Fiscal Conservatism & Social Conservatism – Inseparable!

A pending local election happened to ignite a political conversation between me and a Jewish friend of recent acquaintance.   I never raise the topics of politics and religion with friends unless I am sure that we share views, for I long ago found out that Leftists rarely set friendship above politics and anti-Christians are surely the most intolerant people on the planet. 

    My Jewish friend asked me if I was intending to vote for someone for whom she had volunteered. When I named the candidate I was going to cast my vote for she took a deep breath and whispered – as though she was referring to a disease – “tea party!” When I replied, “Oh good!” she was a little shocked. For better or worse this opened up a political discussion between us. As always, once we are in political territory, I nail my colors to the mast at once and thus make clear that I am not in any way ashamed or half-hearted to be ‘very conservative’. 

    My friend then said that she was really a ‘fiscal conservative’ even though she was about to support a liberal candidate. She hurried to assure me that she and her husband are social liberals and then went on to burnish her fiscal conservative credentials. The circumstances were not conducive to a deep political discussion – crowded Peet’s cafe and three young children – but I was surprised how quickly she attacked public service unions, a weak local council that had long inflated public employees’ pensions, and then on to minorities responsible for crime, and residents of public housing who fail to nurture their children. We parted still friends and I suspect we might continue our political conversation at our next meeting. 

    Personal anecdotal evidence, whether it be related to climate and global warming alarmism or to economic and social issues, should never be discounted, for as we constantly point out on this website, when you cannot believe a word that the Mainstream Media (MSM) puts out, or a word that the Government puts out, your own lying eyes and personal experiences are all that remain. Here is an example! 

    The Mexican who occasionally does some yard work for me is a grand fellow. He is incredibly hard working and I would trust him with my last dollar. He has three children and works long hours to support them. I am sure that he is a traditionalist regarding family and morals but like me he lives here in liberal-dominated California and so finds it hard to protect his kids from Leftist social propaganda and influences. His eldest daughter, who has gone to school here in California where chastity is not taught, had her first baby when she was just 16. She had no ongoing relationship with the baby’s father. Her mother and father (he reluctantly but his wife more willingly) helped care for the baby and the daughter went back to school and then into part-time work. Soon she was pregnant again and again had no ongoing relationship with the second baby’s father. Both births were in local hospitals and as she and her family have no medical insurance, she paid not a dime. Now, she has decided that she would like to go to college, and as her parents are illegal immigrants and probably pay no taxes, she is going to get a free place in college and will get many welfare payments to sustain her latest lifestyle. 

    Socially liberal policies require not being harsh about illegal immigration, not being judgmental about girls and women having babies out of wedlock, not saddling young women with handicaps in life just because they choose not to marry the fathers of their children or pursue them for child-support, not being judgmental about other cultures that tolerate pre-marital sex, making sure via Government that every child born has access to the highest material standards of care and that any young women who decides – when it suits her – that she suddenly values education must not experience any obstacle in the way of getting into a college. Incidentally, a social liberal will not insist that an education must lead to a genuine job. If someone wants to study ‘women’s issues’, ‘Black studies’, ‘gender discrimination’, sociology, or any other self-indulgent or politically-agitational subject, why should taxpayers have any say in it? After all, ‘Live and let live’, self-fulfillment is a right and who is to say what is valuable to a society – not even those who have to foot the bill. 

    In an urban society, and especially a crowded one where all live, work and/or travel cheek by jowl, we cannot afford to have sick, contagious people on the streets and living in doorways, even if our Christian-shaped consciences allowed us to do so – which they do not. Moral non-judgmentalism has unstoppable and uncontrollable fiscal consequences. Non-judgementalism regarding SSM will open the door to a new wave of dependents on medical insurance policies that all will have to pay for, even though homosexual partners are not burdened with children and have not had health problems from child bearing. Promiscuity, hetero and homo being an inevitable consequence of socially liberal policies, begets diseases that have to be treated. Easy divorce has financially ruined many working people and deprived boys of fathers, one consequence being the criminal feral youth of our city ghettos. Soon, anyone who is unhappy about his/her gender will be able to demand a sex-change operation and we will all have to contribute to the cost. 

    Conservatives were tactically foolish to oppose the provision in Obamacare that required all to buy insurance. No politician will ever dare to insist that the voluntarily-uninsured sick be left to die in the streets or those with contagious diseases be left untreated. The truth is that the powers of Government can only be properly limited and public expenditure harnessed in a moral society. There are many other good arguments for defending a moral, conservative society, including the protection of children and the physical safety of the old and frail, but fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is sheer nonsense. 

    So what makes so many of those who claim to be fiscal conservatives distance themselves from social conservatism? It is of course the climate of opinion that has been so successfully created by the MSM and Academia. Young people emerge from school and college brainwashed with social progressivism and it is everywhere reinforced by Pop culture and the culture conveyed by the MSM. In all the social issues that divide real conservatives from the politically timid, the real facts are never exposed for consideration but instead are deemed unmentionable, removed from their context and the issues falsely defined. Thus the issue of abortion is presented as one of a ‘woman’s choice’, and not one of the brutal killing of a live and innocent human being. In the restricted public debate that has long been permitted by the MSM and Academia, abortion and birth control are a woman’s right, women are poor and victimized, and all taxpayers must pay in one way or another for the unwanted consequences of her choice. The issue of ‘choice’ is not related to getting pregnant – for this is too moralistic – but related only to the abstract issue of ‘disposal’ of an ‘unwanted pregnancy’. 

    Any organization that opposes abortion is denied the opportunity to show or describe the mechanics of it. No TV channel will allow abortion to be shown and the masses are steered away (in college and in the MSM) from consideration of the gory and brutal details. Those who are recruited to practice abortion are no doubt trained in the details and amongst Feminists there must be such discussion, but there is a conspiracy to ensure that the ‘low information voter’ (as defined by Rush Limbaugh), and the idealistic young, remain ignorant. This avoidance of detail is the technique of would-be totalitarians who cannot defend truth but must conceal it, suppress it and, like magicians, divert attention elsewhere. Hitler and his National Socialist ideologues were happy to discuss among themselves the rationale for, and mechanics of, roving death squads and gas chambers for the disposal of the ‘unwanted’ Jews, Eastern Europeans, mentally ill, physically and mentally disabled and other inconvenient groups. Those who were recruited to do the killing must have been trained in classrooms where the discussion was both detailed and enthusiastic but the National Socialist ideologues were never willing to encourage such discussions amongst Germany’s general public and most certainly not around the world. The issue was framed by the ideologues as one of ‘cleansing’ a Nation and removing human beings who were ‘unwanted.’ 

    The same was true of those other Socialist ideologues who went by the name of ‘Communists’. Stalin did not publicize – even within the Soviet Union – the death squads that slaughtered millions of Kulaks (re-defined as ‘rich’ farmers and therefore greedy), and whole races of ‘unwanted’ people and ‘enemies of progress’. Socialist intellectuals around the world colluded to hide his crimes in the name of progress. The gulags and their inmates were deliberately hidden from the world’s view by the Party’s Ruling Class yet their methods of brutality, slave labor and physical disposal must have been known to hundreds of thousands – probably millions – of the Party insiders, the camp guards and the police. Those considered progressive and non-judgmental were surely ‘in on the details’ of cruelty and disposal and we can assume that amongst themselves the discussions were enthusiastic. How is all this different from the tolerated public secrecy that surrounds the abortion processes whilst the details are so available to our contemporary ‘social moderates’? These social moderates/ fiscal conservatives, who get so embarrassed by conservatives insisting on discussing moral issues, prefer to march with the Leftists and thus not be considered judgmental and ‘bigoted’. 

    It is the same for that other issue now so dear to ‘progressives’ – homosexuality. The public debate about this issue is limited to abstract concepts of ‘human rights’, ‘equality’ and ‘love’. Nowhere in the public arena that is controlled by the MSM and Academia can the mechanics of same-sex sex be discussed. Nowhere in school, college or MSM is anyone permitted to introduce the topics of anal sex, rimming, water-sports or dildos, for that would be to reveal the disgusting, grossly unhygienic, perverted (sado/masochistic) and absurd practices that are the only avenues for same-sex sexual expression. The human bodies of male and female are designed for only one kind of sexual practice, and Nature’s objective is clearly reproduction of the species, yet this biological truth cannot be stated for it immediately defines homosexuality as unnatural and barren. It is revealing that the LGBT community discusses all of its bizarre practices in great detail, but only in private. It would not be an exaggeration to say that activist homosexuals are sexually excited by the abnormality of their behavior and exchanging their perverted experiences. The more shocking they can be, the more excited they become and the more stimulated. Anyone who doubts this should read their internal literature, visit the websites where they communicate with each other, and study their ‘gay’ parades and celebrations. Look no further than the ‘zombie’ website where the ‘gay’ antics of San Francisco’s liberated perverts really emerge from the closet. Just as Hitler’s activists discussed with each other how to deal with the Jews, yet refrained from revealing the truth to the German people, and just as Stalin’s cadres eliminated millions yet permitted only benign talk in public about building a new world, so those who now promote socially liberal policies launder out the real facts and wholly suppress the truth. 

    Not a week goes by but another ‘gay’ play appears on Broadway or a new TV soap familiarizes the public with a completely sanitized and false version of the ‘gay’ lifestyle. This week it is the musical “The Nance” on Broadway. Terry Teachout, theatre critic of the WSJ, who I once considered to be conservative-leaning, shows his true color and those of the Journal with these sentences; “He (Chauncey Miles, a burlesque actor) prefers his sex anonymous and takes it wherever he can find it. Then he meets an earnest young fellow from Buffalo at the automat, hauls the boy home for a tumble and very much to his surprise, falls in love.” 

    I ask you to consider the language used here to sanitize sodomy. Traumatic anal sex here is a mere ‘tumble’ and the boy is ‘hauled home’ and surprise, surprise, ‘love’ follows. If it was one of my sons ‘hauled home for a tumble’ I would regard it as a tragedy and a life-changing event. I am sure Mr. Teachout is pleased that in today’s liberated and socially progressive world, marriage can follow – along with AIDS. 

    Not a single MSM report on the issue of SSM is sympathetic to the case against its legalization, indeed all seek to ‘sell’ the concept as one of liberation of an under-privileged victim group – this despite the campaign for SSM being funded by the richest people in America and the most privileged and powerful. 

    Many of the public figures who are now rushing to support the SSM campaign are eager to be on the winning side and to share the rewards that a Ruling Class can confer. Others are fearful of blackmail and threats. For the rest, like my Jewish friend, it is fear of being viewed as ‘bigoted’, ‘old-fashioned, ‘religious’, ‘unkind’, ‘intolerant’ and reactionary. These labels can be easily applied to those who fight for real marriage for the issue has been detached from its facts. 

    On this website we were among the first to condemn the MSM’s treatment of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting. We early on drew attention to the false picture of Martin that the MSM and the local police and prosecutors were promoting. I am grateful to the website WND for an article dated April 17th and headlined “Police buried Trayvon’s Criminal History” 1. Jack Cashill, the author is to be congratulated for doing the honest reporting job that is wholly absent from today’s MSM. Cashill reveals that Martin was twice caught in major criminal offences. His original source was The Conservative Treehouse (The Last Refuge Blog) “Revealing The Trayvon Martin Coverup” 2

    1st. “caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry” 

    2nd. “caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe” 

    These offences were treated lightly as part of police policy to massage statistics, for the police everywhere are under great pressure to reduce the convictions of young Black males. The latest outrage from Eric Holder and the Left is to demand that criminal conviction rates should be in proportion to racial populations. Not that this lawless administration is concerned about convictions of Chinese Americans, Indian Americans or Amish Americans – not even Latinos, as the persecution of George Zimmerman proves. It is African Americans they are singling out for privileged treatment and demanding that crime rates should not be a factor in their rates of conviction. So the Florida police department under Police Chief Hurley (since removed from the job) did what they all do and that is instructed his officers to reduce charges on young Blacks. Martin was a beneficiary of this policy. This is an outrage, but we have a second outrage and that is that the MSM deliberately colluded with this by sanitizing Martin’s police record and image in order to advance Obama’s election prospects. 

    The Boston Terrorist Attack – At the time of writing this article there is still no evidence to safely identify who was responsible for this dreadful attack. From the first moments the MSM swung into action to implicate ‘right wing extremists’. Rush Limbaugh has done an incredible job of revealing the dishonesty of these reporters and commentators. The facts of the attack almost all point to Islamic Imperialists, for who else could benefit? Right wingers have nothing to gain, though it is always possible that some mentally sick or psychopathic right-winger acted in isolation. Leftist revolutionaries also have nothing to gain from it. Not even the IRA – experts at bombing civilians with the aim of maiming – have anything to gain. It is however entirely in line with Islamic attacks all around the world, especially the motive of blowing off many innocent people’s limbs. These Muslim fanatics are terrorists for whom the bloodshed is never enough to satisfy their blood lust. The fact that two bombs were constructed, planted and almost simultaneously detonated strongly suggests that a team was involved. Despite all the talk of how easy it is to make a bomb, there are many dangers for the amateur and we know from the IRA campaign that effective bomb-makers need training and support. It is also obvious that Obama has been embarrassed by this attack. Some conservative commentators are attributing his angry countenance to the Senate defeat of his gun-control initiative. I suggest that the possibility that the bombers might be from amongst his Muslim comrades is the cause of his scowl. His administration is flat out to avoid mentioning the obvious fact that Islamic Imperialists are most likely the perpetrators and he might have to walk a very tight line in public between seeming to ‘feel’ for the victims and yet not condemning ‘his people.’ We can be sure that the MSM and all the Media Class masters will be helping him on that tightrope. 

    The Boston outrage was close to home for I had three close friends running and the family of one watching with two small children. Fortunately two had already finished and gone back to their hotel before the blasts. The other was stopped at the 25 mile mark and his family was not close enough to be physical victims. They did have a 9 mile walk back to their hotel – a rotten end though a lucky one to a day that was meant to be a happy one. It was some time before I knew they were safe. 

    This is the time to discuss not gun control but more effective capital punishment and who gets into the USA. It is the view of Radical and Right, who have had experience of IRA terrorism, that all convicted of willingly aiding and abetting terrorists should be speedily executed. Had this been policy in earlier years some of Obama’s friends and mentors would now be rotting in graves instead of indoctrinating America’s young people and drawing big salaries. Of course, fiscal conservatives would not agree with such an old-fashioned and unfashionable view point. 

What's Your Opinion?