February
16th 2013
Posted under Paleoconservatism & Political Philosophy
Scott McConnell has a post up at TAC acknowledging Lawrence Auster’s health issues. He also discusses Austerism. His take on Auster is surprisingly similar to mine. I’m surprised that McConnell is that familiar with Auster, but Auster’s frequent criticism of TAC probably accounts for his familiarity.
JDP on 16 Feb 2013 at 7:37 am #
long live the Confederacy, eh Red
Weaver on 16 Feb 2013 at 7:59 pm #
JDP, do you have time to make a coherent defence of Lincoln? What approach would you have this site take if Lincoln or FDR are the authorities used against us if we don’t attack them?
The Constitution today is still not interpreted with original intent. That is outrageous.
Do you have any coherent thoughts, or do you just emotionally not like the Confederacy?
Weaver on 16 Feb 2013 at 8:02 pm #
Back in school, I used to beat up my econ professors on free trade. And I won several arguments in the few political science classes I took.
I personally was above most of my econ/poli sci professors, and they were alleged experts. I don’t really care what the official or popular position is on an issue. That said, I did respect and listen to the harder science teachers.
I don’t think I’m an amazing person, but I have enough confidence to stand on my own reasoning. I don’t put my trust in experts on highly political soft sciences without primary sources and evidence to back them.
Some of the posters here have doctorates or have studied these issues for years. They’re at least the equals of competing authorities. If I post something, I cite it.
JDP on 16 Feb 2013 at 10:55 pm #
i dunno how i can “emotionally” not like something that i never lived through, much like paleos who defend secession back then today seem to be talking in the abstract, as seen with their eagerness to act as though slavery was not a major factor.
i do think that that the pre-Civil War situation — with slavery spreading into new states — was inherently unstable, and people naturally look back and appreciate that we did not (and could not) stay split apart over this. of course pointing out the devastation of the South is perfectly fair, but that’s a different matter from what caused the war.
also re:this blog post — when McConnell talks about “radical right disillusionment” he could probably be talking about a lot of the things this blog stands for. i mean do you guys agree on anything besides foreign policy? i dunno how McConnell today is anything besides a liberal who doesn’t particularly like Israel. he’s less interventionist than Obama maybe but that’s about it.
Weaver on 17 Feb 2013 at 1:05 am #
JDP,
The Union used total war on the South. That was new. There was no reuniting after that. And Reconstruction was Hell. If you visit Southern cities, you’ll find many of them were destroyed, and much of what has replaced it is soulless, ugly, urban sprawl. Whites today are still persecuted, especially Southerners. Why mayn’t we do away with Affirmative Action? Because of Yankees. Why must we accept their outrageous version of history? Why are our symbols so hated? It is not fair.
The South seceded in part out of a concern over slavery, but that was part only and is not why the North invaded. The Northerners today continue to praise Lincoln. They use his example to justify further abuses. How can we not attack him even if we wanted to abandon our ancestors? You can’t call for a return to the Constitution without going after him.
The South’s culture is different from the North’s then and today. There is a philosophical divide. The US is too large and diverse. Secession will happen; it’s inevitable. Southerners aren’t out persecuting Northerners over their history. I don’t see why it’s wrong that we remember. The fruits of our history are solid values. Our history is what will give us a future. Without it, we’re lost. Conservatives tend to honour their worthy ancestors. I also praise Alfred the Great, Boudica, and legendary King Arthur: I see no conflict in that list.
Lincoln and Cromwell I detest. They are legally and philosophically on the wrong side. If Northerners are allowed to praise Lincoln, then I’m allowed to condemn him. Fair is fair.
Weaver on 17 Feb 2013 at 1:12 am #
I don’t understand how some English praise Cromwell. The idea is you praise those who had honour. The black sheep you don’t revere.
Only those who condemn Lincoln and Cromwell have any hope of a future. That’s a vital foundation for a path forward to a pleasant, enduring society. It matters whether a society honours demons or horoes. Almost nothing matters more. If you remove our heroes, who is to replace them? Our heroes were almost saintly. They bequeathed to us a matchless treasure: Their only sin, losing.
Do the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese forget their history? Do Jews forget their version of history? Why mayn’t I have a history? Imagine what could be built on the example of our heroes. It’s a Devil’s bargain to exchange that for unity with the North. They should instead join us.
RedPhillips on 17 Feb 2013 at 3:01 am #
“I don’t understand how some English praise Cromwell.”
Weaver, Reformed Calvinists praise Cromwell because they see him as trying to establish a Reformed social order.
JDP on 17 Feb 2013 at 3:10 am #
Weaver,
i’m fine with understanding nuances in history and not making it out to just be the Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Darkness. but i don’t know who exactly you hope to convince, outside your own circle, when your sliding scale into egalitarianism starts with keeping the country together & abolishing slavery, as though that was the slippery slope to everything happening now.
Sempronius on 17 Feb 2013 at 8:00 pm #
“I also praise Alfred the Great, Boudica, and legendary King Arthur: I see no conflict in that list.”
I do.
Weaver on 17 Feb 2013 at 9:39 pm #
The point being: One can revere those who were on different sides.
Weaver on 18 Feb 2013 at 12:50 am #
JDP,
obviously slavery’s end is not lamented. Egalitarianism is not the main issue for me, and the North wasn’t so racially blind as it’s today portrayed. That is a false history.
My personal ideal is an elitist society but with no large wealth gaps, though people still having to earn what they have (not socialism). Obviously blacks wouldn’t earn as much on average as whites, but what concerns me is those at the top having too much wealth and power. It’s a question of who controls society and what that society values.
I too often hear how Southerners are wrong to attempt building on their history. Find a better authority, judging on virtue. No human society is perfect.
Read what I posted recently from the real Richard Weaver, if you will. I think you’d enjoy reading him more than you would me.
It isn’t Good vs. Evil so much as more-evil (modern) triumphing over more-good (traditional). I’m actually very interested in criticism/alternate suggestions you have if you can go into more detail. I’ve had my say, so I won’t likely flood the chat again. My orientation is centred on the roots of northwest Europe. Ideally I’d want a nation-state, but clearly the South today and in the past is very diverse with the past being blacks/English and other Europeans. I believe a stable society is possible with blacks and whites if race is accepted as having a biological basis. We wronged them by undermining their identity, but that’s in the past. Today, they have a better quality life than most do in Africa. They can build on what they have and enjoy the material fruits – or return to Africa if they must for identity’s sake.
The battle is against modernists who don’t understand how progress is relative, who want to do away with irrational ties. That’s the ultimate enemy. Egalitarianism, in the sense of a class struggle, is partly a means to undermining social structures, to reducing everything to raw materials. I’m aware it has other impacts, but I think the social structures are what matter most.
The traditional South offers a solid defence against this beast. We could endure while the rest fall into insanity, having lost their foundation.
Kirt Higdon on 18 Feb 2013 at 3:59 am #
Alfred the Great, Boudica, and King Arthur all tried to fight off foreign invaders, so they had that in common. All, even Boudica, were descendants of invaders themselves. Boudica, descended from pre-historic Celtic invaders, fought to prevent a Roman take-over of Britain, Arthur fought against the Saxons to preserve Roman Celtic Britain, and the Saxon Alfred fought against Danish vikings to preserve a Saxonized Romanized yet still Celtic Britain. I always tend to sympathize in favor of defenders against invaders yet all of the invaders have eventually added their various layers to British history and the British peoples.
Sempronius on 18 Feb 2013 at 6:07 pm #
Boudicca fought against Romanization, Art and Alf fought for it.
Kirt Higdon on 18 Feb 2013 at 7:48 pm #
True – that’s because Romanization was part of Art and Alf’s heritage, but not part of Boudicca’s. All three were defenders of the British status quo as they found it in their particular age. It’s also worthwhile noting that Boudicca and Alfred were willing to co-exist with the foreign newcomers on a peaceful basis. Boudicca had been a Roman ally and turned against them only when they broke their treaties and did violence to her and her family. Alfred made peace with the Danes and facilitated their conversion to Christianity. I don’t know if Arthur ever tried to make peace with the Saxons; perhaps they never gave him the chance.
Weaver on 19 Feb 2013 at 2:03 am #
Sempronius,
that is an excellent speech in your link.
Sempronius on 20 Feb 2013 at 1:57 am #
Weave,
What did Francis say at about min. 3:00 after he called Brady a “pathetic house plant?” I can’t make it out because of the laughter and applause.
Weaver on 20 Feb 2013 at 2:27 am #
–
If you want the exact wording, I can’t make out whether “ambition” is singular or plural. I lean towards plural.
RonL on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:39 pm #
Lawrence Auster passed away this morning. His suffering is at an end. Lawrence was a traditionalist who never completely gave up hope. He did not live long enough to see the complete death of the America and West he loved. As a Jew who converted to Protestantism 15 years ago during Holy Week, and who became a Catholic on Monday, it is altogether fitting that he died on Good Friday. He is now home, but his ideas and legacy remain.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024382.html