According to Hoyt

She has the neatest blog - politics, culture, and, of course, fantasy and sci-fy (she is an author, having been published both IRL by Baen and in digital form).

One of the best things is the way she analyzes America from the standpoint of an outsider, which she was, initially.  Sarah was born and raised in Portugal, and retains the ability to see us at a distance.

"The Long March" is 2 days old, but worth the time reading it.

Probably  the most crucial part?

There is strife.  Strife means the old blood and the new don’t agree.  Another way to look at it is renewal.

Problem is advocates of liberty are about as good at coordinated action as a bunch of cats

It's true, the Left outflanks us at unified action.  Gone are the days when Democrats proudly proclaimed, "I'm not a member of a political organization - we're not organized at all".

Mao and his ilk would be bursting his jacket-buttons at the way modern American Leftists have managed to corral ordinary American citizens into lockstep.  They've done it by the time-honored manner used by so many Leftists - enforcement of cultural norms and social shaming, pressure on their peers to banishment the non-conformers, and threats - threatened and actual - against employment.

Who could have predicted that the Woodstock Generation would turn to methods they ridiculed when they were the outsiders?

A Blog You REALLY Have to Put on Your Daily List

I've long been a fan of Francis W. Porretto's writing, both his blogs and his fiction.  Please, consider adding his blog to your list of frequently checked sites.

How to work with Liberals/Leftists?  He has some good advice:

Compromise is potentially constructive only when it's strictly about means: i.e., when the two sides angling toward a compromise sincerely agree on the end to be sought, and are both willing to allow that they might be wrong about what means would best serve that end. Under those conditions, everyone involved will be watching the outcome and judging the means applied by that standard alone. When the ends are opposed to one another,compromise must disserve one or the other. It cannot be any other way.

If your end is political liberty -- the maximum possible freedom from coercion or constraint for peaceable persons -- there's absolutely no reason to "dialogue" with persons whose end is an expansion of State power. Compromising with statists means promoting their end, which is the exact opposite of your end. Yet many a freedom-minded person will feel a tug toward such a "dialogue," and the ideal of compromise, despite the clarity of the above. This is the Nice-Guy Trap in action.

We're indoctrinated practically from birth about the goodness of "sharing," and how Nice Guys should "try to see both sides" -- of everything. Nice Guys mustn't declare others to be The Enemy even when The Enemy has already done so in the plainest possible ways. That's because confrontation is bad, don't y'know. At any rate, it's unpleasant, which in modern "thought" amounts to the same thing.

Hidden beneath the Nice-Guy Trap is a pair of steel jaws that can snap any principle cleanly in half. This is so obvious as to be tautological: He who compromises on principle has surrendered it to some other end.

There's more, and I suggest you read it.