Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Trump Could Actually be Considered a "Radical"

"Radical" actually means "returning to the root," although these days it means more along the lines of a leftist who desires "radical changes" (the “neo-conservative” – which means leftist - nitwit David Horowitz wrote an autobiography called Radical Son). So if Trump really wants to "Make America great again" it means returning to the roots that made America great in the first place: small government and political and economic liberty.

Now to what extent he wants to do this I do not know. He looks to be a good start, but I sure would like to see the Department of Education abolished. It doesn't look like he's going to do that, although his pick for that post appears to want to return control to local bodies.

That reminds me. I had a troll who was claiming the Nazis (which means “National Socialist”) were "conservative." No, they weren't. They were leftist, which means revolutionaries. Destroy the existing order and replace it with something else. My God, Hitler wanted to wipe out Christianity as a "Jewish religion."

In that sense Obama is a revolutionary because he apparently wanted to destroy the existing order in the United States and replace it with his idiocies (that makes him closer to a Nazi - "National Socialist" - than anything else). That's why he has no legacy and what he did do is being spurned by Americans.

Also in that sense that buffoon Dubya Shrub was a leftist and revolutionary with his attempts to destroy the existing order in other countries and replace it with the leftist delusion of democracy (this makes him close to a Communist - "International Socialist"). That's why it didn't work, as I predicted right from the beginning, and has in fact made things a lot worse over there.

It was Confucius who once said, "When words lose their meaning people lose their liberty." And how true that is.

"Conservative" no longer means "conserving the best." Now it means "conserving the existing order," which means conserving the power and money of the "elites."

"Liberal" doesn't even mean "liberal" anymore. It means "on my way to being a leftist."

How the hell did all of this happen? How did it evolve - or devolve - into these things? I don’t exactly understand how this happened. I’m not sure anyone knows.

I am not a "conservative," although the ignorant have accused me or being one. I am one in the sense of "conserving the best." I am a liberal in the sense of wanting to change things for the better. I am also a radical in the sense of "returning to the root" if it means returning to a good root.

Unfortunately there is no such ideology as a conservative liberal radical. But that's just about what I am.

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once described himself as an “anarchist of the far right.” That doesn’t even make any sense unless you read his Leftism Revisited.

Simple descriptions of things never work. Unfortunately that’s what a lot of people try to do.

The whole universe appears to be both static and dynamic. It also manifests itself in politics and society and culture and people - to both conserve and change (everything changes). Unfortunately we really don’t have the words to describe these things – except static and dynamic. It might be better than a better description than using conservative liberal radical to describe yourself.

5 comments:

Quartermain said...

I find irksome when people in the media and political class confuse the word radical with extremist, of course like you said words loose their meaning with misuse.

Earl Thomas said...

It also annoys me to no end that common accepted theme with the masses is that the Nazis were conservatives or right-wingers. They only see 'National' in the name and think all they were was about the Aryan race and seem to overlook the 'Socialist' part. It was race based socialism. Doesn't matter if it is race based, country based, or global based...socialism is leftist.

Anonymous said...

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

www.BoycottBitches.com

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

CH Acolyte said...

You sound extremely bitter, Anonymous. As if you have been rejected by American women, so you are lashing out because of your own ineptitude. There are millions of American men who obviously feel different than yourself on this issue.

I suggest you read Gorilla Mindset by Mike Cernovich. Empower yourself!

Tal Hartsfeld said...

Conservative="Conserving the best"
Liberal="Wanting to change things for the better"
Radical="Returning to the root"

You seem to have all the right elements character-wise.
And clinically literal as well.