Al knows better, but he gave me a chance to make a point here:
NOT SPAM
I think one has to first decide if he’s a conservative or a revolutionary.
Bob is calling himself both. Is there no contradiction here?
I can understand why one would want to call himself a conservative and speak in ambiguous
terms about preserving European heritage. It brings the normal, mentally balanced people
that we desperately need into the movement. But I find it disingenous at best and deceitful
at worst. As if non-whites would leave if you gave them a plane ticket and a few dollars.
Yeah, right.
Comment by Al Parker
ME:
Al, language is usage. Today anyone who is not a stright-down-the-line Political
Correctness freak is called a “conservative.” I did not invent the language, but I have to
play it where it lies, and this is a lie.
Nontheless, in our society every non-liberal is called some kind of conservative. If
you are anti-liberal you are a conservative, and in that sense I am a conservative.
If things were not so desperate, I would spend some effort in fighting for the
correct use of words. The William Buckleys have ample time to do that sore of thing.
I don’t have that time preceisely because I AM a revolutionary.
To say, “I think one has to first decide if he’s a conservative or a revolutionary.” is one
of those statements one cannot deal with logically, like Reagan’s “We came here to clean
out the swamp, not to join the alligators.”
The word you apply to me is defeinitely NOT the first thing I am worried about.
#1 by Al Parker on 09/27/2006 - 2:51 pm
NOT SPAM
So you are going by the definitions from typical usage. I was going by a dictionary definition. Note my emphasis is below:
con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr’və-tĭz’əm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to MAINTAIN the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and OPPOSITION TO SUDDEN CHANGE in the established order.
rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y (rĕv’ə-lū’shə-nĕr’ē)
adj.
1. Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets.
2. Marked by or resulting in RADICAL CHANGE: a revolutionary discovery.
“Revolutionary conservatism” wouldn’t be in essence a contradiction of terms if you are refering to a time and a place where your views were labeled conservative — and you want a revolution to get it back.
It confuses those of us who aren’t politicos.
Maybe you are referring to radical traditionalism? An interesting article I stumbled upon:
Why Radical Traditionalism in Politics?
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/611
#2 by Alan B. on 09/28/2006 - 12:29 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I enjoyed the comment on Language, it hit the nail on the head. Words and their meaning are lost to many and I must admit that I lack the true meaning to many. I was a conservative but no longer, labels do not define me anymore. I will no longer vote for a Letter D Or R or a label, what I want is true substance from a true American patriot who is free from all this bullshit two party ism labeling BS.
#3 by joe rorke on 09/28/2006 - 3:11 pm
not spam
not spam
Al Parker. You got him. As usual he wiggled and squirmed and writhed around and tried to get out of what you nailed him on. But you had him. In fact, you’ve got him. He’s playing a words game with you. But you own him. Usually, he tries to twist what you have said into something you didn’t say at all. That’s his style. He, no doubt, learned all that at the hem of the garments of his political mentors. How to twist the facts. How to fail to address the facts. And this same guy wants to tell other people how to argue with their opponents.
You got him, Parker. Down home. He trys to pretend that he can be both entities that brought to the fore but he cannot so he tries to weasel out of it with multitudinous untruths. I had at least six occasions and as many as a dozen such occasions where I ran into this situation where Bob wouldn’t face the truth. Finally, after having whipped him on so many occasions, he resorted to calling me a “mean old bastard.” And a “tough old bastard.” And who knows what? Some kind of bastard. But this blog has gotten one hell of a lot better since I first got here maybe a half a year or a year ago. Alzheimer’s prevents me from getting the time correct exactly. OK, the beginning of Alzheimer’s. But I’m not washed up yet.
You were right, Parker. When you get him on the ropes don’t let him go. Keep pummelling him. If you don’t he’ll throw crap at you. I think Bob likes to tussle. Give him something to think about. He likes to think anyway. There’s a lot of crap in there but sometimes he comes up with something good. At least don’t join that small army of sychophants he has following him. He loves to be worshipped but it does him no good. You’d think he was going to ascend into heaven when someone tells him how great he is notwithstanding the paltry amount of evidence they have to go on in making the pronouncement.
Bob is a plodder. He is fond of saying that what he does works. He implies, often enough, that he is the power behind the throne. I think he claims responsibility for the downfall of the Soviet Union. Hello? Is anybody home? Of course, his name wasn’t mentioned for some mysterious reason. Sorry, schools out folks. This line isn’t going to work.
So. Keep hammering Al. You’ll discover soon enough that the man who claims he is a genius (based on the fact that he has a large collection of knowledge stored in many containers) is just another professor professing this, that and the other all coming to naught. He’s a good ole boy but that which he claims WORKS doesn’t, in reality, work at all. If it worked it would long ago prevented the multicultural, political correctness, diversity, overall disgusting society in which we now live. Long ago the troops would have rallied round him proclaiming, “long live Whitaker! It WORKS!” But they rejected him and his boss in Washington.
Before you continue to take his advice at least demand an explanation from him as to why, in fact, he was rejected by those who could have brought into existence that which he claims is so wonderful. You have a right to know why they refused to recognize his “genius.” That is not an unreasonable request or, if you will, demand.
He’s this, he’s that’, he’s something else. But nobody recognizes this. You have a right to know why this situation exists. In the end you will find that the answer to that and many other questions will tell you why you are still pissing into the wind. How long are you supposed to stand there pissing into the wind? It’s been too many years. Far too many.
#4 by Shari on 09/29/2006 - 10:35 am
Not Spam
I don’t know if Bob’s mantra WORKS or will work, but it states the facts in an easy to remember way. It could be a part of what ends up working. I don’t believe that everything good just dies,while evil and stupidity survives forever, although on this very date, not much seems apparent.
#5 by mderpelding on 09/29/2006 - 10:32 pm
NOT SPAM
a revolutionary “revolves’
aka Budhist wheel of life.
Going nowhere.
Typical oriental.
At least Evolve.
Or progress.
Better yet,
Be radical.