The meaning of language is often misunderstood, but the confusion
that comes out of the pure ignorance for disregarding history, is boundless. From
Wikipedia: the term Radical (latin radix meaning root) has been used since the late 18th century as a label in political science for those favouring
or trying to produce thoroughgoing or extreme political reforms which can include changes to the social order to a greater
or lesser extent. Historical Radicalism was quite distinct from the modern American usage of radical to denote political extremes
of right or left. An insightful way to examine the meaning of being radical can
be found in the tragic chronicle that destroyed the vaulted Republic. The watershed
event that caused the decisive destruction of the American experiment was the War of Northern Aggression. In order to gain the significance of that era, a short account of the Republican party is most useful.
Republican party in 1861 was a coalition of disparate elements. Formed only 7 years earlier, it contained men who had been Whigs, Anti-Slavery
Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and Abolitionists. By the outbreak of the war, these fragments had coalesced into
3 basic factions: conservatives, moderates, and radicals . . . The most aggressive and, eventually, most influential of the
three was the Radical Republican faction. All Republicans were against slavery, but this group was the most "radical", in
its opposition to the "peculiar institution." While conservatives favored gradual emancipation combined with colonization
of Freedmen, and while moderates favored emancipation but with reservations, Radicals favored immediate eradication of an
institution they viewed as iniquitous, and saw the war as a crusade for "Abolition" . . . Men of little patience and less
tolerance, the Radicals advocated an implacable, uncompromising prosecution of the war against the Southern rebellion, and
were in the forefront of such issues and legislation as the Confiscation Acts, emancipation, the enlistment of blacks, the
13th Amendment, and Reconstruction policies . . . The Union victory and the destruction of slavery did not conclude the Radicals
program. With Lincoln's assassination and Andrew Johnson's succession, the Radicals domination of the party and Congress increased.
These committed politicians would shape the reconstruction of the nation.”
Clearly calling the waging of an annihilating nationalistic
war - reform - is ridiculous. Nevertheless, it certainly was radical. The impetus for such drastic measures arose out of an inevitable political dissatisfaction
of conflicting worldviews. The parallel mindset that fosters a twenty first century
perpetual terror and permanent war phobia has its roots deeply seeded in the megalomania cult of Lincoln adoration. The discontent that drove the psychopaths that rallied for internal destruction was based upon the subversive
idea that preserving the Union was a sacred cause. Accusing the Southern States
of sedition, demonstrates the utter perversion of the radical republicans. In
less than a century the entire purpose of the 1776 revolution was lost as the forces for centralized supremacy gained their
dream, the destruction of Liberty and the imposition of federal despotism.
Today the “so called” progressive activists carry
on the loathsome ritual of utopian intrusion. What they call “social justice”
is really a diversion. Their unholy union with Lincolnesque sycophants is a fundamental
reason why the public politick never is able to achieve true, individual or community, independence. Ambrose Bierce
offers a clarion clarification: “Conservative: a statesman who is enamoured
of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
basic, natural and universal disposition towards individual self-realization has been systematically suppressed. It has been undermined with the distortion that only a strong invasive and usually coercive central government
can bring nirvana. This vile and fallacious ethos is steeped in all civil codes
and permeates every aspect of the ‘PC’ test for social acceptance. Sounds
radical doesn’t it!
Now contrast this form of domestic suicide and compare it
with the recent experience in the UK, known as `Thatcherism'. In the emblematic
style found in British discourse, Mark Neocleous presents this analysis:
of the problems has centred on the radicalism of the phenomenon, since it is partly its radicalism which appeared to mark
`Thatcherism' out as a distinct form of conservative politics, or possibly even a `new' Right way of thinking. Of the many
reasons for which the New Right may deserve the label `new' - for its self-conscious attempt to be more openly principled
than previous forms of thinking on the Right perhaps, or merely by virtue of the very different historical circumstances in
which it emerged - one of the most significant is the fact that it was more self-consciously radical than previous varieties
of conservative thought. It is this radicalism, and the way others have attempted to understand it, that interests me, for
it essentially destabilized the established political vocabulary. This destabilization
has proved highly demanding for social and political thinkers generally, and the Left in particular. For social and political
theory it soon became clear that new ways of grasping the `conservative' nature of the New Right were needed; for the Left
the problem related to the kind of strategy to adopt in tackling it. This was particularly true of Britain, partly because
`Thatcherism' appeared to be the most intense manifestation of New Right politics and partly because of the spectacular failure
of the Left in this country.”
If Mr. Neocleous is correct in describing the Thatcher version
of conservatism as “more openly principled” which is inevitably destabilizing, would it not be proper to
conclude that the mere suggestion of politics based upon PRINCIPLE is a radical approach to the art of the possible? For most of the modern social democratic era, the focal force within politics has
been exemplified by puritan motives using utilitarian pragmatics with Marxist rhetoric.
No wonder the mere idea of a principled policy must seem extremely radical! When
Leo C. Rosen proclaims that: “A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead”,
he sums up why the old Tory - pre Thatcher - party lacked that stiff upper lip Edmund Burke standard. As for being a destabilizing influence on the collectivist welfare state, pray tell we finally have
the real definition for social progress . . .
In order to refute the wretched legacy that created the GOP,
the tactics of radical destabilization becomes the sound principles approach. The
overwhelming disposition of the ordinary citizen professes a strong yearning for stable common sense economics, a conventional
social order and a stable country secure in the pursuit of happiness for each individual. Those are real conservative values. Abstract political principles must be transformed into real world practical solutions. The shameful course in U.S. politics in the post American Revolution occupation is
designed by tyrants to foster a docile and dependent society. The central state
is not essential. It is the source of reconstructive repression and all-pervading
absolutism. The masses will remain acting like Asses if they refuse to become
Foolishly believing that genuine conservatism resides within
the Republican political establishment is pure folly. Denying that the Democrats
are anything other than savage Statists, renounces the proud heritage of Thomas Jefferson.
Both parties operate as carpetbaggers of corruption – self-seekers of power in the pursuit of maintaining the
organized crime syndicate. Becoming a radical is the sensible alternative. But
to achieve meaningful change, knowing what it means to be a reactionary is also necessary.
Paul Weyrich gives a hint of what it takes: “We are different from previous generations of conservatives.
We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this
country.” The next task is to set the record straight – the way
of the reactionary.
SARTRE – November 17, 2005