Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Catapulting Into Oblivion


Rather than post English-language analyses on the American election, the outcome of which was no surprise to anyone who has studied the character of George W. Bush, here is the reaction of Google group Via-Resistancia. It may be a partial explanation, and far too kind to the President, but it has some merit:

Victory for the Democrats? Rather, a defeat for the Republicans. It was in their electoral fiefs, in the states that are usually strongly Republican, that abstentions and indecision were the most marked.

It wasn't so much the principles behind the intervention in Iraq that was rejected by Americans, as the absence of an exit-strategy and post-war plans. In his failure to clearly name the enemy, George W. Bush and his administration have fostered a semantic confusion exploited endlessly by leftists and pacifists - the providential allies of the anti-Occidental axis extending from Paris to Tehran.

In his failure to name the enemy so as to confront it openly, the second mandate of George W. Bush will end in the chaos of Iraq and a pernicious cohabitation in Congress that will undoubtedly be detrimental to the American economy, hence the world economy.

Let's be clear about this, Islam is the only victor of this calamitous election, marked also by divisions among Republicans, whose factions both libertarian (the French text says "liberal") and conservative never understood the historic relevance of neoconservatism and what it could bring, and who were undermined also by intolerable scandals the bring shame to the Grand Old Party.

Now that Bush is weakened, an historic path opens for the Muslims who already have established a powerful influence in Europe and who are preparing future conquests into the heart of North America, with the blessing, there as here in Europe, of the elite who see in Islam a religion of peace and love, beginning with Bush himself.

Poor world, rushing to its destruction...

Note: I must take issue with the uninformed comment about neo-conservatism. It never had the potential to do good, to be a force for progress. At one time I believed that it did. Neo-conservatism seemed to be an enlightened form of the traditional Right, allowing a little more air to breathe, but maintaining the basic values, strictures, and roots of the traditional American ethos.

I admit I was horribly wrong. What I did not see was that neo-conservatives, imbibed with long-standing attachments to Socialism and Communism, infected with the free-wheeling attitudes of the sixties, were not only not conservatives, they were worse than liberals, because they fooled you.

At the outset, they were a major and much needed correction to the ravages of the Democratic Party, drunk on social and cultural victories from 1968 on. They appeared to be the Voice of Reason, the Bulwark of Tradition, the only possible course for the future.

But they were, at heart, liberals. Their aim, like that of the liberals, was to strip America of her identity, to adhere to lofty unrealizable goals such as spreading democracy to barbarians, and above all to gradually drift into the realm of social liberalism, whether the issue was gay marriage, women's rights, multi-culturalism, open-borders, or Palestinian rights, for it was here, in the realm of liberalism (i.e. Socialism) that they, the neoconservatives and former Socialists, feel most at ease.

In George W. Bush they had a leader tailor-made for their goals. Outwardly conservative, religious, loyal to his wife, devoted to his country, he was, in his heart of hearts, a child of the 60's and the dupe of every totalitarian group or individual on Planet Earth. Eager to please the Democrats, eager to squash the traditional Republicans who blindly banked on his "wisdom", he betrayed his party and his country. He is the American Chirac, but worse, because he had the power to stem the march of Islam, and instead, he has fueled it.

Some say that he rejoices at the Democratic victory. Now he will give them what they want, and in return, they won't impeach him. I believe it.

The photo comes from Political Humor.

4 Comments:

At November 08, 2006 5:32 PM, Anonymous Theokron said...

For those of us who remember the coming of the neo-"conservative", they were only Scoop Jackson Democrats who were reacting to the takeover of their party by the radical left. Socially, they were still liberals. And when they gained ascendancy in the conservative movement, they labeled the older, philosophical conservatives paleo-conservatives and ostracized them to the fringes of conservative discourse.

 
At November 08, 2006 11:57 PM, Blogger Vanishing American said...

Are the neocons unregenerate liberals or are they Gramscians subverting conservatism in America?
I tend to think it's the latter.

 
At November 09, 2006 12:38 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ theokron and vanishing american

I'm not really knowledgeable enough to know if they are basically liberals or Gramscians. However, if they are liberals they are not the kind of liberals I grew up with. My parents worshipped FDR and HST. Mother almost died when JFK was killed.

I cannot imagine Harry Truman condoning the conduct and values of the current Democratic Party. Today's Democrats have become radicalized to an extreme that would have been unimagineable in 1950.

So you are both right. An uncontrollable liberal bug has infected both parties, but the democrats are happy about it and the traditional Republicans are now really fearing for the future of America.

 
At November 09, 2006 1:44 AM, Blogger Causal said...

Take a moment, and help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach..

The day the nation demands impeachment is upon us. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home