Replies

If we are to neutralize the power of the conservative movement, we must dismantle their theoretical assumptions.

"Good luck with that", said Dr. Manhattan to the yappy, rabid Chihuahua...

That being said, I have never read such an in-depth and cohesive analysis from the Left. Fortunately, 95% of their membership couldn't even read this, let alone understand and implement it. And even if they did, it still includes many fatally incorrect assumptions.

But, good try Leftards. Keep it up, and we might let some of you live in cages after the Big Clean Out to act as a sort of "Coyote on the fence" warning to others who may be tempted to enslave his fellow men...

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

While the major conservative beliefs are largely idealistic, our theory is based on materialism. The issues addressed by Marxism are bound to adapt when it encounters new material, the method with which to address them remains true. The same cannot be said for our political adversaries, for whom world experience is already removing bits of their idealistic theories' foundations.

Hard to decipher, but I think he's saying Marxism is flexible and adapts to conditions. So, I'm guessing the Soviet flavor has adapted to a new set of issues in such a way that it is no longer discernible. Yeah, I'd just as soon we not be as flexible as that.

Orange County Calif. has the largest population of Vietnamese people, outside of Vietnam.

Yesterday I talked with one, who is a manager of a local branch office of a major bank mortgage division.

Any way, he has relatives still living in Vietnam, and this fellow told me there are two classes in Vietnam: ...the same old poor workers, and the very rich who are connected to the communist government.

He stated the people in Vietnam cannot aspire to become part of a middle class, for one does not exist.

The enterprises utilizing workers in Vietnam are government run and/or connected.

Obviously my friend is pro-capitalism, anti-communism.

That is generally what happens, for people who have seen both systems operate; they are pro-capitalism.

Same applies for people I have met from Czech Republic, east Germany, Poland etc.

IOW results where the rubber meets the road, not high-brow philosophical debates.

Unfortunately for the author both the roots of conservatism and its current form date back to somewhat before the second Bush administration. Hard to believe, but there it is. They are, to be sure, rather more complex than the intellectual shorthand that is Marxism, and so one can see the utility of a Cliff's Notes version for those incapable of digesting the real thing. It's the reason baby food exists.

This essay is, however, rather too simplistic for even Cliff - Conservatism For Dummies, perhaps, with no irony intended in the title. Rand, for example, was no libertarian, nor is "Bushian" conservatism more than a weird amalgam of government subsidy and the occasional and well-deserved gurgling noises of a tyrant being flushed down a Middle Eastern drain. It is not in any sense a major subdivision of any overall "conservative" movement.

The basic tenets of conservatism as it is defined in the United States are (1) that the proper repository of political rights is the individual citizen and not the collective, (2) that property rights of citizens are not to be abrogated by a government except by the consent of those citizens, (3) that citizens form the state and not the other way around, and (4) that it is not the function of government, but of the individual citizen, to control the distribution of material wealth in the interest of class or social justice, or personal preference or any other reason. There are, to be sure, additional such principles that inform the various factions within the overall conservative arena but those appear to me to be the basic commonalities. Note that while both Christianity and Judaism informed these general principles, those principles do not require a reciprocal commitment to their religious roots.

The other possible source of guidance for the inquisitive Leftist with respect to conservatism is to ask a conservative. It isn't hard, and it won't hurt. It does, however, involve ending a sentence with a question mark and not an accusation, a form of expression that appears to be outside the abilities of most of the Left at the current time. For their more adventurous comrades, I wish them luck.

The constitution is the constitution and to “change” it in the way the communists wish to do, they have to amend the constitution. It is a legal thing; not a religious thing. Otherwise, they are law breakers which they are.

Marxists do not respect the rule of law nor equality beyond race before the law. To them the constitution is a “religious” document rather than a legal document.

When we say the bill of rights rights are guarenteed by God, not government, we mean the government has no power to remove those rights from the citizens. This means if the government ends free speech, for example, we will not accept it’s authority to do that.

The commies, being ignorant slobs who disrespect constitutional freedom, are mixing apples and oranges. They want to end free speech and racial equality before the law so they can squash their opposition through hate speech law harassment and oppression.

The constitution gets in their way of acting like the Klan and White Citizens groups they replaced in the post segregation era to discriminate by race in opportunity and install inequality under the law. Installing preferences for some races and oppression to others, gives the communists the voting power base they want and need. To gain the total control they want, they have to divide and conquer the nation by race and class.

George Orwell was quite right when he observed, in a response to Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, that “the problem with competitions is that someone eventually wins them.”

......

So, then it’s a bad thing that in rental car companies’
#1 is Hertz
#2 is Avis
#3 is Alamo

Funny, I never thought of that as a problem. I wonder why the author does?

Now if he said that the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money, he’d be on to some thing, eh?

I think he's a flaming queer, by his own admission:

And the money ~~shot~~ quote near the end:

"At Marxism's root is the desire to make real the consciousness of the individual. Human beings are recognized as beings with a consciousness that surpasses other animals, and to have such an exceptional consciousness is what makes us human. Marx states this when he asserts, in his early work "The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" that conscious activity is our species-activity. Only when human beings are emancipated, and able to unite their will with action, do they feel satisfied.

It was also in that work that he first examined alienation in detail, defining alienation as the process by which a person's will is subverted by engaging in activity which does not match the person's desires.

Heteronormativity, therefor, is a form of alienation. It enforces this alienation among all competent persons, restricting them from the possibility of queer identity and love. Heteronormativity is antithetical to emancipation and the freedom of adults to chose their life-activity.

Regardless of any individual view of gender or sexuality, queer people's experience is real. As a person's being queer does not limit other people's ability to express themselves, the claim that queer activity is unnatural and should be repressed should not be responded to in a way that invalidates the experience of any queer person. As people are queer, and have constructed loving queer relationships that satisfy them, anti-queer organizations cannot justify their position with any sort of appeal to science, but must present a real, pertinent reason queer love is to be forbidden.

If the debate is framed this way, anti-queer organizations must admit their objections are rooted in personal beliefs, such as their interpretation of religion, and the debate becomes more honest. It becomes a debate over freedom, which is what it has really been about all along, and conservative, anti-queer proponents are framed as nothing more than people who chose to be supporters of oppression.

Further, heteronormativity is another form of alienation. It is both exhibited by what institutions do to restrict love, and what people who remain neutral fail to do to include queer people in our social environment. Racism, sexism and classism have continued to exist as forms of alienation in similar ways, and all people who have experienced such oppression share a common struggle with queer people.

The struggle for queer rights is also our struggle.

Tolerance is not enough. Marxism insists society represent all forms of love.

Have a Happy Valentine's Day!

"

(Meanwhile, we Christians will breed and you Communists will abort and bugger yourselves out of existence: but the Islamists will finish you off before we Christians win everything.)

Cheers!

Blah blah blah.

The left works on emotions, hand outs through buying elections and dependence on monopolies that should be illegal among government connected unions and employees.

The right likes to balance the check book, but after a while many start to become Democrat-lite because there is so much giving away of the treasury that it is hard to compete telling people they need to be independent and responsible for their own actions.

Then there is the infiltration of the teachers and press with extreme leftists who's views get pretty much brainwashed into all our kids through at least college.

What needs to be done to counter the blah blah blah of this article?
Develop strong conservative leaders from the grass roots.
We need to take back the press by having conservatives go into journalism.
Take back the children by having conservatives become teachers in great numbers.