DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24147--------------------------------------------------
The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
By: Pinochet88 Date: August 27, 2016, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]
The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
By Paul Gottfried
This talk was delivered on November 23, 2008, at the H.L.
Mencken Club.
If the H.L. Mencken Club can achieve that for which it has been
formed, it should have an eventful and for those who disagree
with us, profoundly disruptive future. We are part of an attempt
to put together an independent intellectual Right, one that
exists without movement establishment funding and one that our
opponents would be delighted not to have to deal with. Our group
is also full of young thinkers and activists, and if there is to
be an independent Right, our group will have to become its
leaders.
For years I’ve belabored acquaintances with the observation by
stating that the paleoconservatives who had spent their lives
butting their heads against the American conservative movement,
were becoming less and less useful. Note that I do not excuse
myself from this judgment entirely, for what I’m describing is
my own generation and those with whom I’ve been associated.
Paleoconservatives did an enormous service in the 1980s when
they kept the neoconservatives from swallowing up entire the
intellectual and political Right. They had performed something
roughly analogous to what the Christians in Asturias and Old
Castile had done in the eighth and ninth centuries, when they
had whittled away at Muslim control of the Iberian Peninsula.
But unlike the rulers of Castile and Aragon, the paleos never
succeeded in getting the needed resources to win back lost
ground. Unlike the medieval Spanish monarchs, they also didn’t
have the space of several centuries in which to realize their
goals.
But equally significantly, the curmudgeonly personalities that
had allowed the paleos to stand up to those from the Left who
had occupied the Right prevented them from carrying their war
further. Although spirited and highly intelligent, they were
temperamentally unfit for a counterinsurgency. They quarreled to
such a degree that they eventually fell out among themselves.
Soon they were trying to throw each other out of the shaky
lifeboat to which their endangered cause had been confined. Of
course considerable disparities in resources and contacts put
these partisans into a weaker position than that of their
enemies. But their breakdown into rival groups, led by competing
heads, commenced early in the conservative wars, and (alas) it
has been going on up until the present hour. The founding of our
club came out of such a fissiparous event, of the kind that had
occurred with some regularity on the Right during the preceding
two decades.
Nor is it surprising that the same paleos who broke from the
movement often imposed their own litmus tests. Or that their
sectarianisms involved highly sectarian opinions over such
questions as whether Elizabeth One’s defeat of the Spanish
Armada or the later discomfiting of the Stuarts doomed
Anglo-American societies to unspeakable moral and political
corruption; or (supposedly even more relevant) whether the
ethics of Irving Babbitt as selectively filtered through the
aesthetics of Benedetto Croce can help save this country from
anti-intellectualism or from the disciples of Leo Strauss. Or
even more timely, whether being instructed in Babbitt’s view of
the Higher Will would have mitigated the misfortune of having
the stock market plunge. Although there are other such paleo
ruminations that can be cited, I shall be merciful and spare my
audience the heavy burden of having to hear about them.
The late Sam Francis used to conjure up an ideal-type essay that
sprang from the archaic conservative mentality. It was a
fifty-page study by a now deceased University of Georgia
professor of English; and it dwelled on how Western society was
going to rack and ruin because no one read Flannery O’Connor any
more in light of Eric Voegelin’s Order and History. There was,
indeed, such an essay, which was not entirely a product of Sam’s
fertile imagination and Menckenesque wit. And having read this
literary-cultural exercise, I would have to agree that it
typified a certain kind of paleo cultural commentary. It is
moralizing aspiring to be scholarship. As a European
intellectual historian, it seems to me that such tracts at their
best strain to resemble something that might have been composed
by a French counterrevolutionary two hundred years ago. But
these reproductions operate at a higher level of abstraction
without showing anything that strikes this reader as being
historically relevant.While not all paleo polemics fit this
description, many of them do—or at the very least, bear more
than a vague resemblance to what is being caricatured.
And I’ve been struck by how often these jeremiads have been
accompanied by either frantic endorsements of third- or
fourth-party politicians or else mournful laments about how the
barbarians are climbing in through our windows and how we should
therefore prepare ourselves for pious deaths. The fact that I
myself have sometimes written in this vein need not detract from
my critical remark. My observation is arguably true even if I
too am an aging paleo.
To put this into perspective: what is now called
paleoconservatism did not grow out of resistance to the
Reformation or French Revolution. It is the product of recent
historical circumstances, and it assumed its current form about
thirty years ago as a diffuse reaction to the neoconservative
ascendancy. It was never unified philosophically, and its
division between libertarians and traditionalists was only one
of the many lines of demarcation separating those who began to
call themselves “paleos” about 25 years ago. In 1986 I noted in
an article for the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review that most
paleo thinkers were Protestants or Jews. They were also
preoccupied with sociobiology, a discipline or way of thinking
that had influenced them deeply. Today the paleo camp looks
markedly different as well as much older, and it shows little
interest in the cognitive, hereditary preconditions for
intellectual and cultural achievements. And the despair about
American society among paleos may be pushing some of them toward
the liberal immigrationist camp, providing they’re not already
there. Others of this group have become so terrified by those on
their left that they pretend not to notice the stark fact of
human cognitive disparities. This quest for innocuousness
sometimes takes the form of seminars on educational problems
centering on endless sermons about values and featuring rotating
lists of edifying books. Presumably everyone would perform up to
speed if he/she could avail himself/herself of the proper
cultural tools. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same
genetic precondition for learning is irrelevant for this
politically motivated experiment in wishful thinking.
{Η επόμενη
παράγραφος
έχει
μπερδέψει
τη βούρτσα
με την
πούτσα.
Είναι το
Κράτος
εκείνο το
οποίο, με
εσωτερική
αναγκαιότη`
4;α,
έχει βάλει
στο
στόχαστρο
τον Θεσμό
της
Οικογένεια`
2;
και έχει
εκπονήσει
και
υλοποιεί
ταχέως το
σχέδιο
υποκατάστα`
3;ης
των Λευκών
με
τριτοκοσμι_
4;ούς
υπάνθρωπου`
2;.
Η ατομική
ιδιοκτησία
και η νομική
απελευθέρω`
3;η
των ΛΧΑ από
τον
πατερναλισ_
6;ό
του Κράτους
αποτελούν
τα
μεγαλύτερα
εχέγγυα της
διασφάλιση`
2;
και
συνέχειας
της
Φυλετικής
μας
Καθαρότητα`
2;
και της
θωράκισης
των
παραδοσιακa
4;ν
δομών που
εξασφάλισα_
7;
στον Δυτικό
Πολιτισμό
την εγγενή
του
ανωτερότητ^
5;}:
More recently we have been confronted by another problem on the
right, namely groups that give little evidence of being what
they claim to be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing
intrinsically rightwing about denying the claims of family and
society on the putatively autonomous individual. And the dream
of living outside of the state in a society of self-actualizing
individuals, opening themselves up to being physically displaced
by the entire Third World, if its population chooses to settle
on this continent, is not a rightist alternative to anything. It
is a failed leftist utopia. It is one thing to deplore the
modern welfare state as a vehicle of grotesque social change or
for its violations of the U.S. Constitution. It is another
matter to believe that all authority structures can be reduced
to insurance companies formed to protect the property and lives
of anarcho-capitalists. Such a belief goes counter to everything
we know about human Nature, and even such an embattled
anti-welfare- statist as H.L. Mencken never hoped to destroy all
government. He loathed egalitarian democracy but not the
traditional social and political authorities in which communal
life had developed and which conforms to our intertwined social
needs.
Having made these critical observations, I would also stress the
possibility for positive change represented by this
organization. We have youth and exuberance on our side, and a
membership that is largely in its twenties and thirties. We have
attracted beside old-timers like me, as I noted in my
introductory paragraph, well-educated young professionals, who
consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current
conservative movement. These “post-paleos,” to whom I have
alluded in Internet commentaries, are out in force here tonight.
And they are radical in the sense in which William F. Buckley
once defined a true Right, an oppositional force that tries to
uncover the root causes of our political and cultural crises and
then to address them.
And when I speak about the postpaleos, it goes without saying
that I’m referring to a growing communion beyond this
organization. It is one that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com,
and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely
subjects.
A question that has been asked of me and of others in this room
is why we don’t try to join the official conservative movement.
This movement controls hundreds of million of dollars, TV
networks, strings of newspapers and magazines, multitudinous
foundations and institutes, and a bevy of real and bleached
blonds on FOX-news. This is not even to mention the movement’s
influence on the GOP, the leaders of which dutifully recite
neoconservative slogans. To whatever extent the GOP still has
something that can be described as a “mind,” it is what
neoconservative surgeons have implanted.
Why then don’t the post-paleos ask to be admitted to this
edifice of power? Even as the beneficiaries of second- or even
third-rung posts, our younger members would be better off
financially than they are in their present genteel,
hand-to-mouth existences. It is easy to imagine that even the
secretaries at AEI, Heritage or The Weekly Standard earn more
than many of those in this room. Movement conservatives
certainly have the wind in their sails; and perhaps most of us
have been tempted at one time or another to join them in order
to benefit from their considerable wealth.
Allow me to suggest two reasons that most of us have not gone
over to the Dark Side. One, that side will not have us; and it
has treated us, in contrast to such worthies as black
nationalists, radical feminists, and open-borders advocates, as
being unfit for admittance into the political conversation. We
are not viewed as honorable dissenters but depicted as subhuman
infidels or ignored in the same way as one would a senile uncle
who occasionally wanders into one’s living room. This imperial
ban has been extended even to brilliant social scientists and
statisticians who are viewed as excessively intimate with the
wrong people, that is, with those who stand outside the camp
that the neocons occupy and now share with neo-liberals and the
center-left. I suspect that most of us, including those who
belong to my children’s generation, would not be trusted even if
we feigned admiration for Martin Luther King, Joe Lieberman and
Scoop Jackson and even if we called for having open borders with
Mexico and for attacking and occupying Iran. Even then a
credibility gap would be cited to justify our further
marginalization.
But there is another factor, beside necessity, which keeps us
where we are. We are convinced that we are right in our
historical and cultural observations while those who have
quarantined us are wrong. This is indeed my position, and it is
one that the officers of this organization fully share. But to
move from theory to practice, there are two counsels that I
would strenuously urge. First, we must try to do what is
possible rather than what lies beyond our limited material
resources. What we can hope to achieve in the near term as
opposed what we might able to do in the fullness of time is to
gain recognition as an intellectual Right—and one that is
critical of the neoconservative-controlled conservative
establishment. Although that establishment does permit some
internal dissent, and has even provided support for a handful of
worthwhile scholars, it is at least as closed as were the
Communist Parties of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the
Soviet Empire. But unlike that now vanished domination, the
neocon media empire is not particularly porous, and with the
help of the Left, it is more than able to keep out of public
view any serious challenge from the right. It is precisely our
goal to become such a challenge. And it is my hope that a
younger generation will acquire the resources to do so and will
know how to deploy them.
Second, if we wish to advance our cause, we must meditate on the
successes of our most implacable enemies. The neocons marched
nonstop through the institutions and treasuries of the Right and
took them over almost without breaking a sweat. And they did so
without themselves having to move to the right. In fact they
converted the Right to the Left, by equating their mostly
leftist politics with reasonable or non-extremist conservatism.
They then pushed into near oblivion anyone on the right who
resisted their transformations. And as one of their victims, I
certainly begrudge them these successes. But as much as I might
rage over neocon mendacity and movement conservative gullibility
and cowardice, I can also understand the magnitude of the
domination achieved. And as painful as it may be for us, we must
try to grasp that in Machiavelli’s language, it was not just
Fortuna but also virtu that was at work in making possible our
enemies’ spectacular achievements. Their opponents failed not
only because they were obviously outgunned but also because we
were less well organized, less able to network, and less capable
of burying internal grievances.
A friend once noted my ambivalence when I describe my enemies.
My repugnance for their shallow ideas and grubby personalities
has always been mixed with deep admiration for how they stick
together like a band of brothers. It is this side of
neoconservative history that we must keep in mind and imitate if
we intend to climb out of the oblivion into which they have cast
us. Our enemies may be vulgar but they are surely not fools. And
their indubitable successes have much to teach anyone who hopes
to supplant them—ultimately to do to them what they have done to
us.
source
HTML http://bc.vc/VI4rCwY[/font]
#Post#: 24148--------------------------------------------------
Re: mocking ancap
By: maxarmy Date: August 27, 2016, 1:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=mistermax link=topic=28.msg67#msg67
date=1472282952]
[center][img
width=700]
HTML https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/1957942_1469318616613559_1981246247_o.jpg[/img]
HTML http://therealwebwar.createaforum.com/922945960953964945955953963956972962-3/mocking-ancap[/center]
[/quote]
#Post#: 24149--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
By: Gary for President Date: August 28, 2016, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]το
προβάδισμα
της Κλίντον
συρρικνώνε`
4;αι
ακόμη
περισσότερ_
9;:
την
υποστηρίζε_
3;
ένα 39% των
πιθανών
ψηφοφόρων,
έναντι ενός
36% που
τάσσεται
υπέρ του
Τραμπ, ενός 7%
που
τάσσεται
υπέρ του
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;υ
Γκάρι
Τζόνσον κι
ενός 3% που
υποστηρίζε_
3;
την Τζιλ
Στάιν, την
υποψήφια
του
Κόμματος
των
Πρασίνων.[/quote]
Γιατι ο
πινοσέτ
υποστηρίζε_
3;
τον τραμπ
και όχι τον
Γκάρι
Τζόνσον;
#Post#: 24150--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
By: Pinochet88 Date: August 30, 2016, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Γιατί ο
Τραμπ έχει 40%
πιθανότητα
να
αποσοβήσει
νέους
πολέμους
στη Μέση
Ανατολή και
να γλιτώσει
εκατοντάδε`
2;
δισεκατομμa
3;ρια
από τους ΛΧΑ
σε φόρους τα
οποία θα
πάνε στα
διεφθαρμέν^
5;
καθάρματα
του military–industrial complex
που
συνεργάζον`
4;αι
με το Κράτος,
να
αποτελέσει
μια
ευκαιρία
αναζώογόνη`
3;ης
της
φυλετικής
συνείδηση
των Λευκών
και να
αναστείλει
ή μειώσει
τον ρυθμό
μόλυνσης
του Λευκού
αίματος (του
πλέον
συμβατού
αίματος με
τον
Καπιταλισμa
2;).
Ο Τζόνσον
έχει 0%
πιθανότητα
να κάνει
κάτι. Πολλές
από τις
θέσεις του,
ιδίως στην
οικονομία,
είναι
καλύτερες
από αυτές
του Τραμπ,
αλλα αλλού
είναι
θολοκουλτο`
5;ριάρης
και
συμβιβασμέ_
7;ος
με το
κατεστημέν_
9;
π.χ. τάσσεται
υπέρ του
αφρο-σοσιαλ	
53;στικού
κινήματος Black
Lives Matter ενώ δεν
πρόκειται
να πάρει
καμία ψήφο
από τους
σκυλάραπες.
Γιατί
απλούστατα
οι
σκυλάραπες
είναι
κατώτεροι
γενετικά
και θα
φέρουν
χειρότερα
αποτελέσμα`
4;α
στην
οικονομία
και αυτό θα
τους κάνει
να θέλουν
αυτά που
έχουν οι
άλλες φυλές.
Πάντα. Άρα
πάντα με τη
δημοκρατία -
που χωρίς
την
αναδιανομή
δεν έχει
νόημα να
ψηφίσεις - οι
σκυλάραπες
θα ψηφίζουν
αναδιανομή=	
54;λοπή.
Άρα ο
Τζόνσον δεν
είναι καν
σοβαρός
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;ς,
είναι
ιδεολογικά
ψωλοχυμένο`
2;
γιατί
φοβάται μην
τον πουν
φασίστα οι
κομμουνιστ^
1;ς.
[img
width=700]
HTML http://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PRRI-AVS-2013_racial-ethnic-groups-by-libertarian-orientation-scale.jpg[/img]
*****************************************************