Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JohnGalt; billbears; Burkeman1
Each of you responded to my post #93 but since time is short I will respond en mass rather than individually. Besides we all have similar thoughts on government, the constitution and the current state of affairs foreign and domestic so my comments should interest all even if I'll be saying nothing profound or new to any of us.

The differences we have on policy with others on this site stems from the fact that we have a guiding set of principles that we adhere to which others merely play lip service to. When confronted with the discrepancy between those base principles and current policies they support our fellow "conservatives" rationalize, excuse, explain, twist, turn, cite this or that or just plain get mad. What we have witnessed is Antonio Gramsci's revolution through evolution. And I am referring to the conservative movement itself not society at large.

We all recognize and loath how liberalism appeals to the base human emotions of greed and envy. How they group people, play up grievances and pit groups against each other then uphold government as savior, protector and provider. I submit that since W.W.II the anti-liberals (we'll call them conservatives for discussions sake) have been misled by a leadership that appeals to base human emotions just like the liberals. Where the liberals group individuals into ethnic, race and gender groups (and now sexual) the conservatives group the individuals into one large group - we're all American's, then pit us against other groups (nations and ideologies). In short they take survival and patriotism and turn it into expansive nationalism under the guise of self defense. A base human instinct is tribalism, both the left and right play on that but in different ways. The liberals capitalize on other base human instincts like food, clothing and shelter and the right plays on the survival instinct of both the individual but moreso the nation and its way of life. Godless communism fit the bill perfectly to get conservatives to embrace all the aspects of globalism and empire and now Islamic terrorism gets the religious and survival juices flowing.

Conservatism is dead. Look at the countless Civil War threads where it is amazing how many conservatives jettison principle of self determination, states sovereignty and limited federal power because of the greater good of preserving the union. They value quantity over quality though they actually believe they have both. They lament that if the states split in the 1860's we wouldn't be the big powerful nation we are today. And there lies the crux of it. They worship power. As I mentined once before it's the sportsfan complex. As countless posts attest they like "kicking ass" more than peace, prosperity and security. So in summary it is the worship of power and the fear of boogie men that has conservatives embracing empire, global government, fiscal irresponsibility while ditching national sovereignty and peace. They have embraced a socialist globalist world view as wise policy all their own. Look at that sicko who posted the FOUR MORE WARS thread last night and how many agreed with him as a sign of how far we've fallen. Too many conservatives respond to war like Pavlov's dogs. I blame the 50 year state of perpetual cold war for hammering the last nails in the coffin of the old republic and it was the so called loyal bodyguards of that republic which drove those last nails home.

113 posted on 01/27/2004 7:47:42 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: u-89; billbears
Your points stand, and it seems the politics of the national security state has carried the moment, we may also agree that the disenchanted right has yet to rally around a political figure let alone a consensus on how to proceed. Sam Francis suggests a version of Euro-nationalism; Lew Rockwell argues just ignore them and they will go away; Chronicles argues recovering our political liberty begins with local institutions like Churches.

That will play-out over time.

In the meantime, the current brand of PC conservatism has a massive aesthetics problem. While we have Braveheart, Legends of the Fall, and The Outlaw Josey Wales, they have crappy pulp like Independence Day.

We have Ken Kesey, Tom Wolfe, Thomas Fleming (the historian), they have a plagerist, Stephen Ambrose and what...a pulp novelist in Tom Clancy?

We get Murray Rothbard and HL Mencken; they get who, Bill Buckley? Fred Barnes? David Frum?

Their version of beauty is a landing on an Air Craft carrier; ours, the humility of Rembrandts depictions of the Crucifixion. We get Mel Gibson; what do they get?

We get Southern military heroes like Lee and Jackson, they get fanciful tales of the foreign monsters FDR slew.

We get Johnny Cash; they get, who, Toby Keith?

Most periods in history are the subject of very ambiguous lines of right and wrong, think a bourgeoisie in 1935 Bavaria; ours, the lines could not be more clear, could they?

114 posted on 01/29/2004 7:02:06 AM PST by JohnGalt (The Celts at the Battle of the Allia had little government but lots of swords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson