← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 8128 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-07-15
2003-07-15 11:32 | User Profile
What Happened to Conservatives? Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) July 15, 2003
The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?
One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.
True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives ââ¬â a name they gave themselves ââ¬â are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President's closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican Party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative.
Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views, but they generally can be described as follows:
They agree with Trotsky's idea of a permanent revolution; They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss; They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power; They believe in a powerful federal government; They believe the ends justify the means in politics ââ¬â that hardball politics is a moral necessity; They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive; They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public; They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends; They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism; They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals; They scoff at the Founding Father's belief in neutrality in foreign affairs; They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many; They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party; They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government; They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds. Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong ââ¬â and I believe they are ââ¬â we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement.
2003-07-15 12:08 | User Profile
I didn't find the term jew once in the article.
It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement.
It is time for whites to retake America.
2003-07-15 13:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jamestown@Jul 15 2003, 12:08 * ** I didn't find the term jew once in the article.
**
True. But you're hardly any better. You only used the word once. :rolleyes:
2003-07-15 14:44 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jamestown@Jul 15 2003, 07:08 * ** I didn't find the term jew once in the article.
**
Surely you're just being facetious, james.
Dr. Paul is the only sane man of conviction in the entire stinking cesspool we call Washington, D.C. Plus, he's a Texan.
Maybe he's been reading Neo-Con Watch.
It is time for whites to retake America.
In order for that to happen, real conservatives taking back the conservative movement may just be a prerequisite.
2003-07-15 16:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 15 2003, 08:44 * In order for that to happen, real conservatives taking back the conservative movement may just be a prerequisite.*
I'm skeptical TD. In order to be a conservative one must have something worth conserving. You can't retake the conservative movement because the ecosystem which gave it life no longer exists. Itââ¬â¢s like mounting a campaign to save the Dodo; that boat has already sailed, struck an iceberg and is now gathering an interesting collection of hooked-nosed barnacles in Davy Jonesââ¬â¢ locker.
Sam Francis was somewhat grappling with this problem when he utilised the phrase ââ¬Ëradical conservativeââ¬â¢ in one of his recent essays. Radical conservative? Square peg, round hole. Come on Sammy name the movement: Populist Nationalism.
2003-07-15 17:21 | User Profile
They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party;
While Congressman Paul did not name the "Jew," he managed to make the point. We don't serve in Congress, Jamestown, which is a den of Jews and Zionist suckpoop goys, so we ought to give Paul the benefit of the doubt since he's the one who would have to bear the consequences of naming the Jew. The abuse he would suffer would surely detract from his effectiveness in Congress.
Indeed, one should name the Jew whenever possible, but, in Paul's case, descretion was indeed the better part of valor. One does not light a match in a room smelling of gas,
-Z-
2003-07-15 17:30 | User Profile
One does not light a match in a room smelling of gas,
Which is why conservatism is hopeless. There'll be no explosion=turnaround until the match is lit.
I think.....
2003-07-15 17:45 | User Profile
Perhaps, Ruffin, but timing is everything. The iron needs to get a little hotter.
-Z-
2003-07-15 18:25 | User Profile
While Congressman Paul did not name the "Jew," he managed to make the point. We don't serve in Congress, Jamestown, which is a den of Jews and Zionist suckpoop goys, so we ought to give Paul the benefit of the doubt since he's the one who would have to bear the consequences of naming the Jew. The abuse he would suffer would surely detract from his effectiveness in Congress.
I am sorry. I do know nothing about Paul so maybe my statement was a little bit too far off the road. You are right that in the political clime of today, one better resorts to code speech. Finally we all know what happened to David Duke.
Finally, Jürgen Möllemann was the only member of parliament who dared to criticise the jews in public. That man not only lost his parliamentary immunity and his chairmanship of his party in his home state, but his very life himself. I have seen the smear campaign and it was merciless. So open warfare does not work when you try to change things within the system. But finally is there really a chance that the system can be used for our cause anymore?
2003-07-15 19:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jul 15 2003, 11:38 * *I'm skeptical TD. In order to be a conservative one must have something worth conserving. **
You mean to tell me, NG, that when you look around your life and surrounding community you see nothing worth conserving?
You can't retake the conservative movement because the ecosystem which gave it life no longer exists.
I disagree. I think it is still there. To a lesser degree, sure, but mainly just misdirected. The impulses that gave birth to Texas are inborn within our people and are not so easily bred out within 3 or 4 generations. I don't think, at least.
Sam Francis was somewhat grappling with this problem when he utilised the phrase ââ¬Ëradical conservativeââ¬â¢ in one of his recent essays. Radical conservative? Square peg, round hole. Come on Sammy name the movement: Populist Nationalism.
All that is just semantics. IMO, the movements are the same, no matter what you want to label it.
2003-07-15 19:28 | User Profile
No worries, jamestown. But you should look into Dr. Paul.
But finally is there really a chance that the system can be used for our cause anymore?
Of course! Why would you not take advantage and advance where you can?
2003-07-15 19:40 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 15 2003, 14:21 * ** All that is just semantics. IMO, the movements are the same, no matter what you want to label it. **
Here in the States the label "Conservative" gains traction, much more so than something like "populist", "reactionary" or even "nationalist."
2003-07-15 19:43 | User Profile
True, Ron Paul would be toast if he named the Jew in public.
BUT -- and here is the kicker -- if HUNDREDS of Ron Pauls began naming the Jew, that would be a whole 'nother matter! The Achilles Heel of the Jews is that they do not have the population numbers. We do. We Whites have many millions more people than Jews do.
**All it is gonna take is some brave White men to come forward. Then, that will embolden other Whites, and the domino theory will take effect. :) :) :) :) **
2003-07-15 19:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jul 15 2003, 14:43 * All it is gonna take is some brave White men to come forward. Then, that will embolden other Whites, and the domino theory will take effect. :) :) :) :) *
Is that how it works in your science lab, Franco? Just like raising the consciousness of the proletariat and then comes the revolution, huh? This time around it won't be semitized!!
I am a man of faith, but I'm highly skeptical of that, my friend. I'm afraid 'naming the Jew' is not anywhere critical like you envision it to be. Being aware of Jewish-led cultural influences, sure, I'll accept that as important, maybe even necessary. But the main problem is spiritual crisis in the majority populace or white folks, if you will. 'Naming the jew' is just trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound.
2003-07-15 19:55 | User Profile
IMO it's the refusal to consider, or the failure to recognize, that the United States is a business enterprise run for the benefit of a few, rather than a nation, that, combined with a lack of appreciation of racial realities, makes some kind of "conservative awakening" less probable as time goes on. Americans' loyalty to what they believe to be their country is completely misplaced and without foundation. They sense it deep inside, which accounts for their reactionary hostility toward other real nations.
2003-07-15 20:00 | User Profile
Jamestown, More Ron Paul here: [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html[/url]
2003-07-15 20:00 | User Profile
** Tex wrote:
'Naming the jew' is just trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound. **
Ahhh, but Tex, this is where you fail to see clearly. You have read KMacD: WHO caused, and keeps re-opening, that wound??? Yes, Tex.... :) :)
The taproot, Tex. Go to the taproot.
2003-07-15 20:21 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jul 15 2003, 15:00 * ** The taproot, Tex. Go to the taproot. **
I am, Franco -- the spiritual crisis of whites. That is the gaping wound that allowed infection to enter the body and then spread like gangrene. Strengthen the immune system. That's the holistic approach that will prevent one from getting bogged down fighting symptom after symptom.
2003-07-16 14:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jul 15 2003, 13:21 -->
QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jul 15 2003, 13:21 ) You mean to tell me, NG, that when you look around your life and surrounding community you see nothing worth conserving?* No Iââ¬â¢m not failing into some sort of fatalistic funk if thatââ¬â¢s what youââ¬â¢re thinking TD ;) Iââ¬â¢m not speaking of community or family but of institutions and systems. Too much of conservative thinking is tied to blind faith in the institutions that have failed us. Worthy as the founding fathers may have being the constitution was not handed to them as a stone tablet graven by the very hand of God himself. Conservatism in general is too inclined to tie itself to such limiting framework, to play within rules either perverted or defined by your enemies.
<!--QuoteBegin-Texas Dissident@Jul 15 2003, 13:21 * > You can't retake the conservative movement because the ecosystem which gave it life no longer exists.**
I disagree. I think it is still there. To a lesser degree, sure, but mainly just misdirected. The impulses that gave birth to Texas are inborn within our people and are not so easily bred out within 3 or 4 generations. I don't think, at least.**
The defenders of the Alamo weren't conservatives, they were revolutionaries. They founded a nation. Were they conservatives their descendants would be speaking Spanish today. Michael Oakshott summed up conservatism as "to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss" (A quote I obtained from the interest article [url=http://www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/373.html]Beyond Left and Right[/url]).
Conservatism then has some meaning in a context, a political ecosystem, where there exists a force of 'progress' attempting to impose their vision of "utopian bliss". That political ecosystem no longer exists for the victory of 'progress' predators is total. The tiny handful of remaining conservative herbivores are reduced to speaking in code words; they cannot, or will not, state their case openly - deserters hiding on the battlefield. Given the present situation you're not tasked with preserving a society but with founding one.
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 15 2003, 13:21 * > Sam Francis was somewhat grappling with this problem when he utilised the phrase ââ¬Ëradical conservativeââ¬â¢ in one of his recent essays. Radical conservative? Square peg, round hole. Come on Sammy name the movement: Populist Nationalism.*
All that is just semantics. IMO, the movements are the same, no matter what you want to label it.**
Semantics may be something to do with it, there is traction for some in the word 'conservative' but equally there is friction for others - others that have little truck with the NWO. People who don't wish to vote for the boss man's party. America may not have class definitions on par with Europe but they are there none the less. If a least 70% of Americans are against unfettered immigration why do half vote Democrat?
There are fundamental differences between conservatism(rightwing) and populist nationalism(neither left nor right). Who are the conservatives that are willing to bridge that divide? Pat Buchannan(break the whole ââ¬ËProtestant Americaââ¬â¢ thing to him gently Tex)? A man whom the Jewish World Review referred to as "Populist Pat, the economic nationalist and foe of the New World Order"? Beyond him I'm drawing a blank. What did Pat Buchannan do? Flail around with the utterly useless Libertarians. Why the Libertarians of all people? They're just anarchists with a hard on for economics. What the Jews over on JWR, or Pat himself for that matter, don't seem to understand is that one cannot be an economic nationalist. Nationalism is ethnic.
Zoroaster
2003-07-16 20:22 | User Profile
na Gaeil is gile,
Great post, I saw something of Hegel's dialectic in it. Pat Buchanan was certainly no George Wallace, who was the last true nationalists to get near the White House.
Populism is the answer for America, but the shadow government appears too powerful to allow a nationalistic movement to challenge it. Even in the event of a financial or military catastrophe, the shadow government would come out on top. Look what happened in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. If the lemmings ever to revolt in America, some sort of dictatorship will follow. Perhaps the Noahides and the Christian Right will get together.