Monday, November 19, 2012

On Undermining Liberty

After the election, I wrote a slew of posts on the topic of how partisan conservatives are undermining the cause of freedom.

For the last 50 years, partisan conservatives have stood up and claimed that THEY (and they alone) are the true defenders of freedom. Through this half century, Conservatives have had varying degrees of control of the government.

During this last 50 years, there has been a systematic erosion of liberty coupled with a growing gap between rich and poor.

Obama has been a terrible president both domestically and abroad. The 2012 election should have been a blow out election for the cause of liberty.

This fifty year failure to defend freedom leads directly to the question of why Conservatives have failed in their claim of defending liberty: Either Conservatives are incompetent or they are disingenuous in their claim to defend freedom.

During the election, I reluctantly came to realize that the latter is true.

The true goal of the Conservative is to preserve a top-down social order, with their group at the top.

In this last election, we saw Conservatives attacking ObamaCare because Obama was at the top. They sought to replace ObamaCare with RomneyCare.

ObamaCare is a state run health exchange based on the model of RomneyCare. RomneyCare is a state run health exchange. The only substantive difference between the programs is which band of rogues is on top.

During the election, Conservatives actively suppressed criticism of the Health Exchanges. I know, because I wanted to criticize the health exchanges and met a solid wall of suppression from the Conservatives in my state (Utah). In four years, I've not been able to find a single conservative in this state willing to discuss alternatives to the health exchanges. Not one Conservative in this oppressive state has been willing to even talk to me.

(My idea is that the best way to defeat ObamaCare is to promote self-funded health care as an alternative to insurance. It may be a bad idea, but how can anyone know if no-one takes the afternoon required to hear the argument?)

It was embarrassing. The people at Occupy Wall Street were more open to listening to free market ideas than Conservatives. OWS rejected the idea because it promotes property rights. OWS is opposed to property rights on a fundamental level, but they listened to the idea, when Conservatives simply won't.

I care about freedom. I do not care a lick about either of the two parties.

The doors are slamming shut on the American experiment in self-rule. I do not care about the parties but I do care about the cause of liberty.

Since conservatives are undermining the cause of liberty, those who love liberty must look beyond conservative rhetoric and address the reasons why conservatives undermine the cause.

Politics is tricky. A political movement formed around a cause loses its reason to be if the cause goes away. For a political movement to sustain itself, it has to reduce large groups of people to dependency around its cause.

Politics can get pathetic. In many cases we find political movements manufacturing crisis to maintain the political movement. The political class creates crisis and division so that it can use the crisis or division to sustain the political group.

Both Conservatives and Liberals use a technique called projection. The goal of this technique is to project faults onto one's opponents (while associating all that is right and good with one's own party).

Conservatives project a negative image onto their hated foe the Liberals. In turn the left spends its day projecting a negative image on "Conservatives."

If you are a Conservative, you've likely noticed that the Left projects racism onto Conservatism. If you are a Liberal, you will notice that Conservatives systematically project the image of Communism on the term Liberalism.

The racism charge is ironic, because the Left was using entrenched racism before the Civil Rights movement to advance its cause of big government. The charge that Liberals are communists is strange. Historically, Communism began as a right-wing reaction to the Classical Liberals who supported the free market.

The Conservatives of 1776 were royalists. They believed that the king had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to the patriarchs of ancient Israel. They saw the founders (classical liberals) as an unprincipled rabble sinning against God in their quest for liberty.

My posts on Hegel point out that the foundations of Communism evolved on the Right. The Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. The Kings of England funded the German Universities including Gottingen. German scholars were dedicated to reframing the ideals of feudalism. Hegel was a royalist-conservative who adored Napoleon. Karl Marx and Fueurbach were Young Hegelians who successfully reframed Hegel's arguments as revolution.

Modern liberalism actually evolved from a right-wing reaction to classical liberalism.

Hegel describes the process of terms turning into its opposite as sublation.

Sigmund Freud popularized the term "projection." Lakov popularized the term "framing."

Both concepts trace back to Hegel's study in projection.

From the revolution onward, Conservatives have played the game of projecting negative images onto the term "Liberal." By projecting negative images onto "liberalism" the term "liberal" came to mean its opposite.

Historically, the cause of liberty was a liberal cause.

Today, we find the conservative cause is dependent on the images they project onto Liberals. Case in point, there was no substance to the Romney campaign beyond the images that conservatives projected on Obama.

This race would have been a blow out if there was substance.

Conservatives love to pretend that they are the Founding Fathers. If Conservatives were the founding fathers, then why were the Conservatives of 1776 (the Tories) siding with the British?

The left/right split did not exist in 1776. This split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted social change the the right wanted to preserve the social order of the ancient regime.

The modern conservatism came after the Revolution. The ideals of Modern Conservatism seem to come from  Hegel, not from the US Founders.

The underlying structure of Hegelian is called dialectics. In Marxism the process is called Material Dialectics.

This dialectics is a systematic process of creating division. This modern dialectics is at the core of both Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism.

The conservatism movement fails in its stated cause of supporting liberty because Conservatism has embraced the modern Hegelian dialectics.

The modern conservative is dependent on the images it has projected on liberals over the years. I know this for certain because, during the 2012 campaign, conservatives spent more energy defining Obama than they spent on defining themselves.

The fact that Conservatives are dependent on the images they project on others shows that the movement is inherently dishonest and inherently flawed.

It is not simple incompetence. The conservative movement fundamentally undermines the ideals for freedom.

Lets jump back to the Conservatives of 1776. The conservatives of 1776 believed the King had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to ancient Israel, and that the Founders were a rabble or rogues who should be hung.

They lost and a great realignment of political bedfellows ensued and partisanship set it.

The primary concern of Conservatism is the preservation of the social order. Conservatives want the people who are on top to stay on top, and they want the masses to stay subdued.

The best way to achieve this objective is to capture the term liberty.

People love liberty, and do not want to give up their freedom. The best way to take liberty from a people is to capture the term liberty and twist it toward your advantage. Both left and right played the game of pushing definitions of liberty that suit their advantage.

In conclusion, I want to talk about the biggest problem I see with American politics.

The easiest way for a group to destroy liberty is for the group to set itself up as the defender of liberty.

Once the group has convinced the gullible that it is the defender of freedom, the group can play the role of gatekeeper, kicking legitimate voices of freedom aside while compromising liberty with the forces of tyranny and centralization.

For fifty years Conservatives have claimed to be the voice of liberty. During this period, Conservatives systematically project false images on others. They kick people aside. They suppress debate and always the first to compromise with the powers seeking centralization and control.

At what point will American patriots finally stand up and start questioning these conservative overlords?

No comments: