http://blog.odessa-syndicate.com/2008/02/26/zmirak-on-strasserism/

Ho-hum.

John Zmirak makes it sound like we are responsible for 1/2 of American children being non-white, real wages stagnating for 30+ years, gay cowboys, coalburners, and pregnant teenagers gracing the silver screen. Is it really our fault though that American children hang out in shopping malls - places of commerce - and flaunt their social status by parading around in brand name advertisements? For all his preaching against "materialism" (read: science), at the end of the day, Friar John comes up a dollar short and fails to make the sale. His godly conservative friends out there in the pews of America are, in fact, Wall Street's most reliable, gullible supporters. But should we expect anything less from this neo-cleric? I understand that Zmirak is being coy here, but I will play along anyway, as I also enjoy being dismissive and sarcastic for the sport of doing so.

The venerable Roman Catholic Church, the apple of his eye, has been gussying up landlords with snake oil and painting over poverty since the fourth century. Bowled over, John Zmirak recently made a pilgrimage to Rome where he got the chance to fondle some the Vatican's most magnificent treasures - fingers, teeth, a few skulls, perhaps some shrapnel from the True Cross - accumulated over those dark centuries when famine was a common occurrence, 33 was old age, glass was a new invention, and even the rich slept on dirt floors. In his view, it was a misunderstood golden age; the dirt poor European peasantry, subsisting a shade above slavery, elevated their illiterate minds to the Heavenly City and Holy Trinity while priests and knights on earth picked their pockets and parsed theology. Such an attitude hardly inclines towards progressivism.

The bloodshed that Zmirak exhorts about (which was not unique to Russia) is only what happens when the usual chain of organized robbery breaks down. The immediate cause of this seems to be rising literacy rates. Possessing the ability to read and count has the problematic side effect of rendering the individual more aware of his interests. He becomes less intimidated by invisible hobgoblins, "the prince of the power of the air," demons dancing on eyelids, and other hilarious phantasms conjured up by Iron Age mystics on a 10% cut who were cocksure our planet was 6,000 years old and the center of the universe. A more equitable distribution of wealth has the saluatory effect of reducing infant mortality, raising life expectancy, abolishing famine, and rendering healthcare more affordable. The most significant fact about famine in the twentieth century, in contrast to the halcyon days of Roman Catholicism, is that it became less common, and finally all but unknown in Europe. If that is not "pro-life," what is?

The conservative tends to operate according to a highly predictable pattern of lying, cheating, hiding, confusing, diverting, and stealing, even when he is unaware he is doing so. Before analyzing the nature of conservatism itself, it is worthwhile to assess the merits of its critique, as millions of suckers have been misled into supporting this rich man's politics out of the belief that their oldest chestnuts are true:

Charge #1: The twentieth century was incredibily violent. The cause of this was "totalitarian" ideologies like Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism, which the "Free World" nobly opposed, and emerged from triumphant in the end.

The truth is that the 20th century was dominated by a gang of aggressive liberal capitalist democracies which resorted to every lowblow imaginable - including the use of chemical and atomic weapons on civilian populations - to brutally impose their social system on the rest of the world. The Second World War was ignited when Britain and France, prodded by Franklin Roosevelt, attacked Germany over a regional border dispute it was having with Poland. The aim of the Allies was to stop the revisionist Axis powers from displacing them at the top of the geopolitical pecking order in the liberal international system which they dominated.

After the defeat of the Axis, who were supposedly the aggressors (in some cases this was true), the Soviet Union became the new boogeyman of "freedom" and the ostensible excuse for militarism and the projection of capitalism abroad. The West formed a hostile military alliance (NATO) on Russia's doorstep - only recently destroyed in two catastrophic invasions from that direction - adopted a hostile policy of "containment," and proceeded to rearm Russia's traditional enemies from Germany to Turkey to Japan for yet another go at the Soviet Union.

The USA and its allies would spend the next 60 years interferring in the internal affairs of every nation in the world from Chile to Somalia to Vietnam. Even after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. maintained its military outposts in Europe, and expanded NATO into the Baltic states; the recent conflagarations in the Middle East are part of its effort to conquer that region as well. It is the United States, not Hitler's Germany, which aspires to world domination, and now maintains active military commands for every corner of the globe and a level of military spending multiples of that of all the other great powers combined.

Charge #2: Racialism leads inexorably to The Holocaust, ergo, it is morally untenable.

The United States and Britain maintained racial regimes even more comprehensive than their German counterpart. Yet the Allies were Germany's enemies during the Second World War, a war which the U.S. fought and won with a Jim Crow military.

Like much of his foreign policy, Hitler's plans for the Jews changed along with the course of the war. When German defeat became inevitable, Hitler lashed out at the Jews for embroiling Germany in a devastating war which he believed (quite correctly) that they had been an instrumental force in inciting. His motivation was the ruin of his nation, not thoughts of their racial inferiority. This would not be the last time that Jews would advocate world wars to advance their interests.

What is the point of this tour-de-force from Peoria to Poitiers to Potsdam to Pyongyang? Somewhere along the way we were completely diverted from discussing America's real problems and the failure of 50+ years of conservative solutions to them. We weren't paying attention when Richard Nixon gave us affirmative action, Ronald Reagan his IRCA amnesty, Bush Sr. delivered the Immigration Act of 1990, Newt and McCain tag teamed with China to create a servant economy in the Heartland, or when W. plunged us into Iraq with Newsmax lies about Saddam Hussein's miracle crop duster armed with WMD.

Everything about "conservatism" is phony: the flags made in Guatemala it wraps itself with, those girls who model Ronald Reagan t-shirts with their fake tits and bleached blonde hair, the IOUs of social concern they hand out, supply-side economics, their tepid criticisms of the Left, the false prosperity that Jew Greenspan created with M3 and the savings of foreigners. They have given the Southwest to Mexico, France, Britain, and Holland to Islam, China a mortgage on America for 100 years, and a white girl to every nigger in the country ... but they made a lot of money doing so, those wonderful guys. These people harangue us because Hitler had the audacity to put out the Jews who were using "liberty" as an excuse to collectively urinate on German culture. Where else have we seen that phenomenon at work?

The singular goal of conservatism since the college days of William F. Buckley has been to dismantle the meager concessions that Capital was forced to make to our grandfathers in the darkest days of the Great Depression. The rest of its cant is mere window dressing. Having largely succeeded in that endeavor with the triumph of Reaganism in the 1980s, "conservatism" has once again cocked the gun that will blow its own brains out (stay tuned for that). As "conservatives" go down in flames, moralizing along the way to be sure, we'll stand up for White America. It's about time someone did.