Category Archives: Old Right

The State Of Cuckservatism: Still Fawning Over Never-Trumper Ben Shapiro

Communism, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Socialism

The other day Ben Shapiro was asked (for some reason) to give comment on Fox News regarding the election of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the female Barack Obama, as Rush Limbaugh calls her. Cortez, a hard-core socialist, “won the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district.”

As is typical of his ideological ilk, all Ben could muster against socialism was that it “doesn’t work.” Not a word about the rights-violating underpinnings of socialism, which make it both wicked AND an economic wrecking ball.

For E-Letter Conservatives (establishmentarians), it all boils down to pragmatism, never principle. Put it this way, if socialism worked—brutal rights-violations and all—cons like Ben would have a tough time arguing against it.

It’s not enough that he’s wrong all the time; the fact that Shapiro might vote for Trump in 2020 has made news. It’s hard not to despair. Sighs Gateway Pundit: “Some Things Never Change… #NeverTrumper Ben Shapiro Argues the Future of Republican Party is Anti-Trump.”

This, as the Europeans move in Trump’s direction.

Says Prof. Paul Gottfried (in an e-mail chat among Old Rightists):

Why the Hell should people on the Right be rejoicing that Ben [Shapiro] and Bill [Maher] love each other? And look how reasonable Ben Shapiro of Fox-news fame is! He favors impeaching Trump if he removes Rosenstein.
What is shocking is not that Shapiro loathes and fears the Right. It’s that he’s the poster boy for the conservative movement. And it’s not his fault. At least partly because the conservative movement doesn’t provide much in the way of conservative discourse. In Austria, Hungary, Italy, etc. there is a serious intellectual Right that enjoys political influence.

Remarks Dr. Clyde Wilson, “This is because ‘the conservative movement’ is based in the Republican party, which eschews (and always has) all ideas not involved in money—or as Mel Bradford put it—they are liberal about everything except money. Or as Rev. Mr. Dabney observed a century and a half ago, Northern conservatives have never conserved anything.”

Conservatism Or Celebrity Driven Cretinism?

Celebrity, Conservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Were American conservatism alive and well in media and on the idiot’s lantern (the teli), Dr. Paul Gottfried (and not the next sexy girl or “girly-boy” with chipmunk voices and talking points) would be its voice:

“… What clearly differentiated the conservative movement of bygone years from what has taken its place was a willingness to express sharp internal disagreement and to defend conflicting positions with passion and high learning. This is not to say that the conservative movement tolerated all dissent. It featured one dogma that no member of the inner circle was allowed to dispute: anti-Communism and as a corollary, a vigorous struggle against the Soviets as the leading Communist adversary. But otherwise there was remarkably open debate, and those who participated in it received no conceivable earthly reward, such as lucrative book contracts, invitations to appear on Fox as an all-star or a column in the Washington Post. Being conservative back then was about standing one’s ground not only against the Left but also against other self-described conservatives; and the warrior took positions entirely out of principle.”

“Today conservative celebrities often seem obsessively concerned about positioning themselves in a way that allows them to advance their careers. This came to mind while I was looking at Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West, a sprawling collection of mainstream political views for which the author picked the title of a very contentious book written by James Burnham, a giant of the post-World War II American Right. I doubt that there’s even a single page in Burnham’s book, first published in 1964, which would not enrage today’s thought police. Burnham spoke critically about human rights rhetoric and argued that the Civil Rights Revolution, which had only begun then, would lead to more, not less, racial discord. As I now read over Burnham’s views of an earlier era, it seems that I’m looking at something that arrived from a different planet.”

“Goldberg and Burnham grew up in very different cultures, which may help explain why Goldberg’s opinions often seem to have come out of left field. He defends government-enforced affirmative action for blacks, even while counterfactually depicting himself as a libertarian. Moreover, Goldberg “thinks” but never shows that accelerated immigration from Third World countries is helping to raise the living standards of American workers. But let me resist the impulse to be overly critical. Goldberg is trying to make it in a conservative movement that is entirely different from the one that Burnham helped shape.”

“In the 1960s there was no conservative media or massive donor base that rewarded conservative journalists with TV appearances and raised them to national celebrity. William F. Buckley was an exception to this rule, but I don’t remember any other self-proclaimed conservative whom one got to see very often on TV. The present conservative movement requires its stars to accept certain consensus positions that all nice people are supposed to hold, e.g., never speaking out against gay marriage or “moderate” feminism. Although the same stars hope to market themselves as “conservatives,” they also feel obliged to engage in virtue-signaling, for example, by attacking white racism and praising the civil rights revolution almost ritualistically. On November 27, Laura Ingraham spent a large part of her evening program on Fox gushing with joy over the forthcoming wedding of Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle. When a black guest asked Laura if she noticed that Meghan was part black, she feigned offense that someone would even bring up that subject. Fox-Insider tried to make it appear that Laura bested her guest by exclaiming “Must we put our racial hangups on the happy couple?” Needless to say, the guest had figured out the real motive for Laura’s weird outburst of joy. …”

… READ THE REST. The complete column, “A Conservatism of Principle” by Paul Gottfried, is on American Thinker.

UPDATED (6/1): Ron Unz Spills The Beans About Another Typical, Parasitical, DC Non-Meritocratic Non-Profit

Conservatism, Ethics, Etiquette, libertarianism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Racism

“Over the years, various people have expressed curiosity about” Ron Unz’s firing from The American Conservative, now a crypto-liberal, wishy-washy publication.

I was one of the curious. So, the great Ron Unz, now publisher of the far more successful Unz Review has obliged in “Why The American Conservative Purged Its Own Publisher.”

Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, beloved of “rightist” libertarians, certainly rejected my copy since 2006. My last piece in TAC was in 2006: “Mackinnon’s Textual Harassment.” “American Creed” was an earlier piece, hardly shabby.

But that’s nothing. It’s one thing to reject controversial copy from independent, unaffiliated scribes. The same “editor” rejected his publisher’s not-insubstantial essays. Oh the sanctimony! Oh the pomposity!

Next, McCarthy, in his self-righteous sanctimony (it bears repeating), tells publisher Ron—he who pays the piper—that his “analytical study of American urban crime” belongs in a White Nationalist hate-site!

Still, The American Conservative, remarks the intellectually honest Mr. Unz, had “a uniquely vigorous opposition to Bush’s foreign wars.” As did I, starting on 9/19/2002. Yet TAC, and most libertarian outlets, for the most, could be relied on to reject my own (dare I say powerful?) anti-war copy.

Conversely, Jason Richwine and political operative Jack Hunter were embraced by TAC, but not Ron Unz’s work (and certainly not my own, whose writings preceded the first two youngsters by at least a decade). I wonder why?

Hunter, says Mr. Unz, brought with him to TAC the usual libertarian worship of Ron and Rand Paul. (Oh, I see: I’ve criticized the two plenty although I like ’em. Libertarians pray to their sacred cows like mainstream. I believe it was Karen De Coster who once blurted out, in frustration, “They’re still politicians, for heaven’s sake.”)

The late Larry Auster eviscerated the “founding editor of The American Conservative,” calling Scott McConnell “The Paleostinian Conservative,” and pointing out that McConnell “twice endorsed Obama for president yet continued to call himself a conservative.”

As Ron Unz details—and following the funding model of DC Swamp think tanks and their websites—The American Conservative spent their benefactor’s money on hiring their kids and hiking salaries. That’s how the non-meritocratic swamp works.

Duly, Mr. Unz soon noted the “large growth in TAC’s operating expenses, staffing levels being disproportionate to actual output, minimal workload required and full-time editorial and business employees.” What a gig if you can get it!

Look, talent that writes in the tradition of the Old Right could be syndicated in every paleoconservative or paleolibertarian publication there is. We could mount a fight against mainstream if we united and were not afraid to harness talent and let it do what talent does. We’d get the readers. Instead, each Old Right publication fortifies itself in some atrophying, barely read ideological attic, deluding itself that it has a reach.

Total solipsism.

Each of our webzines or print magazines puts on airs and graces, rejecting talent (for some reason) and sticking with the comfort zone.

Just like the mainstream, our side reverts to the compliant, mediocre mean.

We on the Old Right are losers because our think-tanks and publications, such that they are, divide and expunge, while the neocons and the cons unite and dominate. I mean, who reads Mona Charen, yet she remains a syndicated feature because the monied gate-keepers want it that way.

UPDATE (6/1):

“The nadir [on TAC] was The Southern Avenger lecturing us on how bad blacks and gays have it.”

Tom Piatak At Chronicles writes:

Rod Dreher [of TAC] used his perch at The American Conservative to attack one of the men who founded that magazine, Pat Buchanan. Dreher charged that Buchanan’s column from the previous Tuesday, “If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?”, was a “shameful defense of white supremacy,” “abhorrent,” and “disgusting, racist, indefensible.”

The Old Left Loves Trump’s North-Korea Peace Initiative, Mocks Mad Max Boot & Jennifer Rubin

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Left-Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Old Right, War

Neoconservatives, on the one hand, and neoliberals, on the other, are both united in war. Each faction, respectively, is what passes for Right and Left, these days.

Like the authentic Old Right, the authentic, Old Left used to be enthusiastic about peace, and not war.

It is in this older tradition that Tim Shorrock of The Nation praises the “Historic Korean Summit” and condemns “US Pundits for Reacting With Horror.”

“They were spinning the meeting, and Kim Jong-un’s outreach in particular, as a dangerous event,” he mocks:

April 27, 2018, was a historic day for Korea, and for the millions of people on both sides of that tragically divided peninsula. In a meticulously planned event, Kim Jong-un, the 34-year-old hereditary dictator of North Korea, stepped carefully over the border running through the truce village of Panmunjom and clasped hands with Moon Jae-in, the democratically elected president of South Korea.

Kim’s action marked the start of a remarkable day in which the two nations “solemnly declared” an end to the Korean War, which ripped the country apart from 1950 to 1953. “When you crossed the military border for the first time, Panmunjom became a symbol of peace, not a symbol of division,” said Moon, the son of two North Korean refugees who fled south in 1950. A former student activist and human-rights lawyer who was chief of staff to former president Roh Moo-hyun, Moon ran for office in 2017 on a pledge to make that moment of reconciliation possible.

Over the next few hours, accompanied by top aides and diplomats, generals and intelligence chiefs, the Korean leaders discussed an agreement that would lead to what they both described as the “complete denuclearization” of the peninsula. The two also “affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord,” a signal to both the United States and China that the days of great-power intervention in their divided country may be waning. …

… “Yada, yada, yada,” the perennial hawk Max Boot wrote disparagingly in The Washington Post about the “Korea summit hype,” adding that “there is very little of substance here.” Similar hot takes were offered by Nicholas Kristof and Nicholas Eberstadt in The New York Times, Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post, Robin Wright in The New Yorker, and Michael O’Hanlon in The Hill. Their doubts were repeated and amplified as gospel by the usual critics on cable TV.