← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 3680 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2002-11-25
2002-11-25 06:17 | User Profile
[url=http://www.nationalinvestor.com/Experts-Lubinskas.htm]The End of Paleoconservatism[/url]
By James Lubinskas FrontPageMagazine.com | November 30, 2000 URL: [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/politics/lubinskas11-30-00p.htm]http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/polit...as11-30-00p.htm[/url]
(Foreword by Chris Temple: In 1980, traditional conservatives--including yours truly--rejoiced over the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency. Frankly, however, America has continued her decline as a great nation almost unabated, in spite of all the promise of the Reagan years.
In 2000, traditional conservatives rejoiced over the election of George W. Bush as president. Sure--many have their reservations, especially after not viewing his father as being terribly conservative. As much as anything, however, the rejoicing came based on conservatives' satisfaction over the seeming end of the Clinton/Gore years.
As my friend Jim Lubinskas so eloquently lays out in his essay below, the Bush program is anything but conservative, as a great many of us would define that term. Yes, there are many pieces of evidence that Americans are far better off now that "grown-ups" are in charge of the levers of power, and trying to come up with some solutions to problems that accumulated during the last eight years, or more. However, as you read the following, I think it's fair to say that the "conservatives" of 20+ years ago (or longer) who supported Reagan would look at today's version of "conservatism" and recoil in horror.)
THE EARLY 1990s saw the rise of a movement within American conservatism that challenged the direction of right-wing thought and politics. Known as paleoconservatism, this vibrant and combative movement shattered conservative unity for most of the decade and forced some right wingers to reconsider what it meant to be a conservative. Politically, the group centered around the presidential candidacies of Patrick Buchanan, in his attempt to take over the Republican Party. Intellectually. it gathered around the magazine Chronicles and included an impressive list of writers, academics and activists whose aim was nothing less than the transformation of American conservatism.
Paleoconservatives were actually a diverse bunch (which eventually led to their downfall) but generally agreed that we should have an isolationist, "America First" foreign policy, regional culture and politics versus big government and pop culture, protection for American workers (economic nationalism), a stoppage or large curtailment of immigration, and a defense of Americaââ¬â¢s European and Christian identity. Throughout the 1990ââ¬â¢s, they pitched fierce battles against their two main enemies: neoconservatives and liberals. Such battles included debates over the Gulf War, foreign aid, NAFTA and the WTO, immigration, the bombing of Serbia, the conservative attachment to the GOP, Confederate symbols and various racially charged issues.
Chronicles, edited by classicist Thomas Fleming, is a highbrow journal which, at one time, brought together a group of conservative writers as deep as any right-wing magazine. The list included names such as Russell Kirk, Thomas Molnar, John Lukacs, Samuel Francis and Mel Bradford. Southern traditionalists Michael Hill and Clyde Wilson appeared in the magazine, as did columnistJoe Sobran and writer Chilton Williamson. Academics such as Paul Gottfried and Christian Kopff appeared alongside European "New Right" figures like Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunic. The group was soon joined by a circle of paleolibertarians centered around the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Most notable among them was Murray Rothbard and his disciples Llewellyn Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and Hans Hoppe. In 1990 they formed the John Randolph Club which served as an annual forum for debate between the conservative and libertarian factions.
While never as well funded or connected as their neoconservative rivals, the paleoconservatives exhibited a tenacity on hot button issues that drew the attention of several observers. Paul Gottfried (still a paleoconservative) centered on their battles with neoconservatives in his 1993 edition of "The Conservative Movement." In 1994, David Frum critiqued the movement from a neoconservative perspective and warned of their presence in his influential book "Dead Right." Frum was disturbed by their deviationism on issues such as free trade and foreign policy, but his main concern was their worldview. He summarized paleoconservatism as a bid to "attract Americaââ¬â¢s nationalist hard core, people who felt aggrieved and abused not so much by foreigners as by alien elements within their own country - to unite conservatism and populism together in an ideology that could impose itself on the country more effectively than Reaganââ¬â¢s business-oriented conservatism had ever succeeded in doing."
The Battle is Joined
Indeed, Buchanan and the Chronicles crowd did not spare the rod in taking aim at neoconservatives and trying to "take back" their movement and their country. Writing in May 1991 Buchanan noted, "before true conservatives can ever take back their country, they are first going to have to take back their movement." He went on to complain of the "neoconservatives, . . . the ex-liberals, socialists and Trotskyists who signed on in the name of anti-communism and now control our foundations and set the limits of permissible dissent."
Almost all paleoconservatives had bitter feelings towards the conservative establishment. Mel Bradford was one of the earliest participants in the conservative wars when he was bypassed in favor of William Bennett for the position of Director of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Ronald Reagan. The southern traditionalist never overcame his bitterness at the neoconservatives for slighting him. "I always feared the domestic Left more than Moscow," he said at a 1992 meeting of the John Randolph Club. "I fear it even more now, since sometimes it calls itself conservatism."
Thomas Fleming and Samuel Francis (both earned Ph.Dââ¬â¢s from the University of North Carolina) continually pushed against "the limits of permissible dissent." One of the main topics pushed was Americaââ¬â¢s racial battlefield. Chronicles essentially became a voice for white Americans facing an uncertain future. Fleming predicted a future where "Europeans and Orientals will compete, as groups, for the top positions, while the other groups will nurse their resentments on the weekly welfare checks they receive from the other half."
Francis left little doubt as to what a sound immigration policy might be:
"Immigration from countries and cultures that are incompatible with and indigestible to the Euro-American cultural core of the United States should be generally prohibited, current border controls should be rigorously enforced, illegal aliens already here should be rounded up and deported, and employers who hire them should be prosecuted and punished."
Chronicles celebrated all things Confederate. Southern academics Clyde Wilson and Michael Hill joined with Fleming to form The League of the South, an activist group that advocates secession from the union for the former states of the Confederacy. It now has a political offshoot called the Southern Party, which hopes to achieve this goal via politics. Not surprisingly, Chronicles attacked the man Paul Gottfried mockingly calls "the patron saint of neoconservatives" - Martin Luther King.
According to Lew Rockwell:
"King, one, stole virtually every word he ever ââ¬Ëwrote,ââ¬â¢ from high school to his last sermon; two, rejected the central claims of Christianity in graduate school and never returned to them; three, had a sex life worthy of Magic Johnson; four, advocated racial redistributionism; five, called himself a Marxist in private; and six, coordinated his schedule, finances, speeches, publications, and strategy with members of the American Communist Party."
Paleoconservatives did not just push the limits on racial and cultural issues however. They soon began attacking some of the most sacred cows of modern conservatism: support for small government and free trade. According to Francis:
"The quality of the American population, its education, its economy and technology, and its social discipline are all, in one sense "assets" by which the national well-being and security of the country may be measured. They are therefore proper objects of public concern, and while that does not mean that the federal government should manage the population, it does mean that the concept of ââ¬ËAmerica Firstââ¬â¢ implies a nationalist ethic that transcends the preferences and interests of the individual or the interest group and may often require government action."
While most Americans - including many conservatives - may never have heard of Chronicles, these views were on national display in the 1992 and 1996 candidacies of Pat Buchanan. From his famous "culture war" speech at the 1992 Republican convention to his statement that Englishmen assimilate better than Zulus, Buchanan hammered away at the conservative establishment with ideas gleaned from the pages of Chronicles. A prominent critic of the Gulf War he soon started adding economic nationalism to his arguments; inveighing against NAFTA, GATT, free trade, "vulture capitalists" and the idea of "economic man."
Buchanan routinely won a third of the vote in his primary challenge to then-President George Bush in 1992. He did even better in 1996, winning New Hampshire and scoring close seconds and thirds in states such as Iowa and Arizona. For a few weeks in 1996, it looked as if paleoconservatism, in the form of Pat Buchanan, would overtake the Republican Party. Even after it became clear that Robert Dole would win the nomination Buchanan continued to get a third of the vote in some Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin and wound up with over three million votes.
The mid-nineties were heady times for paleoconservatives. Two strong performances by Pat Buchanan were not the only ways in which the Old Right looked as if it would overtake conservatism. Propositions 187 (1994) and 209 (1996) in California galvanized (mostly) white Americans to fight against illegal immigration and affirmative action. Moreover, the ideas espoused by Chronicles started being championed by other, more influential, conservative publications. Under the guidance of Peter Brimelow and John Oââ¬â¢Sullivan, National Review, the longtime standard bearer of American conservatism, started sounding themes similar to Chronicles. This was most noticeable in the magazineââ¬â¢s stance on immigration. A big supporter of Prop 187, National Review published a cover story by Brimelow in June of 1997 predicting that by 2008, the GOP would no longer be able to compete in presidential elections because of changing racial demographics due to immigration. Suddenly, paleoconservative views were becoming almost mainstream in conservative circles. As Newt Gingrich and the "Republican revolution" of 1994 floundered, it seemed as if the right would have to strike out on a new course. Would it be paleoconservatism?
The Beginning of the End
Even as paleoconservatives made headway in political and intellectual battles, there were signs of the coming collapse. Samuel Francis was fired from his job as staff columnist at the Washington Times in late 1995 for comments made at an American Renaissance conference on race, which advocated Euro- American solidarity. Francis lost his main outlet and soon began to lose other papers for his syndicated column. Moreover, death took its toll as Bradford, Kirk and Rothbard all died in the mid-nineties. The libertarians left the movement in 1996 after a fractious meeting of the John Randolph Club. They could no longer square support for a movement or a candidate (Buchanan) that attacked free trade and supported economic nationalism.
The tone of Chronicles began to change in 1997-98, as Fleming started attacking the white consciousness he once espoused, even as his colleague Francis pressed ahead with appeals for white solidarity in a darkening America. Another fractious meeting of the John Randolph Club in 1997 led to more dropouts from the movement including classicist Christian Kopff who saw a degree of hypocrisy in Flemingââ¬â¢s support for Southern secession and his criticism of white identity politics. The magazine started shifting its focus to the war in the Balkans (they back the Serbs), religious issues and support for extreme localism. Some of the more prominent writers started complaining about the direction Fleming was taking Chronicles. Circulation dropped and now stands at around 5,000, which is down from a high of almost 20,000 in the early nineties.
The decline of Chronicles and the John Randolph Club as serious outlets left paleoconservatism without an intellectual center. When Buchanan announced a third try at the Republican nomination in 1999 some were hoping he would still carry some political weight. When Buchanan jumped ship and ran for the mantle of the Reform party it looked as if the paleoconservatives would be able to severely hurt mainstream conservatives by taking votes away from George W. Bush.
But the Pat Buchanan of 2000 was a changed man. His calls for a closing of the Mexican border were replaced with calls for a reduction in immigration (down to 250,000 a year) so newcomers could assimilate. His anti-trade appeals gained little support in a booming economy with four- percent unemployment and a strong stock market. With no major wars and no foreign policy crisis he could hardly launch attacks against American interventionism abroad. As if to underscore this change he picked a conservative black woman, Ezola Foster, as his running mate and put racially tinged issues like the Confederate flag and affirmative action on the back burner.
The man who won the Republican nomination seemed to be everything the paleoconservatives despised. George W. Bush is a supporter of immigration, bilingual education, multicultural education, some forms of affirmative action, free trade, and a strong foreign policy. His spending proposals rivaled those of Al Gore and he even ordered a Confederate plaque taken down in Texas on the grounds that it was offensive to minorities. Indeed, "compassionate conservatism" was everything that paleoconservatives had been fighting against. But, this time, the battle was not even close.
The results of the 2000 campaign signaled the death of paleoconservatism as a serious force within conservatism. Conservatives enthusiastically rallied around Bush and Buchanan could only earn around 400,000 votes - less than one percent of the total vote. This performance will almost certainly mark the end of Buchananââ¬â¢s political career and there is no heir apparent on the scene.
The mood at the Buchanan campaign gathering on election night was somber. Indeed, the loudest cheers of the evening occurred when it was announced that Florida had been called too early for Gore and was still undecided. When I told a senior Buchanan advisor that I thought this marked the end of both Buchanan and paleoconservatism he did not disagree with me. Politically at least, it seems that conservatives will take their chances with compassionate conservatism - if only to keep the Democrats out of office.
One of the most important paleoconservatives, Samuel Francis, also agrees that the movement is dead. He blames lack of leadership, a good economy and petty squabbling within the movement for the demise. Still, he notes the elements that comprised the movement are still around and that at least two of the issues that fueled it - racial and cultural conflict and immigration - are likely to become more acute. He cites things such as reparations for blacks, the battle over Confederate statues and symbols, the targeting of Columbus Day, the minority status of whites in California, bilingual and multicultural education, hate crime legislation, the resistance to ending affirmative action and a multitude of other issues as a sign that racial conflict will get worse as demographic changes take their toll. Francis predicts a racial nationalism that will develop in response to these problems. Indeed, he thinks such a movement will be even more radical than paleoconservatism.
Still, mainstream conservatives are no doubt relieved to be rid of this threat from the right. For much of the last decade paleoconservatism was a thorn in the side of conservatism and caused a great deal of infighting. But as Francis points out, racially charged issues are on the horizon and could be the catalyst for another hard right movement. How compassionate conservatives deal with these issues could determine whether there will be a revival of this type of movement and a repeat of the wars that have been so damaging to the conservative movement.
Paleoconservative James P. Lubinskas has writtenfor Chronicles, The AIM Report, American Renaissance, The Social Contract, VDARE, The Nationalist Times, American Patrol and other journals.
Responding to a comment on another thread, I was looking for this thread here. I did find an old thread about it,
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=1521&hl]Justin Raimondo Makes Fool of Himself (On Lubinskas)[/url]
but I note the original article has vanished from frontpage. For the record I thought I'd repost it, before it disappers from the backup site also. It does still make me wonder of course what everyone's current opinion of Lubinskas's thesis is, and if anyone had seen any new discussion on it.
2002-11-27 06:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Nov 26 2002, 22:56 In connection with the other Chronicles thread (about Free Republic), I should also add that Chronicles itself isn't immune to FR-style cowardice when it comes to the "anti-semite" and "racist" label. A decade ago when it had four times the circulation it had today, Chronicles would run far more frank discussions of race, the national question, etc. than it does today.
I believe you were correct to once note that for a while Chronicles was starting to acquire a reputation as a highbrow version of Spotlight, so their obvious change in focus and tone (and the corresponding drop in readership) was the result of them trying to cast off this reputation. **
I'm not sure if you have the sequence down there. The real tale behind why they lost their readership is I'm sure quite a bit more complex. One thing I note though in general is, for fringe movements, once you've drifted fringy its very hard to move back toward the mainstream.
That's why its important to be judicious to begin with.
Thus you have lamentations about Constitutional minutiae and Fleming's silly neo-Confederatism (for some reason, separation of North and South is politically reasonable in their minds while separation of black and white is beyond the pale).
It may seem silly, but the neo-confederatism seems to be something that mainstream conservatives find acceptable. I even saw the League of the South written up favorably in National Review.
If there is any future for paleoconservatism, it will be in the form of collaboration with the nationalist and racialist elements of the Right. In his 1992 and 1996 campaigns, Pat Buchanan didn't shy away from controversy about the national question or Zionist hegemony. When in 2000 he tried to project a "kinder, gentler" image he lost at his own game, and I suspect Chronicles increasingly PC approach is a similar shot in one's own foot.
You always mention this, but sometimes I wish hardline paleo's would get down to earth a little bit. Who exactly are these "nationalist and racialist elements of the right" and where do they exist, other than at Stormfront?
The hard far-right such as Stormfront/Linderites won't cooperate with Buchanan until he starts wearing a Nazi uniform and giving the Heil Hitler salute, if then, which I doubt. As to the Amren/CoCC types, I really don't feel they are organized movements at all - just vague tendencies. By some standards of measurement the hard core of activists I think is pretty small, (as with this forum). Admittedly there are groups of people who attach to them and read some of their magazines, but I've been told that's about all there is to these "organizations". There are people who vaguely sympathize with their ideals, but as in my "every day is a Monday" article, organizing even hard core paleo's is like herding cats
Buchanan's image change in 2000 was an inevitable part of his decision to 1, run for President and 2. reach out to the Perotites. I think that's why Francis was jetisoned as campaign leader. Too bad, because only a Francis could have made some ideological sense out of that chaotic campaign jumping between Book Releases, Perot, Fulani, and his Veep candidate.
Of course, Lubinskas doesn't do himself any favors by pointing these things out at a neocon outfit such as FrontPageMagazine. His arguments are entirely valid, but readers will miss the point because Horowitz's crew ran the piece as simply another stick to beat paleoism with. He would have done much better to have run the piece in AR, Manews, etc. than allowing his words to be used by his own worst enemies.
Well he did get some mainstream carry from his piece, which seemed to have been his intention, I guess. The small group of people who read MAN or Amren have already heard his piece anyway. Of course, if you believe the ratings, even fewer people read Frontpage (fewer than here) but his book got mentioned in the mainstream. Sometimes writers have to deal with reality.
2002-11-27 06:33 | User Profile
If there is any future for paleoconservatism, it will be in the form of collaboration with the nationalist and racialist elements of the Right.
[url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/]http://www.americafirstparty.org/[/url]
Why don't the CofCC and Chronicles camps rally behind the America First Party, which grew out of the Buchanan faction of the Reform Party?
Think tanks, magazines, and lobbying groups have their place...but when it comes to making a real political impact, only a political party will do, and America First at least has some infrastructure (albeit minimal) in place to function. It certainly fits the bill as a 'Nationalist' party, and I don't see why its tent wouldn't be big enough to accomodate paleocons, populists, patriots and neoconfederates, if they could put aside some of their differences and work together to get some critical mass.
BTW, the BNP links to America First on their site. FWIW, AFP is what they consider the standard-bearer at present for American nationalism.
[url=http://www.bnp.org.uk/links.html]http://www.bnp.org.uk/links.html[/url]
Every serious nationalist movement in Europe revolves around a party, not some extra-party entity.
2002-11-27 07:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Nov 27 2002, 06:33 > If there is any future for paleoconservatism, it will be in the form of collaboration with the nationalist and racialist elements of the Right.**
[url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/]http://www.americafirstparty.org/[/url]
Why don't the CofCC and Chronicles camps rally behind the America First Party, which grew out of the Buchanan faction of the Reform Party?**
Its difficult to really get paleo's to rally around anything, as was in a recent Gottfried Chronicles article
**The paleos' independent spirit has made it hard to mold them into a unified movement. Neocons have prevailed not only because they resemble the establishment left but because they picked up the sheep from among the old conservatives. And it is useful for a movement with changing party lines to have compliant adherents. Conversely, it is hard for those who spend their lives in moral revolt to mobilize effectively.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=4485&st=0&#entry21508]The Struggle for an Authentic Conservatism, Every Day is a Monday[/url]**
**Think tanks, magazines, and lobbying groups have their place...but when it comes to making a real political impact, only a political party will do, and America First at least has some infrastructure (albeit minimal) in place to function. It certainly fits the bill as a 'Nationalist' party, and I don't see why its tent wouldn't be big enough to accomodate paleocons, populists, patriots and neoconfederates, if they could put aside some of their differences and work together to get some critical mass.
BTW, the BNP links to America First on their site. FWIW, AFP is what they consider the standard-bearer at present for American nationalism.
[url=http://www.bnp.org.uk/links.html]http://www.bnp.org.uk/links.html[/url]
Every serious nationalist movement in Europe revolves around a party, not some extra-party entity.**
The thing is that is Europe, this is America. Political parties here have never really gotten of the ground, or proven they are necessary, other than being a Democrat or Republican. Parties are really just extra layers of bureaucracy.
What movements need above all are simply two things, voters, cadres, and money. Initiatives are important, but fundamentally organizational superstructure has never seemed to be all that important, and conversely seems to take up tons of infighting.
More power to you, but I used to read Buchanan Brigade e-mails, and I just never could follow party politics, any more than I could follow the various anti-Freeper harangues about FR. You know there's something there of use to you, but it just seems like one endless gossip session at times.
2002-11-27 09:38 | User Profile
We routinely elect actors. Bad actors. Wrestlers. Rich guys are buying their way into office, en masse, on platforms consisting of "hey I'm a rich guy - vote for me, I travel first class!". Political parties now stand squarely for delivery of automatic bloc-votes, a designation more and more voters are chafing against. Buchanan's entire career as a failed candidate was fuelled by his columns and tv appearances, not party politics. This is why paleos desperately need a media foothold. A small photo-with-byline appearing, week after week, in a regularly-syndicated print column automatically puts you lengths in front of any lifelong party hack in terms of visibility and viability.
What's been lost in the (valid) grumbling of standards/IQs dropping so precipitously than even minor celebrities can become add-water-and-mix elected officials overnight, is the amazing opportunity we're presented with. If we can find a few more Takis to bankroll an entree, however wafer-thin, into Big Media.
2002-11-27 10:08 | User Profile
** If we can find a few more Takis to bankroll an entree, however wafer-thin, into Big Media. **
The American Conservative is off to a decent start, but I believe it's still a bit too much on the scholarly side...good for political junkies, but not what builds foot soldiers. I subscribe to TAC, Chronicles and The New American and personally find TNA by far is the most relevant to Middle Americans.
I'll tell you what's missing right now from the scene, and that's a Paleocon/Populist style news Website that features links to relevant current stories, but also runs some syndicated columnists and generates some of its own articles and editorials. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily try to present themselves as such, but everyone knows they're neocon sites.
Here's why this is significant....do you know that Drudge, NewsMax and WND set the agenda for talk radio? I have literally sat at my computer and heard hosts parrot the headlines from these sites in order (without saying from where). Alot of these radio shock jocks just rely on what they're spoon fed, and I bet that if there was another quality, professionally done site that carried under-reported news, it would have an impact.
People go to Drudge, NewsMax and WND because they're too damn lazy to find the news themselves...mostly what these sites are is merely clipping services that decide what's "news" on any given day for the talk radio hosts.
We know that Israel is never covered in a real light on the neocon sites, but what about some other issues? Like NAFTA, the UK's struggle for sovereignty, the utter destruction of American productive capacity? I know many talk hosts have their own agenda and boundaries they can't cross. We're not going to see a nation of Hal Turners suddenly just because they have access to news that supressed and under-reported before. But could it be that some important issues aren't getting the attention they could just because the handful of sites the hosts get their "news" from are scripted by the gatekeepers? Immigration is one issue I can think of now that the hosts can't keep a lid on now, no matter how hard they try....Rabid anti-Aztlan Zionists like Savage and Fredinburg egg the crowds on, while GOP apologists like Hannity are catching an earful every night, and I think the public outrage over it all is massive and coming to a boiling point.
Imagine such a site with every column by PJB, Sam Francis, Charlie Reese, PCR, and the rest that also had archives and a searchable database. Or even its own streaming audio shows on SHOUTcast. Make money the same way the other sites do...selling magazine subscriptions, books and ads. (Heh, do they actually make money, or are they just a money-losing crusade by people underwriting them?)
The only places to get news like that right now in an up-to-date links format are infowars.com, Rense, and What Really Happened, plus a few good single-issue sites like American Patrol. Shortwave broadcasters are about the only ones I know of that use those sites for newslinks on their shows, and you'd be hard pressed to get more mainstream hosts to acknowledge them because of the UFO/bigfoot stuff, not to mention some of the conspiracy stuff that's so far out there (not all of it is, mind you).
2002-11-27 16:25 | User Profile
Centinel and all:
Reply to my email address.
Was approached to be involved with a Paleocon/Populist style news Website for a widely know talk/radio host.
Should have full details after the holiday.
Any interested parties, drop me a line.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-11-27 16:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Nov 27 2002, 10:08 **I'll tell you what's missing right now from the scene, and that's a Paleocon/Populist style news Website that features links to relevant current stories, but also runs some syndicated columnists and generates some of its own articles and editorials. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily try to present themselves as such, but everyone knows they're neocon sites.
**
I don't want to say you don't have a lot of good ideas, but you do check with [url=http://www.etherzone.com]The Etherzone[/url] don't you? It really does have quite a bit of the stuff you're talking about already, even though paleoism is a diverse place, and its difficult to keep track of everything.
There also is another page Todd has, Friends of Liberty, which he has direct control over and probably would be amenable to adding links to if you come up with something really interesting.
No page of course will have everything, but I think web page designers wll tell you there's sort of a balance between being informative and flooding with information.
2002-11-27 19:37 | User Profile
History has foisted itself off on Paleoconservatives and Cromagnon liberals.
They -- we, until dissociated -- are uniquely called upon to take responsibility for America's birthright.
The inner meaning of that birthright is discerned in what was first laid down and communicated in the document "The Constitution Of The United States Of America". This is the only document ever signed by representatives of all then-recognized citizens to establish jurisdictional authority over all, in the form of a federal government.
This is the birthright: to be born under that jurisdiction, and that source of recognized authority. There is no other, nor any above it. This is not dogmatism fanaticism, idolatry or mere cant. It is what is.
What makes the situation unique is the collapse of old party politics, which has been a two-century albatross, complained about already by John Adams as the forseeable kudzu on the American three-bodied system, as it was required to reproduce itself in "elections". The rest,as they say, is history.
So the new movement to restore the old understandings must leap-frog to the "post"-historical (no pun intended). If the academic and hi-tone literati think they are "post-historical", they get leap-frogged, too. becaue that is just a post Vietnam war "baby boom" generational conceit.
It is god to avoid all European philosophical ideas imported into today's political matrix (except Sartre, de-Frenched; I hope no Heideggarians turn up here. Hegel is bad enough.) They are the result of a human mentality decmated by WWII guilt, and its not much better here, which, together with the general vacuity of political right wingism under neocon control, makes these sexy French imports attractive to the really lost generation since Kurt Cobain (who was real).
I'm ready to shoot the moon if anybody can come up with that backer, whoever Taki is.
The new understanding of our birthright must be spiritual, not legalistic or Talmudic. That is the beginning of a nonRepublican party philosophy of law.
There must be a rapid, dramatic media intervention to get this grammatical correction out. Change the way a people communication, and you can change them, overnight. That's been proven against us. Lets prove it back against them.
2002-11-27 19:51 | User Profile
I'm ready to shoot the moon if anybody can come up with that backer, whoever Taki is.
Heir to a Greek shipping fortune, European playboy, columnist for The Spectator and other publications, did time for cocaine smuggling into Heathrow, and bankroller of [url=http://www.amconmag.com]The American Conservative[/url], a new Old Right mag he's in on with Pat Buchanan and Scott McConnell.
2002-11-27 22:13 | User Profile
wombatnine,
Glad this SARTRE doesn't fall under the European influence. Just call this one - JH.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-11-29 22:37 | User Profile
The upside to this apathy and ease of manipulation is that one need not fight an uphill battle against mass opposition, but simply to have a critical mass of activists to create a visible, seemingly viable alternative.
That's what got Le Pen into the French runoff election. With fewer people voting, individual votes count more, and Le Pen's clearly defined positions appealed to enough votes to have an impact.
Given that we have no desire to collaborate with neocons and the establishment GOP, who does that leave us with besides racialists as our allies?
I think the GOP harbors legions of closet paleos who don't break away because they don't feel that there are any viable alternatives. And you can be certain that the neocon leadership will hold up the threat of a Gore-Hillary bogeyman in 2004 to keep them in their places and stifle internal dissent. All of the expansion of government powers under the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and the possibility of those powers falling into Democrat hands is yet another bludgeon the GOP can hold over the rank-and-file's heads. The sheeple won't even think to blame Bush and Ashcroft for ramming it through Congress.
Things will have to deteriorate to the point where masses of people don't feel they have anything to lose by pulling the lever for a protest vote, kind of like what we're seeing with minor inroads by the right in Europe now.
2002-11-30 04:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Nov 29 2002, 22:16 The reason that neo-Confederatism is tolerated by mainstream conservatives is because it is entirely innocuous: a bunch of guys waving Confederate flags pose no real challenge to the establishment because their pie-in-the-sky dream of an independent South stands absolutely zero chance of being a reality (do folks in Missouri really hate their counterparts across the Mississippi River enough to start another Civil War)? Thus, NR and other mainstream outlets run neo-Confederate pieces or reviews thereof as a harmless form of dissent that can be laughed at in private while used in public to show how "broad-minded" they really are.
Most paleo's would disagree that neoconfederatism is entirely innocuous, as would the left, who goes after the stars and bars as if it were the swastika. The League of the Souh certainly proved to be a harmless enough organization though to those of us who were in it, and I'm sure that's mainly why NR basically endorsed it. But that's neither here nor there.
**As most people are generally politically apathetic, it's true that there aren't hordes of racial activists out there waiting to be tapped. However, because the majority generally "go with the flow," all one needs is a critical mass of visible politicians and pundits expressing nationalist ideas for the "herd instinct" to win over the average GOP voter, who swings in whatever direction the political winds happen to be blowing.
Most "conservatives" today implicitly endorse the neocon agenda by voting for GOP candidates, not because they necessarily like or even understand what the neos are all about, but rather because they think they have no other choice (combined with the fact that the neos are masters at packaging their bitter pills with a lot of "Real American" sugar coating).
The upside to this apathy and ease of manipulation is that one need not fight an uphill battle against mass opposition, but simply to have a critical mass of activists to create a visible, seemingly viable alternative. The near-victory of David Duke in the Gubernatorial and Senate elections in Louisiana proves that there are sentiments that such candidates can tap into. You point out that CofCC/Dukites, etc. represent sympathies and tendencies rather than a movement, but that's my point precisely: where there are tendencies and sympathies there is an incipient movement.
Politics today operates from the top down, not from the bottom up. The actual number of committed neocons is rather small, but because they all have prominent positions in the mass media and political think-tanks, they can control the direction the conservative movement is taking. Therefore, if the David Duke crowd had the resources and exposure of the neocons, they would be just as good if not better at getting the GOP/"Conservative" voting block in their favor.
Now, as to whether the racialists (excluding the foaming at the mouth types who nobody takes seriously anyway) would be willing to endorse Buchanan or paleoconservatives who are not hard-core racialists, the answer seems to be yes, they (David Duke, Stormfront, the CofCC) certainly did so during Buchanan's 92/96 runs for President and only withdrew their 2002 endorsement when Buchanan went out of his way to alienate this constituency. Interestingly enough, Buchanan did far worse in 2002 (0.4%) when in previous elections he was pulling 10-20% of the GOP vote (translate to 5-10+% of the total vote) in most states.
Furthermore, I should also add that the number of committed paleoconservatives (Chronicles readers, etc) is probably smaller than the number of committed racialists. Given that we have no desire to collaborate with neocons and the establishment GOP, who does that leave us with besides racialists as our allies?
In response to my saying so, you state that I should get a grasp of reality, and to me that reality is that negro and mestizo crime and the deterioration of our cities is far more "real" than Sobran or Fleming's lamentations about the death of the Constitution, and that if there's a political future for paleoconservatism, it is in addressing the former rather than the latter.**
My main point really was just that translating questions about estoric AmRen type material down to the level of electoral reality is tricky business. Its hard to say exactly what would have worked. Certainly Pat wouldn't have wanted to read old Sam Francis speaches or handed out copies of "The Bell Curve" as campaign literature.
As to David Duke, when he achieved success in Louisiana it could easily be argued he did so by running as a mainstream Reagan Republican, strongly downplaying his 1988 message as a populist candidate for Pres. National Review even ran a glowing article about him, if you remember. So that argument cuts both ways. I think its really too complex to discuss at this level. That's why we need a Sam Francis.
Actually, Sam Francis seems to be visibly absent from the pages of The American Conservative, which may account for the rather lukewarm tone of much of the material there. I wonder if there's a permanent break between Francis and Buchanan after Pat chose not to involve Sam in his campaign.
I wish Francis would write a piece about why Buchanan's 2000 campaign was such a spectacular failure compared to his past runs for office, he has been rather reticent on this subject. I suspect that he'd agree with me that giving the finger to racialists and militia types certainly didn't help his cause any. Nor do I think that winning the Perotistas over would have required some of the antics Buchanan went through: some of them were more liberal than PJB on social and cultural issues, but on trade, foreign policy, and immigration the Perotistas and Buchanan were a perfect match. Furthermore, the general populist tone of both Buchanan and Perot's 1992 campaigns caused me to be rather surprised to find that the two men actually disliked one another. Some of that had a lot more to do with personalities and party politics than with ideology.**
Personalities indeed. Where is Sam Francis, and what are the dynamics of the Buchanan campaign? Getting involved with the horrible Perot certainly was in retrospect a terrible decision, but Pat wasn't the first decent man to have his political fortunes devastated by thinking he could trust that man. Agreed, compared to Perot, running with someone like David Duke seems positively brilliant in retrospect
2002-12-04 23:55 | User Profile
Samuel Francis reviews The Struggle for An Authentic Conservative by Joseph Scotchie in - The American Conservative is well done and deserves a read.
SARTRE :ph34r: