• The Quarterly Review
• Antiwar.com
• Eagle Forum
• Jihad Watch
• Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy
• New Criterion
• Intercollegiate Studies Institute
• Chronicles Magazine
• Lew Rockwell
• The American Cause
• Vdare

Articles are sorted in descending order by date. To find articles based on keywords, use the search function above.

It was the state, which came into existence in the late middle ages and early modern period, that created the political precondition for the spread of individual identity. It did this by enacting legal systems that embraced all citizens or royal subjects and by imposing uniform taxation that applied to all classes equally. It was within nation-states that the modern West developed politically, culturally, and economically. And the breakdown of this political system has had a deleterious effect on the survival of a recognizably European civilization—especially when it has been replaced by supranational bureaucracies preaching multicultural ideology. [Read More]

It is not surprising that Pat Buchanan’s new book, exploring the collapse of the British Empire and the connection of that disaster to England’s involvement in two World Wars, should have received a strong endorsement from George F. Kennan, written (it might be surmised) shortly before this luminary’s death at the age of a hundred and one. I bring this up because Pat’s discovery of Kennan indicates a union that was perhaps inevitable. Once their differences over the Cold War had begun to recede, paleoconservatives were bound to rediscover Kennan as a thinker of choice. How many true conservatives would agree with these lines from his American Diplomacy: Today if one were offered the chance of having back again the Germany of 1913—a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists, a vigorous Germany, united and unoccupied, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe—well, there would be objections to it from many quarters, and it wouldn’t make everyone happy, but in many ways it wouldn’t sound so bad, in comparison with our problems today. [Read More]

There was a time, roughly between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, when the paleoconservatives looked like an insurgent force. In 1992, they found in Pat Buchanan a powerful presidential contender, and one who listened to their advice. The paleoconservatives and the paleolibertarians had patched up old disputes and come together in the John Randolph Club, a group whose meetings in Washington drew journalistic dignitaries, including but by no means limited to Buchanan. At one such gathering on Jan. 18, 1992, Murray Rothbard gave legendary speech in which he famously envisioned the “repealing the twentieth century." The paleos were insurgent. But eventually the weaknesses of the paleo side eventually came to show: excruciatingly limited funding, exclusion from the national media, vilification as “racists” and “anti-Semites,” and finally, strife within their own ranks. In retrospect, this was all predictable, although for me it was hard to grasp how totally the fall came when it did. [Read More]

[Read More]

Ron Paul missed many opportunities to attract Republican votes. The Congressman did not really articulate a foreign policy, as opposed to telling Americans that the war in Iraq and almost all other wars the U.S. has engaged in during my lifetime have been “unconstitutional.” His attempt to place the problem of Islamic terrorism entirely at the doorstep of our government was also clearly an exaggeration: Islamic fundamentalism is a menace whether or not the neocons are trying to exploit it. Nevertheless, Paul could still play an indispensable role in the Right's opposition to a McCain candidacy: a five percent vote for Paul running as a third-party candidate would make the point that we’re opposing McCain as Taft Republicans rather than antiwar Democrats. That may be the final service that Congressman Paul could render his now badly disappointed followers. [Read More]

There is nothing substantive linking Fascism to the “liberal” academics Goldberg goes after in his book. Indeed I would have trouble finding any link between these subjects, save for the fact that “fascism” is now a hated abstraction among leftists and neocons; and so Goldberg can make Democrats angry by calling them “fascists.” [Read More]

Evans’s defense of McCarthy, an ambitious book recently savaged in the reconstructed NR, typifies the kind of exercise that the veterans of the wars of the 1950s are inclined to produce. Such writing is, among other things, a rite of self-justification, but the people who publish them were in some cases not equally courageous in standing up to the leftist invasion of their movement in the 1980s. The changes these veterans have learned to live with are the price of their collaboration [Read More]

Although he is identified as a libertarian, anti-war candidate, Paul's appeal is to the Old Right as well. He is a devout Lutheran who opposes abortion and is critical of the sloppy immigration policies of the Bush administration and its Democratic opposition. He also calls himself a Taft Republican, while raging against the neocons' foreign policy, as I heard him do at a rally in Philadelphia. His staff is honeycombed with paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives. The older members of this group have fought and lost wars against the neocons that were professionally costly; what they now want more than anything else is what the French nationalists called for against the Germans after losing the Franco-Prussian War: revenge. [Read More]

Recently I encountered a revelation in the New York Post that may startle my readers as much it did me. I discovered in a featured story “U.S. Jew Haters,” that a poll recently commissioned and carried out under the auspices of the Anti-Defamation League reveals that our country is awash in anti-Jewish bigotry. As much as 15% of those polled between October 6 and October 19—or “nearly 35 million Americans”—believes that Jews “have too much power in the U.S.” [Read More]

Although I admit to having given my vote last fall to Rick Santorum in his unsuccessful campaign to hold on to his U.S. Senate seat, I have been appalled by his recent harping on the menace of "Islamofascism." Santorum has lent himself to a largely neoconservative-funded campaign, headed by journalist David Horowitz and Washington lobbyist Frank Gaffney, to make us aware, in Horowitz's words, that "Islamofascism is the greatest danger America has ever faced." [Read More]