Conservative Heritage Times

French rightist, Professor of History,  Dominique Venner, shot himself in the head at the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris on May 21.

His last blog post details one who confronted the reality of both the legal acceptance of “gay marriage” and the other notion, that soon Islamic dominance in France will do away with such a thing (i.e. learn to love the bomb).  Staring the nightmare in the face, he pursued an act of theater to encourage his positions.

Revilo Oliver, a veteran Far Rightist (a professor at the University of Illinois and in Bill Buck’s wedding party) died by his own hand in the nascent Internet Age, where as Mssr. Venner was able to provide a blog post (and apparently a more traditional written note) in a more grandiose final act.

As fewer Rightists, for a variety of reasons, are given the opportunity to exist as a Professor, a fact Mssr. Venner surely understood, consider his performance as something we might not see again.

23 Comments »

This is interesting news. We have sometimes been critical of FPR (see here, here, here and here), but I consider this good news. As I said in the Policy Review post below, the left has journals for every conceivable niche, but the right has only a few. Likewise with publishing companies. There are all sorts of niche left-wing presses, but very few “conservative” presses and most of them primarily churn out books from “conservative” celebrities. This is a welcome development.

3 Comments »

The following is taken from Richard M. Weaver’s classic The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought, first published in 1968.

-

4. The Character of the Enemy

Thus the majority of Confederate officers looked upon themselves as Christian gentlemen, and in the recognized calling of war they sought to maintain that character, often to the point of nicety. The style and spirit of their warfare was a source of great pride to them, but that of the enemy provoked criticism and condemnation, on what grounds we must see. It is well to proceed cautiously here, for as an early English poem says, “In broyles the bag of lyes is ever open,” and the enemy is likely to be represented as barbarous in proportion as he proves stubborn and difficult to conquer. But after all precautions have been taken and all corrections have been made, there remains considerable foundation for the assertion that the United States is the first government in modern times to commit itself to the policy of unlimited aggression. This was one of the many innovations which came out of the American Civil War. It is true, of course, that no war is wholly free from atrocities, but a distinction must be drawn between those excesses committed by soldiers who have broken discipline and those which are a part of the determined policy of commanders. Generals Hunter, Sheridan, and Sherman put themselves on record, both by utterance and practice, as believing in the war of unlimited aggression, in the prosecution of which they received at least the tacit endorsement of the Lincoln administration.

This is a matter of prime importance in the history of the American past, because the real significance of the war of unlimited aggression is that it strikes at one of the bases of civilization. As long as each side plays according to the rules of the “game,” with no more infraction than is to be expected in any heated contest, the door is left open for reconciliation and the eventual restoration of amity. But when one side drops the restraints built up over a long period and commits itself to the total destruction of the other by any means, no longer distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, then the demoralization is complete, and the difficulty of putting relationships back on a moral basis is perhaps too great to be overcome. In war, as in peace, people remain civilized by acknowledging bounds beyond which they must not go. Even in military combat there must be a supreme sanction, uniting those who in all else are in opposition, and if this is disregarded, then the long and painful business of laying the foundations of understanding must be recommenced from the very beginning. The expression “Christian civilization,” when examined, denotes just this body of fundamental concepts and allegiances, which one may not drop without becoming “un-Christian” and so, in the meaningful sense of the word, excommunicated. When this is understood the term “Christian soldier” ceases to be paradoxical. The Christian soldier must seek the verdict of battle always remembering that there is a higher law by which both he and his opponent will be judged, and which enjoins against fighting as the barbarian.

It is not unusual to read in Southern accounts of the rejection of some procedure as “unworthy of a Christian soldiery.” Indeed, by the standard of modern practice, which represents a revolt against all civilized restraints, the matter of regard for rule was carried far.78 Exceptions were found, naturally, among the disorderly elements which made up parts of the Western armies, but few outrages can be ascribed to the armies of Johnston, Lee, and Bragg, and none of them was condoned.
Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

Ugh! As I have said before, I’m not inclined to argue the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on political grounds. But I am inclined to comment on the state of the debate. As I said in the article linked above, the insufferable smugness of the AGW true believer crowd is profoundly unhelpful to their cause. This story from Political Outcast is a perfect example of what I mean:

The funny thing is, Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz isn’t even a climate scientist. He teaches Systematic Musicology. So, if you’re one of those global warming deniers, then you shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion because you don’t have enough expertise in climate science, or if you do, you should have your credentials stripped from you because you’ve proven yourself unworthy to have them. On the other hand, if you support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it doesn’t matter what credentials you have or don’t have, your opinion is vital and true. You could be a bum living in a cardboard box in D.C. with an 8^thgrade education and believe that man is causing the earth to warm, and that if the “lords” over in the D.C. castle don’t “do something” about it, humanity will be wiped out, and it will be the fault of all those “deniers.” And that poor bum’s opinion will have more respect than the climate scientists with 18 Ph.D.’s who believe the only thing that’s manmade about anthropogenic global warming is the theory itself.

Read more…

The good professor has changed his original article (follow the links in the article above) presumably in response to criticism, but he seems more concerned with establishing his liberal bona fides in light of his call for the death penalty than he does in walking back from his outrageous premise. Either way, his over the top nonsense has certainly done more harm to the cause he espouses than good. The AGW true believers need to step outside the bubble they inhabit and join the rest of us in the real world where there is, for better or worse, still doubt.

2 Comments »

I’m wanting to archive some right-wing books in .txt format, cartoons, and music. M-Disc looks like the most reliable choice, and I figured I’d share it here.

I doubt claims that M-Discs are significantly more resistant to physical damage (including from regular use), but they will resist time better than currently available alternatives. An implied M-Disc life of centuries Vs. 2 to 5 years for regular CDs/DVDs. This is because M-Disc’s data layer is physically carved in “rock-like materials” as opposed to the standard, short-lived dye.

M-Discs also cost much more per disc, and the only DVD-burners currently capable of writing on them are made by LG. M-Discs aren’t rewritable, so any errors are permanent, requiring a new disc to correct. I probably will not use many discs, but this is again the best long-term storage option I’m aware of.

M-Disc mentions competitors (likely optical discs using a similar technology) claiming 300-year shelf lives, but no brands are listed. Internet searches bring up nothing.

1 Comment »

Floating around the web, to save face I don’t want to say where, is the following quote attributed to Aristotle:

Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

I didn’t recognise it, so I searched Perseus Digital Library: Nothing. I believe it to be fake.

-

A better quote, if people want to stand steadfast by the authority of Aristotle, is:

Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlers have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms; and the people of Zancle after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction; and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrants conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers from Chalcis were most of them driven out by them.

Source: Aristotle. Politics. Book 5. Section 1303a-1303b.

3 Comments »

To be poor and white in America basically means you’ll probably stay poor and white. I say probably because there’s always the occasional go-getter or two, but when a recent study showed that elite academia has no interest in having poor or middle to low middle class whites attend their colleges and universities, even such go-getters are steered to the local state school or community colleges. Or join they join the military because they find no other reasonable chance for advancement without putting their lives at risk or come back from Iraq with a limb shot off  just to pay for college. It sounds like career tracking to me.

Elite schools can congratulate themselves thinking they’ve recreated study bodies that reflect a post-racial, managerial based society. But also may very well have created large pockets of resentment in the rural ghettos of our nation. In past they may not have been a huge problem because a white person could work at a  factory or own a farm and make a decent living without having to go to Harvard. Such options hardly exist anymore. He or she would have to take on mountains of debt and have own 2,000 head of livestock to make any kind of living on the land. What factories their are may very well employ illegal immigrants working willing to have their hands sliced off for $1.25 an hour just so they can experience the joys of indoor plumbing. Its hard to see what job skills community colleges are supposed to teach since glass towers are rarely found outside big cities that thousands of poor whites flee to every year looking for work.

Some enlightened college administrator may look at this study and ask themselves  “Do we really want to create more Tim McVeighs”? The “fire next time” for whites may very well come with demobilized vets from “Global War on Terror” finding themselves working McJobs after leading whole squads, companies and platoons in Iraq. Given that they may be no majority race by 2042, the call for white quotas may become stronger and stronger. Sarah Palin may very well be to underclass whites was Jesse Jackson was to underclass blacks. The question is for conservatives, are these the paths we want to follow down? Because if they are, then years of rehtoric about meritocracy, affirmative action and identity politics along with snide remarks about elitism at Harvard might as well be chucked out the window right now.

This brings up an interesting point in a recent article Patrick Deenan just wrote. We can point out the Ivy League’s bigotry against poor whites as we should. But is encouraging the young and the ambitious to join the “creative class” in a blue state when they graduate really what we want to encourage?

“Members of the meritocracy are well aware of whom they have left behind, and rather than assuming the personal obligation of old to those less fortunate, they elect instead to pay an impersonal middleman—government—to deal with the aftereffects of what Wendell Berry has called the “strip-mining” of talent from every town and hamlet in the world. At the same time, they demand that everyone else pay up as well—what would have been personal forms of responsibility have instead been spread to the entire population, including those they purport to succor. As Christopher Lasch wrote, “obligation, like everything else, has been depersonalized; exercised through the agency of the state, the burden of supporting it falls not on the professional and managerial class but, disproportionately, on the lower-middle and working class.”

Continue Reading »

5 Comments »

The unfolding JournoList scandal has already claimed one victim, Dave Weigel, but it may be about to claim some more. The contents of some other JournoList conversations have been exposed and show coordinated attempts by liberal “journalists” to suppress news detrimental to Obama and vilify his conservative critics. This is big and could get much bigger.

See the DailyCaller.

See BigJournalism.

HT: Errol Phillips (no relation)

2 Comments »

I read a very interesting book review today in World Affairs Journal.* I’m not a subscriber, but I happened to see a copy at our local Barnes & Noble. Thankfully the review is available online.

Andrew Bacevich is reviewing Eric Miller’s new biography of Christopher Lasch. The review itself is helpful and informative. I came away thinking Christopher Lasch is someone whose ideas I should get to know better. But the first eight paragraphs that serve as intro to the review are masterful.

Every time I read Bacevich I come away thinking he is one of the few public intellectuals who gets it, and gets us. Not that there aren’t others who get it and get us, they just generally aren’t allowed into the rarefied category of public intellectual. I don’t know how he gets away with it. I don’t know if Bacevich is an ideological (for lack of a better word. No Kirk lectures needed.) paleoconservative, but it is easy to detect a broadly conservative disposition, and I detect a certain Catholicness. So why the liberals give him a platform is puzzling. Since he is most often critical of Republican foreign policy and is also critical of the reduction of conservatism to a defense of capitalism, maybe they haven’t quite picked up on the fact that he isn’t one of them. But he isn’t the type of conservative who criticizes other conservatives (Frum, Brooks) who liberals love to promote either. Their critique of conservatism is from the center. Bacevich’s critique, as best as I can tell, is from a more authentic right.

Anyway, read the review. Bacevich makes a point that I have been makingfor years. American politics is dominated by a very tightly defined center. All the fretting and hand-wringuing about the extremes dragging their respective parties to the fringe is all about maintaining the status quo and getting all those uppity middle Americans with their silly ideas to shut up and go away. Best to leave that governing stuff to the big boys. I have never seen this dynamic expressed better than Bacevich does here.

*I am not very familiar with Foreign Affairs Journal. It promotes itself as a journal that argues the “big ideas behind U.S. foreign policy” and give air to divergent opinions. Since foreign policy on both “sides” is dominated by the shared assumptions of internationalism and interventionism, this is probably a good thing and is perhaps the reason they give Bacevich a platform. But the fact that they also give Jamie Kirchick headline billing makes me wonder just how credible they are. Kirchick is a go to PC enforcer which is one of the most powerful weapons the Establishment has for keeping intellectual dissent in check.

1 Comment »

The University of Wisconsin is a public institution which has received both my donations in the past and my tax dollars in the present. It also receives plenty of federal money. Because of this, one would think that the First Amendment would be upheld in such a place.

Apparently not because the they symposium I was supposed to attend was reportedly canceled over the weekend because the meeting’s sponsors couldn’t guarantee nor pay for security for Cindy Sheehan.

“A distinguished group of panelists from across the American political spectrum will gather to discuss electoral reform, the peace movement, and the growing dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. Panelists include Theresa Amato, Angela Keaton, Ben Manski, Sean Scallon, Cindy Sheehan, and Christina Tobin. The event will be moderated by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. The event will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the Memorial Union at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

In a last minute twist, Union Building Event Management Director Roger Vogts canceled the event organizer’s booking of the facility, citing “security concerns” that would accompany antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan’s visit. Free and Equal has attempted to contact university security officials, but Vogts stated that he could not contact security over the weekend.

In addition, event organizers were told on Friday they must pay a sizable fee for security, even though Sheehan never requested security. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (505 U.S. 123, 1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Because the Union’s Central Reservations presides over a viewpoint-neutral limited public forum at the Union and other facilities, the Union is bound by the same constitutional demands as the local government in Forsyth County. It is unconstitutional for any viewpoint-neutral limited public forum to deny any organization free speech rights on the grounds they are unable to provide for extra security costs related to the exercise of that free speech.

To add to the intrigue, these concerns were not expressed when Norman Finkelstein spoke at University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 13, a man known for his criticism of Israel and barred from visiting the country until 2018 because the country considers him a “security threat.” Not to mention, Cindy Sheehan has spoken in Madison several times in the past without incident.

In spite of Vogts attempts to cancel the event, the organizing committee and panelists have decided the event will still take place at the Union. If university officials do not permit panelists and guests to congregate at the room originally booked, the event will take place on the front steps of the Union or in the lobby of the Union.

At this time, event organizers are still undecided on filing a lawsuit against the Union on grounds of a violation of their First Amendment rights.

When one considers the kinds of controversial people and groups (including George Wallace,  the Weathermen and a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon) who have spoken at meetings, mass or otherwise, at the University of Wisconsin over the years, particularly at the Memorial Union, the idea that our little group somehow merits cancellation because of “security concerns”, is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.  Hopefully this will be resolved by tomorrow morning but one has the feeling that there’s something else going on behind the scenes that triggered this mess. I do not know what is going to happen, nor do I desire or wish to be a part of any confrontation, but I am also not going to back down either. In words of Ronald Reagan, I am paying for this university and I will be damned if I can’t speak my mind on it.

Gee, I didn’t realize a Left-Right meeting would be so controversial as to be considered dangerous.

Here’s the Wisconsin State Journal story on this.

Ronald Reagan \”I am paying for this microphone Mr. Green!\”

2 Comments »

From http://www.freeandequal.org.

They wanted a conservative on the panel with all the leftists and libertarians so I’m happy to oblige.

CHICAGO, Ill., April 20, 2010 – Next week, a distinguished group of panelists from across the American political spectrum will gather to discuss electoral reform, the peace movement, and the growing dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. Panelists include Theresa Amato, Angela Keaton, Ben Manski, Sean Scallon, Cindy Sheehan, and Christina Tobin. The event will be moderated by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. The event will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m in the Memorial Union at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

America’s two-party system dominates elections to the point where they act as one party. Both major parties support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while opposition to war and foreign intervention unite people across the political spectrum. The panel will examine how those opposed to war and military intervention can hear from and vote for candidates who share their views in the face of America’s restrictive ballot access laws.

Beginning with a fictional “Mimosa Party” to unite antiwar voters, the panelists will address the dangers of the Top Two Primary initiative on the ballot in California on June 8, 2010 and other ballot access restrictions imposed by the states. Without choices on the ballot in the general election, anti-war candidates will continue to be at a severe disadvantage when challenging pro-war incumbents.

Continue Reading »

4 Comments »

Ann Coulter is a mixed bag. She is great on immigration, and one of the few “mainstream” conservatives who has dared to raise the demographic issue. She has played nice with Ron Paul. But she is disasterous on the War and foreign intervention. But we can all decry this? Yesterday her speech at a Canadian University had to be cancelled due to thuggish protestors. This follows on the heels of her being sent a threatening letter by a University administrator “reminding” her that “free speech” in Canada does not mean the same thing it does in America.

No Comments »

In 1872, a political reporter made this statement after a faction of the dominant Republican Party went ahead and nominated the radical newspaper publisher Horace Greeley as their candidate for President:

“there was too much brains and not enough whiskey at the convention.”

So are there too many brains in the conservative establishment? That’s what this writer is saying in an article Filmer was kind enough to bring to my attention. I agree with many of the thoughts in the articles, that so-called conservative think tanks have become top heavy with scholars fleeing universities and colleges. That they’re paid a lot of money and make comfortable living talking to each other and saying the same things they said 30 years ago and so long as the money keeps coming in, the continue on in this way.

A donor who would rather see his money well spent rather than thoughtlessly getting the tax write-off, would be wise to find think tanks outside the Beltway and the coasts, the home of the cosmos, outside of the big cities, for fresh and different approach that could pay off towards something substantial if the resources are provided. But that’s the rub isn’t it? Many of these donors are corporations who sensibly don’t want to fund groups that question their power and influence or would promote the politics of decentralization. They spend on the same ones because they know its a safe investment.  The early conservative movement depended upon individuals like oil wildcatters and family trust foundations for its support. But as soon as big money rolled in after 1980, the cosmo think tanks stopped thinking and simply repeated what they were told. It easier to raise money that way.

Well, you get what you pay for.

5 Comments »

Next thing you know, people will be saying Beckwith has “grown in office.”

I guess not content with proving his mainstream bona fides by taking swipes at the Alaska Independence Party and the John Birch Society, now he takes a snide little swipe at Ron Paul. See the first comment here.

Francis, we hardly knew ye.

No Comments »

PETA wants the University of Georgia, my alma mater, to replace the recently deceased Uga VII with a robot because prancing around on the sideline is supposedly too cruel for a Bulldog.

I own an English Bulldog, and it is true that they have a disproportionate share of health problems because they have been bred into such a freakish, from a natural perspective, shape. But as the article suggests, PETA is really making an argument that Bulldogs (or all pure breeds for that matter) should not exist. Now when my prima donna dog is growling at me because I am trying to get his lazy butt off the furniture, I might temporarily agree, but then cooler heads prevail, and I return to bragging on him.

PETA is an organization based on never letting cooler heads prevail. A robot dog? Please! Who authorized that press release, and what were they thinking? “Let’s see … what can we do to make ourselves look even more foolish? I’ve got it! Let’s suggest that the University of Georgia replace the most beloved and recognizable mascot on the planet with a robot? That will help our cause.”

PETA can relax about Uga. That dog gets better treatment than most humans.

4 Comments »

Many pro-life students at Notre Dame boycotted the commencement address by Baby-Killer-in-Chief Obama and attended an alternative commencement presided over by Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. Of course every Priest is a Priest for life. Congressman Bob Dornan was fond of pointing out how all Priests, even the most loony left-wing liberation theology types, are united on the issue of life. The travesty of inviting Obama and giving him an honorary degree can not just be wiped away, but next year if Notre Dame’s administration has any remaining decency at all they will invite an ardent pro-lifer to give the address. I suggest Father Pavone.

1 Comment »

This time it was a speech by Virgil Goode, also sponsored by our friends at Youth for Western Civilization. Seems like the police did a better job this time of keeping order.

No Comments »

I had planned to post on this issue, but Patroon beat me to it. The issue is a clause in the Texas standards that requires the teaching of the “strengths and weaknesses” of a scientific theory. The nerve of them! How dare someone suggest that the gospel according to Darwin has weakness?

On the surface, the debate centers on a passage in the state’s curriculum that requires students to critique all scientific theories, exploring “the strengths and weaknesses” of each. Texas has stuck to that same standard for 20 years, having originally passed it to please religious conservatives. In practice, teachers rarely pay attention to it.

This year, however, a panel of teachers assigned to revise the curriculum proposed dropping those words, urging students instead to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence.”

Scientists and advocates for religious freedom say the battle over the curriculum is the tip of a spear. Social conservatives, the critics argue, have tried to use the “strengths and weaknesses” standard to justify exposing students to religious objections in the guise of scientific discourse.

I have no sympathy for the Darwinian fundamentalists here. They have done this to themselves. Instead of simply using Darwin’s theory to explain speciation and adaptation, which very few would object to, they are the ones who insist on dogmatic naturalism, materialism and scientism and suggest that Darwin’s theory eliminates the need to invoke a Creator. And then they get their panties in a wad when Christians object. Go figure.

Cross posted at the New Media Alliance blog.

9 Comments »

Texas is having its annual textbook controversy over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design and or creationism.

This has been going on for years and it really doesn’t prevent the world from spinning on its axis. But apparently, now that many leftists are no longer alienated from the U.S. because THEIR man is in charge, it’s time to start using a little muscle to straighten things out down there:

“tempting as it is to “let Texas revel in its own ass-backwardness,”  it’s best to resist that temptation.

First, Texas is “one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material.” Weaker science classes in Texas has far-reaching consequences for students elsewhere.

Second, Texans have elected nutjobs to the State Board of Education, but that’s not a good reason to punish the state’s public school students.

And third, this nonsense really needs to stop as a national phenomenon. Fundamentalists are entitled to their personal beliefs, but these efforts to undermine science education have gone on long enough. The country just can’t afford to tolerate this nonsense anymore — the competitive advantage the United States used to enjoy is vanishing, and conservatives’ anti-science push comes with too high a burden for the country.”

Looks like the Stars and Stripes are flying high over the Washington Monthly building. Cue John Wayne. I guess this means Vermont independence is off the table, right?

Or perhaps we should all say “Hail Science” like they did in one particular episode of South Park or better yet: ”Be Like Us or Else!” 

Continue Reading »

4 Comments »

I am inclined to take Patroon’s wise advice and stay out of this. I hate to see two people who are normally allies going at it like this.

I will also let Gutzman’s response stand pretty much on its own.

I do think saying DiLorenzo’s Hamilton book wasn’t worthy of a review was a bit unnecessary. I agree with Weaver below.

… folks must be able to distinguish between personal attacks and academic criticisms.

If it’s possible for a Muslim and a Christian to befriend one another while believing each other en route to eternal damnation, then political … differences shouldn’t be any more divisive.

Amen to that.

2 Comments »