Great news! The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has moved from its former location in Washington, D.C.’s Virginia suburbs down to its new headquarters in Clute, Texas. The Institute is setting up its office next door to Ron Paul’s FREE Foundation and not far from the Ron Paul Channel.
What a relief to escape the corrupt corridors of Mordor! A beachhead of peace and liberty is expanding in south Texas. And if you’re wondering why Texas and not D.C., it is because we are not trying to play nice with the Beltway elites. Our audience is informed readers like yourself, who continue to question the pablum served up by politicians and the mainstream media.
The move down to Texas means that the Institute will be working much more closely with its founder and CEO, Dr. Ron Paul. A book is on the near horizon as well as a couple of other media-related projects. And of course, the Institute will continue its main focus: bringing hard-hitting analysis of important news events that readers will not see in the mainstream media. As people continue to turn off the mainstream media, we want to be the resource they turn to.
Dr. Paul has also invited more Ron Paul Institute participation in the Ron Paul Channel — what a great new way to get our message out!
Read more here…
I have mixed feelings about this. I’m sure the move is a good thing for the reasons stated above, but DC really does need a non-interventionist presence. This is not a criticism, because everyone has there niche, it’s just an observation. If the Institutes audience is us readers, then it is doing a lot of preaching to the choir. Non-interventionism needs someone in the fray attempting to influence the debate. National politicians already have many organized voices pulling on their ear. There are very few organized voices for non-intervention countering that message.
Jack Kerwick gets it. Here is his recent column on American Exceptionalism. He mentions a Jonah Goldberg column, but I suspect it is also motivated by Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, America. I’m surprised that Townhall prints his columns.
Buchanan’s latest column is cringe worthy. It’s supposedly a defense of Richard Nixon against the charge of racism. While everything in the column is technically correct, it’s PC pandering. It is a common trick of PC phobic “conservatives” to claim that Republicans supported Civil Rights and Southern Democrats opposed it. Yes, because Southern Democrats were the more conservative element at the time. And all those white Southern Democrats became Republicans as the parties somewhat switched roles. Buchanan is better than this. I’m really disappointed.
Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?
*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.
The text of the speech is available here.
Good grief! It didn’t take long for this to get ugly.
Rod Dreher has been following the story about the bodies buried outside a Catholic orphanage in Ireland from the start. Here, Tom Paitak criticizes him for uncritically accepting the story which is now falling apart. Rod Dreher replies here, and it’s not pretty.
He calls Piatak “a stringer for a turgid Midwestern monthly.” First of all, I didn’t know there was any more than the standard Chronicles vs. TAC and staunch Catholic vs. ex-Catholic bad blood between them, but there must be. Dreher seems to have taken personally Piatak’s criticism of TAC over the gay marriage issue. I didn’t know Dreher was so defensive of TAC because Dreher was on the other side of that issue anyway, and TAC well deserved that criticism. Also, I didn’t know that Dreher was hostile to Chronicles per se rather than just disinterested. What’s that about? Is there some bad blood there I don’t recall? I know it was widely suggested that Dreher’s Crunchy Conservatism was just paleo light, but did that ever play out in the pages of Chronicles?
Dreher is taking some heat in the comments. I have made two comments. The second one has not been approved at the time of this post.
Here is a list of ideological reading lists.
Our conservative reading list is available by clicking on the “Conservative Resources” tab at the top. In the article linked above, “A Conservative Reading List” under the category Nationalist, Alt-Right and Paleo links to our resources page.
That’s right! We’re thought leaders!
Apparently they’re has been a longstanding rift between postmodern conservatives (PoMoCons or PoMos) and Front Porch Republic types (Porchers). Who knew? The occasion for the increased discussion of this rift is the fact the Peter Lawler is moving his Postmodern Conservative blog from First Things to NRO.
See Rod Dreher here.
Caleb Stegall has a lot of links here.
Peter Lawler here.
This is at FPR.
I think that all of us in what you might call the alternative conservative (meaning outside mainstream conservatism) community have some things in common and mutual enemies, the left and stale mainstream conservatism, but I think the description of the Porchers that is being tossed around describes something much more radical than the reality. The Porchers, at least as represented by FPR, are, as far as I can tell, a bunch of PC phobes. How can you talk about localism and community and “place” without talking about immigration? Doesn’t an influx of non-natives have a pretty big impact on place? Here is the comment I left at Dreher’s post.
The description here of the Front Porch folks actually sounds an aweful lot like paleocons to me, but I think that may be giving the Porchers more credit than they deserve. My impression of the Porchers is that they are pretty PC squemish. How can you talk about localism, organic community, corporatism, etc. and not address immigration? The Porchers want to be faux radicals but they strike me as scared to be thought of as wrongthinkers. In other words, they’re harmless.
Recently there was a dust up in libertarian land over an article by Jeffrey Tucker which essentially struck a PC pose, and seemed clearly intended to distance himself from his former colleagues at the von Mises Institute. I never got around to discussing it at the time, although it is mentioned in the comments of this post about another libertarian squable.
To be honest, I was not even aware that Tucker had left the von Mises Institute, so I was prompted by the squable to search for news/gossip related to the separation. I found surprisingly little. I am certainly not privy to the inner workings of the von Mises Institute, but I was under the impression that Rockwell and Tucker were friends, so I presumed the lack of gossip was an indication that the parting had been amicable. When this squable first broke out, I went to LewRockwell.com to see what they had to say about it. While they addressed the issue, by my memory and current searches, they did so less than I expected. I took this as evidence that the Rockwell crowd might be holding its fire to some extent out of deference to Tucker. (Similarly, I have a hunch that LRC holds their fire at Rand Paul somewhat out of deference to his father.) I couldn’t decide whether to consider this honorable or unwise, since the Tucker article was so clearly aimed at the Rockwell orbit.
With this in mind, it was with interest that I stumbled upon this tidbit at the Economic Policy Journal. The article is about a separate but related post Tucker brutalism article PC dust up, where some PC suck up hack was whining about libertarian racism. Of interest is that Rockwell orbit heavyweight Tom Woods weighs in in the comment section with a direct attack on Tucker. As best as I can recall, this is the most direct addressing of Tucker specifically that I have seen. (Let me know if I’ve missed something.)
Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn’t spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let’s hope this phase passes soon.
Ouch. That stings a bit. I would really like to know if anyone has any inside intel on all this business because Tucker’s new found persona seems to have come from out of the blue.
Walter Jones won his primary and beat back his neocon interventionist challenger.
Unfortunately, Greg Brannon lost his NC Senate primary to Establishment hack Thom Tillis.
Most on the right have intuitively sided with Clive Bundy in his dispute with the Fed Gov, but, perhaps surprisingly, Glenn Beck is not one of them. In fact, Beck is grandstanding his anti-Bundy stance.
Glenn Beck believes the Bundy Ranch incident was “Insurrection” and a call to “Revolution” as opposed to the people standing up to a tyrannical government agency. He stated that it is the “right’s version of Occupy Wall Street” and that a percentage of the people who support Cliven Bundy are “truly frightening”. Beck invited the people who support the Oath Keepers, Militias. Constitutional Sheriffs and citizens who stood with Bundy to ‘unfriend’ him, to ‘unsubscribe’ to his newsletter and to ‘cancel’ their subscriptions to his TV program.
See more here…
Here are a couple of links.
I think this might wind up hurting Beck, who is coming off like a faux radical.
Click on over and check out the blog of our frequent commenter “Patrick in Michigan.” It’s called The Americanist: a paleoconservative blog. I have added it to our blog roll.
Patrick, when can I expect my check?
Steven Seagal isn’t the only one showing Putin some love these days. So is Pat Buchanan.
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism. Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated. He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity.
Apparently Brett Steven’s article about the Dark Enlightenment/NeoReaction caused a bit of a stir among the DE/NR crowd. He has replied here.
To be clear, I don’t have anything against NeoReaction and the Dark Enlightenment except those elements that are hostile to Christianity and Christian morality. And I don’t entirely accept Steven’s main premise that DE/NR is really just people power against the new elite (the Cathedral). They want to replace the new elite because they think the new elite is hostile, but that they want to replace them with a people power “bizarre” is less clear. Some seem to actually desire a better non-hostile elite.
My dog in this fight is that I recognized some of the Southern Nationalist new guard that I have clashed with before in his description. While I don’t think the New Direction Caucus explicitly embraces the DE/NR label, they definitely model themselves on the European New Right identitarian movements. Here is more from Steven’s reply:
My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense…
… but the ugly fact is that the DE and Neoreaction are terminally broken. Underneath some promising ideas, there’s the ugly skeleton of liberalism (editor’s note: I don’t necessarily agree with this) and a pretense about avoiding conservatism. Same old jive, same old song and dance!…
Thus the big surprise here is: we don’t need a new idea. All of the ideas we need to look toward are in Plato and other writers from the fall of the Greco-Roman empires. (editor’s note: and the Bible, and the Reformers and some of the Framers, etc.) ~ emphasis mine
Here is a very good essay discussing the Dark Enlightenment and to a lesser degree the (religious) Orthosphere. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he expresses a couple of points I have tried to make in the past. The first is that “third ways” and “fourth ways” and/or whatever new name you want to give your project are not really new when you get below the surface. What they are are combinations of old ideas, perhaps with different proportions and emphasises but old ideas nonetheless. The second point is that regardless of how much people want to fool themselves otherwise, our project is essentially conservative, which is why it is so counter productive to bash conservatism (authenic vs. phony) or concede to the modern definition of what conservatism is.
But enough Dark Enlightenment bashing. When we remove its drama, what do we find?
- Recognition of inequality
Dark Enlightenment types will often explain their philosophy as a reversal of The Enlightenment, and a return to the darkness and Ragnar Redbeard styled “might is right” that came before the fancy do-gooder notions of the Cathedral. Then they proceed to list the three items above, all of which are found in… wait for it… paleoconservatism, and even more strongly, found in the aristocratic years before the French Revolution. On its surface, the Dark Enlightenment may be some new form of entertainment product. When you pop the hood and look at the engine, however, you’ll find the shocking truth — it’s conservatism rewarmed.
This post is partially serious and partially an attempt at humor. I think we need a tagline for our title. For example, Intellectual Conservative has “Conservative & Libertarian Politics.” Independent Political Report has “Covering third parties and independent candidates since 2008.” I think a tagline will add to our new minimalist design. Plus, at some point I would like to make some t-shirts and we will need a slogan for them. Here are some ideas. Please add yours in the comments. Again, some of these are attempts at humor and wouldn’t really be appropriate as a tagline but might be good for an attention grabing t-shirt.
ConservativeTimes.org … bringing you knee-jerk reactions since 2007
ConservativeTimes.org … we cover both sides of the political spectrum, the right and the far-right
ConservativeTimes.org … we were non-interventionists before Ron Paul made it cool
ConservativeTimes.org … dedicated to the quaint notion that we ought to actually follow the Constitution
ConservativeTimes.org … we ain’t neo nothin’
ConservativeTimes.org … pimpin’ Ron Paul before it was cool
ConservativeTimes.org … Sir Robert Filmer and Joseph de Maistre are our inspiration. (Burke and Kirk are for posers.)
ConservativeTimes.org … where the Dark Enlightenment comes to get out of the sun
ConservativeTimes.org … we tried to tell y’all we should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation
ConservativeTimes.org … refighting the Lost Cause daily since 2007
ConservativeTimes.org … not just old school, paleo school (or alternatively … we’re so old school we’re paleo school)
More to come …
Richard Spencer posted the following on FaceBook. It is a retweet, but I assume it reflects his feelings about his recent foray into CPAC.
Retweeted Dark enlightenment (@enlightdark):
CPAC is an exercise in futility. Libertarianism is the most coherent ideology currently available and it’s completely suicidal.
Libertarianism is a coherent philosophy, and that is one reason I believe it is so attractive to young people. It is coherent and reductive and eliminates messy contradictions. While there are libertarians who can be sensible on immigration, the non-nuanced libertarian position is borderless with no governmental restrictions on movement. IMO, NPI types might do better making their pitch to more traditional conservatives on the basis that demographic change dooms the Republican Party and conservatism. Conservative intuitively understand this, they just make public PC arguments because they are afraid to do otherwise.
Update: I looked for a comment on CPAC at Radix Journal, and didn’t find one, but it turns out they were in the blog section rather than the front page.
Here is a post on the plans for the conference.
Here is a post on immigration at CPAC.
In an earlier post I commented on the website Rare, which at the time was new to me. But a little research showed me that Rare wasn’t as new as I thought it was and was felt at the time to be struggling. (I’ll look for those links when I have more time.) That said, this is an interesting development.
Rare and Crown Forum, one of America’s leading publishers of politically conservative authors, Tuesday announced the launch of Rare Forum, an exclusive content and marketing partnership to bring conservative writers to a new and broader readership. Rare Forum pairs the best-selling authors published by Crown Forum with the online news and social-media reach of Rare, which has annualized page views of 25 million.
The Rare Forum partnership will highlight exclusive, first-look content from esteemed Crown Forum authors through the Rare platform as well as a speaking series, book forums, and other online events and sites.
Crown Forum publishes many of the most prominent conservative writers, thought leaders, and political figures, including Pulitzer-Prize winner Charles Krauthammer; “The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld; former Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.); American Enterprise Institute fellow Charles Murray; syndicated columnist Michael Barone; and former presidential adviser Pat Buchanan, among others. – See more at: http://rare.us/story/rare-and-crown-forum-join-forces-to-advance-conservative-voices/#sthash.IfZEslgw.dpuf
Any entity that would tout Charles Krauthammer as a “prominent conservative” or “thought leader” clearly has some things to learn from our standpoint, but this partnership is worth noting because we here at CHT like to cover developments in the conservative movement, and because I suspect we will see more of these sorts of pairings in the future.
Whether these partnerships will allow for greater or lesser entry into the mainstream conservative sphere for dissident conservatives like ourselves remains to be seen. My hunch is that at the Rare level it does not, although I could see a Mike Church or someone like that breaking through. But could something similar be done on a smaller level? New publishing platforms such as Create Space makes publishing a relatively inexpensive venture.
Hat tip: Jack Hunter’s Facebook post.
This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.
In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.
Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.
And here is one that gets it wrong.
I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.
Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.
I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.
Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.
This is how Thomas Fleming announced his new column on FaceBook:
I’ve posted a deliberately provocative piece on our website. It should offend all respectable people. https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/kansas-bleeds-again/
Well, provocative it is, but he is right. Take a look. The right in America is so whipped by its fear of being called bad names, that they can’t make logical arguments. The arguments they need to make are inherently illiberal, but they are afraid to make them. Partially because they have absorbed so much of the ambient liberalism that they believe it, and partially because they fear reprisal. So they often end up making convoluted liberal arguments toward an illiberal end. The argument against gay “marriage” for example, is inherently illiberal because it is based on the rejection of absolute equalism and the defense of righteous discrimination. Reading this you can just see some movement con getting his back up. “I don’t want to discriminate! How dare you!” But yes he does and rightfully so.
The long rumored new Chronicles wedsite is up and running. It looks good to me. It appears to have a more active blog function. Go check it out.