Call Me Simple
Call me simple, but I just can’t understand why I have to pay the banks’ losses but I don’t get a share of their profits.
I know that the music business is very profitable, but I am still cautious about investing in CDs.
I am sorry to admit it, but I may have been wrong. George W. Bush may not be the worst possible president after all.
Michelle Obama must be very smart. They say she "earns" $370,000 a year.
More clues from the radio news about the way we are now: I learned the other day that President-elect Obama is "tackling the economy." But I thought the economy was already bruised and down? What good will tackling it do?
What is the Obama administration going to do with those of us who just don't want to "come together"?
If the Republicans had any flair (and any knowledge of history) they would point out that their party had the first black president. A good case can be made that Warren G. Harding had almost as much African "heritage" as Obama.
I admit to extreme annoyance at people who voted for George Bush the first time (and even twice) because, they claim, they were fooled into thinking he was a "conservative." The only fooling going on was unforgivable self-delusion. George Bush had not a single conservative in his entourage or among his friends, advisors, or mentors. He had purged all conservatives from the Texas Republican Party and replaced them with his personal apparatchiks. He was a notorious friend of illegal aliens and as Governor had pushed through a law giving illegals free access to state colleges. A major plank of his platform was the federal takeover of public schools and the federal invasion of religion by grants. He prevented Pat Buchanan from speaking at HIS convention. All of this was glaringly and painfully obvious in 2000.
Of course, you will say that in a presidential "debate" Bush advocated a "humble foreign policy." When did something a Bush says in a campaign have any relation to what he does in office? Bush's leftward drift, takeover by the neocons, and huge expansion of federal power and expenditure would have happened even without 9/11. There was no great change or conversion after 9/11—only an acceleration on the path he was already on. To move toward a leftist concentration of federal power is the attractive path of least resistance for any administration.
I am further continually astounded by the apparently widespread hallucination that the Republican Party is the "conservative" party. In its entire history of a century and a half, the Republican Party has never conserved anything. It has never had as a goal the intention of conserving anything worthwhile. It has instigated revolution in the service of certain monied interests and has acquiesced in every radical change as long as those interests were not threatened.
It is now a commonplace to say of our past eight years that "conservatism" has been discredited forever by George W. Bush and his followers. Conservatism has not been discredited, but Republicanism has. However, leftists much prefer to announce the death of conservatism, a possible obstacle to their agenda, and keep around Republicanism—one of their many assets.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Wilson,
Thanks for telling it like it is and in your own inimitable way. Great article, one worth forwarding. Especially one or two friends who are still enamored with George II for some unknown and inexplicable reason.
G. W. Bush was elected as the lesser of evils ---- both times. Republicans don't seem to notice how important nominating is. It was certainly the case in 2008. Ann Coulter thinks the NYT helped Republicans decide who they should nominate.
"What is the Obama administration going to do with those of us who just don’t want to “come together”?"
I happened to have read a very moving bit of writing today that fits nicely, I think, with Dr. Wilson's unreconstructedness. This rebellion against uniformity transcends regions, and thank God some Americans, though declining rapidly, still have red blood pumping through their veins. Enjoy.
"The unreconstructed Southerners have done their part...but there are unreconstructed Yankees, too, and other unreconstructed Americans...everywhere engaged in preserving local originality and independence.
"The only people who do not know this are certain experts who do most of the current talking in American society. They live in a sociological pickle of statistics and progress. They are eternally looking for what they call "social values," but they strangely confine their research to libraries and graduate "projects" at the larger universities. They avoid the places where social values may be encountered in the flesh. If they stumble upon a living social value, walking visibly upon some spot of earth and drawing its nutrient from a tradition embodied in the houses, speech, crafts, folklore, and wisdom of an actual people, their rule is to denounce it as an anachronism and to call for its extermination. For them, nothing must grow according to its nature, but things "develop" by laboratory formulae, which are obtained by inspecting the reactions of the most abnormal and depressed specimens of humankind, too weak to protest against sociological vivisection."--Donald Davidson, "Still Rebels, Still Yankees" 1938
#2. Rather than excusing Republicans, as it seems you intend, your points confirm the indictment.
"Conservatism" has become a protean word. It can be a groundhog one minute, and a mockingbird the next, and often, can refer to the east end of a horse headed into the sunset.
I sometimes call myself a "reactionary," just to be contrary.
I always call myself a "right-wing reactionary" when my politics are asked about. In this sick left-liberal society there is precious little that I want to conserve.
"I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn"
The problem is there are only essentially two parties who are essentially the one party financed by the same people who differ slightly on domestic issues.
Case in point the 2004 election.
The Iraq war is majority unpopular yet this clown John Kerry said he would still have voted for the war.
Then they focused on his boring BS tug boat story.
Of course he loves Israel.
Actually it was a lot like how they covered John McCain and his BS torture story
John McCain military hero just doesn’t mention USS Liberty or MIA soldiers.
Of course he loves Israel so much you would think he was running for president of that country.
Same with Obama and his lets go to war and destroy Russia foreign policy.
The US for the size of the country is one of the least politically representative countries per population.
The Iraq elections had better representation in there parliament or whatever it’s called with multiple parties represented.
Let us pray that Mr. Obama turns out to be like his black predecessor, Mr. Harding. He certainly qualifies as a bloviator.
This morning, the Republican Governor's Conference was a topic on radio news. They did an interview with one of the attendees. He stated that conservatives had served the GOP well in the past; however, if the party wanted to again become a leading and winning party, it would have to adapt to the demographic shift taking place in American and address the issues of women, minorities and new immigrants.
I interpreted that to mean the following: The Republican Party is and has always been about power. For a while, conservatives and those who thought themselves to be conservatives have been useful stooges of the GOP. The conservative stooges are no longer, as per the GOP's current understanding, useful. They must seek out and cultivate new stooges: women, minorities and immigrants. Of course, there will continue to be "conservatives" who vote Republican. It is sort of like a hen having a cross-species love affair with a fox.
Did anyone see Mr. Mullet on Hardball?
How goddamned stupid does he think we are?
4 Dr. Wilson,
"2 Rather than excusing Republicans, as it seems you intend, your points confirm the indictment."
My purpose was to add information to a subject that you raised:
"George W. Bush may not be the worst possible president after all."
The interesting thing that occurred to me about recent elections of presidents is that in the general election voters are not actually given much of a choice. Perhaps the nomination process is flawed. Maybe it should be replaced by a party nominating committee which would chose a candidate based on verifiable factors like the prospective candidate's voting record and how it conforms to the party platform. In that case the platform would become a more important document than it is currently. That would tend to reduce the impact of cosmetic factors and the platform would give voters a more substantial basis for making a decision .
I agree with Dr. Wilson about his analysis of the republican party and its history. The disconcerting aspect of it otday, is that most of the inhabitants of the Louisianna Purchase and all the old confederate states voted for their historic persecutor -- the Republican Party !!! This would belong in the category of:
"admitting to extreme annoyance at people who voted for George Bush the first time (and even twice) because, they claim, they were fooled into thinking he was a “conservative.” The only fooling going on was unforgivable self-delusion. George Bush had not a single conservative in his entourage or among his friends, advisors, or mentors. He had purged all conservatives from the Texas Republican Party and replaced them with his personal apparatchiks."
Of course when your only choices are either (1) voting for the guy who owns all the rope or(2) the guy who owns all the scaffolding, the only thing the "former citizen" can request is the date of his hanging!
There was one small window in time when Republicans were conservative--when Robert Taft represented them. Otherwise, Dr. Wilson is so clearly right. Barry Goldwater may have been "right" in your heart but he was not a conservative; Ronald Reagan was an old New Dealer who, like the neocons, simply ossified at a certain point and called it conserving.
While I personally don't believe Harding had any African ancestry,even if he did,I say
two cheers for Warren Harding...he kept us out of the League of Nations,he opposed mass immigration,he had the good sense to make Coolidge VP instead of Hoover and he was a little more tasteful than say Clinton or Kennedy about where he had sex in the Oval Office.He used a closet.He had the great stage timing to die right before Teapot Dome.
I won't be reconstructed
I'm better now than then.
And for the carpetbagger
I don't care a damn.
So I'm off for the frontier
Soon as I can go;
I'll prepare a weapon
And start for Mexico.
For what it's worth, from some of the things I've been hearing from blacks, many of them seem to have as much of a sense of impending doom as whites. Some fear that an assassination might set off race war, and I've heard other fears as well. None of them seem to see a bright future ahead. Many dont see Obama as a cure-all elixir for their ills.
Given this, I think that Obama will disappoint nearly everybody who supported him very quickly. I also suspect that inability to deal with the massive (probably intractable) problems faced by the empire may drive him ever further towards extremity. Something tells me that he may not be as emotionally stable or sane as he may appear, which should be no surprise given his background and associations.
#17 I think many blacks, though they vote for liberals, hold essentially conservative values. At least this seems to be true with older black people. They tend to be Christian and hold traditional views about marriage, family, and community. Paul Gottfried has an article over at takimag showing that blacks who voted for Obama concomitantly voted down gay-marriage amendments. In short, blacks usually aren't Marxists. I can't say the same for white professors, politicians, and pundits.
I said they "voted down gay-marriage" when actually it was a vote in favor of Proposition Eight which bans gay marriage. According to Gottfried, "Since Obama’s presence on the ticket increased the black percentage of the vote total from 6 percent in 2004 to 10 percent this year, the referendum passed easily. Over 70% of the black vote went both for Obama and against gay marriage, a figure that coincides with the responses that blacks give in polls when asked about their social views."
Frankly, I hate this country (despite the fact that my ancestors have been making sacrifices for it since we arrived in 1754). Who cares about this cesspool? If there is any silver lining to the election of this foreigner Obama, it is this: it will speed the maturation of white consciousnerss and psychological apartheid. I do not identify the Us with my nation, only white America. My nation is my race now. When enough whites begin to repeat that, a revolution will occur.
It's common for folks on the paleo/tradish right to refer to liberal Republicans as "RINOs" but if Dr. Wilson is correct, RINO is misleading. It never was a conservative party. They're not RINOs, they really are Republicans.
I'm sorry. Please remove #20 A. Hayter, or remove mine @#14.
John Willson @ various spots,I share your great respect for Mr. Republican,Robert Taft.And let me add that William Howard Taft was a very good President and an excellent Chief Justice.Taft's reputation has been unfairly tarnished by a shallow academic worship of the juvenile delinquent,TR.I wouldn't take down the comments @ 20...as I believe TJF once pointed out this is where people are being driven and ignoring their anger is something liberals do.I would welcome your response to A.Hayter(we get the pseudonym).
@20 Hayter
It's only worse elsewhere. Fortunately, global warming is thawing out vast portions of the Great White North, perhaps it's time to colonize Alaska/Canada/Siberia. The Question is; do you have the moxie to do so?
I don't hate this country because I chose to move here. The people who truly hate their country are the guilty white liberals who hate themselves and prove it by aborting their young. Call it sacrificing their progeny to Mammon if you like. Perhaps you should re-direct your vitriol.
I don't think it's necessary to censore A. Hayter. Instead, why not address his concern? Do you have more affinity for a white liberal than, say, Bobby Jindal? I would argue that if Jindal calls Jena 6 protestors "outside agitators", then he's one of us, and only fools would reject a man who is obviously an extremely capable politican. I would much rather be in a foxhole with him than any white liberal I know.
#20 I guess I can't blame you for your anger, but I still think the point stands that our enemy is cultural Marxism, and, by and large, blacks are not Marxist. I am not suggesting that whites and blacks are the same, or have all the same interests, but white nationalism seems to me to distract us from the real enemies in our univerisites, media, and corportations.
Also, please excuse my writing mistake above , I meant gay marriage, not gay-marriage.
Bush also removed from public buildings in Austin plaques commemorating Texas Confederate war dead. He has been a disgrace for a long time.
@27
Some people, such as Pat Buchanan, assert that Bush was simply 'influenced' by the neocons. It is my opinion that he himself was one as well. His entire image, carefully crafted during his father's presidency is one designed to hoodwink social conservatives into thinking he was one of them. Dr. Wilson himself wrote in a previous essay of George W.'s 'carnival-tent Christianity' and how in Texas, he constantly bowed to the left, upsetting the Texas Republicans. The removal of the CSA plaques was further simply further proof of this.
Isn't the Johnny Reb statue still on the Texas State Capital Building's grounds? I would imagine a removal of that would have caused a huge uproar.
As usual, Etienne Gervaise and Josh Cooney take the words right out of my mouth. Instead of being anti-this, why not be pro-that? Whether or not race is all that counts I recommend Dr. Fleming's advice : love the place you're in or else go to one that you can love. Chronicles has already been addressing the problem for many years, just one example of which is the book that is depicted down to the lower left of where it says "submit comment" on this page.
The truth is this. A. Hayter. I am black and white, much like Barack Obama. However, that is where the similarity ends. My ancestors (accept a few Europeans) has been here since the beginning of the country's inception.
You are all about a white America? Much of that white America largely voted for Obama. Much more of that white America kills it's children before they can become an "inconvenience" to them than the blacks in this country (by per capita numbers).
And (kind of like a previous poster put it) I bet you'd have much more in common with Bobby Jindall than Senator Biden. You have to realize this is about culture, and ideology. If you really think that the world is going to be a better place because humanity retains the genetic traits of lighter colored hair and eyes and pale skin, you are crazy.
There are a whole bunch of people in Europe with light skin and eyes and hair. And they are all headed to their own graves. It has nothing to do with looks, and everything to do with a loss of culture and an ideology of suicide.
I say again, white is features. It doesn't matter. What matters is what you believe. So, A. Hayter, as long as you believe what you believe, you are just as bankrupt as the liberals in this nation trying to tear it apart.
When GW (not George Washington) first ran for congress in Texas in '77 he was soundly defeated because he came across as a Connecticut Yankee. As Dr. Wilson has repeatedly pointed out, that is exactly what he is. Apparently, all he needed to do was wait 17 years and don a cowboy hat to prove himself a true Texan. He was elected governer in '94. Personally, I think even if he wore the cowboy hat in '77 he would have been defeated. I doubt that the older generation of Texans would have bought his act. I haven't read the book, but I think there is a Mel Bradford work titled "Remembering Who We Are." Now, if Texans today knew who they were, they never would have given GW the time of day. I'm not a Texan or a Southerner, but I think our only hope is a recovery of that heritage. Otherwise, Texans will continue to elect Yankees, and Americans will continue to elect foreigners.
Dr. Wilson, you are "spot on" when it comes to why people continued to vote Republican. It was self-delusion. We WANTED to believe the GOP was conservative and would actually conserve anything worthwhile. Well, they say the first step to recovery from an addiction is to admit the addiction. I admit I was addicted to the GOP as the "conservative party" for years. I am proud to say I am recovering nicely. I voted for the Constitutional Party this year and am having an amusing time listening to the GOP folks talk about how the party has to restore the party of Ronald Reagan, or alternatively, be more Democratic than the Democrats (Frum, ad nauseum). Secession anyone?
@24 Etienne Gervaise
Not Mammon, surely. I would think that abortion is a sacrifice to Moloch, not Mammon.
@32 Fred
Biblically you are correct, However, today most women dipsose of "unwanted" children so they can pursue their brilliant careers -- which seem to be answering phones, surfing the internet and paying the tax man his forty per cent. The security of health insurance is the motivation. I don't get it myself, but that's they way I call it.
Etienne @ 33
The Enlightenment temptation of the abstraction of the autonomous individual, which is an elusive illusion, brings those who pursue the old ignis fatuus, will-o'-the-wisp, jack-o'-lantern or Fata Morgana not to the "emancipated person" but to the alienated and estranged person, cut off from the natural context of relationships and the duties and obligations which go with them. Sex outside of marriage and outside of its purpose in marriage of procreation, intimacy and nurturing of the offspring there of, is alienated and estranged from its purpose and so is the person who so practices it. The enticement, provided by war for women to work outside the home; the almost necessity for women to work outside the home given inflation and consumerism; the pill; abortion and now social sanction of the perverse further alienate women and men from their relationship with, God, His ordained family, the Church and the local community which is a commune of commonwealths. Good has become evil, and evil has become good. Even our pagan ancestors, acting on the light which God chose to give them, understood that a sense of oughtness was the first step on the way to emancipating ourselves from our barbaric compulsions and becoming free. Now, in our time, freedom is defined as the emancipation from oughtness so that we can pursue our compulsions. Satan knew what he was doing when he aided and abetted the fall in the Garden. Man was safe in his relationship to God. Satan held out to Adam that he could become an autonomous individual without God, in fact become a god himself. The secret of Satan was man could be destroyed if the relationship to God could be destroyed. Among the simpler ways to articulate the Gospel is that God in the person of the Christ and His finished work on the cross has reconciled man unto Himself. How modernity or post-modernity respond to the Gospel will determine how this phase of history plays out.
What do ya'll make of the following?
http://www.infowars.com/?p=5938
Robert M. Peters @ 34
Well, look -- let's be reasonable. Sex outside of marriage, and outside of the purpose of procreation, has always been with us. Why do you think prostitution is called "the oldest profession"?
Young men visiting brothels are not necessarily "alienated and estranged." They are just young men in the grip of hormonal surges. Yes, of course we hope that they'll grow out of it and settle down eventually. But overly prescriptive sexual puritanism isn't part of paleo-conservatism. It's just another manifestation of crackpot Evangelical Protestantism.
Joseph Salemi @ 36, I suggest you read the Bible.
Map @ 37
I not only read the Bible, I teach it regulary. What exactly is your problem, MAP?
Mr. Salemi, I have no 'problem'. What's your 'problem'? I was only responding to your earlier comment. An adherence to biblical principles would seem to be a reasonable goal of a Christian culture. If a stretching of those principles begins, where does the stretching end? Transcendalism? Unitarianism? Gay marriage? What a Christian culture should approve of is not flexible. It is a given, an absolute. As fallen creatures we all live in sin, but the target for our lives should be as decreed by God.
MAP @ 39
You weren't "responding" to my comment at all. You made a snotty, patronizing remark about how I should "read the Bible." That's not a response -- that's a distancing device.
If you have something intelligent to say about my comments about sex outside of marriage, then let's hear it.
Mr. Salemi, I did not mean it as anything snotty. Sorry you took it that way. The Bible should serve as our light into the darkness. I believe that is what Mr. Roberts was pointing out, though I can't answer for him. I am not looking for conflict.
Joseph Salemi (36),
You seem to be trying to depict a world where there are these brothels, and since they exist anyway, we shouldn’t we tolerate young men visiting them?
But what you completely ignore is the question of why a brothel came to exist in the first place, and why it continues to exist.
The reason the brothel came to be in the first place is precisely because whoever built it was counting on the existence of the category of people you refer to as "young men visiting brothels".
And the reason it continues to exist is because the wicked men who visit continue to provide the funds needed by the ownership to recruit and tempt members of the female sex into degrading themselves, and into selling out the elemental moral principle that a woman has the right to refuse the sexual advances of a man without being subjected to the threat of penalty.
I have no desire for confict either. I am sorry if I spoke in anger. I have a very bad Sicilian temper.
One peculiar little thing that many of us must have forgotten (so much for "Historia magistra vitae est") is the content of the parting words of Dwight D. Eisenhower. To have a five star general deliver such a strong anti military statement "...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex..." - I, for one could not believe my ears that such calm, clever, insightful, democratic, truly unique, observation is being delivered by a high ranking general.
To that end, W. is not half as bad (not half as bad as he could have been), let's not forget that he inherited Clinton's "surplus budget" which was (like any other budget) wishful thinking and had very little to do with the real state of affairs in the country. He did deal with North Korea without firing a shot, he handled himself well in Russia's interpretation of their sovereignty in Osetia, Abhkazia, he did manage to (considerably) weaken the Al Quaida. Whoever thinks that Al Quaida will be terminated with the death of Bin Laden is sadly mistaken. Long after Bin Laden is dead and gone the movement will persist - the true cures are elsewhere.
In closing, G.W. Bush did not do too splendidly, but he didn't do too badly either, time will show that he is deserving of some modest praise.
Joseph Salemi @ 38,
I was not aware that the sanctity of marriage was the purview of "crackpost Evangelical Protestants." I have been given to understand that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are also adovacates for the santity of marriage.
My post had nothing to do with brothels. I would suggest, as wicked as brothels are, that if brothels were the only place "hormonal surges" made themselves manifest in our current society, we might be better off.
@46 robert m. peters
Right on. The earlier replier to your post concerning the sanctity of marriage failed to note that you were not advocated the outlaw of fornication, only lamenting that has become all too common - and even celebrated. One only need to view the 'boob tube' for a few hours to see that those characters that do believe in the sanctity of the marriage are now the oddballs...maybe even religious fanatics!
Gentlemen, this discussion seems to have grown irrelevant, unproductive, and on the part of some rather tasteless.
Dr. Wilson, I did read Mrs Obama's term paper. It was very light and fluffy -- something I'd expect from a third-year sophomore at Enormous State University. However, a panel of experts deemed it worthy to be a thesis. Her salary must be considered a bribe in expectation of some favor to be paid later. I can't wait to see what the smart woman has up her sleeve.
Bob Johnson @ 43
Your view of the causes of prostitution is naively Marxist. You think that brothels are created by wicked entrepreneurs solely, who corrupt young women for financial goals?
That's absurd. Some brothels are run exclusively by the women who work in them. And what of the independent call-girl, who acts as a free agent? What about the thousands of part-time prostitutes, who only ply their trade on the occasion of necessity?
Prostitution exists because of human weakness and sinfulness (i.e. greed on the part of some women, and lust on the part of some men). Yes, some unscrupulous persons take advantage of that fact to enrich themselves. But if you arrested every pimp and madam and white-slaver in the world, you would still have prostitution. To think otherwise is to believe that sinful behavior is purely the result of external impetus.
Daniel Maxwell @ 47
The sanctity of marriage is not in dispute here. What is at issue is the American tendency (rooted in Low-Church and Evangelical Protestantism) to want to police private behavior that is rooted in natural human weakness, and which is politically unimportant in any case. That is why we have this absurd anti-tobacco campaign, our vicious Drug Wars, our teetotalist frenzies, our obsession with "health" foods, and the anti-prostitution and pornography campaigns (the latter two being fueled by the worst element of feminism).
Robert M. Peters @ 35
Your post was about "the emancipation from oughtness so that we can pursue our compulsions." Its entire tenor was puritanical and anti-sexual.
I am a traditionalist Roman Catholic, and I do not defend prostitution or fornication or any other sexual sin. But Evangelical Protestantism (and its Ultramontane branch on the fringes of traditionalist Catholicism) have a real problem with their itch to police private behavior.
Some sexual behavior, such as adultery, ought to be the concern of the state, since issues of property and paternity and inheritance are involved. So should rape and molestation, which are violations of another person. But wanting to shut down brothels and harass prostitutes isn't a legitimate political concern. It would fall into the same category as wanting to stop people from using bad language. Only prissy persons, prudes, and puritans are eager for the state to be that intrusive.
And yes, Catholics revere the sanctity of marriage. But until the recent (post-World War II) spead of American ideology, Roman Catholic nations tolerated the natural existence of prostitution.