Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: William Hawkins, Loser Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/william_hawkins_loser#5960 Post contents: 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. Sent at: 2008 09 06