As conservatives, or at least people on the Right, we obviously venerate tradition and conventional morality.  However, particularly for those of us under 30 who have never known anything other than this remarkably stupid leftist world we inherited, we have no idea what a traditional conservative society even looks like.  It is impossible for us to be reactionary, even if we wanted to be—we would just be making something up.  It is one thing to fight in defense of certain institutions and moral codes having lived underneath them—it is another thing to rebuild them entirely once they have been completely destroyed and you have no firsthand knowledge of how they operate.  I don’t think such an effort can win.  I would love to be proven wrong. 

The vague temperament that is emerging at Takimag and certain schools in Europe which Richard calls the Alternative Right values tradition but cannot appeal to it for legitimacy.  The legitimacy was stripped long ago by the attack from the left and by the corruption and cowardice of traditional sources of authority.  Therefore, almost out of necessity, the Alternative Right gets inspiration from new sources.  One is leftist writers whose writings on power, deconstruction, and cultural hegemony can easily be turned against the left wing establishment that rules “our” civilization.  Another is right wing writers who come from outside establishment conservative traditions in both Europe and America and who could serve as the beginnings of a new tradition.  And finally, biology, sociobiology, and sociology are important influences and I would argue the last is the most important when it comes to Game. 

I think this is why many young right wingers are intellectually fascinated with the idea of Game.  It derives from a viewpoint that is certainly not “conservative” but is mortally dangerous to left wing concepts about sexuality, egalitarianism, feminism, and gender roles.  In fact, it completely destroys them. 

At the same time, traditionalists and conservatives can quite compellingly argue that it is an ethical and practical dead end, a surrender to social decay, a way to exploit and even profit from the collapse of moral standards.  Lawrence Auster at the invaluable View from the Right took on Game in August in a discussion well worth reading for anyone interested in this. 

Even though the topic is somewhat, well, silly, I think the core question raised by this is important.  In the absence of any accepted or legitimate authorities or institutions that conservatives can rally around, how are we supposed to operate as non-liberals in a fundamentally liberal world? 

Media Matters has been unloading on James O’Keefe with both barrels since his bombshell expose of ACORN.  Now James has completely nailed them in a total lie by the Philadelphia branch of ACORN.  Grab some popcorn and let’s wait for what Media Matters can possibly say in response. 

For some reason, O’Keefe as a pimp never stops being funny.  Hat tip and major credit to Andrew Breitbart and Big Government for hosting all this. 

Conservative explanation—Because social acceptance, as designated by a left wing elite, is more important than winning.  As Burkeans, we must bow before established elites, even if they hate us.  What’s important is that we lose slowly so people don’t get upset.

Libertarian explanation—Because admitting the existence of cultures, nations, peoples, families, religions, and ethnicities is collectivist and one step away from Stalinism. 

Relevant to this is the NBC news “exclusive” that HotAir links to about James O’Keefe.  The “exclusive” is not a story about ACORN of course, as that would be too much work, but an interview with O’Keefe.  O’Keefe identifies himself not as a conservative but as a “progressive radical” who doesn’t “want to conserve anything.”  (He’s even a “radical” on facebook.) You can also clearly the see the copy of Rules for Radicals he carries with him.  O’Keefe gets it—when the elite of this society are who they are, Edmund Burke is not the guy you should be looking to for guidance on the contemporary political situation. 

Also, O’Keefe in the pimp costume is awesome. 

ACORN is another great example of the Left as the militant wing of the system.  Funded by the federal government and banks (which are themselves receiving money from the federal government), they nonetheless claim to be working for the downtrodden and dispossessed.  When someone dares reveal the fact that it is simply a politically connected racket, they quickly flee to the bourgeoisie controlled courts.  Meanwhile, of course, the leftists are whining that O’Keefe and Giles are motivated by (everybody say it all together now) HATE. 

ACORN is not organizing against The Man.  They are The Man. 

The life of a right wing activist is a lonely one.  There will be no movies or documentaries testifying to your noble intentions after you retire from the scene.  Your past commitments will condemn you to the fringe for all time even as far more radical left wingers like Bill Ayers sail smoothly to tenured professorships.  Most importantly, you are trying to force change on behalf of a movement whose very ideology seems to urge surrender to hostile elites.  I’ve said it before, but the staggering amount of sheer guts I’ve seen from activists around the country gives me hope even as the Beltway Right continues its eternal quest for “respectability” granted by people who hate them. 

One of the gutsiest and most effective activists is James O’Keefe.  O’Keefe is the former editor of the Rutgers Centurion, where he was known for such tactics as banning Lucky Charms to show the absurdity of multiculturalism (and yes, the school actually banned them.)  Upon graduating, he worked for the Leadership Institute where he was less interested in performing his corporate duties and more interested in taking the fight to the Left.  (Not to say he wasn’t a good worker—you just knew where his passion was.  I think he was too much for LI—and this is a company that somehow managed to put up with me.) Since he left, he’s been waging a guerilla war of video activism, without much recognition or appreciation.  Moreso, unlike a Max Blumenthal or other run of the mill “journalist,” he doesn’t just point and stutter at politically incorrect opinions.  He creates situations and scenarios where context and circumstances actually show his subjects as they really are—and the Left hangs itself.

This week, it was gratifying to see O’Keefe hit the big time with his explosive exposé of ACORN which is now moving around the blogosphere at a staggering pace and ACORN is in frantic retreat. 

As the conservative movement discovers someone, who (unlike others) actually deserves recognition, influence, and attention, it is worth remembering that he didn’t just come out of nowhere.  More importantly, unlike so many others, James knows exactly what he is doing.  He’s been working utterly without fear for years and I’m glad he’s getting long overdue recognition.  It will be great to see what he does next. 

Even if you are not a Paul supporter, doesn’t it strike you as odd that the one GOP candidate with a huge youth following isn’t mentioned here?  From NRO —

YAF Straw Poll   [John J. Miller]

What GOP presidential candidate do young conservatives prefer for 2012?

The result: Romney was the easy winner, with Jindal clearly in second place. Each of the others had scattered support. I was suprised by Palin’s poor showing. She was buried among the also-rans. Petraeus didn’t win a big show of hands, but the suggestion of his candidacy was received with applause: Young conservatives are clearly open and intrigued by the idea and would like to know more.

Young Americans for Liberty, the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, had their first national convention at the Leadership Institute this past weekend with over 60 student leaders attending.  As I’ve said before, YAL is going to grow extremely quickly in the months to come and is an important part of the anti-system movement that is developing.  On Saturday, a number of activists led by Trevor Leach protested President Obama’s health care plan, with predictable results that will probably be coming soon to a Tea Party or college campus near you—

As the Right moves more and more towards an anti-Establishment direction, we can look forward to an ever greater number of these confrontations. 

Back in February, I wrote in regards to Iceland—

Today comes news that Iceland’s parliament voted to pursue membership in the European Union.  This is a country that fought a near war against the Royal Navy over its fisheries. The center-left now casually tosses their country’s natural birthright away. I can’t help but suspect this has little to do with the economy and more to do with the center-left’s general strategy of pushing power as far away from democratic checks as possible, as the peasants occasionally vote the wrong way.

Dylan’s post highlights one of the dilemmas within the “Alternative Right” as it exists today.  Confronted by neocon triumphalism about America as the First Universal Nation, the End of History, and the Vanguard of the Global Democratic Revolution, many paleoconservatives, traditionalists, and libertarians have responded with what is essentially a culture of critique.  Ripping the American boobsie for their cultural ignorance, bemoaning the empty consumerism and materialism that has turned America into a giant strip mall, and most importantly, puncturing the bubble of American supremacy have all become staples of dissident conservatives arguing for policies emphasizing moderation, humility, and restraint.  As Dylan notes, when it comes from the Left these kinds of calls generally boil down to some fed telling you what to do or, at best, a time wasting commission of one sort or another.  From a true conservative perspective, it could be argued, there is at least the possibility of a truly critical examination of the Promise of American Life and suggestion of decentralized, local, and sustainable alternatives.  Hence, Carter Conservatism.

On an emotional level this is something I can never identify with.  One of the most important books in my journey to the Right was Tom Engelhardt’s The End of Victory Culture, a penetrating look at the myths and narratives used to justify the aggressive American foreign policy of the Cold War.  As I read the book, I had a reaction probably the exact opposite of what Engelhardt intended, as I thought to myself, “We need to figure out a way to bring Victory Culture back” and found myself rooting for all the figures you were supposed to despise.  This was pretty common for me when confronting left wing cultural products, as attempted deconstructions by various leftist professors or cultural figures simply increased my desire to reconstruct.  Even Bad Religion’s “American Jesus” becomes a right wing anthem once you remove the irony—which is some kind of reverse subversion in itself. 

I don’t think I’m alone in this.  I’d argue one of the most powerful undercurrents in contemporary American culture is the deconstruction of left wing deconstructions.  Hence, “Full Metal Jacket,” a supposedly powerful examination of the dehumanization the military experience forces upon individuals is enthusiastically embraced by the American military and launched R. Lee Emery’s acting career.  Everyone remembers Jack Nicholson’s speech from “A Few Good Men” (and I know a couple Marines who could repeat it verbatim without irony)—the sniveling Tom Cruise character’s do-goodery is usual forgotten.  I’d argue Fast Food Nation gave us the Hardee’s Double Thickburger and Gretchen Wilson’s claim to only eat McDonald’s.  Certainly, I can attest that one of the most important factors driving students into conservative activsm is a visceral disgust at the anti-Americanism of left wing professors and protesters, which leads them to think “If they are for this, than I must be agin’ it.”  One of the more clever segments of Michael Moore’s film career is when he lampooned this exact tendency in Canadian Bacon by highlighting how Bruce Springsteen’s bitter “Born in the USA” became a conservative anthem. 

This has policy implications as well.  The first and most obvious is that people with generally good, anti-Left instincts stampede into supporting stupid policies because it’s the opposite of what the Left wants.  It’s not some glorious triumph for conservatism if the American people eat Big Macs all day, dump oil in the ocean, or invade random countries for the hell of it just because it makes left wingers mad.  The resulting anti-intellectualism of the conservative Right is also an obvious result.  Even when you understand this though, after being around leftists for a couple minutes it’s so easy to want to lash out with an Animal Rights BBQ or some other lame brained stunt.

Given this reality, how much responsibility does the Alternative Right bear for its exclusion from the mainstream ranks?  George Hawley highlighted over at PostRight how American conservatives who argue for a restrained foreign policy often echo leftist arguments that do not appeal to the conservative contrarians that embrace militarism and interventionism.  Hawley maintains that we can harness the motivations behind the “To Hell With Them Hawks.”  A Carter Conservatism that emphasizes moderation and restraint is not going to appeal to the talk radio masses that want to bring back Victory Culture and believe that America can accomplish anything and that our resources, abilities, and conquering spirit are essentially unlimited.  This has launched a debate between various AmCon writers and Antiwar.com that is still ongoing.  Our own Southern Avenger chimed in, pointing out that the Alternative Right can seize on mainstream conservative rhetoric about limited government to push for the kinds of policy proscriptions most Takimag readers would support. 

For my own part, I don’t think the Alternative Right should make fun of the conservative base or call them Red State Fascists.  Nor do I think appealing to them on the basis of an abstract ideology of limited government is going to be enough.  The sentiments behind Red State Fascism, what some might even call Middle American Radicals, are entirely healthy—they are simply funneled into dead end policies.  The “Screw Them” motivation is not directed at foreigners (to whom I think most Americans are indifferent) but at a cultural elite and a specific government (rather than government in general) that they perceive as hostile.  Tapping into that, without being co-opted yet again by the phony Right is the real challenge that presents us.  The subversive spirit of the American Right and the simmering resentment against both the political and cultural order at least presents possibilities.