re: Check out the blog post 'Friends, I've been receiving a lot of e-mails lately
where the senders are so frustrated and worn down that they talk about giving
up.
Without a positive optimistic plan and ideal to look forward to and work for, what else is left? Hayek in “Why I am Not a Conservative and Ayn Rand in her “Conservatism and Obituary” both detailed out the main Achilles heel in “conservatism.” You all refuse to read them and to learn from them.
- Conservatism is not a movement, it is mainly a reaction.
- It desires to keep, or go back to the old status quo.
- Its ideals are always to go back to a “golden time.”
- Once you save the republic, liberty and freedom then what? What vision do you have for the future that can capture the imagination of young people?
Classical liberalism was not conservative, if was revolutionary. It failed when it absorbed the 19th century idea of historical inevitability. It plan was what the tea parties main plan is minus the desire to interfere worldwide with other nations or to be the world’s cop, only CL’s worldwide vision was future oriented: Cosmopolitanism (universal citizenship), eventual open borders, total free trade (not managed trade), a complete worldwide division of knowledge and labor. The withering away of the state (yes that was originally a CL ideal not socialist/communist). America’s CL founders created a blueprint for a worldwide federation of free states with a free people that can organically grow. Conservatism and socialism put an end to that vision. From sea to shining sea became the limits of America and like all organic organisms, once you stop growing you create a ring of repugnance around yourself that eventually keeps shrinking you until you die. Jingoism and xenophobia kept us from bringing in Mexico, Cuba, Panama, the Phillpines and Puerto Rico, after all you can’t have those Spanish speaking Catholics enter a primarily Protestant country. What an opportunity wasted.
How many “Conservative” have adopted Malthusian beliefs? How many churches have taken the Kool-Aid and have gone green? How many have stupidly adopted the terms and ideals of the conspiratorial neo-left with no understanding of what the real purposes of them are? Sustainability, social justice, the precautionary principle, cap and trade/climate, et al. All Trojan horses, can you tell anyone intelligently how they all hang together and uphold a neo-leftist plan and ideology?
How many of you picked up and read Peter Diamandis new book Abundance or Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist? You limit yourselves and then your groan about there is nothing to do? YOU could become truly revolutionary techno-evolutionaries and take up the techno-neoclassical liberal position! But that would require you to put down your bibles and the latest idiotic work from the right wing bubbleheads: Insanity, O’liely, Bimbo et al.
Your lack of in-depth knowledge is your Achilles heel. While you are playing checkers on the old cracker barrel, your enemies are playing three dimensional chess and then you wonder why they have been slowly winning over the last 70 years?
You’ve ridden the short bus to school for far too long and then wonder how this all happened?
Comments
I am disturbed by the use of this Word. I strongly suggest in not be used inappropriately to activities that do not apply. WE (The People) are 'The Government'. Elected officials and administrators are not. (The term is commonly used to differentiate between 'administration' and 'civilian'.
REVOLUTION: Merriam-Webster OnLine -
2. a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a FUNDAMENTAL change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler* and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect FUNDAMENTAL changes in the socioeconomic situation
Wikipedia OnLine -
"A revolution …is a FUNDAMENTAL change in power or ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution"
(* America has no “ruler” - therefore does not apply in the U.S.)
WHO is fomenting 'Revolution' ? WHO specifically used the words 'fundamental' and 'change' ?
Conservatism is not a reaction. Conservative means just what it implies. To be a true conservative one must be dedicated to conserving those principals and institutions that define us as a nation and a people. Jingoism from the beginning was not one of those principals. George Washington in his farewell adress warned us about being entangled in the business of empire. But in contrast, Xenophobia is not an evil as us claimed, because it is fear of foreign domination that keeps nations and peoples free from the domination and imperatives of foreign incursion into our own affairs and institutions. Nor is there merit in swallowing up Mexico, the Phillipines and Cuba. America was founded on the principals of self determination and respect for the sovereignty of nations. I understand that our political leaders have abandoned this concept, but from the beginning it was not intended to be the case This sovereignty and self determination extends to the national character of these United States and our own people.
It is accurate to say that the disappearance of the state preceded Communism. Moses Hess was one of those of the Hegelian Left associated with the Rheinische Zeitung who brought up the concept of the disappearance of the state. In 1842, Marx actually was writing polemics against this idea. But when Marx officially became a socialist in 1843 He accepted it, and by 1844 he made no distinction between the transforming of society and the ultimate elimination of the State. "In the King of Prussia and Social Reform (Marx on philosophy and Society) Pg. 357, the reader finds the following formula.
"Revolution in general – the overthrow of the existing ruling power and the dissolution of the old conditions – is apolitical act. Without revolution, however, socialism cannot come about. It requires this political act so far as it needsoverthrow and dissolution. But where its organizing activity begins, where its own aim and spirit emerge, there socialism throws the political hull away".
Malthus was not a prophet. Under the right circumstances his predictions or rather those of the neo Malthusians could happen. But that is not currently on the books, and radical options such as agenda 21 are not justified by Malthusian theory.
I find this to be disturbing if not downright misleading in the use and understanding of some of the Terms involved.
I liked listening to Dr. Michael Savage driving to work at night. The one thing I really disliked about him was his tendency to state that he had to tell me stuff that I wouldn't know without him. I was a Conservative when he was in short pants and had an admitted leaning toward Socialism as a college student.
Carlosd said "THe only Revolution that created anything of substance was the American Revolution - Its product was the Constitution. No other nation has come near that" Um Carlos buddy, the American Revolution & Constitution was a CLASSICAL Liberal Revolution! Hit the history books, you IS not informed
CORRECTION .....attitudes and failings OF flawed socialism,
Repugnant is the body count and the attitudes and failings flawed socialism, communism, classic liberalism which stands actually for nothing and progressivism. THe only Revolution that created anything of substance was the American Revolution - Its product was the Constitution. No other nation has come near that --- Commies and liberals remind me of gremlins - anyone who sets their cowardly minds to destroying a fine working machine can do that --- until I intervene and toss you off the plane. Never anger Americans! I think we are angry now.
NEVER SURRENDER! NEVER RETREAT!
BENSON,you are right on,the hell with these minority beings in OUR COUNTRY they will be going soon,we could care no less then being called a racist or any other names coming from these illiterates in our country,WE BELEIVE RUSH HIT IT ON THE HEAD BY CALLING THEM MORONS.....
Cowards give up.
Responding to Townsend:
Buying into some one's defintion of who you are is pretty much selling yourself out for nothing. A very high form of name-calling is still name-calling.
Not much to analyze in that outburst from being tired of hearing 'why isn't anyone doing something to enforce the law,' &c.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next