RSS
Although I wouldn’t expect the mass media or the paid publicists of Conservatism, Inc. to have read my books about political reference points, I am deeply irritated by self-advertised authorities flinging around the words “conservative” and “liberal.” According to Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg and other” conservatism” experts, the US has been writhing in “liberal” captivity since November 2008. This terror and deceit will drag on, until we elect a Republican as Obama’s successor, at which point we’ll be back in a “conservative” paradise, as we were under George W. Bush. Having just returned from this people’s hero’s library (read shrine) on the SMU campus in Dallas, I was struck by all the earnest-looking senior citizens who were making a pilgrimage to this confusingly misnamed library. The visitors were all impeccably Republican and from listening to their conversations, it was obvious that they thought of themselves and the former president as “conservatives.” That of course means being for military intervention inter-galactically and for fighting for our immortal values, whatever those might happen to be at the time the rumble starts. Most of those statements ascribed to the honored ex-president and placed on panels were about battling those who don’t wish us well or else about reaching out to minority constituencies that typically vote for the Democrats. One could tell which citations came from W’s word processor: those were the quotations that looked elliptical and ungrammatical.
I have just learned that over 70% of Republicans polled by the Bloomberg Politics would happily support W’s younger brother Jeb for president. Jeb is now the most popular GOP presidential candidate without having said anything that could possibly woo the Right. Undoubtedly some of those earnest-looking contemporaries of mine who were swarming all over the G.W. Bush Library in Dallas were Jeb-backers. This would make them “conservatives,” since anyone bearing the GOP brand has an automatic right to the “conservative” label, just as those who are Democrats and will likely be voting for Hillary Clinton are defined as “liberals.” I also learned from “conservative” sources and by listening to Fox-news that Jeb and his friend from Florida Marco Rubio are the best “conservative” alternatives to the “liberal” Hillary. Such pundits as George Will and Charles Krauthammer have warned against nominating someone for president on the Republican ticket who is excessively “conservative,” e.g., someone like Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz who quibbles about gay marriage.
Needless to say, such “conservative” theorists would go bonkers if the Republican electorate did what it will likely not do (unless instructed by the Murdoch media or by local party bosses) and vote for the “isolationist” Rand Paul. Supposedly being “conservative” means voting for moderate GOP candidates who favor an aggressively interventionist foreign policy, say, model presidential candidates like McCain and Romney. Since Senate Republicans have been busily at work helping to draft an amnesty bill for illegals, while Republican federal judges, like John E. Jones in Pennsylvania, have joined Democratic judges in striking down state referenda banning gay marriage, it has become exceedingly hard to determine any significant differences between the two parties on social issues. Emphasis has been shifted elsewhere, e.g., who’s a bigger fan of the Likud Party in Israel, who calls more loudly for school vouchers in chasing after minority votes, who’s going to find a wider “path” toward acceptance for those who entered the country illegally and (lest I forget) which side hates Hillary more. Another made-up litmus test for who’s a “conservative” is who wants to fast-track the latest free trade bill that is winding its way through Congress. Although this bill enjoys the support of GOP donors, it’s not quite clear what exactly makes it “conservative.” Ever since it surfaced, members of the Old Right, led by Pat Buchanan, have been denouncing it. But the bill may be after all “conservative,” seeing that the Murdoch media and CEO’s who throw money at the GOP want it passed.
A few weeks ago my semantic perplexity was increased when I heard Megyn Kelly interview the head of the GOP-website Townhall, Guy Benson, who had just published a book decrying academic intolerance. During this conversation I learned that the interviewee was a proud, practicing gay, the very mention of which caused Megyn’s eyes to light up. It seems that Megyn is a feminist, but of the Republican genus and therefore a “conservative.” Guy is a gay but also someone who “refuses to be pigeonholed,” just as Megyn insists on being both a Republican and a self-conscious modern woman. Despite their shared independent streak, both GOP celebrities praised the feminist and gay activists of the past, who had prepared the way for their lifestyles. My impression while listening to this mutual admiration society was that the participants were doing something like a beer commercial. They were explaining why unlike their unimaginative companions, they are drinking Budweiser instead of Sam Adams or perhaps wearing Brooks instead of Adidas. Their discussion was about name brands and nothing else.
This brings me to the more shocking part of this literary exercise, which is a statement of regret that I did not appreciate Communist “conservatism” sooner. Thirty years ago I was ranting against the Commies with the best of them and viewed these villains as the slimiest and most repulsive foe the Western world had faced since Hitler. Now I am beginning to notice how much more traditionalist the Communist were than our Republicans and Democrats, twin vehicles of a mental disorder that is spreading like the Black Plague in the fourteenth century. The post-World War II French Communist Party maintained traditional gender roles, much to the dismay of then Communist and later critic of the party Annie Kriegel; and it opposed Third World immigration as injurious to the French working class. Communist parties and Communist regimes frowned on homosexual relations and treated them as a telltale sign of bourgeois decadence. In the interwar period the American Communist Party took a position on race relations that one encounters these days exclusively in “race realist” publications. American Communists as well as black separatists called for a separate black region, preferably in the Deep South, where blacks would be able to develop politically and economically, apart from whites.
Mind you, I am not apologizing for the murders and economic inefficiency caused by Communist regimes. I am only noting the good that the Communists caused to happen, perhaps inadvertently. As long as they were our enemies, we had to pretend to be on the right. By the 1960s this phase of our history was ending but it never disappeared entirely. While fighting “godless communism” and its leftist allies and apologists, the US stood for bourgeois, Judeo-Christian principles (never mind that was an invented thing). There was no political or cultural pressure, up until the end of the Cold War, to become feminists or champions of gay rights. And the Communists kept the Cultural Marxists in order, treating them as heretical socialists and deploring their glorification of sexual license and cultural anti-fascism.
It was only after the Communist empire came down that these nuts flooded into post-Communist regimes, while infecting the highly susceptible West with their ravings. Today both of our national parties would make the founders of the Frankfurt School, who labored relatively modestly against bourgeois family culture, blush with shame. I doubt these earlier cultural radicals, some of whom I met, could have imagined how far we would carry their appetite for social experiment. I have just read in the British Daily Mail how neoconservative star and gay activist James Kirchik hijacked a Russian cable news network for two minutes in order to denounce the Russian Duma for passing a law criminalizing “gay propaganda.”
For Kirchik and other contributors to Commentary, including its editor John Podhoretz, gay rights and now gay marriage, are essential elements of our Western heritage. Just recently I came across an impassioned plea for the acceptance of gay marriage in the onetime traditional Christian First Things. Obviously the GOP bosses are calling in their IOUs. Many words come to mind when listening to GOP presidential candidates babble about how eager they are to attend more gay weddings or reach out more passionately to minorities that hate their guts. Moreover, there are phrases to describe Jeb Bush’s opinions about illegal immigrants who sneak across borders “as an act of love” for their children.” “Conservative” or “sane,” however, is not a word that enters my consciousness when I reflect on Jeb’s effusions. Can’t we have a candidate who favors social decency and limiting immigration as an alternative to what our Cultural Marxist duopoly offers? Presumably the answer is “no”?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Paul Gottfried don’t think Ann Coulter is not a Conservative even though her views on immigration are spot on, yet you think the Libertarians Ron and Rand Paul are true Conservatives even though their views on immigration is similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Libertarians have a horrible track record on immigration.
If being anti-war automatically makes a person Conservative which is what you are implying, than all of those drug addict hippies in 1960s San Francisco summer of love were true Conservatives for opposing the Vietnam war.
College campuses today must be a bastion of Conservatism because the vast majority of college students believe the U.S should never go to war, no exceptions.
Another great article! I am also amused by the chickenhawk Jamie Kirchick. I am not sure i would call him a star though – he actually has very little influence and following despite being given all sorts of advantages by the establishment. The constant railing from him calling Ron Paul a nazi was exposed when it turned out that Kirchick supported actual open Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. My favorite article of his though has to be his call for all gay Marine brigades to prove that “gays can be tough and macho.”
Steve Sailer often references the fragile coalition of the crazy left, but what would all of the evangelicals and Fox News watching senior citizens think of openly gay Kirchick and his gay marine brigade idea? Or about Foxnews neo-con stalwart Charles Krauthammer supporting Sarah Brady and wanting all privately held firearms banned and confiscated in the US? How would the rural gun owning base of the GOP view such a statement? The neo-con and GOP right has its own set of crazies like Kirchick and Krauthammer to worry about, too.
I think it’s a little unfair to lump Ann Coulter in with Hannity & Goldberg. Admittedly, she still seems to have hope for the Republicans. But her new book on immigration is really good.
There are different kinds of conservatives. One of the advantages the Right always had over the left is that they hang together better, largely because conservative people (as a general tendency) believe in the validity of at least some forms of authority.
Of course, as the culture shifts left, so do conservatives; barely anyone in France argues for monarchy these days.
There’s also the split between social and economic conservatism–one is in retreat, one is enormously successful at making rich people richer.
I personally have made the decision to consider the issues individually and form my opinion on each one. Of course, that’s no way to build a movement.
I see that you are preaching the “party line” of the Dissident Right–namely, that the conversion from traditionalist conservative to invade-the-world, invite-the-world, I-love-gays conservative came to be because of the oh-s0-powerful Frankfurt school academics. Oh, these modest little academics have taken the world with Evil Power To Control Minds!!! Their gay-loving minds have hyp-mo-tized America!!
What nonsense.
Yes, obviously the word ‘conservative’ has been transformed in the past few decades. But, dude, these professors of the Frankfurt School had nothing to do it.
You must be playing to the online Dissident Right readership on this one. You MUST be! Please tell me you understand that the transformation that happened was caused by the rich and powerful people and institutions at the top of society. That is how mankind operates–it is a species run by a set of programs called “culture.” That content of those programs is largely determined by those at the top of the social hierarchy. NOT some dowdy professors of the Frankfurt School of Thought. The rich and powerful SELECTED this school of thought and promoted it to the top because….wait for it….that particular brand of leftism served.their.financial.interests.
You see, just as today’s leftists sacralize and idolize nonwhites, gays, immigrants, etc., so, too, does YOUR type of conservative still have a great fondness for the rich, the powerful, for those at the top of society. You want to put the blame on some jewish professors. But all along it was those at the top. Of course it was. Who else would it be?
Multiculturalism is a growth strategy, meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. Profits. GDP. Growth. Multiculturalism was selected from among many competing brands of leftism and it was promoted to the top by those at the top. Why? To make the rich richer.
If a man hits you on the head with a hammer, don’t blame the hammer. Blame the man.
In this situation, the Frankfurt School of Leftism was the hammer. Plutocrats and mega-corporations that funded non-profit foundations to give grants to professors, graduate students, activists and writers who favored multiculturalism/frankfurt school leftism, etc, were the hammer. Those plutocrats and mega-corporations are to blame, not the tool they used.
See Dr Roelofs’ book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM.
As for the non-profit foundations and the rich/corporations worked together to create a new type of leftism, see this site:
http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-ford-foundation-and-the-cia-a-documented-case-of-philanthropic-collaboration/
A quote from the book via that site:
(Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders
Once they finished overseas, the powers that be turned to america and used the same tactics to convert american leftism to a brand of leftism that would serve them. The FBI funded Gloria Steinem, for example.
Yeah, leftist conservative, whatever. Rich people are bad, bad, bad, and, unlike good, good, good poor people, they pursue their own interests.
So what’s your solution?
Seriously: you relentlessly troll this place, but you never, ever tell us what you think we ought to do about it all.
Come to think of it, I take that back. I seem to recall you endorsing Obamacare – quite possibly the worst, stupidest & most oligarch-friendly social program in the whole history of this country (and that’s up against some pretty stiff competition!)
I guess that’s the sort of thing that you would prefer to…the rule of rich people.
Now that Communism has been defeated as an international political force and postmodern state capitalism rules supreme, it’s much easier to appreciate the conservative aspects of communist and socialist thought, best put forth by Polanyi’s “Great Transformation”. There’s much in communism of a last stand against modernity–as there was in fascism–even though these movements were of course echt modern.
it’s better than nothing!
Vintequilla
Many of the Greedy Cheating Wealthy in the US are evil and treasonous….I state this as a self-evident fact. As far as what to do….a highly racialized Native Born White American Working Class Revolt against The Revolting…pun intended…..White Liberal Greedy Cheating
Mega-CEO Class(“Conservatives”) Of course, you will never support this.
Samuel Gompers and Dennis Kearney had the right idea…..
Professor Gottlieb
If you accept the obvious fact that US Foriegn Policy is essentially a type of John Gotti gangsterism…then you should also accept the claim that “The Blessings of Diversity” is the Mega-Corporate-State Ideology that “naturally” flows out of this economic-political configuration…”natural” in the same sense that syphyllus and herpes naturally emerge out of brothels….
The problem is very few are realists.
Did you read the article? Gottfried seems to be speaking in almost favorable terms about the Frankfurt school, saying that they were nearly conservative compared to the modern “right.” I don’t think you really read the article.
Didn’t the real Communists become more socially conservative over time? Like I remember the early Soviet years, right after the revolution, were also socially radical. You had figures like Alexandra Kollontai praising free love. But under Stalin things became a lot more rigid and that seems to have defined the Communist spirit since then.
Chess Fan got it right. I’m not taking out my anger on the Frankfurt School, for what I regard as a primarily American cultural and political phenomenon. I make this very explicit in my book on the post-Marxist Left, in which I treat our present cultural radicalism as a largely American creation that was sent back to Europe in the form of entertainment or American values. The reader who noticed that I dislike Ann Coulter, as a well-paid Republican shill, is spot on. Ann’s misrepresentations of Mitt Romney and her attempt to treat American moral decadence as an exclusively Democratic problem cause me to question her moral integrity as well as her ability to rise above silly partisanship. But I see no evidence that Rand Paul is weaker than other Republican presidential candidates on immigration. All the evaluations I’ve seen put Rand in the same category with Ted Cruz. Both have spoken out against amnestying illegals. So has Ann, and she will up until the moment she decides for monetary or PR reasons to throw her weight behind the latest RINO presidential candidate and proceeds to vouch for his/her “conservatism.”
He said that today’s moderate liberals and conservatives are more socially radical than the Frankfurt school, but he also said that the Communists kept the Cultural Marxists in check, so it was a little confusing tbh.
I’ll chime in, cause I usually agree with leftist conservative. Usually. 😉
I don’t agree with a lot of the things Obama has done. But practically every other civilized country has some system of national healthcare. It holds down costs and ensures the health of the citizenry.
Our present system is outrageously expensive and doesn’t even produce the best outcomes. One of the reasons GM went bankrupt was it had to pay all the healthcare costs of its workers, whereas Toyota had its provided for by the Japanese customers. (Yes, Toyota’s cars are better. But enough people were still willing to buy the domestic clunkers.)
There are some things that really are better done by a central government, and healthcare is one of them.
After reading this, I can only come to the conclusion: who cares? What is it about the human race that they find it necessary to label everything? I suspect it is the same mental aberration that makes Americans always look for a THING on which to pin the blame. But, honestly, what difference of any amount will be accomplished by deciding that a particular person is a “conservative” or a “liberal”? Of course, we won’t just stop there, oh no, we have to come up with a plethora of sub-labels.
How many times do you air-headed sheep have to be lied to before you get it? Who cares if Krauthammer or George Will are “staunch” conservatives or beenie wearers from Mars? These guys are going to lie to you. Outright, and bald-facedly, these guys will tell you whatever they have been instructed to say, it won’t matter if it makes any sense or has any factual history to back it up. By golly, if George Will said it, it must be truth, huh? Baloney! Think about it, you elect a person to run (and ruin) your lives for 4 years (mainly because we don’t have the backbone to throw the corksuckers out) based upon what? What the horses patoot had to say in the past two weeks? They don’t say anything. They just prattle out words in a row with no conscious understanding of what they are saying. But then, they don’t have to care, do they? They always have lackeys like Gottfried to babble this kind of crap, hoping that you won’t notice that this is the same shite they said the last time, and the time before that, and the time….
Most assuredly, they bank on how unendingly stupid the American public really is.
You want to decide liberal vs conservatisim? You want to find out which candidate is worth the powder that it would take to blow them to hell? Take Jesse Ventura’s advice: do not, Do Not, DO NOT vote Republican or Democrat. Vote for anybody else – yeah, tell me they are gonna be any worse than the bottom barrel scum we have (and have had) in office. If there isn’t a third party candidate, write one in. Write yourself in, who cares, what does it matter?
And when the pin-headed political hack “warns” you about “wasting your vote” rip that SOB’s throat out, and as he lies there bleeding out, explain to him that no vote is “wasted”, even no vote is, in itself, a vote.
I never said that you were taking out your anger on the Frankfurt School. I said that you said that school of thought was the genesis of today’s multiculturalism. And you did say just that. Yes, you said that today’s multiculturalism goes even further. And yes it does. See the old science fiction story tropes about lost civilizations that have forgotten their origins as an example of this dynamic.
But my argument is that in order to change things we have to understand things. Understanding. It’s a good thing.
See, the rich folks and big corporations like multiculturalism and inclusiveness because those increase the number of workers and consumers. So, if we understand the forces behind multiculturalism, we can move forward. With understanding. Against the rich folks and the big corporations. And that implies a path forward. Against the rich folks and the big corporations.
But if we see the frankfurt school as the forces that created multiculturalism, that implies another path forward. A different path forward.
How do those two paths differ?
That is important.
Also, what you are doing here is going with the crowd. Playing to the crowd.
Ok, so that got a belly laugh. But the entire issue could be retired from the political arena with one intelligent move: Contract law civil unions, solely, from government, straight or gay. Want to be married? That would be strictly between the parties and their faith (or lack thereof.) This would be in line with Jefferson’s thinking as well:
“
This path, were it ever taken, should also satisfy the the ‘equal protection’ demand of our foundational law. Would such a plan ever be entertained? Probably not, if only because of the investment in, or addiction to, the fighting involved. God forbid we would, as a nation, drop legislating other peoples morality (or lack thereof) and give our attention to more important issues, for instance the costs involved maintaining our ‘exceptionalism’ with bombs.
Other than that, I simply note in relation to the Soviets, conservatism was never a cut and dried, western, right of center phenomenon and the conservatives I’d grown up with would, in some respects, look like progressives on the left in today’s politic, particularly in relation runaway corporations and associated military/industrial empire. Life was never black and white and today it is less so than ever.
Gottfried, like always, makes great points but exaggerates. In the majority of states, gays and lesbians don’t even have the protection of anti-discrimination laws. In others, gays can not only marry, but destroy the lives of any baker or florist who refuses to go along.
You cite the Republican judge who found in favor of gay marriage, but not those who ruled against. At the Supreme Court, four justices are likely to say no to a constitutional right to gay marriage, and they were all appointed by Republicans.
In general, I think you’re too hard on the conservative movement, even though I agree with you on war. We live in a country where practically all educated people are leftist, as is the media, which truly holds the power. Mainstream conservatives are a small minority, maybe 10% of the elites, they need to make compromises. They’re often stupid and cowardly, yes. But to say things like the two parties are indistinguishable on social issues is taking it too far.
But my argument is that in order to change things we have to understand things. Understanding. It’s a good thing.
If Prof. Gottfried and the rest of us are so stupid why do you bother with us? If you feel the need to speak to us in sentence fragments and taunts then maybe you should ascend to a higher level of the internet where your genius can flourish?
The annoying thing is that the core arguments of your last two post here are essentially correct. The mainstream political labels like “conservative”, “liberal” and “progressive” are like the old brand-names kept on by multinational giants long after they mean what they pretend to mean. Companies like Unilever and Mondelez won’t correct you if you’re under the impression their brand of chocolate is still made by a small Swiss company rather than some globe-spanning corporate octopus. It’s the same with “conservative” and “progressive”: it’s the same coffee beans with different marketing strategies and maybe ten minutes longer in the roaster.
That’s why the Fabian Society succeeded while the Bolsheviks eventually failed: the Fabians came from a cagey merchant society that knew you can change the contents little by little if you keep the packaging the same. Keep the crown on the government letterhead but change everything else. That’s the way of the Anglosphere conservative now too.
How many of these traditionalist, anti-immigration, race realist communists held on to these same views into the 1980s and 90s? I’m guessing none. They were probably “racist, “sexist” and “homophobic” in an unthinking matter, just like 99% of people throughout history. However, as far as I can tell, those who were communists in a former life are now the most dedicated SJWs (see the Gassyot Act).
This is probably because a generation or two ago, egalitarians who couldn’t face reality and hated western civilization became communists, while today they’re proponents of Cultural Marxism. It doesn’t mean communists of a generation ago were more healthy than modern leftists. Times have changed, but it’s the same impulse.
Here, I’ll say what a lot of other people would-should say:Anne Coulter is a repellant mud-sharking Republican Party Pin-up Girl skank. I want nothing to do with her. The Republican Party should be sealed in led, and buried deep in a Utah Salt Mine. Is there enough industrial grade Lysol in America to cleanse America of the fake Conseravtives known as Republican Party Insiders.?
I have just learned that over 70% of Republicans polled by the Bloomberg Politics would happily support W’s younger brother Jeb for president.
If this is true, then the United States truly deserves its fate. I just don’t understand how people could be so damned stupid.
The “nothing” in this case is not nothing, it is a functioning health care system that the whole world envies. Obamacare is not better than that.
Isn’t legislating morality a great way to stick it to the other guy, though? To get revenge? Think of those two lesbians who sued the owners of that shop for over a hundred grand – and won.
“Here, I’ll say what a lot of other people would-should say:Anne Coulter is a repellant mud-sharking Republican Party Pin-up Girl skank. I want nothing to do with her. The Republican Party should be sealed in led, and buried deep in a Utah Salt Mine. Is there enough industrial grade Lysol in America to cleanse America of the fake Conseravtives known as Republican Party Insiders.?”
Yeah because Rand Paul is such a true “Conservative” with his pandering to Blacks that they are “unfairly” racially profiled by the police. That is a Democratic Left Wing talking point right there. If a Rand Paul was a true Conservative, he would know that the over representation of Blacks in prison is the fault of nobody else but Blacks themselves.
“All the evaluations I’ve seen put Rand in the same category with Ted Cruz. Both have spoken out against amnestying illegals. So has Ann, and she will up until the moment she decides for monetary or PR reasons to throw her weight behind the latest RINO presidential candidate and proceeds to vouch for his/her “conservatism.”
How come nobody in your precious Libertarian Party is hardcore right wing Conservative on the issue of immigration? The last Libertarian clown to run for president Gary Johnson was way more worried about marijuana laws than he was about keeping America a predominantly White country and reducing DIEversity. In fact decreasing immigration both illegal and legal was never even a part of Gary Johnson’s political platform. His main platform was hey stoners vote for me if you want weed legalized in all 50 states.
Libertarians act like marijuana is the number 1 most important political issue in the world that trumps all other political issues. The Libertarian Party is a complete joke.
One of the little-known Fabian products was the unheralded Overton Window. It took a long time to break into the market.
Blacks got to install the Kenyan Foriegner twice as Dear Leader. Kenyan Foriegner Dear Leader couldn’t deliver the economic Golden Age…well, his Wall Street Advisors couldn’t. Can’t blame Kenyan Foriegner for his economic failure. Blame Whitey because Whitey is a Republican and it is the Republicans who won’t let Kenyan Dear Leader implement his great economic plan…And just what is Kenyan Dear Leaders’ economic plan?…Answer:spend several trillion dollars annihilating Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Ukranians…and encourage young black males to go on a home-break-in gang rape spree of White Women in front of their tied-up pistol whipped White Husbands and Sons. For those of you who read the Sunday NYT interview with Noam Chomsky….Chomsky stated that Whitey deserves racial retribution from blacks…why hasn’t Steve Sailer covered this?
My response to Jefferson….
“Once they finished overseas, the powers that be turned to america and used the same tactics to convert american leftism to a brand of leftism that would serve them. The FBI funded Gloria Steinem, for example.”
But you never ask the fundamental question: why was American leftism so easy to corrupt in the first place? Why was it so easy to convert it to a brand of Leftism that served the rich?
Furthermore, what makes you assume that “correct” Leftism was of any benefit to its potential clients in the first place? How could a movement that could be so easily corrupted be of any real value?
You are failing to face the truth. If the rich have hijacked America, then they did so because leftism weakened America from within by elevating people who are are corrupt by nature into positions of power. The Left is nothing but a pack of lies and the people who push leftism are nothing but liars. Why wouldn’t they sell out the “principles” of Leftism for money and power? They have no principles to begin with.
Do you know what a “mud-shark” is? I’ve never seen any evidence that Miss Coulter engages in that type of behavior.
They believe this because no problems actually affect them. They are old enough and rich enough to isolate themselves.
What happened over the 1980’s and ’90’s is the Old Left was replaced by the Boomer generation New Left. This was a corruption of the Left that happened under American-style consumer capitalism as it spread throughout the West. What we now call Cultural Marxism was encouraged in the post-WW2 decades as a way to de-fang and de-claw the street fighting Left in favour of lotus-eaters chanting “the personal is political”. It has since become toxic and turned on everyone but that’s why this stuff was encouraged. Years earlier, Trotsky himself made the argument for merging American consumer culture with his permanent revolution:
If America Should Go Communist, (August 1934)
From Liberty, March 23, 1935.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm
Trotsky’s apprentices did end up marrying into mainline American conservatism, the British Labour Party and quite a few other institutions.
A conservative is someone who possesses the survival intuitions of the sedentism culture.
A liberal is someone who possesses the survival intuitions of the hunter-gatherer culture.
They are long term and natural enemies.
Have to agree.
The modern “right” is about as anti-conservative as they come. At their core their ideology seems to be a mix of Ayn Rand, globalism and Cultural Marxism. They really don’t give a rats behind that the policies they support are killing the white working and middle-class, ruining the family and reducing society to nothing more than jingoistic atomized individuals.
There is nothing in their policy support to protect the middle-class, families, the cultural traditions that made the U.S. what it was, etc. One only has to see the betrayal by the House and Senate on immigration by the GOP elites or their support for PTP. Or the fact they refused to put behind bars the bankers behind the 2008 bubble that cost us trillions to bail them out.
The social policies they claim to support, well they vanish when the rubber hits the road. Whether it’s the 1st or 2nd amendment, they aren’t leading the fight it’s some nobodies out in the hinterlands that are, who ponied up the funds to challenge the Left.
You’re right to use the term “break into the market” because it’s the ad men who seem to have the most time for such things. In fact that’s probably one of the biggest reasons mainstream conservatives aren’t conservative at all. Decade after decade of taking advice from public relations consultants and ad men, who, in turn, read books and pay consultants’ fees to subversive psychologists and other oddballs. Newt Gingrich is a big Alvin Toffler fan, FFS.
If you consider the conservative/sedentism and liberal/hunter-gatherer division, it is easy to see that the main drive for survival for the conservative mindset would be through continual growth in size and power, while liberal survival would focus would be on the wellbeing of the tribe because of inherent constraints on tribal size.
Haidt’s research indicates a big tent strategy is possible with conservatives because they emphasize six moral intuitions, while liberals focus on three and libertarians one. The basis of conservative animosity towards other groups is one of differing beliefs towards survival behaviors and once that changes, it’s all one big happy family.
Conservative emphasis on growth through aggression, whether of the State or the corporation, began when the constraints on tribal size were replaced by size equating to strength and success through chain of command power structures and positive sum economics. The epitome of might makes right.
As an aside, liberals are generally pro abortion because extra bodies were unmanageable, while for conservatives they were a necessity.
Seems to be a major error re that link to the First Things article: Far from being, as Gottfried writes, “an impassioned plea for the acceptance of gay marriage,” it is a not very passionate story of a young person’s evolution AWAY FROM the ridiculous notion of homosexual “marriage”! The Christian (more Catholic Christian actually) First Things has always been neoconservative on foreign policy but Catholic-conservative traditional on matters of sexual morality. Contrary to what Gottfried writes, it would appear that First Things remains that way.
William Lind blamed it all on the Frankfurt School when he had a show on the long-defunct NET channel. I’m not sure if he still does.
You’ve obviously never been to a VA hospital (except a few showcase ones, naturally), have you?
“Guy is a gay but also someone who “refuses to be pigeonholed,” just as Megyn insists on being both a Republican and a self-conscious modern woman. “
No question – Fox News has gone feminist – all those pretty blond heads will tear your heart out if you reference a women as a woman in a negative way.
Fox represents NYC Jew views – it is pro Israel, pro war, pro cop, pro internal spying, pro prosecution, pro jail, pro big money, pro big bank. It is less anti illegal immigrant, less pro life, less pro marriage, less pro gun, less pro free speech, and less pro Christian than most heartland conservatives.
Fox News is pro Jew conservative – not pro Christian conservative.
Most liberals and even leftists were what might be called social conservatives (today) until forty or fifty years ago.
There is one phenomenon that needs to be addressed in politics.
The general rule is ‘you must not attack others in your coalition’.
This is problematic since there are groups within the coalition with very different ideas/values from one another.
What if something about group A offends the people of group B. But if A and B are in the same coalition, people of group B are not supposed to bitch about the problems of group A.
This is true of international politics as well. USA preaches humans rights, but it goes very easy on nations like Saudi Arabia because they are allies, but it is extra-harsh on nations that are considered to be enemies of the US(and/or Israel) even if these ‘enemies’ have human rights records that are better than nations like Saudi Arabia.
In American politics, libertarians and social conservatives have generally been muted in their criticism of one another since they were part of political coalition against the Democrats.
In India, there’s been a symbiotic relation between free market capitalist globalists and Hindu nationalists.
American Liberals have the same problem. For instance, blacks love to bitch about ‘white privilege’ and all that, and feminists love to bitch about rape and abuse of women.
But here’s the problem. Blacks have been generally restrained in attacking the Liberal urban gentry(even though they constitute the richest and most privileged groups in America) because blacks and urban whites/Jews are allies. Blacks prefer to bitch about some cracker living in a trailer.
And if feminists really want to address the issue of rape and sexual assault, they should look into the black community because black males are the biggest rapists. And most rapes happen off the campus. Also, rap culture promotes ‘misogyny’ and anti-female attitudes more than any cultural expression.
But because white feminists and blacks are part of a political coalition, feminists must go easy on black violence and mayhem and instead pretend that ‘rape culture’ is some unique white male problem on college campuses that, by the way, are safer than they used to be, not least because women now outnumber men 60/40 in higher education.
Coalition politics prevents honest criticism since one is compelled to go easy on one’s allies. But what happens when the ally happens to be the biggest offender against what one believes. If indeed one is a feminist who is worried about rape, the group she should be most concerned with is the black community. But she is politically obligated to mute her criticism of black bad behavior.
So, while feminists throw conniptions about what a ‘microaggression’ by some white male in college, they are wholly silent about tons of rape committed by black men. Sabrina Rubin Erdely sought out a ‘conservative college’ to find the culture of rape. If she wanted to find rape culture, she only needed to visit the nearest black community.
So, even when a political activist seeks something to attack, he or she avoids whomever happens to be on his/her side. This becomes a huge problem when the main offenders and transgressors pertaining to the issue at hand are the very people within one’s coalition.
Imagine there’s a woman and five men. Suppose she is allied with Tom and Billy but opposed to John and Bobby. Suppose she’s an ardent feminist waging war on rape culture. Suppose Tom rapes women and Billy sings rap songs about how worthless the ‘bitches’ are. Suppose John and Bobby are generally nice around ladies.
Now, the natural thing is for the woman to attack Tom and Billy, but because of the rules of coalition, she goes easy on them. After all, they are on her side.
She feels obligated to find rape culture in John and Bobby, but John and Bobby are not rapists or rappers.
What happens when politics becomes like this? When you must pretend not see certain obvious bads and to pretend to see bads that are hardly there?
This seems to be a big problem among the Democrats, not least because it’s the coalition of the richest and poorest people in America. It also has vestiges of the white working class and the immigrants. It has homos and Muslims.
Most groups tend to have the favor of one or other party.
Feminist are with the Democrats. So are homos. Blacks are with the Democrats, as are most immigrant groups.
When it comes to blacks and homos, American Conservatism treads carefully because ‘homophobia’ and ‘racism’ have become such taboos. But then who made them taboos? Jews.
Jews really stand out because they have the solid support of both parties. GOP pretends to reach out to blacks but really doesn’t.
But the GOP goes out of its way to court Jews even though Jews are solidly with the Democrats.
So, neither party will dare say or do anything that might upset Jews in any way.
Both sides/parties sees Jews as part of their coalition.
Because the GOP sees Jews as allies, American Conservatives are utterly silent about all the bad things done by Liberal Jews and even Necon Jews because the rule of coalition says one must mute one’s criticism of one’s allies.
The GOP is allied with only Neocons and not with Liberal Jews, and Liberal Jews push policies that really hurt American Conservatism. But because Neocons will be upset if American Conservatives attacked Liberal Jews — Jewishness comes before all else for Neocons, so they’ll regard even attack on Liberal Jews as an attack on ALL Jews — , so there is zero criticism of Liberal Jewish power in the US.
While American Conservatism can attack genetic Liberalism, they dare not say that American Liberalism is dominated by Jews.
We need room for political discourse in this country where one is allowed to honestly criticize those within the coalition.
Let’s just hope the Republicans polled are not representative of all people who will vote in the Republican primary. I would really hate to face a choice between Jeb Bush and Hillary.
Sorry Mr. G, you lost a lot of credibility when you lumped Coulter in with the NR “girly men” who fired her.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on Cruz’s ability to withstand the “open borders” lobby if elected POTUS but I think he’s 1ox more sincere on the issue than Senator Paul, who’s simply tacking to the right during his POTUS run. One reason RINO’s keep getting nominated is people fall for their Primary season conservative rhetoric. Evidently, just labeling their latest flip-flop as insincere bullshit is too straight forward. No, we have to believe that they were lying for years and now have discovered conservative values when its most convenient for them.
Coulter made several bitter comments about the stupidity of the Republican primary voters. As a result, she supported Romney as the least of evils.
There is not a single Democrat in Washington who has a grade of A or B on the issue of lowering immigration levels, according to NumbersUSA. The politicians in Washington who have a B or A are all Republicans.
I think the last real Conservative pronouncement of an American President was Eisenhower’s Farewell, in which he warned about the Military-Industrial Complex. That warning, just as we entered the New Frontier/Great Society expansion of government to create vast Education- Welfare-Healthcare-Environmental-Media-Industrial Complexes, was the last time any President would have the perspective to see that this was not ” just the way things are.” For the last 50 years, the Liberal/Conservative divide was transformed into a struggle within the Complexes for resources.
I considered the Cultural War to be a mutually useful distraction for Left and Right voters from the basic bipartisan arrangement that the needs of the imperial American government machinery (including lobbyists) and its international clients (global banking, business and media) had become the real ends of American power. Free trade, open borders, Too Big To Fail and messianic nation-building are objectively embraced by the mainstream of both the Liberal and Conservative Parties; it is not clear that anyone who dissents from that consensus can ever be nominated to head either ticket.
Lately, though, I have come to see the Cultural War as something considerably more sinister: the dismantling of the immune system of the West and its ethnic and national base. Apparently, any shred of institutional or moral resistance to the new consumerist international order is now to be uncovered and rooted out. The free flow of goods and people and the financing mechanisms to enable their maximum consumption us the only good.
A big part of why health care is so expensive is all the regulation.
One thing’s for sure, the only way to know which method is best is to allow competing systems, which is anathema to big gov’t.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that whites’ best way of doing much of anything is to do it with NAMs chained to our ankles. I think it’s obvious that whites are better off not having to drag all that dead weight, regardless of what aspect of policy we’re discussing.
Yes, Coulter’s well known for her “mud-sharking.”
–Yes, Coulter’s well known for her “mud-sharking.”–
With whom?
What evidence?
Did you happen to notice, LC, that Obamacare passed with plenty of support from the relevant oligarchs, in the pharmaceutical & managed care rackets, etc.?
Were you aware that, prior to Obamacare, the USG *already* spent more per capita on healthcare than all but two or three little countries in Europe – with comparatively dismal results?
“Affordable Care” – yeah, right. That’s what we can look forward to.
But I’m threadjacking.
Prof. Gottfried – with all respect, I think that sometimes you let your (perfectly understandable, even justifiable) personal resentments get the better of you. Why do you think that Ann Coulter supported Romney over the available alternatives for careerist reasons, and not out of an honest preference for the least worst realistically possible outcome? I mean, the late Lawrence Auster did the same – was he also to be despised as an apostate?
In response to one of my critics who reminds me that GOP-appointed judges are vastly better than Democratic picks, I would note the following: the vast majority of Republican Senators have voted for Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary; Justice Kennedy who is a prominent supporter of federally imposed gay marriage was a Republican nominee; Justice Sottomayr, one of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court, was elevated to the federal bench by George w. Bush; and there is no guarantee that under Jeb’s leadership, we wouldn’t see more judges like Kennedy, Stevens, and Blackmun being put on the Supreme Court. Although I don’t deny Democratic picks would be uniformly terrible, a Republican Senate, if it started to behave like serious opposition, could block these nominees. In any case, I see no reason to treat the Republican presidential nominee, no matter who that happens to be, as preferable to the Democratic nominee simply on the basis of possible picks to the federal bench or the Supreme Court. A socially liberal Republican administration that hands over foreign policy to John Bolton and the usual neocon suspects, might be even more disastrous than Hillary. One may count on this silly woman to make a fool of herself and mess up anything she touches.
They probably have bought into the MSMs constant drum beat about what it would take for a Republican to win and Bush is the closest thing to it. The average political party member puts as much thought into the issues as the average racial solidarity type voter.
Well and legalizing prostitution. Any visit to the Reason website is a visit to crazytown USA.
If Coulter had any integrity she could have finally woken up a lot of the morons who listen to her and done all she could to destroy the GOP is it is presently constructed. Instead just like Buchanan she eventually rolled over and showed her belly to the GOP leadership.
She could have used the primary and all the dirty tricks used by the GOP leadership to hand Romney the nomination to make even the dumbest Republican aware of how useless the party has become. I knew Romney didn’t have a chance and anybody with some sense would know that his escapades at Bain were enough to keep him from getting any rust-belt states and he needed every one of them them thanks to immigration locking away California’s electoral college votes for the Democrats.
John Bolton has the personality profile of a serial killer such as Ted Bundy. He doesn’t even hide it…it’s out there in the open….full-blown.
I agree with you on Republicans and foreign policy. However, I fear that your distaste for Republicans makes you hostile to the idea that there could be anything positive about them. In particular, I take issue with the idea that there’s no difference between them and Democrats on social issues.
Sometimes I hear far right wingers say the Republican party needs to be destroyed, presumably so a “real” conservative resistance would rise up. I think that’s badly mistaken. If the Republican party went away, the elite would be even more homogeneously left wing and crazy. There simply aren’t enough “real” conservatives to rise up and challenge the unquestioned liberalism in academia, the media and the bureaucracy.
Just off the top of my head, here is what a Republican congress is blocking
1) A federal “LGBT” anti-discrimination law
2) Stronger laws enforcing equal pay for women
3) More aggressive attempts at school busing and racial integration
If the Republican party went away and the Democrats had complete power, they’d get these three things right away. And who knows what new craziness they’d be able to imagine up once they knew they could do whatever they wanted.
Many people look at this society and say “well, things can’t get any worse.” I think that that shows a lack of imagination.
The Republican Party is in bed with the Mega Corporations. This means full-speed ahead with rapid-replacement immigration policy=many more Democratic Politicians. The Republican Party is living on borrowed time.
And the fact that the Republican Party wants to go war with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia in and of itself is reason enough to never vote Republican.
The only viable alternative for Millions of Native Born White Americans is a highly racialized anti-White Mega CEO working class revolt infused with hard-core racial nationalism…in-your-face-24 hours-day Native Born White American Working Class Economic Populism. There has to be a White Racial Revolt against Corporate Power on all fronts. Race-replacement post-1965 Immigration Policy and the violation of Heterosexual Social and Cultural Space by homos would not have been possible without the power of White Mega Greedy Cheating CEOs. This has happened before…and it gave us the wonderfull Chinese Exclusion Act and The Sihk Exclusion Act….
No, the GOP has got to go. They are worse than worthless on the critical issues facing whites in the U.S. and it hasn’t squat to do with issues like LGBT or equal pay.
What I’m talking about are support for trade deals that have wiped out upwards of 9 million well paying jobs for the white working and middle-class household and entire industries sent over-seas. Then there is the GOP support for H1-b and L-1 foreign workers to take the jobs of Americans right here at home. This has been going on for 20 years in the STEM field and not a peep out of those loud mouth rocked ribbed Republicans.
These policies have ruined our economy and created a jobless recovery.
They don’t give a rat’s ass about the family, culture or our values. Hence their silence on LGBT issues and the Left’s perennial assault on the nuclear family and traditional values. All they care about is taking bribes from the Chambers of Commerce, K Street and mega donors like Adelson, Zuckerberg and the Koch Brothers.
They are whores from top to bottom. Money is their god.
Look how the GOP repaid their base after the 2014 elections. They got in bed with Obama on immigration and amnesty and McConnell has given Obama even more power. Oh yeah they help ram through the secretive TPT pact.
Now they and Rove have declared war against the Tea Party and Social Conservatives.
When it comes to the 1st amendment and supporting Christians they aren’t there.
Look at the GOP presidential candidates. Not a populist among them, none of them have anything for working or middle-class voters except more of the same gang rape by the elite. They are a pathetic bunch of phonies who can’t even reach beyond the political hacks in their party.
It’s going to be a replay of 2008, 2012 where the GOP selects another statist who takes his orders from the wealthy and Wall Street and has no appeal beyond the mindless GOP base that enjoys getting bent over and impoverished.
The Conservative base needs to reject them and their rotten party of rich insiders and crooks. Send them and their mindless followers to the abyss where they belong.
That’s like saying the only hope for the country is a green man from the moon landing on earth and solving all our problems. If you believe that, you might as well give up.
If there’s going to be a revolution in this country, I think there’s a 99% chance it would be leftist, angry at the establishment for not doing enough to reach utopia. Outside of Gamergate, I see no ability on the part of the non-mainstream right to organize and influence things in the way they want. Meanwhile, the Twitter mobs are ready to destroy anyone who shows the least bit of “racism” or “homophobia.”
Corporations are the most risk averse members of society, going along with whatever government and the media demand. They’re never the main cause of a country’s problems. Businessmen are self-interested, as they have been at all times and in all places. The true source of the rot is elsewhere.
Or even the ’50s.
Thomas Sowell wrote about South African Communists pushing white supremacy as hard as anyone else in the country in the 1930s. Two decades later, they were supporting the blacks.
What changed? Not the Communists, according to Sowell. All along, it was never about the people they “supported”, but about themselves and their own power.
Consistency is there, if you know what to look at.
Yeah, there is not really a decent GOP candidate in the field. I guess rand paul is probably the best of a bad lot…. I wish Sarah Palin would get in the race…or Jeff Sessions…
Walker? I don’t believe he would actually do anything about immigration. He only caters to big money. And big money will not want him to do anything about immigration, illegal or legal.
Santorum seems to have some actual beliefs, which is a positive. But he is nuts, too.
But most of the GOP candidates have already sold out to the corporations and plutocrats.
On the Dem side, Jim Webb would be great as president–he has already come out against affirmative action and anti-white-male multiculti.
Bernie Sanders is not bad, either. He is focused on economic issues and not race-gender issues like all the rest of the Dem pols.
Liz Warren? Better than Hillary….
The thing to keep in mind here is that whether it is Dem or GOP, you want a candidate who might actually change things.
That means you want someone who does not like the system. Both the media and many americans online have made fun of and demonized both sarah palin and michelle bachman, but at least both of them have actual beliefs and do not like the system.
As for me, whatever candidates the media dislikes or tries to marginalize or demonize, those are the candidates that interest me.
As for the candidates the media talks up, I dislike those.
So what happens after John Boehner & Mitch McConnell vanish into the abyss? What are you hoping for? The end of days and the resurrection? Or what?
Exactly, Hepp. Couldn’t have said it better.
“Consistency is there, if you know what to look at.”
Indeed.
Most of what everybody needs to know about the political realm is summed up in the two Iron Laws: Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy, and Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/05/rising-xenophobia-sicily-boat-people-150526121311423.html
Will you get a load of this?
Global media says Sicilians resisting massive invasion from Africa are ‘xenophobic’.
Xenophobia?
Wanting to protect your nation from massive foreign invasion is xenophobia?
THEN GIVE ME MORE XENOPHOBIA!!!
Btw, I suppose Iraqis were xenophobic for resisting American invasion.
I guess Palestinians were xenophobic for resisting Zionist immigration.
So, how did Palestinians end up as the result of all that immigration and ‘diversity’?
I guess all those bitter Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank who bemoan the loss of their homeland to the Jews are ‘xenophobes’.
Good point. A GOP controlled senate that was elected on a platform of opposing amnesty and gun control just approved an AG who openly favors amnesty and banning guns. The GOP also ran on opposing Obamacare, yet have surrendered that fight, too.
As far as some of the other comments directed to you, Hillary is calling for expanding the Obama amnesty – something Ron Paul always opposed in votes and statements. His son has opposed it as well, though he has used language that suggests he is trying to triangulate and/or the DC power brokers have compromised him with some sort of blackmail. I would agree that it is too bad Rand Paul is not of the same mold as Rothbard or Hoppe on immigration, but at this point I would trust him a lot more than Cruz. Ted Cruz’s wife is a high level Goldman Sachs banker – these are the people behind the scenes who fund and control the politicians. Ted Cruz is no outsider, not with a wife like that. He is doing a great job of pretending to be taking on the establishment though, sort of like the con job Reagan pulled on conservatives and libertarians.
So she could have “used her influence to destroy the Republican party”?
Huh?
Why would she ally herself with the liberal Democrats?
IMO, a lot of so-called right-wingers are selfish and full of self-interest or more interested in being the “reasonable conservative” that gets on CNN than in advancing the cause. Its astounding how many so-called Conservatives spend endless amounts of time bashing Coulter, Rush, Beck, and any other Conservative who has a thimble of influence.
Its especially true of Coulter who has to deal with a lot frustrated sexists upset that a woman is funnier, smarter, more influential, and usually more conservative then they are. It must be a blow to their fragile egos. The idiots at “National Review” and “Red State” are prime examples.
“Outside of Gamergate, I see no ability on the part of the non-mainstream right to organize and influence things in the way they want. Meanwhile, the Twitter mobs are ready to destroy anyone who shows the least bit of “racism” or “homophobia.’”
Then you have not paid attention to the various gun control battles at the state and national level. The grass roots pro gun rights crowd is the only side defeating the left these days. Despite being outspent by Bloomberg and gun control groups, and despite an overtly hostile mainstream media, the grassroots gun people continue to win almost all of the battles against the billionaires for gun control. In Colorado, a plumber with a few thousand dollars and an iPhone made sure that a state senator was recalled after voting for a gun control bill – and Bloomberg wrote her a check of $250,000, not to mention the unions and other far left groups supporting her. This was also done in a district that voted for Obama by 20 points over Romney.
So it is not just gamergate – and those on the right would be wise to study why the pro gun people keep slaying Goliath. From what I can tell, they make the issues personal and emotional – just as the left typically does on race, sexuality, gender, etc.
I guess all those bitter [Coptic Christians along the Nile] who bemoan the loss of their homeland to [Mohammedan Araby] are ‘xenophobes’.
Those Semites sure do steal a lot of each other’s land, don’t they?
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-long-hot-summer-begins.html
This is great. Return of black crime to blue cities means more conservatism.
It’s not too tough:
Conservative = National Socialist.
Liberal = International Socialist.
The Khazar land thieves aren’t Semitic.
Nice take on the meaningless labels . . .
In terms of political relations or rather domination, we have the two Cheneyite parties . . . the radical Cheneyites (GOP) and the moderate Cheneyites (Demos) . . . both follow essentially the same “political/cultural narratives”, the same foreign policies, sell out to the same Wall Street kleptocracy . . . use the same front “men” . . .
Regarding my previous comments, I would just like to add that a vast majority of the American people supports anti-discrimination laws for gays. Like 70%+ support
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/20/polls-say-enda-has-majority-support-in-every-congressional-district/
Still, Republicans blocked a federal law, and for the most part still refuse to pass anti-discrimination laws in states where they have control.
What more can you ask of a political party in a democracy?
As bad as the conservative establishment is, on many issues the people are much worse. In many ways, mainstream conservatives are doing as much as you can expect in a society where the people are this brainwashed by the media.
Yeah, lets continue to vote for the Republican that is the lesser or two evils like we have been. How’s that been working out for conservatives for the last 30 years?
What was that quote from Einstein about insanity again?
Mr. Gottfried,
Major FAIL on the First Things article. I don’t think you read it, because it says the opposite of what you said it says.
Gun rights and homeschooling are the two issues where you get a large number of dedicated right-wing militants. That’s why you see results in those areas. Generally, people are too cowed by PC to organize effectively when the issues are more directly race-related as in the cases of immigration, refugee resettlement and Sec. 8.
Paul,
Here:
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
it looked like you might have been running low on quotation marks. I know you’re “conservative” and thusly would try to limit your use of them, but the subject matter was just too demanding of your stockpile. Let me know if you need more, I am “conservative” and have plenty stored up.
n/a
End the occupation of Constantinople
Mainstream conservatism may not be able to win under the current American system, or perhaps even any advanced post-industrial economy. The Abe government in Japan wants to introduce a ‘helot’ immigration strategy, and may distract its right-wing base with militarization.
We may have to look at going underground, or moving towards authoritarian Putin/LKY rule.
“[Gottfried thinks that] Libertarians Ron and Rand Paul are true Conservatives even though their views on immigration is similar to that of Hillary Clinton.”
Huh? Ron and Rand both oppose amnesty.
“Libertarians have a horrible track record on immigration.”
LOL. What is it? Where’s the voting record?
“If being anti-war automatically makes a person Conservative which is what you are implying, than all of those drug addict hippies in 1960s San Francisco summer of love were true Conservatives for opposing the Vietnam war. College campuses today must be a bastion of Conservatism because the vast majority of college students believe the U.S should never go to war, no exceptions.”
Sigh. Nice try, but the Founders would have opposed the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq too. Being anti-war doesn’t automatically make one anything, and that’s not what Gottfried was arguing. But your tired either-or fallacious narrative does resemble the black-and-white thinking of the brain-dead oldsters trekking to the Bush library to pay homage to The Dunce. Turn off Fox News and get some fresh air.
…and Damascus.
A gun is security – most people will not give that up – besides it is hard to actually take something away from somebody.
Goliath is the Jewish media – it shames us into allowing liberal things to happen – it has not found a way shame us on guns – YET!
>>–Yes, Coulter’s well known for her “mud-sharking.”–
>With whom?
>What evidence?
LOL. Ever hear of Google? She dated Dinesh D’Souza.
And JJ from Goodtimes. Don’t forget the pornographer Bob Guccione jr.
Coulter’s audience are the encephallatic Fox News audience and Tea Party “Conservatives”. I, on the other hand,believe these creatures should be euthanized…and then, shipped off to the glue factory for processing.
“LOL. What is it? Where’s the voting record?”
Libertarians are very much in favor of open borders.
“Libertarians are very much in favor of open borders.”
You failed to mention the rest:
No form of government support for immigrants and (almost) all land privately owned.
Basically, all immigrants would need sponsors or to be moderately rich. Or get kicked out.
Sounds a lot different now, doesn’t it?
A conservative is someone who in a previous life was a forager, and in a future life, will be a member of the freedom culture.
Political evolution: Forager culture –> Pharaonic culture –> Freedom culture.
“You failed to mention the rest:”
The rest doesn’t matter. Only open borders would happen (we have that now)…..the rest would not be considered.
The vast majority of white Americans would not benefit from open borders.
Libertarianism is one of those ideologies where only the crap bits actually go mainstream.
For example, open borders and free trade and vices like easy to access to hard core porn have become western staples. However, the good bits about libertarianism like freedom of speech and free association tend to fall by the wayside.
This is one of the reasons why I quickly abandoned when I left university and entered the real world.
Exactly so.
Amen to that