What is Conservatism?

Two good pieces on just how stupid (or dishonest) some Republicans are. I included dishonest because I don't believe this is about decorum for many. That excuse is only a fig leaf for some of the more rapacious scoundrels among them. The first is by Victor David Hanson. The second shows the idiot Republicans are, or pretend to be, more concerned about tone than destroying the finances of the country. 

If the point about decorum is true, it shows just how stupid these people are. One does not worry about "decorum" when one is in hand-to-hand combat in a filthy trench with an implacable foe. One fights to win. Again, I say many of the "fights" scoundrels like McConnell engage in are actually intimate dances of passion between two willing partners. They want us to believe they are fighting, but they are just negotiating on divvying up the spoils.

Why I left National Review

Decorum Republicans

We all know that the various RINOs, leftists writers, political advisors and other cons claiming they work for Conservative Inc. are a big problem for the movement. But Steve Bannon lays out, to my mind, a bigger problem facing the movement and, by extension, the country. The 5 minute clip starts with Bannon's commenting on how so many conservative fan boys are having orgasms over Elon Musk buying Twitter. 

Grow up

The link is to a longish, but very interesting piece about a big part of what ails society. The piece puts into academic terms pretty much what we have been saying for a long time. I like the fact that he calls out these fools who believe they are elites, but who are really high-paid lackeys. They ape their betters because they don't have the brains to see reality.

I see a number of themes here which I have been hammering on for decades. The loss of the pursuit of personal excellence, the atomization of the individual from society, the creation of an amorphous international culture and others.

Whenever I get into discussions about American food, I make a certain point by saying "America has brought the standard of cuisine to a very high level of mediocrity. " In large part I am referring to the "fast-food" culture. This sentiment can be applied to just about everything else we do.

Anti-Managerial Aesthetics   

The article linked to below, covers just about everything I have said about conservatism. It sounds like the author has been reading R&T.

Rethinking Conservatism

Some excerpts from the piece.


This is why I have been relentless in my criticism of libertarians, both left and right. They either live in Never-Never-Land, in which case they should not be taken seriously, or they are demons and need to be destroyed.

Before Artler shoots off his easy chair, I should note that, despite his protestations, I do not consider him a true libertarian. He is, as I see it, basically a constitutional conservative with some libertarian leanings.

I find it interesting that the conservative criticism of libertarians is always to go to the most active and strident forms of what they suppose libertarian philosophy to be. In effect,  creating a straw man that is easily knocked down. This is a tactic the left has perfected. However, I freely admit many so-called libertarians do fit the straw man image and are more just ordinary leftists than libertarian.  This type have not given thought to what they think they are advocating. This is a fault of many conservatives and liberals also. There is common ground between liberal, libertarian and conservative although the line is often very thin and can be wiped out in a thoughtless moment of zealotry by either group. 

Thoughtful libertarians are just as concerned about how society is structured as conservatives. The differences, in to my belief is the degree of control exerted by government. No thoughtful person expects society to be entirely self-governing. Where conservatives and libertarians differ is the amount of government control and the expense of that control. That means the goal is the same but the road my differ, i.e. it is a policy difference not necessary a philosophical difference. A conservative might say, " we need a law about X, and when passed I blindly will obey it", the libertarian might say, "go ahead and pass your law, if it makes common sense I will obey it" 

Consider the thousands of laws and regulations on the books today. How many of them are actually needed? How many of them did you break before  lunch today?  In some towns it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Ok, it is gross but just because it is gross is a law necessary? How many thousands of regulations go on the books every year that the people never approved through their representatives? This is a quiet form of tyranny that must be opposed. Libertarians do not oppose government, nor seek to abolish government entirely, but to limit its power to do evil. Is that not the heart of the American Constitution? A more efficient government would be a monarchy but our founders thought it too prone to tyranny, and they were correct to believe it so. 

Libertarians accept that power not only corrupts, but that the people who are chosen to exercise power are corruptible, thus the concept of citizen governance. The libertarian is appalled at the incumbents reelection percentage in congress about 95%. I believe it was WFB who said he would rather be governed be 535 names in the phone book than the current crop of house members and senators. And it has gotten worse in the last 40 years. We see the occasional house member or senator who serves two terms and return to their former profession, but they are like hens teeth, difficult to find. Conservatives are just as guilty as the leftists in perpetuating this corruption on the American people. 

If a person describes himself as "libertarian" because he believes in an enduring moral order, the Constitution of the United States, free enterprise, and old American ways of life—why, actually he is a conservative with imperfect understanding of the general terms of politics.
Another strawman

Perhaps it is the conservative with an imperfect understanding of politics and that is why the left is on the march from California to New York. We agree on one important and critical issue, Zealotry, of any persuasion always leads to tyranny. The libertarian is more inclined to oppose it than the conservative. 

Again, most of what you write falls into the category of "constitutional conservative." A "thoughtful" libertarian as you define him, certainly doesn't fall within the group of nutty people who often present themselves as libertarians.

But too many of today's "libertarians" such as those incels who have pushed for the legalization of marijuana like it was the equivalent of freeing the slaves after the Civil War, are both nutty dupes and dishonest hacks. Have these idiots not figured out that our government is quite happy to rule over a bunch of listless slackers who, become more docile and less questioning the more dope they smoke? 

I have found that libertarians are too often happy to push for special projects like the legalization of marijuana, which they count toward expanding freedom, but have been more than content to leave in place the many facets of welfare state which is anything but libertarian.  They don't push for freedom, they push for the right of the state to support their drugs addictions, and if they last long enough, their medical bills. They profess the desire to limit the state's reach, but in fact become a burden on the state. Maybe they are just leftists, but if this is so, right-thinking libertarians need to put a big distance between themselves and these parasites. 

Here is a piece which I wrote almost nine years ago, before my piece Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries by Russell Kirk . I quote one of the high priests of Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, who one would think, accurately represents Libertarian thought. 

Libertarians: The Bolsheviks of the Right

by Kung Fu Zu 12/28/13

Much of what Libertarians preach is simply a rehash of classical liberalism or constitutional conservatism. To a very great extent, American Conservatives fall into the category of classical liberals and wish for the smallest possible government consistent with maintaining a peaceful and orderly community. If Libertarians could focus on this broad area of agreement, there would be the normal back and forth on specific policies, and a working political coalition between Libertarians and Conservatives could be established.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to happen because, at the heart of the Libertarian philosophy, there is the desire for a Utopian paradise which is based on a profound misunderstanding and denial of human nature. This Utopian dream has pronounced similarities with Marxism. Some may find this statement outrageous but the following quotes should give those people reason to reconsider their position:

“The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,”it withers away.”

The above statement was made by Marx’s good friend and financial supporter Frederick Engels. Many have forgotten this part of Marxist theory, but the end point of Marxism was the state of no State.

The next quotes are from the famous Libertarian Murray Rothbard.

“It's ours to right the great wrong done,\\ Ten thousand years ago -- \\ The State, conceived in blood and hate, \\ Remains our only foe! \\ Oh, join us, brothers, join us, sisters,\\ Victory is nigh!\\ Come meet your fate, destroy the State,\\ And raise black banners high!”

“The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.”

“The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.”

The similarity in thought is striking. Both groups have the political end of doing away with the State. We know how Marxism’s most successful proponents, the Bolsheviks, and their cousins the Maoists, tried to attain this goal. It was by the slaughter of tens of millions of people. The Libertarians’ method is not yet clear, but perhaps they hope to bring everyone around a campfire and get them stoned on weed.

Why any rational human being would entertain the thought that humanity could function without the “State,” (however one wishes to define it — society, community, etc.) and some sort of communal coercion which comes with being a part of a political group, is something which psychologists should further study. Yet in their Muenchausian world, Libertarians such as Rothbard appear to believe that each individual is completely autonomous and can act without affecting others. This leads to several questions.

Do Libertarians truly believe that, all or even most, individuals left to their own devices could exist in harmony together, as everyone would be “reasonable”? If so, they should cite an example of such a town, state or country. Have Libertarians no idea of the volatility of human nature? Do they think by wishing to change human nature they can simply say “make it so” and it will be? Such magical thinking moves one to say “God save us from all social engineering theorists.”

Throughout history, groups starting at the family level have determined through experience that a minimum level of unity and cohesion are requisite for survival. They established rules of conduct in order to promote such unity and cohesion. These rules have sometimes been maintained by group force. Such rules, developed over time within the tribe and larger units, eventually evolved into the “Rule of Law.” The fact that the “Law” was known and everyone was, at least theoretically, subject to it, is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Limits were imposed. People knew what the rules were and could adjust their lives accordingly. Order, safety — and freedom itself — grew from this.

Libertarians claim they set their own standards and do not wish to impose them on others. This sounds nice, but in reality they would impose their standards on others. To take an extreme case, let us imagine a Libertarian decides to walk naked down the street in a modest community and someone objects. His answer to the objection will be, “you cannot restrict my freedom to walk down the street naked as I am not hurting you. I am not imposing my beliefs or will on you. If you don’t like me walking down the street naked, don’t look.” But this is a disingenuous argument because he is restricting your freedom. He is using your communal morals against you making you avoid a public area in order to keep from seeing him. The fact that the majority of people don’t wish to be confronted with his public nudity is not relevant to the naked Libertarian. To his mind, others have no right to proscribe his behavior. But clearly, communities must set standards. Knowing this, one can conclude that Libertarians desire the advantages of the community without being subject to the demands of the community. This is a type of Egotism which if nurtured and allowed to stand would create monsters and lead to the tyranny of the individual over the majority.

Following Libertarian logic, the only norms which society can impose on the individual are those prohibiting physical assault and theft. In the end, such thinking will lead to the point where exhibitionists, oddballs and malcontents will redefine acceptable behavior and, as Moynihan said, define deviancy down. Effectively, extremists and types who fancy themselves Nietzschean Supermen will rule because the simplistic non-coercion rule of Libertarians is an opportunity for the most ruthless to rule. If you have no authority (a State) to say "no," then the law of the jungle reigns. These Nietzschean types will not be satisfied until they have brought a large percentage of society down to their level and literally forced the rest out of the public square. Their political reply to those who disagree with them is essentially, “get used to it.” This sounds very similar to what the Left is trying to do to the country and, knowingly or not, the Libertarians are simply abetting the Left in the race for the bottom.

Although Libertarians such as Rothbard may think they are moving forward, they are really regressing to some imaginary Rousseauian State of Nature. They are pining for a time when rules would become blurred and changeable depending upon each person’s whim. In reality, they would be on the road to a place where, at any given moment, the law becomes what the strongest decides. Unrestrained passion would flourish, as rules restrain such passion. The law would become capricious and capriciousness is the enemy of the individual and group. If Libertarians were foolish enough to follow such philosophy they would end up in a “State of Nature” i.e. a place where the life of man would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” as described by Thomas Hobbs. Luckily, we are not yet there and it is the State which has saved us from such an end.

Politically, I am a constitutional conservative. I believe our Federal Government, in its present form, is an abomination that has overstepped all bounds with regards to the rights of U.S. citizens. I believe it is corrupt to its core and is in collusion with big business, big labor and others, who Burnham describes as the “Managerial Class,” to the detriment of the individual citizen. In my opinion, the present Federal government is bloated beyond reason or need, is intentionally profligate with its citizens’ money, and its size and power should be dramatically reduced. However, I do not think it should be abolished. The only hope we might have to turn around our badly off-course ship-of-state is to recognize and understand human nature and the human condition. The quest for an earthly paradise is a fool’s errand. History has shown us that the pursuit of Utopia is too often a bloody journey. We should keep this in mind, as simplistic remedies with little basis in human reality will not be very helpful in reaching our political goals.

Self governance is one of man’s great treasures. The ability and right to have a say in how one’s society is ruled is something which should be highly prized. Keeping a skeptical eye on those who govern us is a duty required by all citizens if we intend to maintain our freedoms. But freedom from societal governance is a pipe dream and something beyond the moral ability of mankind. As Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

A thought-provoking article from the Federalist. The writer has come around to the view which I have taken for some time now. In 2016, I told friends overseas that I figured Trump's election would lead to a worsening spiral of political extremism and could eventually devolve into actual violence. Not because Trump was violent, but because was the first "Republican" who seemed to stand up to the left and the left wasn't going to take that lying down. Well, we have seen that this prediction has come true and we are only at the beginning of things.

No longer conservatives, but radicals

The maggots are exposing themselves for what they truly are. Servants of The Lord of the Flies. . 

Karl Rove's super pac supports Demonrat Gov Candidate  


Murkowski supports Demonrat over Palin  


Alaska Republicans censor the Turtle