What Would Ron Paul Do

Imagine if you will a congruence of circumstance, however bizarre required, that had instead of Obama as our current president elect but Ron Paul.

Ok hold that thought.

When the Senate was debating the auto bailout "Buckshot" Cheney chided the republican senators something to the effect that their inaction was "Herbert Hoover all over again". The implication being that inaction, i.e. letting the free market run its course would spell political doom for the party.

Admittedly real conservatism in the US as a viable alternative died in the 1930's as a result of - well the debate continues. Cheney it seems would say it died because it failed to become statist, socialist and liberal. It took one major event for old right conservatism to be repudiated by the masses, replaced in name only just to keep two teams on the field.

There were of course a few notable conservative voices here and there but never again has the nation had a viable conservative alternative. Of course the death of conservatism in the 1930's was not a single party event, both moved left of center and just redefined in their own minds at least where center was.

Fast forward 60 years and we see that then and only then did even a minority of the population begin to fundamentally see the major flaws in the left of center shift and the true cost of "liberalism" and "conservatism". Move forward 18 more years and for the first time do we see any real, passionate talk with vocal support of true conservatism.

Essentially it has taken 78 years or so for even a minority of the population to understand the flaws of our Liberal/more liberal party system and the destruction caused by an ever larger government and foolish monetary and foreign policies.

Imagine then if you will if Ron Paul were younger, more handsome and capable of talking in 10 second sound bites. Imagine that by the same media/Hollywood tricks all politicians use he were able to win the 2008 presidential election. (in this imaginary world he is still the same small-government, literal Constitution guy, just much more camera/sound bite friendly).

What on Earth would such a "victory" have done to the infant conservative movement, particularly now? Real conservatism is best adapted to keeping a nation out of the very messes we are currently in. Sweeping government programs and fixes are just not in a real conservative's bag of tricks. Real conservatism maintains a system that nourishes stability in the long run, not fluff for election cycles.

Ron Paul did us all a service - akin to John in the desert.

Just as old right conservatism died in a crisis it may come back after the next crisis (i.e. the one we are in) as more and more people come to see the 78 year social experiment for what it was and is, an abomination. Liberalism may just have less than a decade more to rule over us, a right center shift may come - if we are wise and see our recent past for what it really was.

Stumble It!

Pillars of Conservative Thought

It seems increasingly obvious that the very definition of what constitutes "conservative" is is doubt. That is at least the case with many that claim to be conservatives yet hold values and ideas that are progressive and even liberal or radical. Some claim, erroneously, that there is no true conservative tradition in America - that the United States was born amidst the liberal ideology of the enlightenment and that all we are is a derivative of liberalism. Liberal historians have painted this picture and we conservatives have been all too willing to accept it - we have accepted in large part that liberals have in their linage men such as Jefferson. We (by that I mean confused conservatives) are left to accept that Adams, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt must be part of our lineage. This is of course false - the last three of those men do not belong in the paragon of conservative heroes (more on that is some later post). Adams perhaps, as a political philosopher for sure as a politician perhaps not.

When we abandon Jefferson as one of the key figures in the development of a uniquely American version of conservative political philosophy we abandon conservative philosophy in its historical context on this continent altogether. We are then left with but the scrapings of conservative thought without the underpinnings - we are let with the makings of an ideology. That is in essence what conservative thought has become, yet another -ism.

What is true conservative thought in terms of the uniquely American style and form? Is there such a creature as a true American conservative?

Clyde Wilson in a 1969 essay entitled The Jefferson Conservative Tradition theorizes that the essential elements of American conservative polity are Republican, Constitutionalist and Federalist in nature. ¹

Republican describes the idea that sovereignty rests in the people but is expressed in the rule of a qualified majority within the bounds of law. The constitutionalist element deals with the notion of the law protecting the people from the government and the individual from the people. This idea is further expressed in the notion that government exists only via delegated powers. The federalist aspect of American conservative thought deals with the decentralized nature of our government, and the indestructibility of the component states.

Within these three pillars all the entire universe of conservative thought may comfortably thrive. If one removes one pillar from the structure the philosophy falls into the trash heap of mere ideology.

Consider that to be a true republican (small "r") one must inherently view the community as supreme to the state, In a republic citizens of the republic must first be capable of self-governance before they can take an active role in governing others. This means they must become responsible members of the community, contributing in their own way to the common good. A republican sees the true nature of government to serve the community. Individual rights are guaranteed by membership within the community. To a republican sovereignty rests with the people and is exercised by a qualified majority through the states primarily and secondarily through the central government and the limited powers delegated thereto. A republican is a conservator that is in constant battle between the forces of aristocracy and democracy - preserving a fine balance between the two.

Community is the basis of all that is worthy of conserving and a true conservative realizes that a republican government is the best qualified of all forms to preserve community within American culture. It is thus that at various points in our past we accepted religious tests before allowing someone to hold an office of public trust. We did this not because ours was a government formed on religious principles but precisely because it was created to serve a religious community. That community was formed on religious principles and those that wished to be active members of the community accepted as much even if they did not personally adhere to all of the beliefs of the community at large.

Within the concept of community personal responsibility, a key element that must be present in a people that wish to be free, was always expressed profoundly. Moral, financial, familial, business and ethical responsibility were traditionally the hallmarks of those that wished to achieve and maintain community membership. These are the traits that a person must demonstrate to be truly self-governing, without such responsibility a person is unfit to govern others (i.e. participate in the political process).

Property qualifications come to mind as a historical benchmark for full investment in the community. Certainly this was one sure method of ensuring that those that voted had ownership of the solutions they supported. Perhaps this notion has no place in our current system (then again it sounds pretty good to me) but certainly the idea that those on the receiving end of government programs and hand-outs are not "fully qualified" members of the community holds true in my conservative mind. This is exactly the sort of shift in thinking that is required if we are to truly regain the fruits of conservative philosophy. Instead of talking about the benefits of some new program or modifying existing programs the true conservative would ask "who is participating in the conversation and why". Perhaps the answer to many of our woes might best be found in simply asking different questions and attacking different problems altogether. So long as we participate in debates that have as their origin liberal ideology we can and will never be true conservators of our republic.

On the subject of responsibility we must also address the issue of rights. Conservatives view individual liberty as existing in an ordered society. This again requires diligence and a constant balancing act - as conservators this is the role of true conservatives. It is libertine and dangerous to presume that man has natural rights outside of the community. We were not created (nor did we evolve) as solitary creatures. There is a natural order to the universe, there exists natural law and under that law man lives and has always lived as a social animal/creature/being. Our freedom and liberty springs from the culture and community that we belong to. God gave us certain rights to be utilized responsibly within our communities, our communities give sanction to governments to protect those rights. There is no other way to view rights/responsibilities and remain within the conservative paradigm.

We have failed as conservatives primarily because we have failed to act as the conservators of our community. By this I am speaking of culture, heritage, values, traditions and families. The issue of immigration is a simple on to a conservative. We welcome those that wish to join our community - meaning follow our laws, learn our language, respect our customs and traditions and contribute to society. Anyone that proposes anything other than deportation for that that have not attempted to meet these criteria is not a conservative.


To be a true American conservative one must be a federalist. We may depart from those that termed themselves Federalist during the 1790's and early 1800's and we may agree more with the Antifederalist but in principle we agree that a system of government that results in a decentralized government with certain specific delegated powers is best. Conservatives view the federal union as a compact between indestructible states. True conservative thought in America has always held that states retained certain powers unto themselves at the formation of the United States - the term states' rights is possibly a misnomer in this regard because these are not rights at all but inalienable powers never given to the Federal government at all, therefore the states do not need a right to exercise such powers as such a right is inherent in the sovereignty of the states. For clarity the term states' rights suffices however. A conservative knows instinctively that the federal government has no authority whatsoever dealing in issues such as education, health care, retirement programs, directly taxing citizens, speed limits, seat belt usage and a plethora of other initiatives.

Why then do so-called conservatives speak to these issues in terms of modifying existing programs? Why not simply read the Constitution and state unequivocally that any program that the Federal government is involved in that encroaches upon areas reserved to the states should not be modified but eliminated? Beware of anyone proclaiming the mantle of conservative that cannot fathom this point.


Which of course brings us to the constitutionalist pillar of American conservative thought. Despite that fact the the 18th century Federalist violated their charter to simply modify the Articles of Confederation they sold us a document that is the law of the land. As such a conservative realizes that this document is not a means to an end but rather a necessary result of building government - which of course is a necessary evil but a requirement of an ordered society. The Constitution is intended to protect the people from the rulers and the individual from the people. It is also a compact, a contract between the states and the central government that the states gave birth to. A true conservative views the Constitution in the sense that it was written and reads it plainly and literally. A conservative will not stand for altering interpretations of the document depending upon the mood of the polity - there are mechanisms established to alter the wording of the document without subjecting it to various interpretations.


What does all of this say for the current state of conservative thought in our present political arena? It says that there are not many conservatives among us and very few running for political office.

Stumble It!

Time For A Change

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Stumble It!

Ron Paul's Position

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Stumble It!

Thomas Fleming on Secession

What could be done, ideally, with the Kurds? Many of my Southern friends answer, almost automatically: Guarantee the Kurds the right of secession, and all will be well. As I recently explained, in a speech that antagonized a group of secessionists meeting in Chattanooga, there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. . (Thomas Flemming, HT Daniel)

A lot of folks that support the notion of self-determination and ultimately secession are aghast at Dr. Fleming's remarks at the Second Annual Secession Convention. Fleming further articulated his view point in a recent Chronicles article that honestly, I believe, closes the loop on the issue and puts us all back at the same table - more of less, minus his errors regarding the Kurds.

He does, however in my observed opinion, get a few things wrong.

It is a terrible charge to make against any nation, but the Kurds are the Albanians of the Mideast

By this he is implying that the Kurds would commit atrocities greater than Persians, Sunnis, Shiites, Turks etc that variously occupy portions of Kurdistan. My experience with the Kurds taught me that these are probably some of the best people in the Middle-East. I lived with them and fought with them for the better part of a year. I have lived around Turks, Arabs, Zionist, and Sunnis at various points during my "travels"(not as extensively as my time with Kurds) but I cannot help but recall fondly my memories of each and every Kurd I befriended. Saladin was a Kurd for goodness sakes, he taught the West what it meant to fight honorably and nobly long before we developed a sense of chivalry and real nobility. Kurds are not religiously fanatical, they do not as a group subscribe to the extreme versions of Islam - that would be the Arabs, and Persians. I just have to disagree that because Kurdish independence would mean potential violence we should not support it - in a moral sense, not with boots on the ground. This is the largest ethnic population on Earth yet they do not have a country.

His arguments relating to Kurdish complicity in PPK activities are not particularly noteworthy. The activities of the Persians in Iran, the Turks in Turkey and Arabs in Iraq carried out against the Kurds are no less tyrannical than the 4GW tactics utilized by the PPK against their oppressors. I too might be a "insert whatever label you like" if I had no other options for freedom.

Laying the Kurdish question aside Dr. Fleming does get it right in terms of describing secession and self-determination in general. People everywhere, at anytime do not have "natural right" to abolish government at will. His is a very paleoconservative viewpoint in that regard. Important things are best guaranteed by an overarching order. As Flemming describes:

...there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. For some peoples, monarchy or autocracy may be the best system; for others an oligarchy based on wealth; while for some small-scale societies something like popular government may work, though the history of such experiments is not encouraging.

I could not agree more - it is foolish to think that democracy or any other ideology is universally applicable to all people in all places at all times. However, Dr. Clyde Wilson disagrees with Flemings take on self-determination and I think the truth ultimately lies closer to Wilson's viewpoint.

In various conversations with folks about the subject of secession I often run into those of a libertarian bent that disregard the notion that secession should take place using existing governmental structures, i.e. states with pre-esisting sovereignty. I believe their view that people can simply form together to secede is flawed. What they are talking about is a revolution not secession. Revolutions are justified under certain circumstances but it is incorrect to confuse legitimate secession from revolutionary thoughts. Secession is not revolution. Of the various theories of secession, I myself really only believe that the State-Federal Contract and the Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories hold much water.

I don't think Dr. Fleming's remarks at The Chattanooga Convention nor his recent post marks him as a non-supporter of secession. He is correct, self-determination is not something we ought to support for everybody everywhere all the time. However, we should also not be too judgmental of those that want their own freedom lest others might also judge us and ultimately end up lending support to tyrants.

Stumble It!

The Way Things Should Be - Home

Joshua's post regarding peak oil spurred my thoughts in a dozen directions. The simple fact is we face problems so enormous as to demand solutions which our politicians in our current system simply cannot conceptualize, much less implement.

As you may well know, I am a paleoconservative. As such every thing of importance to me revolves around just a few things, my religion, my family, my culture and my home. Essentially everything else I think or believe is driven by those priorities. I see the solution to all problems relating directly to the lessons that traditions that respect those four priorities teach us. There really is nothing new under the sun, just new ways of applying old lessons and new ways of thinking tempered with what came before.

I look at the world and I see the same problems as everyone else; with the economy, with a bloated and distant government, politicians that serve only themselves or those that fund them, corporations that are greedy and corrupt, lazy people that will not do for themselves, a culture that consumes too much. The solutions that I see for these ills are where I, and all paleoconservatives, diverge on a separate path in the woods. It is that separate path, I believe, that can make all the difference.

I hold out no hope that man can build a perfect society or cure all societal ills. I am no utopian. However, I believe it is clear that the path we now travel will lead us to a bad end. I see a dystopic future filled with shortages, overpopulation, an angry crowded and dissatisfied population and a heavily centralized government that is essentially forced to act tyrannically simply because it is the only way to maintain control of an untenable situation. Our greed, selfishness, aloofness and lack of foresight will ensure that this is the future our children or their children inherit.

All of the signs are there, over the last 140 years our own government has transformed itself into an entity that no longer serves the people but rules them. Over the last 50 years our landscape has transformed from vast areas of rolling countryside into urban sprawl and the blight of suburbia. We have degenerated from a self-reliant people that could so for themselves into nothing more than the tail-end of a long supply-train of consumer goods. We no longer read important works, think important thoughts or appreciate important things. We have all become consumers, commuters, victims, whiners and gluttons for mindless pop culture.

Why? We have lost our love for permanent things.

I am no lover of government, it is nothing more than a necessary evil at best and a brutal tyrant at worst. However, when things have gone so astray, when the people themselves are clueless as to what is actually wrong what other option but government do we have to turn to for a solution?

No, I did not fall off my rocker, I do not believe that the Federal Government is qualified to create a solution. Our state governments are no better. All of our elected officials, with very rare exceptions, are bought and paid for by the very entities that want to see the status quo remain. So please, don't take me wrong - when I say that government could help restore us to the right path I am not actually giving any credit to the government that currently rules over this impending train wreck. In a later installment of this line of thought I will discuss good government - the sort we need to implement real solutions.

Having lived in Korea for the last two years I have come to appreciate a few things about this place. Koreans do not have subdivisions. City folks live in high rises, people that grow things live outside the city. If you wear a tie to work you live in the city - it is just that simple. What an amazing concept, one we have royally screwed up in the states. Why on Earth should a stock broker, insurance salesman or any other business person, factory worker, etc. live in the "country" and drive to work in an urban area?

Just consider the waste. These people occupy anywhere from .5 to 2 acres of land each and grow nothing more than grass and a few flowers. They get in their automobiles everyday and drive, using gasoline, polluting the air and wasting time that they could spend on more productive pursuits (like spending time with their kids). Along their drive businesses thrive to serve them, restaurants, gas stations etc., taking up more space and employing people to do nothing more than serve people that are destroying the environment and wasting time. What a stupid way to live and what an idiotic way for a society to function.

I love land, I believe land is tied directly to home, hearth, kirk and kin. Land should mean something, it is the sort of thing a family should identify with, love and cherish. The hundreds of thousands of acres occupied by suburbs and the ancillary strip malls and wal-marts that service them mean nothing. These places will be sold when the current owners die - these are not family treasures they are "investments".

People should be free to choose their own destiny and become whatever they want. I do not dislike people that want to work in jobs that are urban in nature. I do not believe a society and culture can long sustain our current lifestyle. These people are not free to destroy in their pusuit of happiness.

My solution to this particular point of our current trouble is simple in concept (obviously hard but not impossible in implementation - with a good and noble government)

1. Land is for those that produce and those that support those that produce. Thus subdivisions, strip mall, interstate mega-fueling stations on every exit all must go.
   
2. If you really want to own land and have another job - you must at the least produce enough for your family and forget about daily commutes - leverage technology. This means you have to own more than half an acre obviously.
   
3. Urban planning is almost nonexistent in the US, it happens after the fact and is corrupted by greed and commercial interest. To do this right urban areas need to consolidate (i.e. absorb the influx from the former suburbs) and plan to expand over time in a logical and controlled manner. Some cities I have visited in the Persian Gulf region have successfully planned this sort of current and future growth.
   
4. Small towns, in the country are acceptable and required but an overall plan would prevent these areas from becoming urban areas - if you want to build a high rise move to the metro.
   
5. Urban areas just do not need a lot of cars running around - why on Earth do you need that? There are simply too many other economical and environmentally friendly options for the city dwellers.
   

Gosh you say, sounds grand but to implement this would cause a great upheaval. Yes it would, but sometimes lazy, greedy scoundrels need to be kicked in the pants. I cannot describe suburbanites with any nicer words. Pay them for their "homes" offer incentives for folks to build them new homes in high rises near where they work, invest in some real urban planning, develop robust mass transit systems within the cities and between the cities and make it financially impossible (too expensive) for anyone to buck the system.

Would life be wonderful and rosy in the cities? No, but what is the alternative? Someday change will come whether we plan for it or not. Someday the option of commuting to work will be cost prohibitive simply because the resources are too scarce. The urban areas will continue to expand into the country, not in a planned and logical way but willy-nilly as we see now. Some people enjoy city life, they are naturally disposed to it. There is a way to fashion a city in a palatable and sustainable way that would be for more appealing than the bleak post peak-oil cities I envision.

What we are doing now just will not work and to continue to do it would be foolish.

Stumble It!

From Philosophy to Ideology

I am reading a couple books about Sayyid Qutb, I was particularly interested in his view of the moral state of America in 1948-50. He was a an anti-communist and there is a particularly telling passage that compares a statement by Billy Graham to one Qutb made a year prior denouncing communism as replacing one god for another. (This in and of it self means nothing, it is but an interesting comparison.)

Reading Sayyid's thoughts in his early days of transformation (he was 42 but this was his first adventure outside of Egypt) I cannot help but believe that the man was a paleoconservative in the truest sense. Of course he later developed into an ideologue and essentially developed his own dangerous ideology, Qutbism, but that was not the man in 1950.

I did a little Internet search and discovered that Joshua previously wrote about this man:

CORPUS MEUM today links to an article about Sayyid Qutb's stay in 1950s America: A Lesson In Hate. The Egyptian thinker was, of course, in grace error, but this did not prevent him from making a valid point or two along the way, like this one:

Qutb rejected the idea that “new” was also “improved.” The Enlightenment, the Industrial Age—modernity itself—were not progress. “The true value of every civilization...lies not in the tools man has invented or in how much power he wields,” Qutb wrote. “The value of civilizations lay in what universal truths and worldviews they have attained.” The modern obsession with science and invention was a moral regression to the primitive condition of the first toolmakers.

Such ideas seem to me not so much in keeping with Islamism but with the Traditionalist School of René Guénon.

Joshua may not have called the man a paleoconservative (in 1950 as I stated above) but he was on the right trail. I hate it when I think I have an original idea and then find someone else has beat me to it.

I am about to re-read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. There is much I agree with in that book, although I believe he does not go far enough in sub-dividing potential cultures and potential clashes.

I am however stumped in my apparent agreement with Huntington in portions of his work and my understanding of Muslims. Huntington asserts that future conflict will not be primarily ideological or economic but based upon culture. I do not see non-ideological Muslims, living mostly in their lands as a threat.

Cultures can co-exist in the community of nations, it is ideology that poisons the mind of man. I could, for instance, have been friends with Sayyid Qutb in 1950, our views would have been the same (had I been alive). This is despite the fact that we come from different cultures and religious beliefs.

I would have been his enemy some years later after his philosophical views turned ideological. I have likely fought and killed people influenced by his ideas in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Stumble It!

Upside Down World

Fellow South Carolinian and, as I have told her, closet paleoconservative La Shawn Barber wonders today what many bloggers, writers, doers and thinkers wonder - why am I not heard?

If you do not know, La Shawn is well-spoken, succinct writer who also happens to be a black, southern, Christian woman. I say also happens to be but that is inaccurate, she was many of the later before she was the former but I think you get my point. Oh yeah, she also went to law school but don't hold that against her.

La Shawn does not fit the mold, in here own words she calls a spade a spade and pulls no punches on the racial aspect of issues that other folks simply could not touch without getting on Morris Dee's hall of fame list.

I actually think very seldom about issues in racial terms other than to acknowledge that some segments of the population are hell-bent toward looking at every issue in those terms. I suppose I just write all of that sort of people off entirely. Narrow minds of that sort are dangerous and they are plentiful but there is nothing I can do about it.

La Shawn is exactly the sort of person that people in the world ought to listen to. She has obviously had success, her site receives a lot of hits, she appears on MSM outlets from time to time but ultimately, in the big scheme of things, she is a failure.

She has failed to sway the blogsphere in the smallest measurable degree toward a right perspective in relation to important issues. Oh you say she is but one woman and the blogsphere is filled with many voices. That is true, many unenlightened and delusional voices fill our ranks - probably a solid representation of the world around us. There are however, a few opinion-leaders out there - folks that flunkies flock to for their latest ideological azimuth checks.

Why has La Shawn failed? She proposes three scenarios and leans toward the possibility that perhaps, she is just not as good as she believes herself to be. None of her scenarios hold water.

She fails because her message is not what people want to hear. It is as simple as that. If we lived in a better society, with better people that truly understood the relationship between individual liberty and responsibility and the importance of family La Shawn would probably be THE opinion maker on the blogsphere.

La Shawn's story is a cautionary tale for all of us lesser bloggers with ideas that do not fit the mainstream. Do we dare expect to succeed where she has failed? In a name drop world such as ours she has achieved what should amount to success, i.e. links in the right places, name recognition and face time with the MSM. Yet, she still fails to truly change the momentum of wrong ideas.

Faced with such a circumstance some would ask if perhaps their ideas are out of touch because they are simply wrong. Of course we all know principles never change, people do (Stephens). This fact is still true today, and will forever remain true.

La Shawn, there is nothing wrong with you, it is the world around you that is upside down.

Stumble It!

We Lost the Cultural War

One theme runs pretty constant through many of the blogs, sites and magazines I read. That being centered essentially around the cultural war. Major campaigns in this war include items such as the illegal immigration invasion from the south and the Muslim foothold in our Congress. Of course another major campaign that many folks I read or converse with deals with moral degradation and yet another topic of discussion and concern is of course governmental and corporate encroachment into our everyday lives. Many folks realize that all of these events are directly related to each other, some go so far as to claim that there is a conspiracy afoot responsible for all of this.

Well, there may or may not be such a conspiracy. After all a conspiracy is really nothing more than a group with a plan. I am relatively certain that some group, some where, that desires more centralized government, has realized that breaking down the family, destroying the church, and eliminating cultural ties is pretty necessary to the ultimate achievement of their goals. In that sense, I am certain discussions on these matters have and do take place. It is not such a mysterious thing, it is pragmatic and reasonable. Men like Robert Pastor are reasonable and pragmatic as were all the men of his ilk that came before. Conspiracy theorist probably go to far in filling in the blanks but they are right on in their presumption that something is afoot.

I read with great interest the cries and wails of many good intentioned individuals clamoring against this and that as it specifically relates to the various ongoing battles in the cultural war. Here though I give you all the plain and unvarnished truth - THE WAR IS LOST. Call me a defeatist if you will, but I speak only the truth.

We cannot rightly fear a Muslim in Congress and also be outraged because he wishes to swear in using the Koran - how can we possibly claim such an event in anyway violates our traditions. What traditions? Do we still presume to claim that the United States is a Christian nation?

Well, historically the United States never was a Christian nation - to be certain all of the original states were Christian nations, as clearly evidenced by their constitutions, but each abandoned that righteous position long ago. That aside, if we are merely talking about The People constituting a Christian nation we cannot make that claim either. We may have been in the past but we lost that, we are no more a Christian nation than Hollywood is a Christian town. Even among the millions that claim to be Christians I see little fruit to bear witness to the claim. We are a nation that claims religion but are far from being Christian.

Many claim that illegal immigration is destroying our culture. I say that is just so much bunk. Tell me what culture is being destroyed that we ourselves have not already killed and buried. Do a few hundred Spanish-speaking day-laborors in a town do more harm to culture than say - greedy parents that abandon their children just so they can afford more stuff? Our own greed, avarice and callousness destroyed our culture long ago. A few million Mexicans cannot do more than we have already done.

The first time a school board gave into political correctness and multiculturalism we began to lose the cultural war. This did not occur under GW's watch or during Clinton's time in office. This began in my childhood and maybe before. Why were these malcontents not run out of small towns on pikes? We were too weak to defend our culture when it counted.

As soon as we began latching onto flawed notions spewed by the likes of B.F. Skinner, we began to lose the cultural war.

In actuality it began long before the 1960's/70's. When men began to look to the government to fix their problems, no matter how great those problems might have been, the die was cast for us to lose our culture. Roosevelt's New Deal was more than an economic program, it was a social revolution - a revolution that fundamentally changed the nature of things.

Many of us talk about the foul perversion generated by Hollywood; but we still have televisions. We bemoan the loss of small town America as we shop at Wal-Mart. We are hypocrites.

The things that good Americans love about America are remnants of what was good, it is not the sum and total of what America has become. Looking across our land we see bright spots and hope that these are sign-posts to salvation. These are mere artifacts. If you really want to know what America is take a look at the culture we export. That is America, that is what we have become - the small glimmer of decent folk notwithstanding.

Don't be discouraged, the fight is still a noble cause - it is however lost in this generation. We should at least admit that so that our efforts might be geared toward what is winnable in the long-term. History and legacy do not conform to election cycles nor to the ebbing and waning of empires. Principles do not die like ideologies and dogma - they live on in the hearts of good men. Fight the good fight now and raise good men for the next generation to follow. The monsters our adversaries have built and are building cannot last long - in the historical sense.

Stumble It!

Important Questions

We rant and praise our Constitution, but do we really know what we're saying? We crave a return to gold as Constitutional money, but is it only because we happen to own some coins squirreled away? For the most part I don't believe Americans are prepared for a return to constitutional government. We would have to reclaim our once cherished individual responsibilities. That means less government, my dear reader. Be intellectually honest with yourself now....Are we as parents able to take responsibility for the education of our own children? Now, I said education, and that doesn't mean just putting them on a yellow bus! I mean learning. Can we live without the government certifying every trade and work skill? How are you at replacing a toilet? What do we know about crop rotation, fertilizers, local marketing, etc? How many of us can run a wood splitter? Even more important where to get the wood. If you think a temporary power outage now to be an annoyance, wait until your local utility is unable to buy its natural gas or oil for any amount of dollars. Who do you blame? You blame the government, of course. But, then what do you do - - you turn around and ask the government for help! (a recent email from The Charleston Voice)

The questions he asks above are not merely rhetorical - they are practical in nature. I suppose the sad reality behind most modern conservatives supporting unprincipled and pragmatic positions is precisely because they know the answers to these questions. They are personally unprepared for the increased responsibility that must accompany increased liberty.

We have bought lock, stock and barrel into the notion that government must be involved in every aspect of life - from cradle to grave. Most of this has come about when good intentioned people said "there ought to be a law" - a statement generally following some irresponsible behavior by some individual or individuals.

I am conflicted as to the answer. That is the primary argument that most folks hold out against paleoconservatives. I know in our time, in the circumstances that are reality, every man cannot have his "40 acres and a mule". A true distributivist economic system is impossible, agrarianism on a mass scale is now impossible. It is even impossible to thwart the nature of modern man and his desire for bigger and cheaper. The mass of the population is not, and never will be ready to accept a world in which they, as individuals, are help accountable for their own well-being, where they are forced to conform to community standards in order to survive, where individual freedom comes with enormous responsibility and is tempered by the small community in which a person lives.

Even the very notion of community is confused in our modern mind. Many assume that their "homeowners associations" are akin to the sort of community that we paleoconservatives speak of - nothing could be further from the truth. Most of those associations take on the likeness of a communist party - demanding that all surrender something for the common good. Real community is of course different - it does not demand, it compels; there is a tremendous difference.

In some real sense paleoconservatives do not offer a real solution to the problems of the world around us - at least not a solution that the citizen-drones around us would accept. Perhaps we remain as simple a voice for some distant future generation, rising out of a cataclysmic future. Maybe that is too cynical of a view. I remain hopeful that all is not lost and that some small remnant remains that is capable seeing reality.

Stumble It!

Being Principled is Not Insane

In my post on the death of Megan McClung I asked how a just society could send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die.

One anonymous commenter stated my argument denying her the right to serve her nation as she wished was insane.

Well, I suppose I could attempt, as others have done, to rationalize the issue. For example -

Gary North argues: "The camaraderie and esprit de corps in a military unit or a police unit is heavily dependent on shared risk. When women are exposed to the same degree of risk of life and death, this disrupts the military-protective function, which is unquestionably masculine."

I could cite incidents of sexual assault - but the rationalist would simply say that the culture of the military ought to change to be kinder and gentler (less rough men standing on a wall and more politically correct bureaucrats).

I could discuss the 1992 Presidential Commission on The Assignment of Women in The Military's findings (the last major governmental study on the subject), but that would really miss the point.

The point is not whether some women can perform in the military and even in combat roles nor whether the military can be changed as an organization to accommodate women. The argument against women in combat specifically and in most military roles generally is one of principle and relates directly to philosophy.

Women do not belong in positions that place them in harms way simply because it is the function of a just society to prevent that. Women are charged in a good society with bringing beauty and elegance to an otherwise nasty world. They teach our children to appreciate elements of life that men - if men actually performed manly functions - are really incapable of passing along.

If you do not understand the paragraph above and instead paint me as -"insane", "chauvinistic", "archaic", or any other term you like - you simply do not understand the philosophical place my views derive from.

If you want to really know, and I suppose you have assumed it already - I do indeed believe the most important work a woman can do is in the home, raising good children. That is the nature of a well ordered society, a society that conforms to the natural order and natural law. My libertarian friends may scramble to remove our blog from their blogrolls - I know these views conflict with their philosophy that derives from the enlightenment and reason - whereas mine originate from lessons via a long history of good and bad societies.

Women are not inferior to men - in many pursuits they are superior. We are partners in a joint endeavor - we should celebrate our differences and stick with what we all are born of nature to do best.

I could and have argued against placing women in most military roles based upon reason and I believe a pretty good argument can be made using reason, facts and data. I no longer make such arguments.

The fact is, if a society wishes to abandon its greatest asset - ladies of strength and character - and replace them with generic persons and then send them into the world - abandoning our greatest treasure, children - that is a society in decline. It is unjust and unpardonable.

Darrell Dow puts it in perspective:

Christians who aren’t embarrassed by their Bibles should forcefully put forth the truth that there is a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women outlined in Scripture. It is men who protect and lay down their lives for women, even as Christ died for the Church, and it is women who bear a responsibility as nurturers. In Joshua 1:14, we read that the “wives, young children, and livestock” of Israel remained on the other side of the Jordan River while the “fighting men” crossed the river to wage war against the Canaanites.

Stumble It!

Perhaps the Rest of the MCM Will Come Around

Paleoconservatism is informed by certain philosophical presumptions that differ markedly from the presumptions of neocons and most modern conservatives. It is a hard concept to initially get your arms around for the uninitiated, but once you understand the presumptions the positions on issues naturally follow. It is not just a hodge-podge of policy differences.

From an excellent synopsis of paleoconservative philosophy.

Stumble It!

The Defenders of States' Rights - the Good Ole GOP

I seems that even folks in California actually "get it" when it comes to the topic of states' rights. Here is an except from a fellow in Folsom, CA -

I'm no genius when it comes to studying our constitution, but "States Rights" looms large on my list of "must have." If my state votes to allow people to wear bikini suits to work, then so be it. The constitution protects the right for us to elect our own officials and they have the obligation to do what we want.

"Must have" indeed, here is one reason why as he puts it -

I now hear seniors are voicing the concern that voting no longer matters. "There is no one to vote for, and besides, they don't even listen anymore."

Now this is alarming. The young voters have always been reluctant to believe their "vote counts" and the middle-agers are frantically trying to keep their heads above water, but now the oldsters are upset with our system? Now that's trouble.

As Johnny pointed out a month or so ago, for many voting is stupid - if they don't listen, you are merely giving tacit validity to a system that has lost its mandate. Voting or not voting does not matter - in either event ours is a system of taxation without representation. The scale is too big, influences other than the individual hold too much sway - our politicians only speak to our issues at election time, and then proceed with the hubris of Roman Senators to go back to the Federal District and do what they think is best for us (or for their future/wallet/etc).

We are foolish enough to believe asinine comments like this found in stateline -

[T]he Republican Party traditionally was known as a supporter of states’ rights.

Wait a darn minute, how can anyone wishing to be taken seriously make such a statement? What could they possibly base this assumption on? The GOP's promises or their actions?

The GOP is the party of Lincoln - you know those guys that killed 600,000 Americans in order to crush states' rights under foot as the grapes of wrath. What in the world has this party done in the last 40 years to redeem that record? Have they supported or passed one piece of legislation that supports and defends states' rights?

Perhaps the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) was a GOP attempt to bolster states' rights and all of us yokels are too stupid to realize it.

Perhaps their attack, in 2005, on New York state's attempt to regulate trade within her borders was a defense of states' rights. And certainly we foolish plebes misunderstood the intent behind the Federal Government's attack on the right of states to prefer local businesses to say, Panamanian ones. (We can't have states ignoring something as important as the Central American Free Trade Agreement.) The list could go on and on.

The point is the GOP is absolutely no supporter of states' rights - they have proven themselves to be the greatest enemy of these rights. It is a travesty that this party sells a bill of goods to otherwise good people with no intention of meaning what they say.

Don't get me wrong here, the socialist Democrats would do no better - at least they lack the hypocrisy of proclaiming to stand for the rights of states. With a democrat you know what you are getting (with a few curious exceptions - such as James Webb).

Stumble It!

Declaration of Cultural Independence

As you probably have realized Johnny and I are big fans of the way William S. Lind thinks.  He is the director of the Free Congress Foundation. Below is their proposed rally cry for the reclamation of decent American Culture. I completely agree that in order to save whatever is left of good culture we must look inward and to our immediate left and right- we must start at home. I too have given up on politics at the national level as anything more than a sideshow, in in a few very rare instances where a right-minded person takes a righteous stand a platform for good ideas. 

(I am not so certain about Paul Weyrich - the founder of FCF - he seems to me to adhere to many neoconservative ideological notions - specifically related to domestic policy)

______________________________________

Once, not so very long ago, America was a good place to live. Families were strong and stable. One breadwinner, almost always the father, brought home enough income to give a whole family a middle class standard of living. Wives and mothers could devote themselves to making good homes and rearing their children. Those children played in safe neighborhoods, surrounded by good neighbors. They went to schools that inculcated discipline, built character and taught reading, writing and arithmetic well. Entertainment was moral, instructive and healthy. Civilization was passed successfully from one generation to another, and even improved a bit along the way.

Today, that America has become a memory. Divorce and illegitimacy have shattered families and crippled children. Taxation and consumerism together have made the single-breadwinner middle class family a rare exception. Children are left to grow up on their own, learning from their peers rather than their parents. Childhood itself is disappearing, as young children are left to face adult situations alone and without guidance.

Public schools have become "attendance centers," as some are now openly called. Some are little more than holding pens for illiterate young ruffians. Few effectively teach even the most basic skills. Rather, their concern is inculcating the "attitudes" demanded by the reigning ideology of Political Correctness.

The entertainment industry is a bottomless sewer, inverting good and evil and flooding the land with sex, violence and degradation of every sort. Video games desensitize children to killing by turning people into objects. Television "normalizes" every deviance, including homosexuality and the inversion of the traditional roles of men and women. Popular music glorifies killers and reduces women to whores.

The high arts are almost dead. Art and architecture are intended to be ugly and alienating. Serious music has become a self-parody. Publishers seek not good writing but "celebrity" authors. The news media values sensationalism over facts.

All these are classic, age-old signs of a culture that is self-destructing. A growing number of Americans know how to read these signs. They realize that, despite economic prosperity, America is becoming a foreign country, foreign to everything that once defined Americans as a people. Indeed, as Political Correctness demands, we are no longer one people. "Multiculturalism" has changed our national motto into ex uno, plura: from one, many.

What is to be done? When a man finds himself in a sewer, his first objective is to get out of it. In a culture that has become a sewer, our first objective must be the same: to get out of that culture, and to create an alternative to it.

Until recently, the objective of cultural conservatives, those Americans who still adhere to our ancient, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, was to retake existing cultural institutions - the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and the arts - from those hostile to our culture and make them once again forces for goodness, truth and beauty. We sought to do so primarily through politics, by electing fellow cultural conservatives to high office and expecting them, once elected, to use politics to help restore our traditional culture.

Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that this strategy has not been successful. Despite some political successes, the culture has continued to deteriorate. In part, this is because some of the people we elected abandoned their principles once they were in office. But the larger reason is that culture is more powerful than politics. The tide of cultural degradation and decay is simply too strong for any political barrier to stem.

When one strategy fails, the proper response is not to surrender but to adopt a different strategy. We, the undersigned, therefore pledge ourselves to a strategy of cultural Independence. We hereby declare our Independence from the decayed, modern or post-modern culture and pledge our efforts toward creating new institutions built upon the values of our traditional, inherited Western culture.

We seek nothing less than the creation of a complete, alternate structure of parallel cultural institutions. Home schooling is an example: faced with the failure of the public schools, home schoolers have created a separate, parallel system of education, a system that revives our traditional values and culture and transmits them to a new generation. What home schoolers have done in primary and secondary education, we seek to do also in higher education, media, entertainment, the arts, every aspect of popular and, eventually, high culture as well.

The task is a vast one. But the talents and energies of Americans who still adhere to our traditional culture are also vast. When mobilized effectively, in the late 1970s and 1980s, they had profound if temporary effects on our nation's politics. Now, the challenge is to mobilize them again, not in hopes of evanescent gains in politics, but in service of a more solid goal, the goal of creating our own institutions and through them recovering our identity as a people.

To that task we pledge our talents, our treasure, and our abilities, to work on scales small or great as our circumstances allow. Out of the wreckage of the country once called America we will build a new, moral and pleasant land.

Stumble It!

Are We Citizens or Subjects?

It has been some time since I articulated the argument(s) that the (1)14th Amendment was never properly ratified; (2) it so fundamentally disagrees with the basic intent of the Constitution that it must be unconstitutional; and (3) if we accept the amendment as Constitutional and valid as interpreted, that fact alone presents such a usurpation of States' Rights as to justify secession, without any other cause provided or required.

In Secessionist Paper No. 5, I argue that the manner in which this amendment was enacted, rather than ratified, combined with the sweeping power it steals from states and gives to the Federal Government (contrary to the intent of the original compact), creates a situation in which the Federal Government exists de facto rather than de jure. I stand by that.

Once the Federal Government was able to declare me and everyone else their citizen, rather than citizens of our home states, all of the ingredients for future tyranny were in place. We are subjects to a far away and distant regime; not participants in a republican democracy small enough to hear our voices on issues that really matter to us. 

Don't argue with me that during the time that the 14th Amendment was "expanded" so broadly it was most necessary- to correct social ills.  It is never right to do a little wrong for a greater good. 

If anything at all of lasting good has come from the 14th Amendment, it is the legal precedent that states can indeed leave the union - as it was necessary for Congress to expel the southern states in order to ratify enact this amendment.  

(from the June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE, Page 15641)

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clearcut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims.

Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts.

We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a sham—serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.

But interestingly enough, the 14th amendment—whether ratified or not—was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between the States.

Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples’ government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists—rebels with pens instead, of guns—seeking to divide our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the RECORD, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th amendment illegal. Also, I include in the RECORD an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th amendment—the play toy of our secessionist judges—which has been prepared by Judge Leander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

A summary the argument

THE 14th AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By Judge Leander H. Perez

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the states in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

read the rest...

Stumble It!

Unprincipled Traitor!

From Rebellion -

Nothing irritates me more than the emails I get from readers who say, “I thought you were a conservative/libertarian/free-market defender/blah-blah and now you’re saying (fill in the blank).” I rail against immigration, and the left-libertarians get upset.  I lambast George W. Bush, and the Republicans forward pouty little protests that I’m undermining “our” commander-in-chief.  I condemn the Patriot Act, and “conservatives” shoot little barbs at me for not supporting the “War on Terror.” They all tell me how inconsistent the Rebellion blog is, or (here’s my favorite) how unprincipled I am.

Now that hurts.

It is always amazing how quickly "right-minded" folks can and will turn off what you have to say if you view the world through panorama instead of a microscope.  Those that try to apply philosophy of how to think are seldom tolerated long by those that believe in ideologies that tell them what to think.

Blogging exasperates this phenomenon - an ideologue may stumble upon your blog based upon one post that supports their particular ideology; they read for a few days, until you post an item that does not fit neatly into their "rules" of thinking. Invariably they either leave without ever returning of they fire off an email informing you that you are either unprincipled or confused. It indeed does hurt.

Of course most of us know the real deal about ideologies -

Here’s the bottom line, folks: It’s Ideology that’s actually inconsistent.  The notion that there can be a best-of-all-worlds political philosophy is an illusion.  Sooner or later, the ideologists end up supporting contradictory positions.  Mule-headed adherence to part of your ideology will ultimately lead you down a dead end, and maybe to a self-defeating position you’re forced to stick to just to remain consistent.  Call it Gödel’s Theorem applied to political thought.

I would only correct the statement above by stating that there probably is a "best-of-all-worlds political philosophy" - so long as the philosophy remains broad enough and provides the tools that equip "thinkers" to solve most any issue.  The only danger is when a philosophy begins to become too defined and restricted and in effect more ideological.

Perhaps it would be better if folks that pretend to navigate the world of ideas actually spent a little more time figuring things out before attempting to pin a label and move on. 

Stumble It!

We Need a Hero - Not Really

Dr. Clyde Wilson dispenses wisdom for all you neophytes.

I recently saw the film V for Vendetta and looked over some fairly obscure books with a similar theme—overthrow of an evil Establishment by heroic resistance. I am all in favour of getting rid of Establishments of the currently prevailing type. I was cheered when early in the film it was declared that governments ought to be afraid of their people rather than people being afraid of their governments. That sums up the spirit of the American War of Independence as well as any concise statement can. But nonetheless the overthrow of tyranny in the film left me disquieted.

[...]

The overthrow of oppression is seen as the work of a single superhuman individual. I do not think it ever has been that way in the real world. The overthrow of tyrannical government requires the collective action of strong elements of a society, not the intervention of a superhero.

[...]

Our culture seems to have lost awareness of or hope in the true pursuit of liberty. The longing for liberation by a superman is not a solution, but is part of the problem. And part of the explanation for the 20th century being exceedingly beyond all others the time of tyrants.

Really nothing different that what we lesser paleoconservatives say over and over - if we want to change we have to start in our communities and we have to be willing to actually take action. There is no masked man coming along to save us.

Stumble It!

Be Brave, Be Very Brave

From an article entitled "A State Within A State: The Centralist Better Get Used To It".

If there was one thing that seemed to annoy the Bush II Administration more than anything about Hezbollah during its recent war with Israel, was that Hezbollah was “a state within a state,” i.e. a parallel government was operating within the bounds of sovereign state (Lebanon). Apparently the Bushes and the centralizers within the Beltway don’t like “state within states” very much. Apparently such an idea seems to run afoul of the U.S.’ global hegemony. If the U.S. is the dominant power on the globe, then there is supposedly no room for such little entities to be able to operate. Don’t they know we’re an empire now according to one administration official?

[...]

So if such places can have “states within states,” why not the U.S.? Especially why not the U.S.? After all, modern global connecting technology like the Internet and GPS satellites give such small places the opportunity to survive economically and preserve their unique cultures through independence, de facto or de jure. An independent Vermont could very well survive on its own no worse than tiny Singapore, Liechtenstein or Andorra. And even if Vermont, or New Hampshire, or the South was just independent in the mind only, such distinct regionalism is the very hallmark of the American experiment.

It should be pointed out that when the U.S. won its independence, what it did more or less was secede from the British Empire. And for much of that struggle, it governed not by the Constitution, but by the Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states a great deal of freedom within structure of the American nation. It only because of powerful economic, commercial and political interests that the convention that ultimately adopted the Constitution was called to convene. Such forces tend to be the gravitational pull of centralism. But the very technologies that are supposed to pull the world together in one globalized mass, can also pull it apart. Such technologies make persons across the globe realize there is no "golden straightjacket" that encloses them. They can "be yet separate" in mind and in fact as well, one way or another and not suffer some sort of catastrophe as the elites always warn. They just have to be brave enough to do so.

I wonder if folks truly understand the momentum this thought process is gaining across the world. The age of the nation-state may indeed be over - killed by would be empire-builders that pushed centralization too far. William Lind is perhaps one of the greatest political/military thinkers of our age - as early as 1990 he saw the real meaning of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the coming of stateless warfare and devolution. Now in the US, Canada and Britain good folks are again talking seriously about regaining their identity and independence.

Be brave compatriots, be very brave - ours may yet be a generation that fundamentally alters the shape of things. Deo Vindice!

Stumble It!

The Constitution Party and Paleoconservatives

Matty N. contemplates why so few paleoconservatives support the Constitution Party. He claims that perhaps it has something to do with the last portion of the party's mission statement:

"[T}o restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations."

Perhaps he is correct in his assessment - maybe, however, he is wrong.

Matty argues that such a mission statement necessarily equates to joining Church and State. He also argues, wrongly, that the States are themselves prohibited from establishing a state religion. This is of course false, as many states had established state religions before 1789-92 and long after - their state religions predated the Bill of Rights and continued to legally exist after ratification. Only the Federal Government is prohibited from engaging in the establishment of a state religion (someone should remind the folks that run Arlington and the National Mall that Statism is also a religion prohibited to the US Government).

But really whether or not the various states have this right is not the point. The principles, values and traditions of American jurisprudence are squarely based upon common-law and natural law - each of which are based in large part on Biblical Law.

If The Constitution Party has to drop the term "Biblical Law" from its mission statement to attract "real paleoconservatives" then the point seems moot - anyone with such a tenuous grasp of history as to completely misunderstand the development and origin of jurisprudence on the American continent is just not ready to be a paleoconservative yet. They lack an appreciation for and understanding of history that is simply required of a person that holds out a philosophy that honors traditions and what was good of the past.

Matty does get it right in the end:

The former national taxpayer's party [Constitution Party] needs to go back to its own roots -- a Constitution Party which supports strict interpretation of our Constitution, its limited powers bestowed upon the federal government, the power of the States to establish their own militias, and its exact freedoms it provides for the American people while supporting better values in our government and in out people. How do you do the latter? No morality based legislation, but set up ethical standards for our government officials. How about promoting values? Well, that's done by the individuals through their own religious and other values-based endeavors without forcing it through the government. We don't need too much government involvement in our values and if it is needed, (theft, murder, drug laws) it can be done on the State level. These state-by-state morality based legislation can be a state-by-state decision...

I have doubts that even if the Constitution Party could attract significant votes that it would ever affect change at the national level - all the same I support them (even amidst their own misconceived self-inflicted wounds). I cheer for them and hope for their success because essentially each time they raise an issue at the national level it reverberates at the local level. Perhaps in its own way the CP might just help in the effort to reawaken states and communities and engage people in the process of taking back what is theirs and righting wrongs.

It is time to dust off the 10th Amendment and give it a spin around the block!

Stumble It!

I suppose I Should Weigh-in on Jim Webb too

First, I am generally always happy to have a man of Ulster Scots lineage and a Southerner (much of Missouri is the South) elected to anything, particularly to something like the Senate. I say generally, because men of such pedigrees are still fallible.

I cannot help but be impressed with Webb's life prior to 2006.  He is a bona fide war hero (if we accept that any real heroes actually survive war). Many of his ideas while Secretary of The Navy were right on, particularly as they related to returning the Marine Corps to the "Old Corps".  His previously stated views of women in the military are also correct.

Many folks now hold Webb out as a paleoconservative and, while I like much of what he has said, I am not certain that he qualifies as a true paleoconservative.  Pat Buchanan's blog has the complete text of an article by Jim Webb entitled "American Workers Have a Chance to be Heard".  I have selected a few lines for analysis.

The most important–and unfortunately the least debated–issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century.

Ok, this scares me, but it is only the first sentence. When folks begin to bash class I think Marx. He clarifies that statement -

The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

In an of itself I have to say that this circumstance is not a bad thing, at least not the sort of thing that demands change.  If all other things were equal I would have no problem with some achieving more than others. Of course all things are not equal, the very existence of artificial entities with person rights changes everything.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic’s range.

There is the kicker.  If Webb's game is to denounce the corporate system then he may be walking the paleoconservative path (assuming he holds true in a lot of other areas).  Owners of business do not get to vote for themselves a higher salary; they must earn it.  Small corporations with investors that know each other and the managers do not simply dole out income increases.  Only mega corporations with a small cabal actually controlling the outcome of stockholder votes are able to accomplish this.  They accomplish this even when the corporation really does not make a profit no matter that they have to rob retirement funds or cook the books. Corporations have done more than government to destroy the traditional.

“Wal-Marting” of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

I think on this point Webb hits paydirt.  Earlier in the article he warned that these trends might force a "protectionist" backlash.  I wonder why such a backlash would be a particularly bad thing.  These are the things that make me wonder if Webb is a paleoconservative or a populist with reactionary tenancies.  If he is but a populist reactionary his ideas will fizzle because they lack a philosophical underpinning. 

I have little confidence in the political process; even if Webb turns out to be the paleoconservative many truly hope that he is, it is doubtful he can make much of a dent. It is and will be interesting to see how this all plays out and what sort of man Webb accords himself to be.

Stumble It!

Gesture Politics and the Populi

Bill Losapio asks a relevant question and touches on an important idea-

I continue to contemplate how the movie “V for Vendetta” came to be released, indeed made, at all. The ideas in this movie resonate with freedom’s strings tuned throughout the centuries, from the Magna Carta, to the rise of English Common Law, to the fire burning in the bellies of American colonists raging against the Mercantilist Banker forces of the British Crown, to the modern American citizen awakening from his trance induced through a lifetime of propaganda, lies, and history rewritten into statist nonsense.

A lot of "conservative" folks dislike "V For Vendetta" for various reasons, you can probably find those poorly thought out objections for yourself.  Bill's thoughts mesh well with something I contemplated this weekend. My son and I watched a DVD series produced by PBS on the events leading up to the American Revolution (the series is hosted by Forrest Sawyer and it is produced by PBS but surprisingly it is not bad).

I was reminded of the critical contribution that populism and civil disobedience played in forcing the events that lead to the revolution. 

I am generally opposed to populism and democracy for they are dangerous.  The intellectual leaders of the revolution were opposed to these dangerous notions as well but they did recognize the power of the mob once stirred to action.  The committees that tarred and feathered tax men, the boycott of British goods, the refusal to submit to taxation via cheap tea - none of these could have occurred without the support of the populi.  In fact, there was a real danger that the people could have, in there fervor, gone too far.

Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, specifically, and Benjamin Franklin in a more subtle way realized the utility of the general population and the critical necessity of feeding the right information at the right time. While most of the other founding fathers feared unleashing the moral indignation of the mob these two men saw the benefits of the act.

The simple, non-violent act of dumping tea in the Boston harbor was a masterpiece of "gesture politics" - an act that forced the Crown to submit to colonial insubordination or react in an unreasonable manner. 

I am not certain why Americans submitted to a direct tax in 1862 and again in 1913 without real resistance.  It seems to me that if every town ostracized every federal tax man in their midst, if every county sheriff refused to assist federal agents or allow them to operate in his jurisdiction, if every employer refused to take money out of the paychecks of their employees and if every citizen refused to pay taxes the entire system would have never taken hold.  Alas, our grandparents and great grandparents did not have the courage or foresight to resist - we cannot blame them, we ourselves have allowed usurpations of our liberty in our time without resistance.

The idea of true liberty that respects natural law and traditional associations and responsibilities is all that remains - just the idea. Ideas and symbols that represent those ideas can be powerful motivations for the populi.

(Bill) I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone raised the banner, donned the accoutrements, and stepped out before the mechanisms of power to be seen by all. Leave it to an unnamed volunteer at the behest of the courageous We the People Foundation to send the first shockwaves to the bureaucracy by using the character of V to present different arms of the Federal government with a communication on the government’s failure to address petitions for a Redress of Grievances....

And thus I return to “V.” This character represents a symbol… a rallying cry for the reawakening of the American patriot… a trigger for the tempest of freedom that lies dormant in every heart of every human being, American or otherwise.

It is time we employ gesture politics - enough with bashing the left/right ideological fools - paleoconservatives must serve the role that Jefferson and Washington filled in The Revolution - our Libertarian brethren must fill the role of Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry. It is not too late to fundamentally change the order of things without violence - but it must be done in this generation.  

Stumble It!

Paleos Are Pro-life Too

Dr. Dan Phillips has an interesting essay on the "shock" many folks, new to paleoconservative philosophy, experience over our bashing of the "pro-life movement". (link via Publius)

...the primary objection of the paleos to the pro-life movement (not the cause of life but the political movement, mind you) is philosophical, not practical. While paleos are often distinguished by their opposition to foreign intervention, immigration, and free trade, what really sets them apart from other conservatives is much deeper than just policy. They differ on significant underlying philosophical presumptions. One helpful way of looking at this difference is to ask where paleoconservatives draw the "its all been down hill since then" or alternatively the "those were the good ol' days" line in the historical sand. Paleos generally reject the Enlightenment in whole or in part. They reject Lockean "contract theory" and the concept of "natural rights" out right. Dr. Donald Livingston, Professor of Philosophy at Emory University, calls natural rights a "philosophical superstition." According to Dr. Livingston:

"It was to secure these rights that the modern state was invented in the first place, and it is impossible, especially for Americans, not to be seduced by the doctrine. But it is nonetheless a philosophical superstition.

The reason is this. Whatever they might be, natural rights are universal and apply to all men. Further, they are known by reason, independent of any inherited moral tradition... It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of natural rights must be in a condition of permanent hostility to all inherited moral traditions. Any such tradition, no matter how noble the goods of excellence cultivated in it, can always be seen as violating someone's natural rights under some interpretation or another."

So according to the paleoconservative critique, there is no end to the havoc that can be wrought on traditional society by advocates attempting to secure their natural rights, in this case a woman's "right" to an abortion.

Stumble It!

Elitism and Anti-Egalitarianism

Today, as the rest of the world discusses elections results and all that entails, I decided to poet a piece that certainly will not be read by anyone.

 

The term anti-egalitarian on the right-hand summary of our site probably requires a little explanation. To the uninitiated egalitarianism evokes much of what folks think to be good about America.

Egalitarianism, in its broadest sense, has given rise to communism, socialism, and democracy.  The idea of leveling the playing field is appealing to most people. Anyone that openly opposes egalitarianism is often considered an elitist.

There we have it; egalitarianism is good, elitism is bad and people that believe the first are also good, making the second group bad. That is at least the simple take on this. Of course the issue is not a simple one.

Equality under the law (with caveats) and equality of opportunity (based entirely on merit) are good sorts of egalitarianism. (Of course equality of opportunity based entirely on merit can become a meritocracy which is a kind of elitism. See how this is more complicated that the black/white simple analysis above?) From a paleoconservative point of view embracing this kind of egalitarianism is a given.  Discriminating against people on the basis of skin color is stupid - equality under the law(all other things also being equal) and equality of opportunity (again all other things being equal) are good societal traits.  The term "anti-egalitarian" as used on this blog does not represent an rejection of these points of egalitarianism.

First a clarification of the two points above before I move on to a full assault on egalitarianism and a defense of elitism.

Equality under the law does not necessarily mean that everyone gets the same rights. How does it make sense to allow someone on public welfare to vote?  Think about it, doesn't this allow one group to vote for people that will guarantee that their payments from the pockets of others continue?  Should non-property owners be allowed to vote on referendums at the local level related to property taxes?  Certainly not, at least not in a rationale world.  Should people that cannot read at a level sufficient to allow them to understand a standard newspaper be allowed to vote?  Probably not, how could such a person make a reasoned and informed decision.  Being treated equally under the law certainly does not equate to receiving the exact same rights as every other citizen.  It means being treated equally based upon your capability to contribute and your investment in society. 

Equality of opportunity does not mean that government ought to set differing standards to allow certain groups additional access to education, jobs or benefits - this is the antithesis of equality. Affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, luxury taxes, inheritance taxes and even property taxes (if used wrongly) are governmental means of "guaranteeing" equal economic opportunity -but at what expense?  In reality the cost of this opportunity is borne by others that have been more successful or just plain lucky - either way such programs are socialist, this is bad egalitarianism.

There is something else fundamentally wrong with praising egalitarianism and vilifying elitism.  This logic assumes that there is nothing of human endeavor, merit, skill or ability that ought to be rewarded and emulated. And really, if you break it right down it does not matter is a person achieved their success through luck or skill - both are things that people aspire to.  We are each capable of controlling, to some degree, our skill and (luck is what it is). All the same most people want some of each. Why punish people for being lucky or skillful?

Is it possible that there are in fact certain traits that ought to be revered and emulated?  Don't we admire young athletes who work very hard and hone their skills to championship levels? What of rags to riches innovators and inventors?  Hard work and dedication are indeed traits that we ought to admire - how can something we should admire be punished by taking the profits of that hard work away and giving it to someone less capable or less dedicated?

You can certainly call me an elitist and I will not find offense in it.  I believe people that work hard and achieve success honorably are elite in a sense. You may also call me an anti-egalitarian; for I believe that all people, ideas, values and principles are not equal nor should they be treated as such.

Stumble It!

Greed, Gluttony and Consumerism Kills

AMERICAN children and teens were growing ever fatter tummies, a sign they were at even more risk of heart disease and diabetes, US researchers said.

They found that the belly fat of children and teenagers had increased by more than 65 per cent since the 1990s - directly in line with rising obesity rates. (The Advertiser)

This is not news at all - Americans are fat, every culture touched by American pop culture of unbridled consumerism is fat or rapidly getting fat. Even here in Korea folks are getting fat.  When I first came here in the late 1980's everyone was thin; not so any longer.

All the same, it is generally easy to spot an American - not by their clothes or attitude specifically (although that definitely helps), as I said Americans are fat.

Why are our children (and women, and men, and even old folks) so fat?  Simple, we live unsustainable and greedy lives. We are free to do everything except those things that men that are not free yearn for. We are free to shop at corporate mega fat dispensers and purveyors of genetically enhanced, pesticide and chemical fertilizer laced quasi-food products.

Do I sound like an eco-whack?  So what, there must be a balance in life between what is consumed and what is produced.  When it is possible to cram an entire day's worth of calories into one's mouth in one super-sized bag of garbage something is out of balance.

When people prefer super-sized, bland gelatinized mush over a hearty meal cooked by a real person that takes time to order, time to eat and time to enjoy something is wrong. The fast-food joints of the world are not evil, they are just convenient; in this case convenience is evil - it feeds not only big bellies but corporate giants too.

Stumble It!

Become Reactionaries or Perish

Daniel Larison has more time, intellect and ability than I do. He is a rather prolific blogger, producing several well written posts each day.  I discover more and more that each time I find an article or issue I wish to post that Daniel has already written something.  (If Daniel has not already posted on it Joshua has.)

He recently posted a thought provoking piece on a current article in The American Conservative by Austin Bramwell.

It will be of little avail, I suppose, to note that the bulk of Mr. Bramwell’s analysis rests on the claim that conservatism is an ideology, when any conservatism worthy of the name is non-ideological.  It is an anti-ideology.  Prescription and prudence, if they make what someone might call an ideology, make a very ”thin” ideology indeed.  Someone will presumably say that this, too, is an ideological claim, but it cannot be stressed enough that there are conservatives (perhaps not many, but they do exist) who never subscribed to the thing Mr. Bramwell describes as conservative ideology.

I find it confusing that some conservatives still consider that there is, or should be, an ideology associated with real conservatism.  As Larison points out, and I have pointed out several times in the past, real conservatism is a philosophy.  By the standards of left/right ideologies real conservative positions might at various times and in various places be considered right, left or center.  To be certain in most cases real conservative positions fall right of center when viewed through a dogmatic ideological lens - this does not equate conservatism with the ideology of the right; it merely shows commonality on certain issues.

Real conservatives are for conserving and preserving the best of what history and tradition provide.  However, real conservatives are not stuck in the past - conservatism is about keeping the good and moving forward. As Clyde N. Wilson states:

The conservative philosopher Russell Kirk contrasted mere stand-patter conservatism of the dull-witted or poor in spirit who reject anything new with the true conservatism of an Edmund Burke or a John C. Calhoun who perceived that it was necessary to change in order to conserve because new conditions had created new threats to our patrimony.

No wonder that conservatism confounds and confuses ideologues on the left and right so much. At various times true conservatives have been rightly labeled as revolutionaries, reactionaries, isolationist, expansionist, traditionalist, populist, pro-war and anti-war.  When you adhere to a philosophy that talks about how to think rather than an ideology that tells you what to think it is possible to come down on the "right" side of all issues, no matter what ideological dogma states.

It is high time that true conservatives again take up the role of reactionary and if that fails revolutionary.  As Larison points out:

The greatest problem of conservatism is that it perceives real problems, but simply starts screaming, “There is a really BIG problem over here!  It is gigantic!  It’s going to wipe out life as we know it!”  Then it retires to the parlour for an obscure discussion of who insulted whom during the 1992 presidential campaign over drinks and cigars.

How completely true, he continues:

[modern conservatism] does not generate important or interesting ideas anymore and is almost structured not to generate such ideas.  It is structured to reproduce itself and confirm its own assumptions about its intellectual vitality and diversity, when neither is really in evidence in most places.

Therein lies the problem, we have become the "stand-patters" that Kirk described. True conservatives must regain the high-ground of principles and stand firm there - but to get to the high ground we must move, not merely theorize and pontificate.

Burke was a revolutionary, so was Jefferson, they accepted that a fundamental change in the status quo was acceptable to ultimately preserve and conserve the traditional.  Calhoun was a reactionary - attempting to stem the tide of wrong thinking by relatively minor machinations.  We would do well to remember these men.

We true conservatives will ultimately fail and perish completely from this land unless we become true reactionaries; reactionaries prepared to become revolutionaries if need be.

Stumble It!

Re: Dismay and Possibility

Daniel Larison strikes a chord that rings true in our current circumstance. By current circumstance I mean the paradigm where conservative and liberal, perverted and moral, old and new are all interwoven into a patch quilt pattern; the end result being an amalgamation that ultimately tramples the old and the moral.

Pat Buchanan proclaimed in 1992 that a cultural war was being waged. Few understood that war was for home, hearth, kirk and kin. The slogan has been revived to describe all sorts of superficial conservative issues but no political leader with the ability to wage this war has identified truly what we are fighting for or what we are fighting against.

It is easy enough to identify and label many anti-conservatives. I use that term in the most negative of possible connotations. A person that refuses to cling to that which tradition, family and history have provided is a fool. How else can we describe such a person? How can a person truly believe in anything that is so new that it dispatches with all that came before? On a very fundamental level this one principle bespeaks of all that is wrong with the notion of humanism that sprang from the Enlightenment. The notion that man today can know more and see the world clearer in all cases that all of our forbears is just as silly as a teenager believing they always know better than their parents.

Anti-conservatives that are easy to spot and can be identified by their dedication to the Democratic Party, their disregard of traditional values and their fascination with "personal" freedom on moral issues -guaranteed and protected by a centralized government. (These are not the only anti-conservatives - the GOP has plenty too, they are just a little harder to spot unless you know what to look for.)

Of course real conservatives are all for personal freedom on moral issues as well - most of us believe if you want to be a pervert you are free to do so but the government has no business or right protecting you. In a truly conservative world most social malcontents would have a hard time finding a place to live in most towns. Malcontents should be free to do their thing, and regular folks should be free to refuse them rent, jobs etc. Real conservatives do not need government to protect their traditions and values; we just need government to stay out of the way.

Evangelicals lost sight of this a long time ago in the United States. They pinned their hopes and dreams on national leadership, combined resources and active participation in the political process. If their efforts were founded in a political philosophy they may have succeeded. Instead they put themselves into the bed of an existing ideology; without the anchor and foundation of a political philosophy they lost their way and have been continually confused with the definition of conservative.

James Wilson recently posted a simple quiz that provides two possible "conservative" solutions to various issues. Of course real conservatism is not issue-based, rather it is principle based, but this post highlights how "do-gooder conservatives" so easily get it wrong. You see on that quiz many "Christian" hot button issues - it is on these issues and the reliance on the Federal Government that the evangelicals went astray.

One might get the impression that I am against what evangelicals believe at the core; after all, I show them no love in my treatment of their foolishness over the last 30 years. This would be an incorrect assumption. Real conservatism must be true to the people and the place it exists. In the United States, particularly where I come from, this means Christian values.

Real conservatives have religion - the primary and traditional religion of their home. Real conservatives are also environmentalist, preservationist and conservationist. In some sense conservatives are an eclectic lot - not the sort of eclectic, pragmatic compromise that exists in our two main political parties. As Larison says:

there is really nothing all that surprising about including a latter-day hero of the Country party in a conservatism that can proudly embrace the Antifederalists, Agrarians and Bradford in its tradition. But, then, you would never know that these people form an important (some might even say central) part of that tradition if your acquaintance with conservatism was limited to the main magazines and talking heads of the last ten years.

Somewhere along the way real conservatives became fractured, divided and married to more liberal groups - folks who proclaimed to champion the causes most dear to certain groups. Conservationist and environmentalist were usurped by the left in the 1960's - to most uninitiated conservatives today environmentalism is a bad word, but a real conservative must be an environmentalist and a conservationist. Evangelicals have been seduced by the liberal minded neoconservatives. Agrarians, states' rightist, constitutionalist (more or less antifederalist) are left out entirely with no viable voice. Thus we conservatives have compromised away our most treasured principles, colluded with the enemy to enable the advance of liberalism and abandoned several of our political brothers to be left without a political voice at all.

There is a cultural war going on; not west versus east or Spanish versus English per se. (These are but side shows).

The real cultural war is occurring where you live. You see signs of it-

• at the school your children attend
• on the street in your town
• in the air you breath and food you eat
• in the closed "mom and pop" stores down the street from the corporate giant Wal-Mart
• in the filth played over corporate owned radio and television stations

Until conservatives realize what conservatism (paleoconservatism) is, and who conservatives are, we will continue to flounder around in the mess we now swim. We don't need big government to fix these issues; we need them to stop protecting corporations, legislating morality, educating our children and generally running our lives. We can fix the rest at the local level - if only we conservatives could speak with one voice on what we really want from government.

Technorati tags: paleoconservative

Stumble It!

The Party of Lincoln

Daniel Larison posts an excellent piece on the Party of Lincoln

Serious conservatives of old (and some still around today) frequently disparaged Father Abraham and rejected the politics that he represented; to the extent that the GOP really was always the Party of Lincoln, conservatives are hard-pressed to ever find a real place in it, since our tradition via the Agrarians and Bradford ties us to the Antifederalists, Jeffersonian Republicans, Southern Democrats and Populists.  At each stage of our history, the revolutionary forces of consolidation wanted to transform and do violence to the settled order of American life and sought to damage the constitutional order as well.  At each stage serious conservatives opposed them and their works, whether it was the Bank, the American System, internal improvements, Yankee imperialism or post-War overseas empire and the corrupt rule of the moneyed interest. 

It is amazing that so few folks actually realize these facts, particularly the Reagan Republicans in the South that still to this day so fervently support the GOP.

The Red Republicans of today could only dream of the sort of dominance the real ”Lincoln Republicans” had after the War of Secession.  To say that those people had no “ideology” or ideas is untrue–their idea was an energetic central government working in tandem with corporations towards a nationalist goal of consolidated, quasi-democratic, quasi-oligarchic government in a united, integrated nation-state.

Of course I have discussed before that two key elements in the rise of fascism are; a strong central government, corporatism. If you add nationalism, socialism and militarism to the mix you have all the ingredients required to bake up tyranny - wait we do have all of that all we need now is a Reichstag fire (real or contrived).

It was only ten years ago that Bob Dole lectured us about how the GOP was the Party of Lincoln and anybody who didn’t like it could get out right now....Lincoln was certainly no conservative or, if he was a conservative, I would not want to have anything to do with such a conservatism. 

Amen to that, amazing how folks that talk about the numerous failings of Lincoln and how he and his ideology was distinctly un-American are labeled all sorts of nefarious things.

Those areas in the South and West dominated by more conservative, “Reagan Republicans” are more likely to remain loyal to the GOP because these people remain convinced that there is some basic harmony between the party and conservatism, when the party’s history and its interests tell a very different story. 

Sad but true, and thus there is much truth to Johnnie's statement that Voting is Stupid, perhaps only People are Stupid.

Stumble It!

What is Paleoconservatisim and What Defines a Paleoconservative?

Despite what the term may imply and what detractors of this brand of political and social philosophy may say paleoconservatism is neither tenaciously focused on what was nor is it primarily concerned with conservatism as that term applies to the modern conservative ideology.

Paleoconservatism is a philosophy (a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs) rather than an ideology (the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group). Paleoconservatism is therefore concerned more with how to think about social and political issues rather than what to think.

Paleoconservatives adhere to a belief in natural law and it is practically impossible for a paleoconservative to not also believe in some form of divine law (this is primarily from the Christian perspective although some historical paleoconservatives were/are deist and I know of at least one modern Muslim paleoconservative).

Paleoconservative philosophy is not a descendant of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment like all current political ideologies (left, right and center). It is rather an answer to those events, a signpost in the road that has in various times and in numerous ways attempted to right the course of human thinking on political and social matters. Paleoconservatives see the inherent deficiency in the power of reason and believe that tradition, culture and accumulated learning must fill the gap where reason fails. This is the primary fundamental difference in paleoconservative philosophy and all political/economic/social ideologies - we know that we cannot know everything and can never hope to build perfect institutions.

This is of course not to say that paleoconservatives disavow all learning and knowledge resulting from the three key eras mentioned above - merely that the ideas and concepts resulting from these events have given rise to dangerous and flawed ideas and ideologies (socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism and democracy) and the idea that human reason - absent any other guiding influence - can solve all problems.

Paleoconservatives are anti-statist, anti-egalitarian and anti-authoritarian. We are concerned with traditions, family, community, civil society and the preservation of culture and identity (a term often usurped by racialist). We have a sense, not just a passing knowledge, of history.

Samuel Francis defined paleoconservatism versus what Americans consider "conservatism" served up by the current political institutions thusly: (Chronicles March 2004)

What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.

Our philosophy began if not in name certainly in form with Edmund Burke - British MP and supporter of American Independence, opponent of the dangerous French Revolution and leader of the Old Whigs. We owe deep homage to Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalist as well as to their successors led by John C. Calhoun.

Essentially we paleoconservatives reject the notion that every social problem requires a governmental solution. We believe nations are rightly made up of unique people with unique cultures - we reject the notion of America as a universal nation.

Current paleoconservatives of note (courtesy Chris Abraham) include:

Virginia Abernethy, Mel Bradford, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, James Burnham, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., Mark Dankof, Lou Dobbs, Rowland Evans, Thomas Fleming (author), John T. Flynn, Samuel Francis, Paul Gottfried, Kevin Michael Grace, Michael Hill, Russell Kirk, William S. Lind, Donald Livingston, ohn Lukacs, Scott McConnell, Jason C. Miller, Thomas Molnar, Robert Novak, Michael Peroutka, Jerry Pournelle, Charley Reese, William Regnery II, Paul Craig Roberts, Claes Ryn, Steve Sailer, Joe Sobran, Jared Taylor, Srdja Trifkovic, Benjamin Wetmore, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, John Zmirak

You no doubt notice from that list it includes folks that some mislabel as racist, chauvinist others are labeled by "conservatives" as liberal - that is the problem when an dogmatic and pragmatic ideology meets a philosophy.

What do paleoconservatives read? (certainly not all inclusive) First and foremost Chronicles Magazine, The American Conservative Magazine

Not a regular read but on the list all the same: VDARE, American Renaissance, SOBRAN'S, The Salisbury Review

Most paleoconservatives are regular readers of Lew Rockwell's site (as many paleoconservatives contribute essays there). Of course that is not the only reason, libertarians have ideas about economic theory that we paleoconservatives do well to consider. As such many of us read much of what the Mises Institute publishes. (of course it is not all "good-times" between paleoconservatives and libertarians - Thomas Flemming terms Austrian economic theory as heresy).

Here is a very incomplete reading list of books for paleoconservatives.

Paleoconservative organizations- The Russell Kirk Center, The Abbeville Institute, Free Congress Foundation, National Policy Institute, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The John Birch Society (mostly paleo)

We paleoconservatives stand on the fringes of modern political dialogue specifically because we refuse to articulate a dogmatic ideology. Our philosophy must be explained and learned, it does not adapt well to one minute sound bites. In fact most of our positions when reduced to sound bite form come across as unpalatable. The American populace in general is to ignorant or lazy to learn and understand a philosophy. The very people and culture that paleoconservatives seek to save misunderstand us - they want sound bites, instant fixes to problems and an ideology(label) to make it easy for them to pick a side in each issue. Paleoconservatism will not and cannot offer that simplicity - philosophies are for thinking men.

From the "Crunchy Con" Manifesto (personally I dislike the term "crunchy con" and manifestos in general but this list summarizes most paleoconservative principles)

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the contemporary conservative mainstream. We like it here; the view is better, for we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. We believe that modern conservatism has become too focused on material conditions, and insufficiently concerned with the character of society. The point of lie is not to become a more satisfied shopper.

3. We affirm the superiority of the free market as an economic organizing principle, but believe the economy must be made to serve humanity's best interests, not the other way around. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. We believe that culture is more important than politics, and that neither America's wealth nor our liberties will long survive a culture that no longer lives by what Russell Kirk identified as "the Permanent Things" - those eternal moral norms necessary to civilized life, and which are taught by all the world's great wisdom traditions.

5. A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor, ultimately, conservative. This is particularly true with respect to the natural world.

6. A good rule of thumb: Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract.

7. Appreciation of aesthetic quality - that is, beauty - is not a luxury, but key to the good life.

8. That cacophony of contemporary popular culture makes it hard to discern the call of truth and wisdom. There is no area in which practicing asceticism is more important.

9. We share Kirk's conviction that "the best way to rear up a new generation of friends of the Permanent Things is to beget children, and read to them o' evenings, and teach them what is worthy of praise, the wise parent is the conservator of ancient truths. … The institution most essential to conserve is the family."

10. Politics and economics will not save us. If we are to be saved at all, it will be through living faithfully by the Permanent Things, preserving these ancient truths in the choices we make in everyday life. In this sense, to conserve is to create anew.

Stumble It!

Once a Revolution Begins it Never Ends

Once a revolution begins it never ends until it either fails or a counter-revolution replaces it with the old order. We Americans are taught the wonder and goodness of our "brief" revolution in 1775-1783 and we for the most part believe the revolution began and ended on or about those dates. 

Not true, revolutions are made of ideology and ideology takes time to develop, spread and take hold. The American Revolution was just one by-product of an ideology that was born three centuries previous - an ideology that continues to fuel the revolution to this day.

The birth of this ideology might rightly be dated at the end of the 14th Century with the rise of humanism as a result of the Renaissance.  Renaissance thinkers abandoned the traditional European approach to the world and replaced it with an infatuation with Greek and Roman thinking. 

The next phase of this revolution was in 1517, the year Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg. Luther did not intend to create a revolution - in fact he could rightly be called a paleoconservative, he merely wished to return the church to right practices.  He failed (at the time, although the Catholic Church did begin a Counter Reformation reform movement eventually) and as a result several sects of Christianity arose.

Now contrary to what Baptist Sunday school teachers may say the Catholic Church was not completely corrupt.  There were not small groups of "real Christians" meeting in secret in attics.  The Catholic Church was it, folks found salvation for centuries within that institution - they sat in Latin mass that they did not understand, they had Latin Bibles that they could not read but they had a simple faith (mere Christianity).

The division of Christendom allowed the ideas of humanism to spread into theology and political thought - individual man became central. The Age of Enlightenment was not far behind this development. First in the 17th Century philosophers paid minor homage to theology in their work and by the 18th Century philosophy was strictly humanistic.

Man had become the central focal point of the universe.  Traditions and history could be swept away if they hindered man getting exactly what he wanted.  To the enlightened mind the world could be shaped into any form that man desired, men should be free of bonds and constraints placed upon them by old institutions and long respected traditions.

Our Founding Fathers were students of this tradition.  Just take a gander at the Declaration of Independence. They began a revolution based upon the premise that "all men are created equal" (how idealistic, some are born poor, some blind, some slow - are these equal in any way other than they way their Creator sees them?) and that men have the right to throw off traditions because they merely desire it. If there was a group among them that understood the danger of the beast they were unleashing it was the anti-federalist (a misnomer to be sure, from a paleoconservative perspective these were the only real federalist at the table, thus most modern paleoconservatives are Jeffersonians)

Up to this point paleoconservatives and libertarian only disagree in principle.  Yes it is true we paleoconservatives do not think much of the Enlightenment but it is a fact and we cannot turn back the clock.  However libertarian theory would generally hold that the adoption and subsequent broad interpretation of the Constitution by the Federalist was counter-revolutionary.

I believe that a proper paleoconservative view of this is that the Constitution was a natural extension of ideas of many of the Founders - Enlightenment ideas that said man could shape his world into a utopia - the city on the hill. The Anti-federalist represented the only counter-revolutionary force and they lost.

The revolution continued when

• states' rights was practically laid to rest in 1865
• citizenship was appropriated by the Federal Government through the 14th Amendment
• personal income became the property of the state
• welfare of others became a responsibility of all
• the Constitution ceased to be a contract and became a living document
• men are not only treated equal under the law but given unfair advantages to ensure "equality"
• the Federal Government decided what is right and what is wrong and who is the enemy
• rights became a privilege

The revolution has come full-circle.  It began as an attempt six hundred years ago to free the mind of man, morphed into the idea that man should be free and man could build utopia and has come to the reality that only government knows best - man should not be that free, just "trust us and everything will be ok".

 

The paleoconservative does not disavow good knowledge that came from the Enlightenment, neither do we look regretfully at the attempt made by men like Jefferson in the 18th century - these are part of history and the clock cannot be set back.  We simply realize that man is fallible, reason is often flawed.  We accept that man is a social creature and must have government (we depart from our libertarian brothers here) but we are not statist - we generally despise the modern state as a vehicle to accomplish anything (particularly moral and social good). Family, community and tradition have precedence over the individual in the paleoconservative mind.

My point is we must realize that the American revolution did not end in 1783, it is ongoing in more transformational ways than any philosopher of that era could have imagined.  The logical endstate is a tyrannical perversion of Hobbes' Leviathan. That is the elephant in the room that libertarians and paleoconservatives rail against - once that is gone we can go at each other to determine what comes next.  It is time to end the revolution.

Stumble It!

A Bit About Paleoconservatives

Recently I asked three libertarians to join us here. We have the paleoconservative perspective covered but I thought it important to add a different voice. Paleoconservatism and libertarianism are two sides to the same coin (yes we come from different histories, libertarians from the enlightenment and the revolutions and real paleoconservatives from a traditional and monarchist origin but we have come to the same point philosophically on many issues)- certainly there are vast differences in outlook. However, considering the ugly elephant in the room and the minority status of those of us that "think different" it is critical to find commonality.

Having said that I spent some time today searching for bloggers of paleoconservative leanings and offer them for your consideration.

Green Mountain Hardright - a paleoconservative supporter of Vermont Independence (I did not know that there were many paleoconservatives in that movement, I assumed most were libertarian) This blogger has moved from Vermont to New York and now blogs at Ordo Et Tradito (Order and Tradition)

Smash the Left-Wing Scum! Paleoconservative Youth Movement caught my eye with a post declaring that Mitt Rommey is not a real conservative choice.

Here is a post from Daniel Larison that argues that currently there are more paleo moments than actual paleoconservatives - he is right with two notable exceptions, one of which is debatable - there are no paleoconservatives on the ballot.

Mark Amesse argues much the same thing that William Lind argues so successfully - paleoconservatives owe their allegiance to the Prussian tradition, not to the tradition of revolution.

[American] Paleoconservatives are, after all, still men of the revolution. For many of them the political world was born in 1776. They are men, for all practical purpose, whose political thought can not pierce through the propaganda of the revolutions, be it the Protestant revolt or the American rebellion.

Here is a post from Dixie Thoughts that clears up any misconceptions that James Webb is a paleoconservative (loved Born Fighting but that does not make him a paleo)

Here is a good post on paleoconservatism in general. And here is another post from the PaleoPundit with a list of paleoconservative links.

Finally here is an essay by Charley Resse that reinforces why it is so important to be a paleoconservative.

Here is my (almost) complete view of paleoconservatism

Stumble It!

Who Wins, Who Loses? We do!

In my last post I included the entire essay from Kevin Tillman (yes bad blogging form I know) because his words are worthy of being heard.

I have but one point of dissent with Kevin - he believes that the have a democracy in America and he believes that this November there is a chance to set things right. (my points below are directed most specifically to the crowd that thinks voting for someone "new" will fix things - not at Kevin Tillman)

First, The Federal Government is not a democracy, it is a republic. Kevin is certainly not the only person to make this mistake, for some reason the word democracy has come into our language as a good thing - something to be aspired to. Our Founding Fathers knew much better.

Charlie Resse calls the one day when The People take control of their government via the ballot box Magic Day. He makes some good arguments about voter qualification - just when and who decided that jobless morons that cannot even name their state capital get to vote? Bottom line he reiterates that our government is not a democracy, rather a republic - if you really want to change it you have to vote for the right people.

Second, there are a lot of "johnny-come-lately patriots" running around right now proclaiming all that is wrong with US foreign policy - most of these are nothing more than moonbats looking for a way to put their dhimmi marionettes into office next month. They speak the truth in relation to Iraq, but for all the wrong reasons.

If anyone thinks putting the Democrats in power next month will fix anything answer these questions:

• Where were these wise, noble and brave patriots in 2003 when real informed wise and brave people were speaking out against the war?
• Just how have things like the Military Tribunals Act and the USA Patriot Act (I and II) passed without Democratic complicity?
• Just how is it that one man (i.e. the President) has clearly violated the US Constitution by illegally waging war (without a Constitutionally required declaration). Why have these brave and wise democrats not either impeached the president or failing that shut down the government entirely?

None of what the neoconservatives have done could have been done without the help of the Democrats. In fact the Democrats, either through their influence in Congress or control of the White House, are directly involved in our failings in the Middle East and North Korea. Add to that their complicity during the reign of Bush II and you end up with only one conclusion - the Democrats do not get a pass on all of this and it is preposterous for them to now claim they can fix everything. Chuck Baldwin argues that the GOP deserves to lose - he is right - but the Democrats do not deserve to win.

Kevin is right, it is time for a change - his optimism that a mere change in who sits in what seat will really fix anything is misplaced. There is no difference in the Republican and Democratic parties.

Stumble It!

Socialist Democrats and Fascist Republicans

Whenever some well-meaning conservative Christian takes issue with one of my columns chronicling the abysmal governing record of Republicans, he or she almost always exclaims, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." The fact is, however, there has been no redemption in having the GOP in charge of the entire federal government.

The argument of voting for the lesser of two evils, meaning Republicans, loses its credence when one examines the record. And the record is clear: the GOP has developed a philosophy tantamount to fascism. Consider the following recent developments. Read the rest of this article by Chuck Baldwin

I have no illusion that anything I write will make friends with folks that proclaim loyalty to the GOP. Many of those people probably believe that people like me are the real problem. "if folk like me could only just compromise, support the right team - then we could finally put those dhimmis in their place".

Well gosh, Chuck Baldwin has it exactly right, what real choice do either of the two major parties offer? We have socialist Democrats (with fascist tendencies) and fascist Republicans (with socialist tendencies). Think for a moment that this is not true? Then please point me to real facts or articulate in the comments below how the GOP has stood true to the limited scope intended for the Federal Government.

I am a states' rights advocate but in reality the whole notion of states' rights is ludicrous in our current environment. When we are facing issues like the USA Patriot Act, domestic spying, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the virtual death of habeas corpus who has time to worry about the rights of our various states?

(well maybe states' rights is the answer, if we had legislatures in our various states that were willing to defend the original compact and stand up against Federal encroachments AND if the citizenry really cared about their liberty...but alas neither of these requirements are present)

So I attack the flawed policies of the GOP, which includes almost every one of their policies. Their position on social, economic, legal, constitutional and foreign policy fails to meet the criteria of a true paleoconservative agenda in every case.

Fear not GOP followers, if the Democrats were in power (I should say, when they take power this fall and again in two years) I will speak out against their moonbat social programs and mamby-pamby foreign policy. To me there is no difference in the two parties, other than where they want to spend my money and what sector of the Federal government they wish to expand.

Here is a pretty good (but far from complete) articulation of how stupid party loyalty (GOP or DEM) really is and how absurd their infighting is - they are first cousins for crying out loud.

Stumble It!

What is Left? What is Right?

Dr. Clyde Wilson

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" were usable signs in a society in which the state was governed by politics. They are of little use in the 21st-century United States because "politics" no longer plays any significant role in governance.

In a dynamic and free republican society, citizens of similar ideas, values, and interests, and even inherited allegiances and inclinations, come together to seek representation, forming political parties as their vehicle in the contest with citizens of opposing tendencies. (In addition, in the United States, political representation has been geographically based rather than strictly a matter of parties.) Citizenship - participation in politics - assumes mental and material independence and a social identity pre-existing the state apparatus. None of these preconditions for politics any longer characterize the American regime. Read More....

Dr. Wilson (a professor of History in my home state of SC) hits the nail on the head in relation to the demise of our political system. Ours is but a shell of what was intended. Aaron Russo echoes this point in this video clip - he discusses in one section of this interview the fact that although a guy like Michael Moore had some of the truth in Fahrenheit 9/11 he completely missed the boat by following a failed Republican vs. Democrat approach.

There is really but little difference in the two major parties - the difference is superficial - where does one party want to tax and spend our money, what law does one want passed to interfere in our life versus the law the other party wants. Bottom line, both major parties are for taking your money, expanding government and making laws that tell you what to do. They differ only in what areas they think are important, they completely agree on the fundamentals.

Without choice and options a real representative politcal system does not exist.

Stumble It!

The Antifederalists Were Right - Mises Institute

Gary Galles:

September 27 marks the anniversary of the publication of the first of the Antifederalist Papers in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to them.

Much maligned and forever misunderstood the “antifederalist” were indeed the real federalists and the “federalists” it seems were only just nationalists in disguise. The Federalist Papers were undoubtedly the best piece of political propaganda ever written. They were well put together, appealed to men of learning and knowledge but were within the grasp of the ordinary man.

Read this piece it is good.

Here is a blogger dedicated to antifederalism.

Stumble It!

Cultural Relativism and Cultural War

All this talk of Cultural War on the blogsphere and elsewhere reminds me of the specific reasons I dislike Friedrich Nietzsche. He would have us believe that there are no universal truths, that great thinkers of the past are merely representatives of thought at their time and their place. Folks that adhere to this view are strict cultural relativist and believe that morality simply cannot be attached to the acts and beliefs of another while looking through the glasses of one’s own time and culture.

I do not particularly like Nietzsche and I am not a strict relativist but I do not completely disagree with him or the concept. I believe that ultimate and universal truths do exist; I believe good and evil exist. However, these truths are broad and general and applied in different flavors throughout history and across cultures.

There are a few major problems with the notion of a cultural war of good versus evil. First there is the very blatant omission of the failings and evils of one’s own culture. Second there is the carte blanche application of one’s own coloring of universal truths onto the interpretation of another culture.

It is simple, some things are just wrong and all men ought to know it. Other things are less absolute and subject to interpretation. The current dialogue in the US concerning this supposed cultural war with the East also missed another key point; Culture in the US is not homogeneous, no matter what melting pot propaganda the government schools try to preach.

John Dolan wrote piece on the entire issue of cultural relativism as it applies to the current world situation. He gets it right in several places; he also gets it wrong in numerous points (his commenters do a fair job of correcting the stray logic).

Speaking of Pilgrims without God (I wrote in the past of the legacy of the New England Unitarians and their transformation from theological tyrants into capitalist/socialist tyrants and that influence on American history and development) Dolon says:

Indeed, the evangelical mullahs' position is actually more intellectually rigorous, if you grant its starting point of divine sanction. The godless Protestant progressives of places like Berkeley lack any such foundation; theirs is an ideology rooted in a few seedy cafes near the Fine Arts building. It's no wonder that Kansas prefers the evangelicals' simple, consistent bigotry to this sub-Unitarian muddle. If we actually apply a cultural-relativist perspective to the conflict between "liberal" academics and "conservative" Christian militarists in America, it's easy to see that we're simply watching a replay of the old quarrel between the two most aggressive groups in Anglophone America: the Scots-Irish Presbyterians who settled the South, and the New Englanders whose Protestantism was always veering off into semisecular intellectual quibbles. Both are missionary groups extremely popular with themselves and willing to bring the rest of the world to heel by military force. Neither has even a taint of cultural relativism. It's just that their blood rage is stimulated by slightly different triggers, the Scots-Irish by the very existence of heathens and the New Englanders by offenses against what they imagine to be a
universal moral code.

As repulsive as his statement above might be there is truth there. The neoconservatives whose ideological base rests firmly in the halls of academia and the “reformed” liberals of progressive conservatism not only need but must have the simple, fiery, militant support of the Scots-Irish, it is from this group that the subgroup of modern evangelicals springs (the core of GOP support). Of course not all of us are neoconservative dupes!

The very base of the problem with any argument that our way of life, our culture and our morality is superior to and therefore worth fighting for is that it ignores our own faults. The leadership of this crusade are ideological descendants of the very worst ideas America has produced. The foot soldiers are the most dedicated of sorts, always willing to fight at the drop of a hat for perceived wrongs. This is a dangerous concoction and a formula for disaster.

I say simply this and I will leave the subject alone for a while. We need new leadership if we are going to engage in a cultural war, leadership that will first examine what we are fighting for, if it is for the right to have a Wal-Mart on every corner and mega-corporations in charge of almost everything then this is not a just fight. This is not even what most ordinary folks that vote GOP want. Most are simple men with simple dreams and passionate desires for ordinary things. If we are to fight a cultural war it ought to begin at home and it ought to be waged against what people really want in their communities.

Stumble It!