Category Archives: Conservatism

For the 1000th Time … Martin Luther King Was Not a Conservative

Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.

MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.

The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.

First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.

That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.

Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.

The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)

Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.

Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.

Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.

The Libertarian Alliance (UK): “Paleoism and the Traditional Britain Group”

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’[1]. 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.

See more here…

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.

Regnery, Eagle Publishing Sold to Salem!

Wow! This is big news, but I’m not sure what to make of it. I have mixed emotions. Since Salem is a Christian market focused company, then their new aquisitions are likely to remain socially conservative, but they are also likely to remain pro-intervention, especially in the Middle East. Also, my gut says that too much consolidation is just not a good thing. Salem wants to have additional “platforms” from which to air the same message. There is already too much sameness on the mainstream right.

Hat tip to Richard Spencer who posted the link on FaceBook.

Did Phil Robertson Dis the Confederate Flag?

Here is a NY Post article that alleges that Phil Robertson isn’t too fond of the Confederate Battle Flag. In the typical PC manner, it suggests that this is somehow evidence that Robertson is not a “racist.” You see, according to PC rightthink, respect for the Confederate Battle Flag is  prima facia evidence that someone is a racist. The story is from 30 Dec, but I didn’t hear about it until a comment about it appeared recently on my FaceBook feed. And interestingly, when I Googled to find some more commentary on the issue not much came up. This mention from a blog called The “Right” Scoop seems to accept the PC association in a “See, we told you Phil Robertson wasn’t a racist!” type of manner. (This is so typical of mainstream conservatives to accept the leftists’ PC framing of an issue.)

First of all, proud Southerners should be careful not to get too carried away just yet. This is an account of someone relating what he thinks he saw and heard. These are not Robertson’s own words, and as far as I know he has not commented on the issue. It is possible that he was bemoaning the fact that certain unsavory elements have used the flag for their own purposes, but this is not the conclusion the senario the witness recounts suggests. Mr. Robertson needs to publically clarify his true feelings.

That said, if this is a true recounting of the event, then it is very disappointing. Robertson is old enough to know better, so he doesn’t have the excuse of youth. The modern demonization of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Mr. Robertson should know this. The Duke boys proudly sported a CBF on the roof of their car, named the General Lee, on prime time TV in the 80′s. Until fairly recently it was assumed that Southerners would be proud of their heritage. This relentless PC/Cultural Marxist attack on all things Southern is of relatively recent vintage. For some perspective on this, this artcle by Prof. Clyde Wilson should be read again and again. I wish Phil Robertson would read it.

There is a lesson here that conservative (and especially conservative Christian) Southerners who wish to distance themselves from the CBF lest they be tainted desperately need to learn. The PC beast is monolithic in it’s desire to eradicate every stray unegalitarian thought or at least the public expression thereof. (It is my belief that the mind of the typical PC stormtrooper is besieged by unegalitarian thoughts, and their PC shock troop role playing is a form of reaction formation, but that is for another post.). The PC beast is without nuance or subtlety. It doesn’t matter to it that Mr. Robertson’s thoughts on homosexuality are  based on his acceptance of the long held historic teachings of the Christian faith and his belief that God has explicitly condemned the act in His Holy Word. Nope. The senior Robertson has committed wrongthink and must be condemned and re-educated. The same article that says Robertson might not be a racist, begins by saying “Phil Robertson may be homophobic…,” whatever that means. (A more absurdly silly term than homo”phobia” is hard to imagine.)

Conservative (as in traditional/orthodox [small o] more so than political) Christians who wish to maintain the inherently unegalitarian teachings of their faith such as the condemnation of homosexuality and various other sexual practices, the endorsement of gender roles, Jesus as the only means of salvation, etc. need to resist the PC beast with every fiber of their being.  It can not be placated by throwing it sops such as distancing yourself from the CBF. Robertson, if this was his motive, whether thought out or visceral, for his comment on the CBF, is woefully niave to believe so.  If you are a wrongthinker on any issue, you are a wrongthinker in toto. There is no middle ground with this mindless beast. The fight for the CBF very much is the fight for a Christian understanding of homosexuality. The two can not be disentangled.

This is not to say that traditionalist Christians should not denounce malice and ill will based on race, which is not a Christian attitude, but racism has long since ceased meaning just malice or ill will based on race if it ever did. It means any unegalitarian thought. Conservative Christians need to understand this and understand it quickly, lest they empower the beast that ends up eating them and the civilization they created alive.

Tom Woods Calls Out Mark Levin

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.

FYI, this is not the first time Woods and Levin have tangled. See here and here.

A Christian/Biblical Case for Non-intervention

Joel McDurmon has an article up at the American Vision website discussing a Greg Bahnsen lecture on the Christian perspective on war. He links to the article from his FaceBook page, which is how I came across it.

Those familiar with Bahnsen and McDurmon will know that they are arguing from a theonomic premise, but one does not have to be a theonomist to understand the importance of making an explicitly Biblical case regarding the proper justification for and conduct of war. Too many evangelical Christians have been cheerleaders for our current interventionist foreign policy. While they may not end up being persuaded, they at least can’t reject out a hand an argument that is based on Biblical exegesis. They will at least, if they are sincere, be forced to examine their beliefs. It is important to have an explicitly Christian argument against war that is not just pacifism out there.

As an aside, as I said in the FaceBook thread, I’m curious what the American Vision boss, Gary DeMar, thinks about this. My FaceBook comment is below:

As a long time conservative non-interventionist, I’m thrilled that Dr. McDurmon is making this case, and glad it is finding a home on the American Vision website. But as a blogger who often covers intra-paleosphere conflicts, I am very curious to know what the boss thinks of this. As far as I can recall, Gary DeMar has been generally supportive of America’s interventionist foreign policy, or at least hasn’t spoken against it. If I’m wrong about this or if DeMar has a had a change of heart I would be glad to know that, but for certain he has vocally spoken out against third party voting which has unfortunately been the only option for conservative non-interventionists for many years.

More on Alternative Right

Alternative Right has a statement up on it’s FaceBook page.

The FaceBook statement as well as some additional explanation can be found here at the new temporary home of AltRight.

It is not the intention of this website to take sides here. We simply intend to report on issues of interest to our sphere. The alternative (small a) right sphere is unfortunately full of contention and we generally try to remain above the fray and retain friendly relations with all sides. We have a friendly relationship with Richard Spencer, and I assume Andy Nowicki and company have no issues with us either. While we represent a more traditional paleo perspective than Spencer or AltRight, we have no desire to be part of a chorus denouncing either.

Update: Colin Liddell, the co-editor of Alternative Right along with Andy Nowicki, is not at all happy with the way things went down. He expresses his displeasure in a comment here.

Alternative Right Situation Explained

I’m going to post this separately instead of adding it to the post below because it would make the post below too cumbersome. This is from the Alternative Right FaceBook page:

To those of you still wondering, here’s what happened: on Christmas Day, we discovered that Richard Spencer, the originator and former editor-in-chief of Alternative Right, had fixed the web address of alternativeright.com so that it automatically reroutes to his new magazine, Radix Journal. This unannounced move caught us by surprise. Although Richard owns the URL for Alternative Right, and thus had every legal right to do what he did, we were still taken aback by the way this transition was handled.

That said, we forge forward, without acrimony. We wish Richard Spencer and his new venture the best, and recommend that all Alternative Right readers check it out for themselves. (The more thought-crime, the merrier!) At the same time, we plan to continue bringing you, our loyal Alternative Right-ists, the same hard-hitting, hilarious, provocative fare you have come to love, crave, and expect from us.

Just be sure to bookmark our new, temporary link, which is where we’ll post articles, podcasts, and other nuggets of glory until we alight upon a more permanent home: www.alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you for staying tuned! –Andy and Colin

This is from the Radix Journal FaceBook page:

Dear All,

It has come to our attention that we, the editors of Radix Journal, must address the situation with the Alternative Right website. Here are some facts:

1) Richard Spencer owns the domain name (URL), the branding, and the Facebook page.

2) As of late 2010, the Alternative Right was not simply a web publication. It was officially a project of the National Policy Institute. As you probably know, NPI has the legal status of 501 (c)(3), i.e., a non-profit think tank which relies on fundraising.

3) From the onset, the Alternative Right was conceived as a bold experiment and a short-term project to differentiate itself from the American conservative movement. It was never meant to be a long-term institution and, indeed, never was.

4) In the last 12 months, Richard Spencer had communicated to the Alternative Right’s current editors, Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, on a number of occasions that he plans to move on in terms of archiving the website and changing its direction. As recently as this autumn, Spencer informed them, once again, that it is time to shut down the Alternative Right. Therefore, it was not a surprise move by any means, as has been insinuated.

5) Under no circumstances was Richard Spencer not going to give the current Alternative Right editors the content for which they were responsible. He was also going to include them on the new web project, Radix, if they so desired, and generally wishes them well.

Best Regards,

The Editors

Reading between the lines, it seems like the shuttering of AltRight was expected, but perhaps the exact timing was not.

What’s Up With Alternative Right?

If you go to www.alternativeright.com you get an empty domain page. If you go to a specific Alternative Right article it redirects you to Radix Journal.

AltRight Editor Andy Nowicki posted this somewhat cryptic message on his FaceBook page.

To whom it may concern: www.alternativeright.com now redirects the reader automatically to Richard Spencer‘s new magazine Radixjournal.com, as you will see from clicking on the link below… while we heartily endorse Radix Journal, we also wish to keep our posts up, and are working on expediting this matter. Please stand by.

Someone then posted this on Andy’s FaceBook page.

Please continue to support the work of Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki of Alternative Right. This can be a depressing community to belong to sometimes. These guys do a fantastic job adding just the right about of humor to the constant barrage of bad news. Their temporary home is at -

http://alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/

Bookmark it and wish success in the new year.

It looks like they saved the content but not the comments.

AltRight was a bit edgy for my tastes, and the comment section was a train wreck, but they had some content that was worth reading and you were unlikely to find many other places. I have no idea what happened. I presume Richard Spencer still owned AltRight. Was there a falling out? Any one with any intel please chime in.

Buchanan Acknowledges Paleo Putin Love

There has long been some admiration of Putin in paleo circles. Here, Buchanan asks “Is Putin One of Us?

Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us? While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president’s state of the nation address. With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.” “They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.” Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil. No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.

See more here…

I love that Buchanan mentions paleoconservatives by name, as the word seems to be used less frequently these days.

I think it is important that we acknowledge that Putin is likely far from pure lest we sound naive. You don’t serve in the KGB or rise  to power in Russia by happenstance. But I do think Putin really does recognize that modern Western style progressivism and globalism threatens a traditional nation state like Russia, and his resistance to it is genuine. Putin appears to get “the big picture” much better than do a lot of mainstream conservatives who still harbor grudges from the Cold War.

A Couple of Links on the Budget Deal

We criticized Jack Hunter here for his PC inspired backtracking, but that doesn’t mean he is no longer capable of good commentary. Here is a Hunter column on the budget deal. The GOP can’t be trusted to cut spending because they are too wedded to big spending on the military. Military spending is the untold story behind why so many Republicans went with Ryan’s budget cave. On a side note, I guess Hunter is back with a regular column at The Daily Caller. I suppose his Politico mea culpa was the price of re-admission.

We also recently criticized Jim Antle for his attempt to finesse the Mandela issue, but he is still capable of good commentary as well. Here he is on the budget deal. He sees the budget deal as what it is, a big cave-in for the House GOP.

On Mandela: Et Tu James Antle? Et Tu TAC?

I plan a post with a series of links to articles from conservatives that are contrary to the current Mandela hagiography that we are witnessing in the wake of his passing, but I am having router problems and have had limited internet access the last few days, so that post is coming. In the meantime, I wanted to get this quick post up since the subject matter is right in our wheelhouse.

Newt Gingrich has criticized conservatives who have expressed contrary and politically incorrect views about Mandela. The generally paleo friendly James Antle has an article up at TAC that says Newt Gingrich is right. It doesn’t surprise me that TAC posted such an article. In fact, I was almost certain they would. I have been checking back regularly looking for one. I am a bit surprised that it is James Antle who wrote it, however. Antle usually walks a fine line between nuancing tricky issues on the one hand but without overtly embracing the PC side on the other. This article is not finessing a touchy subject. It is embracing the other side.

Antle makes a fair point that people need to be judged in context. I made that same point in my post below, when I said that I don’t necessarily condemn Mandela for being a (small c) communist per se. (Meaning he believed Marx was on to something with regard to economics.) There were a lot of small c communists in that time and place. I do hold it againts him that he was a member of a brutal Communist party (SACP) (which he lied about) and headed an organization that used and endorsed terrorism and brutality.

Again, as I said before, in the 80′s conservatives took for granted that Mandela and the ANC were the bad guys, so to speak, in this drama. Now, conservatives must sing pre-emptive praise for Mandela just to ward off charges of racism. This illustrate the ever tightening grip of political correctness on our culture and especially our political debate. This tigtening grip must be resisted on every front rather than acquiesed to. Whatever other criticism of Antle may be in order, I think he and people like him are missing the big picture. Their efforts to finesse these issues for what they see as the benefit of conservatism actually empowers the Zeitgeist even if there may be some merit to the finesse. Appearances are key here. If it might look like a cave to PC, you should think long and hard about whether it is worth it even if your motives might not be caving to PC.

Update: This morning I posted a comment at TAC that simply said “Et tu James? Et tu TAC?” It has yet to appear. My hunch is that it won’t appear because it’s been a while and several other comments have been approved since. Also, normally it will say “Your comment is awaiting moderation” before it is posted, but you can still see it. I can no longer see my own comment which suggests to me it has been deleted and not just neglected. If so, that’s weak. Censoring critical but non-vulgar or otherwise innappropriate comments is bush league. I have posted another comment that is a modification of my last paragraph above. Let’s see if that makes the cut.

Ted Cruz Praises Mandela … His Supporters Object … Media Has a PC Spasm

Ted Cruz posted a tribute to Nelson Mandela on his Facebook account. Some of his supporters then expressed their displeasure. Now the PC Media thinks his supporters expressing displeasure is a news story. Here is what Cruz wrote:

“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”

First of all, regardless of what facts and opinions may be in dispute, Cruz’s post is gratuitous PC grandstanding. Best to say nothing at all because almost anything you say is going to appear to be PC placation, and the PC beast needs to be resisted and challenged, not placated. If you must say something then a simple Rest in Peace would do.

As the Daily Beast article linked above points out, US conservatives long took for granted that Mandela was the bad guy in this drama. (Of course the Daily Beast pointed this out as an indictment, not for educational purposes.) He was a Communist who headed a terrorist Communist organization. Now I believe people should be judged in the context of their time and situation. So I don’t much like Communist as an epithet. Mandela was a revolutionary, and African revolutionaries at that time were likely to be communists (big C or little c) because that was the milieu they were in. This is similar to the random pre-war German who is accused of being a Nazi. Well yeah, he might have been a Nazi, because a lot of pre-war Germans were Nazis. And a lot of the people who throw around the accusation would have been Nazis also if they had been Germans at the time just based on numbers alone. So I’m not crazy about communist as an simple epithet coming from rightist any more than I am Nazi as an epithet coming from leftist. That said, the fact that he was a Communist is not nothing either, and shouldn’t be swept under the rug the way the fawning media is doing. I hold against him that he was a member of an authoritarian and viscous Communist party more than I do the fact that he might have thought Marx was on to something.

But the fact that conservatives used to routinely criticize Mandela but now supposed conservative stars like Cruz feel it necessary to praise him says a lot about how oppressive the PC atmosphere has become.

Mike Church not Happy with Jack Hunter Either

Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)

Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered

This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.

VDARE Column on Jack Hunter’s Politico Apology

Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.

Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.

Potential 2016 GOP Candidates not Looking Good

Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.

Here is the list of candidates:

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above

What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.

Here is the comment I left.

There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.

Let’s Discuss the Iran Deal

I was away for Thanksgiving so please excuse the recent lack of posts. Let’s get things started back up by discussing the Iran deal, which has already come up in a different thread anyway.

First of all, I’m glad there was a deal. I think a deal makes war with Iran less likely, not more, despite the objections of the war hawks that it makes war more likely. The reason they don’t like the deal is because they really don’t believe it makes war more likely and war is what they want. If they really thought it made war more likely then they would be cynically cheering it on.

That said, the deal irks me on a visceral level because I reject the premise upon which it is based. As I have said before, I think it is in America’s best interests that Iran not get nukes. I don’t think Iran is suicidal enough to use nukes on us, but a nuclear Iran would likely change the regional balance of power. And while the regional balance of power isn’t all that great at present, I would file these concerns under the “Devil you do know” catagory. So I have no objection to the US using regular mechanisms of diplomacy (which don’t include sanctions which are arguably an act of war) to attempt to dissuade Iran from getting nukes. The premise I reject is that a sovereign nation and/or some international outfit (in this case the 5 + 1) can ultimately tell another sovereign nation what weapons it can or can’t have.

Reaction to the deal has generally been as expected. Non-interventionists cons have generally been supportive (See TAC for example.) Interventionist cons have been skeptical at best and in panic mood at worst (See Jennifer Rubin for example.). Our friend Sempronius pointed out in the other thread that Thomas Fleming has expressed some skepticism about the deal in the comments of this Srdja Trifkovic’s article. I’ll admit I was a little surprised by his remarks, but not totally. Dr. Fleming believes that Carter responded inadequately to the hostage crisis, and that he was honor bound to respond in a way other than how he did. Dr. Fleming has always been concerned, from my reading of him, with the issues of honor and appearances. Once you have publicly made known your allies and interests then you are honor bound to stick with them lest you appear feckless and untrustworthy on the international stage. I don’t want to put words in Dr. Fleming’s mouth. Read his replies. While I don’t agree, his points make sense in context and aren’t quite the abandonment of non-intervention that Sempronius and company are making it out to be.

I agree that the complicity of the Iranian Regime in the hostage situation potentially warranted a military response and that Carter could have handled that situation better, but at this point I don’t think that has much to do with the current situation except to the degree that it supports Dr. Fleming’s contention that Iran (and Iranians) just aren’t to be trusted. And I do appreciate the issue of appearances and honor on the world stage. While I’m glad we avoided war in Syria for example, it isn’t good for appearances that America publicly got played on the world stage by Putin. I don’t think this agreement necessarily appears bad for the US. In fact, it potentially appears good for us because it demonstrates we are capable of reasonableness. But the issue of appearances is one reason why I think declared neutrality is such an appealing option. If you simply declare your neutrality and lack of desire to meddle anymore, then you can’t look weak or dishonorable. No one thinks Switzerland looks bad because of how something went down ib Syria.

My Thoughts on Jack Hunter’s Mea Culpa at Politico

Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies.  Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.

I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.

So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.

I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.

When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.

I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.

That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence.  I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.

His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”

My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.

So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.

The Rise of the Neoreactionary Techies

I’ve followed this neoreaction thing somewhat. I don’t think that paleos are generally counted among the ranks of neoreactionaries, but we’re kin so to speak. By my understanding, the neoreactionaries are in general an irreligious lot, which is what separates them from paleos. Also, I don’t think they necessarily look fondly upon any particular era of the past. They just don’t like modernity. But their ranks seem to be growing, especially among the techie crowd. And this rise  has not escaped notice. This is not a bad summation, although the author can’t help but throw in a couple of PC digs.

Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there’s a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution.

Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy.

You may have seen them crop-up on tech hangouts like Hacker News and Less Wrong, having cryptic conversations about “Moldbug” and “the Cathedral.” And though neoreactionaries aren’t exactly rampant in the tech industry, PayPal founder Peter Thiel has voiced similar ideas, and Pax Dickinson, the former CTO of Business Insider, says he’s been influenced by neoreactionary thought. It may be a small, minority world view, but it’s one that I think shines some light on the psyche of contemporary tech culture….

Read more…

Check Out The Unz Review

As most of you probably know, Ron Unz and The American Conservative had a falling out after Daniel McCarthy refused to publish Unz’s latest article on race and crime. Now Ron Unz has set up his own website called The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection. Check it out. He carries some good writers including Ron Paul, Judge Nap., Paul Craig Roberts and Fred Reed. But the interesting thing is that his website is obviously a dig at TAC. It layout and look is strikingly similar to TAC. It looks like a big ol’ cyber “up yours” aimed at his former mag.