Posted under Conservatism & Media & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy
This post bashing the British National Party is just awful. Below is the comment I posted.
When I first read this, considering the website it was posted on, I thought maybe the author was trying to be facetious and was actually criticizing the clownish PC preeners in the other parties. But unfortunately I do not believe that was the intent. The intent was to play more PC than thou and criticize the BNP.
I know the BNP is not American style conservatism. Conservatives in England are not necessarily real big on that whole limited government thing. Just ask Dave Lindsay. And I as a Southern conservative object to the Nationalism and the opposition to Welsh and Scottish independence. But clearly American paleocons have more reason to be sympathetic to the BNP than they do Labour or the “Conservative” Party. Does any paleo think halting the immigration onslaught and the demographic decline of England is unimportant?
I have often taken up for TAC against those who claim it is just drifting left and/or engaging in nothing more than I’m not a movement con axe grinding, but that is getting harder and harder to do. First Limbaugh gets hounded out of the NFL by a bunch of PC spouting thugs and the outrage is directed at him, and now this. If I didn’t come here knowing the background of this magazine and just read a post without context, I often would think the opinion was more Noonan and Parker than Buchanan and Fleming.
Here is the equally awful Rush Limbaugh thread I referred to. Here is my reply to that dud.
The outrage here is that Political Correctness has derailed an entirely legitimate attempt to buy a football team. We should be training our sights on the obvious Cultural Marxism on display, not on Rush. Particularly Goodell’s craven and inarticulate babbling PC fest explanation for why Rush was not welcome.
Goodell, the NFL, the owners group that dropped him, and all the PC thought slaves that protested are the villains in this story, not Rush.
What on earth is going on at AmCon? Why all the PC posturing?
Brad C on 24 Oct 2009 at 1:03 am #
Thanks for this post, and thanks for your posts over at AmCon. I’ve been waiting for this so that I could vent. You and I aren’t the only ones who feel this way–there has been a steady stream of comments from posters pointing out that the site is hardly conservative anymore.
Just about every post over there has been an endorsement of a left-wing position or rejection of a conservative position to show how above they are “movement conservatism.” We get it–you’re all smarter than people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News.
But they’ve reached a point where they are simply pathetic. Trolling the NRO blog every day so that you can copy and paste some dopey throw away line a “movement conservative” posted over there is fun for a while, but as time goes on it starts to make THEM look pathetic. It’s really funny that they still post Pat Buchanan’s columns on their blog because they are now totally incongruous with the rest of the content. I thought the new low was when one of the “Obamacons” over there lamented that his hero, for some unfathomable reason, had not yet corrected all the wrongs of the world.
The liberal, PC posts have gotten so bad and so regular over there, that I’ve got two theories:
1) (This is the less probable) The editors are gearing up to come out with an announcement that AmCon is no longer a conservative publication, plain and simple. This would have the advantage of at least being honest.
2) (This is more probable) The AmCon blog just goes to show how much adding a blog can hurt a print magazine that has previously earned a good reputation. A similar thing, by my lights, happened when First Things added a blog. Giving the editors and regular contributors the ability to instantly post an opinion makes them more likely to reveal how petty and shallow they are with their constant sniping at their perceived foes. As if Rush Limbaugh is more of a danger to the Republic than Obama!
Weaver on 25 Oct 2009 at 2:17 pm #
Limbaugh surely is more of a threat. Burke’s comment that evil triumph’s when good men do nothing comes to mind. Limbaugh threatens to lead Americans astray while Obama frightens them into action.
mikefromwichita on 25 Oct 2009 at 3:46 pm #
Gotta say I thought the whole Limbaugh football thing to be a tempest in a tea pot DESIGNED to allow him and Al Sharpton to do a bit of ‘pro-wrestling’ for their respective Fandoms…….AND frankly to provide those Fans one more diversion from the Reality that a Marxist Usurper sits in the Oval Office and just perhaps actually doing something about the matter.
For nine years Limbaugh has been a disgraceful shill for the neocon wing of the Republicans as opposed to a promoter of conservatism. With occasional lapses he has ignored how Bush laid the ground work for the Obama Police State, NEVER questioning the Official Lies of 9/11 or the illegit M.E. Bush Wars for Big Oil and Isreael uberalles. Sure he may have grumbled a bit about the Bush $500B expansion of Medicare and Open Borders, but when push came to shove he surely did NOTHING to aid the ONLY decent repub candidate for Prez last year- Ron Paul.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2009 at 4:52 pm #
Apparently I get Limbaugh in my area. He came through one day last week saying something about naming that a black criminal was black despite the consequences… I didn’t see the big deal.
If listeners want unvarnished, honest commentary then go for James Edwards and TPC crowd. Agree or disagree, but at least they’re open and sincere.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2009 at 4:55 pm #
What I mean to say is: Rush comes across as a “pro-wrestler” as Mike describes. He’s an entertainer and a detractor – a time waster.
roho on 26 Oct 2009 at 3:43 pm #
Print is dead!……………..And like the milkman at the door, will never be back.
As for “Talk Radio”?……………The fairness doctrine will kill it as well.
That leaves Hollywood, Television, and the Internet.
“Liberal Globalism” will bring down conservative web sites faster than it took to control every newspaper in the world! (Web Sites beg for money constantly, which is the basis for compromise.)
Neoconservatism will come out of the closet, fully marxist, with a loaded gun, and the world will say, “Doesn’t that look a lot like communism”?…………..And, a real depression makes it all possible.
Sean Scallon on 29 Oct 2009 at 12:02 am #
Somewhere out there captainchaos is getting a good laugh over this. Were we acting “PC” when we here at CHT told him to get lost and stay at Stormfront where he belonged?
The editors exercised their personal judgement to make CHT inhospitable to him because he was a jerk and had nothing worthy to contribute to our discussions. Is that being “snobbish”? You may have the right to say what you want to say and I have the right to cover my ears and turn away. The First Amandement is not a prison sentence which forces me to treat the vile, the obnoixious and the stupid the same as I would learned scholar or the ordinary fella’ on the street with something to say.
TAC has many bloggers, including myself just so you know where I’m coming from, and they all have different opinions. They offer said opinions and you can chime in on the comment section as to whether you like them or not. Included in this group is one Patrick J. Buchanan who has said a great many things un-PC in his lifetime, including saying that the arch-Catholic Polish colonels were unreasonable and should let Hitler take Danzing for Germany and that they helped caused World War II. I don’t agree with that sentiment (and have attacked it) but have not once said Pat needs to go because I disagree with him. It should also be pointed out that editor Scott McConnell lost his job with the New York Post because the very same PC police. Steve Sailer writes movie reviews for TAC.
I understand why persons might be upset because I’ve had the same issues with VADRE and don’t go there to much anymore because some of its writers want to talk about Popish plots concerning immigration and I think a couple of the stories on Takimag from time to time to be juvenile and silly (are we really going to rebuild the “conservative movement” with European death metal?)
TAC is located in the Beltway and because this is so it wants to have some tie-ins with the establishment. It also wants to include a broad section of the alt-right and paleo opinion. That means you’re probably going to run into a lot opinions you are not going to like or think are not “conservative” enough. But do we need another wesbite offering hosannas to Rush Limbaugh? I think there are plenty out there. If TAC doesn’t have the juicy “red meat” you are looking for or you’ve think they’ve limited themselves with PC, by all means come here to CHT or to VDARE or Takimag or Chronicles which are more right-wing in their approach and will satisfy what you’re looking for. But we need to understand where all of us coming from and what approaches we are taking so we are not stepping on each other.
Bede on 29 Oct 2009 at 4:01 am #
Red,
Your comments about the BNP are dead on. One is not going to find a right-wing party in Europe that is economically libertarian. From my experience, right-wing parties in Europe are, for the most part, third way – attempting to avoid the pitfalls of socialism and corporate capitalism. A Englishman I know said that when he hears “libertarian” the first thing to pop into his mind: WalMarts and McDonalds built across the English countryside as they are in the U.S.
Bede on 29 Oct 2009 at 4:02 am #
—–
Red,
Your comments about the BNP are dead on. One is not going to find a right-wing party in Europe that is economically libertarian. From my experience, right-wing parties in Europe are, for the most part, third way – attempting to avoid the pitfalls of socialism and corporate capitalism. An Englishman I know said that when he hears “libertarian” the first thing to pop into his mind: WalMarts and McDonalds built across the English countryside as they are in the U.S.
—–
Thomas on 02 Nov 2009 at 4:51 pm #
You are right about the BNP. I think the problem results from David Lindsay’s very English obsession with “respectability”. Maybe you should know, in this context, that a number of BNP activists have been shown to come from the social gutter, to be old football hooligans and skinheads with criminal records and so forth. The problem I have though with balling the BNP for this reason is that I am sure you will find many criminal records among Tories, Labourites, and Liberals, for more respectable, but often more dangerous, crimes (financial and so forth).
And they are right to not be economically libertarian, that is a death wish for conservatism in the US, UK, Europe, Russia, Japan, or anywhere.
You are wrong, however, about Rush. Rush is not a conservative and AmCon owes him no favours. The man has done his best to screw paleos and paleo thought time and again.
-He backed Bush in 92
-He backed NAFTA in 93 and blocked anti-NAFTA calls and ads
-He backed GATT in 94 and blocked anti-GATT calls and ads
-He backed Dole in 96
-He backed Bush early in 2000
-He backed all the Bush wars and scaremongering and liberticidal laws
-He attacked Ron Paul and his supporters in 2008, as well as Huckabee, and urged listeners to back Romney and Giuliani(!)
The man is a capitalist, not a conservative interested in traditional culture or family or religion or moral discipline (gee, I didn’t even go into those issues).
And some of the other comments were right, the NFL responded to the market demands of owners wanting a move to LA and players who did not want to play for a partly Rush-owned team. What can you do? All we can do is work to eliminate political correctness.
RedPhillips on 03 Nov 2009 at 5:34 am #
Thomas, I am not “wrong” about Rush because I didn’t really say anything about Rush per se. Rush is a neocon, pro-war interventionist, GOP water carrier. If he got schooled in some foreign policy debate by Ron Paul or Andrew Bacevich, no one would cheer louder than I.
But that was not the case here. Rush was not getting it taken to him from the right. He was being attacked FROM THE LEFT by a bunch of Cultural Marxist PC enforcers for his alleged sin of racism. In this scenario, the Cultural Marxist PC Gestapo is the bad guy. That is not a defense of Rush. It is an attack on the Cultural Marxist. What about that is hard to understand?
I understand the economic arguments that Rush is bad for business. I thought as paleos we weren’t economic reductionists and wanted people to do the right thing and not just mercenarily look out for the bottom line, but if economics were the issue then just say that. Say “Sorry but Rush is controversial and bad for business.” But Goodell and other did not just do that. They parroted the PC Cultural Marxist dogma like good little thoughts slaves. Goodell couldn’t have emasculated himself more if he had publicly cut off his balls.
We don’t owe Rush anything, but people who are critical of the phony right from the authentic right do owe it to our readers to make it clear that our criticisms are from the right so they don’t sound like just more “eeww Rush is icky” whining from the center and the left.
Thomas on 04 Nov 2009 at 10:36 pm #
I understand your point about Marxist PC propaganda and the tone of the original AmCon blog post. Yes, of course, some of the criticism of Rush was unfair. I agree. And it is true there are some AmCon posters who are obsessed with looking respectable or who see paleoconservatism as some sort of wishy-washy, reflective centrist Toryism.
That said, there was not much positive one could do about Rush situation if much of the protest was made by the players on which the Rams depend. If only Al Sharpton had protested but the players and fans had stood behind Rush, then he would not have faced a problem.