Category Archives: Paleoconservatism

Now, Can America Have A Nation-State Bill Like Israel’s? Neocons Will Be 1st To Say ‘No’

Conservatism, Israel, Law, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism

Among the planks of [Israel’s controversial Nation-State] legislation:

‘Hatikva’ is Israel’s national anthem. Hebrew is its official language. Jerusalem, ‘complete and united,’ is its capital. The flag and menorah its official symbols. The Sabbath its day of rest (with non-Jews having their own days of rest). Israel is open to Jewish immigration. Above all, ‘The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’

The likes of Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D’Souza will be first to object to the US having a Nation-State Bill Like Israel’s, likely on the ground that America is somehow not like Israel.

They’ll come up with some creative cuckservative excuses, in flowery prose, for why the US has to embrace a  move toward a majority-minority “nation” united by NOTHING.

That’s how you tell—how you differentiate—an Israel Firster neocon from an authentic conservative, aka a paleoconservative or paleoliberarian.

The Tucker Carlson Show Is Meaningless Without Mr. Carlson In The Anchor’s Chair

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Media, Paleoconservatism, War

Face the facts: “Tucker” is unwatchable without Tucker Carlson, who is the only paleoconservative on Fox News. By that I mean that Tucker questions all America’s recreational wars and has a strong anti-neoconservative sensibility. He also doubts the US’s current immigration intake, legal and illegal, as is he inclined to be ethical about animals and the environment. Most Republicans have the crass, Yankee killer instinct toward the natural world.

Mostly, Tucker is more intellectually curious than any of the other showboats on Fox News. He listens to guests who’ve got something to impart.

On the other hand, did Alan Dershowitz get a chance to teach Hannity’s audience about the law, vis-a-vis the Mueller Special Counsel? Never. He can’t get a word in. Not with Sean Hannity in the anchor’s chair. Ditto the unedifying Laura Ingraham. She talks over her guests non-stop.

Nothing to learn from these noise-makers. Other than Tucker, each is an ego in an anchor’s chair.

When does Tucker get back from vacation?

UPDATED (8/13/018): Liberals View Wild Life As Worthy Only As Part Of A ‘Species,’ A Herd

Conservatism, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Fascism, Left-Liberalism, Paleoconservatism, The West

In trying to console a friend on the passing of his long-time canine companion, the following occurred to me:

Sentimentality about animals is one of the things that separates us from the barbaric civilizations. I include The Left’s world view as part of the “barbaric civilizations.” These sees animals, certainly wild life, as comprising species to sustain, not as individual creatures of God, for which we humans must care.

As related in “Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset”:

A helmeted cyclist once chased me down along a suburban running trail. My sin? I had fed the poor juncos in the dead of winter. (Still do. Bite me, you bully.)

Having caught up with me, SS Cyclist got on his soap box and in my face about my unforgivable, rule-bending. Wasn’t I familiar with the laws governing his pristine environmental utopia?

Didn’t I know that only the fittest deserved to survive? That’s the natural world, according to these ruthless, radical progressive puritans.

Yes, mea culpa for having an exceedingly soft spot for God’s plucky little creatures.

To the extent conservatives behave this way, culling and killing for no reason other than that the individual animal doesn’t conform to a so-called scientific theory—they are behaving like liberals.

Professor Clyde Wilson, a paleoconservative, says about my bird-feeding encounter: “Telling other people not to feed God’s creatures according to some supposed scientific official plan is simply fascism.”

UPDATE (8/13/018):

Liberals equivocate about feeding a distressed, grieving whale, from a dying population.

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.