July
11th 2009
Posted under Uncategorized
Here’s the lastest from Chuck Baldwin: “Good-For-Nothing Christians”
Some good stuff on Sarah Palin from Peggy Noonan and James Matthew Wilson at Front Porch Republic and Cathy Young at Reason. Remember, Palin, I belive, is popular because of what she is perceived to represent. She’s the head of forces out there bigger than herself or what she realizes.
Speaking of which, Pat Buchanan writes a very good column on the power of ethno-nationalism.
Also on Takimag, Jack Hunter writes about the “Tyranny of Mark Levin’ s Liberty”.
roho on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:36 pm #
Peggy Noonan said, “We are going to need the very best in American leadership over the next 20 years.”
Has she actually looked at the “Pool” to draw from?
Elliott Graham on 12 Jul 2009 at 6:08 pm #
I believe that we must continue to support Ron Paul and we all must support
his son, Rand Paul for the United States Senate in Kentucky.
With all of the effort and sacrafice that we made for Ron Paul’s Campaign for
President, it would be wrong to give up on him and talk about someone else!
Lord Peter on 12 Jul 2009 at 6:12 pm #
Thanks for the round up of Old Right insight!
Callahan on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:06 pm #
Patroon said:
“Speaking of which, Pat Buchanan writes a very good column on the power of ethno-nationalism.”
Honestly, I can’t figure you paleos out on nationalism. Some of you — like Pat Buchanan — praise it, while others of you seem to despise it. Well, which is it? Sooner or later you guys have to come to a consensus on a major issue like ethnic/racial nationalism.
I mean what is an ethnic nationalist like me supposed to think when I hear a vile creep like Austin Bramwell basically say that he looks forward to the day when Anglo-Americans vanish from the Earth:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/ludicrous_albion/
Also, what am I supposed to think when the atheist/homosexual Justin Raimondo spews bile and vitriol all over Jared Taylor in an article entitled “Nationalists Without A Nation:”
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/nationalists_without_a_nation/
Basically, what I think when I read articles like the ones by Bramwell and Raimondo is that you guys are just as much the enemy of nationalists as Marxists are.
By the way, even the title of Raimondo’s article is deeply flawed. Nationalists do have a nation. A nation can be defined as a group of people who share a common heritage, language, culture, and history. Therefore, as long as White Americans exist nationalists have a nation.
Callahan on 13 Jul 2009 at 1:13 pm #
Wow! I hope you guys can take a little mild criticism that’s not even directed at you personally. In my comment I am not trying to start a fight — or even a debate. Rather, I am merely trying to highlight — with my trademark brilliance and eloquence — massive contradictions within the so-called paleoconservative movement. I mean it’s a pretty radical contradiction when you have guys like Bramwell and Buchanan both calling themselves paleos. Buchanan loves his race and heritage, while Bramwell hates Anglo-Americans so much he would be perfectly happy if they all dropped dead.
Sean Scallon on 13 Jul 2009 at 2:30 pm #
The pool is almost dry.
Callahan on 14 Jul 2009 at 12:40 am #
Sean,
I see that you have no integrity, class, or respect for free speech. You allow all sorts of loopy comments on your blog but the moment someone mentions race you have a little tissy fit and begin censoring. Not that it matters. The only people who frequent this blog are the bloggers who blog here anyway. So it doesn’t matter whether you ever approve my comments because everyone here has already read them anyway.
Now go back to ranting about drone attacks in Pakistan or the “American Empire” while your country is colonized Camp of the Saints-style.
Callahan on 19 Jul 2009 at 1:41 am #
I was so repulsed by the censorship on this blog that I only just checked this Saturday to see if my comments ever got approved. I see that they finally have been. However, since I only just checked back today I have no idea whatsoever when they were approved; it could have been just two minutes ago. All I know is that I left my first comment on Sunday, July 12 and as of Monday night it was still awaiting moderation. So I would say that it was at least two to three days before Sean Scallon (or someone else) saw fit to publish them. And I know that Mr. Scallon was around because he left a snide remark (see comment number six) early Monday in response to my posts.
Now since my second and third comments probably don’t make any sense to anyone who doesn’t know what happened here I should probably explain them. In my second and third comments I was merely attempting to get my original comment approved. I never intended to publish more than one comment in this thread. But since my first comment was being purposely held in moderation I was forced to attempt to convince Mr. Scallon to release it.
Also, since this blog obviously has no clue how to run a sensible comment policy I feel compelled to offer some advice. First of all, you are not supposed to censor someone just because you disagree with them. You should only really censor people based on disruptive behavior. And even then you should give them warnings before you start deleting their comments or banning them from the site. The only time that you should ever censor based on content is if the comment is fairly extreme in nature. A commenter who was advocating for the bombing of abortion clinics might be one example of a situation in which you might choose to censor. The fact is that the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to know that an internet site doesn’t endorse the views of every single commenter on it.
Sean Scallon on 19 Jul 2009 at 4:22 pm #
Callahan what God’s name are you talking about? I have not censored your comments. I am not the lone editor of CHT. We have others and one may have decided to do so. Our editing policy is clear: posts that have vile language, advocate violence or slander or are just plain stupid are taken out. My earlier post was not directed at you it was directed at roho. I do work a regular job and I do not have internet service at home so I’m not always around CHT 24/7. I do not appreciate is persons looking to pick fights where no conflict exist, If you want to go over my feelings about ethnonationalism, fine we can discuss this. If you wish to be adversarial for its own sake, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Callahan on 22 Jul 2009 at 1:58 am #
Mr. Scallon,
When someone knows that they are guilty of something it is very common for them to employ two tactics: (1) emphatically deny knowing what their accuser is talking about; (2) blame everyone else but themselves.
Relax. Take it easy. Nobody’s going to get lynched over this. It’s not that big of a deal. And no, I definitely am not looking to be adversarial or pick a fight. I never was.
It might not have been just you who held my comments in moderation. Your other two editors might have also decided to suppress what I had to say for a couple of days. However, when you made your remark that you say was directed at…..Roho I had already left two comments, which you no doubt saw. You could have approved my comments then, yet you chose not to do so. That’s what I’m talking about.
Moreover, even if your remark “the pool is almost dry” was technically directed at Roho, I have to believe that its primary purpose was to take a jab at me. Otherwise you would obviously have approved my comments.
And if it really was another editor who held my comments why oh why has he not stepped forth from the shadows and revealed himself?
But since you mention it, I would be very interested in hearing your feelings about ethnic nationalism.