The PC mindset is not a conservativization. It is a consequence of the abolishment of traditional categories brought about by the 60s and 70s. Once you decide the known categorizations are wrong for being oppressive and conceived from a single point of view, you know longer have anchors.

The PC mindset does come off like a strange reverse-conservativization (is that a word?) because it takes conservative social attitudes traditionally aimed and minorities and simply hurls them at groups considered to disproportionately make up the ruling class.

The relationship between war and ideology is more complicated. With the specific exception of fascist states, it is unclear that right or left wing regimes are more peaceful or warlike. This question has bothered social thinkers since the times of Classical era Greece and China. And we are no closer to a resolution now than before.

There are specific economic matters that govern the perceived need for war. War serves several other purposes for ruling classes too, one of which is to rationalize slashing civil rights. This is why libertarians do not approve of pre-emptive wars, or war for any reason other than necessary self-defense.

De-regulation would be letting the banks fail.

Which is why the U.S. doesn't have full de-regulation yet. The state steps in and saves them. But those who favor de-regulation never consider that, as they believe the free market can handle pretty much anything without the need for a state apparatus.

Bailouts are welfare for millionaires, not de-regulation.

Yet those who favor de-regulation believe that it "frees" businesses to expand and practice their thing unhampered by the state, and that welfare of any kind is never needed. I never said that those who favor de-regulation actually consider all of the consequences; they simply say, "the free market will take care of that" and leave it there.

College debt grew both because the government acts as insurer to the colleges, essentially removing any incentive to contain their fees to make them payable; and because graduates (and their parents!) are banned from bankrupting on that debt, removing that one incentive to keep loans payable too. In both cases, that is not de-regulation, again, but welfare for college administrators. (Not even researchers and professors, much less students)

That is true, but this is what happens when government serves the interests of the big businesses and the banks rather than the common person. Those who favor de-regulation constantly refer to government (or, more specifically, "big government") as the enemy of business. They never seem to address the degree of welfare and other benefits given to the businesses by the state.

Conservatives capitulated to Wilson on the income tax (http://image.patriotpost.us/2013-04-18-alexander-3.jpg) and central banking, to FDR on gold confiscation, to RINO Nixon on the final de-linking from gold... that is a lot!

And you made my point by making it clear that these capitulations were all pre-Reagan/Thatcher, when FDR's policies were still respected.

And now there is a generalized capitulation to the imperialists in order to ban sharia banking, because of how Islamic banks cannot charge interest or use partial reserve (which makes them more resilient to all financial crises and shocks and more adequate to loan to the middle and lower class) Again that is a lot!

Imperialism is a largely business-friendly mindset, and though this is often referred to as "neo-liberalism," the "neo" prefix makes it clear that this is antithetical to traditional liberal principles. The same with policies such as NAFTA and the new Pacific Trade Agreement.

As for youth rights, I trust the main thrust will come from the Peaceful Parenting movement.

That's interesting.

And they have a lot of anarcho-capitalists in there.

I appreciate the fact that I can work with anarcho-capitalists on youth rights. Same with the anarchists, who have traditionally supported it too. I will confess that Marxists have pretty much never advocated for youth lib, but they don't attack it either, and I believe the system is inherently youth rights-friendly due to its lack of an apparatus to enforce arbitrary forms of inequality.