Members of an ultra-liberal, ultra-secretive digital gathering – a group recently outed in the media – have offered up some curious views on an issue we’ve discussed from time to time on this website.

We’re referring to the right of secession – an exceedingly delicate topic our founding editor addressed not long ago in this post.

Conventional wisdom dictates the federal government would never allow a state to secede – especially not a southern state.  After all, such self-determinative thinking goes against the liberal modus operandi  of keeping citizens poor, dumb, dependent and subservient.

Everything the federal government’s policies have wrought, in other words …

Apparently we were wrong, though.  It seems there is considerable appetite within the liberal community to let states – especially southern ones – “go their own way” (to borrow a Lindsey Buckingham lyric).  In fact this concept was given extensive treatment by the members of “Gamechanger Salon,” the high-brow, far left online collective of liberal luminaries that was exposed a few weeks ago by the website Media Trackers .

The secession discussion began when a member of “Gamechanger Salon” posted an October 2013 piece entitled “The South is Holding America Hostage.”  Written by “progressive” author Michael Lind, the article argued that members of the Southern elite were conspiring “to prevent the Southern victims of … local economic policies from teaming up with allies in other parts of the U.S. to impose federal-level reforms on the Southern states.”

Really? Not in South Carolina … 

Anyway, Lind suggested his fellow “progressives” adopt a game plan to counter this effort – which the individual who posted his article on “Gamechanger Salon” was clearly hoping to do.

“I thought this was an impressive (if tough) piece of big-picture political strategy and prescription,” the individual noted in posting Lind’s article to the liberal groupthink’s private web exchange.

He didn’t get the response he expected, we’re guessing.

“In the alternative, could we just let the South secede?” asked Guy Saperstein, a California Democratic mega-donor who was among the first to respond to the article.

“My comment was not made in jest at all,” Saperstein added. “For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states. It would be 100 percent fine with me if the South was a separate nation, pursuing its own priorities and destiny. And if people like you succeed in blunting the conservatism of the South, more power to you.”

Whoa …

Saperstein added in a follow-up interview that secession would not pose problems for blacks because it “would be a gradual process, giving any blacks who felt threatened time to relocate.”

He further opined that civil rights gains of the last fifty years “would not be lost for any blacks willing to relocate and the ones who relocated would do much better in their new environments.”

Hold up … really?

Who said anything about those of us discussing secession in 2014 being racists?

Sure slavery was the impetus of secession 150 years ago, but as we noted in our recent treatment of the issue any contemplation of a new government “must be based on a declaration of universal human rights,” one in which the government that displaces federal authority vows to “make no law discriminating against citizens on the basis of gender, race, creed, color or sexual orientation.”

That’s pretty “progressive” if you ask us …

Still, follow-up commenters on the story ripped southerners as “Neo-conservatives,” once again implying that anyone who opposes the federal government must naturally be racist.

Sheesh … here we go again.

Here’s the thing about secession: No one is seriously considering it … yet.  But if the far left is willing to let southern states give it a go, who are we to stop them?