My Continued Suicide :-)

OK, after the blood letting associated with Part I of this post a week or so ago, I think I would be best served by starting with a warning.  So:

WARNING!

“This post may cause “Conservatives” extreme emotional distress, leading to an uncontrollable urge to kill the messenger.  Casual readers should not read this post, nor should those who are secure in their “Conservative” beliefs.  All others, please read with caution (i.e. an open mind and willingness to hear me out).

OK, if you are still with me, here you go.  But don’t say I didn’t warn you, because I did.

Understanding the Progressive/Communist vs. Fascist Split in American Politics: Part II

In my first post on this subject, Understanding the Progressive/Communist vs. Fascist Split in American Politics: Part I, I argued that we should think of the Progressives and Conservatives as similar to the Communist and Fascist in Europe, specifically in the first half of the 20th Century.  Now, I understand that many Progressives will object to this, but they have no grounds to do so.  Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the Progressive movement, openly stated that he wanted to bring Communism into American politics.  He just wanted to ‘Americanize’ it first, so the people would accept it.  And today, the Communist Party US has stated that it no longer feels the need to run its own candidates as the Progressive agenda of the Democrat Party has already embraced all of the Communist Party’s political goals/policies.  In fact, the primary point of contention toward my argument has come from those who consider themselves to be Conservative.  These people do not see the connection between the Conservative movement and the Progressive movement.  But you must understand, I am not addressing those who consider themselves to be “Conservative” in the sense that they support the Constitution.  I am addressing the leadership.  It’s just that, until now, I didn’t know how to explain it to them so they might understand.  Then I saw this story and things started clicking into place:

Newt Gingrich sees major Mideast mistakes, rethinks his neocon views on intervention

Welcomes libertarian debate on U.S. military involvement

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.

“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

Read the rest…

12 thoughts on “My Continued Suicide :-)

  1. This is great, Joe. I think some reassessment is definitely in order. I find myself constantly reassessing why exactly it is that I believe in the things I believe. I know this specifically addresses Conservative leadership, but for myself, I identified myself as Conservative for quite a while through the means of the genetic fallacy. Simply, I was raised by Conservatives who always voted Republican, therefor I must be Conservative and naturally vote Republican. It wasn’t until I started following RLN (I actually thought this website was a liberal sight poking fun at the “Right”, at first), and started self-educating myself, that I realized that much of what I knew and loved was already hijacked by Progressivism. While I can’t say that I have arrived anywhere substantial, I simply don’t know what I identify myself as anymore. Definitely “Independent” in all of its ambiguity, but not of any particular independent or conservative discipline. It’s precisely because of part I and II on this subject, why I’am identifying myself as Conservative, less and less.

    • Libercrite,

      Thanks. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not attacking what the average Conservative believes. In fact, I support most of it, myself. I guess I am guilty of not working hard enough to make this clear in the past.

      However, as I learn more about the history behind the words we use, I learn that they have been intentionally confused so as to trick many of us into supporting something we do not believe in because it is attached to the label “Conservative.” In my next 2 posts, I will explain the history of Conservative/Conservatism. I will also show some of the major points where modern conservatives of ALL types support some important ideas that the founders held to be in opposition to liberty.

      I’ll be sure to let you know when I have the next post up. It will get posted on both blogs 🙂

      • No worries, Joe. I got the main idea right away. I just felt compelled to take it a step further and sum up that this is basically a top to bottom issue (although the top generally tends to be out of synch with the bottom). If Conservatives (and that goes for ALL in the Conservative movement regardless of their role) aren’t careful, and don’t evaluate where they stand from time to time, they may risk becoming progressives without even knowing it. A repetition of history if you will.

    • The modern day “liberals & conservatives” who are in control of the federal leviathon make up 2 wings of the same bird of prey.

      They merely give “lip service”(lie) to “the people” and “the mob”.

      • Yes Texas…Exactly !!

        There is a world of difference between “the people” and “the Mob” as you say and….”We The People “

  2. I am going to guess(hope) that you recognize that Wilsonian progressivism, while perhaps grown in the same soil as Communism, grew from that point as a secondary branch off the parent philosophy, while communism took a different route, or branch, as its trajectory. One can more easily see the similarities in the two forms of government in the early stages, before the branches grew further apart,
    Fascism and communism grew apart, taking root in different countries. They (Communism and fascism) recognized their similarities as being greater than their differences, and formed an uneasy alliance. But Germany was also in the throes of excessive nationalism; while Russia’s tendencies in that regard were slower to manifest themselves, especially in the west.
    I think national pride , in essence, is what caused Hitler to turn on the Bolsheviks, which set the seeds of their own destruction. Borders, at least, would be vastly different had the Nazi-commie alliance not broken up.
    summing up, we have the same sources, poverty, extreme economic disparity, and a governement seemingly unresponsive to the people it is supposed to serve, but from that point on, our trajectories were quite different. So say I.

    • I think it’s great that we are able to sit down and discuss our ideologies such as we’ve seen here in the OP, and the two responses … and Greg, you are right, and so are you Joe. It does not have to be that each of you are 100% correct either. No one is perfect, but it is quite refreshing to read (while I sit here waiting on my coffee to finish brewing), to see the two of you specifically come to a point where you seem closer to a mutual understanding that I suspect has been there all along … except that the two of you were speaking different languages.

      We’ve, as a collective group of posters on the RNL, have long asserted that there was little to no difference between the contemporary Republicans and Democrats, save the speed in which their trains move along the tracks. Like Libercrite above, I find myself with an identity crisis of sorts. “Independent” is just too abstract for my liking, and I know this next statement is going to raise the eyebrow of CDE, but it must be said … I find myself having a difficult time identifying with the Libertarian movement as well. They just seem to remain spread out across the board in their ideology. While Ayn Rand resonates with her objectivism, Robert Nozick has not closed the deal for me.

      Now … time for coffee. 🙂

      • Augger,

        True. And I suppose I could have and should have done better at explaining that I see the “spirit” underlying the movements, not the specific minutia. There is never 100% agreement among any group of people, so why should anyone expect that there would be in a political movement? And why should they expect there must be 100% agreement to align the thinking behind two similar movements such as Communism and Progressivism? I just figured this was a self-evident observation. Yes, I “assumed,” and I got many of us with that one brush. My apologies.

        That said, I am trying — trying hard — to turn over a new leaf. These are areas that interest me, and I fully intend to explore them. And I will report what I have found and try to do better at leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions — at least, to do so more often. I will also try to do a better job of explaining what it is I see and on what I focus. Maybe that way people won’t think they can pick me apart by pointing to one or two areas where two political ideologies disagreed and think they’ve made a point? And maybe I will get better at explaining this when it happens? 🙂

        • I disagree … to a point. The minutia as it were, though small, does contain important details that everyone should consider … even if they disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the larger picture either, or attempting to cast a wide enough net to attract the masses … the message has to get out. So no apologies there.

          You’re never going to avoid the crazies, or their platitudes either. I just simply advise not to let them get you riled up. Intellectual paupers should never have that much control over you … ever.

          Not everyone can write as well as Charles, or even Utah … everyone has their own style. I think it is more important in the end for everyone to present their musings. opinions, etc as if they were trying to resolve a dispute with a respected neighbor. Remember when I said: “Truth should not be reduced to a prize in a battle of wills and words.’? Well I pinned that without much thought, but later on that thought hit me with the same resonance of a barrage of fire from the USS Missouri. All too often (and none of us has clean hands on this), resort to the battle of wills, and words … just for the self gratification of declaring victory. Obama is famous for this, and frankly …why the hell should we behave like that asshat donk?

          Instead, we should just sit down with a cup of Greek coffee and speak our hearts and minds. 🙂

          Here’s the cup I made, and enjoyed while responding to you:

  3. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it……and at the very least continue as lackies and Pawns of the Power Elites.

    The Germans were very antagonistic to the Communists since the attempted Bolshevic Coup in 1919. Thus the support for the National Socialists ( Nazi-Party) was made up of a wide collection of Pro-German Groups having nothing to do with Nationalism….and everything to do with Keeping the Soviets out of German Politics. The Identity of the Wesrtern European Socialists with a new form and Identity that DE_EMPHASIZED the international aspect of Soviet Communist Control from Moscow was a key Characteristic of 1920s and 1930s politics. The Movements in Italy and Germany reflect this in thir “New” form of Socialist Facism……which they viewd as DISTINCT from the Bolshevik / Soviet model.

    Without US intervention the Soviets would have been contained by Germany militarily. It is distinctly possible that the UK could have been defended without alignment between the USA and the CCCP. Thus US military could have focused on North Africa and Italy shortening the war by allied troops approaching the Southern Austrian/ German Border. Stalin pressured foe a Second Front…..but there already WAS a Second front with the 8th Army (UK) and Patton in North Africa…….the Soviets WERE the second front. What Roosevelt and Stalin did was “arrange” a THIRD front …. to bail out the Soviets.

    Simplistic views of historical events serve no purpose except to further the Goals of the Propagandists.

    There are NO similarities between the “Two forms of Government”…..they are Diametrically opposed as to fundamental Human rights. The Split between Liberty and Tyranny is as real and simple as between Freedom and Control….and between Right and Wrong.
    But to me what Joe’s post actually gets at is the SIMILARITIES between otherwise seemingly ( and officially designated) different ideologies and Political Philosophies. That many of us have been duped into thinking that one Political Party or other…..one designation or other…Liberal/Democrat….Republican….Conservative….Libertarian….is the embodiment of our own beliefs. When in fact the leaders of those Parties and the Platform of thiose Parties are more often than not….just tjhe opposite of what we believe.

    In the Case of the Conservative Base…..many of us feel we when we say Conservative we mean Constitutional….when in fact the Leadership means anything BUT…….Hence people like McCain, Rubio , Boehner, Karl Rove act and advocate far outside OUR meanings and intentions. WRT the Democrat Party and base there is perhaps a similar occurance………..BUT I am sorry to interrupt the Kumbaya of some of the Commenters above. The Liberal /. Democrats also have within their base those who advocate FOR what their leadership advocate….Pelosi, Shumer, Obama etc…..

    And that is just the political reality today. What is important is what Libercrite got at…..and that is a Re-Discovery and Re-affirmation of what we as ( former..??) Conservatives actually believe and want. I feel it is coallescing around Constitutionalism / Liberty. But probably has to be articulated in a different manor.

    And a *Note-to-Joe*……….I think your righting is superlative…….without any implied superciliousness….

    • Don, the communism of the Soviet Union is not anything that Karl Marx would recognize, and as practiced(militarism, strong central government, arts and culture as state organs, de-emphasizing the individual), they are similar to Germany of the thirties. And those 2 forms of government are the ones to whom I referred.
      The main difference seems to have been the allowance of private enterprise in the German model, although companies were also in thrall to the State.
      Maybe you can say why the Soviets trusted Hitler, as they had to know how the Germans felt about them. That is a serious question, not a gotcha. Was each side planning to backstab the other, but the Nazis struck first?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.