0 comment Saturday, November 29, 2014 | admin
Arlen Williams warns about transnationalists in 'conservative' clothing, as exemplified by Grover Norquist.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnoconservatism, Faux Conservatism, Globalism
0 comment Wednesday, September 24, 2014 | admin
I feel compelled to address a few of the canards and talking points that the 'colorblind conservatives' return to time and again. One that is frequently heard is that ''Democrat social programs cause all the black social problems. If it weren't for the Democrats/liberals, there would not be so much black crime or illegitimacy.'' Sometimes people elaborate on this one, and claim that black illegitimacy rates were negligible before the social programs of the 60s and onward were introduced. AFDC supposedly caused the number of unmarried mothers to skyrocket, and of course it's implied that were it not for the welfare checks, blacks would be chaste until marriage and monogamous within marriage.
Is there any evidence of that claim? One of the public figures who is most associated with the problem of social pathologies in the ''African-American community'' is Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Although he was a Democrat, he warned of the dangers of family disintegration among blacks. He said:
"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
He was quoted here on the subject:
Mr. Moynihan speaks with passion about a poverty that is inextricably tied to "a volcanic change in family structure, for which there is no comparable experience in human history."
The 'respectable Republicans' say that the volcanic change, which led to a rise in illegitimacy and other social problems, was directly caused by Democrat/liberal bleeding-heart policies, like AFDC and other social programs. However, that is simplistic. The changes were already under way before the growth of the welfare state in the 60s and later. Much of the change resulted from earlier upheavals, first, emancipation, and then the uprooting of large numbers of rural blacks who went to large cities, many in the North, to find jobs. Disconnected from family and familiar surroundings, it was easy for many blacks (and poor Whites, for that matter) to break free of old social constraints and conventional morality.
It must be remembered, too, that many of these rural blacks did not hew as closely to conventional morality as did Whites. Illegitimacy rates and marital breakup rates were always higher than those of Whites.
Morality in general began to become more lax, especially during the years of World War II; this frequently happens because of the disruption caused by war, and the greater mobility and social disarray that accompanies it. Whites, too, had higher rates of social problems in the post-war years, though black problems were significantly more common.
This AmRen article from 1991 points this out.
''Black illegitimacy rates have always caught the attention of observers, even when they were forbidden to draw conclusions from them. As far back as 1944, when Gunnar Myrdal wrote An American Dilemma, he was worried about a 16 percent illegitimacy rate among southern blacks, which was then eight times the white rate. Today, nearly two thirds of all black children are born to single mothers (the figure for whites has risen to 15 percent), and if there is a single statistic that sums up the plight of American blacks today, this is it.''
But is that directly attributable to liberalism, as the 'respectable Republicans' insist? To claim such a thing is to deny that blacks bear any responsibility for their actions, or that they are free moral agents, not puppets of a political party -- or of White people in general, as many of the shriller PC Republicans imply.
Black people are not an inert mass who can be led this way and that by others. Yes, they vote consistently Democrat, because Democrats and their big-mommy government offer better pickings than the Republicans, and because the Democrats anti-White rhetoric and policies appeal to blacks and other minorities. To say that blacks are 'slaves on the Democrat plantation' is silliness. If they are being exploited, which is possible, given the corrupt political system we have, they are also doing some exploiting of their own. The Democrats deliver privileges to nonwhites -- as do the Republicans, but the Democrats go all out, and top Republican pandering every time.
Common sense would support the idea that subsidizing anything produces more of it, so that the easy social welfare benefits would provide an incentive for more single motherhood. This bears on the situation with illegal (and legal) immigrants, too. Subsidizing their irresponsible or illegal actions encourages such actions.
The rest of the talking points being disseminated by the PC Republicans involves a distorted picture of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction era. Their simple-minded scenario depicts Southron Whites as being cartoon villains out of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and makes slavery the sole cause of the rift between North and South. This is a caricature of history, and I cannot refute it in detail here; it would require a book. Unfortunately most Northerners and sadly, many Southron people too, have been weaned on such a caricatured, distorted view of the North-South conflict, and so the PC ''conservatives'' find a ready and gullible audience willing to accept their childish and oversimplified account.
The gullible Republican audience believes that the Democrats represented ''racism'' while the noble and selfless Republicans of the War era and afterward were the friends of blacks and heroic supporters of ''equality'' and freedom. So, believing this, they believe that the only reason the old ''solid South'' voted Democrat for so many years is that White Southerners were evil ''racists''. They show no sign of ever having heard of how Radical Republicans ran rampant in the South during Reconstruction, and how these extremists stripped White Southerners of their civil rights and liberties. They know nothing about the depredations against the White Southron population that took place during Reconstruction. And how can they know, since most schools and history books present a politically corrected account of what happened then, of the excesses and outrages of Reconstruction, of which Republicans were the architects, turned White Southerners against the Republican Party for a century or so. This is why some of my older relatives to this day will not vote Republican.
Actually, the Republican Party has been making the claim that the Democrats want to 're-enslave black people' ever since emancipation and the Reconstruction era, as the above document put out by the Union Republican Congressional committee shows. (Click to enlarge the document)
So now there are two parties, made up mostly of White people, each claiming that the other group of Whites consists of a lot of vile racists who want to ''keep blacks down.'' According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the racists, and according to the Republicans, who want to live down their reputation as being a White man's party, the Democrats are ''the real racists''. So we've got twice as many White people affirming that other White people are hateful racists trying to keep the black man down.
What message does this put out? How does this help the country? It does not; it further cements the minorities' stereotype of Whites as bigots and hypocrites. It hampers relations between the races.
However, that last sentence does not indicate that I am one of those colorblind conservatives who thinks that the races would all get along famously if only ''those other racist White guys'' stopped stirring up hate and division. For Democrats to believe such utopian foolishness is predictable; they are not known for being honest or realistic. But for ''conservatives'', who used to pride themselves on common sense and groundedness to believe this is unforgivable. The Republicans are again proving to be the Stupid Party.
As I type this, I can just hear those objecting that ''but the Democrats are far worse; the Republicans at least have some good candidates!" Yes, I agree to some extent. I plan to vote next week, though my faith in the system is weakening by the day, but I will not have an easy time choosing between the evils.
If the Republican Party is to be salvaged -- and that is a huge ''if'', there will need to be a resurgence of common sense and a repudiation of the childish game-playing and name-calling, and above all, a jettisoning of political correctness and pandering. I know; that's a forlorn hope. But PC and all its attendant lies will have to go; the issues that are at the heart of it are the very issues that will be the death of us if we do not deal with them head-on, minus all the finger-pointing and blame-shifting and name-calling, minus the intra-racial hate and divisiveness.
A rejection of liberalism in its Republican guise is one of the most urgent needs if things are ever to turn around.
Is there any evidence of that claim? One of the public figures who is most associated with the problem of social pathologies in the ''African-American community'' is Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Although he was a Democrat, he warned of the dangers of family disintegration among blacks. He said:
"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
He was quoted here on the subject:
Mr. Moynihan speaks with passion about a poverty that is inextricably tied to "a volcanic change in family structure, for which there is no comparable experience in human history."
The 'respectable Republicans' say that the volcanic change, which led to a rise in illegitimacy and other social problems, was directly caused by Democrat/liberal bleeding-heart policies, like AFDC and other social programs. However, that is simplistic. The changes were already under way before the growth of the welfare state in the 60s and later. Much of the change resulted from earlier upheavals, first, emancipation, and then the uprooting of large numbers of rural blacks who went to large cities, many in the North, to find jobs. Disconnected from family and familiar surroundings, it was easy for many blacks (and poor Whites, for that matter) to break free of old social constraints and conventional morality.
It must be remembered, too, that many of these rural blacks did not hew as closely to conventional morality as did Whites. Illegitimacy rates and marital breakup rates were always higher than those of Whites.
Morality in general began to become more lax, especially during the years of World War II; this frequently happens because of the disruption caused by war, and the greater mobility and social disarray that accompanies it. Whites, too, had higher rates of social problems in the post-war years, though black problems were significantly more common.
This AmRen article from 1991 points this out.
''Black illegitimacy rates have always caught the attention of observers, even when they were forbidden to draw conclusions from them. As far back as 1944, when Gunnar Myrdal wrote An American Dilemma, he was worried about a 16 percent illegitimacy rate among southern blacks, which was then eight times the white rate. Today, nearly two thirds of all black children are born to single mothers (the figure for whites has risen to 15 percent), and if there is a single statistic that sums up the plight of American blacks today, this is it.''
But is that directly attributable to liberalism, as the 'respectable Republicans' insist? To claim such a thing is to deny that blacks bear any responsibility for their actions, or that they are free moral agents, not puppets of a political party -- or of White people in general, as many of the shriller PC Republicans imply.
Black people are not an inert mass who can be led this way and that by others. Yes, they vote consistently Democrat, because Democrats and their big-mommy government offer better pickings than the Republicans, and because the Democrats anti-White rhetoric and policies appeal to blacks and other minorities. To say that blacks are 'slaves on the Democrat plantation' is silliness. If they are being exploited, which is possible, given the corrupt political system we have, they are also doing some exploiting of their own. The Democrats deliver privileges to nonwhites -- as do the Republicans, but the Democrats go all out, and top Republican pandering every time.
Common sense would support the idea that subsidizing anything produces more of it, so that the easy social welfare benefits would provide an incentive for more single motherhood. This bears on the situation with illegal (and legal) immigrants, too. Subsidizing their irresponsible or illegal actions encourages such actions.
The rest of the talking points being disseminated by the PC Republicans involves a distorted picture of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction era. Their simple-minded scenario depicts Southron Whites as being cartoon villains out of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and makes slavery the sole cause of the rift between North and South. This is a caricature of history, and I cannot refute it in detail here; it would require a book. Unfortunately most Northerners and sadly, many Southron people too, have been weaned on such a caricatured, distorted view of the North-South conflict, and so the PC ''conservatives'' find a ready and gullible audience willing to accept their childish and oversimplified account.
The gullible Republican audience believes that the Democrats represented ''racism'' while the noble and selfless Republicans of the War era and afterward were the friends of blacks and heroic supporters of ''equality'' and freedom. So, believing this, they believe that the only reason the old ''solid South'' voted Democrat for so many years is that White Southerners were evil ''racists''. They show no sign of ever having heard of how Radical Republicans ran rampant in the South during Reconstruction, and how these extremists stripped White Southerners of their civil rights and liberties. They know nothing about the depredations against the White Southron population that took place during Reconstruction. And how can they know, since most schools and history books present a politically corrected account of what happened then, of the excesses and outrages of Reconstruction, of which Republicans were the architects, turned White Southerners against the Republican Party for a century or so. This is why some of my older relatives to this day will not vote Republican.
Actually, the Republican Party has been making the claim that the Democrats want to 're-enslave black people' ever since emancipation and the Reconstruction era, as the above document put out by the Union Republican Congressional committee shows. (Click to enlarge the document)
So now there are two parties, made up mostly of White people, each claiming that the other group of Whites consists of a lot of vile racists who want to ''keep blacks down.'' According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the racists, and according to the Republicans, who want to live down their reputation as being a White man's party, the Democrats are ''the real racists''. So we've got twice as many White people affirming that other White people are hateful racists trying to keep the black man down.
What message does this put out? How does this help the country? It does not; it further cements the minorities' stereotype of Whites as bigots and hypocrites. It hampers relations between the races.
However, that last sentence does not indicate that I am one of those colorblind conservatives who thinks that the races would all get along famously if only ''those other racist White guys'' stopped stirring up hate and division. For Democrats to believe such utopian foolishness is predictable; they are not known for being honest or realistic. But for ''conservatives'', who used to pride themselves on common sense and groundedness to believe this is unforgivable. The Republicans are again proving to be the Stupid Party.
As I type this, I can just hear those objecting that ''but the Democrats are far worse; the Republicans at least have some good candidates!" Yes, I agree to some extent. I plan to vote next week, though my faith in the system is weakening by the day, but I will not have an easy time choosing between the evils.
If the Republican Party is to be salvaged -- and that is a huge ''if'', there will need to be a resurgence of common sense and a repudiation of the childish game-playing and name-calling, and above all, a jettisoning of political correctness and pandering. I know; that's a forlorn hope. But PC and all its attendant lies will have to go; the issues that are at the heart of it are the very issues that will be the death of us if we do not deal with them head-on, minus all the finger-pointing and blame-shifting and name-calling, minus the intra-racial hate and divisiveness.
A rejection of liberalism in its Republican guise is one of the most urgent needs if things are ever to turn around.
Labels: American History, Creeping Liberalism, Cultural Marxism, Divisiveness, Faux Conservatism, North Vs South, Pandering, Political Correctness, Societal Decay
0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
I expect most of you have read Steve Sailer's latest essay at VDare.
It fits very much with the theme we've been discussing here on this blog: the growing intolerance on the right toward anyone who transgresses the holy laws of political correctness.
Sailer notes with considerable disgust that virtually nobody on the 'respectable' right, such as the NRO crowd (with the exception of John Derbyshire) or the army of 'conservative' bloggers at Townhall wrote a word about the recent Watson controversy, despite its considerable import. After all, it is not just a political issue; although the assault on free speech should concern all good Americans, but the Watson story has implications for scientific inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Surely someone should care about that, even if they are not concerned about the political ramifications of the public humiliation of Watson.
Sailer sees in this situation a reflection of the lack of courage and integrity among those on the Right.
The level of intellectual integrity on the Right�let alone courage�is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.
In it, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's bestseller was attacked by some, but also stoutly defended by Michael Barone, Michael Novak, James Q. Wilson, Dan Seligman, Arthur Jensen, and Ernest Van den Haag.
Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O�Sullivan, for that matter).''
In a recent entry on political correctness among conservatives I used the phrase 'the righteous right,' and wondered who had coined that term. Apparently it was Sailer, in the context of the Trent Lott debacle of a few years ago. At that time, I became extremely disillusioned with many in the Republican Party, not only the leadership but many average party members, as they all, as one, attacked Trent Lott and called for his head over his relatively innocuous remarks to Strom Thurmond. At that time, it was evident that political correctness was as much of a religion to many on the right as it is on the left. I found the whole Lott 'scandal' to be dismaying.
So yes, the 'righteous right' has embraced a peculiarly leftist form of 'righteousness'.
If you read the Time article linked above, you will see the liberals at Time lecturing the Republicans about their 'racist' ways, and the Republican response was to scurry to deny their 'racism.' The politically correct instinct in Republicans seems to be a conditioned response to any liberal accusations of bigotry, and the 'conservatives' who respond by conforming to the liberal rules can't seem to see that their eager compliance makes them appear to be deferring to the liberals, acknowledging that the accusations of bigotry are really true.
Sailer advises against apologizing for gaffes, as Lott did to little avail, and as Watson did:
Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i.e., the telling of an unpopular truth).
When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.
In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.
Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.''
Sailer rightly admonishes that those who are hauled up before the PC kangaroo courts stand their ground. Yet there are few who seem able or willing to do this. I agree with Sailer that those among the 'righteous right' are buckling to the left, and failing to defend their own. We are allowing not only our 'side', but truth itself to be routed.
And in the context of the discussion we've been having here about the politically correct neocons, it seems that they have decided to follow the old saying, 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' So now the PC neocon 'right' have taken to acting as part of the PC inquisition on their own, so as to pre-emptively ward off the accusations of the left. It seems they have so internalized the left's PC moralizing that they have themselves begun behaving like the left.
The consequences of this abdication by the 'right' are serious. The truth will be more marginalized and silenced than ever if those on the right, who are supposedly the upholders of the idea of truth and free speech in a morally relativistic, post-modern world, have given up and surrendered.
It fits very much with the theme we've been discussing here on this blog: the growing intolerance on the right toward anyone who transgresses the holy laws of political correctness.
Sailer notes with considerable disgust that virtually nobody on the 'respectable' right, such as the NRO crowd (with the exception of John Derbyshire) or the army of 'conservative' bloggers at Townhall wrote a word about the recent Watson controversy, despite its considerable import. After all, it is not just a political issue; although the assault on free speech should concern all good Americans, but the Watson story has implications for scientific inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Surely someone should care about that, even if they are not concerned about the political ramifications of the public humiliation of Watson.
Sailer sees in this situation a reflection of the lack of courage and integrity among those on the Right.
The level of intellectual integrity on the Right�let alone courage�is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.
In it, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's bestseller was attacked by some, but also stoutly defended by Michael Barone, Michael Novak, James Q. Wilson, Dan Seligman, Arthur Jensen, and Ernest Van den Haag.
Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O�Sullivan, for that matter).''
In a recent entry on political correctness among conservatives I used the phrase 'the righteous right,' and wondered who had coined that term. Apparently it was Sailer, in the context of the Trent Lott debacle of a few years ago. At that time, I became extremely disillusioned with many in the Republican Party, not only the leadership but many average party members, as they all, as one, attacked Trent Lott and called for his head over his relatively innocuous remarks to Strom Thurmond. At that time, it was evident that political correctness was as much of a religion to many on the right as it is on the left. I found the whole Lott 'scandal' to be dismaying.
So yes, the 'righteous right' has embraced a peculiarly leftist form of 'righteousness'.
If you read the Time article linked above, you will see the liberals at Time lecturing the Republicans about their 'racist' ways, and the Republican response was to scurry to deny their 'racism.' The politically correct instinct in Republicans seems to be a conditioned response to any liberal accusations of bigotry, and the 'conservatives' who respond by conforming to the liberal rules can't seem to see that their eager compliance makes them appear to be deferring to the liberals, acknowledging that the accusations of bigotry are really true.
Sailer advises against apologizing for gaffes, as Lott did to little avail, and as Watson did:
Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i.e., the telling of an unpopular truth).
When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.
In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.
Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.''
Sailer rightly admonishes that those who are hauled up before the PC kangaroo courts stand their ground. Yet there are few who seem able or willing to do this. I agree with Sailer that those among the 'righteous right' are buckling to the left, and failing to defend their own. We are allowing not only our 'side', but truth itself to be routed.
And in the context of the discussion we've been having here about the politically correct neocons, it seems that they have decided to follow the old saying, 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' So now the PC neocon 'right' have taken to acting as part of the PC inquisition on their own, so as to pre-emptively ward off the accusations of the left. It seems they have so internalized the left's PC moralizing that they have themselves begun behaving like the left.
The consequences of this abdication by the 'right' are serious. The truth will be more marginalized and silenced than ever if those on the right, who are supposedly the upholders of the idea of truth and free speech in a morally relativistic, post-modern world, have given up and surrendered.
Labels: Censorship, Faux Conservatism, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness, Republicans
0 comment Thursday, September 11, 2014 | admin
Check out this discussion from American Thinker.
The subject is, of all things, the John Birch Society.
From the AT article:
''The Birchers were repudiated by the American center-right soon after they appeared -- most famously by William F. Buckley, who read them out of the movement with comments about their "paranoid and idiotic" behavior. Even Ayn Rand, no friend of Buckley or other conservative leaders, was dismissive of the Birchers: "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for Capitalism but merely against Communism."
But repudiation didn't work. Throughout the '60s, American liberals succeeded in connecting Birchers with the center-right, convincing the public at large that everybody from Buckley on down was a nascent Jack Ripper, crazy as a rat in a can, and ready to go off at a touch. Their crowning victory was the trashing of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. After the organization endorsed Goldwater, the media ran with it, depicting the senator as a demented extremist even though he was not a Birch Society member, had no contact with them, and disagreed with them in detail. The "Bircher" accusation went on to serve the left well for nearly twenty years.''
I am not sure why Mr. Dunn is in such high dudgeon over the JBS. From what he implies in the piece, it seems that in the comments section of a previous article, somebody had the temerity to suggest that the Birch Society was right about some things. I gather that he read this as an attempt to smear AT by association with 'far-right' extremism and general nutjobbery. Smear them with whom? The left, presumably.
Firstly, I think it's generally understood by readers of any given blog that on a blog with a degree of free speech (and few blogs have a 100 percent unmoderated comment section) there will be comments made that the blog author or owner does not necessarily agree with. I don't always agree with all comments that are left here, although in general I am blessed with a good group of commenters who write intelligent comments. However I may not agree with any or every comment I get here. If I disagree, I may or may not attempt to respond to comments made, to indicate where I stand.
This blast against the John Birch Society seems a bit of an overreaction. A few pro-JBS comments among dozens does not amount to a resurgence of John Birchery, or 'right-wing extremism' of whatever sort. And if it did, given today's insanely left-wing culture, would that be so shocking? Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
The second thing I would like to point out is that I am not very knowledgeable on the JBS, although I am considered far-right by many people. The John Birch Society was a little before my time. Being a child who read newspapers and had an interest in politics and current events ever since I could read, I was aware of JBS, because there was quite a bit of criticism of it from the mainstream media back in the early 1960s. It was the bogeyman of the 'respectables' back then. I didn't understand what the issues were. I knew that communism was bad, so it rather confused me that those who opposed communism could also be bad. I kept hearing the term ''right-wing extremist'' then. Actually it seems that as the left began to solidify its dominance of the media in the 60s, I began to hear that term 'right-wing extremist' with increasing frequency. I gathered that there were right-wing people who were supposedly akin to the Nazis and fascists -- or so said the respectable news magazines and TV panel hosts of that time. I trust them far less now than I did as a child.
Dunn uses the left-wing Stanley Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove to ridicule such organizations --- as if such cartoonish characters as Jack D. Ripper were anything but a caricature.
And to get right to the heart of the issue of the supposedly extreme anti-Communism of the JBS, can we deny that they were right in warning about Communism? Even now, our media ridicule and vilify Joe McCarthy and the 'red-baiting' anti-Communists, the so-called 'witch hunters' who sounded warnings. Perhaps their warnings were too insistent, but if you saw your country in danger would you not shout a warning? That's what motivated this blog.
It looks very much to me as though the anti-Communist warnings were valid, and that we ignored those warnings to our great harm and detriment. We would surely not be where we are today had we taken the warnings seriously and acted accordingly.
The whole Communist conspiracy thing perhaps sounded fantastic to many people, who being naive, could not believe that something could be so insidious, so far-reaching, and so relentless. How anyone today of even a slightly conservative bent, can dismiss the warnings or scoff at the idea of such an overarching plan is incomprehensible. After all, it's coming to fruition before our eyes.
The left did a superb, bang-up job of fostering in the American public a knee-jerk reaction to any talk of a conspiracy, as if conspiracies per se are impossible, and anyone who warns of them is automatically an 'extremist' or a nutjob. To be fair, the 'respectable right' does its own part in encouraging this attitude, too.
The left, meanwhile, has been quite brazen lately with their talk of one-world governance, their celebration of minority status for White people in this country, and their triumph over traditional America.
Dunn creates a straw-man here, describing the Bircher's beliefs:
'' Bircher beliefs can be summed up quite simply:
* A) That everything that occurs in public life, without exception, is caused by the communists.
* B) That everybody who is not a Bircher is a communist.
Moving on, here are some choice elements of Bircher thought: That Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent, that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, that the Vietnam War was a communist plot (I know, I know -- I don't get it either). That the Christian ecumenical movement was a communist plot, that the mental health establishment was run by communists. That free trade was a communist plot. (I'd like to hear somebody try to square that circle.) That the collapse of the Soviet empire was bogus, a ruse designed to make us let down our guard. Birchers were also opposed to every war the U.S. was involved in since the organization's founding in 1958, on the grounds that they were fought on behalf of guess who? (All they need is a few posters saying "God hates fags" and they'd be all set.)''
Points A and B are obviously caricatures of their position, especially point B. I do not know any Birchers (although some open-borders Republican accused me of being one) but I doubt they think everybody but Birchers are Communists.
The Christian ecumenical movement is certainly fostered by people with liberal political views and liberal 'Christian' theology. Some of the mainline churches have been quite open about supporting third-world revolutionary communists. This is fact, not conjecture or conspiracy theory. Gramscian communism quite openly prescribes infiltrating the churches and all other institutions. That is no fantasy. I need not spell all this out.
As far as his citing William F. Buckley's and Ayn Rand's condemnations of the JBS, I hardly consider them as authorities on things conservative. Rand was an ideologue, no conservative, and Buckley was an elitist who craved respectability among a certain social circle. Their opinions hold little weight with me.
I also don't look to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and the other talk-radio figures he cites as exemplars.
They, like respectable conservatives in general, stay within the bounds of political correctness, and their quest for respectability (and employability) is based on their not being labeled 'right-wing extremists', though they are labeled as such by the media and liberals generally.
It seems to me that the quest for acceptance by the left wing or the ''middle'' is a futile one; if you are the tiniest bit to the right of 'center' you are a right-wing crazy in our narrow-minded political society today. In fact, the much-praised ''middle'', which seems to pride itself on its moderation and lack of right-wing nuttery, is in reality moving ever-leftward as the center of political gravity is pulled in that direction by the left moving the boundaries constantly. Can anyone deny or doubt that the whole political debate has moved, drastically, to the left even in the last 10 years? The 'center' now occupies what was once extreme left-wing territory. That's how it works.
And that's how the left wants it to work.
They want Republicans to continue letting them define the terms politically, and letting them control the discourse and the language and the definitions. They want to keep the right on the defensive, constantly insecure and scrambling to prove how not-extreme they are, and how respectable, diverse, and inclusive they are. That way, the left continues to move everything towards their goal, and the respectables get towed along, willingly.
I got slammed, and lost some readers recently because I criticized Glenn Beck. I was told that I was violating Reagan's 11th commandment. Well, I only know of ten commandments. Reagan said that we should not criticize other conservatives -- and I generally don't condemn people to MY right. In the quest for appearing respectable, many will throw genuine allies overboard, people who are in agreement with the basic goals. That is unwise. We are not so many, those of us who try to defend our cause, that we can afford to turn up our noses at someone just because we think they will embarrass us or make us look bad to hostile third parties.
And if we do manage to reverse the catastrophic events that have happened over the last few years, it will likely be because of the efforts of the ones who are not afraid to step outside the bounds of political correctness.
Whose respect are the respectables courting, anyway? The left, and that of the media, all of whom are hostile to us and to all we believe in. Why seek the respect of those who oppose and loathe us?
As for the John Birch Society, those of you who don't know about them might check the facts. I know all of you can do your own research and decide for yourselves what you think of them.
The subject is, of all things, the John Birch Society.
From the AT article:
''The Birchers were repudiated by the American center-right soon after they appeared -- most famously by William F. Buckley, who read them out of the movement with comments about their "paranoid and idiotic" behavior. Even Ayn Rand, no friend of Buckley or other conservative leaders, was dismissive of the Birchers: "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for Capitalism but merely against Communism."
But repudiation didn't work. Throughout the '60s, American liberals succeeded in connecting Birchers with the center-right, convincing the public at large that everybody from Buckley on down was a nascent Jack Ripper, crazy as a rat in a can, and ready to go off at a touch. Their crowning victory was the trashing of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. After the organization endorsed Goldwater, the media ran with it, depicting the senator as a demented extremist even though he was not a Birch Society member, had no contact with them, and disagreed with them in detail. The "Bircher" accusation went on to serve the left well for nearly twenty years.''
I am not sure why Mr. Dunn is in such high dudgeon over the JBS. From what he implies in the piece, it seems that in the comments section of a previous article, somebody had the temerity to suggest that the Birch Society was right about some things. I gather that he read this as an attempt to smear AT by association with 'far-right' extremism and general nutjobbery. Smear them with whom? The left, presumably.
Firstly, I think it's generally understood by readers of any given blog that on a blog with a degree of free speech (and few blogs have a 100 percent unmoderated comment section) there will be comments made that the blog author or owner does not necessarily agree with. I don't always agree with all comments that are left here, although in general I am blessed with a good group of commenters who write intelligent comments. However I may not agree with any or every comment I get here. If I disagree, I may or may not attempt to respond to comments made, to indicate where I stand.
This blast against the John Birch Society seems a bit of an overreaction. A few pro-JBS comments among dozens does not amount to a resurgence of John Birchery, or 'right-wing extremism' of whatever sort. And if it did, given today's insanely left-wing culture, would that be so shocking? Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
The second thing I would like to point out is that I am not very knowledgeable on the JBS, although I am considered far-right by many people. The John Birch Society was a little before my time. Being a child who read newspapers and had an interest in politics and current events ever since I could read, I was aware of JBS, because there was quite a bit of criticism of it from the mainstream media back in the early 1960s. It was the bogeyman of the 'respectables' back then. I didn't understand what the issues were. I knew that communism was bad, so it rather confused me that those who opposed communism could also be bad. I kept hearing the term ''right-wing extremist'' then. Actually it seems that as the left began to solidify its dominance of the media in the 60s, I began to hear that term 'right-wing extremist' with increasing frequency. I gathered that there were right-wing people who were supposedly akin to the Nazis and fascists -- or so said the respectable news magazines and TV panel hosts of that time. I trust them far less now than I did as a child.
Dunn uses the left-wing Stanley Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove to ridicule such organizations --- as if such cartoonish characters as Jack D. Ripper were anything but a caricature.
And to get right to the heart of the issue of the supposedly extreme anti-Communism of the JBS, can we deny that they were right in warning about Communism? Even now, our media ridicule and vilify Joe McCarthy and the 'red-baiting' anti-Communists, the so-called 'witch hunters' who sounded warnings. Perhaps their warnings were too insistent, but if you saw your country in danger would you not shout a warning? That's what motivated this blog.
It looks very much to me as though the anti-Communist warnings were valid, and that we ignored those warnings to our great harm and detriment. We would surely not be where we are today had we taken the warnings seriously and acted accordingly.
The whole Communist conspiracy thing perhaps sounded fantastic to many people, who being naive, could not believe that something could be so insidious, so far-reaching, and so relentless. How anyone today of even a slightly conservative bent, can dismiss the warnings or scoff at the idea of such an overarching plan is incomprehensible. After all, it's coming to fruition before our eyes.
The left did a superb, bang-up job of fostering in the American public a knee-jerk reaction to any talk of a conspiracy, as if conspiracies per se are impossible, and anyone who warns of them is automatically an 'extremist' or a nutjob. To be fair, the 'respectable right' does its own part in encouraging this attitude, too.
The left, meanwhile, has been quite brazen lately with their talk of one-world governance, their celebration of minority status for White people in this country, and their triumph over traditional America.
Dunn creates a straw-man here, describing the Bircher's beliefs:
'' Bircher beliefs can be summed up quite simply:
* A) That everything that occurs in public life, without exception, is caused by the communists.
* B) That everybody who is not a Bircher is a communist.
Moving on, here are some choice elements of Bircher thought: That Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent, that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, that the Vietnam War was a communist plot (I know, I know -- I don't get it either). That the Christian ecumenical movement was a communist plot, that the mental health establishment was run by communists. That free trade was a communist plot. (I'd like to hear somebody try to square that circle.) That the collapse of the Soviet empire was bogus, a ruse designed to make us let down our guard. Birchers were also opposed to every war the U.S. was involved in since the organization's founding in 1958, on the grounds that they were fought on behalf of guess who? (All they need is a few posters saying "God hates fags" and they'd be all set.)''
Points A and B are obviously caricatures of their position, especially point B. I do not know any Birchers (although some open-borders Republican accused me of being one) but I doubt they think everybody but Birchers are Communists.
The Christian ecumenical movement is certainly fostered by people with liberal political views and liberal 'Christian' theology. Some of the mainline churches have been quite open about supporting third-world revolutionary communists. This is fact, not conjecture or conspiracy theory. Gramscian communism quite openly prescribes infiltrating the churches and all other institutions. That is no fantasy. I need not spell all this out.
As far as his citing William F. Buckley's and Ayn Rand's condemnations of the JBS, I hardly consider them as authorities on things conservative. Rand was an ideologue, no conservative, and Buckley was an elitist who craved respectability among a certain social circle. Their opinions hold little weight with me.
I also don't look to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and the other talk-radio figures he cites as exemplars.
They, like respectable conservatives in general, stay within the bounds of political correctness, and their quest for respectability (and employability) is based on their not being labeled 'right-wing extremists', though they are labeled as such by the media and liberals generally.
It seems to me that the quest for acceptance by the left wing or the ''middle'' is a futile one; if you are the tiniest bit to the right of 'center' you are a right-wing crazy in our narrow-minded political society today. In fact, the much-praised ''middle'', which seems to pride itself on its moderation and lack of right-wing nuttery, is in reality moving ever-leftward as the center of political gravity is pulled in that direction by the left moving the boundaries constantly. Can anyone deny or doubt that the whole political debate has moved, drastically, to the left even in the last 10 years? The 'center' now occupies what was once extreme left-wing territory. That's how it works.
And that's how the left wants it to work.
They want Republicans to continue letting them define the terms politically, and letting them control the discourse and the language and the definitions. They want to keep the right on the defensive, constantly insecure and scrambling to prove how not-extreme they are, and how respectable, diverse, and inclusive they are. That way, the left continues to move everything towards their goal, and the respectables get towed along, willingly.
I got slammed, and lost some readers recently because I criticized Glenn Beck. I was told that I was violating Reagan's 11th commandment. Well, I only know of ten commandments. Reagan said that we should not criticize other conservatives -- and I generally don't condemn people to MY right. In the quest for appearing respectable, many will throw genuine allies overboard, people who are in agreement with the basic goals. That is unwise. We are not so many, those of us who try to defend our cause, that we can afford to turn up our noses at someone just because we think they will embarrass us or make us look bad to hostile third parties.
And if we do manage to reverse the catastrophic events that have happened over the last few years, it will likely be because of the efforts of the ones who are not afraid to step outside the bounds of political correctness.
Whose respect are the respectables courting, anyway? The left, and that of the media, all of whom are hostile to us and to all we believe in. Why seek the respect of those who oppose and loathe us?
As for the John Birch Society, those of you who don't know about them might check the facts. I know all of you can do your own research and decide for yourselves what you think of them.
Labels: Communism, Conservatism Anti-Communism, Faux Conservatism, Respectable Conservatism, Right-Wing Extremism
0 comment Friday, June 13, 2014 | admin
Here/s a rather interesting post at What's Wrong With the World, having to do with today's 'conservatism' and its relation to the dominant liberalism of our time.
"Conservatism" is in our time not conservatism but right-liberalism: political liberalism with a few 'conservative' unprincipled exceptions. The exceptions are unprincipled in the sense that they are not founded in our liberalism, and we for the most part don't recognize their incompatibility with our own liberalism. For a while that meant that 'conservatism' was classical liberalism; now it means, for the most part, culturally 'big tent' neoconservatism. In general it means 'whatever liberalism was about 30 or 50 years ago'.
So looking beyond the election of this very moment, the way to beat the Left politically, and (among other things) effectively save the children being massacred by the acolytes of Moloch -- the only way to beat the Left politically, as an eminently practical concern -- is to stop becoming the Left, through a quasi-Hegelian process which seems to take about two generations.''
In this post, Zippy Catholic decries the lack of an ''anchor political conservatism" which would be an effective counter to the dominant core worldview of the liberal.
The first commenter on the thread asks for a definition of liberalism, and then asks ''What is the antithesis of liberalism?"
I've read the existing comments, and there are several, but it seems no one has come up with a solid definition as requested.
We've covered similar territory on this blog, as my longtime readers will remember. So I won't attempt to re-plow that same ground, but any of you who can offer a good definition of liberalism are welcome to do so.
The whole discussion also brings into play the idea of liberty vs. equality, which has also been a recurring discussion on this blog, and it is an important idea that is not discussed or considered as it should be today. It is very much at the heart of what distinguishes liberals and 'conservatives', though of course I will reiterate that even 'conservatives' these days are imbued with the core ideas of liberalism. And the idea of liberty and freedom are constant themes on both ends of the political spectrum, though each side has differing ideas on what actually constitutes 'liberty' or freedom. Both sides constantly evoke 'liberty' and 'freedom' and yet they are not saying the same things when they use those words.
Do liberals, for example, support freedom of association? Their support of anti-discrimination laws, which deny freedom of association, show that they ultimately don't believe we have freedom of association.
Do they support our freedom to arm ourselves? .
Or our right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought? Only if we use that 'freedom' to say politically correct things, or to think the correct liberal thoughts.
And on it goes.
But the liberal worldview is terribly flawed in that it believes that 'equality' can coexist with freedom or liberty.
The discussion makes me think of this statement by Alexander Hamilton:
Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself. ''
Liberals don't see, or refuse to see, that we cannot ever have equality without some kind of strong hand to enforce it, which inevitably restricts freedom and liberty.
'Equal housing opportunity' means that landlords lose their right to rent to people of their choosing. And landlords are allowed to discriminate based on credit ratings, income, employment and various other things, but they are forbidden to discriminate on racial/ethnic/religious grounds, because ''all men are created equal.''
(Jefferson obviously lacked prescience when he insisted on that phrase; he obviously didn't foresee the perverted uses to which that phrase has been put.)
Equal opportunity in employment has come to mean affirmative action requirements, filling slots with people of the requisite color or ethnicity, or gender.
The illusory goal of equal outcomes in education has meant the dumbing-down of the schools nationwide, as well as the denial of the right of the majority students to get a good education. The many are being sacrificed in the name of the self-esteem of the few -- all for the sake of preserving this fallacy that we are all equal, if we only 'level the playing field' and rig the system to help the less able to 'excel'.
The recent sub-prime mortgage debacle (which is still playing out) was in large part likely traceable to the misguided effort to create 'equality' in home ownership and to bring minorities into more 'exclusive' neighborhoods previously dominated by Whites.
The effort to stamp out all vestiges of 'discrimination' has meant the stamping-out of standards in every area of life -- so as to try to establish an unnatural 'equality' which can only be maintained, if it is ever achieved, with more coercive government action and more propaganda to keep people from thinking inappropriate thoughts or holding politically incorrect ideas which question 'equality,'
Lord Acton said, many years ago, ''The deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to liberty was its theory of equality."
It seems obvious that if the utopian idea of creating absolute equality between peoples is paramount, as it is in liberalism, liberty will suffer, as in fact it is suffering.
And it follows that if Obama is elected, this obsession with enforcing 'equality' will be carried to even greater extremes than it is at present.
The consequences for liberty and for our American freedoms will be considerable, especially when we now live in a society in which ethnic/racial groups contend fiercely to further their own interests only, without regard to the general welfare.
Kinsman John Randolph long ago said:
"The principle of liberty and equality, if coupled only with mere selfishness, will make men only devils, each trying to be independent that he may fight only for his own interest."
And to return to the subject of 'core beliefs' of conservatism, one of the ways in which today's conservatives have been subverted by liberalism is the embrace of a kind of faux-populism or egalitarianism. Just wander over to any of the big Republican forums and notice the great number of comments disparaging any kind of social hierarchy; everybody professes to be a hard-core egalitarian and (small-d) democrat and disparages the idea of social ranks. Because our forefathers rejected British royal rule, we tend to jeer the whole idea of aristocracy or royalty. However, the idea of a monarchy in this country was considered, and we've probably all heard that George Washington was offered the crown, though he declined it.
But it seems that most American conservatives embrace the idea of 'democracy' although our forefathers rightly disdained that idea, and they embrace 'equality' as an abstract idea, often without really considering what that ideal implies if followed to its extreme, as with the liberals and leftists.
As to some kind of conservative credo or set of core principles, it seems that every now and then, even here on this blog, somebody calls for a 'conservative credo' or manifesto, and decries our lack of an ideology. But it seems to me that 'ideology' as such implies a set of abstract principles, which, by their abstract nature, tend to become disembodied and lacking a grounding in real human experience. Liberals are very ideological, which is the reason for their disconnect with human nature, and for their perpetual attempt to re-make human nature after their ideological pipe-dreams.
Russell Kirk was adamant that conservatism and ideology don't go together.
His 'Ten Conservative Principles' can be found at the link.
The cry of the Obamanistas is 'Change' and transformation. This is typically liberal: change for its own sake, seeking change without regard for the consequences to the larger society, the rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Kirk says, of 'progress' and permanence:
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.''
As to a manifesto or a plan which we need to counter the left, or as to a plan for restoring what has been lost to liberalism's manic quest for utopia, we have an adequate blueprint in the traditional society that existed in America over the last few centuries. Look to the past for the core values and principles on which we sustained this country. Our ancestors were wise people; they weren't perfect, and no perfect society exists. Traditional American ways served us very well, up until the upheavals of the 50s, 60s and thereafter. What has happened since then has been a disaster; first, in rather slow motion, but now accelerating to a dangerous speed.
And there are too few ''standing athwart history, yelling 'stop'!' these days.
"Conservatism" is in our time not conservatism but right-liberalism: political liberalism with a few 'conservative' unprincipled exceptions. The exceptions are unprincipled in the sense that they are not founded in our liberalism, and we for the most part don't recognize their incompatibility with our own liberalism. For a while that meant that 'conservatism' was classical liberalism; now it means, for the most part, culturally 'big tent' neoconservatism. In general it means 'whatever liberalism was about 30 or 50 years ago'.
So looking beyond the election of this very moment, the way to beat the Left politically, and (among other things) effectively save the children being massacred by the acolytes of Moloch -- the only way to beat the Left politically, as an eminently practical concern -- is to stop becoming the Left, through a quasi-Hegelian process which seems to take about two generations.''
In this post, Zippy Catholic decries the lack of an ''anchor political conservatism" which would be an effective counter to the dominant core worldview of the liberal.
The first commenter on the thread asks for a definition of liberalism, and then asks ''What is the antithesis of liberalism?"
I've read the existing comments, and there are several, but it seems no one has come up with a solid definition as requested.
We've covered similar territory on this blog, as my longtime readers will remember. So I won't attempt to re-plow that same ground, but any of you who can offer a good definition of liberalism are welcome to do so.
The whole discussion also brings into play the idea of liberty vs. equality, which has also been a recurring discussion on this blog, and it is an important idea that is not discussed or considered as it should be today. It is very much at the heart of what distinguishes liberals and 'conservatives', though of course I will reiterate that even 'conservatives' these days are imbued with the core ideas of liberalism. And the idea of liberty and freedom are constant themes on both ends of the political spectrum, though each side has differing ideas on what actually constitutes 'liberty' or freedom. Both sides constantly evoke 'liberty' and 'freedom' and yet they are not saying the same things when they use those words.
Do liberals, for example, support freedom of association? Their support of anti-discrimination laws, which deny freedom of association, show that they ultimately don't believe we have freedom of association.
Do they support our freedom to arm ourselves? .
Or our right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought? Only if we use that 'freedom' to say politically correct things, or to think the correct liberal thoughts.
And on it goes.
But the liberal worldview is terribly flawed in that it believes that 'equality' can coexist with freedom or liberty.
The discussion makes me think of this statement by Alexander Hamilton:
Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself. ''
Liberals don't see, or refuse to see, that we cannot ever have equality without some kind of strong hand to enforce it, which inevitably restricts freedom and liberty.
'Equal housing opportunity' means that landlords lose their right to rent to people of their choosing. And landlords are allowed to discriminate based on credit ratings, income, employment and various other things, but they are forbidden to discriminate on racial/ethnic/religious grounds, because ''all men are created equal.''
(Jefferson obviously lacked prescience when he insisted on that phrase; he obviously didn't foresee the perverted uses to which that phrase has been put.)
Equal opportunity in employment has come to mean affirmative action requirements, filling slots with people of the requisite color or ethnicity, or gender.
The illusory goal of equal outcomes in education has meant the dumbing-down of the schools nationwide, as well as the denial of the right of the majority students to get a good education. The many are being sacrificed in the name of the self-esteem of the few -- all for the sake of preserving this fallacy that we are all equal, if we only 'level the playing field' and rig the system to help the less able to 'excel'.
The recent sub-prime mortgage debacle (which is still playing out) was in large part likely traceable to the misguided effort to create 'equality' in home ownership and to bring minorities into more 'exclusive' neighborhoods previously dominated by Whites.
The effort to stamp out all vestiges of 'discrimination' has meant the stamping-out of standards in every area of life -- so as to try to establish an unnatural 'equality' which can only be maintained, if it is ever achieved, with more coercive government action and more propaganda to keep people from thinking inappropriate thoughts or holding politically incorrect ideas which question 'equality,'
Lord Acton said, many years ago, ''The deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to liberty was its theory of equality."
It seems obvious that if the utopian idea of creating absolute equality between peoples is paramount, as it is in liberalism, liberty will suffer, as in fact it is suffering.
And it follows that if Obama is elected, this obsession with enforcing 'equality' will be carried to even greater extremes than it is at present.
The consequences for liberty and for our American freedoms will be considerable, especially when we now live in a society in which ethnic/racial groups contend fiercely to further their own interests only, without regard to the general welfare.
Kinsman John Randolph long ago said:
"The principle of liberty and equality, if coupled only with mere selfishness, will make men only devils, each trying to be independent that he may fight only for his own interest."
And to return to the subject of 'core beliefs' of conservatism, one of the ways in which today's conservatives have been subverted by liberalism is the embrace of a kind of faux-populism or egalitarianism. Just wander over to any of the big Republican forums and notice the great number of comments disparaging any kind of social hierarchy; everybody professes to be a hard-core egalitarian and (small-d) democrat and disparages the idea of social ranks. Because our forefathers rejected British royal rule, we tend to jeer the whole idea of aristocracy or royalty. However, the idea of a monarchy in this country was considered, and we've probably all heard that George Washington was offered the crown, though he declined it.
But it seems that most American conservatives embrace the idea of 'democracy' although our forefathers rightly disdained that idea, and they embrace 'equality' as an abstract idea, often without really considering what that ideal implies if followed to its extreme, as with the liberals and leftists.
As to some kind of conservative credo or set of core principles, it seems that every now and then, even here on this blog, somebody calls for a 'conservative credo' or manifesto, and decries our lack of an ideology. But it seems to me that 'ideology' as such implies a set of abstract principles, which, by their abstract nature, tend to become disembodied and lacking a grounding in real human experience. Liberals are very ideological, which is the reason for their disconnect with human nature, and for their perpetual attempt to re-make human nature after their ideological pipe-dreams.
Russell Kirk was adamant that conservatism and ideology don't go together.
His 'Ten Conservative Principles' can be found at the link.
The cry of the Obamanistas is 'Change' and transformation. This is typically liberal: change for its own sake, seeking change without regard for the consequences to the larger society, the rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Kirk says, of 'progress' and permanence:
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.''
As to a manifesto or a plan which we need to counter the left, or as to a plan for restoring what has been lost to liberalism's manic quest for utopia, we have an adequate blueprint in the traditional society that existed in America over the last few centuries. Look to the past for the core values and principles on which we sustained this country. Our ancestors were wise people; they weren't perfect, and no perfect society exists. Traditional American ways served us very well, up until the upheavals of the 50s, 60s and thereafter. What has happened since then has been a disaster; first, in rather slow motion, but now accelerating to a dangerous speed.
And there are too few ''standing athwart history, yelling 'stop'!' these days.
Labels: Conservative Principles, Creeping Liberalism, Egalitarianism, Equality, Faux Conservatism, Liberty