its a guy who takes care of his own family n community without government interference
Posted on 11/13/2001 12:10:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
I do not post these musings of mine to be disagreeable or provocative, but I simply do not understand the consistent inconsistencies of "palaeo"conservatives. And I am not referring to their position on Communist Arabs vis a vis their position on every other Communist in the world. I am referring to something far more basic.
I do not understand someone calling himself a "palaeo"conservative who then invokes "liberty," "rights," etc., for the very simple reason that "palaeo"conservatism connotes a European-style conservatism that opposes these very things in the name of Throne and Altar. So why do our disciples of Joseph de la Maistre pose as followers of Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich von Hayek?
I don't know. Honestly. I'm asking.
True, Charley Reese and Joseph Sobran (unlike their more honest and consistent fellow, Pat Buchanan) pose as across-the-board individualist Jeffersonian ideologues. But truly consistern libertarians, even the most "rightwing," took positions on civil rights and the new left in the Sixties that were (and are) anathema to some of these fellow travellers. I recently went to a libertarian site (this one here) where I was impressed with the fearless consistency of a true libertarian, such as Rothbard. I urge interested parties to read some of Rothbard's writings here (particularly "Liberty and the New Left") and honestly ask themselves if they can imagine "libertarians" like Sobran or Reese (or their supporters here at FR) saying such things.
Imagine, for example, the following quotation from Rothbard, from the article just cited:
It is no wonder then that, confronted by the spectre of this Leviathan, many people devoted to the liberty of the individual turned to the Right-wing, which seemed to offer a groundwork for saving the individual from this burgeoning morass. But the Right-wing, by embracing American militarism and imperialism, as well as police brutality against the Negro people, faced the most vital issues of our time . . . and came down squarely on the side of the State and agaisnt the person. The torch of liberty against the Establishment passed therefore to the New Left.
Okay, the militarism/imperialism quote is right in character, but can you honestly imagine Sobran saying such things about "police brutality against the Negro people" or heaping such praises on the New Left in an address before Mississippi's "Council of Conservative Citizens?" Or Reese saying such things before a League of the South convention???
Something doesn't fit here.
The thing is, the "palaeo"right has roots going back to the turn-of-the-century European right (eg, Action Francaise) as well as to the Austrian school of economics. In fact, sometimes these roots jump out from the midst of libertarian rhetoric--for example, when someone stops thumping the First Amendment long enough to bemoan the subversive, rootless, cosmopolitan nature of international capitalism (and surely no one expects libertarian Austrian economics to create a Pat Buchanan-style monocultural country!), or to defend Salazar Portugal or Vichy France.
In short, what we are faced with here is the same situation as on the Left, where unwashed, undisciplined, excrement-throwing hippies rioted in favor of the ultra-orderly goose-stepping military dictatorships in Cuba and Vietnam. In each case--Left and Right--the American section advocated positions that the mother movement in the mother country would not tolerate. For one thing, Communist countries exploit and use totalitarian patriotism; no one in Cuba burns the Cuban flag and gets away with it, I guarantee. Yet partisans of nationalist-communist Cuba advocate the "right" of Americans to burn their national flag. And can anyone imagine what Franco or Salazar would have done to some dissident spouting Rothbard's rhetoric back in Iberia in the 1950's or 60's? Yet once again, a philosophy alien to the mother country is seized upon by native Falangists as the essence of the movement.
I don't get it. Palaeos, like Leftists, don't seem to be able to make up their minds. Are they in favor of or opposed to "rights liberalism?" Do they dream of a reborn medieval European chr*stendom, or a reborn early-federal-period enlightenment/Masonic United States of America? Do they want a virtually nonexistent government or something like the strong, paternalistic governments of Franco, Salazar, and Petain that will preserve the purity of the ethnoculture? Or they for or against free trade? (It is forgotten by today's Buchananite Confederacy-partisans that "free trade" was one of the doctrines most dear to the real Confederacy.) Are you for Jeffersonial localism or against it when a Hispanic border town votes to make Spanish (the language of Franco!) its official language?
I wonder if I could possibly be more confused than you yourselves seem to be.
Honestly, it does sometimes seem that the issue that defines "palaeo"ism is hostility to Israel. Why else would someone like "Gecko," a FReeper who openly admired 19th Century German "conservatism," which he admitted was a form of state socialism, be considered a member of the family by "disciples of Ludwig von Mises?" None of this makes any sense at all.
As a final postscript, I must add once more that I am myself a "palaeo" in all my instincts (except that I don't go around advocating a Biblical Theocracy for Israel and a Masonic republic for the United States, nor do I brandish the Bill of Rights like an ACLU lawyer). Whatever the intrinsic opposition between palaeoconservatism (at least of the more honest de la Maistre variety) and a reborn Halakhic Torah state based on the Throne and Altar in Jerusalem, I have never been able to discover them. I guess the rest of you know something I don't (although it sure as heck ain't the Bible). If there is some law requiring "true" palaeoconservatism to be based on European idealist philosophy, Hellenistic philosophy, or Austrian libertarian economics rather than the Divinely-Dictated Word of the Creator, I would like to hear about it. All I know is the rest of you "palaeos" seem to take hostility to Judaism (not just Zionism and Israel but Judaism itself) as a given for anyone who wants to be a member of the "club." And you seem to have a mutual agreement to act as though Biblical Fundamentalist Zionism didn't exist and that all sympathy for Israel originated in the philosophy of former Trotskyist/globalist/capitalist/neoconservatism (which is confusing because according to libertarianism capitalism is good). I have moreover learned from past experience that if I question any of you about your position on the Bible you ignore it with a smirk I can practically feel coming out of the monitor.
My attitude is as follows: for true libertarians who are actually sincere and consistent I have a deep respect, even though I disagree with you philosophy. For people who insist that one should be required to oppose the existence of a Jewish State on the ancient 'Eretz Yisra'el in order to even consider himself a conservative, you can all boil in hot excrement, since I have no desire to belong to your loathsome `Amaleq-spawned society. I simply wish I could understand why conservatism--which to me has always meant an acknowledgement of the Jewish G-d and His Word--has spawned so many people whose fundamental outlook is so diametrically opposed to this.
At any rate, while I do not expect any other than taunting, smart-aleck replies, I will most assuredly listen with an open mind to any explanation of the otherwise inexplicable Franco/Ayn Rand connection.
Neither UPI nor AP are Saudi owned. See below.
From the AP FAQ:
1. Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,550 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.
See my post #161. Neither UPI nor AP is owned by Saudis.
Neo-cons are basically recycled Trotskyites. That's their cultural background. See Springtime for Trotsky by Daniel McCarthy.
1. The Media attack hounds will take the opportunity to demonize you even more. If your fight was local, they will take it to the attention of the entire world.
2. You will lose. The PCs control the courts too. You will lose regardless of the merits of your case (and Irving's was pretty shaky).
3. People like Sabramerican and gcruse will take the fact that you lost as proof that they were right to besmirch your reputation in the first place.
Even if they were owned by the Saudis, this would not in any sense imply that they have a pro-Saudi bias. Anymore than these facts imply that UPI has a pro-Moonie bias.
The rest of JMJ333's delirium is equally hallucinatory. Lemmee see if I can follow it. The government of the Sudanese has murdered hundreds of thousands of Christians and animists. JMJ thinks that this is underreported by the press. Perhaps it is, although I have certainly seen plenty of coverage. Even so, what on earth does this have to do with Jews? Is the connection that the Sudan, like Israel, is a theocracy?
Jews could be attacked with impunity. In writings, verbally and physically.
Those days are gone. Now we fight back.
In every arena, using the methods appropriate to the situation.
And guess what? On a level playing field- or, you can ask the Arabs, even when the odds against us- we win, or at least severally bloody the opponent.
The bullies who thought that it would always be free Jew hunting season are shocked.
And now they cry.
I just wanted to set the record straight. AP was never owned by Saudis. UPI is not owned by Saudis.
However, I wouldn't be very surprised if some owners of news companies do influence the editorial line and the way the news is slanted. Owners can, after all, hire and fire employees and make their preferences known.
This the part where they want you to explain the difference between control and influence. The old semantics game. What is sex?
This is not semantics at all. If you want to stay away from Socratic method, here is the answer. There are numerous cases when A and B are present, A seems to cause B, yet it does not. These are known collectively as threats to validity; an exposition is readily available in most research-methods texts.
When faced with B = "I see Jewish names a lot" and A = "Jewish control of... (fill in your favorite social institution here)," you have concluded that A causes B.
The fallaciousness of this conclusion is readily seen from an example: most people who have gotten into an automobile accident (B) have eaten tomatoes at least once during a month prior to the accident (A). Clearly, you would not conclude that A causes B. And it is also clear why: joint presence of A and B is insufficient to assertain causality.
Which is why I posed the question about the visilble public presence of persons of Jewish decent and assertion of "Jewish control." The assertion that presence is a manifestation of control is false --- in the very least unsupported.
Just 10 years ago, in Crown Heights...
Obviously true. Murdock does. Conrad Black does. But what can't happen is to stray too far from the party line. Saudi-backed media which attempted to take a pro-Arab line would get raked over the coals.
When Black attempted to bring a genuinely conservative media voice to the Canadian scene, he was repeatedly attacked from every direction. Eventually he gave in and sold out to the liberal Izzy Asper. BTW, for what it's worth (and I think it's worth precisely nothing), Asper is a Jew and Black is married to one.
Murdock's FOX News gets beaten on simply because it is balanced.
I said that we win when we compete on a level playing field. It's almost piling on when we compete with inferiors- for fairness you should be benched.
1190: Massacre of Jews in York, England.
1290: Jews expelled from England
I said that we win when we compete on a level playing field. It's almost piling on when we compete with inferiors- for fairness you should be benched.
1190: Massacre of Jews in York, England.
1290: Jews expelled from England
Leo Frank
Write another stupid comment. At a certain number from your side, counting from the morning, I know it's time for lunch.
One of the rules of "civil discourse" is that racism is allowable on the part of blacks. It is also allowable to be anti-Christian but not anti-Judism. The fact that these two rules are contradictory is irrelevant. Many of the rules contradict each other.
In this charming essay, Sobran blames "the Jews" for communism, fascism, secular humanism, the atom bomb (no, I'm not kidding) and almost every other evil in human history. If he's not an anti-Semite in the true meaning of the word, I don't know who is.
Only goes to prove what I was saying: you will go to any lengths to justify your nonsense. Attack silly fools. Dredge incidents out of ancient history. JMJ even thinks that Moslems killing Christians is proof of anti-semitism.
Part of your problem is that your memory is far too long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.