Gallery owner Charles Saatchi and Taki are having a very public verbal throwdown. They have even challenged each other to fight. (Taki competes in Judo and Saatchi is apparently a black-belt in Karate.) All I can say is … Dana White, you gotta makes this happen. I’d buy that pay-per-view for sure.
Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.
On a related topic: I was recently shocked to discover D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation on Netflix Instant Video. Funny how that movie makes the cut, but we’ll never see Gone With the Wind, It’s a Joke, Son!, and Song of the South on Instant Video. Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings backs mass illegal immigration after all.
HT: “Sam” from James Edwards’s blog comments for video.
Contained in the post below about Mike Church, is the nugget that Jack Hunter has a new gig. He is now a Contributing Editor at Rare.us, a new start-up conservative website that appears to have some big money behind it. I’m not sure who is behind it. I’ll try to do some digging.
Addendum: Well that didn’t take long. Rare.us is a project of Cox Media.
Here is his announcement copied from his FaceBook post:
IT’S OFFICIAL – Daily Caller’s Jordan Bloom announces “Sad to lose Jack Hunter to Rare Liberty, but excited to announce that next week Mike Church will be debuting a weekly column at The Daily Caller!”
I am humbled to accept this tremendous opportunity to inform and inspire our fellow citizens in the cause of [r]epublicansim and though I fear my meager composition skills are inadequate to the task, I will exert all my energies to the task on behalf of Our Cause. Deo Gratias.
This is a big deal because Mike Church is substantially on our side. He is no shrinking violet. It is good that he will be exposed to a wider and more “mainstream” audience outside our usual echo chamber.
Retired General conman, Paul Vallely (pension receiver who would never risk it—lets face it) is leading a plan amongst so-called Tea Party groups, strangely popular in “conservative” South Carolina, to push forward with a Congressional strategy of voting “No Confidence” in the Executive Office holder.
The subject of ex-military men, generals in particular, sold as “rightwingers” is a topic of mine (here, and here), just as an aside, as I point out the most recent incarnation. My angle carves back to General Walker who Oswald is said to have taken a shot at…
General Vallely—Vallely appears to be an Irish name– was leading up the charge for the Syrian rebels not a few months ago–literally in theater, but of note, “late to the game by design”/I see nothing sort of sites like WND are going along with the ruse.
While the rest of us are turning up on lists, even if just by the algos, let it stew on your person, that this tool is taking a government pension, in spite (LOL) of the entire surveillance state.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
Today is the birthday of a great man, Robert E. Lee, a man whose birthday used to be widely celebrated in the Southern states and beyond. Here is an excellent article from the vault on the politically correct attack on a true Southern hero and gentleman.
“Equality incurs tolerance, and tolerance has become but another word for nihilism. It’s easy to be tolerant, if you don’t believe in anything. A civilization practicing high standards must perforce be highly intolerant, becoming more and more intolerant as it becomes better and better.” Tito Perdue, in his talk to the H.L. Mencken Club.
The above is just one of numerous sizzlers in an insightful, no-holds-barred speech. You owe it to yourself to read the whole thing.
I also opened up a new twitter account @DanPhillipsMD so I can talk up my new website. (Note the cheap link. Always thinking.) Please follow me if you are on Twitter. I’ll follow you in return. Thanks.
I created a new website. It is at www.danphillipsmd.com. I was just planning to make it a .wordpress.com blog, but the domain was open so I went on and registered it. As I explain in my welcome post, my intent is for it to primarily be an archive for my old articles and any new ones I publish elsewhere. Intellectual Conservative has twice been seriously hacked so my old articles from there were lost. I don’t want that to happen again. If you would, please talk it up and link to it if you have a chance so I can get some traffic coming my way. I’ll post my first article there tomorrow. Thanks.
Here is an interesting article from The Libertarian Alliance blog, a libertarian organization based in England. The article does a good job of chronicling the “paleolibertarian” phenomenon of the ’90s. Paleolibertarianism seems to mystify some people, so I thought it was worth posting.
In January 1990, Lew Rockwell wrote in the magazine ‘Liberty’ on ‘The Case for Paleolibertarianism’. In this manifesto, he argued that while libertarians are often correct in their criticisms of conservatives, conservatives are often right in their criticisms of libertarians. He cites people like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, with the latter claiming that libertarians were drifting so far from conservatism that they were coming to view the “coercions of the family, church, local community and school” as almost as corrosive of liberty as that of the state.
In this paleolibertarian manifesto, Rockwell states that if libertarianism is to make any real progress, then it must do away with its “defective cultural framework”, stating that Western civilisation is worthy of praise and that social or ‘natural’ authority – like the authority of the family, the church, the local community and the school – is essential to a free society. Libertarianism’s cultural framework had become a blend of moral relativism, egalitarianism, modernism and libertinism with the modal libertarian often conflating legality with morality. In addition to the error of assuming that because X must be legal, X must also be moral, the modal libertarian had conflated freedom from aggression with freedom from social authority, tradition, and bourgeois morality.
Hat tip to my FaceBook friend Rex May, whose post directed my attention to this article.
Cross posted with some slightly different wording at Independent Political Report.
Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the Christmas Day shutdown of Alternative Right in this podcast. As far as I know, no one has disputed that the shutdown was unannounced.
Wow! This is big news, but I’m not sure what to make of it. I have mixed emotions. Since Salem is a Christian market focused company, then their new aquisitions are likely to remain socially conservative, but they are also likely to remain pro-intervention, especially in the Middle East. Also, my gut says that too much consolidation is just not a good thing. Salem wants to have additional “platforms” from which to air the same message. There is already too much sameness on the mainstream right.
Hat tip to Richard Spencer who posted the link on FaceBook.
Here is a NY Post article that alleges that Phil Robertson isn’t too fond of the Confederate Battle Flag. In the typical PC manner, it suggests that this is somehow evidence that Robertson is not a “racist.” You see, according to PC rightthink, respect for the Confederate Battle Flag is prima facia evidence that someone is a racist. The story is from 30 Dec, but I didn’t hear about it until a comment about it appeared recently on my FaceBook feed. And interestingly, when I Googled to find some more commentary on the issue not much came up. This mention from a blog called The “Right” Scoop seems to accept the PC association in a “See, we told you Phil Robertson wasn’t a racist!” type of manner. (This is so typical of mainstream conservatives to accept the leftists’ PC framing of an issue.)
First of all, proud Southerners should be careful not to get too carried away just yet. This is an account of someone relating what he thinks he saw and heard. These are not Robertson’s own words, and as far as I know he has not commented on the issue. It is possible that he was bemoaning the fact that certain unsavory elements have used the flag for their own purposes, but this is not the conclusion the senario the witness recounts suggests. Mr. Robertson needs to publically clarify his true feelings.
That said, if this is a true recounting of the event, then it is very disappointing. Robertson is old enough to know better, so he doesn’t have the excuse of youth. The modern demonization of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Mr. Robertson should know this. The Duke boys proudly sported a CBF on the roof of their car, named the General Lee, on prime time TV in the 80′s. Until fairly recently it was assumed that Southerners would be proud of their heritage. This relentless PC/Cultural Marxist attack on all things Southern is of relatively recent vintage. For some perspective on this, this artcle by Prof. Clyde Wilson should be read again and again. I wish Phil Robertson would read it.
There is a lesson here that conservative (and especially conservative Christian) Southerners who wish to distance themselves from the CBF lest they be tainted desperately need to learn. The PC beast is monolithic in it’s desire to eradicate every stray unegalitarian thought or at least the public expression thereof. (It is my belief that the mind of the typical PC stormtrooper is besieged by unegalitarian thoughts, and their PC shock troop role playing is a form of reaction formation, but that is for another post.). The PC beast is without nuance or subtlety. It doesn’t matter to it that Mr. Robertson’s thoughts on homosexuality are based on his acceptance of the long held historic teachings of the Christian faith and his belief that God has explicitly condemned the act in His Holy Word. Nope. The senior Robertson has committed wrongthink and must be condemned and re-educated. The same article that says Robertson might not be a racist, begins by saying “Phil Robertson may be homophobic…,” whatever that means. (A more absurdly silly term than homo”phobia” is hard to imagine.)
Conservative (as in traditional/orthodox [small o] more so than political) Christians who wish to maintain the inherently unegalitarian teachings of their faith such as the condemnation of homosexuality and various other sexual practices, the endorsement of gender roles, Jesus as the only means of salvation, etc. need to resist the PC beast with every fiber of their being. It can not be placated by throwing it sops such as distancing yourself from the CBF. Robertson, if this was his motive, whether thought out or visceral, for his comment on the CBF, is woefully niave to believe so. If you are a wrongthinker on any issue, you are a wrongthinker in toto. There is no middle ground with this mindless beast. The fight for the CBF very much is the fight for a Christian understanding of homosexuality. The two can not be disentangled.
This is not to say that traditionalist Christians should not denounce malice and ill will based on race, which is not a Christian attitude, but racism has long since ceased meaning just malice or ill will based on race if it ever did. It means any unegalitarian thought. Conservative Christians need to understand this and understand it quickly, lest they empower the beast that ends up eating them and the civilization they created alive.
Jimmy Nelson recently published a book of photography (pricey @ over $100, Amazon) entitled Before They Pass Away. The book glorifies vanishing tribes, tribes being destroyed largely by globalism.
Many of us here are alike with such traditional peoples. Will Swedes be extinct by 2100? Will Southern-Americans? Our losing life force today of course doesn’t predestine us as Darwinian losers tomorrow. However, I find value in viewing the struggle as Tradition vs. Globalism.
In Harry Seabrook’s famous 2004 speech, he quotes Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
“[T]he disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”
“Rowdy” Roddy Piper wants to fight Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania! Make it happen Vince!
Roddy Piper was the #1 trending on Yahoo, so you know the people want this.
Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:
This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.
Here is a pod cast where Richard Spencer speaks on his new Radix Journal online project, and he explains why he shut down Alternative Right.
I understand his position. His name was forever attached to a project that he no longer had any control over, so PC heresy hunters could go after him for things that were written at Alternative Right that he had nothing to do with. That said, I still don’t get the need to simply shut it down and redirect it to Radix Journal without some sort of winding down period. I still wonder if there is some back story here we don’t know about.