Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is "Palaeo"conservatism?
My own questions | november 13, 2001 | Me

Posted on 11/13/2001 12:10:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-264 next last
To: Zionist Conspirator
Sorry. "eerily dissimilar and yet similar"
61 posted on 11/13/2001 4:41:45 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
What leads you to believe that Esau is the Romans ?
62 posted on 11/13/2001 4:42:01 PM PST by jonatron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Either you have been drinking too much coffee or have been taking too many diet pills, or you are deliberately trying to get a rise out of people. The essential idea of "paleoconservatism" is "back to the founders." But how are we to understand the founders? One way is through a libertarian or paleo-liberal framework, based on very limited government and the individual. Another way is through a more particularist approach. That is to say, one that is skeptical of the universalist claims that have been put forward for America, and argues that we are the specific nation of a specific people. Still another way would be to look towards those government institutions that the founders established. These are three different foci: the individual, the people or nation or region, and the government or regime. You can find paleos who lean more towards one focus or another. Sometimes the combinations, for example of Southern nationalism and individualist libertarians are pretty unstable and questionable things, though they do attract a following. You will find very few paleos who harken back to a European "throne and altar" perspective, though you will find many who wish that religion had a larger place in American life.

Dragging in Ayn Rand and Franco simply muddles things. To say one is more individualist than the mainstream doesn't make one a Randian. To say one is more traditionalist than the mainstream doesn't make one a fascist or even an authoritarian. Those are the terms the majority uses to stigmatize, isolate and punish dissenters, and if you are really asking your question in good faith you wouldn't use them.

As to why some paleos are critical of Zionism, one obvious place to start is that they feel that the conservative establishment has distorted the situation to lead the following around by the nose. Another is that they don't feel that that area is any business of ours.

63 posted on 11/13/2001 4:42:07 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

Accept no labels. **g**
65 posted on 11/13/2001 4:45:13 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Goverment falls within the context of three axes ...

The question is, what political philosophy drives any proposed government policy.

66 posted on 11/13/2001 4:49:45 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Now--why would someone with this view of the individual invoke Rothbardian libertarianism? That is the question.

I think the common thread is anti-egalitarianism.

67 posted on 11/13/2001 5:02:57 PM PST by Dan De Quille
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: Zionist Conspirator
In this week's Torah portion we read of the birth of `Esav, the ancestor of the ancient Romans and culturally of the chr*stian West (as well as the grandfather of the accursed `Amaleq). So perhaps it is appropriate to ask these questions at this time.

I disagree with that statement, because in the New Testament [and particularly Gen. 1:1] there is a definitive link between common patriarchs with the Jews and the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Also, it is specifically wriiten that Isaac was the chosen son of Abraham, not Ishmael, the son of Hagar.

Some of the references are Matt. 8:11, Mark 12:12, Luke 3: 33-34, Acts 3:13, 7:8, and finally in Romans 9: 7-13.

We know that Esau despised his birthright and sold it to his younger brother Jacob. IN Genesis 27: 39-40 we have this:

39: And Isaac his father answered him [Esau] and said unto him: Behold, of the fat places of the earth shall be thy dwelling places [fat places in hebrew literally means "of the oils of the land]. And of the dew of heaven from above [meaning the desert].
40: And by thy sword shalt thou live and thou shalt serve thy brother, and it shall come to pass when thou shalt break loose, that thou shall shake the yoke off thy neck.

Its also important to note that abraham, Isaac, and Jacob insisted that their progeny marry only Aramean women from their place of origin because canaanite women were hateful due to theri idolatry. [Gen 28:6]

And in spite of Isaac's command "When Esau was 40 years old, he took to wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. And there was a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and Rebekah.

Then you have Gen 28: 7-12--which shows how the old and new testaments refer to their geneaology of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and how the old testament alone refers to Ishmael and Esau, who were to lead lives in the desert. Ishamel isn't menationed in the New Testament and Esau only once.

Romans aren't descendants of Ishmael or Esau--moslems [arabs] are.

69 posted on 11/13/2001 5:25:26 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMontagu
What is "Palaeo"conservatism?

I thought you might like to put in your two cents.

70 posted on 11/13/2001 5:29:52 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
I don't believe Sobran's an anti-Semite (I think the term, like "racist", is overused and at times meant to intimidate).

However, Joe is an insufferable crackpot who believes in an "international Jewish thought-control apparatus".

71 posted on 11/13/2001 5:30:59 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Conservatives who like harmonica music?
72 posted on 11/13/2001 5:33:37 PM PST by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Support for Israel against its enemies is no more inherently "globalist" than is support for Taiwan against Communist China

True. But what exactly it is your point? That paleos support the Taiwan adventure? I don't think so. If some commentators in "far right" magazines have been known to argue against support for Israel and other commentators argue in favor of support for Taiwan, this merely shows the tension between the America First and the anti-communism factions of the American right.

It has nothing to do with anti-semitism, a current of thought which was always negligible in the US and which was thoroughly eradicated after the second world war. The fact that we here discussing ultramontagne conservatism, a French movement whose only North American influence was in Quebec, simply proves that home-grown anti-semitism is impossible to find. We are therefore obliged to import the "conservatism" of others to find examples. What's more the examples in question are 60-70 years years old. Today anti-semitism is non-existant in France too.

So just lay off. OK?

73 posted on 11/13/2001 5:41:53 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
I agree that Sobran's a paleo-con. It's just that he believes in crackpot things like an "international Jewish thought-control apparatus", which reflect badly on other paleo-cons.
76 posted on 11/13/2001 5:47:08 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I'm replying to both of your posts here. I don't think the two strands (libertarian and authoritarian) have merged at all, rather the libertarian strain is far healthier and certainly has more intllectual following.

Bozell was the exception that proves the rule in his open Carlism and rejection of the entire Enlightenment apparatus.

I think the reason most American authoritarian conservatives, especially the ultramontagne Roman Catholics, pose as friends of liberty is that they know that if they were to show their true views, they would have neither audience nor influence. It's a simple matter of practicality: the underlying philosophical assumptions of the unconsciously held political philosophy of the US -- what's "in the air we breathe" if you will -- begins with and requires an acceptance of the Enlightenment principles of individual liberty upon which the Republic is founded. That's the same reason the Marxists have so little traction here when they're honest.

Remember, in the 19th century and even into the 20th, Catholics in the US were objects of strong suspicion of disloyalty, or rather of having a higher loyalty to the Rome of the Inquisition, the Popish Plot and Bloody Mary that looms so large in the Anglo-Saxon imagination. Catholic political and philosophical dialogue with the Anglo-Saxon majority in the US had to find ways of speaking that did not rouse the Protestant hue and cry. Most of our ultramontagne authoritarian conservatives in the US are Roman Catholics who were educated before Vatican II, and so grew up in the tradition that it was necessary to wrap oneself in the flag. In conservative political terms in the modern era, that has meant "original intent", lots of Adams and Jefferson and talk of liberty.

77 posted on 11/13/2001 5:48:10 PM PST by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Architect
 this merely shows the tension between the America First
and the anti-communism factions of the American right.

Would you agree there is a difference
between America First and America Only?

78 posted on 11/13/2001 5:51:57 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek; tex-oma; JMJ333

However, Joe is an insufferable crackpot who
believes in an "international Jewish thought-control apparatus".

Anyone believing in the aforementioned is, in my book,
anti-Semitic.

79 posted on 11/13/2001 5:53:43 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Joe is an insufferable crackpot who believes in an "international Jewish thought-control apparatus".

No. Joe believes in the existence an American pro-Israeli thought-control apparatus. He is right. This apparatus exists. This apparatus is only a conspiracy in the original sense of the word - people who breathe together.

The apparatus gains its strength from a variety of sources. It comes from Zionist Jews. It comes from millenial Christians. Most importantly, it comes from general Western guilt over centuries of anti-semitism which culminated in the Nazi Holocaust. Interestingly, most Jews were anti-Zionists until Hitler's crimes were revealed to the world.

80 posted on 11/13/2001 5:59:42 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-264 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson