You are here

Several interesting quotes at the Ambler recently:

Here, here, here, here, and here.

Forum: 
Share/Save

And here.

.

“American conservatism closely resembles the Postmarxist Left, the theme of my latest book, in its showcasing of a globalist, egalitarian ideology. Both are post-liberal and heavily influenced by the rhetoric and vision of the revolutionary Left. Each pursues a politics of guilt toward recognized victims, although obviously some victim groups that rate high on the European Left, like Muslims, are less beloved to American “conservative” leaders. Both devote considerable energy to fighting “fascist” phantoms in a way that is reminiscent of the European Left of the 1930s…”

This is hardly a new idea. Many have identified the Bush/neoconservative foreign policy as Jacobin, the hysterical exportation of liberationist “democracy.”

Of course, many influential neoconservatives were, as young men and women, Leftists, Trotskyites, or Communists. It’s hardly a surprise they would import categories of thought from that world into their new identities as “conservatives.” Now, instead of fomenting world revolution and class conflict, they are exporting transformational democracy. It’s the same process, just a different brand name.

In its essentials, “conservative” to these neocons means just anti-collectivist: they’re anti-communist. They don’t advocate a fully- or partly-collectivized totalitarian world such as Pol Pot’s, Fidel Castro’s, or China’s world before the “Capitalist Roaders” took over from Mao’s widow and her coterie a little more than two decades ago and started giving the people there some breathing room. In respects other than their anti-communism they’re what we ordinarily think of as left-liberals for the most part. But that’s not what I for one hold most strongly against them (I’m a liberal myself, in ways—I think that politically, on the “Republican-Democrat” thing, the “liberal-conservative” scale, what I resemble would be Joe Guzzardi, who is a Democrat). What I hold most strongly against the neocons, and most bitterly, and absolutely uncompromisingly, is their advocacy of race-replacement immigration.

When one sees what conservative means today—Country-Club Republicans, Tranzi Wall-Streeters, Neocons—how can one consent to be part of it, part of “conservatism”?
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________

… a natural outgrowth of their revolutionary, ex-commie-but-still-in-that-pattern-of-thinking mindset? Bertolt Brecht’s poem “The Solution” springs to mind…

Christopher Hitchens feels comfortable with this regime, finding it akin to that which he experienced in the 1960s - “revolutionaries”, indeed…

I submit that the desire to “dissolve the people and elect another”, which elites both liberal and neocon, in all the Western countries, have engaged in, is revolutionary, and even if some of them are officially stridently anti-communist, that isn’t particularly important…

It occurs to me, that as the Chinese economy booms, and as they become more and more free-market, whilst maintaining political totalitarianism, and as we in the West become less and less politically free, even as we remain free-market and prosperous, that we and the Chinese are approaching convergence…