Activism Discussion: Why "Conservatism" Won't Save Traditional America

Why "Conservatism" Won't Save Traditional America
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Siegfriedson
2005-02-25 20:33:38 EST
Read this essay on the Web:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776

###################################

The Trouble with Conservatism


Conservatives are correct, of course, in viewing communism as a
serious danger, an evil which should be opposed. But – and this is the
essence of the matter – conservatives oppose communism for the wrong
reasons. They see it, first and foremost, as a threat to free
enterprise: a threat to their bank accounts. What they really hate
about communism is that it is collectivist (i.e., that it subordinates
the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the community – at
least, in theory) and that it is statist (i.e., that it vests ultimate
authority in a highly centralized party-government apparatus instead
of in more-or-less autonomous local governments).

But if collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we
had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an
infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling,
culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding,
decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now
squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which,
of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the
words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).

No, the real evils of communism are that it, like capitalism, is alien
to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially
destructive. The doctrine of communism was born in the alien mind of
Karl Marx (ne Levi); and it, as a doctrine which interprets history
and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the
primacy of gold over blood.

It is true that a perceptive minority of conservatives has awakened to
the fact that big capitalism, private monopoly capitalism, is by no
means antithetical to communism (state capitalism). They have finally
reached a vague understanding, after years of observing the
backslapping camaraderie between Western capitalists, like the
Rockefellers, and the masters of the Kremlin, that the fundamental
values of the two systems have certain similarities – that they are
merely variations on the same economic materialist theme.

Full article:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776



2005-02-25 20:52:28 EST
It all depends on whether you define "conservatism" as the
RINO/neocon wing of the GOP does - or as the socially-conservative mass
base of the GOP that wins elections for it does. The RINO country-club
conservatives and their neocon allies care only about money and foreign
policy; the social conservatives' hero is Pat Buchanan, not George W.
Bush - and their driving issues are social issues. If you want to win
on social issues llike abortion, guns, immigration, gay marriage, women
in combat, reverse discrimination, that second group of conservatives
is who will win it for you - NOT the few people in the National
Alliance.

See all our stuff at <a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW">Internet Gun Show!</a>


Mimus
2005-02-25 21:06:40 EST
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:33:38 -0500, Siegfriedson
<*n@stormfront.org> wrote:

>Read this essay on the Web:
>
>http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776
>
>###################################
>
>The Trouble with Conservatism
>
>
>Conservatives are correct, of course, in viewing communism as a
>serious danger, an evil which should be opposed. But \ufffd and this is the
>essence of the matter \ufffd conservatives oppose communism for the wrong
>reasons. They see it, first and foremost, as a threat to free
>enterprise: a threat to their bank accounts. What they really hate
>about communism is that it is collectivist (i.e., that it subordinates
>the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the community \ufffd at
>least, in theory) and that it is statist (i.e., that it vests ultimate
>authority in a highly centralized party-government apparatus instead
>of in more-or-less autonomous local governments).
>
>But if collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we
>had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an
>infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling,
>culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding,
>decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now
>squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which,
>of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the
>words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).
>
>No, the real evils of communism are that it, like capitalism, is alien
>to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially
>destructive. The doctrine of communism was born in the alien mind of
>Karl Marx (ne Levi); and it, as a doctrine which interprets history
>and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the
>primacy of gold over blood.
>
>It is true that a perceptive minority of conservatives has awakened to
>the fact that big capitalism, private monopoly capitalism, is by no
>means antithetical to communism (state capitalism). They have finally
>reached a vague understanding, after years of observing the
>backslapping camaraderie between Western capitalists, like the
>Rockefellers, and the masters of the Kremlin, that the fundamental
>values of the two systems have certain similarities \ufffd that they are
>merely variations on the same economic materialist theme.
>
>Full article:
>
>http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776

Isn't racism the ultimate collectivism?

--
t*9@hotmail.com

We feel America went off the track politically
sometime in August of 1776.

< _After Things Fell Apart_



Redc1c4
2005-02-26 01:56:04 EST
Siegfriedson wrote:
>
> Read this essay on the Web:

(snipage occurs)

*if* you're interested in ignorant bullshit. otherwise just ask
schiesskopf who won WWII...........

redc1c4,
my guess is donut fucker can't read anything that isn't pictographs.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Scihte101
2005-02-26 09:35:22 EST

<*r@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1109382748.877275.323670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> It all depends on whether you define "conservatism" as the
> RINO/neocon wing of the GOP does - or as the socially-conservative mass
> base of the GOP that wins elections for it does. The RINO country-club
> conservatives and their neocon allies care only about money and foreign
> policy; the social conservatives' hero is Pat Buchanan, not George W.
> Bush - and their driving issues are social issues. If you want to win
> on social issues llike abortion, guns, immigration, gay marriage, women
> in combat, reverse discrimination, that second group of conservatives
> is who will win it for you - NOT the few people in the National
> Alliance.
It isn't conservatism at all it is zionism fortified with greed. President
Bush is nothing more than a showdog following the instructions of his
handlers and patrons. He has sold out both Christianity and the American
dream.
Originally, in the context of
the United States, it referred to a
right-wing movement of former political leftists. As Michael Lind has
observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on
the left, not the right. They are products of the influential
Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s,
which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and
finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in
American culture or political history." from
disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Neoconservative
Then search "global stragety councils".

Search wolfowitz, libby, feith, and perle to learn about the grand plan for
the Middle East. Look further into the groups they have created or served.
These four horsemen of the neocon apocalypse and their army of pork-eating
Zionists have taken over the government of the United States for the sake of
expanding Israel's dirty little war for land, nothing more nothing less.

"... Paul Wolfowitz - deputy secretary of defense (status of appointment:
decided but not announced)
The Jewish and pro-Israel communities are jumping for joy. While skeptical
regarding the Oslo Accords, Wolfowitz is considered a strong supporter of
Israel. He has been one of the loudest proponents of a tough policy toward
Iraq focused on finding a way to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime.
".....2/6/2001 zacharia in Jerusalem post

Search "kevin phillips" +bush +war for some informatin on the history of the
bush clan and its close association to the robber barons and the war
profiteers. Search McAuliffe +"global crossing" to learn about the other
side. Search "global stragety councils" to see why.

"Baghdad Year Zero
"Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia"
By Naomi Klein" informationclearinghouse.info

Search limbaugh +casey +ABC +capital cities to learn about the
re-incarnation of Mildred Gillars. Search lowry mays and clear channel and
try to figure out what they are up to.

The Zionist Organization of America is a tax-exempt organization under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and all contributions
to it are deductible as charitable contributions as provided in IRC section
170. from zoa.org.



PayneN.Diaz
2005-02-26 11:33:37 EST

<*r@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1109382748.877275.323670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> It all depends on whether you define "conservatism" ....
>

One entry found for conservatism.
Main Entry: con\ufffdser\ufffdva\ufffdtism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a
political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing
established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt
change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to
change



Craig Chilton -- Countdown To 1/20/09: 1, 425 Days To BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
2005-02-26 18:00:58 EST
On 25 Feb 2005 17:52:28 -0800,
"Editor" <editor@netpath.net> wrote:


> If you want to win on social issues llike abortion,...

LOL!!! Sensible and fair-minded egalitarians WON that
battle 32 years ago. All we've had to do since is continue
to expose the hateful and ludicrous Anti-Choicers for the
laughingstocks that they truly are.

> ...guns,...

A NON-issue. not worth fighting over, *either* way.
A triviality.

> ...immigration,...

No problem. Send the ILlegal ones home for good. Blacklist
those who enter illegally from EVER attaining residency status or
citizenship in the future, after first giving those already here the
chance to go to their homelands voluntarily. (I.e., a short "amnesty"
period for that purpose, after which EVER living here legally would
become impossible for any who hadn't complied by leaving. And...
immediately begin training and hiring ALL 2,000/year new Border
Patrol agents (to reach a total of 10,000 in five years) that Congress
appropriated the funding for. INSTEAD of the paltry 200 that have
DISHONESTLY been hired under the corrupt Bush Administration
because the proper quantity was disregarded.

There. See how EASY that would be? NO more ILLEGAL
immegration problems, once those steps are taken.

> ...gay marriage...

Already well in progress, thanks to Canada, Massachusetts,
and some European nations. All we need to do is keep laughing
at the moronic bigots, while steadily ensuring that this perfectly
reasonable and harmless personal liberty will become universal.

> ...women in combat...

For the most part, this has been achieved. If we just keep on
track, they will universlly have that capability across-the-board.



-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

Jake
2005-02-27 05:47:52 EST
Siegfriedson <Siegfriedson@stormfront.org> wrote in message news:<6akv1193d3gu27ql7hs9urjadmbiuhpkqa@4ax.com>...
> Read this essay on the Web:
>
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776
>
> ###################################
>
> The Trouble with Conservatism
>
>
> Conservatives are correct, of course, in viewing communism as a
> serious danger, an evil which should be opposed. But ? and this is the
> essence of the matter ? conservatives oppose communism for the wrong
> reasons. They see it, first and foremost, as a threat to free
> enterprise: a threat to their bank accounts. What they really hate
> about communism is that it is collectivist (i.e., that it subordinates
> the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the community ? at
> least, in theory) and that it is statist (i.e., that it vests ultimate
> authority in a highly centralized party-government apparatus instead
> of in more-or-less autonomous local governments).

Yes, communism is statist cause it says power should rest in the
government. Don't all political systems say that?

Conservitives are the biggest statists of all, because they say that
they are the state. The conservitive line is: 'power rests with me,
not you.' The communist line is: 'power rests with the government,
who's job is to do what you tell it.' That's why communism is power 4
the people by the people, whereas conservitism is power 4 the one over
the people.


>
> But if collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we
> had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an
> infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling,

go back to Germany, Hitler.

> culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding,
> decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now
> squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which,
> of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the
> words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).

Defiling, filfth, curruption, decadence... sounds like fun. I can't
believe anyone born this side of 1950 is afraid of these things.

> No, the real evils of communism are that it, like capitalism, is alien
> to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially
> destructive. The doctrine of communism was born in the alien mind of
> Karl Marx (ne Levi); and it, as a doctrine which interprets history
> and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the
> primacy of gold over blood.

Right now we have our countries ruled by billionaires. That's what I
call 'gold over blood.' And what's that shit about Marx being an
alien? Is that serious or just meant to be a joke that no-one laughed
at? Capitilism is the system that interperets our lives in economic
terms, it is Communism which says that there is more to life than
money.

> It is true that a perceptive minority of conservatives has awakened to
> the fact that big capitalism, private monopoly capitalism, is by no
> means antithetical to communism (state capitalism). They have finally
> reached a vague understanding, after years of observing the
> backslapping camaraderie between Western capitalists, like the
> Rockefellers, and the masters of the Kremlin, that the fundamental
> values of the two systems have certain similarities ? that they are
> merely variations on the same economic materialist theme.

Now here it gets a little more interesting. I agree that American
Capitalism and Soviet Communism do have a lot in common; in the USSR,
one fascist government controlled all the wealth, and in the USA, just
a few (mostly socially conservitive) billionaires control most of the
wealth.

> Full article:
>
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3776

Communism ain't a serious danger. Only if you're afraid of sharing.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron