Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATED (6/13): A New Kind Of Bi-Partisan Non-thinking

Celebrity, Conservatism, Democrats, Left-Liberalism, Political Philosophy

Wikipedia calls Candace Owens an “American conservative commentator, and activist.

I call Samantha Bee a smarmy, left-liberal—one among many—who purports to do comedy.

Yet the aforementioned Owens calls Bee a “liberal thinker.” (I believe that such a pronouncement was made on Martha MacCallum’s “The Story,” or on another of those interchangeable programs.)

The above is a new kind of non-thinking.

So is the self-explanatory Samantha-Bee contretemps below:

Bee came under fire for calling Ivanka Trump a cunt. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child,” Bee said as the photo flashed onto the screen, “but let me just say, one mother to another: Do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless cunt! He listens to you!”

The moment faced harsh criticism, both from the White House, which called her statement “vile and vicious,” and from some on the left, who argued that calling women “cunts” reduces them to their genitalia and is a slur that’s meant to teach women that their bodies are disgusting and shameful. (Bee also received praise from others on the left, who argued that cunt is just a word and that the real issue is Donald Trump’s immigration practices.) In the wake of the backlash, Bee tweeted an apology to both Ivanka Trump and her viewers, saying, “I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”

UPDATE (6/13):

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS Chris Cuomo, part of CNN’s thought-police enforcement. Here he goes after Republican Corey Stewart, who’s for the working man, by… calling Stewart a white supremacist and a racist. Is that’s all the filthy libs have?

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.”

It’s Hard To Believe It, But The French STILL Educate Their School Kids

Education, Europe, Intelligence, Kids, Political Philosophy

Still on the topic of education (previous post is “St. John’s: The Most Rigorous College In America & What Every Young Mind Needs”):

What’s of interest in the Economist article, “The End of the French Intellectual: From Zola to Houllebecq,” are these tidbits:

Attendance rose this year at the annual Paris book fair. Regional literary festivals are thriving. Philosophy is still a compulsory part of the school curriculum.
And last year the French elected a president who has a degree in philosophy and can cite Molière by heart. France may have lost its great intellectuals, but it has certainly not lost its intellectualism.

So French kids must still study philosophy. I wonder if it’s a rigorous course? And President Macaroni knows some good stuff, aside globalism and multilateralism. Molière is brilliant. So funny.

While there is pressure to dumb down, the French have not yet replaced history with social studies agitprop.

I’ll leave you with this hint at how good French schooling may be: “France is one of the countries where a pupil’s social background is one of the strongest predictors of his or her subsequent achievement.”

The French have not yet done the educational leveling we in America do to ensure that 43% of marks handed out in university are As.

Other than the educational information, the writer of “The End of the French Intellectual: From Zola to Houllebecq” disdains France’s few “reactionary essayists” and thinkers (namely right-leaning thinkers).

So much so that, having mentioned his disappointment at the rise the likes of “Éric Zemmour, a reactionary essayist, and Alain Finkielkraut, a formerly left-wing philosopher turned critic of multiculturalism”—the writer concludes that “France may have lost its great intellectuals.”

Better good schools for the kids, than the likes of that lefty degenerate, Mr. Sartre.

UPDATE II (5/14): Three 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

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.”