Not With a Bang, But With a Whimper

This is How The World Ends - Part IV

If, as I have contented in the first three parts of this series of post, the following is true -

1. We Americans are woefully ignorant of our rights, our Constitution and political philosophy in general
2. Our Constitutional Republic from those nice stories in history books is long dead
3. Our election process is completely incapable of fixing any of this (or our other massive problems of wars, failed economies etc. etc.)

Then what does the future hold and what are the solutions (or coping mechanisms if no solution is apparent)?

Some talk of a revolution in our future - but revolutions are a complicated business. Middle classes do not start revolutions or even participate or support them until they are well under way and almost over. Sure the middle class often provide the intelligentsia of a revolution but that is a small part of the bigger requirement. The rich do not start violent revolutions - they buy what they want in influence and power. The true foot soldiers of any revolution are the dispossessed, the poor and down-trodden.

Therein lies the fix, the poor and downtrodden in the US are riding pretty fat and happy (by relative standards of poor and downtrodden) on a US government gravy train. There are enough people within government that are capable of reading that understand the key ingredients in civil discontent. So long as a willing and compliant middle-class exists to consume and pay taxes the government will be able to buy the happiness and contentment of the poor. It is as simple as that.

In any event, no sane man looks to revolution with glee. Anyone that believes the War of American Independence was a revolution simply does not understand what the term really means. It was a separatist, nah a secession movement, not a revolution.

The foot soldiers (those poor and down trodden) are apt to follow the banner of any fool with a plan and a promise once the shooting starts. Change for the sake of change is something rationale people fear, particularly considering the history of revolutions.

No, the government will keep the poor placated, and in the event they occasionally rise up in violent riots the government will put them down and the middle class will rejoice that their welfare was protected.

There are probably many in the middle class that would like the idea of change, even if it involved violence. They probably also have a solid idea of what they would do to put everything back the way it was meant to be. But, when the rubber hit the road as they say the mad middle class guy has a house, a mini van and he really does not have time to start a revolution because he has to be at work by 9am in the morning. Middle-classes almost always trade safety and security for rights and freedoms.

Secession then you say. Well as an strong advocate of the legality of secession and a proponent of states' rights you might think I would say this is the solution...I doubt it.

First, if we are honest about it there is but one government now. Our states have lost all of their rights and all of their will to attempt to assert any rights. Government down to the local level is intertwined via federal grants and regulations. In cases where the federal government has not overtly asserted some control or influence many of our state and local government officials deffer to the question of "what is the national standard".

Second, our states no longer have any semblance of a heterogeneous culture or common polity. A woman from Arkansas can be a Senator from New York for goodness sakes. People move, leave familial and cultural bonds in pursuit of paper money and trinkets. A secession movement would have a very hard time in any state with such a mix of people.

Third, the middle class is bought and paid for just as the poor - it is called social security. Until it fails people expect to get what is coming to them - secede and lose that...never. A soul sold for 30 pieces of silver.


Pretty grim stuff and I am simply not wise enough to see a way out of this. Early on in this series of post I used comparisons of the German people from 1933 on to relate to some of our traits. We talked about the coup attempts on Hitler's life and the fact that a real revolution was never a possibility in Germany. Hitler may have died in one of the coups but nothing essential would have changed. The undoing of the Germans had already occurred, they were powerless (I did not say blameless) to alter their fate. I fear we are in the same boat. We cannot vote our way out of this mess now (too may accommodations in the past), revolution is not a realistic possibility and neither is secession.

I like optimist, they inspire people. Doomsayers just scare the heck out of folks. Yet, I find it difficult to muster optimism about our future.

I will now do something I have never done in my life, quote Martin Luther King Jr.

I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God

This was from a speech called "It's A Dark Day In Our Nation" explaining why he opposed the Vietnam War but the words are applicable for any number of events in our recent and not so recent history.

We have done wrong. We have allowed greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride to rule us. We have even turned those vices into virtues of sorts. We have abandoned the wise teachings, learned through history, of our forefathers in preference for our perceived enlightened wisdom of modernity. We have traded liberty and freedom for safety and security.

Commenting on the American experiment Alex de Tocqueville said, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." and "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Pretty astute for a Frenchman in the mid 19th century but correct nonetheless.

And thus the world we thought we always knew, in the final analysis, ended not with a bang but with a whimper.

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!

Setting The Record Straight

In case you come across comments I have left on other site or if you read my article about Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton and think I am deluded about the "politics" of the Scottish National Party - I am not. I know that the very reason nationalism resurfaced in Scotland, i.e. disdain for Thatcher's policies, has resulted in a Scotland that supports greater separation from Britain but closer ties with a unified Europe.

Personally I find this to be idiotic, to replace a tyrant a few hundred miles away with a larger tyranny just a few more miles distant makes no sense. Thomas Fleming has argued recently that secession is not such a good idea in many places that it is currently considered, in part because places like Scotland would simply replace the nation-state with multinational unions.

I disdain what Scotland has become - they simply took the enlightenment way to far. I will not abandon the idea of self-determination because some people would use self-determination to "determine" themselves out of liberty and freedom. I can at once support the notion of self-determination and oppose the idiotic ideas that may arise from it - separately and apart from one another.

Stumble It!

Re: A Simple Plea for Federalism

Nick Gillespie over at Reason comments on a story worth reading and considering.

From Ron Hart

My solution to the unworkable yet appealing idea of secession is to devolve more powers to the states and fewer to Washington. It is what our Founding Fathers intended. And if you read the Federalist Papers, you will realize that they never intended our central government in Washington to be this expansive and overbearing.

If you want an abortion, then move to a state that allows it. If you want to smoke weed, then go to California. If you think that we should pay for everything a lazy welfare person demands, then go to a state that gives them flat-screen TVs and, instead of government cheese, offers an assortment of French cheeses that are both delicious and presented in a pleasing manner.

The basic reason that we fought for our independence is to do what we damn well please as long as it does not harm others. Yet at every turn, the federal government seems to want to make us do as they think we should, even if it comes down to using windmills, driving a Toyota Prius, or now, being forced to join the Hillary Health Care Plan....

Our free-spending federal government thinks it is doing things well, and is filled with enough hubris to believe that it should tell other countries what to do - it calls it foreign policy. The real answer is that less money and power need to be vested with them and more at the state level.

In this Hart has it just right, I would like nothing more than to remain united with other Americans in their states for the common good. If we take the Federalist Papers as the real intent of the Federalist and not some attempt to answer away criticism and get The Constitution accepted at all cost then we find within those documents good words. The Antifederalist certainly did not buy into the hype, their warnings have become reality.

However, laying that aside, The Constitution certainly is, at present, our best hope. If we could turn back the clock so to speak, to a time when the States had Rights and the Federal Government had limits and politicians always asked the question "is this constitutional" before proposing some new grand scheme things would indeed be much better. More than a supporter of secession I am first and foremost a supporter of a limited Federal Government, a strict interpretation of the Federal Constitution and freedom of the States and The People to do each and every thing they please that was never delegated to the Union. Citizenship belongs back with the states, as it was when the Union was formed.

Secession is not unworkable, it is just not necessary right now. That is not to say that it is not important to talk about it, to keep it in the public mind and to continually proclaim it as a legitimate right of our States. We simply cannot abandon our fate to one that forever ties our prosperity and freedom to the notion of Union. If we abandon the notion of secession, we thereby abandon all hope of restoring the Republic. Without the right to secede, all other rights become provisional and the 10th Amendment means nothing - it becomes something that is defined by the Federal Government itself - that is tyranny, benevolent or otherwise it is tyranny.

As I wrote in my last post, Ron Paul certainly is a wonderful breath of fresh air into the otherwise corrupt and perverse political landscape. Millions of us should get out and support him, we should support Constitutional Party candidates in local and state elections. We must lay aside the failed notions of pragmatism and "we simply must win". That has accomplished nothing, if you are a conservative like me you see this failure clearly within the GOP and the candidates they routinely roll out for our perusal. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support any degree of restoration of the Republic - meaning a proper interpretation of the nature and role of the central government. We should not honor them with our treasure or concern - even if it means our votes will not be counted.

The solution to almost everything that ails The United States can be found within the simple notion of devolving back to what our government was intended to be - no other ideology, political party position or single-scope issue approach will save us.

Don't lose heart, don't take my words as defeatism - stand firm for those that believe and support the right things, no matter how many temporary defeats we may suffer. Heck, get involved!

Stumble It!

Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton?

Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.

There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.

In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.

Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.

A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:

Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.

Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.

For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.

Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.

Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).

On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.

I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)

Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.

The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.

I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.

I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.

I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.

The Scots woke up (partially) will we?

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!

Open Your Mind To Real Diversity

Joshua shared a link to a video related to the Chattanooga Declaration. I find it to be a particularly touching presentation of the wording itself.

Point #7 of the declaration sums it all up "Without secession, liberty and self-government can never be sustained, and diversity among human societies can never survive." Think on that for a moment. Put aside your false notions of "American nationhood" and if you just cannot do that read the article I previously wrote below. Big is not beautiful in all matters and when it comes to a political union big certainly can become oppressive to the minority view. We talk so often of our love for diversity but in politically correct terms that means only approved diversity - true liberty does not grow in such infertile soil.

The United States, America and The People: Our allegiance is to God, our families, our home, our country and then the government that represents us. So long as that government represents us well it is fit to stand. Whenever it may cease to serve its intended purpose it deserves neither our respect nor our loyalty. That is a very American point of view.

Do you agree? Sign the Declaration of States' Rights

Stumble It!

Natural Law - Is there any other?

Andreas reminds us of the timelessness of natural law -

..."natural law is a true guarantee for everyone to live freely and with respect for their dignity, protected from all ideological manipulation and from all arbitrary abuses of the powerful"─God’s law, not majority rule, guarantees democracy and rights, says Pope.

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!