John Lofton has passed away. John Lofton was most recently known for his association with Michael Peroutka, but prior to that he was more integrated into the mainstream conservative scene than you might imagine. May he R.I.P.
We probably haven’t been covering this ISIS situation as much as we should have. Here are a couple of links.
This article by Justin Raimondo demonstrates the foolishness of us supporting any side in this Middle Eastern mess. Beheaded Journalist Steven Sotloff was allegedly sold to ISIS by moderates in Syria that we support. What fools we are.
Here is Raimondo on the President’s less than inspiring ISIS speech.
Here is Andrew Bacevich suggesting that Obama is missing the point. He is right. Read the article. I don’t want to give away the main point because I think it is important and something I want to elaborate on in detail in the future.
I am sad to hear of the passing of Kirk scholar Wesley McDonald. This article explains his life and work. He was my Facebook friend. I wish I had a chance to know him other than virtually. May he R.I.P.
Sorry, this is a bit late, but I’m still having computer access issues.
Recently I left a comment on a Jack Hunter Facebook thread. Jack responded in a rather irritated manner. As I have said before, I like Jack Hunter, but he is really starting to trend PC. My theory is that this trend is insincere. I think he is just posturing to rid himself of the taint of the Southern Avenger. That is essentially the comment I left, and that is what irritated Jack.
I’m currently searching for the thread without any luck. I’ll post a link if I ever find it. But in it, Jack says he really does believe all the PC foolishness he is spouting these days.
(Maybe someone can help me with my search. When I click on my notifications icon, at the bottom I can click see all, but it only takes me as far back as 31 Aug. Is there a way to go back further to find the thread I’m referring to?)
Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.
Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.
Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.
I don’t know. When he’s not featuring R-rated porn to boost his numbers on what he imagines is a “serious” political site, Donald Douglas is cheering on yet another war that he doesn’t have to fight. Clearly desperate to get a job with a Neocon think tank, he eagerly smears those who oppose DC’s agenda of perpetual war or who question US taxpayer subsidies to the Israeli government.
But Douglas’ hit piece on William Lind is pure slime scraped from the bottom of a third-world sewer. Douglas not only maligns Lind, but tosses in links to other hit pieces that slander the South and Jefferson Davis.
And notice that those pieces he links to favorably mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL, two leftist hit squads. You know a man by the company he keeps.
Remember Cathy Reisenwitz? She’s the PC libertarian who caused a storm when she called a lot of past libertarian icons racists. Well, she’s leaving full-time libertarianism. I’m not sure I share Robert Wenzel’s certainty that this is because there is no market for PC libertarianism. Just look at the PC libertarian reaction to Ferguson. But I do think she overplayed and misplayed her hand.
Robert Wenzel at the Economic Policy Journal has the story: “Cathy Reisenwitz Leaving ‘Full-Time’ Liberty Movement”
Congratulations are in order to our friend Tom Piatak. He is now the Executive Vice President of the Rockford Institute. I first became aware of this via his Facebook page.
The Rockford Institute has taken a bold step forward in its mission to defend traditional conservatism by appointing Thomas Piatak as Executive Vice President. A veteran of the Culture Wars and a tireless advocate of restoring American jobs and economic prosperity, Mr. Piatak is perfectly poised to raise the Institute’s profile among current and new donors, and introduce the Institute’s hard-hitting flagship publication, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, to a new generation of readers and writers.
We are awaiting reaction from mega Piatak fan Rod Dreher.
For those who don’t know, Michael Peroutka won the Republican primary for a seat on the Anne Arundel County, Maryland City Counsel.
Now the PC Gestapo is up in arms. What amazes me about some of these stories is how out in the open they are. Anyone who is at all familiar with dissident right and third party politics should know very well where Michael Peroutka is coming from. Obviously these lefty PC thumb breakers don’t follow the other side except maybe what the SPLC says about them, so they act like they have stumbled upon some scandalous revelation. So Peroutka is a young earth creationist? Yeah. So Peroutka uses the Bible to evaluate laws. Yeah. So Peroutka was (is?) a board member of the League of the South and thinks secession is a legal and constitutional remedy. Yeah. The guy is not a phantom. He is a past Constitution Party nominee for President and his association with the League is well documented. Ever heard of the internet and YouTube Mr. Raw Story investigative reporter? Wow, you’ve really managed a scope here. I don’t follow all the ins and outs of far left politics in America, but if someone said lefty X once said nice things about Trotsky or Margaret Sanger or something, I wouldn’t be shocked. That’s what far lefties do. (As opposed to far rightists who scandalously say nice things about the Founders.)
Here is another breathless Raw Story article about Peroutka. This one is about a supposedly scandalous video of Peroutka addressing the League of the South, that was “uncovered” by a professor at Grove City College, a supposedly conservative Christian school. We have discussed this professor before. He seems to specialize in PC thought policing. If someone wants to write a real investigative report, maybe they can write one “exposing” Professor Throckmorton as the PC water carrier that he is despite teaching at a college known for it’s conservative and Christian beliefs, particularly its refusal, like Hillsdale College, to accept any federal funds. Does the Professor not realize that the PC forces he shills for hate all things Christian and conservative, and surely think Grove City is a bastion of racist, sexist, Christianist oppression?
Anyway, back to Peroutka. According to the second Raw Story article, it says Peroutka is a former board member of the League of the South. If this is true, it is news to me but I don’t necessarily doubt it. As for Peroutka saying he does not support Southern secession, this may be technically true, but I doubt it is the whole story. Unless Peroutka has had a complete change of heart, which I seriously doubt and would be very unfortunate if true, I know he believes in the right to secession and he believes Lincoln was wrong to invade the duly seceded South. What he may have said is that he doesn’t support Southern secession at this time and wants to give reforming the US a college try before resorting to it. This would be consistent with the belief of a lot of constitutionalists.
As for Perotka and race, the League has always been implicitly white as is conservatism in America as is constitutionalism as is the Tea Party, etc. but has recently become more explicitly white. That Peroutka specifically endorsed this new direction or was even aware of this change, I doubt. Peroutka has always used colorblind conservative language. In fact, I remember seeing a column he wrote fairly recently that used typical colorblind conservative language and thought to myself that there might be some League members who would object to the language. (With a lttle Google digging, here is a recent article he wrote dated July 15 that looks like an attempt to ward off his critics. It is essentially the same column as this one dated Jan 20 that I recalled. It seems to be inspired by the MLK holiday.)
So if the Raw Story PC storm trooper is really shocked that a former Constitution Party Presidential nominee and well known sympathizer of the League of the South has beliefs that are outside those of the tame “mainstream right,” then perhaps he needs to familiarize himself with the outside the mainstream right before he writes about it. Again, I’m not tuned into all the inner workings of the far left, but I would expect people of that persuasion to have beliefs and associations that are outside the mainstream left, so if I wrote an article about one of them I wouldn’t pretend to be shocked by such revelations or act as if such revelations only need to be trotted out in order to discredit someone. But of course, I’m intellectually honest, unlike PC hacks writing click bait hatchet jobs for liberal websites and PC peddling professors who “uncover” things in plain sight.
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!
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.
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.)
To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.
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.