Posted under Conservatism & NeoCons
It’s too much to expect Neocons to repent and advocate real conservatism, but at least one has the honesty to admit what he really is:
I’ve been meaning to establish a new blogging homepage for some time, since the “Burkean” in Burkean Reflections (my original blog), no longer reflects my fundamental political orientation.
He even advertises in his new title that his comments are “from a neoconservative perspective.” Gee — when I tried to point out that his online Neocon politics conflicted with his purported Burkean philosophy, he threw an e-tantrum:
Any theory evolves, numbskull! It’s called paradigm shift.
To which I responded:
I think he attempted to shift his paradigm without a clutch.
No, doc, it’s not a “paradigm shift,” it’s a sell-out. A philosophy of preserving traditional culture and the liberties associated with it does not “evolve” into surrendering culture to Third-World invaders and its liberties to an unlimited central government. If such a thing actually happened, I’d call it a malignant mutation. Actually, in this case, it’s a matter of utilizing Burke’s name to promote authoritarianism.
Looks like he’s finally admitted I was right. Good to see at least one big-government interventionist dropping the pretences of being a conservative.
Weaver on 07 Oct 2007 at 9:18 pm #
Wow. I guess that’s good that he’s found himself…
HarrisonBergeron on 07 Oct 2007 at 9:30 pm #
He’s found himself all right. I hope he’s happy with the endless wars and erosion of liberty his philosophy justifies.
Americaneocon on 08 Oct 2007 at 12:34 am #
I concede nothing, Mike Tuggle. One of the main reasons I changed my blogging orientations is because I don’t want to be associated with reactionary (ugly racial-throwbacks, really) on race relations. I can’t stand how you folks use Burke to justify a sick ideology privileging the old planter aristocracy.
I’ll continue reflecting on Burke, who did not oppose social – even revolutionary – change (despite your futile objections to the contrary). The U.S. is not Napoleonic France. I’m simply not interested in trying to teach you a lesson in political philosophy you’re too hopelessly corrupt intellectually to ever grasp.
Never once did you attempt to justigy the paleos love affair with the antiwar left. Talk about moral bankruptcy.
I have the integrity to clarify my positions, while folks like you continue to wallow in ideational denial and longing for some long ago “master-boy” era.
HarrisonBergeron on 08 Oct 2007 at 1:11 pm #
Americaneocon,
First, Doug, get a new pseudonym. This one’s too silly, even for you.
Second, stop arguing with your little straw man. If you think opposing floodtide immigration and a counter-productive war is a sign of moral bankruptcy, then you’re condemning most of the people in America. How is the desire to preserve our culture against the globalist open borders agenda an example of “privileging the old planter aristocracy”? Sounds like a page from the multicult leftists to me.
Whether or not you realize it, your comment above is the perfect example of how a Trotskyite agenda has disguised itself in conservative language — which is what the “Neoconservative” deception is all about. We’ll preserve your comment forever as an example for all.
Finally, reflect on your own love affair with the pro-war left, such as Lieberman, Hillary, Edwards — and don’t forget Christopher Hitchens, the leftist ass who glories in the Neocon project of destroying all traditional cultures. Seems he learned that his opinions directly led to the death of a young man who believed Hitchens’ pro-war screeds:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711
Hey, Doug, how many Mark Jennings Dailys will you get killed for a senseless war?
Patroon on 08 Oct 2007 at 2:30 pm #
Brother can you spare a paradgim? Boy you neocons are just a riot!
HarrisonBergeron on 08 Oct 2007 at 2:40 pm #
Now, Patroon. Be nice to AmericanIcon. He’s a little light-headed out of his Necon echo chamber.
John Savage on 08 Oct 2007 at 4:13 pm #
HarrisonBergeron, great post. I’d seen the Burkean Reflections site before as well, and wondered what was “Burkean” about it. I commend you for sticking up for the real spirit of Burke against neocon impostors.
It’s fashionable these days to reduce Burke’s thought to “gradualism”, as David Brooks also tried to do in last Friday’s article that’s been widely discussed on the blogs. But if we forget the deeper messages of Burke, then conservatism just turns into a gradualist liberalism.
Elizabeth Wright on 08 Oct 2007 at 4:49 pm #
“I don’t want to be associated with reactionary (ugly racial-throwbacks, really) on race relations.”
========================
The decades may pass, but nothing changes. No matter which issues one might think are critical for exploration, all subjects can be brought back to moralizing over race.
If the moralizers are Jews, they feel like aliens of a sort in need of protection, so they will forever be defensive about race and ethnicity. The everlasting paranoia. If they’re gentiles, they have usually been co-opted by or compromised with other races, and so they too put up the protective shield.
To these people, there is no cause of any worth that is more important than “exposing” the immoral racism behind the ideology and activities of those who oppose their politics. Notice how they can complain about the “antiwar left,” yet they’re right on track with the left in the multicultural sphere. Which, of course, proves that these people are nothing but Zionist fanatics, whose only beef is with those who will not kiss up to their little toad of a Motherland. Right and Left is of no concern to these Chosen Ones. They only pretend to care about such politics.
If they can just keep the “racist” label attached to their ani-Zionist opponents, then they can keep such people defanged and powerless. And it’s working. They might be a little miffed over Walt-Mearsheimer’s successful little battles, and the punches that people like Finkelstein has managed to get in, but the Zionist knows that, in the end, he will, as ever, win the war. The idiotic gentile will see to that.
HarrisonBergeron on 08 Oct 2007 at 5:26 pm #
Savage,
I cruised your nicely done website and was delighted to stumble upon this entry:
http://bravenewworldwatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-thoughts-on-burkeanism.html
Obviously, you know what you’re talking about. As you say, Burke did NOT advocate a slower rate of revolution. Rather, he emphasized cultural continuity, even in the process of change. Management guru Margaret Wheatley, in her discussions on naturally emerging order, says that it is a profound sense of identity that gives any organization meaning and a sense of direction. It changes in order to preserve itself.
This article summarizes her views on cultural continuity and change:
http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/unplannedorganization.html
This is a good modern introduction to Burkean (paleoconservative) thought.
HarrisonBergeron on 08 Oct 2007 at 5:37 pm #
Elizabeth,
Used to be, patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. Now, it’s tolerance. You’re right — the accusation of “racism” is a hammer used to kill discussion. Those who have appointed themselves to be the great and the good imagine only they are qualified to determine who may and may not contribute to the public dialogue. The politically correct bullies, from the SPLC to the state-worshiping splinter of the blogosphere, brand heretics as dangerous and treasonous.
They do so because that’s all they have. Repitition of slogans is supposed to supplant fact-based argument. Question their foregone conclusions, whether about the wisdom of the war, immigration, or whatever, and you’re a supporter of terrorism who wants to live in dhimmitude, and probably a racist to boot. What a racket.
Weaver on 08 Oct 2007 at 8:24 pm #
Americaneocon,
The war is unChristian, period.
The Southerners had slavery and the north had wage slaves. Neither system is wonderful, though wage slavery is probably more profitable and requires less paid per worker.
As the neocons ship American jobs overseas, import foreign workers, and devalue the dollar, they’re trying to obliterate the middle class and return to wage slavery.
HarrisonBergeron on 08 Oct 2007 at 8:53 pm #
Weaver,
Couldn’t agree more.
Are you familiar with “Time on the Cross” by Fogel and Engerman? It’s a statistical study of the economics of the lowest rungs of the ladder in the Old North and the Old South. It argues that the sweatshop laborer had a lower standard of living. Here’s a review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DC113CF936A35752C1A96F948260
Sadly, you’re right about what the Neocons are plotting for America’s middle class. It’s happening right before our eyes, and no one in the existing power structure is stepping forward to stop it. If we’re going to have a champion, we’re going to have to produce one ourselves.
BTW, don’t hold your breath waiting for AmericanIcon to respond. He avoids fair fights. Notice that he accuses anyone who beats him in debate of ad hominem attacks, but he’s the one who resorts to such, including unfounded charges of that ol’ leftie favorite, racism. It’s creepy the way he accuses this site of deleting his comments, which we’ve never done, while he’s the one who hits the “DELETE” button when he can’t think of any other response.
See http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/10/ive-moved.html
Sad.
Gabby Hayes on 08 Oct 2007 at 8:58 pm #
Mr. Bergeron,
I reviewed the old “Burkean Reflections” and your post on it, and it looks to me like you outed a Neocon in denial. Well done.
Weaver on 09 Oct 2007 at 1:26 am #
I’m unfamiliar with “Time on the Cross”, but I’ve heard some of the arguments. I’ll try to obtain a copy.
Yes, and it’s more pleasant to continue life as is without stepping up to do one’s duty. Modern life is all about hiding from reality.
Myself, I’m working to become more efficient; I waste a lot of time when not at work. Though, I’m no champion.
Americaneocon,
some posts are caught in our filter, which is filled with spam. If you like to include links, write long posts, or are just unlucky some will get caught and, we don’t retrieve all, some will be lost. But none would have been deleted.
Americaneocon on 09 Oct 2007 at 2:57 am #
Mike Tuggle: You’re a hypocrite, since you’re one of the biggest name-callers around. More on that in a second.
Now, as I’ve said before, I don’t have the time nor inclination to educate you on the issues. Besides, you’ve avoided my substantive points from day one, shortly after I saw Stogie whup you repeatedly on his blog.
The truth is you’ve been obssessed with my blog after I too gave you a good whuppin’. You paleos think you own Burke? I’m sure he’d be revolted to see how you distort his theories to support your version of ideological isolation, anti-globlalization, anti-government – damn, anti-everything near ’bouts!
You’ve got nothing on me, never have and never will. You have no clue as to why I changed blogs other than the points I raised on the initial post. Unlike others who’ve mentioned the apparent racial reaction associated with your own rapscallion’s Burkeanism, I know of where I speak. So, that dismissal’s not going to work.
Thus, the race issue is by no means a way to stifle debate. You yourself have said you were reactionary, which of course for Southerners would be a move back to an antibellum pattern of racial hierarchy. When I talk about race I’m not talking immigration (you never questioned my immigration posts, just the war), I’m talking the problem of the American black.
You love the paradigm quote, I see. Theories do adapt and change. But as you obviously have no formal training (I recall you just never could get the hang of “representativeness.”), you can’t fathom how original ideas adapt. Neoconservatives have a lot in common with Burkeans on social issues, but that doesn’t please you so you focus on the Trotsky angle. It’s intellectually bankrupt:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/3236
As for deleting comments, I tolerated your abuse long enough. You referred to me as “the devil” and neocons as evil. I gave you fair – that’s right, fair – warning to keep it clean, and I rebutted you point by point. But you never had anything of substance (ad hominems fill your repertoir). You just keep coming back to “there were no WMD.” You’re a neocon, blah, blah! That’s all you got? That’s weak, and you’re lost…
I’ll proudly use the online name of “Americaneocon,” which reflects my blog project. It’s all up front with me. You’re obviously upset about it, being so quick at denunciations. Burkean? Americaneocon? It doesn’t matter – it’s all threatening to you.
Unlike you, I have nothing to hide ideologically. You represent American-bashing pseudo-intellectualism, and that’s just a description of your persuasions.
I could think of some real names if I wanted, so avoid the “namecaller” rebuttal. It won’t work with me. Harrison Bergeron? Now that’s silly! A quick Google search finds this:
“Harrison Bergeron, the protagonist of the story, has exceptional intelligence, height, strength and beauty, and as a result he has to bear enormous handicaps.”
You flatter yourself, Tuggle. Now, I’m done with you and your paleos. Sheesh. Go back to your corn crib, man, you’re bothering me!
http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/poverty-of-paleoconservatism.html
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2007/05/wrestling-with-pig.html
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2007/05/league-of-south.html
Bede on 09 Oct 2007 at 10:36 am #
Professor Claes G. Ryn has made the point that the reason that Strauss hates Burke, and for that matter most neocons hate Burke, is because of Burke’s fascination with “the ancestral.”
It is all fair and good for neocons to have blood and soil patriotism in Israel, but if we Western Christians want the same, it is denied. We get left-wing propositionalism. This is the “double standard” of neocons (of which Professor Paul Gottfried has written).
HarrisonBergeron on 09 Oct 2007 at 2:00 pm #
Bede,
Yeah, talk about hypocrisy! Krauthammer once defended Israel’s right to defend the one nation with a Jewish culture. And that’s fine — as long as you acknowledge the right of other cultures to establish and defend their own territories. You’ve also reminded me of an entry from some obscure Neocon blog I once stumbled upon:
“Maybe it was just our early training, or maybe it was world politics, but sometime after September 11, my wife and I realized what was missing in our lives: Action. We were feeling a disconnect between the lives we were living and the ideals we espoused, and we didn’t like it. So call us crazy idealogical Zionists; I won’t deny it. But Jewish nationalism is a fact.
All of that is why I’m here, because all of that is Zionism. I’ve never wondered if I did the right thing, in bringing my family here, because I know that there’s no better place to be than home.”
But when Southerners want the same thing — in our case, to preserve our way of life in lands we’ve held 400 years — why, that’s racism.
HarrisonBergeron on 09 Oct 2007 at 4:02 pm #
Douglas,
Welcome back. Looks like you haven’t changed a bit since you’ve outed yourself from the Neocon closet.
You still resort to chest-thumping as a substitute for argumentation. You can claim as much as you want that your blog entries have reduced your critics to quivering jelly, but, Doug, the record is still there for all to see, and it just doesn’t match your claims. I invite all interested parties to look at the exchanges he linked to (keeping in mind that Douglas has nuked most of my responses) and decide for yourself. Here’s a link that summarizes my response to him:
http://leagueofthesouth.net/rebellion/index.php/site/comments/the_wrath_of_the_neo_cons/
When you — and especially poor Stogie — can’t think of a response, you just dismiss your opponent’s facts and analysis as “leftist.” You would not last a single round in formal debate, my friend. I remember how you responded to Claes Ryn’s detailed analysis of Neocon ideology by dismissing the professor as a “know-nothing.” And that was it — Irving Kristol’s membership in the Fourth International, his open advocacy of Trotskyism, his adaptation of Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” into the core of Neconservatism — all somehow irrelevant and unworthy of your consideration.
Wow.
That’s just a shade better than poor Stogie’s use of language that would embarrass a gangbanger as a substitute for debate — which you apparently approve of, since you claim he whupped me with his command of four-letter words.
Below is a link to a handy summary of what Neconservatism really is. It’s an ideology that promotes the destruction of all historical culture, which is the exact opposite of conservatism, rather than its latest form. The eradication of tradition is what Neocons mean by “creative destruction,” which our Douglas now openly embraces. This explains why Neocons backed citizenship for the 20+ million illegal alien invaders who’re colonizing our country:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_04_11/article2.html
And it would appear that Douglas supported the Bush/Kennedy plan to legalize the aliens:
http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/07/fear-and-rhetoric-killed-immigration.html
You claim that “Neoconservatives have a lot in common with Burkeans on social issues…” Right. The two have as much in common as a burglar has in common with his victim, since Neocons have stolen the language of conservatism to disguise their universalist agenda.
You charge that I’m “American-bashing” because of my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Was Burke guilty of “Britain-bashing” for his opposition to his government’s war against the American secessionists?
As to my alleged “hypocrisy” and being “obsessed” with your blog, I find that more than a little amusing, since you assert your right to insert your comments on antiwar blogs:
http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/2007/07/to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach.html
The condescending tone you use in your comments are a sign of inflated ego, not learning:
“Oh, poor Libby. That’s a dodge if ever there was one. I think you’ve met your match, and now it’s hands up in frustration and impotence. It’s not paragraph breaks that are hindering you (provided below to facilitate comprehension), but the inability to make a countervailing argument. I’ve responded to your points, and corrected you where necessary, but you’re drawing up blank!
Do brush up on your basic political philosophy. I’ve noted the errors or your argument regarding Bush’s Machiavellian moment. You take a put-off-ish stance because, absent the intellectual firepower, your points carry little persuasive reach.”
Now if I’d posted something that snarky on your blog, you’d have thrown another e-tantrum.
And I’d like an explanation of something you wrote in the intro to your new pro-war, Neocon site:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/welcome-to-american-power.html
“… when I started blogging I had just finished teaching a new course, Introduction to Political Theory. More so than other political philosophies covered in the class, I was drawn to Burkean thought for its emphasis on custom and tradition.”
So, an Associate Professor of Political Science only learned about Burke after he taught a course in Introduction to Political Theory? Did you teach the class on Introduction to Political Theory, or take it?
You’re right about one thing — your new pseudonym is perfect for your pseudothought.
And finally — you wrote:
“Now, I’m done with you and your paleos. Sheesh. Go back to your corn crib, man, you’re bothering me!”
Um, Doug? You came to our site and posted — twice now.
Gonesh on 09 Oct 2007 at 9:57 pm #
Mr. Bergeron,
Whoa. I think the Neocon convoy just took a direct hit.
Weaver on 11 Oct 2007 at 12:52 pm #
What Americaneocon knows is that attitude is everything among the neocon conned. If he pretends to have ‘won’ the debate, his fellow conned Americans will allow themselves to believe that he really did ‘win’ without much further thought. Such is the mind of the fanatic.
Weaver on 11 Oct 2007 at 12:57 pm #
Paleos are very much pro-family, pro-life, pro-community, pro-rootedness, pro-subsidiarity, pro-tradition, pro-order, etc. From that comes anti-big government, anti-big business (from some of us), anti-war, anti-chaos, etc.
Anyway, most debating is a waste of time. When the neocon voodoo wears off, you’ll know where to find sanity (at CHT!)
HarrisonBergeron on 11 Oct 2007 at 1:52 pm #
Weaver,
Quite true. It is voodoo. The Neocons spin their abstractions and surround them with authority to make them appear more real than they are. To them, it’s all a matter of “will,” a term they invoke frequently.
Sticky note to all Neocons and Neocon wannabes: “will†is just Nietzschean claptrap for “purpose,†which Nietzshe recognized as a social strength, but appropriated and corrupted into his silly superman mythology as a mystical term for the drive to re-make the world to suit the “superman.†The Neocons, like Nietzshe, are scarecrows instead of real men, and fancy themselves as an elite destined to lead the unwashed by any means necessary, including lies, for their own good. (And haven’t they done a fine job so far?)
Purpose, on the other hand, is a feature of healthy societies rooted and unified by a shared history, faith, and culture. Artificial political entities bound together by nothing more than ideology cannot sustain themselves for long when effort and sacrifice are required.
As exhibit “A†I give you The Great Patriotic War to save Russia, which was the appeal the Soviet government had to use to rally its people against the Germans in World War II. They did not fight for communism. A more modern example is today’s USA, a multicult empire overextending itself in the Muddled East. It cannot convince its people to support a war with minimum casualties and almost no immediate financial burdens (though the next generation will have a shock when it gets its parent’s credit card bill from Japan and China). I call this exhibit “W.â€