There are three links in this post on the subject.
Here the article is being discussed at No Left Turns.
Questions: Would Kirk be welcomed at the current National Review? Would Kirk oppose the Iraq War? (He opposed the first one.)
My latest on Etherzone.com is up
One thing I want to say about the discussion about conservatism being classical liberalism,Â you have to remember that theÂ philsophers that set the parametersÂ of debate, discussion and though were European and viewed the world through their European lense and experience. Its not possible, even though men have tried, to fit those parameters on the New World with its more eglatarian frontier. It translate into a different kind of discussion and politics. That’s why today’s conservatism or what passes for it bears no resemblance to classical liberalism in any way, stretch of form.
Via the Lew Rockwell blog.
Hat tip to Lawrence Auster via Virginia Abernethy.
John Vinson has put together a â€œself-defense manualâ€ for immigration-control activists and conservatives. Itâ€™s clever, deadly accurate, and more useful than a Swiss army knife. ( I forsee such gems as â€œethno-masochistâ€ and â€œtolerance talibanâ€ quickly entering the general vocabulary.) Read, enjoy, and once youâ€™ve memorized these handly phrases, lock and load and fire at will. MCT
Those who attack us physically we call muggers. To help people deal with them, there are self-defense manuals which recommend various kicks, punches and chops to fight back. Emotional attacks can be quite painful too, as many immigration reformers can testify. Often they must cope with â€œsmuggers,â€ assailants who project in word and gesture their smug sense of moral, social, and intellectual superiority.
With the failure of the amnesty bill, a major immigration bill probably will not come up again until after the 2008 election, which means that immigration will be a major issue going into 2008.
Other losers: Graham, who hopefully will be challenged in the primary or have an anti-immigration Democrat running against him.
Winners: Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter. But Romney and Fred Thompson, recent “converts” to the anti-amnesty movement, will try to use this to their advantage, although both have dubious records on immigration.
This failure could prove detrimental for the neoliberal globalist Democrats (Clinton and Obama), who have sided with the big business / multicultural lobby against the American worker. If John Edwards were smart, he would come out full force against immigration. Although he has a bad voting record in the Senate, he does have a decent record of opposing free trade, and could compliment it by siding with American workers whose wages are being driven down by immigration. I have a feeling, however, that he’s too wedded to multiculturalism to attempt such a strategy.
Notice that, despite the public outcry over the past few days, these Republican traitors still voted for cloture: Craig, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, Specter, et al.
At least this time around Democrats Nelson and Webb had the good sense to vote nay.
Celebrate now, but be vigilant. The big business / multiculturalist lobby will continue to support the third-world invasion.
“WASHINGTON (CNN) â€” Itâ€™s not every day a presidential hopeful sends Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff a head of lettuce, but thatâ€™s what Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, is doing Wednesday to show his disagreement with Chertoffâ€™s recent comments on how failure of passing immigration reform might affect the agricultural industry. Tancredo says he disagrees with recent comments Chertoff made that suggested if the immigration bill fails, the agricultural industry will suffer. To prove his point he is sending Chertoff a head of lettuce, a fruit basket, and a card saying, â€œmuch, much more where this comes from.â€” ~ CNN
Good symbolic gesture. But dual US-Israel citizen Chertoff, although supporting the defense of Israel’s borders and the deportment of illegals from Israel, is dead set on transforming the U.S. into a third-world sewer.
In the United States, the founders, whose classical liberalism constitutes the core of modern conservatism…
Does classical liberalism constitute the core of modern conservatism? Perhaps. But to the extent that is true, that is part of the problem. American conservatism has always embraced elements of classical liberalism, but liberalism, classical or otherwise, can not preserve a society. Conservatism preserves a society. Authentic, as opposed to modern, conservatism can not be equal to classical liberalism even though you frequently hear and read that assertion. By definition, conservatism can not be just or mostly classical liberalism or it becomes plain old liberalism.
Also, is it true that the Founders were classical liberals as Primeau asserts?
This topic really needs discussion on the right. Few question the conservatism = classical liberalism assertion. Please discuss.
That said, the military cannot rightfully be considered a proper tool for forging a world where liberty and democracy may flourish. Such notions are hideously liberal, for they are based on the most dangerous of utopian delusions: that men can be made at gunpoint to change; that nations can be built as easily as destroyed; that societies are artificial rather than organic and can be made to order. These ideas have none of the realism that distinguishes conservatism from dreamy liberal mush.
Furthermore, not merely militarism but war itself is repellent to any orthodox conservative. It is a great uprooter of men and material and a fine destroyer of tradition. The costs of conflict are monumental, the rewards too often minimal. With each falling bomb, international order is torn asunder â€“ contrary to hawkish bombast, war is never fought to maintain or advance an existing order, but always to institute a new one. Bellicosity prompts a disregard for national and popular sovereignty, two important items on the conservative agenda. Randolph Bourne was correct: war is the health of the state, and true conservatism pictures the state as a necessary but terribly sour pill.
Notice the comment that this issue includes a “superb deflation of Russel Kirk’s intellectual pretensions.” The article, however, is not available on-line unless you are a subscriber. I will try to buy a copy and report back.
Update: I checked the local book store and they don’t have this issue of TNR out yet. I’ll check back.
ANOTHER OUTRAGE FROM THE U.S. SENATE!
Yesterday, 64 United States Senators â€“ including two of my opponents for the Republican presidential nomination, Sam Brownback and John McCain — voted to move the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Amnesty bill forward.
When those 64 Senators cast their â€œayeâ€ votes, they betrayed the trust of the American people and the security of the United States. It really is that simple!
Do nations have the right to protect themselves from invasion?Â Well, it depends on which nations youâ€™re talking about:
In the United States, the decision to fence 700 miles of the Mexican border triggered months of political debate ranging across issues from immigration reform to the environmental impact. When Israel announced it would build a 425-mile barrier around the West Bank, an international outcry erupted.
But there has been barely a ripple over Indiaâ€™s far larger project, launched in earnest in 2000 amid growing fears in New Delhi about illegal immigration and cross-border terrorism.
No irony here, folks.Â Youâ€™ll have to go elsewhere for some juicy hypocrisy becauseâ€”well, just because.Â Because when Indians keep out illegal alien Bangladeshis, itâ€™s to avert a demographic disaster:
â€œYouâ€™ve got an increasing population (in Bangladesh) with a shrinking land mass,â€ said Ajai Sahni, head of the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management who worries the Indian government is not building the fence quickly enough. â€œIndia has enough nightmares of its own without adding to them.â€
Who can blame the Indians for not wanting to experience the nightmare of a Camp of the Saints catastrophe?Â Move along, please.Â No irony here.Â
Not a human victim. As the beautiful Nancy and the young Daniel lay dead and dying in their new home, Chris was slowly suffocating another victim as he ended his own life. He killed what shred of innocence was left in wrestling. I know thatâ€™s akin to lamenting the loss of integrity in the legal profession – but there was a little bit left.
I am not sure what the point is of kicking a dead man, which Hudson does in this piece, but the above paragraph is right on. Any remaining shred of innocence is gone.
Is Buchanan secretly backing Paul? His webmaster Linda of Buchanan Brigade fame is.
Below is a Press Release from the Tom Tancredo campaign.
Presidential Candidate Tancredo Calls for Rep. Paul to be Included in Iowa Presidential Forum
Contact Name: Alan Moore
Contact Phone: 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.) – Presidential candidate Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today called on the organizers of the Iowa presidential forum to allow the participation of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
“While I donâ€™t see eye-to-eye with Rep. Paul on all issues, he is a respected Congressman, a former presidential candidate, and a man with strong convictions and the courage to express them,” Tancredo said, “The Republican party is better because he is one of us and he has earned the right to be in all presidential forums and debates.”
The False Idol of American Democracy
By Michael Hill
Democracy is an idol in America, and most Americans worship devoutly at its altar. Majorities marshaled every two or four years have become our gods. They dictate to us how we shall live and die. Most say they wouldnâ€™t have it any other way. That would be un-American. To be patriotic citizens, we must live with the results of the ballot, be it in a general election, a Supreme Court ruling, or a Congressional vote. The verdict is sacrosanct because it was reached through the democratic process of majority vote. We can grouse and complain about it but we see ourselves bound by it. Otherwise, how could we claim to be â€œgood Americans?â€
But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They donâ€™t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.
As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.
More Islamic immigration is on the wayâ€”as the Neocon and leftist agendas flow together into a single, unstoppable, multicult flood:
In February, the US agreed to accept 7,000 Iraqi refugees this year, a large jump over the fewer than 700 Iraqis accepted by the US in the first three years of the war but a drop in the ocean when measured against the estimated 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country since the war began. About 2,000 of those Iraqis coming this year, say refugee officials, will start their lives anew in Michigan.
Bush gets his war, and Ted Kennedy gets more immigrants.Â Itâ€™s a win-win situation all around.
Here’s the list of Senators who voted for cloture today, which is a vote for amnesty. Some of them say that it is a “procedural vote” and now will vote against the actual bill, but this is mere rhetoric. Their vote was a vote for amnesty since now the hurdle was just lowered from 60 votes (cloture) to (after the next cloture vote) 51 votes (passage).
Republican traitors to be noted: Bennett, Bond, Burr, Brownback, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Ensign, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Snow, Stevens, Warner, and others. These shills should be challenged in primaries.
N.B. Jim Webb, in whom paleos had some hope, voted for amnesty. Had I known that Jim Webb was going to be such a sellout, I would have backed George Allen.