Conservative Heritage Times

First, the leftist fantasy that white supremacists murdered Texas District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife was upended when it turned out the actual killers were a disgraced justice of the peace and his wife who killed the McLellands out of revenge.

Then, when the FBI released pictures of light-skinned Boston Marathon bombing suspects, the anti-white left whooped for joy. David Sirota at Slate openly hoped the culprits were white, and Tim Wise bloviated that the real lesson of the tragedy was, like everything else in the Tim Wise Alternate Universe, all about “white privilege.”

Over at Little Green Footballs, the FBI pictures were the object of much anti-white ridicule. One commenter noted the hat worn by one of the suspects and wondered, “Could that be a Dale Earnhardt hat?” Oh, if only a Christian Southerner did it!

Now comes word that the Boston terrorists are (were?) Chechnyan Muslims.

Showing once again that leftism isn’t so much an ideology as it is a pathology.

4 Comments »

Nobody seems to stir up a good internet nerd fight quite like Unz. Here he is taking on Gregory Cochran on the gay gene vs. gay germ theories.

First of all, the gay gene theory was only an ancillary part of the Cochran article Unz is criticizing, and Unz seems primarily motivated by his desire to defend E.O. Wilson. Cochran is going after this article by E.O. Wilson that argues that scientists don’t necessarily need to be good at math. He uses Wilson’s “gay uncle” theory to illustrate why he thinks it is wrong.

On that issue, I tend to agree with Wilson. I’m not bad at math. I took AP Calculus in high school. But I’m relatively better at language skills than I am math. I made higher on the verbal SAT than I did on the math SAT which is unusual in males. Linking science and math skills never made much sense to me. Physics and math yes. Chemistry and math yes but less so. But biology and math, not so much. I always saw more commonality between history and social studies and biology than I did biology and algebra. I recall reading once that the “reading” portion of the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) best predicted success in medical school rather than the subject matter subsets. (The test has since changed formats.) I also agree with Unz that Cochran’s attack was unnecessarily nasty.

But on the gay germ vs. gay gene argument, I tend to agree with Cochran. Taking a shot at Wilson’s “gay uncle” theory is shooting fish in a barrel. I don’t think people have taken the gay uncle theory seriously for a while, because the math doesn’t work. But I’m not sure Unz is getting the gay germ theory right. My understanding of the gay germ theory is that it is likely some pathogen that infects the mother while the baby is in utero or maybe the baby shortly after birth. I think Unz is suggesting a combination of some sort of genetic predisposition combined with an environmental factor, possibly including a germ. Something similar has been proposed for schizophrenia, which is highly heritable but also tends to happen more commonly in winter births suggesting an environmental component particularly a germ. I don’t think the two are incompatible. A predisposition + a germ is still a germ theory. Is Cochran insisting on just a germ? Is Unz ruling out a germ? I’m not sure what they are arguing about. As with most complex phenomenon that isn’t simply an either or, a combination of genetic predisposition and environment seems likely.

No Comments »

There has been some discussion on the idea of conservative support for homosexual marriage. The reason I believe such sentiment, although certainly not widespread, exists is the notion being “conservative”  means living an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle.  (And its not just Huntsman who thinks this way, so does leftist Ted Rall and libertarian Justin Raimondo do too.)

Certainly “mainstreaming” homosexuality away from the gay pride parade image  in has been a goal of said activists for many years whether through institutions like marriage (or the military for that matter). While that might be fine for them, it doesn’t do institution much good. Yes, many heterosexuals haven’t done the institution much good either  but that’s besides the point.The question isn’t about lifestyles it’s about meaning. And if marriage is not about one thing, it becomes about everything and then it means nothing. A man marries his horse, marries his favorite ball team or marries his dead mother? Yes, very extreme examples but with western civilization coming to the conclusion than persons can marry regardless of biology because marriage is all about love, then the possibilities are out there for the crazy or the attention seeker to indulge in.

But what’s  not crazy and what’s very real is marriage of men to multiple wives, men married to child brides or marriages prearraigned or the very old marrying the very young. These are common practices all throughout the world, primarily in non-Western cultures. When marriages can’t be a fixed thing and anything goes, then there’s nothing legally the state can do to prevent it, especially when latter cultures immigrate to the former. That should be the conservative view of marriage, not shoehorning couples into a televised fantasy of wedded bliss and family life.

2 Comments »

Ron Paul’s new foreign policy institute now has a website up.

Daniel McCarthy reports on today’s press conference here.

1 Comment »

I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.

The author, David Sirota, has a picture at the bottom. He appears to be white. Can you say “self-loather?

The article is laughable. He babbles about “white male privilege.” It reads like something written buy some race or gender studies academic. How do people like David Sirota look at themselves in the mirror? Has he no shame?

HT:  Southern Nationalist Network

Addendum: I have been struggling to figure out just how to characterize this article. When I first read it I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I know Salon is a liberal magazine, but in my experience it generally attempts to be pretty serious. I can’t imagine William Saletan writing something like this for example. But this article is just not serious. It reads like a paper written by an undergraduate in some gender or race grievance studies class who is desperately trying to impress his professor. I mean he starts babbling about white privilege in the first freakin’ paragraph! Take a breath David. Here is a piece of unsolicited advice: you should probably lead off with a few explanatory paragraphs before you drop the white privilege bomb if you want real people to take you at all seriously.

20 Comments »

Horrific casualties are being reported in the Boston Marathon terror bombing, and police have made an arrest:

Investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national — in the horrific Boston Marathon bombings, The Post has learned.

Law enforcement sources said the 20-year-old suspect was under guard at an undisclosed Boston hospital.

It was not immediately clear why the man was hospitalized and whether he was injured in the attack or in his apprehension.

The man was caught less than two hours after the 2:50 p.m. bombing on the finish line of the race, in the heart of Boston.

I’m afraid the inescapable lesson of this is that we cannot have a free society with open borders. Our handlers aren’t about to adopt sane immigration policies, so we’re stuck with the nightmarish combination of an increasingly diverse, alienated population and a police state to impose order.

Some future.

17 Comments »

The insignificance of Margaret Thatcher is underscored on CHT with the lack of a timely post on her passing.  Certainly, in a nation of stock jobbers, some ‘happy recollection’ would be understandable in Conservative Inc., and the absence on CHT, equally understood.  Nothing to do with us.

What struck me, reading the epitaphs and myths (both pro and con) was that Enoch Powell did not receive a mention.  Thatcher, like Powell, had been a rival to Heath (who?) in British conservative/Tory politics.  Powell removed himself from the scene that Thatcher inherited, bits and parts of the rhetoric retained, if not policy, execution, or even an inkling of understanding in Powell’s thought.  (Powell attended a Bilderberg gathering back in the day, so like Robert “Bonesman” Taft, has to be understood in a larger context of jobbing out.)

Thatcher was able to retain Powell’s wing despite being a Pro-American Cold Warrior (Powell considered the US of A an enemy and Russia, a natural ally) thanks to a compliant media that suggested the National Front was her street army—these were the days when Screwdriver was earning for the National Front and it would be news to that crew that they were Thatcher supporters, save they were Cold Warriors rather than Yockeyites or Powellites.

Powell, who still holds some position in American Right mythology, is famously recalled for his Rivers of Blood speech, which is a piece of rhetoric, but he is also the Anglo politician who introduced something close to Austrian School economics language into British political discourse.

Peter Brimelow called Powell the original paleolibertarian; Lew Rockwell recalled Powell’s support for gold and non-interventionism.  And I should mention that Brimelow dissents from Sam Francis and Rockwell on the idea that the Rivers of Blood speech cost Powell his career (and I agree).

Only point being is that the passing of Maggie Thatcher, reminded me of Powell and what might have been.

12 Comments »

We discussed this before, but here is an update. Paul will hold a press conference on Wednesday to discuss his new institute. It will be called the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. I complained in the post linked above that I didn’t like the name Peace and Prosperity because I thought it sounded vaguely lefty, but I’m OK with it if it is the ”Ron Paul Institute for…” because having his name attached to it will avoid confusion.

This part is interesting:

Founder and Chairman Dr. Paul has invited the Institute’s board of advisors to speak at the conference, including Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (NC), Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (TN), Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, and Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

8 Comments »

Here is the list of traitors. Give them a call and let them know what you think.

• Lindsey Graham (SC)  (202) 224-5972
• Lamar Alexander (TN)  (202) 224-4944
• Kelly Ayotte (NH)  (202) 224-3324
• Richard Burr (NC)  (202) 224-3154
• Saxby Chambliss (GA)  (202) 224-3521
• John McCain (AZ)  (202) 224-2235
• Tom Coburn (OK)  (202) 224-5754
• Susan Collins (ME)  (202) 224-2523
• Bob Corker (TN)  (202) 224-3344
• Jeff Flake (AZ)  (202) 224-4521
• John Hoeven (ND)  (202) 224-2551
• Johnny Isakson (GA)  (202) 224-3643
• Dean Heller (NV)  (202) 224-6244
• Mark Kirk (IL)  (202) 224-2854
• Pat Toomey (PA)  (202) 224-4254
• Roger Wicker (MS)  (202) 224-6253

Notice that Jeff Flake, who is often described as “libertarian leaning,” was amoung the traitors. So was Pat Toomey. Remember him? He is that raging right-winger everyone was supposed to be so excited about when he challenged Arlen Specter. The most surprising to me is Tom Coburn. He is generally one of the better Senators. Every one of these clowns needs a primary challenger.

2 Comments »

In the TAC post below, a few people wanted to blame Ron Unz for the direction of TAC on the gay “marriage” issue. As I said in the comments of that post, it might be fair to blame Unz for some change in the direction of TAC on immigration, but otherwise Unz seems to me fairly ecclectic and focused on his own pet issues. I think the more unified message of moderation coming from TAC recently is likely Wick Allison’s influence (and/or his daughter Maisie).

This post helps solidify my suspicions. Unz comes down against gay marriage. He links to an old column he wrote back in 1999 that he says he still sticks by. Below is from the ’99 column.

This diverse tradition provides a historical context for the forthcoming ballot initiative. One fact immediately stands out: views of homosexuality have varied, views of marriage have varied, but there has never been a human society, past or present, which authorized homosexual marriages. For the United States to legalize gay marriages would be an act unprecedented in all recorded history.

The reason is simple.

Marriage has generally served the role of providing a stable home environment for the young biological children of the married couple, and this implies a man and a woman.

On gay marriage, Unz is not the problem.

4 Comments »

If Lindsey Graham can be Linsey Grahamnesty, then I suggest that Rand Paul become Rander Paul in tribute to his ability to pander with the best of them. First Israel. Then amnesty. Now PC. Ugh!

What is sad is that I suspect that Rand thinks he was being brave by going to Howard University to address a hostile audience, and I suspect a lot of conservatives will give him credit for bravery for doing so. But what he said was pure PC pandering. It wasn’t brave at all. Rand criticized the Civil Rights Act in the past but quickly backtracked like a whipped puppy when he came under fire for it. Here he made sure to emphasize that he has always supported the Civil Rights Act. Of course Rand’s father knew, correctly, that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Rand also babbled the same old Republican line that the Republican Party has always been the Party of civil rights. As I explained in my post about the racial controversy at CPAC, this is technically true but misleading. In many ways the Democrat Party and the Republican Party switched places during the civil rights era and beyond. Blacks’ allegiance switched to the Democrat Party during FDR’s reign and beyond. The forces of conservatism in general resisted civil rights legislation, so claiming that a liberal Republican from the Northeast supported the Civil Rights Act while Southern Democrats didn’t is meaningless as the forces are allied today. Not only is this pandering, it is intellectually lazy. Did Rand write this speech? Surely he approved it beforehand.

For comparison, here is what Paul the Greater said about the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, Paul the Lesser continues to demonstrate that he is not his father.

CHT Poll: Should we address Rand Paul as a.) Paul the Lesser or b.) Rander Paul?

16 Comments »

The energetic discussion generated by the question of what organizing principle best advances liberty has been a pleasant surprise to me. Check out the various arguments raised here, here, and here.

Another worthy contribution to the debate is posted at The Classic Liberal. It’s definitely worth reading in its entirety.

Here’s as brief a summary as I can offer of the difference between conservatism and all the other little isms: Conservatism was first described in reaction to the advent of leftism in the Western world, the French Revolution. The Jacobins saw reason as sovereign, and desired to sweep away all the imperfections and irrational practices that they imagined had held mankind back. Burke vigorously rejected that notion, and countered that custom and tradition are sovereign. The accumulated wisdom of an organic society is priceless and irreplaceable.

Click here to continue.

No Comments »

Tom Piatak has called out TAC for their generally less than conservative coverage of the gay “marriage” debate.

There is, of course, nothing conservative about support for gay marriage. Gay marriage is an utter novelty, with no historical precedent.  Gay marriage seeks to enshrine homosexual acts, but those acts have always been condemned as immoral by Christianity, a condemnation echoed by most other religions and reflected in American law until only recently.  Gay marriage also completely severs marriage from procreation, even though marriage and the families it naturally creates have been the means by which human culture is formed and transmitted.

Gay marriage is not only antithetical to Christianity. It is antithetical to the natural law, to tradition, even to Darwin. Those arguing for it should at least have the decency to drop the pretense that they are conservatives.

Read more…

I have made the same observation that Tom has. Most of the articles at TAC have been tut-tutting social conservatives for botching the debate rather than calling the gay “marriage” supporters out for being advocates of Godlessness. I have a comment pending on this post stating as much. We’ll see if it makes the cut.

Update: My comment did make the cut. Here it is: “I’ve got an idea. How ’bout someone at a magazine that calls itself conservative actually bemoan the fact that America is becoming a secular Godless wasteland and call for national repentance and revival instead of tut-tutting social conservatives. Whatever faults the socons have, and they have many, they are not the problem here. The problem is our culture that is more and more rejecting God’s Word.”

In February they ran this article by Jon Huntsman arguing that gay “marriage” is conservative. Whatever gay “marriage” may be, conservative is not one of them. This was my comment on that thread:

If you had a room full of very bright conservatives and you told them to brainstorm and come up with the most radical idea possible, it would be difficult to come up with an idea more radical than gay “marriage.” That gay marriage is somehow conservative is so preposterous it is difficult to hold back a snicker.

31 Comments »

Tom Pauken is running for Governor of Texas. This is good news. Pauken is very paleo-friendly. He deserves your support.

1 Comment »

There’s nothing like a red-blooded debate to clarify your thinking and focus your activism. We have such a debate here and here about the difference between conservatism and libertarianism.

Let’s cut to the chase: The real distinction between the two is the question of what man is and what political arrangement suits him best.

The answer to that question determines everything else. For example, if you believe man is a peaceful, sharing creature, and that all people are equal, then the inequality you see all around MUST be evil and artificial. You would then be acting consistently with your basic belief to advocate an all-powerful government that nationalized all private property for the good of all. That government would be doing good by destroying traditional society and forcing people to live according to your ideals. And you don’t have to imagine the consequences: It’s been tried.

Click here to continue

41 Comments »

In yesterday’s spring election in Wisconsin fairly liberal Department of Public Instruction (DPI) head Tony Evers defeated a pretty conservative state Assemblyman Don Pridemore by landslide margin 62-38%. But this result had nothing to do with ideology. Most Republicans thought Pridemore too extreme and did nothing to help him, more concerned with protecting state Supreme Court Justice Patricia Roggensack in her re-election bid (which she won) Even Gov.  Scott Walker wouldn’t endorse him.  Thus he had no money and no TV ads and in Wisconsin politics you might as well close up shop.

But Pridemore really wasn’t a good candidate. If he was, he might well have made an issue of a set of suggested curriculum guidelines issued by the DPI through the federal VISTA program for those school districts looking to deal with the ever-confounding problem of white privilege. Indeed, it is such a problem that even George Will chimed in on it in his latest column in the Washington Post today.

“White Privilege” is the latest guilt racket dreamed up by Cultural Marxists.  It’s a theory which states that matter of one’s skin color and only one’s skin color is sole proof  of a person’s racism because that skin color gave this person an unfair advantage in life, a “leg up” if you will over blacks or Asians or Hispanics. Of course anyone living in Appalachia or Minnesota’s Iron Range or the pockets of white rural poverty across the Midwest, South and West will tell you this is a crock of crap who ultimate goal logically is legitimizing any sort racial economic redistribution of resources (like slave reparation for example) because obviously one cannot darken or face paint their way out of “white privilege”. And such garbage would remain a “theory” and quite harmless unless someone in a position of policymaking in any government institution (like DPI) decides to test such theories out in the same manner the Bolsheviks tested out communism after the Russian Revolution. This is exactly what has happened in Wisconsin in such places like the Delevan-Darien school district just outside of Milwaukee.

Had Pridemore made attacking these guidelines a centerpiece of his campaign, it might have gotten him somewhere, certainly better than 38 percent. The fact the DPI took down the guidelines from its website after online columnists began to shine light upon them shows the sensitivity of the matter. Certainly Evers nor his upper management staff was not going stand up for an educational program which condemns persons  for racism simply by the fact of their skin color rather than by word or deed. Indeed, given the fact that whites will no longer be a majority of population by the middle of the century due to immigration and birth rates (and white males even more so), one wonders why anyone in a position of responsibility would entertain such mad if not racially incendiary ideas in the first place? But that’s whole point. If one cannot use white’s majority status as means of guilt no longer,  then other means will have to suffice, even if it’s to brand whites with the Mark of Cain to indicate permanent sinfulness (as whites in the South know all to well) which cannot be washed off.

I myself cannot wait for such minority status to take place because it will mean the Cultural Marxists will have a hard time kicking around white people anymore. The fact such theories are being discussed with any kind of seriousness, let alone being tried in a K-12 school, shows their desperation. If one’s proof of “white privilege” can easily be proven BS by any visit to a trailer park, then it will be rewarding to see such awful people get their comeuppance. But what’s sad is that such well-off people who should know better would be willing to deny a person’s humanity and their poverty and their struggles to make ends meet in this country simply because of their skin color. Is that not racism? Such Leftists are no better than those on the Right who want to pretend the class struggle doesn’t exist in the U.S.  They just do it for different reasons.

11 Comments »

Eric Margolis details provocations staged in early March by USG, geared towards eliciting a predictable round of boorish bluster from the North Korean elites.

Back in the 50s, Leviathan would bother with a real piece of theater like Gary Powers in a U2 getting ‘busted’ to prevent a detente between Khrushchev and Eisenhower, a preformance at least worthy of respect.  But whatever is going on, perhaps a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, might well be a new genre of stunts and avant-garde politics.

It could only be one Dennis Rodman, former NBA star and nWo (pro-wrestling) member, famously teaming with Hollywood Hogan against Karl Malone and Diamond Dallas Page—DDP who now runs a yoga company  and rehabs former wrestling stars like Jake Roberts and Scott Hall—who became the slurring ambassador of peace with North Korea, only to be mocked as the clown.

The meeting between Rodman and the North Korean leader was organized by Vice Media as a means to get into the country (TakiMag’s own Gavin McInnes thus offers a tie in to paleodom),  which is working with HBO on some apparent gonzo/politically incorrect documentaries about the worst countries in the world (e.g. Liberia which Amren noticed.)

One might even suggest that the recent redo of Red Dawn, where China insisted the bad guys in the script be changed to, why not North Korea?, might have some factor in the current media cycle–Kim Jong Un likely saw a (selectively edited) Chinese bootleg right?

4 Comments »

Take a look at this provacatively titled article from TakiMag: “This Week in Epic Beta Male Faggotry”

First a disclaimer. This is not an endorsement of the amoral “game” concept from which we get the terminology Beta Male, but I’ll leave my Christian objections to ”game” for another post so as not to detract from the main point of this post. Nor is it an endorsement of the author’s use of the other F word, which is unhelpfully provocative. That said…

When did deliberately attempting to look … shall we say … less than masculine become cool? And why is that look cool?

7 Comments »

In 1776, the Society for the Protection of Loyal Colonists (SPLC) issued a report warning of the rise of the so-called “Patriot Movement” in the American colonies. As reported in the Boston General Advertiser, SPLC spokesman Marcus Potok announced his organization had been monitoring the takeover of royal legislatures, militias, and town councils by anti-government extremists.

“Dangerous men such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin have stoked the fires of sedition and radicalism among the King’s subjects,” Potok wrote in his report. “As a result, illegal militias have seen explosive growth, fueled by a furious reaction to much-needed revenue laws duly enacted under the authority of the King.”

Potok promised that his organization, in close coordination with King George III’s government, would work to end extremist activity in the colonies. “Our aim is sometimes described as just monitoring these hate groups. I want to say that our aim is to destroy these groups.” Then he added, “After all, we’re talking about the mightiest empire in the world, one that a vast majority of its subjects will remain loyal to, despite the heated rhetoric of a few rabble-rousers.”

Loyalists were assured the “Patriot Movement,” while boisterous and potentially violent, had little chance of success.

Said Potok, “As long as the enlightened merchants of New York and Boston continue to donate to our organization, the SPLC will expose these self-styled ‘Patriots’ for what they are, dangerous, hateful radicals.”

5 Comments »

This post recently appeared on Dale Peterson’s Facebook page. It is a bit cryptic, but take from it what you will.

3 Comments »