Interesting E-mail from my conservative brother

[ismnotwasm]

Melissa,

Conservatives and modern liberals are both enduring
the effects of a betrayal. I'm not talking so much
about the political party thing. It was a deeper,
intellectual betrayal. It was a betrayal that allowed
the rise of neoconservatism and its support from both
sides of the political aisle. I can't comment so much
on the liberal state of affairs other than to say
modern liberals have nothing in common with the old
liberal, piece-sign toting, police-state fearing
hippie, or the social-Catholics that were primarily
concerned with feeding the poor and labor justice.
Hillary certainly doesn't represent these people. She
may agree with them on many accounts but thirst for
Israeli power defines her, not soup kitchens. As for
the conservatives, even most of the good ones today
must be defined by their failure to meet the
neo-conservative threat. I'm talking about people ten
years older than I am and up. These are the people
that led me astray in my youth. They led me into
highly immoral positions and I'm angry with them. I'm
not running from responsibility. For example, Damien
needs to take responsibility for his drug use but I
don't blame him for being angry with Abe, the kid who
first introduced him to acid. We're all 100 percent
responsible for our actions. Damien was 100 percent
responsible for taking drugs and Abe was 100 percent
responsible for encouraging his friend to take them.
This is a subtle point that many don't understand.
So, I was entirely responsible for my position and
conservative writers were entirely responsible for
promoting evil positions to conservatively inclined
young people.
I admit that I hang out more at libertarian sites more
than conservative ones. I'm probably, technically
speaking, still a conservative though. Libertarians
have all kinds of criticisms against conservatives.
But what concerns me is that I haven't read any
conservatives address this issue, at least not
adequately. Even the ones opposed to the
neoconservatives don't seem to want to ask this
question. How could conservatives have allowed all
this? Someone pointed out that many health writers
today are the same people who, a few years ago, were
heavily endorsing margarine, a trans-fat. Personally,
I feel that these writers should retire and go away.
Their mistake was just too big. I evaluate today's
conservatives, even the anti-neo kind, similarly.
They allowed something so tragic as the thorough
corruption of the ideals they claimed to defend. I
just want most of today's conservative writers to go
away, just like the health writers that condemned me,
in my youth, to margarine consumption.
It's probably naïve of me to wonder why this question
isn't being asked more. After all, so many
conservatives now openly embrace the police state and
even torture. But, as far as I can tell, even the
better conservative thinkers are not asking this
question much.

A libertarian recently posted a comment on his blog.
I don't remember where he got it. I think it was a
reader's letter but I can't remember for sure. The
comment came from an elderly German lady that said her
entire life she had struggled with the question of how
Germany could have allowed Nazism to happen. She said
that, after this administration, she now knows the
answer.

We see this, now, I'm afraid. For example, the
"ticking bomb" scenario that is used to justify
torture can be used to justify ANYTHING. Or, at
least, all that is necessary is a similar kind of
logic. The masses are highly susceptible to these
lame arguments.

I'm not sure wich version of anarchy you find
appealing. People calling themselves anarchists can
be radical free-market libertarians or communists.
But, if you want the libertarian kind, you might find
Wendy McElroy's site interesting. If I remember
correctly, she has bulletin boards on her site where
she welcomes discussion. I haven't spent much time on
her site, however. You may also find her interesting
because she is an open feminist. This is one thing I
am definitely not. However, if one has to be a
feminist, I'm guessing McElroy's version is probably
the best:

http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php

Here's a radical article linked from LR:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/news2/latimes3v.htm

Love,
Joe
I don't involve myself in Democrat bashing here, (and I'm not trying to start now) but I had expressed fustration at certain comments and votes by Democrats, and told him, half-kidding, that I felt like becoming an anarchist, or social libertarian. I thought his comments about betrayal were well though out. This is from a kid (Ok, he's 33, not a kid any longer) who used to be a foaming at the mouth right wing conservative. I think he's mislead on the position of modern liberals--connecting them with moderate-to conservative Democrats, but still, I'm impressed. My lil' bro, starting to see the light.

[Ian David]

1. "Thirst for Israeli power defines her {Hillary} Nice anti-semite brother.

[ismnotwasm]

3. I know, I should have commented on that

I'm not saying he's perfect, but you should have heard him 10 years ago. This is as intelligent as I've every heard him

[Ian David]

6. At first I thought the email was a hoax

It sounds like one of those "Conext-free" compuuter-generated letters.

I think there are some issues with "thought organization."

[ismnotwasm]

7. Actually he does have very specific issues with that

One of the reasons he was a sucker for some of the more insane conservative crap that was spewing forth. He has severe OCD.
Which is also part of my unofficial theory that extreme conservative veiws are part of a mental illness.
Part of his personal healing has been emerging from that strange place of extreme rightwing veiws.
It does sound computer generated doesn't it? I think he probably spent a lot of time on it.

[Ian David]

9. Actually, there IS a theory that conservatives are mentally ill

It's late, or I'd find a link for you.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Sorry 'bout that

Another issue I try to stay out of on this board, I should have commented on it.
My point was more that he has changed profoundly, while he'll never be a liberal, this was so far from what he used to be it's astounding.

[Ian David]

5. Sorry, didn't mean to seem like I was extending that at you as well

For what it's worth, I know militant Zionists who hate both Clintons because they think they're too "anti-Israel."

By "Militant" Zionists I mean the very few who want to tear down the Mosque in Jerusalem to rebuild The Holy Temple.

[JAbuchan08]

2. Does this mean that libertarians are going to start voting for the

interests of liberty rather than purely economic interests?

I'm glad for your brother, and I sympathize with the sense of frustration with Democrats. While well intentioned the Dem's have the same problem as Republicans, they see too much of the world through the prism of politics. With Republicans its "Real Politic" and with Democrats its the seeming inability to see the full context of what the Republicans are doing and what they are acquiescing to they see it all as "just politics."

That was rather stream of conscience. I hope there was some kernel there.

[0rganism]

8. I think it's clear that they have to do so now

When Clinton was in office, people made tons of money, but paid taxes on it to support a competent federal government. The libertarians were outraged because the government was robbing their bank accounts to support its bureacracy at the expense of private enterprise, so their primary concerns were economic.

Bush changed that. Now taxes are lower than ever, and the federal government is completely incompetent. Yay, they won, right? No, because the incompetence of the federal government has led to its becoming more authoritarian and intrusive than ever. So their tax situation has greatly "improved", but their civil liberties are down the drain and, once Alito's on the court, about to hit the sewer. It's a pole shift for them, some may be slow to adjust, but it could work in our favor.

[Horse with no Name]

10. I see your brother as very confused

Lost if you will.
Several Conservatives that I know do not support this neocon regime.
But this isn't what their party is--most do not recognize it.
Just like I can't be persuaded to become a Conservative (in the truest sense of the word), I realize you aren't going to persuade your brother to become a liberal.
There was a website that was posted on here for conservatives that felt betrayed by their party who are speaking out against Bush and trying to take their party back.
http://mypartytoo.com
Truly in order for Democracy to work, there HAS to be an opposition party, otherwise you suffer as we are now from tyranny of the majority.
The entire country has been betrayed by these criminals. Only 39% support him. These are the morans you see posting at FR and CU and other like sites.
The majority of the country is AGAINST this regime and all they stand for, no matter if we wear true conservative stripes or true liberal stripes. At some point we will have to work together to bring these criminals down.