First Things: The Fusionism That Failed

First Things:

“Understanding the upheavals of American conservatism requires the study of its ­history—in particular, the fortunes of Frank Meyer, inventor of the Cold War synthesis that reigned for decades as conservative orthodoxy and has only recently met with serious challenge.

Like many other figures on the Cold War right, Meyer had a communist background. He had studied at the London School of Economics, but was expelled and deported from the United Kingdom in 1933 for subversive activities, including publishing the Marxist newspaper Student Vanguard. …”

Frank Meyer, the architect of “fusionism” which is the modern mainstream conservative synthesis, was a former Jewish communist who converted to lolbertarianism. Folks, if you are wondering why this never worked out in practice, it doesn’t get more “conservative” or “traditionalist” than that!

via GIPHY

“In 1961, Meyer wrote The Moulding of Communists, which explained the means by which communists recruited and indoctrinated members. Drawing on his own experience, he described how young Americans were signed up and put to work by the Communist party. …”

David Horowitz put it this way in his autobiography, Radical Son:

“What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private language, the same hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posture revealing one face to the outer world and another to the tribe. More importantly, there was the same conviction of being marked for persecution and specifically ordained, the sense of moral superiority toward the stronger and more numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear of expulsion for heretical thoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.”

David Horowitz, Radical Son, pg.42

Irving Kristol put it this way in Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea:

“I dutifully participated, learning to read Hebrew and memorizing the Yiddish translations. Discipline was strict – if we misbehaved in any way, the rabbi would order us to stand up and then give a stinging slap in the face. He also taught us to hate the goyim and to spit whenever we passed a church.”

Irving Kristol, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, pg. 4

“Bozell framed this scenario as a reductio ad absurdum, but in hindsight it looks prophetic. In the decades following Bozell’s essay, no-fault divorce was legalized, Roe v. Wade was instituted, obscenity laws were weakened, and the United States experienced unprecedented levels of divorce, single parenthood, abortion, and ­pornography consumption. Meyer wrote of “fibers of tradition and civilization” that were “carried in the minds of men from generation to generation,” but it is clear that to expect traditional values to survive the abolition of legal and social restraints is to exaggerate the strength of a people’s moral fabric. “

Prophetic?

It’s almost like … no one saw it coming:

“Nothing in the signs of the times exhibits in stronger relief the fact, that free society is in a state “of dissolution and thaw, “of demoralization and transition, than the stir about woman’s rights. And yet it is time to work

The people of our Northern States, who hold that domestic slavery is unjust and iniquitous, are consistent in their attempts to modify or abolish the marriage relation. Marriages, in many places there, are contracted with as little formality as jumping over a broom, and are dissolved with equal facility by courts and legislatures. It is proposed by many to grant divorces at all times, when the parties mutually consent. The Socialists suggest that the relation should be abolished, private family establishments broken up, and women and children converted into joint stock. The ladies are promoting these movements by womens right’s conventions. The prospects of these agitators are quite hopeful, because they have no conservative South to oppose them. It is their own affair, and we will not interfere with its regulation.

We shall deplore the day when marriage and Christianity are abolished anywhere, but will not interfere in the social and domestic matters of other people. …”

George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society, 1854

“In the twenty-first-century West, we are afflicted with a mediocre libertinism, which is as unstable as it is unsatisfactory. We need a new conservative fusion, one that prioritizes social connection instead of atomization.”

Who said from the vantagepoint of the 1850s that all the “-isms” are but the “splattering drops” that “precede a social deluge”?

“Why have you Bloomer’s and Women’s Right’s men, and strong-minded women, and Mormons, and anti-renters, and “vote myself a farm” men, Millerites, and Spiritual Rappers, and Shakers, and Widow Wakemanites, and Agrarians, and Grahamites, and a thousand other superstitious and infidel isms at the North ? Why is there faith in nothing, speculation about everything? Why is this unsettled, half demented state of the human man mind co-extensive in time and space, with free society? …

All modern philosophy converges to a single point – the overthrow of all government, the substitution of the untrammelled “Sovereignty of the Individual,” for the Sovereignty of Society, and the inauguration of anarchy. First domestic slavery, next religious institutions, then separate property, then political government, and, finally, family government and family relations, are to be swept away. This is the distinctly avowed programme of all able abolitionists and socialists; and towards this end the doctrines and the practices of the weakest and most timid among them tend. Proudhon, and the French socialists generally, avow this purpose in France, and Stephen Pearl Andrews re-echoes it from America. The more numerous and timid class are represented by Mr. Greeley and the Tribune, who would not “at once rush,” like French revolutionists, “with the explosive force of escapement, point blank to the bull’s eye of its final destiny,” but would inaugurate social conditions, that would gradually bring about that result. Mr. Greeley does not propose to do away at once with marriage, religion, private property, political government and parental authority, but adopts the philosophy and the practices of Fourier, which promise gradually to purify human nature, and fit it, in a few generations, for that social millennium, into which the bolder and more consistent Andrews urges society at once to plunge.

The other and bolder party, feel themselves “called” as special instruments, to give at once the coup de grace to the old world, and to usher in the new golden age, of free love and free lands, of free women and free negroes, of free children and free men.

The Socialists promise that when society is wholly disintegrated and dissolved, by inculcating good principles and “singing fraternity over it,” all men will co-operate, love, and help one another.

They place men in positions of equality, rivalry, and antagonism, which must result in extreme selfishness of conduct, and yet propose this system as a cure for selfishness. To us their reasonings seem absurd. Yet the doctrines so prevalent with Abolitionists and Socialists, of Free Love and Free Lands, Free Churches, Free Women and Free Negroes – of No-Marriage, No-Religion, No-Private Property, No-Law and No-Government, are legitimate deductions, if not obvious corollaries from the leading and distinctive axiom of political economy – Laissez Faire, or let alone. …

They hold that all men, women, and negroes, and smart children, are equals, and entitled to equal rights. The widows and free negroes begin to vote in some of those States, and they will have to let all colors and sexes and ages vote soon, or give up the glorious principles of human equality and universal emancipation.

The experiment which they will make, we fear, is absurd in theory, and the symptoms of approaching anarchy and agrarianism among them, leave no doubt that its practical operation will be no better than its theory. Anti-rentism, “vote-myself-a-farm” ism, and all the other isms, are but the spattering drops that precede a social deluge.”

George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters, 1857

The South is the conservative section of the United States.

In my opinion, it only needs to be rearmed with its own intellectual tradition after “fusionism” is tossed in the garbage. Northern conservatism has never conserved anything.

About Hunter Wallace 9617 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

4 Comments

  1. Communism is ultimately, a weapon created and wielded by Jews against Civilisation. However, it’s rooted in the Labour Politics of the late 19th and Early 20th Centuries.

    Combustion engines and electricity had already changed labour from a purely manual and physical activity, towards mechanisation. Wherein the “workers” became machine operators. Now, the machines are becoming able to operate themselves.

    What do Marxist/Communist politics mean when the “workers” are robots and computers?

  2. As Denise would point out, “But, Brad- YOU didn’t sufficiently show that it was the JEWS that were behind all this culture destruction!”

    Because she would be right…. again.

  3. The modern south is not the traditional south anymore and is the home of Judeo-Christianity and pseudo-patriotism. Even before the Civil War the south was not isolationist in nature but fully backed whatever wars the system wanted. Even today it is the most patriotic part of the United States. I see flags everywhere in many cases along with Israeli flags not only at private homes but also at many Baptist churches! The Heartland-which in many cases was settled by southerners- has always been more isolationist and was the main area supporting Lindbergh’s America First organization while the South was solidly on board with FDR and the New Deal.The Heartland is a mixture of the Celtic( from the southern settlers) and the Germanic and should Germany goes extinct the largest remaining reservoirs of German genes will be in the heartland.

Comments are closed.