24 posts tagged “conservative”

Conservatism has surely been corrupted away from its father, the great Russell Kirk. I do not believe it is ever coming back (because of the nature of politics), but it is interesting to compare and contrast modern day conservatism relative to that of the father of post-World War II conservatism. How many self-described "conservatives" have any basis in its actual foundation? Could they even be called conservative? Do they know the principles of conservatism or the leading figures of it?

Contemporary conservatism may well be described as holding to an ideology that believes in the unbreakable strength of statism. To them, there is not a barrier to what statism can accomplish. The use of force can transform and mold a people to whatever their heart desires. Firepower can achieve anything. Inevitably this belief will echo into all other lines of reasoning that they have. Acceptance of big government aboard needs big government at home. As Murray Rothbard wrote; "It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society." And I think it was said by Lew Rockwell that faith in government's ability in war making is the ultimate faith in government power. Need there be more said about modern day conservatives?

One wonders if there is nothing that after time conservatives will not come to accept as good and wonderful. Gene Callahan, the author of the excellent and highly recommend Economics for Real People, on his blog "Crash Landing" comments on this topic (although, with the following we probably could even attack the late Kirk for his unfortunate statism):

This post over at the Lew Rockwell blog reminded me of the stupidity of modern conservatives. Time after time, modern conservatives have fought some "progressive" programme only to embrace it as their own a generation later. You now here conservatives talking as if human society would be impossible without the police, apparently unaware that professional police forces are a nineteenth century invention. The war on drugs, a stupid, costly, and civil rights crushing adventure that has made the drug problem far worse than when it was begun, is another progressive programme that conservatives now think we couldn't live without. I actually saw one conservative writing that opium "legalization" in the 19th-century was the first time drugs had ever been legal anywhere, apparently not realizing that they had almost always been legal almost everywhere. Public education is yet one more example.

Is there any programme that conservatives think is so stupid and awful that forcing them to live with it for a few years won't lead them to love it?

Conservatism marches through time accepting and cheering on more and more government involvement into our lives. Status quo is really its goal: the status quo of the continuation of moving "progressively" to more statism and to accepting more leftist creeds. This interventionism into society is not just into the lives of the individual, but also the lives of families, churches, and communities. If there is a sure way to destroy cultural and social norms, it is to dismantle these important intermediate institutions!

One of the Giants of Conservatism is the aforementioned Russell Kirk (1918-1994). He was a traditionalist who influenced enough people as to have made the term 'conservative' popular with his book The Conservative Mind. Today many organizations and think-tanks give awards in memory of the late Kirk. But as these organizations do that, they promote so many of the very opposite values that he laid forth. He must be spinning in his grave. In fact, some of the neoconservatives, who originated from the left, are very open about their abandonment of conservatism to replace it with something else. Turn on talk radio or open up National Review or go to the many fake "conservative" blogs. They got your "Make-Believe Conservatism." But if you want some real conservatism, go to The American Conservative, Chronicles Magazine, Taki's Top Drawer, and VDare. (I'm not saying that I agree with them on everything or even necessarily on most fundamental topics as it pertains to the State, but if you want some real conservatism go to places that actually provide it.) You'll find more conservatism represented even at libertarian outlets like LewRockwell.com, AntiWar.com, and Mises.org. And where else, but those places, will you hear talk about Kirk, conservative Richard Weaver, or the Old Right?

See Daniel McCarthy's, who is extremely well versed in conservative thought, "National Review Isn't Right".

So what were some of Russell Kirk's thoughts on the war topic, in particular as it relates to the Middle East? A good bet is that many "conservatives" would attack the father of conservatism as a sissy, hate America, leftist, liberal.

Kirk on Robert A. Taft [source: Gene Healy "Conservatism, Old and New"]:

Taft's prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant "democratism" imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America's domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the "garrison state," a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.

Thomas Woods asks: "Oh, and what kind of leftist said the following?" . . .

Kirk on Perpetual War [Source: Thomas Woods "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?"]:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that ‘God is on our side,’ and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.

First Gulf War:

Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

On Blowback (He must be a "blame America," "hate America" guy, right?):

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States – even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems. [emphasis from Woods]

According to Lew Rockwell, Kirk once wrote to him that he wanted to see "Bush the Elder to be hanged on the White House lawn as a war criminal." What would he say about the current, even more foolish, president?

See Also:

• The Paleo Blog: Embracing Kirkian cultural principles from a anarcho-capitalist perspective --- Rejection of Ideology
• Understanding Neoconservatism --- The Neocon Archives at LRC
• From Intellectual Conservatism to Mindless Republicanism --- "GOP and Man at Yale" in TAC

Additional References Consulted: The Essential Russell Kirk edited by George A. Panichas and American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.

“Half the country hates George Bush because he is a conservative Christian from Texas. The other half likes him for the same reasons. Both groups are delusional. His title is dubious on all three descriptions.

“The first group (leftists) are emotionally unable to accept that he is really the best friend they ever had. The second group (Republicans) are either corrupt, too stupid to perceive reality, or emotionally unwilling to admit that they have been royally duped.”

Read the whole thing here.

I like Dr. Wilson.
I think I should look into the books he has published...

Links:
Chronicles Archive of Wilson’s “Old Republic”
Wilson’s LRC Archive

“The quintessence of Ronald Reagan is that he is a master in supplying the conservative movement with the rhetoric they want to hear. In all politicians there is a gulf between rhetoric and reality, but in Ronald Reagan that gulf has become a veritable and mighty ocean. There seems to be no contact whatever between Ronnie the rhetorician and Ronnie the maker of policy.... Either Reagan is a total cretin, a puppet who gets wheeled out for ceremonial speeches, and who really believes that he is putting conservative policies into effect. Or Reagan is a cynical master politician, keeping the conservatives happy by dishing out their rhetoric and his phony 3x5 card anecdotes, while keeping corporate centrists happy by pursuing the New Deal-Fair Deal-Great Society-Nixon-Ford policies that we have all come to know so well.”

--- Murray Rothbard
The Libertarian Forum: "Ronald Reagan, Warmonger" July-August, 1983

Read the entire essay by moving your mouse-cursor and clicking here.

Ronald Reagan: Socialist-Statist Hack. Actors make good politicians.

(Primary Reference: Virtually all figures and data gathered from “The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan” by Sheldon L. Richman...)

It is difficult to top Ronald Reagan as a fairy-tale politician for conservatives. They will not hide Reagan the Warmonger (for obvious reasons: to support the neoconservative agenda), but they will hide Reagan the Socialist. He is surrounded by fairy-tales for being some kind of conservative government cutter, rugged individualist, and pro-market man. Sure, he is better then George Bush (both father and son). But George W. Bush is not a competitive guy when it comes to goodness! Bill Clinton was even better then our current president.

Youth conservatives especially naively believe the fairy-tale image of the sainted mythological god Reagan. When I first started getting interested in politics, I initially started as a more-or-less typical kool-aid drinking conservative. I didn’t know any better. My family, probably much to their credit, is non-political. During the majority of the Reagan administration’s control, I was not yet born. And, obviously, even the last years of his administration, I would know nothing about. So, how was I going to refute the rhetoric I was hearing from people on the alleged goodness of Ronald Reagan?

Might be best to start from the beginning... How did this government “is not the solution” guy do as governor of California? For starters, the state government’s budget increased by 122 percent. Reagan’s first year he increased taxation by one billion dollars. According to Rothbard, this was the biggest tax increase ever in the state’s history. Two more tax increases then occurred. Ever form of taxation under the sun was increased. Overall, he increased taxes almost three times over. Reagan created 73 new government councils and commissions. Even though he initially cut down the number of welfare recipients, he then soon changed this decrease in spending. Reagan increased the money paid to those still sucking at the tit. That was increased by 43 percent. Wow! Some government cutter guy, eh? Some limited government hero, eh?

As president he did not do better. From increasing federal departments, which take power away from consumers and producers, to introducing new ones, like the Food and Drug Administration. “[O]n trucking, [Ted] Kennedy is more pro-free market than Reagan is,” wrote Rothbard. When Ted Kennedy is more willing to slash government then Reagan was something is surely up. As typical fashion from the Republicans, it was promised that the Department of Education would be abolished for good. Predictably Reagan doubled its size. (Just like George W. Bush.) Same with the Department of Energy. Social Security spending increased by 50 percent. Farm programs went up by over 140 percent. Medicare by 84%. Federal entitlements by 142%. Foreign aid too was increased. It was doubled. Thank goodness congress was (relatively --- hahah) fiscally sound. Big spender Reagan wanted to increase foreign aid even more.

There is a simple rule of thumb that you can use: Taxation is equal to the amount the government spends. Instead of just looking at the short-term, we must look at the long-term----the big picture. Government must pay its bills. Either by direct taxation, inflation, or borrowing it must do this. There is no way around government spending. It does not exist by breathing air alone. States exist as parasites on the productive. With that into account, Reagan was a big government guy. Far more then, for example, Carter. Relatively speaking, Carter was a small government guy. It is ironic. Most conservatives constantly demonize Carter.

In 1982 Reagan’s Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) was the largest tax increase in American history! This is not to mention his 5 cent per gallon tax, other tax increases on the Trucking industry, increases in Social Security taxes, etc. His later “tax cuts” were offset by all of his tax increases. The net effect is that he was a tax increaser: directly, and especially, indirectly.

Regulation too was a big area of statist expansion. Yes, he did deregulate some areas. But, again, this was offset by his expansions. Trade restrictions too were increased. Reagan was the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover!

Funny. He is still put on a pedestal as some great small government, free market guy. Even some “libertarians” do this.

Well....Actors, after all, do make good politicians on the nation’s political stage show.

---
See Also: The great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet comment on Reagan: click here.

(Via LRC: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/paul-offers-giuliani-a-few-policy-tips/)

Ron Paul

During today’s press conference, Mr. Paul expressed disbelief that Mr. Giuliani had never heard the occupation explanation before and suggested the “possibility that Mr. Giuliani has not been well informed.”

“I don’t think he’s qualified to be president, mainly because of his views,” Mr. Paul said of Mr. Giuliani.

“I’m giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment,” he announced. Here’s the syllabus:

–“Blowback” by Chalmers Johnston
–“Dying to Win” by Robert A. Pape
–“Imperial Hubris” by Michael Sheuer (The former head of the C.I.A.’s Osama bin Laden Unit was there to bolster Mr. Paul’s calls for a new, non-interventionist foreign policy.)
–The 9/11 Commission Report

Of course, Giuliani was lying, saying that he “never heard such a thing.” Even more absurd is how some in the statist mainstream media is trying to spin Ron Paul's view into some kind of 9-11 inside job-----a complete lie.

It is just Giuliani's way to get all of the flag worshiping wavers to wave their little flags in support of the American Empire, which, if they like it or not, is a monstrous evil. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the Health of the State."

Blowback? You mean---- there are consequences to bombing people day-in and day-out? There are consequences to putting up trade sanctions that kill thousands and thousands of people? Or giving money to dictators that rule over them?

Only someone living in a dream world believes there are no consequences: That no resentment and hatred occurs because of this. Or that it is not a major contributing factor. As has been documented, the primary reason for new recruitments into terrorist organizations is not out of religious reasons or that they hate the fact that women can vote in the U.S. (Ha!), but of the reasons just mentioned. (Indeed, the number of terrorists has increased dramatically after entering Iraq.) There is a reason they attack the United States and not Sweden.

With statist conservatives war triumphs all. They are so obsessed with war and in believing false war nationalism (e.g.: American government is always right / America is never wrong / It can do no wrong / America always wins / etc. etc.) that they would vote for an outright pro-war socialist (besides those things go hand-in-hand) before voting for someone as principled as the honorable Ron Paul.

Only partisan hacks believe that the Iraq War has decreased terrorism and has made the world safer. Terrorists are being created faster then we are killing them. They are not created in a vacuum. It is hence nonsense to believe that there is some fixed number or terrorists to kill. To end terrorism is the equivalent to having a war to end preemptive strikes: it never ends.

Read Mr. Scott Horton’s excellent AntiWar.com article “For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy”

Highlights:
--- Ron Paul did not "blame America" or excuse the evil that was committed on 9-11. There is a difference between trying to understand why people hate us versus believing that terrorist activity is acceptable.
--- Paul asks why we do not get after Osama bin Laden. He is in Pakistan. With a nod and a wink from the U.S. government, it now has nuclear weapons, and the U.S. government goes as far as giving that government money. (And with this said, the American government is in Iraq----no connection with bin Laden etc.)
--- Bin Laden was backed by the U.S. in the drive to get Russians out of Afghanistan.
--- U.S. built bases in Saudi Arabia, a major outrage to Muslims.
--- One can read bin Laden's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
--- Saudi bases used throughout the 1990s to attack Iraq.
--- Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit, reports that Ayatollah Khomeini spend the 1980s talking about the culture of America. But this did not have much of an impact. On the other hand, bin Laden talked about U.S.'s foreign policy to motivate people:
1) "The bases in Saudi Arabia
2) Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)
3) The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)
4) Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)
5) Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them
6) Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims"
--- Studies show that "every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam."
--- "None of the September 11th hijackers was from an "axis of evil" state (Iraq, Iran or Syria). They were all from countries whose governments are our government's "allies" – in truth, client dictatorships. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia."
--- Fundamentalists want us there.
--- There were no "suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003."
--- CIA's National Intelligence Estimate reports that Iraq "has worsened our terrorism problem over all – by far."
--- "Also in 2005, the Saudi government and an Israeli think tank did studies tracking the individual jihadists traveling to Iraq to be trained in fighting Americans."
--- ...

Paul on Maher ~ YouTube Video
(Much better then the first interview. Real substance discussed.)

Anti-War Radio:

• Michael Scheuer --- Ex-Head of CIA’s Osama Unit says Ron Paul “exactly correct”
• Philip Giraldi --- Former CIA counter-terrorism officer backing up Paul
  
• Ray McGovern --- Another retired CIA officer backs up Paul
  
• Thomas Woods --- Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization, and more talks about Ron Paul, Left versus Right, War,...
  
• Chalmers Johnson ~ Interview I / Interview II --- Author of Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, & Nemesis
• Justin Raimondo --- Editorial director of Antiwar.com, author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

New ~ "The Ron Paul File" at LRC

Yes, I am a Rothbardian----a libertarian. But I do have much respect for an older form of conservatism. This is one reason why this blog is a “paleo” blog.

The late Russell Kirk is considered the founder of post-World War II conservatism. (See this entry to The Paleo Blog.) His views were very similar----if not exact----to Ron Paul’s on foreign policy. Having troops scattered all around the world or sending vast amounts to dictators is a foolish policy. Kirk was against the first Iraq War. He saw the coming blowback too.

Thomas Woods recently wrote an article called "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?” You can read it here.

(So, maybe, real conservatives should look more to Kirk, the father of conservatism, and less to the neocons who were former leftists.)

See Also:

• "But Who Was Right—Rudy or Ron?" by  Patrick J. Buchanan
  
• "Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them" by Jacob G. Hornberger
  
• "Ron Paul Said It" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
• "Ron Paul’s Patriotic Crimethink" by Patrick Foy
  

Here is Lew Rockwell on the doomed Republican conservatives.

So many books ... so little time! A few things here:

1. Daniel McCarthy reports that ISI (Intercollegiate Studies Institute) books are 60% off. You can view and buy the books here. Most of these books seem to represent a more paleo- slant in conservatism. There is a biography of Robert Nisbet. I saw at least one book by Richard Weaver. There are a few books by Russell Kirk. And more! (Darn! Could have saved money on American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.)
2. The Ludwig von Mises Institute is bringing back many classics of the Austro-libertarian tradition. It has books from the Old Right: Albert Jay Nock to Frank Chodorov to John T. Flynn. It has works from Henry Hazlitt, who was the author of the still classic Economics in One Lesson. And more! View and buy these books here. (All of them are also available as free e-books at the Mises Institute's website.)

The Paleo Blog entry on what the next generation of conservatism briefly addressed the issue of marriage. Here the topic will be expanded upon.

Around a half a year ago I was trying to sway a left-liberal on the proposal to separate the government from marriage, in effect to private it. Wasn’t able to do it.

Shouldn’t this be a slightly easier leap to make for a liberal then your average conservative? Well, maybe not. Throughout the conversation we were speaking a different language. My argument kind of went like this...

If one is really “open minded” and “tolerant,” then one must be those things in regards to individuals that believe in a different definition of marriage. (I assume that most left-liberals define “marriage” as something. That is to say, they have a definition by its very nature that is discriminatory.*) Imposing some vision on another is incompatible with being “open minded” and “tolerant.” The real answer is to separate the state from marriage. Leave people alone and let people decide for themselves what marriage "is" and "is not." Imposing by government fiat is not the answer. And all it does is create conflict.

That seems to be truly the “liberal” answer. It certainly is in the classical sense.

What this means: “Homophobes” can have as much homophobia as they wish, i.e. they can discriminate as much as they want---whenever they want. But they cannot impose their vision (by force) on anyone. You, as an individual, can redefine “marriage” as whatever you want.

What this does not mean: Forcing people, groups, churches, etc. to accept your vision by force is unacceptable. Disallowing discrimination is also unacceptable.

Now I have no interest, as a paleolibertarian, to use any kind of coercive action to those that engage in non-coercive sexual relationships. I do not believe that marriage can be redefined ---- to claim that it can is nonsensical. (*What will it mean next? Two men; two women; three men; four women; two men and a woman; one parent and a child; two women and a piece of plastic; one man; etc?) However, I do have an interest when there are people that want to use coercion as their method to force people to accept their redefined definition of “marriage.” Someone that truly believes in personal liberty in regards to this issue cannot principally support government regulated marriage.

(Paleo)Conservatives that believe that marriage will fall apart with the state “allowing” homosexual couples to get together is ridiculous. I’m not married. But homosexuals (or whatever) are not going to somehow stop me from getting married to someone of the opposite sex. It will in no way damage me. The area of overlap where I would agree with conservatives is that if the State sanctions perverse definitions of "marriage," this would undermine the belief that moral standards and norms exist.

Left-libertarians that support the State opening up “marriage” to also include homosexual couples are confused. They are in support of the expansion of government involvement in society. In this case this means that they support the government to force individuals/businesses/institutions to accept this new expanded definition. This is not libertarian.

Closing Comments: The solution is privatization. As they say, Can’t we all get along? Left-liberals leave cultural conservatives alone. Cultural conservatives you too leave left-liberals alone. To be diplomatic, that is what I say.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains in this [mp3] lecture the way “up from conservatism." Paul Weyrich and William Lind, while there areas to agree with, fall short in what a future (idealized) version of conservatism should represent. Dr. Woods, on the other hand, recommends that conservatism should not look to the State and should seek a moral and economic secession.

Some Related and Interesting Articles by Dr. Woods: Democracy vs. Civilization; Who's Conservative?; The Split on the Right.

Paleoconservatives Paul Weyrich and William Lind write in the latest issue of The American Conservative (TAC) of what their idealized version of the next generation of conservatism should represent. The Paleo Blog does not limit itself just to libertarianism, so let me add some of my comments.

The article can be read online here. TAC also contains three replies from James P. Pinkerton, John Derbyshire & David Franke.

They recommend that their conservatism should not only be fought via the State, but also through non-political means; in particular in regards to the “culture wars.” Unsurprisingly, while I have much respect of the two writers, it was rather disappointing in many ways. Now, obviously, I am not foolish to believe that they would recommend conservatism to embrace anarchism (in the Rothbardian-Hoppeian sense ----- although, that would make my day), it would be nice if their vision was more inline with decentralization of power and anti-statism.  ----- Yes, some radicalism would have been nice. But, alas, little radicalism is to be found in this article.

One thing that is easy to agree with is their call for the rejection of neoconservatism that has so taken hold of the modern day conservative movement. Conservatism therefore must reject not only the foolish Iraq War, but a rejection of America's entire Wilsonian foreign policy of imperialism and empire. They recommend the adoption of non-interventionist foreign policy of Sen. Robert Taft. Global hegemony of an American Empire was not part of the Founders plan. There need not be American soldiers located all over the world. As Pat Buchanan put it in one of his books: A Republic, Not an Empire.

Henry David Thoreau said:

I heartily accept the motto, — “That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.  Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Though government is best which governs not at all, smaller government is always preferable to larger government. I am reminded of a bumper-sticker from Scott Horton that says: “The U.S. Constitution: It ain't market-anarchy, but it's better than this.” Impressions that the modern day conservative movement supports a devotion to the constitution are mistaken. It is horsepucky. Other then Ron Paul, I cannot name any other politician who is so consistently devoted to it. Most would be surprised how much government would be required to cut if the government actually limited itself to the constitution. The constitution would a definite improvement!

As a paleolibertarian I give my full support to the home-schooling movement, which they suggest conservatives should embrace. I am not sure how widespread this “movement” is, but to participate in this should be a top priority of all parents of the paleo persuasion. Private-schooling is the second option, but home-schooling is far superior. We must stop sending our kids to statist and culturally Marxist propaganda camps. We can’t expect government schools to start teaching traditional values and morals. But they can be taught at home, in a home-schooling environment.

People must declare independence from the state. People should do their best to live by example of superior traditional values. The rising of natural elites representing these values is essential if it is to become a mainstream trend. Cultural conservatives need to reject the sewer of what is called “culture” today (i.e. Cultural Marxism). But I get concerned on how they see this happen. How much of the State do they see getting involved? They say that this kind of movement needs to be non-political, but do they believe that consistently? Cultural conservatism cannot be imposed any more then the State can impose a vision to crease all people living angles.

However, supporting and prompting traditional values through non-coercive ways is very much welcomed by me. So I am all for "retroculture," as they call it. These values are essential if we are ever to attain more liberty. (E.g., things such as egalitarianism must be rejected.) But a problem is that they seem to want to time travel to a more primitive life. If this is the case, then such daydreaming is absurd---to say it abruptly.

How is one to return to the “good old days” (my words) of the farm? How far will they go to enact new rules and regulations regarding suburban sprawl and transportation? What do they mean by saying that conservatives should be cautions of innovation in technology?

The trouble is the authors appear to sneak expansions of government to “promote” the “good old days.” Have they considered radical decentralization? I assume they want to strength the community life. So why not call for radical decentralization of government power? Decentralization would lead to the strengthening of the community and, to steal something from the wonderful late paleoconservative sociologist Robert Nisbet, intermediate institutions. The other benefit of suggestion something like this is that it is radical. Individuals are not going to get stirred up for anything less. The “new” vision of conservatism needs to be inspiring and radical, if it is to get anywhere.

Why not embrace radical decentralization? If they really want more local control----more power in communities----this would be the way to go. Limit the national government---fine. But why not go further?

They also attack our so-called “free trade.” The authors are no dopes. Can we please agree, at the least, to stop using the State’s deceptive Orwellian language? Clearly what is in existence is not “free trade.” Thousands of pages of regulations is not “free trade.” It is a playground for lobby groups. Of big government - big business mercantilism. (Do they want more?) [See, for example, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (In particular, chapter XI.)]

Another issue I will have to take a dissenting view is on their belief to increase the use of state propositions via ballot and of imposing more severe term limits.

Mechanical solutions will never solve the problems of government. Holistic solutions will. Campaign finance reform is a paradigm of this underling fallacy. People believe that money is the problem, but money is neutral. It can be used for both good and evil. No one bribes me as I walk down the street. Why? Because I have no favors to give. The favors government has is called power. The problem is the power. You can try to squeeze down on the money, but it will always leak out.

Term limits are not the answer. The problem is the power. And, at the very least, the solution should be to limit the power. In fact, term limits might even produce a negative effect. Because the time for a politician to loot will go down, increasing the pressure to loot sooner versus later.

And certainly propositions will generally never work towards chaining in Leviathan. Instead propositions will be used to let Leviathan go wild. An increase in the democratization of government increases its legitimacy in the eyes in the public. It creates an increase in a free-for-all government. Looting is more open for the public to take advantage of. In this form of government everything is up for grabs by the majority mob, or as Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls them “the dull and indolent masses.” The more we shift to this type of government, the worse. Conservatism (and libertarianism) should not be supporting the increase democratization of the State. Democracy should be rolled back. (I am surprised that William Lind does not understand this, especially considering he claims to have become a monarchist.)

Rejection of open government implies preventing uninvited immigrants. Otherwise government creates a situation of forced integration. It also means affirming that the government uses English as the official language. This I very much agree with. Government is not my ideal, but as Murray Rothbard said libertarians have to abandon the left-libertarian idea that government should be run like a cesspool.

While this may get libertarians angry, I personally do not have much of a problem with conservatives wanting to stop government from giving “marriage” licenses to homosexuals. “Freedom” is not an imposed uniform law defining what marriage is. Here, my advice to conservatives would be to once again support private marriage, e.g., through the church. What business is it of the State? Do you really want the State to be the judge to define what marriage is and is not?

Some of my closing thoughts are this: While I support a shift of mainstream conservatism to assimilate traditional, paleo-, conservatism; traditionalists have to start to realize that the obtainment of cultural conservatism requires radical anti-statism to succeed.

Personal Stuff --- I’m unfortunately under the weather. Right now my energy is around 50 percent. So I have been sleeping, napping and watching television.

Let me type this up before I am not able to do so...

Neoconservatism --- I always hear people use the term “neocon.” Liberals especially like to use this to denounce their enemies. But how many of them actually know what it means? Do they even give it any thought? I doubt it.

I once heard a liberal refer to LewRockwell.com as “neocon” because of a piece about privatizing public utilities! Ha! Ha. Ha.

Anna Nicole --- Requiescat in pace.

Now I mean no disrespect to the dead ---- Rest in Peace I say ----, but who is this person? This is how out of touch I am with pop culture. And honestly I am not interested in finding out. She is, no doubt, a product of our slut culture.

TAC --- Lead Article (not yet online)

When I feel better I’ll type something about this. Paul Weyrich and William Lind talk about their ideal version of what the next conservatism should represent. While there were things I can agree with, overall I found it pretty disappointing and weak.

Lew Rockwell Article --- The Left Is Useless
And the Democrats are doomed. Article by Lew Rockwell.

Joe Sobran Article --- President Paul?

Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Chalmers Johnson

Robert Nisbet --- When I start feeling good, I will start to read some more of Robert Nisbet.

  Daniel McCarthy says:
      "Nisbet exposes how the State undermines the institutions of family, church and civil society.  Nisbet didn't call himself a libertarian, but the implications of his work are profoundly anti-statist."