and the Nevada Constitution Party affiliate (there called the Independent American Party) thanks them.
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.
Here are a couple of links.
I think this might wind up hurting Beck, who is coming off like a faux radical.
Jim Hellwig, aka the Ultimate Warrior, died yesterday at the age of 54, shortly after being inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame and giving a speech, that whatever the case, was prophetic, and recalls the epic The Wrestler.
Jim Hellwig came up through the Von Erich run Texas outfit, World Class Championship Wrestling, as the Dingo Warrior. The last living member of the tragic Von Erich family, Kevin, tweeted on the news:
“Jim Hellwig, Warrior, who ever, he was Kerry’s friend, and was always up front with me. RIP Dingo, life turns on a dime”
Jim Hellwig flamed out in professional wrestling after one too many disputes with Vince McMahon, going so far as to legally change his name to the Ultimate Warrior to protect his copyright, which Vince claimed. After leaving wrestling, he hit the speaking tour scene, as a conservative Republican, until he spoke too plainly in those early Oughts for Young Republicans–sensitive as they are, long before A&E met with the Duck Dynasty Clan.
From Hellwig, on Monday Night television, hours before his death:
“Every man’s heart one day beats its final beat. His lungs breathe their final breath. And if what that man did in his life makes the blood pulse through the body of others and makes them believe deeper in something that’s larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers—by the loyalty, by the memory of those who honor him, and make the running the man did live forever.”
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.
The SPLC has labeled Liberty Alliance a hate group. Liberty Alliance affiliated sites send me a lot of emails, and while they tend to promote articles full of red meat for the base, they are always well within the norm of mainstream conservatism. So the SPLC is essentially naming a mainstream conservative enterprise a hate group because it’s perhaps a more scrappy mainstream conservative group. That’s a reach even by SPLC smear standards.
(The most interesting part of this story is identifying the various Liberty Alliance sites which explains why I often get similar emails from different sites.)
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.
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.
The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.
Lew Rockwell responds here
Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)
Ralph Raico here
Chris Rossini here
Update: Walter Block replies here
Tom Woods replies here on YouTube
The Constitution Party has a new newsletter out and they have changed the name to The American Constitionist and changed the format a bit. Here is a letter from the CP Chairman. Please excuse the fund raising appeal.
One of the best ways to grow our party is by circulating our monthly newsletter. It carries news of our progress, our take on the vital issues of the day, and provides a platform for our candidates — running for offices ranging from town council to the U.S. Congress.
Now I have the pleasure of introducing you to The American Constitutionist. I urge you to read over the issue, and then send it to friends and allies. It’s another effective way to demonstrate that the Constitution Party means business at every turn.
We have to mean business because the hour is late. In 1884, Congress wrote its oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”
I believe there are politicians who don’t believe in that oath. They seek to ignore or do away with any Constitutional restraints on the dominance of the federal government in our lives. They seek nothing less than raw political power. The calling of the Constitution Party is to educate and motivate our fellow citizens: we must instill faith and allegiance to the Constitution to protect our liberties.
Does the Constitution have enemies? You be the judge …
•In a television interview during a visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court asserts, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” In its place, she recommended, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.
•New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak says, “The Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
•Georgetown University law professor Louis Seidman claims, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflamed our public discourse.”
That is the challenge we face as Constitutionists: the Founding Fathers vision and values are either right and timeless for society, or we adopt situation ethics when it comes to the rule of law and the power of government.
I strongly believe in the advice handed down by Thomas Jefferson:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Let the fight for the Constitution be led by the Constitution Party. Read The American Constitutionist to see how you can help — state parties are on the move, a number of campaigns are already off the ground, and ballot access drives are underway.
To ensure success, patriots must invest our time, talent, and financial resources — your gift of $25 or $50 or even $15 helps so much in this election cycle. And I remind you that early contributions are far more effective in setting in place battle plans.
So share our newsletter by posting it on your Facebook page and sending it to friends: TEA party activists, pro-lifers, home schoolers … those who are just one step away from finding a home in the Constitution Party, but haven’t yet got an invitation.
I hope you appreciate the newsletter, and I hope you will invest $100 or even $10 right away. The election is fast upon us, and the fight for the Constitution is our cause.
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.
We obviously have our differences with Dinesh D’Souza, but this is an unfortunate development. While he likely technically broke the law, this is a trivial offense and probably done all the time. The real story here is the possibility that he was targeted for political reasons. Recall that D’Souza’s made a popular documentary about Obama. VDARE agrees.
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.