Category Archives: Old Right

Real Rightists Have Never Taken The Libertarian Party Seriously

Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Logic, Old Right

Arguing against the Libertarian Party today, as some libertarians do ponderously, is making a Straw Man Argument, meant to make the arguer seem daring intellectually.

I took a swipe at the Libertarian Party’s two goofballs, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, for their statism in “Someone Should Tell Bill Kristol Dwarf Tossing Is Cruel.”

Before that, in 2013, some clown reared his head to run for office, so I wrote, “Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag,” to expose how like the Left these lite libertarians were, especially in agitating over identity politics.

Otherwise, move on, nothing here to see. Real Rightists have never taken the Libertarian Party seriously. (As have we never veered from the immigration restrictionist position, despite damnation from a lot of libertarians.)

UPDATE (9/10): It should be obvious:

The Party is a joke. But libertarianism, the paleo kind, is NO joke.

UPDATE IV (10/23): Bannon: ‘The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over’

Donald Trump, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Political Philosophy

“’The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,’ Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. ‘We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.’”

… Bannon may have resigned, but it was clear from the time that Kelly became chief of staff that Bannon’s remaining time in the West Wing was going to be short. Kelly undertook a study of the West Wing’s operating system, and let it be known that he kept hearing about Bannon as a disruptive force and a source of leaks aimed at undermining his rivals. One of those, with whom Kelly is deeply in sympathy, is National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, who clashed forcefully with Bannon over such policies as strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

It is plainly Bannon’s view that his departure is not a defeat for him personally, but for the ideology he’d urged upon the president, as reflected in Trump’s provocative inaugural address—in which he spoke of self-dealing Washington politicians, and their policies that led to the shuttered factories and broken lives of what he called “American carnage.” Bannon co-authored that speech (and privately complained that it had been toned down by West Wing moderates like Ivanka and Jared)…

The writing’s on the wall, Deplorables. As Steve Bannon goes, so goes the promise of America First.

Bannon says that he once confidently believed in the prospect of success for that version of the Trump presidency he now says is over. Asked what the turning point was, he says, “It’s the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment has no interest in Trump’s success on this. They’re not populists, they’re not nationalists, they had no interest in his program. Zero. It was a half-hearted attempt at Obamacare reform, it was no interest really on the infrastructure, they’ll do a very standard Republican version of taxes.

“What Trump ran on—border wall, where is the funding for the border wall, one of his central tenets, where have they been? Have they rallied around the Perdue-Cotton immigration bill? On what element of Trump’s program, besides tax cuts—which is going to be the standard marginal tax cut—where have they rallied to Trump’s cause? They haven’t.”

Bannon believes that those who will now try to influence Trump will hope to turn him in a sharply different direction.

“I think they’re going to try to moderate him,” he says. “I think he’ll sign a clean debt ceiling, I think you’ll see all this stuff. His natural tendency—and I think you saw it this week on Charlottesville—his actual default position is the position of his base, the position that got him elected. I think you’re going to see a lot of constraints on that. I think it’ll be much more conventional.”

MORE: “Bannon: ‘The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.‘”

UPDATE I (8/19):

UPDATE II (8/21):

Always Ivanka.


And Jared.

UPDATE III (8/22): Rationalization is a defense mechanism, in this case against disappointment. Steve Bannon said the presidency was over. Believe him.

“Trump has systematically elevated outsiders in his operation while alienating or firing allies like Bannon and Priebus.”


More ridiculousness from The Donald:

UPDATE (10/23): Stephen Miller Still Standing:

The Great Gottfried On Mark Levin, ‘Republican Journalist’

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Republicans, War

Like his work or not (I love it); in Dr. Paul Gottfried you have a deep, analytical mind. This is one of the reasons “conservatism, Inc.” dislikes Gottfried so. He’s not mediocre.

The feelings are mutual.

An ode to broadcaster Mark Levin, written by David Limbaugh (“Mark Levin’s ‘Rediscovering Americanism'”), elicited this reaction from Gottfried:

I find this stuff nauseating. It’s like we’re dealing with a deep philosophical mind in Levin, a modern Aristotle or Kant. I don’t dislike his political comments but Levin is a Republican journalist–and very little else.

Totally (as Meghan McCain would say).

Didn’t Mark Levin hate Trump when we Deplorables were for him? Now Levin supports the president for reasons we advanced two years ago.

In this soliloquy against Progressivism, on Hannity, Levin “forgot” to mention that progressives believe in Abe Lincoln, The Greatest Centralizer of all times, and SO DOES HE.

The other day, the Drudge news website was shilling for Levin and another broadcaster, Eric Bolling. Both have published new books. And that’s not Fake News?

Do yourself a favor and read all things Gottfried (his latest is “Revisions and Dissents: Essays”).

TWEETS RELATED TO CONSERVATISM ICK:


All wars when waged by a Republican are great.


No criticism allowed of the above.


I supported Trump but why the hell would that stop an honest writer from exposing his follies? A ditto-head could tell you.


Hypocrites all.


Killing while GOP.

Paul Gottfried Ponders Richard Spencer’s Strategy (& My Paleolibertarian Take)

Conservatism, Critique, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Multiculturalism, Old Right, Paleolibertarianism

Well, at least some in the Moron Media have corrected course and are calling Richard Spencer a “white nationalist,” instead of a white supremacist.

Watching Richard’s performance at Auburn University, renowned scholar of the Right Dr. Paul E. Gottfried shared these impressions:

When I criticize him, I am not making moral judgments, except when I note his futile attempt to keep up with leftist Millennials by siding with gay rights and abortion. What I object to in Richard is his, well, strategic stupidity, not the fact that he has committed the “sin” of being a white nationalist. Since “educated” whites are taught to hate their own race, I can’t see how one can appeal to Millennials and leftist college students by calling for white nationalism. Nor does one win their sympathy by mimicking their positions on feminism and homosexuality while trying to convert them to a racialist ideology. What seems to me the only chance left to the Right to be effective is by mobilizing the “Deplorables” and then turning them against the social-cultural Left. I was delighted to see how the pro-Trump people took it to the Antifascists at Berkeley. And I knew these counter-demonstrators were on the side of the angels when David French at National Review began to rail against them.

My impressions? The young, white men in the audience seemed receptive, even enthusiastic, although Richard may be talking above their heads. What Richard was saying conjured an interview I gave, “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.” My views are decidedly LIBERTARIAN, a slant Richard Spencer rejects:

Multiculturalism as practiced in the West amounts to top-down, centrally enforced and managed integration. Show me a historical precedent where forced integration has worked. As it works across the Anglo-American and European spheres, one group (the founding, historical majority) is forced by self-anointed and elected elites—no contradiction there—on pain of public and professional ostracism, to submerge its history, heroes, customs, culture, language, and pander to militant minorities, who’ve been acculturated by the same elites in identity-politics warfare. As a libertarian, I believe that the right to include or exclude; associate with or dissociate from, is inherent in the right of private property. Private property is a civilizing institution. How better to keep the peace than to respect the right of free private-property owners to keep their distance (or not)—to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will? This foundation of civil society is being dismantled for the sake of militant multiculturalism and policed pluralism.
An interesting new book, reviewed by one Barnaby Rogerson, makes the point that the Levant of the 18th century was peaceful and prosperous (and surprisingly libertine), because it was made up of “a grid of self-governing communities.” Integration between disparate communities was not enforced. And surprise, surprise: communities freely chose to live in complete segregation. This freedom fostered “remarkable tolerance” among diverse communities across the cities of the Levant of that time. “Deals before Ideals, City before State, Trade before Politics,” as the reviewer puts it. This freedom of association was the source of strength. These autonomous ethnic communities were free of the top-down, punitive, forced integration that has become the hallmark of the 19th-century nation-state that usurped their authority.

See: “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.”