Phil Agre explains why Conservative allegiance to Tradition is merely thinly disguised excuse for protection of the artistocracy.
Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
|I initially wrote after the 2004
I thought at the time that the Left was filled with kind people who think Bush is mean and dishonest, and the right was all filled with hypocritical Christians who think Bush is a Christian too. Most people still believe that.
I HAVE NO OTHER GOOD PLACE TO PUT THESE SEXUAL DEVIANCE LINKS ON MY WEBSITE:
The Franklin Coverup Scandal
The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse
STOP REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILIA
I actually campaigned for Kerry because of evidence I read -- which is true -- that the Bush family is a political dynasty going back to the Nazis and fascism. See my History on Page 1 for that on Allen Dulles and US fascism. This isn't Bush-hating, his family was busted by J Edgar Hoover, but the Nazi dynasty continued through Allen Dulles who hired Poppy for the CIA, right out of Yale.
I thought "well, Kerry is an unknown, I don't know that he's a Nazi, and I hoped he'd be better". I didnt know at the time how complicit Kerry was with Bush crimes going back a decade or so. Kerry was a "Nazi-helper". So was Clinton.
After the election, trying to figure out what happened, I watched American Dictators by conservative Alex Jones, and a watched and read a few other things.
Now I know it's true, Bush is a mean pusbag, and a Nazi, but there's lots of Conservatives who are kind people who agree that Bush is mean and dishonest pusbag. More and more every day.
Conservatives also know that lots of "Liberal heroes" like Clinton and Kerry were also mean and dishonest.
A lot of Liberals think that Clinton was a decent guy. Some say "Nobody died when Clinton lied" and that's partly true, nobody died when he lied about Monica, but plenty died when he lied about Kosovo and Sudan and the forced starvation of Iraq. Experts from the UN (who quit in disgust, calling it genocide) said that Saddam had an excellent food distribution service, but US-UN Oil For Food allocated only $3 per person per day. The US demanded the Genocide, and the United Nations was complicit in it, whatever it's other members complained, the Security Council ruled.
Anyhow, it turned out that the UN inspections were a ruse from the get go, Brent Scowcroft had demanded "intrusive inspections" as a trap to "get" Iraq whenever Saddam balked at their intrusiveness. That was the intention.
The Yugoslav breakup and genocide was engineered by the Clinton, IMF, World Bank, and US Army Special Forces. Gen. Wesley Clark had called for "maximum violence". Does that sound nice?
to learn something about "regime change" you should watch this
Most critics of Kerry thought he was "weak". Few know that in the 1980's in his role in the Senate and in the Tower Commission he investigated the Iran-Contra-Cocaine scandal, and later was in charge of the BCCI scandal, the CIA's terrorist drug money laundering "bank". Kerry not only let Democrats get away, he specifically helped out Reagan, Bush, and all the criminals by shielding the most damaging information, and letting them get their money out first.
A certain number of Liberals, thinking that the election was perhaps a fraud -- it was an electronic fraud -- don't yet realize that Kerry participated in the fraud by his silence and acquiesance. It was a stage-managed election with stage-managed debates. They haven't yet faced the facts that most Democrats including Kerry totally supported the War, regardless of their rhetoric. Most want to expand it quickly, albeit only WITH international buy in. Spread the loot around.
The point is, the war between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" is mostly a giant snowjob, a media-think-tank-manufactured circus to distract people from issues of substance, to create name-calling and stupidity. What is needed is Liberals who can think outside the Democratic Party box, and Conservatives who can think outside the Republican Party box.
A certain number of Christians who get their news from their minister will never wake up and realize how they are being used.
However a lot of conservative Christians have woken up. Now a lot more Leftists have to wake up and join the Conservatives and talk about what's really wrong, that is not a right-left issue. The main controversy now is if Bush is tough on Terrorism, or if Dems would be. Page 1 should obliterate that question.
In the meantime, DO NOT come out like wannabes and whine [to quote Republicans] "hey, we have moral values tooooo".
The Left can never be nor never appear to be a sanctimonious as the Republican Right. That's their identity. We DO NOT want to merely COPY conservatives by quoting Scripture. That would be a knee-jerk reaction, and would play into the hands of the confusers. The fact that the DLC and Clinton is going for that sales pitch is evidence of their evil.
Pointing out that the immorality of killing innocent civilians and children is as bad as killing innocent fetuses is OK, except for the real Nazis who are overjoyed at killing Iraqi children -- but they don't dominate.
THE REAL LEFT HAS ALWAYS HAVE BEEN MORAL IN VERY IMPORANT WAYS ... DESPITE whatever "PRESSTITUTES" say. "Divide and Conquer" has been the tactic of the rulers for centuries. AMERICANS MUST NOT SUCCUMB TO IT ANY LONGER.
Most Conservatives just want what everyone wants --- reasonable Security, maximum Liberty.
Propaganda techniques were first codified and applied in a scientific manner by journalist Walter Lippman and psychologist Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) early in the 20th century. During World War I, Lippman and Bernays were hired by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion to enter the war on the side of Britain.
campaign of Lippman and Bernays produced
within six months so intense
an anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American
business (and Adolf
among others) with
the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion.
Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering
important concepts in practical propaganda work.
have done a remarkable job
blaming, demonizing, and tilling the soil for massive theft over the
last few decades, especially during the Clinton years of hysterical
about sex, by developing the "strawman" stereotypical liberal, and by
choosing the most
bizarre and negative examples in news stories, and
attibuting that to "Liberalism".
I so strongly oppose Bush. Not because he is conservative. Because he is ANTI-Conservative in deed, and dangerously jingoistic in Word. He's a cartoon of a conservative, dangerous because so many are fooled.
The President's embrace of God is a Madison Ave religious-crack-fantasy, usurped from the legacy of Martin Luther King. ("MLK embraced God and won followers. Let's try that tack.") CHRISTIANS DO NOT CRACK JOKES and LAUGH ABOUT EXECUTING OTHER CHRISTIANS. BUSH DID!! Reagan also oversaw the torture and execution of Catholic nuns and priests, and lied to the American public about it. THAT is EVIL!!!
GWB's "social liberalism" --- i.e. massive SOCIAL PROGRAM SPENDING --- is for the benefit of Big Pharm (at the expense of sick people) and MORE SPENDING for the benefit of the private Edu-bureaucracy (at the expense of children and society, dismantling public schools to restrict education to the wealthy). The author calls this "social liberalism", but it's pure robbery not social investment. This LINK seems to be a very good text on what Conservatism REALLY stands for.
EACH of us shares values that fall into, or can be framed within, a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but mostly from the point of view of that radical document called the Constitution..
ABORTION RIGHTS,for example, is not only about "women's liberation", not about skating around definitions of God or excluding God. It's also about core Conservative values of respect for Individual Liberty, unencumbered by Federal Intervention, respect for personal privacy and private property of our bodies.
It's really about a deep respect for U.S. Constitutional Law and The American Way of Life -- Justice and Liberty for All.
It's the refusal to allow the Government to intervene in a private contract between a patient and a doctor.
It's a refusal to subvert the Constitution, warping it to include "the unborn" as a class of Citizen, no matter how compelling that argument may be ... and that emotional argument IS compelling.
If Conservatives want to help the Unborn, they should work with principled Liberals (yes, Liberals) to help create a society that truly values pregnant women and the unborn and their children, not work for Federal intervention against Freedom. More children, born and unborn, will die of pollution and malnutrition and poverty than abortion. More unborn are dying under Bush.
Individuals MUST have the legal protection to persuade others of the moral wrongs of Abortion, and they SHOULD find within themselves and from God the courage to do so, to the degree they feel so inclined. People who oppose abortion should oppose it from the rooftops, from TV, from libraries, from churches, and in their own lives, not the judiciary, and not the Legislature.I think we would all do well to read up on what Conservative is, so we can confront it when it's not.
What they must NOT do is try to hijack the Federal Government to use Force instead of Persuasion. Unleashing Government Power against society to "engineer social policy" IS ANTI-American. Conservatives have ridiculed the use of government to enact social policy for decades, but now THEY want to do it.
|One area where
Liberals and Conservatives seem to differ is taxing wealth and business
to benefit the poor, to fund social initiatives, redistribution of
income. This issue seems to defy the Conservative argument I just
made above about federal intrusion.
However, that narrow framework avoids facing an Obvious Reality:
"Corporations Redefined as Persons" is itself UN-Constitutional. Much of the ill-gotten EXTREME concentration of Wealth and Power in America was not merely "earned profits" but rather stolen through these legal shenanigans.
In the few decades following the enactment of the 14th Amendment which granted slaves "Legal Personhood", some 12 cases were heard before the Supreme Court regarding actual black human beings, and some 275 cases were brought by corporations suing that their civil rights as corporate persons had been violated by human beings or groups of human beings comprising local governments. I think that says it all.
The judicial escape hatch of Corporate Personhood (nobody seems to complain about judicial activism when it benefits Wealth and Power), it itself a crime and one of the main causes of much conflict and problems in America and the whole world. This not only gave corporations and their owners rights they were not entitled to, it wedged open a doorway through which more and more Freedom and Liberty flowed AWAY from human beings TO these legal paper concepts.
Were it not for Corporate Personhood and the concentrated Power (de facto rulership), I could much more easily accept more Conservative economic arguments against most social spending.
a few points by other writers:
Arguably, "nearly all conservatism incorporates many aspects of classical liberalism, but it remains in contrast to and in conflict with modern [big bureaucracy] liberalism and democratic socialism." We can someday discuss the merits of whether the War on Poverty failed or was destroyed by Vietnam and Nixon's trashing of the Gold Standard, but we can save that for another debate. But we should point out that the astronomical rise of the permanent War Economy is just as much big bureaucracy government as any welfare state program. (Some conservatives also criticize the Mil-Ind Complex as a form of "Liberalism", though not social, in the sense of an ideology devoted to remaking the world in our image and values. The main difference is that the War Economy helps the few, not the many, not the whole. It is pure wealth transfer.)
|Liberalism is about tolerance as
a Spiritual and a Biblical and
a Constitutional value, not
merely "rampant permissiveness". As a matter of fact,
values INCLUDE massive permissiveness --- versus government intrusion.
Most of the worst "cultural permissiveness" or whatever they call it comes NOT from Liberal people, but from the Corporate Media, the same media that created Bush and his Fantasy Superhero War. Bush is a creation of the same stealthy Madison Avenue "Public Relations" propaganda firms that similtaneously pollute our culture with excessive-but-pointless corporate-manufactured decadence. (I'm trying to make a distinction btw a legitmate performance art and corporate smut produced for the purposes of class division, intellectual debasement, and social control.)
The Houston Chronicle reported Bush telling a friend: "You know, I could run for governor, but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business ..."