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?
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?
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.
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.
Frequent commenter Cleophus posted this comment in response to my post announcing a permanent Rebellion link to a libertarian web site:
“It’s nice to see that you are coming closer and closer to our way of thinking, ‘Ole Reb! One day soon you’ll wake up and realize that you’re a conservative Libertarian! Come on in, the water’s fine!”
Sorry, Cleophus. Ain’t happening.
Libertarians are too far out there for me. Even in the post you responded to, I noted, “Not sure what their stance is on immigration and border security, but I’ve long advocated that like-minded activists can work together for shared goals despite differences.”
And libertarians are pro-open borders. They believe that society does not exist, and that only the autonomous individual has a legitimate claim to rights. I’ve dealt with that claim before and see no need to do it again.
I will add this: Libertarianism is self-contradictory. There’s a cartoon floating around on the web that shows a man contemplating the globe. The caption reads: “Libertarians: Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.”
Yes, that’s a problem. As the method actor objected, “What’s my motivation?” The motivation Libertarians claim is self-defeating. Marxists and imperialists are driven by naked power. Nationalists, on the other hand, seek to preserve their own kind. And despite the Marxists’ shrill assertions, they have not an ounce of science or history on their side. We nationalists have Sociobiology as well as the historical record on our side. I’ll put those against airy theories any day.
Here is a Mike Church column from the Daily Caller. Recall that we reported below that Church now has a regular column with the DC. The essay’s primary point is about the nature of the “Union,” which Church correctly points out is no longer the type of Union the Framers had in mind. But he also throws in a couple of shots about enumerated powers and moral decline, the latter perhaps distinguishing him from some more libertarian types. This is all quite subversive by mainstream conservative standards. I told you Mike Church is one of the good guys. We’ll see how long he can keep his job.
My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:
Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.
Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.
I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.
Gallery owner Charles Saatchi and Taki are having a very public verbal throwdown. They have even challenged each other to fight. (Taki competes in Judo and Saatchi is apparently a black-belt in Karate.) All I can say is … Dana White, you gotta makes this happen. I’d buy that pay-per-view for sure.
Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.
Contained in the post below about Mike Church, is the nugget that Jack Hunter has a new gig. He is now a Contributing Editor at Rare.us, a new start-up conservative website that appears to have some big money behind it. I’m not sure who is behind it. I’ll try to do some digging.
Addendum: Well that didn’t take long. Rare.us is a project of Cox Media.
Here is his announcement copied from his FaceBook post:
IT’S OFFICIAL – Daily Caller’s Jordan Bloom announces “Sad to lose Jack Hunter to Rare Liberty, but excited to announce that next week Mike Church will be debuting a weekly column at The Daily Caller!”
I am humbled to accept this tremendous opportunity to inform and inspire our fellow citizens in the cause of [r]epublicansim and though I fear my meager composition skills are inadequate to the task, I will exert all my energies to the task on behalf of Our Cause. Deo Gratias.
This is a big deal because Mike Church is substantially on our side. He is no shrinking violet. It is good that he will be exposed to a wider and more “mainstream” audience outside our usual echo chamber.
Here is an interesting article from The Libertarian Alliance blog, a libertarian organization based in England. The article does a good job of chronicling the “paleolibertarian” phenomenon of the ’90s. Paleolibertarianism seems to mystify some people, so I thought it was worth posting.
In January 1990, Lew Rockwell wrote in the magazine ‘Liberty’ on ‘The Case for Paleolibertarianism’. In this manifesto, he argued that while libertarians are often correct in their criticisms of conservatives, conservatives are often right in their criticisms of libertarians. He cites people like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, with the latter claiming that libertarians were drifting so far from conservatism that they were coming to view the “coercions of the family, church, local community and school” as almost as corrosive of liberty as that of the state.
In this paleolibertarian manifesto, Rockwell states that if libertarianism is to make any real progress, then it must do away with its “defective cultural framework”, stating that Western civilisation is worthy of praise and that social or ‘natural’ authority – like the authority of the family, the church, the local community and the school – is essential to a free society. Libertarianism’s cultural framework had become a blend of moral relativism, egalitarianism, modernism and libertinism with the modal libertarian often conflating legality with morality. In addition to the error of assuming that because X must be legal, X must also be moral, the modal libertarian had conflated freedom from aggression with freedom from social authority, tradition, and bourgeois morality.
Hat tip to my FaceBook friend Rex May, whose post directed my attention to this article.
Cross posted with some slightly different wording at Independent Political Report.
Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the Christmas Day shutdown of Alternative Right in this podcast. As far as I know, no one has disputed that the shutdown was unannounced.
Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:
This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.