I formally resign from being a “conservative.”
Today’s conservative is a Jehovist who is trying desperately to crawl back into his mother’s womb.
I only use the word “conservative” about myself because I am one of the many types of people who opposes America’s Established Religion of Political Correctness, which called itself liberalism until that became so obviously ridiculous they changed it to “progressive.”
Conservatives today are dedicated to Jehovist Dumb Science. They demand that the world be regarded as being created in six days. They violate the Constitution by saying that life is not from birth to death, but from a one-cell conception, something the Pope insists on, just as he insists that it is a sin for a married couple to have sex for any reason except conceiving a baby.
Conservatives are dedicated to the liberal program up to the year 1968. They say they are more dedicated to liberalism than liberals are. Their political Bible is the Democratic platform of 1964, and all they ever do is accuse liberals of heresy.
I despise conservatives.
#1 by Bedford on 12/11/2004 - 8:48 pm
Bob, it’s time to name names – who are the conservatives? Bush is not conservative – he’s a Repub – they are almost all Repubs! Go to cofcc.org – there are conservatives. How about that Snake newspaper today – got Strom’s nigger daughter again! This woman kept her mouth shut for decades and now you can’t get rid of her because her claim to fame is that she’s an illegitimate nigger offspring of someone famous? How bout that Fritzi? He’s living in a multimillion dollar home with no nigs in sight and he calls it “white flight” when whites want to send their kids to private schools! Fritzi supposedly tells it like it is? Fritzi wants it to be too expensive for the middle and lower classes to send their kids to private schools. And Inez – she’s calling a man racist (Wilson) when a racist organization, naacp, is 100% demorat party. “Them” demorats gots lots of nerve! That “Snake” paper is determined to ram blacky down whitey’s throat!
#2 by Don on 12/11/2004 - 8:38 pm
Your sentiments are well placed.
#3 by Bedford on 12/12/2004 - 8:34 pm
My “Conservatism” is a European origin political philosopy that has 4 basic principles – 1) Rule of Law 2) Strong National Defense 3)Minimal Government 4) Allowance of the free enterprise system to create wealth It actually says nothing about race or religion or culture. It just so happens that it did not come from Asia or Africa. It just so happens that white Christians of European origin developed it. Now, one can expand and discuss related topics ad infinitum. I once read National Review for awhile, but since I am not and have never been in professional politics, I was just mostly wasting my time. In fact, there are so many political publications today, it would require reading 24/7 and one would still not read it all. Now, the conservative philosophy helped to produce the Constitution, but the Constitution was written for a society that was predominately of one race, religion, and culture. The liberal PC multiculturalism is at odds with a conservative society which approximately existed between 1800 and 1850 and during the Confederacy’s brief life.
#4 by Don on 12/13/2004 - 8:02 am
A conservative on the Titanic would grab a pot and start bailing.
If he were the captain he would tell the crew: “don’t rock the boat.”
A conservative expects others of whatever race or cultural background to obey all the rules, be nice, and make sure everything they do is in accordance with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
A conservative in 2004 is clueless, or if he does catch on he sticks his head in the sand and does not want to hear about it.
William Buckley is a conservative.
#5 by Richard L. Hardison on 12/15/2004 - 7:57 pm
William Buckley is senile. I still read NRO, but only for John Derbyshire, the only man approaching a true conservative in their stable of scribblers.
I can remember when Bob was on the link list of lewrockwell.com. They dropped him, suppsoedly, so they could make room for someone with interests more in line with the thrust of the organization. That was bovine waste. Bob scared the liver out of Rockwell and that crowd. I still have Rockwell on my bookmark list and click it daily, but, more often than not, I simply read the headlines and then click worldnetdaily.com.
About the only real conservative with a national audience is pat Buchanan. Alas, he’s a bit weak, but those things he feels strongly about, he is not afraid to take the heat from respectable conservatives – generally. I did say he was a “bit” weak.
#6 by Bedford on 12/15/2004 - 9:33 pm
Buckley was born into a family with money which is a benefit for those who take advantage of it. I used to watch him on Firing Line and I read him in National Review. I think that he made a great contribution but could have made even more – Catholicism is probably more importannt to him than conservatism and he IMO wasted time writing novels. Nonetheless, I think that he made a great contribution in debating with the lefty elite and defeating them. He stood fast even when LBJ appeared to be becoming a dictator – those were dark days when it appeared the demorats were going to gain total control. If LBJ had solved the Viet Nam problem, he could have been reelected and Prez for about 10 years. God help us if that had happened. LBJ was a SOB.
#7 by Richard L. Hardison on 12/16/2004 - 10:21 pm
The days of LBJ is part of the period before Buckley became senile. When he started writing novels he had begun his downward slide.
I watched Buckley debate Jesse Jackson on PBS one Sunday, I think it was on Firing Line, but that was 20 years ago. Buckley easily manhandled Jackson, but he seemed to be doing more to show his superior intellect than to accomplish anything useful. His debates were basically a waste of time and air, they accomplished exactly nothing permanent. NRO has become so bad, and is exmplified by the idiot Jonah Goldberg, who is so ignorant he has no idea how ignorant he really is (he has tried to bandy words with Rockwell, Gottfreid and Brimelow and has been torn apart everytime). It was someone on VDARE that took to calling NRO the “Goldberg Review.” I have a bit of trouble with Rockwell, but he is far and away the intellectual superior of Goldberg.
Alas, it morons like Goldberg that have inherited National Review. The better people, like Brimelow and O’Sullivan, were replaced by liteweights like Lowry and Goldberg. NR and NRO are basically a kindergarten without adult leadership, and Buckley is the primary culprit that made the change.
#8 by Don on 12/17/2004 - 8:22 am
I thought I could administer the coup de grâce to conservatism by throwing in Buckley. Senile today, Pompous Jackass forever. He might, I repeat might have made a good stable boy for Nathan Bedford Forrest had he agreed not to talk the horses to death.
Perhaps he was the leading protagonist for Effete Conservatism.