| From | Message |
Joseph
Guest
5/15/2003
17:28:07
|
 Subject: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
I would be interested to hear the posters define what they believe it is to be a conservative. Although the rest of this website sounds conservative, much of what I have read here sounds at least somewhat liberal to me. You tell me what a conservative is. Perhaps I have the wrong definition.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/16/2003
05:35:29
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
Good question.
"much of what I have read here sounds at least somewhat liberal to me."
Really?
I would be interested in hearing your own definition.
A conservative to me is someone who loves God, Country and Family, in that order, and who grounds that love in the Christian Tradition.
In a more political sense, I support America First policies on immigration and economics, a realist foriegn policy that avoids the extremes of isolationism and imperialism, a total withdrawal from the U.N, a strong national defense, and the preservation of white Protestant values, traditions and culture.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/18/2003
07:52:07
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
I support...the preservation of white Protestant values, traditions and culture.
Then you should support monarchy and aristocracy.
Luther's success was Providentially due in large part to his being supported by Princes. John Knox estabished the Presbyterian church under monarchy, and Presbyterians saw no contradiction in this. English Presbyterians turned against the Independents and helped restore the monarchy
to England. There have in fact been almost as many Protestant monarchies as there have
been Protestant countries: England, Scotland, Holland, Germany, Norway, Sweeden, and Denmark were all Protestant countries with Protestant monarchies. England, Scotland, and Holland were Calvinist; the rest were for the most part Lutheran.
N.B. The second paragraph is provided by Rev. Martin L. Dawson of Stratford Orthodox Presbyterian Church
|
Shawn
Guest
5/19/2003
07:23:09
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"I support...the preservation of white Protestant values, traditions and culture."
"Then you should support monarchy and aristocracy."
I see no correlation between the two. That Luther was helped out by various monarchies of the day is simply reflective of the fact that those were virtually the only systems of power at the time.
Aristocracy has no value in the preservation of white Protestant culture, and no function.
Systems based on accidents of birth always end up doing little except allowing the creation of a parasite class of tranzis who subvert the values of middle and working class Protestants. Aristocracies were merely the old version of our current transnational corporations, with no loyalty to land and nation.
Conservative and traditionalist Protestantism has survived far better in the U.S than it has in Europe, including in those Scandinavian countries that have monarchies.
Moreover, as an American patriot I would hardly support a system our forefathers rightly overthrew, and a system in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
I should point out that I am not a traditionalist and I have a number of reservations about this particular philosophy. My political views are essentially in line with the tradition in America of populist working/middle class Protestant America First populism.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/19/2003
21:05:12
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
I would hardly support a system our forefathers rightly overthrew
Our forefathers rightly overthrew? You mean a legitimate government our forefathers (i.e., traitors) rebelled against. George III can hardly be considered a tyrant. He was no Hitler or Pol Pot. So there must be other reasons the Deists overthrew the Crown, which was the legitimate government in the colonies. Maybe it was money, or a desire for power. In any case the events of 1776 can not be justified to anyone who respects the rule of law and government authority.
"We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James..." - Mayflower Compact
|
Will S.
Guest
5/20/2003
02:19:45
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
Louis XIV:
You are an American monarchist? Wow; a rare breed... I'm a monarchist myself, but then, I'm Canadian; even here monarchism is waning, alas...
How do you propose to restore monarchy and aristocracy to a country whose very national identity is wrapped up in being a republic? That would seem to me to be a very tall order, though of course nothing is impossible for God... (But He has not only permitted the U.S. to exist, but has prospered it...)
|
Shawn
Guest
5/21/2003
03:15:22
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Our forefathers rightly overthrew? You mean a legitimate government our forefathers (i.e., traitors) rebelled against. George III can hardly be considered a tyrant. He was no Hitler or Pol Pot. So there must be other reasons the Deists overthrew the Crown, which was the legitimate government in the colonies. Maybe it was money, or a desire for power. In any case the events of 1776 can not be justified to anyone who respects the rule of law and government authority."
The British Crown no longer rpresented the interests of the distinctive American people by 1776. On the contrary, the Crown had become oppressive and dismissive of the freedoms and rights of the American people. The popular uprising (Hardly merely the work of Deists), was the the inevitable response to this. The motivation for the uprising was not money nor power but the legitimate desire for self rule. The British Crown had, long before 1776, showed itself to be little more than an imperialist tryanny, having crushed the free nations of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland beneath it's heel. The American colonists, aware of this history, chose to resist the Crown. This was both right and moral. The rule of law exists not simply to legitimise the rule of accidents of birth and their whims, but to serve the whole of the people. When it no longer does, resistance becomes morally justified.
Monarchies have no intrinsic value over Republics. The British crown progressively lost it's power because it behaved as a dictatorial tryanny over those it ruled. It's fate is entirely it's own fault. The continued fire of national resistance in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, is proof enough that imperialist tyranny cannot destroy the desire of soveriegnty and freedom on behalf of the nations God has established in His providential wisdom.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/31/2003
07:24:30
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
Monarchies have no intrinsic value over Republics.
I agree with this. But Republics have no intrinsic value over Monarchies either. The pre-1979 Iranian monarchy was so democratic it was not worth defending. It was the republicans in 1979 Iran, not the monarchists, who were the counterrevolutionaries.
Although differences do exist between the two different types of regimes, a given country should ultimately be judged by how well it supports and promotes counterrevolutionary principles both within and outside its borders.
It's fate is entirely it's own fault.
Lastly, do you think you could try debating people here without resorting to the misuse of the word its and it is? This only leaves the impression that you are not an educated person.
"The democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary preparation for the rearing of tyrants" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Will S.
Guest
5/31/2003
14:15:37
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"The pre-1979 Iranian monarchy was so democratic it was not worth defending. It was the republicans in 1979 Iran, not the monarchists, who were the counterrevolutionaries."
I'm afraid I don't follow - can you elaborate? (Why, in your opinion, the current Iranian republic is superior to the monarchy that existed previously, and in what sense the republicans can be thought of as counterrevolutionaries. Was the Iranian monarchy a relatively recent development? I'm afraid I don't know much about Iran's history.)
|
Will S.
Guest
5/31/2003
14:19:44
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
BTW, Louis XIV, you never responded to my post of 5/20/2003, 02:19:45.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/31/2003
18:07:12
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"It was the republicans in 1979 Iran, not the monarchists, who were the counterrevolutionaries."
Really? So you discount any influence of radical left French postmodernism on Khominies's thinking? I wouldnt.
And again you are talking about a regime responsible for terrorism and attacks upon Americans, not to mention horrific persecution of religious minorities within Iran, so I could not care one whit how "counterrevolutionary" they supposedly are, they are still an obscene regime based on thug politics, and the enemy of America. Thier religous police beat up defenseless women for rediculous infractions of their interpretaion of Sharia law. That is evidenced of a regime that has no honor and no morality.
Religious conviction must come from the heart, not be enforced by club wielding thugs.
"Lastly, do you think you could try debating people here without resorting to the misuse of the word its and it is? This only leaves the impression that you are not an educated person."
Cheap shot personal attacks from someone who praises one of the most American hating regimes on the planet are amusing at best. No true American patriot would have anything other than contempt for the failing Islamic terrorists currently residing in Tehran. Thankfully their time is nearly over, as President Bush and the Administration are now turning their attention to Iran.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/31/2003
18:35:02
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
Are people who supposedly love their country now supporting regimes who kill Marines?
"A US federal judge has found Iran liable for the 1983 bombing of a US barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 marines dead.
The ruling was the result of a suit brought by family members of the dead marines as well as those wounded in the 23 October 1983 attack, which was blamed on the militant Islamic group Hezbollah."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2951938.stm
|
Louis XIV
Guest
6/02/2003
01:25:37
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"A US federal judge..."
I stopped reading after the first four words, since virtually all federal judges have been wrong on every decision during the past 40 years. I care nothing what the say. You can complain all you want about the Islamic Republic of Iran; U.S. federal judges have done worse damage to America.
There's another CNN article that claims the Iranian government has al Qaeda operatives arrested and in custody:
Iran has several unnamed al Qaeda operatives in custody
"Republics decline into democracies, and democracies degenerate into despotisms" - Aristotle
|
Louis XIV
Guest
6/02/2003
04:54:44
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
(Why, in your opinion, the current Iranian republic is superior to the monarchy that existed previously, and in what sense the republicans can be thought of as counterrevolutionaries. Was the Iranian monarchy a relatively recent development?...
If you are reading and posting at counterrevolution.net, you should have a basic understanding of what a revolutionary and a counterrevolutionary are. Read the index.html page and also alt.revolution.counter FAQ for a basic definition.
I don't know a lot about Iranian history either. I believe the monarchy was quite old, hundreds of years, maybe even more. By 1979, the Shah had Westernized (i.e., democratized) the society. So the "conservatives" (I hate to use that word) were the republicans.
I'll get to your other post when I get time.
|
Shawn
Guest
6/02/2003
09:55:46
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"I stopped reading after the first four words"
Ignorance is bliss eh?
So on the basis that every single decision made by Federal judges for that past 40 years (you are, quite amazingly, aware of all of them), have been wrong in your opinion, you dismiss out of hand evidence that Iran was involved in the murder of American Marines through its proxy Hizbollah, DESPITE the truth that Hizbollah's relationship with Iran is well documented and irrefutable.
So lets be clear. What your saying is that American authorities have no credibility and should be utterly ignored, but the rantings of Islamic terrorists who kill American Marines(Khomenie and his ilk), are just fine?
I would love for you to be introduced the the families of those Marines, so you could explain how wonderful their killers are.
You will forgive me if I take your claim to be a proud American as utter crap.
On the contrary, I think your a deluded and ignorant traitor to your country and a person with no decency or honor.
|
Brendan Kenny
Guest
6/02/2003
13:21:28
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
With all due respect to Louis XIV, this site's in-house monarch, this discussion demonstrates the difference between a conservative philosophy and a reactionary ideology (apropos to Russell Kirk). To prefer the Islamic theocracy to America because of judicial activism is more than a little off-base. Why Louis XIV ignores the influence of communist and Jacobite thought and figures on the Islamic revolution in Iran and other countries in the Middle East is beyond me.
We need a little less ideology in this discussion and a little more prudence. Otherwise, we'll all turn into right-wing versions of Noam Chomsky. I'm certain we would all like to avoid that fate
|
Will S.
Guest
6/02/2003
16:33:12
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"If you are reading and posting at counterrevolution.net, you should have a basic understanding of what a revolutionary and a counterrevolutionary are."
I certainly do, thank you very much. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that to be consistent, one who claims to be a monarchist would prefer that a decadent monarchy be replaced by a superior one, which demonstrated counterrevolutionary principles, rather than a republic, no matter how counterrevolutionary it may be in its leanings and tendencies.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/02/2003
16:41:21
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"We need a little less ideology in this discussion and a little more prudence. Otherwise, we'll all turn into right-wing versions of Noam Chomsky. I'm certain we would all like to avoid that fate"
Oh, dear goodness me, not that! ;)
I totally agree. I find it bizarre, that on a site generally appealing to traditionalist conservatives, that there are so many posters around advocating wholesale changes for their native countries, into social/political forms which never were - some "traditionalism"! I'm a relativist of sorts, in this degree - monarchy for Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.; republicanism for America, France, etc.; let's work on strategic alliances to undo liberalism, before we go off all half-cocked, hell-bent on overthrowing / changing existing forms of government. Otherwise, as I think your posting hints at, we'll never get anywhere, if we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
6/03/2003
04:40:46
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
How do you propose to restore monarchy and aristocracy to a country whose very national identity is wrapped up in being a republic?
From 1620 to 1783, America was governed by a monarchy. That's 163 years. From 1783 to 2003, America has been a republic. That's 220 years. Those are fairly close. We should keep things in perspective. People in Rome in 44 BC probably thought Rome had always been a republic; but then Caesar obtained power and destroyed it. Political regimes do not last forever.
I do not have any specific proposal for regime change, other than get the Declaration and Constitution out of the Smithsonian and burn them.
I would love for you to be introduced the the families of those Marines....
I would be more than happy to talk to them. I would tell them that I oppose terrorism just like I oppose democracy and capitalism; then I would encourage them to be the same way.
Next, I would love to introduce you to the families of all the Marines that were killed in Vietnam, fighting on behalf of the U.S. government for "a higher standard of living," or some such absurd idea. Next, I would introduce you to the families of the U.S. Marines who died in WWII fighting on the side of Joseph Stalin and his communist regime. Next, I would introduce you to the families of the dead U.S. Marines who, fighting for the biggest advocate of religious freedom on the planet, America, overthrew the Japanese Empire, and then outlawed their religion. In short, I would introduce you to the families of all the dead U.S. Marines throughout history, who, regrettably, have given their lives fighting for nothing.
I think your a deluded and ignorant traitor to your country...
I am a traitor only to democracy, and a supporter of the counterrevolution.
To prefer the Islamic theocracy to America because of judicial activism is more than a little off-base.
I do not prefer the Islamic Republic of Iran due to judicial activism. I prefer the Iranian Republic to the democratic Republic of the U.S. because the U.S. regime is thoroughly revolutionary where the Iranian is counterrevolutionary. Thankfully, there are more than two choices in life; but my comparison I believe is quite accurate.
Why Louis XIV ignores the influence of communist and Jacobite thought and figures on the Islamic revolution in Iran and other countries in the Middle East is beyond me.
I have to admit that I do not know a lot about Middle Eastern history, so I'm a little out of my league on the topic. But I know a small amount of the Iranian Revolution, and the republicans were the counterrevolutionaries.
it would seem to me that to be consistent, one who claims to be a monarchist would prefer that a decadent monarchy be replaced by a superior one, which demonstrated counterrevolutionary principles
I do prefer this. But you have to be practical in life as well. In 1979 Iran, there were only two sides to the civil war, and I was pointing this out.
I advocate absolutist monarchy incorporating counterrevolutionary principles for every country on the planet.
The word Islam does not need any such adjective as democratic, precisely because Islam is everything, it means everything" - Khomeini
|
Will S.
Guest
6/03/2003
13:01:20
| RE: Where is the Conservatism
IP: Logged
Message:
"From 1620 to 1783, America was governed by a monarchy. That's 163 years. From 1783 to 2003, America has been a republic. That's 220 years. Those are fairly close. We should keep things in perspective. People in Rome in 44 BC probably thought Rome had always been a republic; but then Caesar obtained power and destroyed it. Political regimes do not last forever."
Ah, but for most of those 163 years, "Americans" in those years thought of themselves as British, because they were - until towards the end of that time period - from then onwards, they thought of themselves as American. And when America seceded from Britain, it also changed to the republican form of government at that time, i.e. the United States of America has been a republic from its beginning, and so in the minds of most Americans, love of one's country is wrapped up with support for the institutions created.
Indeed, political regimes don't last forever - not only did the Roman republic fall, but so too, eventually, did the Roman Empire. But then, the Romans didn't have nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets and bombers, machine guns, and millions of soldiers in their military. The American government has certain advantages.
|
|
|