Posted on 11/13/2001 12:10:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Taiwan is on the other side of the globe. It was created by socialist revolutionaries like Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek.
Globalists are currently trying very hard to create a "palestinian" state. Arafat has spoken before the Council on Foreign Relations and is an associate member of the Socialist International. But I'm sure you would never regard such a "palestinian" as "inherently globalist" under any conditions . . . would you?
The United States of America was created by Illuminati-Masonic type enlightenment radicals and deists (or in the case of Franklin, a satanist). The American Revolution was the first project of the Globalist Left and was a testing ground for the social revolution that later took place in France. The international soldiers of fortune who came to America during our Revolution were the exact counterpart of the Red International during the Spanish Civil War. I guess that means all true conservatives should oppose the evil United States of America.
And btw, my reference to the age of jimmydean was not a reference to his behavior but to his lack of knowledge of Cold War history. I simply meant he is obviously too young to remember the Cold War, whereas I am not.
All that being said, thank you for letting us know where you stand, but no thanks at all for addressing none of my initial questions.
Uncalled for comment. I don't know about Sobran or Reese but Buchanan is for America first. Now being for America first is an 'Israel hater' to only the Israel first and free Pollard crowd.
1) You ignore the fact that "liberty" is a motto of Jacobinism and therefore anathema to European-style conservatives. Why therefore do America's "Euroconservatives" pose as its greatest champions?
2) Kindly explain why paleoconservatives who echo Jefferson Davis when it comes to distribution of power in the United States are such ardent admirers of arch-centralists in other countries, such as Chiang Kai-shek, Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, and Henri Petain. If Lincoln was a tyrant, why were these other men heroes of liberty? Can you explain this? Or do you even know about it?
P.S.: The late John G. Schmitz, the John Bircher who spent his entire legislative career fighting centralization of power, apparently in his last days despaired of this remedy and leaned toward a Franco-style revolution. How would such a solution be justified in Rothbardian libertarian, or even Jefferson Davis-style, terms?
Goverment falls within the context of three axes: popularly enacted law, centralized plenary authority, and anarchy.
Suuuuure they did. I'm sure their support of Israel was exactly equal to their gung-ho interventionism on behalf of Taiwan, Rhodesia, and South Africa.
And don't you consider all religion to be a cult? So it would be irrelevant whether I joined an "identity" group or not.
Still haven't told me where Fundamentalist-haters like you get your moral beliefs. I guess this confirms that it is mere parasitism off the Jewish Bible.
The next time you "western man" types want to adopt a new religion as your rallying cry, you might consider one that doesn't open with the Jewish Bible. Most "fundies" tend to read that part first.
The Republican Party as founded upheld strongly the virtues of the Founders. Non-interventionism (as opposed to isolationism per se), Fiscal responsibility (almost every abolitionist speech cites a long litany of the ills of government mismanagement), equality of all men on the simple premise that any man, no matter what his abilities or status or nature, will thrive on freedom as compared to what he would be in chains. In 1860 these ideas remained categorized as the far left, yet today our far left considers them as questionable notions, and our right, stock full of old Dixie-crat notions and illusions, can't deal with them either. Above all, on left and right today, it is the notion that an individual is somehow truly not suited to taking care of himself that drives forward the undermining of our most noble concepts.
I'm only concerned here with American conservatives, not Euroconservatives.
2) Kindly explain why paleoconservatives who echo Jefferson Davis when it comes to distribution of power in the United States are such ardent admirers of arch-centralists in other countries, such as Chiang Kai-shek, Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, and Henri Petain. If Lincoln was a tyrant, why were these other men heroes of liberty? Can you explain this? Or do you even know about it?
None of that esoterica is central to traditional conservatism.
P.S.: The late John G. Schmitz, the John Bircher who spent his entire legislative career fighting centralization of power, apparently in his last days despaired of this remedy and leaned toward a Franco-style revolution. How would such a solution be justified in Rothbardian libertarian, or even Jefferson Davis-style, terms?
Senility?
Thank you. The only thing that I have figured out was that they took offense at being confused with neo-conservatives or any other kind of conservative. I was clueless as to the distinctions.
Huh?
The second and third, taken together, are a single axis. Not three.
Someone who thinks coming down from the trees was a bad idea?
I would consider myself a palaeoconservative and I would describe the apparent disconnect in this way:
Palaeoconservatism believes that there is such a thing as cultural particularity and that particular social/economic orders appear to work best when ensconced in their proper cultural milieu.
For example - Rothbard postulates a completely free market economy with a highly articulated financial apparatus built upon a few basic principles.
I believe that in his model there are a number of cultural assumptions that are necessary but unspoken postulates to his expressed axioms. I believe that his economic order works for people like himself and myself. I do not believe it works for someone who would nod his head in agreement at Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March address or Noam Chomsky's latest lecture or someone who is addicted to scatological pornography.
Rothbard himself based his observations on a tradition of thought beginning with Aristotle and continuing through Aquinas and the Physiocrats.
The palaeoconservative realizes that systems are not perfect and that cultural and historical factors intrude. Was Franco the absolute best ruler for Spain? Probably not. Was he immeasurably better than a Stalinist client state? Assuredly.
Because I think that Spain could have done a lot worse than Franco in 1936, does that mean I think his style of government appropriate for the US in 2001? Not at all.
Palaeoconservatives are most properly cultural patriots. If we believe that strict construction of the US Constitution is the cultural and political apex of American civil society, then we are not being inconsistent. If we believe that the US Constitution is not the perfect form of government for Myanmar because it is alien to their cultural traditions, we are again not being inconsistent.
There are certain bedrock principles of human nature and morality which apply to all men - but there are also myriad cultural differences which it is foolish to disturb.
There are two issues: Israel itself and Israel in its relationship to the US.
I believe the US should have a cordial relationship with Israel. I don't believe we should meddle in their internal affairs. I don't believe we should give them money like clockwork, and I don't believe the Israeli government should expect its spies in the US to receive special treatment.
I think Israel, in the palaeoconservative analysis, is as muddled as the US. It is at once a socialist Eurostate and the home of a deeply religious people yearning for a benevolent theocracy. That state of affairs cannot continue forever, just as the US cannot waver forever between being a socialist Eurostate and a Constitutional republic. I am fundamentally ambivalent toward Israel for this reason, just as I am fundamentally ambivalent about the direction our country is headed.
That being said, I support the Jewish people settling in their ancestral homelands and I support all efforts by the US to rid this land of Islamist terror and to destroy it wherever found. I consider Islam to be an ideology eerily dissimilar from Communism or Nazism.
----------------------------------
Which goverment? - Our government?
Or all government?
In either case, kevin, your pronouncement is VERY debatable. - Could you elborate a bit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.