Turned their backs (Frum on history of Paleos)

National Review ^ | 3/19/03 | David Frum

[Pelham]

South Park? And what exactly is that?

[Pelham]

Oh, I doubt that. Sophistry is more your style.

[Pelham]

Surely, chutch, with your extensive knowledge of things paleoconservative, you know that Chronicles magazine was founded by Leopold Tyrmand.

I'm curious to know how you explain the late Mr Tyrmand, seeing as he was Jewish. Did someone forget to tell him that he was organizing hordes of xenophobic anti-semites around his banner?

This is most curious, chutch, and I think that only someone as well versed on the underlying nazism of paleoconservatism can explain this mystery. Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

[hchutch]

Yeah, but when Fleming and Francis took over, it took its turn for the worse- I believe Mr. Frum pointed that out in his article.

---
Tyrmand died suddenly in 1985. His successor, Thomas Fleming, shortened the magazine's name to Chronicles and redirected its attention from cultural critique to ideological war.

Fleming was in at least one way a poor choice for the role of paleoconservative ideologist-in-chief. He is the very opposite of a systematic, deliberate thinker: a jumpy, wrathful man so prone to abrupt intellectual reversals that even some of his friends and supporters question his equilibrium. But Fleming proved himself a nervy and imaginative editor. He recruited Samuel Francis as a columnist and collaborator, and Francis was a man nobody could accuse of inconsistency.

---

Obviously, you seem to ignore the fact that Mr. Frum addressed the point you raised. Maybe you need to brush up on reading comprehension.

[Cachelot]

I don't, in fact I've never been to those sites

You have never read "the premier libertarian site", that amazing agglomeration of traitorous scum and the new playground of freemarket.net, "rational review", and others? With the views you offer up, I find that kind of startling :).

No matter. I have a perfect example for you of what passes for "debate" in "paleo" circles, from a fellow who describes himself like so:

"I am a libertarian. That just about says it all."

I hope there are more moles within the ranks.

It is IMPERITIVE that the US not win this war, or that the war become so protracted and so horrendous that Bush and his treasonous cohorts are turned on by the American public and brought to justice.

I shudder to think of the long-term consequences of us winning this war. America will become solidified in its arrogance, utter contempt of morality will explode, and millions of innocent people around the world will die at the hands of our government.

Charming little swine, and very representative of the paleo species.

[Pelham]

Nice try, chutch. Did you learn that amazing reparte from the cartoon channel? Seriously, you need to learn the difference between rhetoric and ontological certainty- allegations don't become "fact" simply because your self-promoting Canadian hero spins them as such.

[Pelham]

Yes, and for another example we have you- but simply because you lack substance, it doesn't mean that all neocons are equally bereft of wit, does it?

[hchutch]

If you have proof that Frum has his facts wrong, post it. Quite frankly, I have not seen you offer one SHRED of prrof to coutnerthis, just snide put-downs aimed at me and others who don't share your narrow view of things.

[Cachelot]

but simply because you lack substance

Substances are better left to the libertarians. This is a well-known fact.

Too bad you don't have the substance to refute anything, though. You know, I think you would feel much better over there with the "paleo-88's".

[sheltonmac]

"We are better off without the paleo-cons."

Hey, paleo-cons tried to secede once, but the neo-con president at the time wouldn't hear of it.

[Howlin]

He did NOT get "canned."

[reelfoot]

I don't know about all this paleo/neo stuff, and certainly don't see how squabbling is going to help the conservative movement. I'm not sure if I would be considered a paleo or neo; I would cite Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative to fairly summarize my views. Which one of these two groups would be most comfortable with Goldwater's 1964 views and an end to our no-borders policy?