Bedford says I might be too demanding and alienating conservatives like himself.
After all, I have been a fighting leader of conservatism since the 1950s, only a few years after I became a Southern Nationalist.
At the same time I was a warrior against Communism. I was a far better patriot for Ameria than most professional patriots.
BUT, and it is a big BUT, I am not BLINDLY loyal. So, though I am a patriot to America against foreigners, you can’t take my loyalty for granted.
So when the courts decided that the purpose of America is to mix races, I will NOT be loyal to THAT America.
You cannot “interpret” the Constitution to mean its own opposite and expect me to be loyal to what you now call the Constitution.
When the Southern nationalist movement became official in the late 1990s, its original leaders were desperate to prove they had nothing to do with “racism.” They wanted an integrated, open-borders, multiculture South just like the United States.
I said to hell with it.
Whitaker Online started as a protest against that sort of “Southern Nationalism.” I helped change it.
So conservatism has stopped being against forced integration. Nobody is more fanatically integrationist than today’s conservative.
So what are conservatives interested in today? Mostly they dedicate themselves to the idea that a fertilized egg is the same as a child. They are also interested in a big military to be used however anybody wants it to be used, mostly for Israel.
Conservatives are worried today about prayers in schools and other trivia, the more trivial the better. They also say they want to spend less taxpayers’ money for social programs than liberals do. They want it to pay for more soldiers to fight Israel’s wars.
Meanwhile, what these conservatives are really doing is robbing America of a genuine opposition. That is their ONLY function.
They pretend opposition in the 1970s was the Republican Party. I was accused of being disloyal to them, too.
In 1976, Jerry Ford said that we hard core rightists were “a minority of a minority,” that is, we were a minority of the minority Republican Party. We were driving everybody away, which happens to be exactly what Bedford accuses me of doing.
This is a perfect replay of the same game.
I was denounced in the late 70s for being disloyal to the Republican Party, exactly as Bedford worries about my disloyalty to conservatism. I was a major leader of the New Right, which abandoned the unelected President Ford and his handpicked vice president, Nelson Rockefeller.
This is about my third or fourth round in this game and I am not about to change my principles.
National Review just announced that everything liberals did until 1965 was wonderful. That was the liberalism National Review was founded in 1955 to oppose.
All their interest now is in things 1) they don’t really care about, like saving taxpayer money, 2) being silly, like saying there is no evolution and fertilized cells that will never be used to produce children are children, 3) fighting Israel’s Wars, and 4) demanding that black separatists be integrationists, and 5) demanding the Gospel of the Melting Pot.
Most “conservatives” were blindly loyal to the Republican Party under Ford and Rockefeller. Most “conservatives” are loyal integrationists and will shoot anybody who “betrays” the new Constitution proclaimed by the courts.
Make your choice. If you are blindly loyal to that kind of “conservatism,” I say to hell with you.
Bedford, I will not be a conservative today because they stink to high heaven. You are too good a man to hold your nose and support them.
#1 by H.S. on 01/02/2005 - 9:17 am
Good grief! Bob, you were too easy on them. They didn’t even address some of the volatile issues (your pets) you state as any sort of priority – they’re cowards. Most don’t care about even some of those issues.
We don’t have enough time to run a Conservatives Anonymous for WOL readers who are addicted to any party. Watching C-Span on any regular basis will be enough. Reading insane legislation and the insanity in the Congressional Record will make you permanently nauseated or give you a nervous breakdown if you care at all about America.
I don’t want to think it, but I’m sure there were WOL readers who actually voted for Bush and many exactly like him locally. I can’t hold my nose for that long.
#2 by Bedford on 01/02/2005 - 10:36 am
Well, I’m not sure all those people that you describe as conservative really are conservative and I’m not sure all those issues are conservative issues. The war in Iraq for instance is a conservative issue – is it about a strong national defense? Is it necessary to limit terrorism and secure the oil supply? You are probably tired of my referring to Forrest, but in 1868 he described 40,000 men in Tennensse and 550,000 in the South as supporting the Ku-Klux against the Union League. Forrest was a big poker player and he was saying that he had no problem with federal law at the time since all rights to him had been restored – he said the problem was state laws and those responsible for those laws. He said they were radicals and marked men – he referred to those in Memphis as being unlikely to escape with their lives. He claimed the Ku-Klux had stopped scaring the negroes and going to excess – he said they had tried and executed two Ku-Klux for murder and arson. In short, Forrest looked for all the help that he could get and tried to limit his enemies. Ronald Reagan tried to get the Repub nomination against Ford. Goldwater supporters had Rockefeller throwing a tantrum. Hey, I support you Bob, but our agreement is probably like 75% which is about as good as it gets – the masses of people (voters) out there are never going to get into things as deeply as you do – you have to keep it simple for ’em – that’s what the Lefties used to do.
#3 by Bob Whitaker on 01/02/2005 - 1:08 pm
My issues are simple. Remember, I worked with the coal miners and Boston Southies.
The only reason Republicans won this time is that they were facing a party stupid enough to nominate a Massachusetts liberal AGAIN. Liberals hate white people and America, and that is why they get the votes liberals repel.
Conservatives want to say they love America but they hate white people more than liberals do.
What have conservatives got to offer that I CARE about?
The issues people care about are the simple basics. It takes half an hour to explain any difference between liberals and conservatives on anything but Israel and abortion.
The only issue professional conservatives seem to care is letting priests run medical research.
#4 by Don on 01/03/2005 - 8:41 pm
Bedford; What is the most important issue facing American conservatives today and what should they be doing about it?
#5 by Bedford on 01/05/2005 - 8:43 pm
Well, the principle of strong national defense cries out for the immigration door to be slammed shut. I see where the marine with the name “Ali” is missing again before his trial. The marines said that he was not going anywhere and did not need to be confined to base. What white man would want to be in the US military today? You have a politically correct force where women are where they should not be and soldiers named “Ali” to protect your back. The war in Iraq is depending heavily on fat old men from the reserves. How long does it take to train an Iraqi to be a soldier? It has been enough time to train a basic Iraqi force and use their oil money to pay and equip them.
#6 by Don on 01/05/2005 - 11:27 pm
Here is a snip of an article by Sam Francis:
I just wanted to clarify this. When I talk about American governments of the future and I throw about the D word, it is not because I desire to live under a modern version of the corrupt Caesars. No indeed, I prefer the George Washington type of leader.
But those who understand what Sam Francis is saying will realize that future developments depend on hard reality, not fond nostalgia.
An intellectual revolution along the lines proposed in Why Johnny Can’t Think would be an excellent place to start.
#7 by Bedford on 01/06/2005 - 9:59 am
Germany is 90% German according to the last figures that I have seen, so they have a chance to save themselves. The Constitution was written for a society that was on the same page. However, there was a movement in the early 1800s for the New England states and N. Y. and part of Penn. to secede and form a separate country. It is common sense that mixing cultures is not a “strength” but further stress on the natural divisons that exist in a society. This pouring of Mex into the US and islamics and africans into Europe is about money. Hey, these Mex have nothing but contempt for the US. “I don’t care bout no stinkin George Washington, I want them higher denomination bills”.
#8 by Bob Whitaker on 01/06/2005 - 11:14 am
Beford, the Hartford Convention in 1814 only involved New England.
One of my huge historical regrets is that New England did not secede in 1814. That might have saved America.
New York was not involved. New York was still a SLAVE STATE until 1826.
#9 by Bedford on 01/06/2005 - 9:00 pm
Some of the people involved wanted N. Y. and Philadelphia northward plus the New England states. The Constitution should have spelled out secession and maybe had the proviso that if a state ever seceded, it would require a unanimous vote of all states for that state to ever return. I think New York City once considered becoming independent.