Category Archives: Paleolibertarianism

UPDATED (10/10/018): ‘Conservatives’ & Classical Liberals Can’t Help Contradicting Themselves

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Reason, Secession

Trying to play nice politically can result in a very confused message. Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet (he works with Alex Jones and InfoWars) has a list of what he’s for and against–a list intended to make him sound like a middle-of-the-road classical liberal.

Check out his list and tell me this: What about the right of ethnics to voluntarily form a collective? Classical liberalism is not in contradiction to nationalism (see David Conway’s work in this regard). Mr. Watson’s politically pleasing logic, below, makes difficult a vital, peaceful secessionist project like the Afrikaner Orania Movement, for instance.

Mercer Facebook readers explain the nuances of political theory:

Comments
Todd Frank
Todd Frank Who is Paul Joseph Watson and why should I care?
 
· Reply ·
Kerry Crowel
Kerry Crowel: He works with Alex Jones and InfoWars.
Todd Frank
Todd Frank Hmmmmm…k
Kerry Crowel
Kerry Crowel Todd Frank Politically, he’s a cross between Jordan Peterson and Dinesh D’Souza and he subscribes to the “Dems are the real racist” line of thinking.

 

UPDATE (10/10/018):

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.

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.

UPDATE II (5/14): Some Tests Of Left-Liberalism

Communism, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Old Right, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, South-Africa

Leftists often parade as rightists, especially among libertarians. But they let things slip.

The hallmarks of a consummate leftist are:

1. He’ll rabbits on about the evils of McCarthyism, when Joe McCarthy was an American hero.

2. He’s wont to compare “bad” countries—the lefty usually chooses Israel—to apartheid South Africa, showing a knee-jerk leftist sensibility and absolutely no clue about apartheid.

Please add your litmus tests for leftism, which, naturally, includes most conservatives.

UPDATE I (4/20):

3. Hating on James Burnham (and his ilk) under the guise that he was once a Trotskyist. Not all former Trotskyists (like Michael Medvend) are worthless and worse. Burnham was on the wrong side before converting to Old Rightism, but in “Suicide of the West” and “Managerial Revolution” he came to embody the best of Old the Right. Monumental works. Of course Jeet heert, editor at the New Republic, would hate Burnham. All lefties do.

UPDATE II (5/14):

Monarchy:

That’s another thing that distinguishes left from right libertarian: the right kind (all 10 of us) likes monarchy, doesn’t cheer the prospects of a left-wing, tacky, radical feminist, Megan Markle, dismantling it. Read “Mobocracy Vs. Monarchy.”