useless abstraction that's used because it sounds nobler than the majority or the mob, which is the real truth of the situation. Democracy, pure and simple, is the idea that the majority of people deserve to get whatever they want, whenever they want it, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with them. Dissidents will be flattened by the bulldozer of government force. Their rights and liberties are forfeit. If the mob wants it, the mob gets it. This is a fundamentally lawless and nihilistic system of might makes right. Democracy can be refuted with four simple words. Sometimes people are wrong. I'll repeat that because it's important to remember. Sometimes people are wrong. In fact, 90% of people in Germany were wrong in 1934, when they democratically voted to give Adolf Hitler absolute power. So unless you actually believe that the government has a moral obligation to commit moral evils in any case when the majority of voters demand it, unless you think Hitler's regime was legitimate, you're forced to admit that democracy is fundamentally flawed and should be strictly limited. Because the idea that any group of people ever have a moral duty to do something morally wrong is contradictory, it makes zero sense at all, but that's the idea that is central to democracy. Moving on to our second point, democracy is even worse in practice. The age of democracy hasn't been an age of liberty and enlightenment, sorry. It has produced the largest, most centralized, and most intrusive states in history, with tyrannical powers that the most ambitious kings couldn't even have imagined. The most obvious example is taxes. Americans have gone from paying 1% of our income in random, dumb taxes under King George, to literally spending half our adult lives working as tax slaves. That's true, and it's only getting worse. But we could spend all day on examples like this. The point is that democratic regimes tax more, regulate more, and interfere more in the daily lives of their people than any medieval monarchy ever did. These modern democratic regimes we live in have unprecedented power, stemming from mass surveillance, digital censorship, tyrannical intelligence agencies, centralized banks, fiat currencies, modern militaries, and I could go on and on. Our current government in America, the alleged land of the free, is by all accounts the most powerful state in the history of the world. It exceeds the Roman and British Empire. In power and authority. And once you add to this equation, once you add to the results of democracy, the unprecedented moral degeneracy that dominates modern democratic states, a very clear picture emerges. By every metric, modern centralized democracy has been far worse for liberty than the villainized European monarchies were. Alternative systems like constitutional monarchies, aristocracies, and even just restricted and decentralized popular governments like our country, America, originally was, just 6% of people could vote in the first election, in case you didn't know that. Those alternatives are far superior to democracy, and it's not even close. Though imperfect, they keep government far more limited, far more moral, and far more bound by religion, tradition, and all those types of things. Ironically, they produce better outcomes for the majority of people than democracy's unlimited majority rule ever could. And if you want to learn more about this, see episodes 7 and 20 of this podcast, where we dive deeper into voting rights and the fatal flaws of democracy. Lie number one. The assumption of equality is what underlies all the other lies we discussed. The idea that all lifestyles, all beliefs, all religions should be treated equally, is the basis of the first three lies we debunked. The idea that everyone should have equal privileges, equal authority, and equal say in how the country is run, is the basis of democracy, even if it doesn't produce that result in practice. And equality isn't just the foundation of those four lies, it's the foundation of the liberal ideology that destroyed the West. To most, questioning it is a little short of political heresy. But this show isn't called the Conservative Rebel for Nothing. We like to question orthodoxies on this show, so let's get into it. Let's start by defining equality. The word equal means the same. 1 plus 1 equals 2 because 1 plus 1 is the same quantity as 2. So to determine whether everyone is equal, we need to ask ourselves a very simple question. Is everyone the same? The answer is obvious. Not only is everyone not the same, everyone is wildly different in almost every conceivable respect. We're not equal in wisdom, in virtue, in intelligence, in strength, in will, in worldview, in circumstances, in interests, in personality, or in nearly any other respect. The only way in which human beings are equal is in terms of moral worth. We were all created as image-bearers of God, and when we die, we will all face impartial judgment as individual people for the things we did as individuals in this life. It's only in that very specific moral sense that we're all equal, or the same. In every other respect, the differences between people is vast. As Edmund Burke said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, seek and recognize that happiness that is to be found by virtue in all conditions, in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction, which by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality, which it never can remove. As the great conservative Joseph de Maestri said along that note, inequality is the law of nature. This is the classical conservative position. Inequality is just a reality, whether we're comfortable with it or not. And a sane society, instead of ignoring realities that might hurt some people's feelings, will work in the context of reality because disaster happens when you work in rebellion against reality. A sane society identifies the differences that do exist between individuals and acts accordingly. As Alexander Hamilton said, it is vain to expect that men will be equal in their talents, their virtues, or their possessions. Political systems must recognize the natural distinctions among men if order is to prevail. Just because you have the same moral worth as someone else does not mean you are entitled to the same privileges and authority as everyone else. Just because two siblings with a vast age gap between them are morally equal as human beings, does not mean that those two siblings should be given equal privileges. The older child's parents will give him more independence, they'll let him take walks by himself, stay up later, watch movies his younger sibling can't, and things like that. Is this an injustice that screams to high heaven for vengeance? Of course not. Though the siblings are morally equal, they are distinct in a very important way, namely age and maturity. The parents, the authority figures, recognize that distinction and act on it by discriminating, or in other words, differentiating, between their two children. Burke said, quote, All government, indeed every human institution, must be founded upon discernment of differences. To level men to the same plane is to destroy distinction, honor, and the very moral fabric of society. Our founders knew this, which is why they only let the most mature, competent, virtuous, self-sufficient six percent of the population, aged 21 or above, the so-called natural aristocracy of talent and virtue, to have the privilege of voting. They didn't just let anyone who happened to be above the age of 18 vote like we do, with catastrophic results today. All conservatives recognize that the modern leftist idea of state-enforced equality, or cultural and economic communism, is dangerous and totalitarian. You'll often hear conservatives say that we want equality, not equity. But as the great conservatives who came before us knew, equality isn't the answer. The way to fight communism isn't with the liberalism that created it. The solution to 1984 isn't 1789. You can't defend America by promoting the ideology that led to its downfall. You can't defend the West by defending the ideas that destroyed it. Which is why every conservative should reject the lie of equality, along with all the other lies we went through today. Thanks for listening to today's episode of The Conservative Rebel. If you enjoyed it, if you learned something, please hit that follow button, hit that download button, and share it with anyone else you think might like it. I'll see you next time.
