What is really interesting is that Mr. Hawkins says virtually NOTHING about the arguments Sale and Raimondo made. It is the typical Horowitzian mode of attack via guilt by association and borderline psychotic theories (sometimes implied, sometimes overt) about a monolothic Marxist fifth column that hasn’t existed in this country in a meaningful way for years.

That said, I think his nonsensical rant is a great example of why the term “conservative” is virtually meaningless. Where I come from conservatism is at its very root about a respect for tradition, decentralized government, localism, prudence as a guiding principle, et. While Kirkpatrick Sale is certainly a leftist, he also meets all of the above criteria..given the rantings of Hawkins there is little evidence that the same can be said for him. The allegedly “left-libertarian” Raimondo also stacks up pretty favorably to Hawkins.

One of the most telling parts of Hawkins screed is the implication that Sale is engaging in conspiracy mongering by pointing to the development of the Pentagon system and military state economic planning as a major negative turning point in the “development” of the American Republic. That this is a leftist talking point now may be true. But it was the very man Hawkins cites as the General responsible for freeing Western Europe, Dwight Eisenhower, who is most often quoted by leftists when making this argument! Furthermore it is hard to see how an argument against the mass centralization of the economy in a quasi-socialist, unaccountable, beuracratic, federal empire building, machine is a position conservatives should regard as the height of treason…unless of course the term means little to nothing at this point.

I am sure there are people affiliated with this site and the Rockford Institute who will still feel some kinship toward Hawkins and there is no shame in that. Loyaliy is a virtue. But after reading that piece, written in the typical Frontpage propaganda factory style, I have to question how serious an intellectual he could possibly be.

P.S. Also, Sale recently wrote a very favorable and admiring review Mark Leier’s biography of the Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin for The American Conservative magazine. As anyone who has studied the history of the Left at all knows, Bakunin was Marxs primary rival for years and the two men had widely divergent views on economics, governance, pragmatic political arrangments, revolution, et. While I do not know Sale personally, and cannot speak for him, I find it quite unlikely that an admirer of Bakunin, fully aware of the failings of Marx from a LEFT perspective, would in fact qualify himself as a Marxist. Moreso, I fail to see how a decentralist, primitivist of Sales ilk could be reasonably seen as inspired in any meaningful way by the work of Marx.

Great post, Raimondo.

As disgraceful as Hawkins screed is, that is EXACTLY the kind of “intellectual” that appeals to the empty-headed fascist echo-chambers that remain in the mainstream right-wing now. Just take a look at the user comments on Townhall.com, if you can stomach it. Most anyone with a brain has either bowed-out, or performed a self-lobotomy (Thomas Sowell, for an example of the latter).

In the late 1980s I was a left-anarchist radical
activist. I used to read commentary by Marxoids like
Sara Diamond and Chip Berlet on what a supposed menace
the then-emerging paleo movemet was. I used think
“I don’t get what’s wrong with these paleo-people?
They sound a lot like us anarchists!”

Now I have a much better idea on who the real enemy
is. I’m still an anarchist, but I consider paleos to
be vital allies and Marxoids (including those of the
whitewashed Neocon variety) to be deadly enemies.

Viva, JRC!

I basically agree with this argument, but banning Muslim immigration is clearly a (sensible) paleocon position, one to which the neocons are wholly opposed since it goes against their universalist ideology.  At most a few neocon-friendly outliers like Mark Steyn may ruminate that uncontrolled Islamic immigration into the West may not be wholly a good idea.

@Simon:

Justin was pretty much a minority of one in opposing restrictions on Muslim immigration.  Strangely, though, the other 99 people or so in the room in favor of such restrictions didn’t rush home to bang out a screed denouncing Justin for his “leftist” and “anti-American” views on the question.  Apparently, our mommas raised us better than Mr. Hawkins’ did.

I was at the JRC debate.  The notion that an audience that was in favor of banning Islamic immigration to the US is a “leftist” one is mighty peculiar, to sy the least. 

The notion that withdrawing from Iraq is leftist is peculiar as well.  The JRC audience believed about what Iraq what Bismarck believed about the Balkans.  Bismkarck famously said the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.  We believe the Mideast is not worth the loss of a single US Marine.  Germany came to ruin by ignoring the Iron Chancellor’s sage advice, even though anyone reminding the German public of those words in August 1914 would not doubt have been branded “anti-German” by the ignorant and foolish.

gotta hand it to you raimondo, you are a good rep for the antiwar libertarian movement.

As a proud member of the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I invite Justin Raimondo to take the next step.  The charge of “un-patriotic” is absurd because ... there isn’t a patria called “America”.  We have a faux Patria founded 146 years ago by force of arms, and by one founding father, Lincoln – Hamilton and Clay being his teachers.  The Declaration of Secession of 1776 (even the name we call it is faux) and the paper Constitution of 1787 and 1791 are dead letters in Bartleby’s office, their meaning – and the work of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington – are twisted by Dishonest Abe, Wilson the Worst, and The Great Satan (Franklin Roosevelt) to mean what they don’t say.  As the faux country, so the faux-nationality:  There isn’t a people called “Americans”, any more that there are peoples called Italians, Germans, Britishers, Soviet Unioners – even Frenchmen or Spaniards. All these supposed nationalities are 19th C. fictions.  When Mussolini decided that he was going to forge a nation of Italians out of very different peoples, he was just following the footsteps of Cavour, Georg Schönerer (ol’ Adi’s teacher), Bismarck, 1688-ers, Richelieu, and Lincoln.

In recognizing this, and in proposing a solution, the Paleolibertarians, the Vermont Secessionists, the Neo-Confederates (and neo-confederationists), and our last surviving Jeffersonian, Clyde Wilson, are way ahead of the moribund Paleoconservatives.  Tom DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Michael Hill, and Clyde Wilson have done the work that Sam Francis (who refused to join the League) et al. should have done. The ghost of Paleoconservatism (the movement died with Francis) might disagree with the Hamiltonian-Lincolnians (“Neocons” – a term that I refuse to use, because they ain’t no conservatives, y’all) in terms of what Lincoln’s central state ought to be doing, but they are in full agreement as to how this Behemoth and Leviathan and Great Whore of Babylon mega-state ought to be constituted.  But how it is constituted is why it is doing bad things.

Rather than whining about how the Hamiltonians and Cultural Marxists are destroying Faux-Patria America by the Iraq war, oil dependency, trade deficits, budget deficits, fiat money and inflation, welfare, (both corporate and individual), off-shoring, immigration, retribalization, Potemkin schools and universities, cultural decadence celebrating the Lumpen-Proletariat, etc, instead let’s actually hurry this process along by secessionist and confederationist activity, as Lincolndom creaks to its inevitable doom.

PS: Real Conservatives, potentially, can trump Racial-Nationalists, Hamiltonian-Nationalists, Cultural Marxists (racialists in their own way), and even the very laudable Paleolibertarians. (So also can Christian Democracy’s application of Catholic Social Teaching, by the way).  Call Real Conservatism the great sleeping Atlantis of politics.

I have written an even longer piece on this dismal
subject for Lew Rockwell’s website. What is left
unsaid is that Bill may need the money, and the
neocons can provide a lot of it for those who turn
on their paleo friends. This is a very old
story; it goes back to how the “evil ones” took over
the now cannibalized conservative movement.

I think that Hawkins objection that immediate pullout is not politically feasible misses the mark. Of course it is not politically feasible at present. We can’t get the gonadless “anti-war” Democrats to step up. How are we going to get enough Democrats and Republicans to agree? But if debate was limited to what is presently politically feasible, then the JRC and paleos in general might as well pack it up and go home. Very little that we support is “politically feasible” at present.

My impression was that this debate was about which side had the better moral and philosophical argument. Not who had the better wonkish political plan. Otherwise you could just play the “not politically feasible” trump card to shot down any idealistic proposal.

Justin made the best point and made it over and over again. The longer we are there trying to fix what we broke, or stabilize the region, or whatever, the more likely we are to end up in a disastrous conflict with Iran. Serge even conceded the likelihood of a conflict with Iran is 6.5/10.

I am not convinced that the longer we stay there it helps even marginally. The sides are going to fight when we leave whether we leave tomorrow or in 2 years. We are not fixing what we broke. We are simply moving the pile of ruble from one place to another. They will fight when we leave regardless because anything we help establish over there will have no legitimacy in their eyes.

Dr. Gottfried,

“Bill may need the money, and the
neocons can provide a lot of it for those who turn
on their paleo friends.”

I’m glad you said that. I had the exact same thought. This whole thing smelled like a set up to me from the start. When I first heard his debate response my thought was, “Where does he think he is speaking?”

Sam Francis was exactly right about secessionism, and the rantings of Sid Cundiff are exhibit A in the case that Sam made against secessionism--that it is infantile.

And, Mr. Cundiff, I have news for you.  America is a real country, and most of us who live here have no trouble considering ourselves American. 

I will not say anything more in response to the 43 long-winded rants from Mr. Cundiff this post will undoubtedly produce, but I could not pass over his comments on America and on Sam in silence.

@Sid,

‘instead let’s actually hurry this process along by secessionist and confederationist activity, as Lincolndom creaks to its inevitable doom.’

Wouldn’t secession and the breaking down of each little geopraphic area into nation states actually be the apotheosis of nationalism?  Not that I am disagreeing with the idea.  I am in total agreement.  Let’s do it!

Wow Sid. I actually agree with much of what you just wrote. Especially that the current State is doing bad things because of how it is constituted. That is why I can tolerate much of what a leftist like Kirkpatrick Sale says because we have a common enemy in the modern centralized nation state, even if our end product might look very different.

But I think you are conflating your terminology. Francis actually walked the line between paleoconservatism and (white) nationalism. So does Pat Buchanan to some degree. Francis was actually critical of paleoconservatism as a politically viable entity. That is why he advocated a “revolution of the middle” and was more overtly nationalist. He was willing to concede the continuation of social programs such as Social Security, that most paleos find anathema, because he felt that was the price you have to pay for forming a mass movement. His ideas clearly influenced Pat’s presidential campaigns, especially by 2000.

I think what you describe IS actually paleoconservatism, and it was the nationalist/paleo blending that died with Francis.

Sure it would be better to secede from the realm than to worry about abolishing the Fed from the center, to use one of you examples. But I think that those of us who still worry about those things (many of the Paleo supporters of Ron Paul I think) are doing so as a concession to political reality as we see it. We are practical purist perhaps.

I we tried to secede now, the bombs would surely rain down on our head. We must change the political climate in order to make that a possibility. We don’t necessarily have to reform the center first. (Fat chance of that!) But we do have to change what people can conceive. The time now is the 1840’s and we are Fire-Eaters. It is not now 1861 with a populace that is ready to hear our message.

Yea, Sid grows tiresome.  He’s like the noise of traffic when one first moves to the city from the country.  At first, it’s unbearable; but after only a brief stint of time, one learns to ignore it.  His mention of Sam Francis was probably like a loud horn in the cacophony.  It got your attention, but soon you’ll be able to ignore him again.

Sid is the other side of the same coin:  he is the PC Enforcer who has taken it upon himself to visit every paleoconservative website and denounce anyone who strays from political correctness or libertarian ideology.  And if you disagree with him on anything, especially issues relating to ethnicity, well, you are a “brown” or “nazi.”

I had a funny conversation this last weekend at JRC about the “Sid / Adriana” duo.

Regarding the Raimondo-Hawkins debate, I posted about it here:

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1167

Like everyone else, I think it is rather distasteful that Hawkins would choose FrontPageMag as his venue to denounce Raimondo. They have a disagreement, but why get the neocons involved? It’s like inviting hyenas to a family argument over who’s going to get the last pork chop on the plate.

Hawkins also has done some great work showing the dangers of free trade and how it is undermining our economy. It will be a shame if he redirects that talent in aiding the neocons in their witch hunts for “unpatriotic Americans.”

-------

Sid, I agree with Tom in that I am less pessimistic that there is no “real America” than some of my fellow secessionists. Samuel Huntington thinks there is a “real America,” for better or worse, despite all the disparate parts. I tend to agree, based partially on the time I spent overseas. Didn’t you recognize a lot of assumptions that Americans held in common that made us unique when you were in Europe?

However, I have to part ways with Tom on secession. It is not infantile. It is a NECESSARY outcome. Although as I said above it is not right around the corner. Tom’s objection was spoken like a true Michigander. But I trust that Tom would not advocate our invasion should the modern day Confederates follow through on our plan.

Can’t we all get along here?

One can have an honest disagreement of views without getting personal. What I like about the JRC and Rockford is that they are willing to have libertarians and leftists like Raimondo and Sale as speakers or members not because they agree with them on everything but because they fit a certain attitude and style and culture that are outside convention ideological labels. Yes, Sale may be a leftist, anti-human kook, but unlike his fellow New Left hypocrites who sold out to the Democrats, he actually believes in “power to the people,” not power to Nancy Pelosi. Thus, you can say he and Thomas Naylor are paleo-liberals in that sense.

Maybe I’ve answered my question then. How can you not have disagreements within paleoism if you have liberals, conservatives and libertarians within the same movement?

That’s fine but we can still be civil about it. What Hawkins did was disgraceful and dishonorable. He went to a notorious neocon website edited by a Black Panther “white kitten” and other Trotskyites (talk about company of ill repute) and submitted his piece because he knew they would publish it. They love crap like this that supposedly tars paleos as being anti-patriotic. This was not an honest appraisal of the debate, this was a diatribe. A pissy Hawkins doesn’t want to associate with people he thinks are anti-American. Fine. But instead of keeping this private, he goes to the neocons and says “Guess what happened at the latest JRC meeting? You’ll never believe this!”

William Hawkins started out as the director of a Tennessee think tank funded by Roger Milliken and textile interests devoted to trade issues. He supported Buchanan because of his protectionist ideology (Gee isn’t it interesting Raimondo and Rothbard didn’t mind associating with protectionists. Who’s being petty here?). Notice that he lives and works in the imperial capital now. There’s no doubt in reading his little screed he’s been moving away from paleoism for some time because it conflicts with his extreme nationalism. This is the downside of protectionism. No doubt if you asked Hawkins and his ilk they would want to go to war with China because of its economic policies and because they view it as a threat to U.S. power. What a coincidence! The neocons feel the same way about China too. Not that they care about economics, because they don’t. They can tolerate a protectionist like Hawkins because he’s a nationalist just like they are. He believes the U.S. should be a global empire. He believe in the war. Ergo, he’s not going to be paleo for much longer if he feels this way.

The problem with “modern nationalism” is largely its 19th-century manifestation.  It demanded allegiance to abstract ideas of the state at the expense of tradition, kith and kin, and regional loyalties.  There is an older sense of nationalism, however, with which a paleo like myself would be comfortable, and it is one based in a particular group of people living in a particular place.  Traditional nationalism, as the Latin root ‘nascere’ suggests, implies link by blood.

Dr. Phillips,

I would certainly not advocate invading any country of which you are a part, even though you called me a Michigander when I am really an Ohioan.  (I have many family connections to Michigan, and went to law school there, so the confusion does not bother me).

As much as it pains me, I feel the need to come, at least somewhat, to Sid’s defense. I have twice seen Sid denounced as a libertarian. It is clear to me that Sid is not a libertarian. I think he may feel more at home with some libertarians than he is with what I think he misperceives as current paleoconservatism, because they more likely share his ideology about race. But someone who is advocating Catholic Social Teaching is no libertarian.

I think that Sid’s post above that invited wrath is one of his more sensible ones. Especially this statement: “But how it is constituted is why it is doing bad things.” Amen to that.

But Sid, please help me out? What you advocate is mutually contradictory in my opinion. You say there is no “real America” because of the various ethnic, religious, etc. factions that went to making us up. (There is some truth to that, but not as much as I think some believe because the core group was actually much more homogenous than the multicult retellers of history will admit.) But then you think it is improper for people to worry about maintaining what ethnic homogeneity still remains. To guard against further dissolution. In fact, you incredulously insist that ethnos is all a figment. I don’t get it. I really don’t.

ok, i have come to the conclussion that there are some very knowledgealbe political types here and since i am just now discovering the who what when and where of this mystery, nameley: when, where and by what means did this movement (conservatism) get so difracted and redirected and even given a new meaning to the same old name? in my quest to discovery i have already drawn some very drastic conclussion, but i would rather be corrected now than to find myself chasing rabbits down faux rabbit trails.

so here is my question even if it may reveal the extent of my ignorance on the subject.

when did this unwavering support and fear of the zionist creep into the american wasp body politik?

and am i wrong in assuming that the zionist exert a too heavy to bear hand on our form of govt?

john f kennedy knew how to separate the interests of the united states from those of israel and worked at keeping them separate. By what means did the american body politik come to find itself in this seemingly inextricable relatioship?

am i on the wrong trail here?
my background is from a community who was staunchly anti marxist communist and still has a formidable lobby in these united states and i shared their mindset up until recently when this discovery of the neocons infiltration of the rep party has moved me far off that original position in total disgust for the interest that they seem to represent and the arrogant way in which they seem to dominate congressmen and senators in america. their attacks on jimmy carter have caused me to look upon his political position more favorably than my background would ever have allowed me to in the past.

anybody care to illumine my path with some veritas.

Here is what Sam Francis said of paleoconservatism:

“… paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an “idea,” a “proposition,” or a “creed.” It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2002_12_16/review6.html

-------

There are political divisions in the “conservative-libertarian coalition” over foreign policy (interventionism vs. non-interventionism), trade (free vs. managed) and immigration (restricted vs. non-restricted). Hawkins belongs to the interventionist/managed-trade/restricted immigration wing. There are many left-wing/anti-globalization Democrats who share his views on trade and many neocons who share his views on foreign policy. It seems to me that Hawkins is angry that most of those who belong to the JRC do not share his views.

As a proud member of the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I invite Justin Raimondo to take the next step.  The charge of “un-patriotic” is absurd because ... there isn’t a patria called “America”. 

T’Hell does that have to do with the topic of Mr. Raimondo’s post?

I really enjoy reading the excellent posts and the interesting topic-related responses here. And then I get to your responses and I say to myself - Son of a bitch, here we go again!

Can it.

I agree with Paul Gottfried’s comments.  The Hawkin’s event is about money and power.  The Neocons have the money and power, and the Paleocons don’t have them.  Note that John Lukacs has stated over and over again that most people are moved by the realities of power than by ideals or ideas.  The Neocons control newspapers, have access to TV networks and control foundation money.  Unless and until the paleos are able to do likewise, this is the kind of stab in the back they can expect in the future as well.

“interventionist/managed-trade/restricted immigration wing” he’s like a socialist pirate

By and large, it is the neocons who have supported free trade and open borders; and the paleocons who have been skeptical of free trade and open immigration.  Some paleolibertarians call what the neocons support a form of “managed trade” and postulate some form of pure, undiluted free tree trade, which must exist in the heavens with the Platonic forms because I’ve never seen it on Earth.

We have every reason to be skeptical of free trade.  It is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty.

Bede is correct on the trade issue.  Not too long ago, David Frum on his NRO blog stated that the (Neo)Con position was not to save outdated industries such as automobiles...but of course the Neocons will say, look at Toyota building a truck plant in Texas!  Its apple and oranges to compare technological change making an industry or product obsolete and the outsourcing of industries that we still depend on such as autos, computers etc.  Hell, we still wear shoes and clothes, but the Neocon/Liberal/Libertarian position is we don’t need a textile industry, much less the ability to make autos much less tanks.  What is likely to end the Neocon empire program is the collapse of the American dollar, caused in large part by Neocon policies.

D. W. Griffith made the first Hollywood blockbuster out of Thomas Dixon’s novel “The Clansman” which was released in 1915.  Griffith intended for it to have the same title as the novel, but when Dixon saw it before its release he declared that Griffith had shown the birth of a nation.  I.e. the Civil War changed everything, and damning Lincoln’s activism (not to mention Wilson’s and Roosevelt II’s) won’t change a thing.  Paleoconservative and libertarian fantasies are just that, fun though they may be.  The neo-cons are neo-imperialists, pure and simple.  Let’s concentrate on dealing with them re. Bush’s Folly and its potential sequel and save variations of “Dixie” for much later.

The neocons do not care about nations as much as they care about corporations...they are remaking the world in the image of world govt/corporations/financial interests, governed by international laws that are starting to transcend national boundaries.

Until that project takes form, nations that do not allign themselves will be remade by their empire warrior nation (the united states), and even here in the u.s we see today how international law is starting to take dominance over the constitution and laws of the us. Eventually the military will be under the authority of the governing world body (corporate interests), until then the project is ongoing and the system remains under construction.

it’s the same as it ever was.

jigsaw puzzles alwasy comes with a picture of it on the outside of the box.

“Above all we must at all times remember what intellectuals habitually forget that people matter more than concepts and must come first, the worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas.”
paul johnson, modern times and intellectuals

I listened to the debate online. At the end of the debate, there was a call for applause for both the positions, and it sounded to me like the audience was pretty evenly divided, with a slight majority favoring immediate withdrawal.

The prospects for antiwar don’t look good if the John Randolph Club and the paleo-con/lib right is as divided as the Liberal/Leftists on whether the US should get out or stay in.  Even Pat Buchanan stops short of immediate withdrawal.

The campaigns of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are hopeless, although I’m glad that they are there.

I think that Justin is doing a lot of good with his research and documentation into the non-interventionist “Old Right”, but I think he’s wrong that it’s got a predominately libertarian or even Republican flavor. Modern Libertarianism seems to be a relatively recent phenomena, a 60’s movement, part of the counter-culture. The non-interventionist impulse was not only a phenomena of the “Old Right”, but part of the populist movement as well. The People’s Party was as much a part of the non-interventionist history as the “Old Right”.

Times have changed, and with the US economy so intertwined with globalization and dependent on foreign manufacturing, that most regular “Bubbas” understand that their economic security has something to do with our intervention there. There is no turning back with the loss of manufacturing in the US the way it is, we’ve been losing our manufacturing capability since the 1980’s when I worked in Silicon Valley in the printed circuit industry.

samuel burke makes a frightfully good point.  The recently printed “Are WE
Rome?” by Cullen Murphy gets into the corporatization of the state in a very worthwhile manner.  Blackwater guarding the US embassy staff in Baghdad in preferance to US Marines is a fine case in point.

I listened to the debate online. At the end of the debate, there was a call for applause for both the positions, and it sounded to me like the audience was pretty evenly divided, with a slight majority favoring immediate withdrawal.

The prospects for antiwar don’t look good if the John Randolph Club and the paleo-con/lib right is as divided as the Liberal/Leftists on whether the US should get out or stay in.  Even Pat Buchanan stops short of immediate withdrawal.

The campaigns of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are hopeless, although I’m glad that they are there.

I think that Justin is doing a lot of good with his research and documentation into the non-interventionist “Old Right”, but I think he’s wrong that it’s got a predominately libertarian or even Republican flavor. Modern Libertarianism seems to be a relatively recent phenomena, a 60’s movement, part of the counter-culture. The non-interventionist impulse was not only a phenomena of the “Old Right”, but part of the populist movement as well. The People’s Party was as much a part of the non-interventionist history as the “Old Right”.

Times have changed, and with the US economy so intertwined with globalization and dependent on foreign manufacturing, that most regular “Bubbas” understand that their economic security has something to do with our intervention there. There is no turning back with the loss of manufacturing in the US the way it is, we’ve been losing our manufacturing capability since the 1980’s when I worked in Silicon Valley in the printed circuit industry. 

Sam Burke sed: The neocons do not care about nations as much as they care about corporations...they are remaking the world in the image of world govt/corporations/financial interests, governed by international laws that are starting to transcend national boundaries.

For better or worse, American corporations are reinventing themselves as Chinese businesses. The only interest they have in the United States is the Wall Street Stock Exchange. Finance capitalism rules.

Ironically, this is the ultimate result of the success of the “Libertarian” or “free market” philosophy.  A few ideological purists in the “libertarian” movement are astounded that that the end result bears little resemblance to their utopian vision.  Instead of the triumph of Von Mises and Rothbard, it seems that Marx and Lenin are redeemed. Finance Capitalism always leads to Imperiallism, where the investment goes, the soldiers always follow.  Instead of limited government, the “free market” utopia has created World Government, not through the UN, but through the intertwined tenecles of the FED/World Bank/IMF/Export Import bank. Unelected bureaucrats making decisions behind closed doors that benefit finance capitalists using state power.

US involvement in Iraq isn’t about Israel or Oil, it’s ultimately about protecting globalization and finance capitalism.

The “libertarian” utopian dream has turned into a nightmare.

Joe Populist is quite right.  The populist William Jennings Bryan is remembered for “Thou shalt not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!” That was from his 1896 campaign speech.  In his 1900 campaign his platform stood upon two pillars:  Free Silver and No Imperialism.  Free silver amounted to a 20% devaluation of the dollar for the benefit of farmers and other debtors; it was regarded by the better sort as radical madness.  In 1987 the dollar was devalued 20% at the behest of the better sort, in part to save the American automobile industry.  Hmmm.  The No Imperialism policy is still beyond reproach.

>For better or worse, American corporations are reinventing themselves as Chinese businesses. The only interest they have in the United States is the Wall Street Stock Exchange. Finance capitalism rules.<

capitalism is drowning in liquidity...hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets, their weapons of mass financial destruction are the derivatives which they in their greed created and cant manage now or ever.

The Internationalist social engineers have failed at everything they have ever attempted, the societies they are creating have no moral moorings, they control their nations by controlling the information accessible to their subjects, always misleading and misrepresenting the underlying realities which hold the fabric of rule and law intact.
they have lost temporary control of the flow of information and have run into a formidable foe in the middle east.

and all of this coming together at a time when the financial house of cards they built is unraveling, now wonder we need war.

@Bede, re: nationalism:

The earlier “nationalism” that you’re talking about is not nationalism at all, but patriotism.  By the time that the word “nationalism” appears in the English language, it’s already what you call “modern nationalism.”

@JP, Joe Populist:

Tom Fleming and I, favoring opposite sides of the debate, agreed that the applause broke two to one in favor of the affirmative side.

Hawkins was right: The crowd was against him.

and on another point....raimondos hotlink to the trotskycons led me to this, which i found to be an interesting tactic on the trotskycon neocons part, to counter those who call them trotskycons or neocons by calling those opposed to them as neofascists....

> first, the scurrilous claim by a group of neofascists that the neoconservatives are all ex-Trotskyists, and second, the very real evolution of certain ex-Trotskyists toward an interventionist position on the Iraq war<

They need to be called by their real name israel first americans and not neocons so that their interests and their identity can be understood by america in general.

these folk need to be reminded that they are in america and that their interests lie in israel and israel only, they dont give a crack about our soldiers getting killed in the middle east or being put in jail for commiting crimes against humanity, our soldiers (brothers and sisters to us) are being placed in conditions that are not war conditions. they also dont give a hoot about the economic burden which the war will put on all of us.

whenever the offer is made to get the arab nations to all sit down together with the israeli zionists and make some kind of peace in the middle east they balk everytime,
they prefer war to peace because that part of the world needs to be made over to suit the needs of their masters with the capital.

there will be a tipping point in america, the longer it goes the more it will cost us and them.

chaim weizman from his autobiography trial and error

“Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them ... The fact that the actual number of Jews in England, and even their proportion to the total population, was smaller than in other countries was irrelevant; the determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews, but the solvent power of the country ... this cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off”

Red is right that I’m no libertarian, and he has correctly stated most of the reasons.  The Paleolibertarian “Austrian” School is doing the best thinking this side of the Atlantic.  Better thinking is done by Real Conservatives and Christian Democrats, two movements, regrettably, not in Yankeedom.

As to Red’s question about contradiction.  For me “race” doesn’t mean ethnos.  “Race”, if the term really has any meaning at all, means “physical type” (e.g. blue eyes/brown eyes).  ethnos means a “culture” or “cultural group”, the product of a shared history.  One “race” can be many ethnics/cultures. Thus Bantu is a physical type (better, a collection of similar physical types).  “First Blacks” (pre-1808), West Indian Blacks, and West Africans are (mostly) Bantu, but very different cultures, because their respective histories are very different.  “Celt” is also a collection of similar physical types; but Highland Scots, Lowland Scots, and Green Irish are very, very different cultures, again because of very different histories as well as mutual antagonisms; that they share the same skin color has done utterly nothing to ameliorate these antagonisms.

In the same way, one culture can have many “races” (physical types).  We Borderer-Backcountry folk (misnamed the “Scots Irish”) are a mixture of physical types: Briton Celtic, Bernician Angle, Lowland Scot Celtic, Viking (Danelaw), and Norman; when we got to Ulster, Irish Celtic mixed in with us; when we got to the backcountry, Saxons and Mercians left or fled the Tidewater and joined us, and we also mixed with the “Aboriginal Peoples").  But we are a single culture.

“Race”, as one eminent poster put it, has zero importance as a factor in determining personal character and group culture, or about as much as eye color.  But culture – history, habit, custom, class, tradition, ceremony, religion – is the most important factor of all of all.  And one can change one’s culture. 

So what counts for political groupings?:
1. racialist-nationalists: racial purity
2. Culture Marxists: oppressed races, genders, etc. vs. oppressing
3. Hamiltonian statist-nationalists:  Leviathan’s forced and centralized “nation”
4. Classic Marxism:  Proletariat of all lands, unite!
5. Social Democrats (aka “liberals”):  Got a problem?  The Government can solve it!
6. Paleolibertarians:  private property, to be enjoyed as the owner sees fit, and the free market to exchange the same
7. Real Conservatism:  culture, as defined above
8. Christian Democrats:  subsidiarity, solidarity, personalism (a human is a person sui juris), the common good, religion (see the German Wikipedia q.v. “Christliche Soziallehre” and Eliot’s The Idea of a Christian Society)
9. the Greens: every plant and little critter is person sui juris

Take your pick!

@Sid

I am puzzled by your assertion that the US does not
constitute a nation. If it is not one, then to whom did
I pledge allegiance when I became a US citizen?

You call this Lincolnia, not America, on the basis hat
Lincoln created it after the civil war. Fine, I can
agree with it. But then it was Lincolnia that welcomed
all the inmigrants allowed them to reach middle class
lives, instead of the misery they had known in Europe.
It was Lincolnia where a sizeable Catholic population
made itself heard and its interests taken into account.
It was Lincolnia that protagonized the technological
vanguard and the industrial powerhouse.

For good or ill, and there has been much good, and there
has been much good. this country exists and we have
reason to cherish.

And against it, what can you offer? The dreams of what
might have been? Since what might have been does not
exist you are free to imagine being much better than what
we have. Edmund Burke already said that it is impossible
to find the defects of what does not exist, so I will not
try.  But I wonder why, if you are so opposed to racial
discrimination you wax poetic over a society whose
economy was based in great part on the unremunerated
labor of slaves which were judged to be an inferior race
and thus only fit for such use. Or why, if you think
that nazism was evil, you hate so much the one goverment
who actually did more than condemn it in the abstract.

It is most puzziling, indeed.

Friends: I mentioned the “r” word not to stir up a hornet’s nest, but just to clarify matters for Red. I would prefer that we talk about the Raimondo-Hawkins debate, the Burke-Paine debate, the Jefferson-Hamilton debate, or the DiLorenzo-Jaffa debate (i.e. secession vs. the “one nation ... indivisible").

Adriana: I am against slavery, Jim Crow, and ALL forms of racial discrimination, including reverse discrimination ("affirmative action”, or “Jim Snow” laws). And the good things that you mentioned that happened in Lincolnland would have happened better, faster, surer—and certainly so in Dixie—without his tariff and his war.

Pardon the old Schulmeister in me, but your homework assignment is to read DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln.  My Confederate ancestor wasn’t fighting for slavery, and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers owned no slave. Instead, they fought against a tariff that would (and did) despoil them. Nor was Lincoln against slavery.  Read Dishonest Abe’s First Inaugural, when he for once actually told the truth (sort of). That’s the speech the Abeophiles don’t want you to know about.

It wasn’t a civil war; such is when two sides are fighting to take over the government. Jeff Davis didn’t wish to rule in Washington. Because the hyper-correct “War Against Southern Secession From the Yankee Empire” (WASSFYE) is a mouthful, call it “Lincoln’s War”, because Dishonest Abe started it. 

Likewise the earlier conflict wasn’t a revolution; such is when there is a forcible overthrow of the state and a different political order is instituted. George Washington didn’t wish to rule in London, and the colonists thought they were the best of Englishmen.  Because “The War Against North American Secession From the British Empire” (WANASFBE) is too hard for current Gringo school kiddies, let’s call it “King George III’s War”.  Both conflicts were about taxes—plain and simple.

‘Patriotism’ is as meaningless and fraudulent as ‘nationalism’ or any collectivist solidarity bosh.

I think Ambrose Bierce had it right in his Devil’s Dictionary:

‘PATRIOTISM, n.Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.’
This being the case, I don’t really see why any decent person can see being accused of being unpatriotic to be a particularly bad thing.

We need more cynics like Bierce and Mencken, not more ‘patriotic’ boosters.

@Sid, in this case I regret it, but I gave
my allegiance, and it is to the country that
is, not the country that might have been. That
country is not the one whose Statue of Liberty
greeted inmigrants, not the one that made men and
women dream about a better land.

As for the causes of the Civil War, well, the North
might not have fought to abolish slavery, but the
South fought to preserve it. That’s what they said in
their proclamations, the need to preserve the “peculiar
institution”.

I wonder. If a Constitutional amendment outlawing
abortion was about to pass, and California, Oregon, and
Washington decided to secede invoquin some tax dispute
with the Federal Government (and picked up Nevada as
there was a possibility of Federal laws outlawing
prostituion and gambling), would you debate the wrongs
of the taxes that the Federal government imposed?

Just asking.

“This being the case, I don’t really see why any decent person can see being accused of being unpatriotic to be a particularly bad thing.”

Because, of course, no matter how much I enjoy reading Bierce, words such as “nationalism” and “patriotism” have real meanings.  An anyone who understands the difference between the two, and yet rejects both, doesn’t care much about civilization.

Reg Stocking sed:  “That was from his 1896 campaign speech.  In his 1900 campaign his platform stood upon two pillars:  Free Silver and No Imperialism.  Free silver amounted to a 20% devaluation of the dollar for the benefit of farmers and other debtors...”

I agree, the traditional opposition to Imperialism is populist, despite what Raimondo says. 

It was the little people out there, the farmers and small businessmen, the laboring bubbas in factories and railroads---the“folk” if you will---that had an instinctive repulsion to Woodrow Wilson style internationalism. It’s the same “folk” who are in the immigration revolt, the guys who join the Minuteman.

Me thinks there is a huge mountain of documention waiting to be assembled that the antiwar movement of the early 20th Century was centered in small towns, the populist press, the Midwest Christian churches, that formed the broad mass of opposition to WWII.

Raimondo drags up Senator Taft and an assemble of pamphleteers with a rightwing outlook. But mostly they seem to a fringe of the political spectrum with limited audiences.  I believe he demeans his own brilliant research in his attempt to construct a “libertarian” heritage of non-interventionism, and ignore the populist

I admire Justin, but Hawkins was right about one thing, from his vantage point in San Francisco, he’s sort of out of the mainstream, and being gay, he’s a tad out of touch with the bubbas out there.

Bebe said: “By and large, it is the neocons who have supported free trade and open borders; and the paleocons who have been skeptical of free trade and open immigration.  Some paleolibertarians call what the neocons support a form of “managed trade” and postulate some form of pure, undiluted free tree trade, which must exist in the heavens with the Platonic forms because I’ve never seen it on Earth.”

The so-called “libertarians are off in la-la land, some utopian dream of “free society”. The reality is is the FED/IMF/World Bank/Export-Import Bank, a State bureaucracy pulling strings on behalf of finance capitalism.

A lot of the so-called “libertarian” resentment to the FED is really old populist resentment against a National Bank, which is what the FED is. The debate over the role of the national bank goes back to the founding of the Republic.

Another problem is the role of finance capitalism in the economic system. There are really 2 forms of capitalism, one is finance capitalism, the goal of which is to maximize profits on its’ investments. The other is productive capitalism, who exists to serve the consumer with innovation and new products. Finance capitalism is by nature speculative and destructive, and whose “animal instincts” need to be curtailed by democratic government. The other needs to be protected and nurtured by government.

The problem today is that finance capitalism is unchecked.  Oil and Israel may be important, but the root cause of the problem is the desire to maintain the US dollar as reserve currency, and to protect the “New
World Order” of globalization and international finance capitalism.

Sam Spade: What is likely to end the Neocon empire program is the collapse of the American dollar, caused in large part by Neocon policies.

I agree completely. Ultimately, this is about the dollar as reserve currency, and the FED. The US dollar as reserve currency is a great advantage to stimulating the American economy, but ultimately it’s a ponzi scheme.

Scott sed: Tom Fleming and I, favoring opposite sides of the debate, agreed that the applause broke two to one in favor of the affirmative side.

I wasn’t there, I just listened to the applause.

Still, 1/3 for continuing the occupation is startling,
in a supposed “paleo-libertarian” gathering which is by
defination, anti-interventionist.

It’s even more significant, because from my vantage,
“paleos” of the lib or con persuasion are a tiny fringe
in the scheme of things. Unfortunately.

The same old fault lines always recur in these circles. Actually, that’s not entirely fair - that seems to be the way of politics in general.

Personally, I don’t seek nor need idealogical purity in my friends or allies. Finding common ground in one important area (such as the war in Iraq, or interventionism in general) may lead to future debate and possible rapprochement or even conversion in another (say, economics). That’s what civil society is all about, and that’s what we are trying to save on here. It’s also what we are slowly losing out there.

Great blog by the way. I followed Raimondo over here a month or two ago and the level of debate is really ticking upwards - good job, people.

Scott:

Yea, you are right.  I just looked it up.  Random House puts the origin of the word circa 1830.

I was just thinking of the Latin root of the word, ‘natio’, which means breed, stock, race, tribe, etc., which implies the same kith and kin obligations as does the root of ‘patriotism’, ‘pater’.

The problem with the notion of “nationalism” is that it is stripped of any of the traditional connotations.  It transfers all the traditional allegiances (to family, kith and kin, region, tradition, ancestors) to all encompassing abstractions of the state. 

But even in the popular sense of the word, I think that ‘patriotism’ too has lost some of its traditional sense, which perhaps is even more reason why paleoconservatives should try to reclaim it.

Sid,

“Culture” in its modern meaning is largely a creation of the 19th Century, as any dictionary will attest, and in part is the result of the modern nationalist state, something which you claim to deplore.  Prior to the 19th century, one thought of things more in terms of ancestral traditions, etc., not this nebulous notion of “culture.”

Regarding race, there is an older concept of “race” equivalent to ethnos.  Open any Latin dictionary from centuries ago and the first definition of ‘gens’ you see will be “race.” While the 19th century imposed upon this older notion some more generalist aspects, there is an older notion based in kith and kin, and the ancestral.  In this sense, race is nothing more than extended family.

This is all I’m going to say on this topic.  I’m sure you’ll write 157 more acerbic posts on this issue, and start calling everyone “browns” and “Nazis,” but I couldn’t let such an unsupported claim rest.

Bede, as Adriana elsewhere has said, it is race that is the great 19th Century fiction. And culture has more meanings than Arnold’s. And learn some Latin:  “race” means “root”. Ir was never used as you use it until wackos like Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain gave it your meaning.

Adriana: To answer your question directly:
Day One: Dixie becomes free.
Day Two: Abortion is abolished in Dixie (and the legions of the Yankee Empire in Iraq would be more than decimated, because many, if not most, of our soldiers are First Blacks and Backcountry boys, for whom Dixie is home)

Then at least one of the Lands of Lincoln will no longer have child-killing.  At present, it is everywhere.

I speak of the Lincolnlands in the plural to oppose Mr Piatak and his fellow Sam-Franciscans, to wit: 

the case that Sam made against secessionism--that it is infantile. And, Mr. Cundiff, I have news for you.  America is a real country, and most of us who live here have no trouble considering ourselves American

I would first urge Dr. J. Michael Hill, Dr. Clyde Wilson, Rev. Franklin Sanders, Mike Tuggle, and other compatriots to notice this preceding statement, to draw the conclusion, and to say that conclusion next week in Chattanooga.  I suspect that Dr. Naylor and Dr. Sales already have done so. We have few friends among “paleoconservatives” of Sam-Francisianism, if this statement of Mr. Piatiak is typical. 

I myself am not a politician.  I am not proposing a program.  I leave it to the League’s the Vermont Secession leadership to do that.  What I am doing is exposing a fallacy and resisting a pretense.  It is I who have news for the Sam-Franciscans:  The Lincolnlands are in fact three distinct and mutual hostile countries, each radiating out from the city hall of Philadelphia, and held artificially together by the force of arms and the fraud of nationalism.  I a Dixon, regard Mr. Piatak, surely as decent a man as the next, as an alien, and his country foreign soil.  He and his land might as well be for my fellow Dixons as alien and foreign as Boliva, Lapland, or Albania.  Indeed, we Southerners are happier when in Italy or Austria than we are in Michigan or Ohio, and certainly in California or Taxachoosits.  And David Hackett Fischer has proven that we were different countries even before we got on the boats, having, among other differences, extremely differing and opposing concepts of politics and liberty.

Mr. Piatak’s country is misnamed the “Midwest”; in fact, this is a historical and geographic misnomer. I has its roots in the Quaker-Pietist Delaware Valley.  Today it extends from the western 2/3s of PA, western NY, through the area north of the Ohio River, the upper 2/3s of Missouri, the area north of the Missouri Compromise Line, and to all of the West, Westerners simply hyper- and rootless Midwesterners.  I shall call his country Babbittdom. 

When the Babbitts of Babbittdom invade my country, Dixie, and set up shop, they tend – with happy exceptions – to leave the good cultural traits of their country behind, and bring the bad.  True, the Babbitt is not the surly and abrasive cad that the Cotton-Matherians are, except those Babbitts whose roots hail from Matherland, such as Nurse Ratched Rodam or Dishonest Abe himself.  Still, to me the Babbitt is an alien.  And when he moves to Dixie, he is even less willing to assimilate and adopt my country’s culture than the other two invaders.  Indeed, were I obliged to choose among the current three alien invasions of my country – Babbitts, Mexicans, and the district-attorney and public executioner would-bes from Salem MA, I think I would choose Juan and Maria.  They work hard, do a good piece of work, are eager to please, have relatively good manners, charge less, know how to save money and do without useless luxuries, and their cooking is vastly better than the two Babbittdomian contributions to gastronomy:  McDonald’s and Bob Evans. 

Not to recognized this would be, if I may use a phrase, quite infantile. 

So Adriana, when you took your oath of allegiance to the Yankee Leviathan, you were sucked (and you were certainly not the only one!) by the Lincolnians, be they Hamiltonian, Cultural Marxist, Paleoconservative, or racialist-nationalist.  We in Dixie would gladly have you join our country, or trade you for the scalawag John Edwards and the Carpetbagger Newt, or encourage you to practice Copperheadedness in Babbittdom or Matherland.

@Bede:

“But even in the popular sense of the word, I think that ‘patriotism’ too has lost some of its traditional sense, which perhaps is even more reason why paleoconservatives should try to reclaim it.”

Absolutely.  There’s no reason why people would realize this, but we put a great deal of care into making sure that, in the pages of Chronicles, words such as “nationalism,” “patriotism,” “nation,” “state,” “country,” and “people” (as in populace) as used correctly.  Governments are not nations or people; nations are not states (though there are such things as nation-states).  Getting such concepts clear in our minds makes a great deal of difference as we look at the modern world.

Of course, we probably should have been clearer on the concept of nationalism, at least as it applied to Mr.  Hawkins.  Sometimes, though, friendship and long association can cloud one’s judgment.

@Bede:

“‘Culture’ in its modern meaning is largely a creation of the 19th Century, as any dictionary will attest, and in part is the result of the modern nationalist state, something which you claim to deplore.  Prior to the 19th century, one thought of things more in terms of ancestral traditions, etc., not this nebulous notion of ‘culture.’”

Absolutely right.  It’s an ironic historical accident that Chronicles is a “magazine of American culture” (the new subtitle being used to maintain continuity with the original title, Chronicles of Culture), even though Chronicles strives to uphold ancestral traditions rather than culture.

That’s why we published John Lukacs’ splendid essay, “To Hell With Culture: What Is It that We Must Conserve?” and, later, brought him in to address The Rockford Institute’s dinner at the Philadelphia Society in 1996, on the same topic.

“That’s why we published John Lukacs’ splendid essay, “To Hell With Culture: What Is It that We Must Conserve?” and, later, brought him in to address The Rockford Institute’s dinner at the Philadelphia Society in 1996, on the same topic.”

Oh, I would love to have seen that.  Unfortunately, I’m somewhat new to the whole paleo movement.  In what issue is this essay?  Could I order it as a back issue?  I have been working on an essay on “culture,” and would like to read it.

@Sid

I am touched by your invitation to join Dixie, but
one cannot join what does not exist. Imaginary countries
can be as perfect or as wicked as the imagination of the
one who creates them, and cannot be thus compared to
real ones whose virtues and defects do not depend on
one’s wishes.

At least in the hypothetical case I gave you, of the
Western border secession, you did not pretend that it
was done over anything but abortion, never mind the tas
problems they used as an excuse. I can understand your
family loyalty that keeps you from applying the logic in
the past, so I am willing to let it at that.

But, and that is a big but, you cannot go around denouncing
“browns” and “nazis” while at the same time excoriating
FDR, because it was him, and Churchill, and yes, even
that beast Stalin that made it safe for you to do so.

Bede,

I just wanted to say that I’ve enjoyed your contributions to the discussion.  Thanks.

“But, and that is a big but, you cannot go around denouncing “browns” and “nazis” while at the same time excoriating FDR, because it was him, and Churchill, and yes, even that beast Stalin that made it safe for you to do so.”

And it was Woodrow the Worst than made the racialist-nationalists and Fascists possible.  Had the Leviathan of the Lincolnlands not joined the Allies with Lincolnesque lies of “making the world safe for democracy” (and the Morgan Bank) and the “war to end all wars” (and prop up Perfidious Albion and the 3rd French Republic with their empires of coolies), and had the Central Powers had been allowed to win (they were winning), then there would have been no Prohibition, no Creel Bureau, no A. Mitchell Palmer or Red Scares, no Lenin, no Versailles Treaty, no Carthagenian Peace, no Benito, no Brownshirts, no Great Inflation of the 1920s, no Great Depression, no Hoover-FDR (their programs were the same), no Adi, no World War II, no Stalin, no Cold War, no Korea or Vietnam, no Near East Wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1991, 2003, no Sept 11, no Great Inflation of the 1970s, (see Jim Powell’s Wilson’s War and Richard Gamble’s The War for Righteousness)--

And ol’ Adi would have been a copy boy at the architecture firm of Speer & Speer, Benito would have set type at The Nation magazine, and Stalin would have stayed in in seminary—

And we’d all be siting around talking about he poetry of Schiller, the music of Bruckner, the wine of the Rhine, and the pleasures of touring the peaceful and flourishing stretches of the Ottoman Empire.

And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

The real world beckons, Sid.  Come join us.

pat buchanan has an eye opening story on belgium on his webpage. the social engineering of europe is extremely litigious and oppressive.
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=856

PJB: Is Belgium Breaking Up?
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan

All politics are local, said “Tip” O’Neill.

Not so. It is more true to say that all politics are tribal.

For the 1991 prediction of Arthur Schlesinger – “Ethnic and racial conflict, it now seems evident, will soon replace the conflict of ideologies as the explosive issue of our time” – has proven prophetic.

Tom,

Oh, thank you very much.  I too enjoy your comments and writings.

Great Comments!

And I solved the Sid problem. I copy the thread to Word and then delete all Sid posts using the find function.

It cuts out all the static and allows to savor the intelligent posts.

We should, indeed, get real.

My posts during the last two months have been deliberatively provocative in order to reveal the reality of two fault lines in the old petrified Paleocon movement.  In the Paleocon tectonic plate, one fault line runs between the racialists-nationalists-fascists-Judeophobes and the rest of us Real Conservatives.  The other runs between the rest of us and those Paleocons who are in truth just Lincolnian Neocons who happen to be against Iraq – complete Lincoln idolaters, in love with Lincoln’s constitution, and would have my people’s sons die for the irredentist ambitions of another country other than the Zionists’.  Some fall on the wrong side of both fault lines, as the honorable gentleman who wishes to keep Lincoln’s work so as to defend his precious “white” race; another honorable gentleman would expel all Hispanics.  Both in fact were among Dishonest Abe’s goals.  He opposed the expansion of slavery because he wanted the Plains and West only for “white” people.  And he was a bigwig in the African Colonization Society, designed to ship the First Blacks back to Africa, and he instructed Senator Samuel Pomeroy to develop plans for a Central America colony called “Linconia” (I’m living in that colony now; it’s just not in Central America).  No one hated Lincoln more, in fact, than the Abolitionists.  See DiLorenzo on this for details.

Real Conservatives and Dixon Patriots should take note of these fault lines and these identities, and draw their conclusions.  For myself:  Long live Judah P. Benjamin!  Long live Walter Williams and Vernon Robinson!  And long live “the King over the water” (now that’s quixotic!).

sure sid you make a great point, in the mean time all the think tanks are in the hands of the neocons judeoamerican internationalists backed by the corporate capital which fuels internationalism.

the constitution of the u.s.a is being dismantled and our children and their children will be living in very sorry conditions in a police state.

karen kwiatkowski writes an excellent piece today over at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski192.html

talk and philosophising will not do anything against this movement, finding the definition to our patriotism by tagging it with paleo or real conservtive will not help us, neoliberalism as chavez in venezuela calls them is as arrogant as the zionist state of israel in dealing with their palestinian citizens and unlike the south african blacks who at least found support from the black communities around the world and the communist gov of fidel castro, the palestinians will only find support on humanitarian grounds.

I have a question for people here (except Sid/Adriana):

It seems to me that the biggest threat to the Western way of life is globalism / internationalism.  It has become a religion at schools of foreign policy, MBA programs, law schools, etc.  And its dogmas include unbridled free trade, open borders, massive “legal” third-world immigration into the West, the democratization of the World (whether Iraq or Darfur), multiculturalism, self-hatred of Westerners, et al.

What is the best strategy to oppose these forces? It seems to me that some form of nationalism might be necessary, especially to combat things like free trade, which even Paul Krugman confesses is harming the first world but insists that it must be continued for “humanitarian reasons,” thus making it another “white man’s burden” (according to J.G. Collins).

And immigration?  Perhaps it will come to the point when the proud citizens of a particular state will have to take it upon themselves to deport the unwanted and instill sanity and order.  Are we yet at this point?

The real threat at this point in time is not nationalism, but internationalism / globlism.  In short, is regionalism or a modified form of nationalism the best avenue to combat this threat?

Bede,

I agree with you about the threat, and I think patriotism is the only force capable of challenging globalism.  Most Americans have a strong attachment to America.  The neocons have succeeded in tapping into this emotion and using it for their own ends.  We need to tap into the same emotion and use it for our end, which is the preservation of the American nation.

‘An anyone who understands the difference between the two, and yet rejects both, doesn’t care much about civilization.’

Yawn. I ask you, what has the average ‘patriot’ ever done for civilization except help trash it with wars?

@Sid

Your scenarios are wonderful, but have the defect of
not happeing in the real world.  I can image roast
phesant stuffed with chestnuts and mushrooms, in a
delicious wine sauce. It certainly will taste better
than the meatloaf we ar going to have for dinner. But
an imaginary pheasants has neither calories nor nutrients.
It does not fill any bellies.

You may dream of what America might have been if thre
had been no Civil War, if the South had won, if Secessin
would have been allowed to proceed peacefully. But
none of it happened. The country that Lincoln created
or re-created is the only America we have, the only we
can accept or reject. And if you reject it, be aware hat
you cannot claim citizenship in an imaginary country (if
not, there are plenty of places I might like to move to).

Then, you seem to believe that the world is divided
between good guys and bad guys, the bad guys being very
bad, and the good guys being very good, and that it is
enough for you to prove that your opponent was flawed
to make you a very good person. You can find all the
flaws you like in Lincoln but that does not makes the
cause of hte Confederacy right automatically (as the
French Officer said in a French-Italian movie of the
Fifites “those who are not Italian are not automatically
French"). Same as reciting the flaws of FDR does
not make Hitler a nice guy.

Then you blame Lincoln and FDR for the stupitiies of
Wilson (who has a lot to answer for), thus going back in
time ad forward. Blaming Lincoln for what Wilson did is
the same as blaming the gun manufacturer for the
slaughter at Columbine. Wilson received a certain legacy,
both for good and evil, and he had to choose, and he
chose wrong. Blaming FDR is more bizarre, since when
the came to power the damage had alredy been done. He
reacted to the damage, and kept the worst from happening
(because while you concenrate on how much better things
might be, I meditate on how much worse they might end
up, and it can get very bad).

@Bede:

I wonder in your proposals, are you willing to cut off
exports to those countries, since one of the causes
why they come over there is because the competition with
our exports makes their production uneconomical, and
so the find themselves unemployed? So it happened with
a lot of Mexian peasants who found themselves undersold
by American corn. 

Are you willing to cut off exports, so that those counries
can rebuild their production base and achieve employment
withint their internal market?

I agree with Sid that America is a “Faux” country.  There is no such thing as an “ideological Nation”; or in Karl Rove’s “nation of diversity” which is an oxymoron. The FFofA even created a “psuedo-republic” not even a true republic....a faux republic along with a faux nation. That said, Sid doesn’t know a thing about Culture. All the different cultures of the world are created by the different races of the world.  When a Russian proverb says, “What is good for a German is deadly for a Russian”, it is not about “culture” but race.  Swiss watches are made by Germans---not by Africans.  When M. A. Greenidge in his study of “A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History” (pg 76), he says mixed government is only the product of a commonsense NON-ideological people the Carthiginans, the Doric Greeks, Romans and Englishmen. J. Salwyn Shapiro in his “Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism” writes on the effect of liberalism between France and England.  The Two countries reacted very differently as he points out throughout the book.  The contrast is stark. The difference is the stark racial characteristics between the English and the French! You can not read history being racially blind. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle all have noticed the different temperaments of peoples. Races are different and Race is the bedrock upon which culture is made. Africans produce Rap music--Westerners produced Beethoven, Mozart. Listen to traditional Chinese music and it far different from Western music. The way people do things is different and that makes peculiar cultures. To deny race is to deny a fundamental aspect of reality and if you don’t have a grasp of reality then all your arguments, conclusions will be false! Race is the same as ethnicity as with gens. Race defines culture and Culture defines politics! In order to bring about global government, one must have global culture, and to have global culture one must destroy Belonging and volkenhass within the races! Belonging and volkenhass are the glue that holds nations together. Destroy them, you destroy nations.

Bede,

As you are probably already aware, Pat Buchanan has written a series of outstanding books on how we combat the threat you identify:  “The Great Betrayal,” on trade and economics; “A Republic, Not an Empire,” on foreign policy; and “Death of the West” and “State of Emergency,” on immigration.  I cannot recommend these books highly enough.

One of my former colleagues claimed after careful election analysis that the anti-war movement started out in the Dakotas during the early 1930s.  The folks there could see the war clouds gathering and knew that it was going to be their sons, not those of the Northeast elite, who would bear the brunt of the fighting and casualties.  As for nationalism v. patriotism, I favor the latter.  It is what makes it possible for me to sit with people like Clyde Wilson, and Donald Livingston, smoke our cigars and pipes, and quaff some fine beverages while enjoying each other’s conversation and good company.  I am not a Southerner, but I can respect those who are and who love that region.  There is enough residual Western civilization and American patriotism for this to happen.  Patriotism is what makes groups like the JRC both possible and a joy.  Sadly, work and family commitments did not allow me to attend this recent one, and it sounds like one of the best ever.

@Martin:

“Yawn. I ask you, what has the average ‘patriot’ ever done for civilization except help trash it with wars?”

Since you don’t understand what patriotism is, I can’t expect you to understand why patriots (unlike nationalists) don’t trash civilization with wars.

Go back to romping on the libertarian playground that exists only in your mind.

Taki, do you know what most conservatives suffer from?  EFFEMINACY! They can’t stand up for the truth--they are afraid of Political correctness, afraid of the cultural marxists. I pointed out Sid’s campaign of calling any paleo-conservative who is a nationalist “brown” as seeking to distance “good” de-racinated paleos from the “bad” race conscious paleoconservatives.  NOW, I see another aspect of this campaign on this website with the word “patriot” vs “nationalist”.  See, nationalist has bad connotations because you can’t be judeophile and be a European nationalist at the same time. Why paleo’s are evil in the site of everybody from Libertarians, neo-cons, Buckley conservatives, Rockefeller republicans, leftists, socialits, academics, (everybody else really) is because true paleo-conservatives are racially conscious.  This is why now the agenda of turning paleo’s into “patriots” and to consider “nationalism” a moot point!  It is the clever disguise to steer by propaganda paleo-conservatism still into the political correct, cultural marxism, side! /// ENOUGH. What the hell is going on in the conservative movement when we can’t talk about race or be racially conscious? What is all this talk all of sudden about being a Patriot instead of being a for one’s kith, kin, tribe, nation, ethnicity, gens, race? “Birds of a feather flock together”.  Always has been---Always will be! What is the matter now is that the “conservative” wimps out on the Race card.  Can’t stand up and call a Spade a Spade?  That used to be the standard of the Conservative movement-----SPEAK TRUTH AT ALL TIMES.  If you are a conservative and can’t speak the truth---Go be a f#$%#$@ leftist! The problem with the conservative movement is that it has lost its gonads.  Truth does not do any good without MANILESS and if you cant stand up for your f$#%#$% tribe, go crawl back under your momma’s skirt! Either stand up for your European tribe--or shut your mouth and go join your communist buddies. I am sick and tired of seeing this “revolution of the form”, the transformation of the conservative movement into a political correct leftist movement!  Stand up on nationalism, Stand up and be a Man, Start calling a Spade a Spade, and stop this bowlderization of the English language and of the conservative movement!

I would appreciate it if the learned paleo gentlemen here would look back at one of my early posts that starts out “Wow Sid.” Are my thoughts on the terminology correct?

Many seem to view Sam Francis as the embodiment of paleoism. I don’t think that is true. To me, he seemed to walk a fine line between traditional paleoism and (white) nationalism. So I see him as a bit of an outlier, not the embodiment. Those on the right who have been critical of paleoconservatism and those who have pronounced it dead have generally done so by claiming we aren’t nationalistic enough, and they were much happier with Sam. (I am speaking of people who criticize it largely on philosophical grounds, not purely pragmatic political grounds.)

This is how I see some of the problem. Paleoconservatism initially came to people’s attention as a variation of conservatism that was differentiated from “mainstream conservatism” by a suite of issues - immigration, trade, and foreign policy. So some people gravitated to paleoconservatism because of these issues (aided by the Buchanan campaigns, of course) but they held on to their mainstream conceptions - Nationalism, American exceptionalism, propositionalism, “color blindness,” etc. etc. etc. But paleoconservatism is not just mainstream conservatism with a caveat. It is the wholesale or nearly wholesale rejection of liberalism.

The problem with Hawkins is that he identified with paleoconservatism based on trade and immigration, but he retained his fundamentally mainstream conceptions regarding the virtue of the modern nation state.

Nationalism is not the opposite of internationalism but just one short step removed from it.  Nationalism inevitably trends toward internationalism since the belief that one’s own nation is superior to others and entitled to dominate them leads invariably to an aggressive international policy.  I also occasionally see references to white nationalism or European nationalism.  White is a color (skin color in this case) and Europe a continent or sub-continent.  Neither are nations, but the use of the term nationalism with respect to them clearly indicates an attempt to create a dominance seeking collective on the basis of such arbitrary characteristics as skin color or broad geographic origin.

The distinction between nationalism and patriotism is sometimes a difficult one to make.  Even John Lukacs has stated that nationalism played a part in ending Soviet domination of central and Eastern Europe.  The traditional and early paleo opposition to the USSR recalled the old “captive nations” concept (as opposed to Neocon global democratic ideology).  Nations are in the paleo conception, real things, historic peoples with a common history and language and traditions.  Note also that Lukacs is not opposed to the modern nation-state system, but in fact supports it as part of the legacy of the modern age that is passing.  I don’t think you would find in the early days of paleoism (1986 to 1996) an opposition to the concept of the nation-state, as you see some claiming is part and parcel of the paleo position today. 

The alternative to the nation-state is either something like the European Union or possibly a break down into a kind of local tribalism.  The former cannot be a paleo position, whereas the later seems to offer little of a positive nature. Recall again that John Lukacs opposed the break up of Czechoslovakia. 

In the short term, I would suggest that a distinction be drawn between those who may be termed “nationalists” but are opposed to Neocon (or any other) form of American imperialism and those “nationalists” who support Neocon and/or Neo-liberal programs or ideologies be it globalism, aggressive military actions, open borders etc.  To the degree that “nationalists” are defensive rather than expansionist, they should be viewed as at least allies and not enemies of any viable paleocon group.

I don’t think it’s accurate to term Francis a “white nationalist” unless that term would apply to the William Buckley of the 1950s and early 1960s.  Francis was a scholar of English history and of James Burnham in particular.  Burnham wrote most famously the Managerial Revolution and later the Suicide of the West.  Francis tried to apply the former to our present discontents and the later book if read with any care is an attack on Neoconism (i.e., contemporary “liberalism").  Note that at the time of Burnham’s illness (1980), Buckley stated that he had been the foremost influence on National Review.  This was the focus of Francis’ work, not “white nationalism”.

”We need to tap into the same emotion and use it for our end, which is the preservation of the American nation”. Tom Piatak
Forget for a minute that to speak of an American “nation” is to speak of something unreal.  Which “nation” that Mr. Piatak talking about preserving is the question that he begs.  The illegitimate “nation” Lincoln created by jackboots?  Or the legitimate one created by Jefferson, Washington, and Madison, the one that Lincoln destroyed and whose Constitution he effectively ripped up?  The Lincolnlands or the Land of George Washington?  Dixie wanted and wants to preserve the latter, thank you, and she should be allowed to leave if she can’t so preserve, and to restore what originally was all of ours.  Call me a legitimist and restorationist.

Again, it looks like a lot of Paleocons are doing a False Flag operation.  They are really Lincoln idolater Neocons who just wish to get out of Iraq, get in somewhere else, and otherwise maintain the Lincoln Empire, just keeping Hispanics out, Dixie and Vermont in, and Blacks and Jews down.

Again: they think Lincoln’s constitution is just fine, and it’s just being used to do bad things. I think the bad things going on now and future bad things are caused by his constitution.

“The country that Lincoln created or re-created is the only America we have, the only we can accept or reject. And if you reject it, be aware hat you cannot claim citizenship in an imaginary country” Adriana
It isn’t the only one we have, I want the one that the Constitution of 1787 constitutes, I do indeed reject the one Lincoln created out of his imagination, and my country isn’t imaginary: You’ll find in constituted by the Constitution which Lincoln made Potemkin.

“You can find all the flaws you like in Lincoln but that does not makes the cause of the Confederacy right automatically” Adriana
The cause of the Confederacy wasn’t slavery, whatever the Neocons-posing-as-Paleocons want you to believe.  Dixie’s cause was and is the cause of Jefferson and Washington.  Their Declaration and Constitution, by the way, ended slavery in principle.

Mr. Wheeler falls on the correct side of the fault line between Lincoln’s bad constitution and the good constitution of 1776-1787-1791.  I thank him.  He now needs to present his credentials in genetics and tell us, just as there is a gene for brown eyes and blue, jus