In a recent article National Review talked about how liberals fought for righteous causes until about the middle 1960s. National review was saying that National Review was wrong to fight liberalism for the first ten years of the existence of that publication.
National Review says that National Review should not have been founded in 1955 as an opponent of glorious liberalism. National Review says that the people who founded National Review were on the wrong side.
In the 1950s all of us redneck segregationists were saying that integration, which is now The Holy Grail of conservatism, was wrong and would lead to disaster.
No respectable conservative today would dare even hint a suggestion that integration, the final solution to the race problem, which means the final solution to the white problem, is anything less than holy.
When a white country becomes dedicated to the proposition that the white race must go, it is a very sick society.
Everything we predicted for integration came true. But nobody who wants to be on the national media could even allow that fact to cross his mind if he wants to keep his job.
So everybody in the spokeman business agrees that integration was glorious, progressive, inarguable and holy.
How do they explain that every single disaster that us rednecks and most of the founders of National review predicted is now a fact of life?
They say the only thing they CAN say:
“All that progressivism was right and wonderful and us old reactionaries were just evil. We right until about 1970 Then all of a sudden, something went WRONG with liberalism.”
That is the doctrine of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives say were right when they were liberals and they are right now. National Review agrees.
I say liberalism did not GO wrong. It is obnvious to me that all those “progrssive ideas” went on to their natural conclusion.
Which is the natural conclusion I was predicting as a teenager.
Once the Holy Grail of Integration and the other ideas liberalism fought for were estalished by 1968, we were headed for the disasters we are experiencing right now.
Nothing suddenly “went wrong.” Progressive policy just went on to its natural conclusions, the ones we predicted, with uncanny accuracy, fifty years ago.
This realization is critical. This is the sine qua non (without which nothing) of a sane society.
If we are to recover, we must reject the insanity entirely and go back to basics. We must get “simplistic.”
If you are totally involved in today’s latest revelation about Iraq or Bush’s foot odor, you can miss this overriding, critical historic fact.
A lot of people are wrapped up in the realization that the official spokesmen for neoconservatives, the people National Review worships, are Jews.
That is true, and that is important in the present war for Israel we are fighting in Iraq. But in the long run, that is not the essense, the real meaning, of the neoconservatism today’s entire conservative establishment adheres to and worships.
I just wanted to remind of you of what, in the sweep of history, neoconservatism really means.
You may now return to frantically e-mailing each other about Iraq.
#1 by joe rorke on 09/26/2005 - 6:44 pm
It took me a lot of years to realize that almost all of those folks who called themselves “conservatives” were no such thing. The Republicans kept badgering me for the money that I didn’t give them, promising me that they would resist the onslaught of “liberalism.” I found Limbaugh and the whole pack of them to be unmitigated liars. They must have gotten a lot of somebody’s dough but they didn’t get mine. They always had the same lie. Give me your money and I’ll save America from the destruction of “liberalism.” They said they were going to limit the size of government. They lied. George Wallace was right. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties in this country.
#2 by lemon on 09/26/2005 - 7:19 pm
Sometimes I get a tiny little hope that the phony notions that hold so many hearts and minds in thrall, will just suddenly collapse. It’s a small hope, but, better than none. Shari
#3 by Mark on 09/27/2005 - 12:21 am
“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties in this country.”
I believe Huey Long said something to the effect that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that one party wanted to skin you from the neck down while the other party wanted to skin you from the ankles up.
#4 by Mark on 09/27/2005 - 12:24 am
Hey Bob, what happens when all of this mess runs to it’s logical conclusion? I mean, will America return to it’s commonsense roots or will liberalism destroy the country en masse?