DO WE NEED A MANIFESTO, TOO?

   There's been a recent controversy among some Conservative websites and pundits because of a manifesto recently published by the Edmund Burke Foundation. On the surface, many of the principles appear appealing. That is, on the surface anyway. The document purports to unite Conservatives under the following preamble:

  "We see the tradition of independent, self-governed nations as the foundation for restoring a proper public orientation toward patriotism and courage, honor and loyalty, religion and wisdom, congregation and family, man and woman, the sabbath and the sacred, and reason and justice. We are conservatives because we see such virtues as essential to sustaining our civilization. We see such a restoration as the prerequisite for recovering and maintaining our freedom, security, and prosperity.

  "We emphasize the idea of the nation because we see a world of independent nations—each pursuing its own national interests and upholding national traditions that are its own—as the only genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe."

   In the first place, it is somewhat curious that an organization headquartered in the Hague, run mostly by Jews, and heavily funded by Pfizer and Microsoft and named for a notorious flatterer of monarchy should presume to pontificate to American Christians on proper ideology. 

      Besides presuming to speak for all Conservatives, it's rather noteworthy that Individual Rights are not mentioned in the Preamble, nor really anywhere else in the document. In other words, what the Foundation is proposing is establishing a "genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe" by imposing one of its own. 

    One can see this authoritarian tendency by overlooking some of the flowery propaganda and noting that most of their solutions strongly imply a State-run mechanism of some sort. Examples:

  On States' Rights: "However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order."

  On Religious Freedom: "Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private." (Query: how does the State enforce 'honoring' these values among private institutions?)

  On Self-Government: "All agree that the repair and improvement of national legal traditions and institutions is at times necessary. But necessary change must take place through the law. This is how we preserve our national traditions and our nation itself." 

  On Economic Freedom: "A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare." (Query: who defines what is economically in the national interest?") 

  On Public Education: "We recognize that most universities are at this point partisan and globalist in orientation and vehemently opposed to nationalist and conservative ideas. Such institutions do not deserve taxpayer support unless they rededicate themselves to the national interest. Education policy should serve manifest national needs." (So much for School Choice, which I was always thought was a Conservative position.)

   On the Family: "Economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child-raising are priorities of the highest order." (True: but how is the power of the State going to accomplish this? Russia has had some good results with tax-breaks, subsidies for stay-at-home mothers, and other incentives, but Russian society is already fairly family-oriented and American society is not; as evidenced by their own admission that "Among the causes are an unconstrained individualism that regards children as a burden, while encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life." Besides that, Point 2 of the Manifesto makes it clear that that the authors don't like President Putin very much.) 

  On Race-Relations: "The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. The nationalism we espouse respects, and indeed combines, the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole." (Again, who is to decide the 'Common Good?' Juxtaposed against their position on immigration which states "We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies," it would seem that the authors have some fairly strong views about what constitutes 'assimiliation' although they don't define it.)

    Basically this document reads about like a Neocon revision of the World Economic Forum's principles: which isn't surprising considering that Pfizer and Microsoft are among the WEF's 'Top 100 Strategic Partners'---as is PayPal, whose founder Peter Thiel is among the Manifesto's signatories. Many of the signatories work for media outlets which are subsidiaries of large conglomerates, and at least 12 of them are foreign nationals. 

      The authors give considerable lip-service against crony-capitalism but much of what they say throughout the document throws a shade of suspicion on their sincerity. After the obligatory Russia-and-China-bashing, they state that "we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation, which sought to gain power, influence, and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image" they inform us that "We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggression... We support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties,{nota bene} defensive alliances,{nota bene} and other common projects that respect the independence of their members." 

    Somehow, we don't get the feeling that this type of nationalism applies to whomever the totally non-crony capitalists at the Burke Foundation consider 'security risks.' especially considering that they all call for "a Cold War-type program modeled on DARPA, the “moon-shot,” and SDI is needed to focus large-scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military applications." 

   Granted, we do need upgrades of our manufacturing system (and our infrastructure in general); but the fact that we've fallen behind China in our capabilities is precisely because we keep ploughing funding into the Military-Industrial Complex. As we're writing this today---August 24th---a news headline reads that the Junta is spending another $3,000,000,000 on aid to prop up the Zelensky Regime in Kiev. Another several billion is about to authorized to prop up Taiwan---which was doing just fine economically until the Junta provoked China into imposing sanctions. 

   Consider what would have happened if all of the military expenditures dumped into black holes like Ukraine, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, NATO and who-knows-where-else had actually been spent on things like upgrading American roads, bridges, canals, ports, electric grids, flood control, desalination plants, wastewater treatment, high-speed rail---the list goes on. 

   These issues, though, are probably considered 'socialist' "which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan." The Security State and the Military-Industrial Complex don't seem to count in this equation, however. Again, it is a matter of considering the source. Especially when some of the signatories include former Senator Jim DeMint and a few of his henchmen from the Conservative Partnership Institute, a Beltway lobbying firm; and Charlie Kirk of the shady Turning Point USA, which is among some of the Controlled Opposition groups presumed to be involved in setting up the January 6th false flag (and which portrays itself as pro-Trump while hobnobbing with RINOs like Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, and Ted Cruz). Well-known Deep State cutouts like the Hudson Institute, the Hoover Institute, and the Claremont Institute are also represented.

    The reality is that Conservatives don't need a manifesto. Our Declaration of Independence spelled out for us that we have inalienable Rights---given us by a Higher Authority than government---to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also spells out that we are free to choose which governmental policies best secure those Rights. This allows for a free exchange of ideas, experimenting with policies that work and rejecting those that don't. While the Constitution does provide a set of rules on operational aspects of the government, we are not and were never intended to be a top-down society run by arrogant bureaucrats, smug pseudo-intellectuals, and certainly not by financial Oligarchs who are, in reality, no different in substance than the Monarchy our forefathers overthrew. Lest anyone suppose that the WEF/Great Reset brand of neo-feudalism is exclusive to the Left, guess again.  

   For that matter, our Constitution strictly opposes any kind of 'Purity' Tests, Loyalty Oaths, which manifestoes like these are very much advocating. Another ominous statement in this Manifesto reads: "We recommend a drastic reduction in the...policy-making judiciary that displaces legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values."  This sounds suspiciously close to bringing back the Colonial-Era Bills of Attainder which are forbidden by Article 1, Sec. 9-10 of the Constitution.  

  The way back to a Conservative society starts at the basics: self-government. The American people---the Right in particular---have completely failed to safeguard our institutions and culture which, in a free society means taking personal responsibility and not deferring every aspect of ones life to whatever the New Normal happens to be. Thus it becomes a simple matter for tyrants to control the 'narrative' which is all that this Manifesto is attempting to do. What the Right needs to do is some serious soul-searching, get off of their couches, and stop relying on the government to solve all of their problems.