A ConservativeTimes.org Symposium on the Paleo Vote

We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.

Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.

In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red

Alan Cornett 

As most traditionalists readily acknowledge, neither major nominee offers us much hope. We need a return to Constitutional integrity, fiscal restraint, vigorous federalism and a non-interventionist foreign policy, a return not offered by our two major parties.

Thus I understand fully why a conservative might refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. His dedication to even what commonly passes for conservatism is dodgy at best. A Romney administration will be an ongoing frustration. No one need have any illusions about that.

But the active dangers of Barack Obama are vast and varied: Obamacare, kill lists, drone strikes, etc. However, the tipping point is this administration’s corrosive assault on religious liberty. That convinces me to mark my ballot for Mitt Romney. I believe Romney to be seriously religious. His religion might not be mine, but he would not pursue the active restrictions and edicts Obama embraces. There is also the chance that Romney’s nominees to the Supreme Court would keep an overturn of Roe v. Wade in play. And if there is an answer to the current presidential cult of personality Mitt Romney is it.

In past presidential elections I have frequently voted third party. In fact, I have only once voted for a presidential winner. My vote for Mitt Romney is not enthusiastic, but rather strategic and defensive. I hope to promote protection for religious liberty and the life of the unborn.

If our nation is to be saved, it will spring from religious revival and cultural renewal, not the Oval Office.

Alan Cornett is an evangelist in Athens, Alabama, and is a former assistant to Russell Kirk. You can follow him on Twitter (@alancornett), and he blogs (not about politics) at pinstripepulpit.com.

Bill Greene

Even at this late date, I am one of those strange “undecided” voters. I still haven’t made up my mind for whom I’ll be voting for President. However, I have made up my mind on who I’m not voting for: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Despite all of the outrageous rhetoric from supporters of both candidates, there’s simply not a dime’s worth of difference between them on almost every major issue that this country is facing — they are both big-government statists who ultimately believe that their form of government intervention is better than the other guy’s form of government intervention. Neither will truly cut spending. Neither will stop getting us involved in useless and unconstitutional wars overseas. Neither will put a halt to the ongoing onslaught against our personal rights to life, liberty and property. And neither will deal with the actual source of nearly every fiscal and monetary problem this country faces: the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. So, I can’t vote for either one of them, unless I’m willing to give up every political conviction I hold dear.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a Constitutional conservative Republican, and I always vote according to those principles, so it’s a lock that I won’t be voting for Obama. But that’s also why I can’t vote for Romney: he’s not a conservative, he does not believe in strictly adhering to the Constitution, and when you examine the policies he’s advocated, I’m not even sure he’s actually a Republican. He’s the ideal flip-flopping “RINO”, and the only excuse I hear nowadays from those who are voting for him is, “Well, he’s better than Obama, and we have to save America.” Well, no he isn’t, and electing him won’t save our country. In fact, if he wins, he could be worse – for America (because he won’t actually change any of Obama’s major policies), for the economy (because he will actually embolden and empower the banking cartel), and for the Republican Party (because when the everything inevitably gets even worse, the average voter will blame Romney and the Republicans, because “after all they’re in charge”). Which means, in four years, we’ll get another Obama (or worse).
So, while I don’t officially speak for any organization I’m affiliated with, I’m personally down to two choices for President, and it won’t be “the lesser of two evils” between the two major-party Tweedle-dees and Tweedle-dums: my picks are between Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) or Virgil Goode (Constitution Party). I’m not super-gung-ho on either of them; Goode sounds a little too focused on Immigration and Islam to me, and Johnson is a little too liberal on social issues for my taste. But in my State, my vote for either one still counts (Johnson is on the ballot, and Goode qualified as an official write-in candidate), so by Tuesday, I’ll be casting my ballot for one of them. And yes, I’ve had friends on the right tell me, “A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Obama!” But I’ve also had friends on the left say, “A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Romney!” Both statements are equally dumb, and equally wrong; a vote for the person you vote for is a vote for the person you vote for, PERIOD. And as President John Quincy Adams once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
Dr. William “Bill” Greene is the President, RightMarch.com and the State Co-Coordinator of Georgia for Ron Paul.
Bret McAtee
Remember, remember, the 6th of November
Our quadrennial seasonal rot
I know of no reason why political treason
Should ever be forgot
Joseph Sobran once said, “I don’t have a dog in this fight. My dog died a long time ago.” So it is with election 2012, for when it comes to the major Demopublican and Republicrat parties I have no dog in the fight. The whole political paradigm of “Left vs. Right” comes to us from the French Revolution and just as both “Left and Right” then was a division of Jacobins all, so today our Left (Obama) vs. Right (Romney) finds us having to choose between one Jacobin or another of varying degrees. So, voting for the Major parties for an informed person is not an option since such a choice really amounts to having to vote for the “left side of the left” or having to vote for “the right side of the left.” I choose neither.
Because I believe that diffuse, limited, and decentralized Government is a biblical norm I will be voting for the Constitutional party candidate, Virgil Goode. The Statism of the major parties is not an option and neither is any candidate that represents movement Libertarianism. The problem of the political “One and the Many” is not solved by voting for any Candidate or party that would give us the “One” to the neglect of the “Many” (Movement Libertarianism), or the “Many” to the neglect of the “One” (Statism). I still believe in the Biblical norm, whether one calls that Subsidiarity or Sphere Sovereignty, and as such I will vote for a Party that still has a memory of such Biblical norms in their platform.
Rev. Bret L. McAtee – Worldview gadfly at Ironink.org
Chuck Hicks
I voted for Ron Paul in the 2012 North Carolina primary on May 8, knowing it would be the last presidential ballot I would cast for at least four years.

In 2004 my wife and I acquiesced to the “lesser of two evils” premise and voted for George W. Bush. A little over a year after that election we discovered Rep. Paul, Austrian economics (which greatly aided me professionally in interpreting the real estate bubble), and the distinction between traditional conservatism and sundry mutations. We came to deeply regret our support for Bush and vowed never to repeat that kind of mistake.

I have taken a beating from single-issue Republican friends who reduce this election to the pro-life concern. While we fervently believe in the sanctity of life and seek to live out that paradigm at home and church, we have no confidence in the Republican candidate or the party itself. Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on this issue several times over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Republican majorities in Congress during the ‘90s and early 2000′s failed to bring forth legislation to restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over abortion “rights” and return the matter to the states.

The president’s primary constitutional duties pertain to foreign policy. Given that Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with neoconservative advisors, and listening to his campaign rhetoric (especially his speech at VMI), we can only conclude that he is, at the very least, willing to continue commitments to aggressive overseas interventionism.

On the economic front, Romney has no commitment to sound money, nor does he criticize central bank policies. Perversely, there is a possibility that either candidate, if elected, could benefit from a mild economic upswing stemming from Fed money-pumping. But this, too, like all credit-induced cycles, would correct at some point.

That President Obama is not an option for us is an understatement. But we are continually disappointed by a GOP that professes unencumbered market process and limited government with its lips but denies these points in practice. And neither does it offer a viable alternative to the sitting president. But Ron Paul’s impact will be long felt, and several of his young congressional protégés offer hope that a governmental philosophy of ordered liberty, constitutionalism and limits will live to fight another day.

Chuck Hicks is a real estate appraiser, consultant and teacher in North Carolina. A student of economics for over 30 years, he is a born again proponent of the Austrian school. He sometimes comments at CHT.

Jerry Salyer

Decision 2012: Rootin’ For Putin

Every single time the US chattering class gets sanctimonious toward Russia, I find myself sympathizing overwhelmingly with the Russians.   This says less about any naive delusions of mine regarding Russia’s leadership than it does about my loathing and contempt for so-called “American values”:  The radical Democratic wing of liberalism takes the breaking up of my people’s religious tradition and historical memory as an end unto itself, while the Republican wing of liberalism sees in such “creative-destruction” a necessary means of promoting finance capitalism.  For someone who wants an actual home for himself and his family there’s no meaningful choice whatsoever to be found in the American system.

Of course I’m not claiming Russia’s rulers actually do their duty, much less that they do it well; I am saying that however unscrupulous, Machiavellian, and power-hungry they may be, they are at least vaguely aware of what their duty is:  To preserve the nation.  This stands in stark contrast to Western rulers, who feel it their duty to destroy their respective nations so as to make way for a Brave New World.

In other words, Vladimir Putin is not really detested among our elite for his sins but for his redeeming qualities.  As we live in an age of liberal hegemony, Putin is hated for not being yet another groveling overseas yes-man for the Beltway establishment; as we live in an age of absurd militant tolerance, Putin is hated for not renouncing the very notion of a particular Russian identity; as we live in an age of Alan Alda, Ashton Kucher, and the metrosexual android from Star Trek:  The Next Generation, Putin is hated for appearing somewhat like a man.

That last is worth emphasizing:  The New York Times can’t stand Putin not because he’s a corrupt man, but because he’s a corrupt man.

As for his KGB ties, the outrage is hardly due to the KGB’s role in promoting godless Marxist revolution.   The real offense is that the KGB played a role in Russian nationalism — one of the few sane features of the Soviet mind and empire.

Yes, please do color me un-American, for actually, no, I don’t lie awake at night lamenting the shortage of gay pride parades in Moscow.  Nor do I lose much sleep fretting that, in the event “we” fail to take a strong stand, feminist punk bands throughout the world might lose their Soros-given right to bust into churches and shriek sacrilegious obscenities at the altar.  Nor do I patriotically yearn to see Pushkin and the balalaika finally and irrevocably supplanted by Coca-Cola and Lady Gaga.

With the Cold War over it is now the United States which aggressively pushes a warped and satanic ideology throughout the world, while Russia — whatever her flaws — now stands in the way.  If I had Vladimir Putin on one hand and anybody acceptable to the posthumanist American political class on the other, that decision would be as easy as choosing between Don Corleone versus the invaders from H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds.  Though neither Obama nor Romney could be described by any serious, honest person as possessing a vast intellect, the rhetoric of each is cool and unsympathetic, and ultimately alien.

Jerry Salyer writes for Front Porch Republic.

Kevin Thompson

This was the most difficult election choice I have made since I began voting.  I can honestly say I was not sure which way I was going to go until I was actually in the booth.  I had narrowed it down to two candidates:  Mitt Romney and Virgil Goode.

My conscience will not allow me to cast my vote for the President.  His extreme stance on abortion is something I must oppose with every fiber of my being.  His redistributionist economic philosophy is nothing I could ever support.

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is a candidate who intrigues me.   I had the privilege of chatting with him in person once and I used to be a regularly invited guest on his blogger conference calls.  By far, Governor Johnson has the best resume of all the other third party candidates.  He is bright, bold and charismatic.  He is a great communicator well capable of explaining a message of fiscal sanity.  However, I was greatly disappointed when he switched his position on gay marriage.  When I asked him about it (while he was still the GOP) he assured me that while he supported marriage equality personally, he believed this was best handled on the state level.  Once he began his bid for the Libertarian Party nomination he suddenly thought this was a national issue.  I also cannot agree with his pro-choice views either.

As for the rest of the third party candidates, only Tom Hoefling of America’s Party stands out as someone I could vote for.  However, I can’t take Tom as too serious of a candidate as he has little chance to even make a decent third party showing.

So that leaves two campaigns – Romney/Ryan and Goode/Clymer.  This was tough.  As I already stated, I didn’t make up my mind till I actually made into the booth.  I decided to go with Romney/Ryan.  Let me explain…

I like Virgil Goode.  I had the honor of meeting him last week when he took time out his busy schedule (the day of the Free and Equal debate) to speak to my students.  He was engaging and stuck around to answer every question the students had, even when short on time.  He was a gentleman and made his case very well.  I love his consistent 100% pro-life record.  He has been a champion of conservatism.  However, I do not share his views on immigration.  The idea of a moratorium on green cards goes way too far in my opinion.  I also had to take into consideration the fact that ultimately Congressman Goode will be unlikely to even capture 1% of the vote.  He wasn’t even on the ballot in my state (Illinois).

As for Governor Romney, I don’t like the man.  In fact, I don’t even trust the man.  I lived in Massachusetts while he served as Governor.  I was not impressed then.  I remember his repeated assertions that he was indeed pro-choice.  I remember his statement about being more pro-homosexual than Ted Kennedy.  I remember his failure to stand against an activist court as he ordered those under him to begin implementing gay marriage.  Flip flop after flip flop enshrines him in my mind as a political opportunist.  So, why in the world would I cast my vote for this man?  I didn’t.  I voted for Paul Ryan.

I’m going to admit it, I love Paul Ryan.  I’ve had the privilege of meeting him many times.  I’ve had the chance to speak with him and question him on several different occasions.  I am highly impressed with this young man.  First of all, he is 100% pro-life – no exceptions.  My liberal, feminist friends exploded on Facebook once his selection was announced.  That alone might have won my vote!  Fiscally, Congressman Ryan is the best qualified to bring us back from jumping into economic abyss and destruction.  No, his budget does not balance for several years in the future – but it is a start.  His roadmap has been called draconian and heartless even by moderates.  I believe it’s the best option we have at the moment that has even a chance of getting passed.

I would love to correct everything wrong with Washington all at once.  I love Governor Johnson’s plan to balance to budget tomorrow, but it’s not going to happen.  What took years to get off track will not be completely fixed in one election.  I no longer buy into the idea that it’s all or nothing.  This approach has not brought the all it has promised and has only left with a bunch of nothing.

Am I voting for the lesser of two evils?  No.  I am voting for the lesser of five evils.  There is no perfect candidate.  Each candidate is a sinner before God and imperfect before men.  I understand the argument that the GOP is not Constitutional enough and is at best leading us to the same fate/destination as the Democrats are trying to lead us, but just a bit slower. I voted for Mitt Romney in order to at very least give our country a little more time before get there.  Maybe in that time we will come to our senses as a nation and begin to seriously consider returning back to a purely Constitutional platform.  We’re not there yet, we need more time.  As for the life issue, I voted for the candidate who can do more for the unborn than the others can.  Voting for the candidate who has at least a shot of saving some babies is better than voting for the candidate who has no chance of saving all babies.  I would hate to think there will be some children murdered in the womb because I voted for the guy who couldn’t get anything done.

I voted my conscience.  I voted for Romney/Ryan.  I urge you to vote for which ever candidate your conscience allows you to vote for, even if that differs from my candidate.

Kevin Thompson teaches Bible and Civics at a Christian School in Beloit, WI and also is the host of the KevCast podcast (www.blogtalkradio.com/kevcast).  He blogs at www.kevinjthompson.info.

Kirt Higdon
I cast a write-in vote for Ron Paul as a farewell salute to a retiring Congressman who has fought the good fight.  Between Romney and Obama I can’t figure out which is the lesser evil but both are evil enough to be completely disqualified for me.  Romney will win Texas by a huge margin in any event.  Gary Johnson is on the Texas ballot but disqualified for me by his stand on abortion and qualified support for wars.  I would consider him a lesser evil, but I don’t vote that way.  Virgil Goode (not on the ballot) is also too pro-war for my taste and I mistrust his 3rd party opportunism as I mistrusted Barr’s four years ago.  For the record, I cast a write-in vote for Chuck Baldwin in ’08 and did not vote at all in ’04 and ’00.
Kirt Higdon is a regular commenter at CHT.
Matthew Heimbach
My plans to vote in the upcoming election on November 6th are different than those of most Americans. While tens of millions of my countrymen pull levers and press buttons for Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney I will be one of a growing number of Americans who refuse to play the “lesser of two evils” game every four years. In modern day America neither of the two major political parties represents Constitutional values or the best interests of myself or my people.Both parties embrace continued third world immigration which will soon reduce whites in America to a minority in the very land our ancestors fought and died to give us.
Both parties violate Biblical principles on a regular basis and use Christians as tools to gain power and then refuse to support our beliefs. While Democrats openly support homosexual marriage, the murder of the unborn, and support secularization it is the Republicans I find to be more insidious. Within the Republican Party you have a group that pays lip service to supporting traditional marriage, stopping abortion, and standing up for Western values never seem to attempt to fight for them. Under part of the Presidency of George W Bush the Republicans had the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and both chambers of Congress. If they truly wanted to stand up for the platform they said they believed in then that was the time. All we ever got was broken promises.
True conservatives and members of the Right-Wing are marginalized by the Republicans where even if we gain election success there is a quick rule change after the fact to diminish any of our gains. Democrats on the other hand use the dreaded buzz words of racist/homophobic/bigot and a whole host of other names to keep out patriotic white Americans disenfranchised and in a perpetual cycle of white guilt and apologizing.
Both parties support the Federal Reserve which has plundered and raped the wealth and prosperity of America for nearly one hundred years. Both parties support the occupation of over one hundred nations world wide in the name of national security, because we all know that the Germans or the English are still threats to America. Both parties support crony capitalism where our jobs get sent overseas, the rich get richer, and the working man gets poorer every single day. To achieve these goals the Republicans use the smokescreen of “freedom” and “liberty” and the Democrats use buzz words like “equality” to peddle the same lies to two different groups of people. Long ago the Republic died and there is no reclaiming it. Neither of these two parties have any real difference, no more than two cars of the same model are different if they have different paint colors.
This is why my fellow Americans I will be casting my vote for the candidate this year I believe would do the best job as President. I cannot stomach having to one day face my Creator and explain that I chose evil when a superior candidate was in the race. As the famous comedian George Carlin once said “If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.”
That is why I will be voting with my principles in this election and every subsequent election, my conscience cannot allow me to vote for evil any longer. Congressman and long time defender of our Constitution Dr. Ron Paul has my vote this November, not because a political party picked him but because he is the right man for the job. We should judge our candidates based on their merit, not the corporate interests who are bankrolling two nearly identical drones every four years. America you have a choice, and unfortunately come November 6th regardless of if a Democrat or Republican is elected there is one thing that is clear…. You made the wrong choice. -
Matthew Heimbach is the President of the Towson University White Student Union, a Tea Party Activist, and a member of the Right-Wing resistance.
Michael Cushman
From a traditionalist Southern point of view the choice in the US presidential vote couldn’t be worse unless perhaps Sherman and Lincoln were raised from the dead and we were asked to choose between them. Both Obama and Romney strongly support more Third World immigration, which is displacing Southerners in our own land. This is the issue that Southern nationalists tend to feel the strongest about – what people or culture wish to be replaced, after all? Both Romney and Obama support more military intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia, and disproportionately it will be Southerners who will be fighting and dying over there in wars that have nothing to do with defending their homes and families. I have to give Obama the edge on this issue because of the Neo-connish rhetoric used by Romney in the debates. Romney’s friednship with Israeli super-hawk Netanyahu is also troubling, as are his Neo-con advisors. Obama is certainly not good on foreign policy, but he’s not quite as bad as Romney would probably be. On domestic issues both candidates are awful, though here I would probably have to give a slight nod to Romney. He is no real believer in a free market; we would undoubtedly get a lot more crony capitalism under Romney. However, Romney does come from the business world, rather than academia like Obama, so his instincts are better, I believe.

There really is no way I could in good conscience vote for one of these two awful candidates. I have almost nothing in common with either of them. Their policies would be dreadful for people like me. Many people I know in Southern circles are not voting in this election; they feel they do not have a good choice. Even if we had a better choice, many have lost faith in the US political system. They saw how Justice John Roberts sold them out on Obamacare. They saw how Bush II sold them out on immigration. Some of them even remember the amnesty that Ronald Reagan, the supposed conservative champion, gave to two million illegals. They’ve known nothing but constant war, massive Third World immigration and continual growth of government their entire lives. Many people I know do not believe any of this is going to change not matter who is elected. Instead of getting incolved in US party politics they are focusing on their families and communities and strengthening alternative institutions which will support our values and speak for our people and culture.

Michael Cushman is the founder and editor of Southern Nationalist Network.

Michael Hill
As as Southern nationalist, I will not be voting in Tuesday’s national elections. Voting in an election amounts to giving one’s approval to the current system; in my opinion–and that of many other Southern nationalists–that system is corrupt beyond reform. I will not contribute to making this imperial regime appear legitimate. It is an old cliche’ that says “If you don’t vote, don’t complain.” I say the opposite: “If you vote, don’t complain.” By voting, you have given your stamp of approval, as it were, to the system. Therefore, when it inevitably continues in its ruinous ways, you have yourself to blame for participating in the charade.I willbe voting in my State (Alabama) and local (Lauderdale Co.) elections. This is where we should attempt to make a difference by recapturing our communities and then our separate State governments. If paleoconservatives really believe in local self government, States Rights, State Sovereigntyas well as the historic tools of nullification, interposition, and secession–then these levels of government will be the place they invest their time, energy, and treasure. After all, Washington, DC, is the problem. We shouldn’t be looking there for solutions.
Dr. Michael Hill is the President of The League of the South

Peter Gemma

Part of my therapy as a recovering Republican is to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, Virgil Goode. I have made a career out of working for conservative GOPers, but I realize that’s not enough. A few stalwarts in the House and Senate are terrific, but the Republican ship of state is adrift, and a few strong brave sailors can’t reverse its course.

A third party can put the pressure on the GOP establishment when it nominates some RINO or a “Conservative” who might be pro 2nd Amendment but clueless when it comes to allowing the Feds to use weaponry against its own citizens in the name of patriotism.
An effective political activist, however, can’t be an aginer. Joining the Constitution Party was a process, after being involved in the Libertarian Party (on staff with Bob Barr) then back into the GOP with Ron Paul’s campaign. The CP has a just enough libertarian flavoring for me, although Christian zealots are inhibiting the party’s development. Working with this relatively naïve, yet energetic and growing party allows for evolutionary change, unlike a training a big fat elephant. And what about Virgil Goode? He has some growing to do philosophically – he suffered from a weakness to vote for flag waving issues – but I have gotten to know him well enough to see he’s earnest and willing to change his mind, just like his adopted party. He has the right credentials to make the Constitution Party look professional – an important first step.
Peter Gemma is a FL-based freelance writer and political consultant.
Red Phillips
As anyone who reads this site often will know, I plan to cast a write-in vote for the Constitution Party candidate, Virgil Goode. As anyone who reads this site often will also know, I think Virgil Goode is a flawed CP candidate. (I think he is a flawed candidate, but my emphasis here is on the fact that I think he is flawed as or for a CP candidate. He does not represent the party ideally as its standard-bearer.) Goode has not embraced full-throated non-interventionism, but he is, I believe, moving in the right direction. He is also not really a Constitutionalist, if being a Constitutionalist means, as I believe it does, strictly embracing the concept of enumerate powers. He is, however, very solid on immigration and abortion. In fact, he has embraced a restrictionist position on immigration that very few other politicians are willing to. He has also been willing to strike a populist note on trade, term limits, money in politics, etc. that I think are important in their own right, and are also an important part of trying to form an alternative rightish coalition.
In voting for Goode I will be voting more for the Constitution Party as an idea, a conservative Constitutionalist party that is too the right of the GOP by degree and different in kind (more paleo), than I will for the actual candidate.

In my state of Georgia, Gary Johnson is on the ballot, and Goode is a certified write-in. Write-in votes in Georgia are not counted unless the candidate is a certified write-in candidate, so I see no point in casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul or whoever. My intent in voting for Goode is to repudiate the two party duopoly system and endorse the Constitution Party as an idea. It is not to endorse Goode in toto.

Red Phillips blogs at Conservative Heritage Times and is a regular columnist for EtherZone.

Richard Spencer

I won’t vote.  Indeed, I can’t think of any good reason for someone to drag their bones to a polling station and participate in the democratic process.
One major reason for this is that I oppose the democratic process in general. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a worse mechanism for decision-making than giving equal weight to the passing opinions of every featherless biped with a pulse, from the mentally retarded to the devotees of Jay-Z or Lady Gaga to Third World immigrants to that small fraction of the population actually worthy of being entrusted with the general welfare.
The politicians are themselves walking, talking arguments for the system’s destruction.  The personality type that flourishes in democracy—the narcissist sociopath—was once cast to the margins of society; for at least the past century, we have allowed these people to govern!
Perhaps most disturbing is the kind of rhetoric used by the political critters, rhetoric which seems to have genuine appeal to Americans.  On the one hand, the politician must bring everything down to the lowest possible level, so as to be understood by the types of men who receive most of their sustenance from Dunkin Donuts.  On the other hand, he must claim that America is the most awesome and important political entity ever—and that the American people (or whoever happens to reside in the U.S confines at the time) are uniformly wise, brave, selfless, and entrepreneurial.  It’s hard to imagine a more repulsive civic culture than dumbed-down delusional arrogance.  And I also suspect that politicians will be spouting off such stuff long after it’s clear to everyone with brains that the U.S.A. is barely distinguishable from a Banana Republic.
Representative democracy has always, anywhere and everywhere, been about population control, not self-governance. The American system has achieved population control through government-sponsored degeneration.
Of course, one could say that I’m simply being a Romantic reactionary, and that I should access voting in the terms of the real world, and not vis-a-vis some idealized one. But even if we accept America as it as, voting seems to me entirely useless.
Not much has actually changed since 2008: Obama has wound down some stupid wars, but then wound up some stupid new ones. Domestically, whereas the Tea Party likes to rant about “socialism,” Obama’s policies are truly mere variants on the kinds of things Republicans love and support.
From a Leninist, revolutionary perspective—”the worse, the better”—one could make equally valid arguments for each candidate.  Obama, as a mulatto, “looks like his policies”; that is, he gives White Americans a visual representation of their dispossession.  Romney, on the other hand, is more likely to join Israel in attacking Iran, thus launching another trillion-dollar war, one which might even result in a global conflict.  The governor is arguably better positioned to bring about the final collapse of the American empire and the global dollar system that underpins it.
But then, both Romney and Obama are “worse-is-better” in that they are but two aspects of the same system—which itself is destructive and self-destructive.
Instead of arm-chair speculation about which candidate is more likely to bring on a major crisis, we should begin finding solutions outside democracy and the two parties. The first step in this process is to actively disengage from this equally evil and stupid political system.
Richard Spencer is the former editor of TakiMag, the former editor of Alternative Right, and is currently the Executive Director of Washington Summit Publishers.
Robert Salyer
I tend to support Barrack Obama’s candidacy.  But I am somewhat ambivalent on the question and find it necessary to set forth some reasoning.  

Normatively-speaking, participation in any election, any group decision-making in fact, is an implicit endorsement of (or at least acquiescence to) the legitimacy of both the group involved, as well as the decision to be made.  I do not endorse the legitimacy of U.S. federal elections nor do I endorse this regime-system.  As such, one’s participation must be done with an eye toward something other than the “best choice.”  It would be participation with an eye toward effecting an end unrelated to the ends of the de facto group.  For instance, if I secretly entered Iran and voted in an election, I obviously would be doing so in order to affect the election’s outcome, with little regard to the best interests of Iran in se

I must face facts, right?  All of the parties in this election are regime parties.  That is, there is not only no significant difference between them practically; there is no difference at all between them in principle.  They are both parties of modern political liberalism, meaning that they ground political legitimacy exclusively in terms of the social contract, pluralism, democracy, etc….  Alasdair MacIntyre, philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame, has said that, “[c]ontemporary debates within modern political systems are almost exclusively between conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals. There is little place in such political systems for the criticism of the system itself, that is, for putting liberalism in question.”  My political opinion constitutes a critique and rejection of liberal republicanism, from 1776 onward.  Thus, there seems to be no true, good faith political position for me to hold here. 

If however one is a secessionist desiring one’s subgroup secede from the larger group, obviously hoping that conditions for the subgroup become as galling/bad as possible so as to facilitate development of the subgroup’s will to secede, is a reasonable attitude to hold.  A vote to save the de facto group would be counter-productive in fact. 

I am a Southern nationalist.  I wish for the liberal system to crash, and for significant, real change to occur.  Real dissent.  I am not resolved as to which candidate would push things more quickly in such a direction.  This, unfortunately, boils down further as to which of the two parties and their candidates represents the more offensive, and/or draconian choice, thereby spurring the hoped-for real regime change.  While Barrack might be the obvious choice, there is reason to believe that a Romney victory could prove more problematic in terms of real living conditions (e.g., the plutocratic option where I can’t afford my health care, and the schools are just mindless worker production factories corrupting my kids.), and certainly the more disappointing.  History teaches us that disappointed expectations cause more revolutions than mere squalor. 

There are those with whom I would find kinship and sympathy, who consider the situation under the American system very grave, even threatening, but would also consider my outright rejection, to be abhorrent and even a little crazy.  Yet, what is really perplexing is their critical attitude.  It represents a cognitive dissonance.  These people believe in the group, the system, and the associated modern American democracy, as core values; but then they paradoxically believe that voting any other way than they do is utterly condemnable.  Treasonous even.  How they are able to balance these two positions in their minds is a mystery. 

The following logic is undeniable:  If a member of a group believes the group’s leadership is fatally flawed, given the direction the leadership has taken the group, but other members of the group believe that the leadership would be fatally flawed going any other way; the group itself as such is the problem.  It isn’t really a polis, even if it is held together for the time being in some way.  In such a situation, there are only two possible long term resolutions:  Either there will be separation, or one side or the other will eradicate the other.  Barrack and Romney do not elect themselves.  Neither the government, nor any particular politician hates you.  Your neighbor hates you. 

Either they must go, or we must. 

I tend to think that Republican policies tend to erode community and tradition in the long run more than do Democratic ones.  The Democrats after all do recognize community (just not ours), the proper purpose of the economy, and their progressive projects tend to flop or backfire (unlike those of the Republicans).  Nonetheless, the Democrats do represent an overtly leftist revolutionary vanguard in their changes in law and academia.  Thus I tend to support them, as the best-positioned to strengthen the will of my people to opt away from the status quo, to opt away from the middle ground, and seek a separation.   

Robert Salyer is a lawyer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.


Voting for President is a fruitless endeavor. The obvious hurdle of getting on the ballot as a third party candidate is daunting. However, the true futility is that the office of the presidency itself has become an imperial dictatorship that is in total conflict with the purpose of a constitutional republic.

Any sane voter needs to demonstrate their distain with the fraud of the Democratic and Republican two party monopolies. With this in mind, casting a protest vote is the only option if a citizen wants to engage the electoral system.

The three candidates that deserve consideration are:




Running for president does not translate that all of the above will be on your state’s ballot.

In New York State, the election commission is an adjunct of the Democrats and Republicans. As long as the electoral system is controlled by this duality, the people will never have an effective chance to vote into office real Patriotic Americans.

Write in votes are routinely discarded in many districts. Therefore, if you want your vote counted, you will need to select from candidates who are on the official list.

BREAKING ALL THE RULES is a paleo-conservative advocate. BATR urges voters to review the issue positions of any candidate you regard qualified.

The one issue that will not be on the ballot is whether you give your consent to federal government authority. If that referendum were on the ballot, a NO vote would be the only choice.

SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES and a regular columnist at EtherZone.


Don’t vote, it’s for your children’s future.

It is a truism that most Americans including those on the conservative and, indeed, paleo-right do not understand American politics.

This is proven by the fact that they continue to vote.

Voting is not a political action.Voting is an affirmation of citizenship, for some. For others, a feelgood gesture engineered partially by the satellite media, but also by hordes of hacks who get paid to write about politics in hackneyed fashions of yesteryear.

Voting is not even a political gesture. The minds 90% of Americans are putty in the hands of the satellite media. It matters not how the remaining 10% may choose to vote.

Voting is a pathology. It allows the 10% minority to feel as though they had accomplished something, when all they have in fact done is aid in the continuance of their own demise.

What is to be done?

Even the most informed political junkie, on the Paleo-Alt-Right doesn’t understand the basic mechanics of the American political system. This assertion was proven by their dismal performances in the deliberative assemblies held in every state, earlier this year. Or perhaps those who did understand our political system simply decided to stay home, and not waste their precious time on an exercise in futility, but the point remains that most Americans, those on the Paleo-Alt-Right included, cannot function in a deliberative assembly, the most rudimentary form of any political organization in American politics.

The answer.

I recommend that instead of voting, readers should resolved to go through the archives of William Robert’s late-show, Become Vocal Local, and spend the next four years, gaining a basic understanding of American politics, law and sociality so that four, two, or even one year from now, they will have learned  enough to make intelligent political decisions for themselves. Only then, when we have put abstractions and illusions aside, and replaced them with concrete theory and action, can we advance to a successful future.

Rundown on the Parties.

Republicans-Romney may well be the next Reagan. Is the U.S. ready for the devestation another Reagan might cause?

Libertarians-A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Wayne Root is a vote for Ron Paul…is a pattern starting to develop here?

Constitution Party-The Constitution Party will never amount to anything, not because of its platform or what it stands for, but because the Constitution Party is run by old ladies of both sexes.

Democratic Party-Obama will be remembered as a fairly conservative president. He has governed as a moderate Republican. Don’t believe me? Wait until Mitt and Paul get married during their 2016 re-election campaign.


Savrola is a Missouri-based freelance writer and political consultant. He also has a day job. Several, in fact. He is a frequent commenter at CHT.

Sean Scallon

Our own Sean Scallon already contributed an entry to TAC. It can be seen here.


I’ll vote for Merlin Miller and Virginia Abernethy. Miller’s solutions are based on common sense, not bound by simple ideology. Ideology unfortunately sells a great deal better than does common sense.

The A3P answers Huntington’s question of America’s identity while acting for the whole, for all American citizens. The “pro-white” policies are merely an end to affirmative action and illegal immigration and a reduction in legal immigration.

If a voter is making a protest vote, he ought to make it count.

Weaver is a blogger at Conservative Heritage Times.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

30 thoughts on “A ConservativeTimes.org Symposium on the Paleo Vote

  1. Pingback: The American Conservative Symposium Round 2 | Conservative Heritage Times

  2. T. Chan

    Michael Cushman – “Instead of getting incolved in US party politics they are focusing on their families and communities and strengthening alternative institutions which will support our values and speak for our people and culture.”

    May God bless your endeavors.

  3. RedPhillips

    Mine is now up.

    I want to make a couple of things clear. I linked to Sean’s TAC contribution, but didn’t post it. No slight was intended by this. I just didn’t want to violate any copyright issues.

    Also, I had a good idea what I was going to write all along. I was careful not to turn my contribution into an argument against the other contributions. That is for the comment section or another post. I was planning to make the comment I did about writing-in Ron Paul all along. That was not a shot at those who did that.

  4. RedPhillips

    A couple of more notes:

    Some spacing issues are showing up when I enter new content. If you see spacing issues let me know, or if you have posting privileges here, feel free to fix them.

    Also, I’m paranoid that I am going to forget or miss someone. Let me know if I do.

  5. C Bowen (Hawthorne)


    Tactically speaking in the hypothetical, if there was chance that Johnson could, numerically, be the difference in a Romney loss in your state, or maybe just county, would you have an obligation by your moral logic to vote Johnson? (This includes broadcasting your position to friends, fellow travelers and family, and obviously, your wife votes the same as you…of course.)

    Perhaps I am missing something as I am closer to Rich Spencer’s position, but not as hipster–I bother to vote on local issues and make sure my neighbors see me there–but to the extent localism is important (as CHT and AmConMag suggest) one has to have a grasp of their county.

    Otherwise, it’s still just about ‘you.’ Whatever you do or don’t do in the booth is between you and God and reflects on the fate of your eternal soul–the French, for example, have included a None of the Above sort of vote in their elections which was used this past round. (American’s don’t want to count the “left blank” vote.)

    I did not get into this material in my …Destruction post, but in the interest of getting ahead of AmConMag, some insights into the local lay-out as instructing how to vote, and less of this posturing, is better, or at least, more authentic, reading.

    That said several really solid write ups here from some solid folks. SARTRE published something of mine a lifetime ago, and wasn’t sure if he was still going.

  6. Weaver

    I’ll vote for Merlin Miller and Virginia Abernethy. Miller’s solutions are based on common sense, not bound by simple ideology. Ideology unfortunately sells a great deal better than does common sense.

    The A3P answers Huntington’s question of America’s identity while acting for the whole, for all American citizens. The “pro-white” policies are merely an end to affirmative action and illegal immigration and a reduction in legal immigration.

    If making a protest vote, a voter ought to make it count.

    Russian News Interviews Merlin Miller.

  7. RedPhillips

    I’m sorry about the spacing issues. I’m trying to fix them. Spacing issues bring out the OCD in me. Every time I add a new entry, it messes up the spacing of the ones before.

  8. RedPhillips

    C Bowen,

    As I have often said, I concern myself with how my vote will be perceived by others. Not so much the one I announce, although that is important, but the one extra number that is added to the total of the candidate I vote for. That is what most people are going to see. Did Candidate X get 1 million votes or 1 million plus 1? That has something to do with me worrying about the purity of my intentions, but it is primarily about how others will perceive my vote.

    I will vote for the Republican in my House District even though he is an interventionist fool (ex-military), because I got gerrymandered into a majority minority District this last go round, so he has no shot at being elected. As far as I know there is not a write-in alternative so voting for the Republican is the only way I have of registering my dissent, and I don’t have to worry about him voting for some fool war because I know he isn’t going to win.

    I usually vote Libertarian in statewide elections because the Libertarians are ballot qualified for statewide elections in GA, and voting Libertarian is the only way I have of registering my dissent from the two-party duopoly. I do this even though the Libertarian may be (probably is) bad on social issues. I’m not one who says I can never vote for someone who is not pro-life. I don’t have to worry about him not being pro-life because I know he won’t win. I will never vote for someone who isn’t pro-life if I think he has a chance of winning. In voting Libertarian I am making a calculation that my message of repudiation of the two party system is louder than the message of possible support for moral libertinism.

    Does this make sense? Whatever you think of my logic, I don’t think I’m simply advocating some sort of puritanical voting. I advocating voting that always has an eye for how a vote will be perceived.

    To answer your question, if I knew my vote for Johnson would cost Romney the election, then no I would not vote for Johnson because I wouldn’t want my vote for a pro-choicer to cost a pro-lifer the election to a pro-choicer. If I knew my vote for Goode would cost him the election I would vote for Goode because there I would be voting for a pro-lifer against a pro-choicer, I just wouldn’t be voting for a winning pro-lifer.

    That said, I’m not sure what you are getting at.

  9. robert m. peters

    I shall vote against the evil of two lessers: Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, although greed suggests that I should vote for Romney since what little pension which I might get might just last under Romney until I die, assuming I reach the average familial age of my clan. Of course, it is safe voting against Romney in Louisiana since he will carry the state because the waning but still majority of European stock are scared to death of Obama. Although I do not share Dr. Ron Paul’s libertarian views, he was the last Jeffersonian who had a voice, ever so small as it was, on the national scene. If I could write him in, I would.

  10. JDP

    I’m OK with people thinking they can’t in good conscience vote for either candidate, even though it’s not a view I share. the fatalistic tones though, not so much. unless y’all get some perverse joy out of this “everything’s going to hell” attitude.

  11. c bowen


    Good post…I just think it’s better writing to explain the local politics in relation to the voting thing.

  12. Matt Weber

    For me, it was a toss-up between Goode or Romney. Goode would be the vote for principle. He’s obviously the most acceptable candidate in that area. Washington State is safe for Obama, so it doesn’t really matter who I vote for and I might as well vote on principle. However, a third-party vote isn’t much use unless it is going to affect the nearest major party in some way, and I don’t see 2012 as the year in which this will happen. 2004 or 2008 would have been better years for it, and I would have definitely voted third party then (I didn’t vote at all those years).

    Romney, on the other hand, brings little to the table other than a general sense of competence and maturity that Obama lacks. I don’t think president Romney will be any good on abortion or immigration, but then again Obama is so awful on issues like these that even the lackluster Romney is a vast improvement. Romney has a 50% chance of appointing a decent Supreme Court justice, whereas Obama has a flat 0% chance. Foreign policy is one area that Romney gives almost no hope other than the hope that he isn’t as stupid as he sounds.

    In the end, I decided that it wasn’t worth worrying too much about and voted Romney in a probably futile attempt to turn Washington a little more purple. Spiting some lefties is about the only enjoyment I’m going to get out of this, so I’m taking it.

  13. Bruce

    I would join Weaver in voting for Merlin Miller if he were on the ballot in my state.

    I have to vote against the Marxist African. The only way to vote against him is to vote for Romney.

  14. Chris Hewlett

    I voted for Romney three weeks ago. The battle must be waged against the foe directly in front of you – BO and his destructive liberal agenda. If Romney gets lucky and wins then we start attacking him. US interventionism around the globe I think is destined for reduction regardless because there is no increasing wealth in the country.

  15. Weaver


    Many things will have to be cut. :)

    I’m not sure I’ll be cheering victory amid an economic depression though.



  16. Weaver

    Ah, apparently I can’t vote for Miller either – in my state.

    President and Vice-president are unique. I suppose I’ll be voting Virgil Goode…

  17. roho

    Having no more respect for the United States election system than Professional Wrestling’s legitemacy, I will instead go fishing.

    I still have some control over fishing.

  18. Pingback: Withdrawl 2012 by RIchard Spencer at AltRight.com « For the Cognoscenti

  19. Pingback: A ConservativeTimes.org Symposium on the Paleo Vote | Counter-Revolutionary Traditionalism

  20. Pingback: Decision 2012: Rootin’ For ________ | Front Porch Republic

  21. RedPhillips

    Three new have been added – Jerry Salyer, Robert Salyer, and Savrola. Of course in doing so, it mucked up the spacing again.

  22. Timothy Yung

    I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I live in California and was planning to vote for Virgil Goode but due to legal issues he is not on the ballot. I would cast a write-in vote however I have reason to believe that write-ins get under-counted (that’s if any of our voters are accurately counted). I suspect that Chuck Baldwin (who I voted for in 2008) got 6,000 write-in votes instead of 3,000. There was confusion whether or not you had to write-in both Chuck Baldwin and Darrel Castle. Voting for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Jill Stein, and Rocky Anderson are all votes for unconstitutional federal government, increased social welfare system, and expansion of state intervention. Although Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson are better that the duopoly I can’t support an expansion of government. Although Gary Johnson is wrong on abortion, he supports the constitutional position that issues not stated within the Constitution belong to the states and the people. We need a shift to state and local government.

    Some people have stated that they will not vote because their vote will not count however this may not be true in local or state elections. My local Ron Paul meet-up has evolved into a Liberty Club with over 10 people running for local offices including city council, water board district, college district board, open space authority. We need to be active in our own communities.

    Lastly we must uplift the nation in prayer and commit to the spiritual battle rather than just focusing on the political one.

  23. Pingback: theCL Report: Vote or Die

  24. Pingback: The Obama Economy Isn’t a Good Enough Reason to Vote for Romney | The American Conservative

  25. Pingback: Net-forage 11.7.12 « neoprimitive

  26. Pingback: A ConservativeTimes.org Symposium on the Paleo Vote « Depravity

  27. Pingback: dealdash

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>