Monday, June 1, 2009

"Lone Wolf" Conservatives?...

In this article by WorldNetDaily editor David Kupelian we learn that today's conservatives have no idea that they are, in fact, Marxists .

He writes,

Author's note: Although I wrote the following article two weeks ago for the June edition of Whistleblower (titled "DON'T TREAD ON ME," for release later this week), the murder of Wichita abortionist George Tiller, M.D., makes its message especially urgent.

There's only one thing that could seriously, perhaps fatally, derail all the principled, well-intentioned, patriotic efforts currently taking place to rein in the shocking and unconstitutional power-grabbing by Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. And that would be for elements on the Right to turn to violence.

Such a turn of events would do much more than validate all the government's warnings about "right-wing extremists."


Now regardless of how one feels about violence or the threat of violent protest in pursuing social and/or political change, it is strikingly obvious that when it comes to the 'threat of force' there are two sets of rules. One for Marxists and one for conservative-Marxists (AKA people like Kupelian).

For example, years of warning about the deadly nature of homosexual lifestyles culminated in those warnings being justified with the outbreak of Aids.

The response?

The homosexual lifestyle being promoted even harder and more openly, and with increasing apathy or even compliance, by both government and society (conservatives included).

In fact the "gay rights" movement was kickstarted in America not with a whimper but with a bang, in the form of violent street protests.

The 911 terror attacks are another example.
Years of warning about the dangers of open borders immigration from incompatible third world nations culminated in the terrorist attacks (by just such people) in 2001.

The response?
The borders were thrown further open, immigration (legal and illegal) by thirdworld hordes increased and muslim apologetics went into overdrive.

In fact when it comes to minorities (people who, ironically, make up next to 90% of the world's population) the more egregious, violent and destructive their behavior, the more an attempt is made to placate them.

Blacks, hispanic, gays, muslims, jews etc.... all resort to either aggression or the threat of it to enforce their wants.
And all reside on the far left of political and social thought.

Which begs the question.....are there such a thing as "right wing extremists"?

The evidence seems to suggest that, no, there are not.

Which then sets up the next question....was the assailant (assuming he was not merely mentally disturbed) of the abortion doctor inclined towards a right-wing mindset or a left-wing mindset?

Kupelian continues,

Of course, the classic example of a leader exploiting an attack on the establishment – an attack he himself almost surely instigated – is the Reichstag fire. No sooner was Berlin's parliament building mysteriously torched in 1933 than Adolf Hitler moved with lightning speed to annihilate individual rights and ruthlessly consolidate his power. Here's how Jacob Hornberger, founder of the libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation, retells this famous story....


Ahhh Hitler, the gift that keeps on giving. (and by the way the word "retells" above basically means, "not necessarily true")

The key word above, libertarian, demonstrates the point I made earlier about left-wing vs. right-wing.
Comically (or tragically, depending on your point of view) most conservatives reside in the Marxist camp on political and social policies, though they don't realize it.

Libertarianism is most definitely and absolutely a leftist dogma.

The Right (Conservatives with a capital C), Traditionalists, who represent the thinking of The West going back thousands of years, do not embrace or except the notion of equality or "fairness" in any setting or category what-so-ever. Be it between races, ethnicity, genders, classes, etc... there are firm and distinguishable differences, established by nature and handing out different rewards and punishments dependent upon those distinct qualities and attributes.

THAT IS CONSERVATISM.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is an ideology that declares reality an enemy and thus makes war upon nature.

Kuplelian sputters on,

The "great epoch" started the next day, Feb. 28, 1933, when Hitler demanded an emergency decree to deal with the "crisis," which he persuaded the aged President Hinderburg to sign, "for the Protection of the people and the State."

Here's what the decree stated, according to HistoryPlace.com: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."


Isn't is interesting that all of those things have actually come about in post-WWII America.

Can anyone tell me what is unique about any of those things listed above?

I think not.

Funny how some people forget that Freedom of Association was done away with in America the moment discrimination was criminalized.

Kupleian writes,

First: The people you're opposing are not the enemy – they are fellow Americans. But they're not "connected up" to the same conscience, the same common sense, the same normal sensibilities that you are. Whatever strange influences have shaped their lives and twisted their thinking, at this moment they: 1) think wrong is right and right is wrong, 2) are intent on imposing their destructive agenda on America, and 2) regard you as potentially dangerous.


So, aside from his writing that these "them" consider you dangerous and an enemy and intend to impose their destructive agenda on you....you should not consider them your enemies.

Orwellian, anyone? (if you think that unfair, just look at Kupelian's politically correct critque of political correctness)

This is classic Marxist doctrine. The "blankslate" approach to people and nations. The belief that we're all the same underneath and that difference are only artificial indications of cultural-environmental factors.

In layman's terms, it's a bunch of bullshit.

The truth is, you are who you are and nothing is going to change that. Your personality is ingrained in your DNA and your potential proclivities are hardwired into your very being. Who you are now is who you always were and always will be, right up to the moment of your death (even if you live to be 120 years old).

Conservatives do not believe that nations are like football teams where whoever puts on the jersey is instantly a member.

Nations are biological constructs representing family structures writ large as geographical tribes.

Nations are the blood of a specific people. A race. A tribe.

And every attempt to overthrow that natural order by creating a generic, "multicultural", national identity, fails. Be it the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Soviet Empire or the currently crumbling American Empire.

Nature can messed with, but never overthrown.

You can back her into a corner and jab at her with a pointy stick for a while, but eventually she'll come out of there in a fury, kick your ass all over the place and leave you where she left the dinosaurs.


Kupelian sinks deeper,

Third and by far the most important: The quickest road to tyranny would be for angry "right-wing extremists" to commit acts of terrorism or murder – like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City – in the name of freedom. That is exactly what today's would-be totalitarians would secretly value, as it would justify their crackdown on conservative groups across the board – Christian, patriotic, gun-rights, pro-life, sovereignty and so on.


Ironic that McVeigh was protesting the Waco siege by the government, which by all evidence, was unprovoked.

Even more ironic though, the Branch Davidians were hardly "right-wing" as their cult (much like Jim Jones's one) was multi-racial and multi-cultural.

They, like McVeigh, embraced a generic notion of identity backed up by rather liberal definitions of freedom and liberty.

From a Conservative perspective the "lone-wolf" - "go your own way" types are completely incompatible with the needs of their people (their tribe, which is to say their race, thus their true community and compatriots).

In traditional Western Civilization there is no place for the "go it alone" sorts. Each member of the tribe is obliged and burdened with the responsibilities of his or her people's stability and sustainability.

Thus McVeigh and Koresh types (as well as "good ol American patriot" types) are actually of a leftist, Marxist, mindset, not a right-wing Conservative one.

Their struggle is for a cheap, generic and cobbled together identity which is no different from what the Left has been fighting for for a century.

Kupleian continues,

It's a very real temptation. Think of it: As government excesses and corruption become ever more brazen, with "hate crimes" laws effectively criminalizing the Bible...


Okay, I'd like to point out something here that will shock both leftys in fear of a theocracy as well as the religious in fear of secularist persecution....

GOVERNMENTS CONTROL AND DICTATE RELIGIOUS POLICY TO THE RELIGIONS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THUS AND EVER WILL BE THUS.

Kupleian writes,

...with America's currency being continually devalued and entire industries taken over by the federal government, pretty soon some group may decide it can't take it anymore. Its members might become so enraged that they conclude it's time to start the next armed revolution. Seeing their nation being raped and envisioning no solution other than violence, they delude themselves that they're the modern counterparts of America's revolutionary founders.....And what would follow? A massive official crackdown on "domestic terrorists" and a severe assault on freedom in America.


Funny how Kupelian stokes the fire then throws a big bucket of water on it.

Never-the-less, he is right about revolutions. Successful ones start from the top down, not the bottom up.

Like it or not, most of us are "the little people", with little lives that leave no lasting mark upon history whatsoever.
Our individual opinions, beliefs and actions are generally irrelevant to the course of human events. (it is only when our opinions, beliefs and actions operate within the context of reflecting the history and reality of our people that they have power and meaning)

We (as individuals) are not special, we will not "change the world" nor do we have a "special purpose".
We only have general purposes, such as reproducing our replacements and working to benefit our people.

Does that mean that we shouldn't struggle against the un-natural?
Of course not.

But do not be deceived as to what it is that motivates that struggle. It is a nature within you that is historic and biological in composure and acts collectively from within your race (your people).

The "lone wolf" lashing out against a generic foe on behalf of a generic notion of national/political/social identity (or even justice) has perverted the natural order.
He has set himself and his own personal flag in the camp of the Marxists, wherein gender, race and ethnicity are irrelevant and all that matters is the individual.


For the true Conservative, the traditionalist who upholds the Civilization of his people, each person is beholden to the tribe.
There are no "blankslates". And your loyalty is to your biological people, not to generic national identities or personal notions of justice.

And revolutionary activities begin among our betters. Our leaders. Though many of us might like to imagine we are generals we are, in truth, the grunts.

Our generals and our kings have not yet presented themselves. Until they do we (as individuals) have no choice but to be swept to-and-fro by tides upon which we have no control.

But that is the fate of 99% of all men.



As to the attacker of the abortion doctor, no, he is no Conservative.

Being that pretty much every single violent protest/action undertaken in America has been by those of a left-wing ideological slant, we can conclude that the attacker in this case was of like mind...


...