Category Archives: Political Philosophy

New Sam Francis Book

Dr. Wilson just mentioned a new book based on writings by Sam Francis. The kindle version costs but $10 at Amazon, and Francis’s original book (second edition) on James Burnham might be a more polished version of the same work.

Note: Francis did mention our elite struggling to absorb Muslims but also that our elite is at least as calculating as any in history. This is to say: it is unclear who will win between the two.

Also, unstated by Dr. Wilson is the coming identity crisis of biotech.

The solution to our situation is nationalism, faith, distributism, other third way economics (emphasis on decentralisation and balance of power). States should be pursued that care for their own people and pursue a harmonious but also well-functioning society, that is a focus on the societal level as an organism itself. This is simply a return to classical (sane) political science. And we seem to have need of a specialised ruling class, an aristocracy, for at least part of political power. Restricted democratic voting would improve the voter pool if wanting democracy (for example requiring property ownership). Also, modern monasteries, free from the pull of the outside market, could help guard our culture.

While it is useful to write on utopian ideals and also on plausible practical solutions that work for a particular situation, true change will only come from a raw pursuit of power. The powerful then influence how society is newly shaped, as is always the case in every society.

Reading on this subject is more exciting and fun than any other, but I’m rusty. I began writing at CHT in 2006, mostly condemning libertarianism as faith-like and praising distributism and Francis’s work. I originally posted here to “help” the site while planning my own book-like website. I really haven’t made much advancement other than scattered notes. Political science isn’t something that pays the bills, or at least it doesn’t pay my bills.

So, I don’t claim to be an expert. I think Dr. Fleming, James Kalb, and Chronicles in general are where to go to learn political science. The Alt Right seems to be a more racial break with the paleos, but I don’t see why a person couldn’t learn political science from the masters while valuing what he values. The Alt Right might also be an excellent place to learn; I have little familiarity with it.

I will say that almost everyone who writes on political science seems to be tricked by the classical liberals in some area. So, I recommend reading Aristotle, reading Dr. Fleming, totally ignoring those preaching “Austrian economics” until you’ve learned something real. Then you’ll be able to think outside the box and make use of the Austrian ideas where useful to your ends.

Also, I look forward to entry of the Asian political scientists, who are less beholden to the insane Enlightenment ideas of Europe. Just as classical European political science is excellent, so too do I expect other traditional political ideas to be excellent and also similar. While everyone loves Confucius, a Chinese blogger recently suggested reading: Historical Records by Sima Qian and The Book of Lord Shang.

The blogger wrote:

Social justice is meaningless BS. What has to be rationally discussed is the redistribution of income. It is an economic necessity which has nothing to do with social justice and whatever ideology, left or right.

Here is a recipe of how the government should regulate the economy: “The rich must be punished and become poor, whereas the poor must be encouraged to become rich”. This is a recipe for the economic dynamics which would maximise the GDP. It was written 2400 years ago by Shang Yang, the designer of the Qin dynasty.”

Now, I’m skeptical that such truly maximises GDP, but we have here a traditional teaching that is likely tried and true, works for a reason we might not understand. He believes it improves GDP; I believe it creates a stronger society. Note: This is not socialism.

I think the path forward is to forget the Enlightenment ever happened. Forget Marx. Forget Smith. Return to real political science.

Alt Right and Populism/Democracy

Alt Right is amorphous, difficult to pinpoint. One clear characteristic, however, is elitism. (I’m not declaring this site Alt Right, though I do believe in elite theory.)

Americans have an irrational mythology built on democracy and populism, that the people actually wield significant power, are, or at least can be, the ones in charge.

This is wholly contrary to elite theory, which states that elites are always behind society.

The Trump movement, though it is claimed by Hillary to be both an Alt Right conspiracy and a Russian conspiracy, is actually extremely populist. We have a revolt of the people, by the people, for the people, with Trump supporting pretty much whatever is both popular and in our interests. (Trump also seems to generally agree with “the people” and to be out-of-step with Washington politicians.)

If this movement fails, I think we’ll have to conclude that populism simply cannot, and never can, work. Those with money, those with power, always win, can only be slowed or pushed. So, then the only means of winning is to become wealthy/powerful oneself, rather than bothering with populist movements. That is, assuming electoral victory is desired. (Someone will add how an elite could direct a populist movement, but that is a powerful elite doing the directing.)

Continuing on American populist mythology:

Similarly, American conservatives tend to cherish “organic” culture, that arises on its own, from “the people”. I say this sadly, but I expect we only have “organic” culture when the individual or elite few that produced it has been forgotten.

Another point: Americans Southerners believe that schooling should be done privately (populist and individual), without government involvement. Northerners, it is said, tend to believe in central, government directed education. And we’ve generally seen how Northern culture has won this battle. This could be due simply to confusion about our Southern traditions, since originally we had the plantation aristocracy and the closer ties to Europe, both we seem to have lost. Either way, it appears the Southern rejection of an elite, post-planter society, has not thrived. We’re similarly vulnerable to mass culture, each of us individually struggling (usually failing) to filter the mass culture for the next generation.

I don’t mean to equate “elite” solely with wealth, but if Trump loses, I think it’s safe to declare populism a failure and something that has never and can never work.

When Libertarians Attack!

The enemy of liberty has been found. Now it’s only a matter of exposing the monster for what it is, and it shall die from humiliation.

That monster is — conservatism.

It seems conservatism is an ideology, like communism or Nazism, that demands a powerful, centralized government, a police state, regulation over every aspect of an individual’s life, and a militaristic foreign policy.

Or so says libertarian author and blogger Tom Mullen. His book Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? claims to expose conservatism as the ugly and vicious love-child of those ancient apologists for despots, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke.

Wait, what? Edmund Burke?

It takes only a cursory look at Mullen’s assertions to see just how sloppy and poorly researched they are. In doing so, I will let conservatives define conservatives, rather than libertarians. Seems only fair.

First, let’s consider how ludicrous it is to claim conservatism was co-founded by Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke. In fact, Hobbes belonged to a camp of political science that was directly opposed to Burke’s. Hobbes was a rationalist philosopher. Rationalists, as Michael Spicer explains in The Founders, The Constitution, and Public Administration: A Conflict in World Views, view human reason as sovereign. Reason, say the rationalists, is the ultimate authority on how humans should conduct themselves and organize society. Rationalists believe man can perfect himself and create utopia on earth. Because reason is the same everywhere, its principles apply to all peoples. Spicer observes that “rationalists distrust ideas derived from customs and traditions,” and therefore customs and traditions “are seen as impediments to obtaining true knowledge and must be swept aside.”

That’s why rationalist philosophers look to violence, whether by revolution or state-sanctioned force, to sweep out those musty old traditions that impede their programs.

Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was an anti-rationalist. As Spicer explains in his book, anti-rationalists do not believe human nature can be perfected. Instead, anti-rationalists “see the world, particularly the world of human affairs, as simply too complex and hence too unpredictable for any one mind, however wise, to comprehend and control.” For that reason, anti-rationalist philosophers look to established customs, traditions, and institutions as the most reliable guides to human conduct.

I cannot improve on this summary of Burke’s thought from the Edmund Burke Institute:

Burke is commonly regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his speeches and writings, he articulated the concept of an organic society: a social order that is sacred, natural, historical and traditional. He believed that social change was best achieved when eschewing abstract thought divorced from experience; instead, he favored renewal of the polity in harmony with a regard for individual liberty, respect for the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions and a concern for the greater good of the community. His political theory can best be summarized by his most famous phrase: “Society is a contract between the past, the present and those yet unborn.”

Traditional, organic society, then, is the foundation of order. Russell Kirk argued that traditional society is the only — the ONLY — source of our rules for mutual interaction — in other words, our rights:

Traditions are not abstractions; they are particular beliefs and customs closely related to private life and faith. The American Republic has its traditions, and so has the Cambodian Kingdom; but traditions are not created by political authority, and ought not to be debased into party slogans.

Only for the past century and a half has the word “tradition” been employed to signify “ancient customs” or “established habits of life in society.” Edmund Burke, for instance, writing in the last years of the eighteenth century, used the word “prescription” to convey these meanings, rather than the word “tradition.”

When we speak of tradition in America, then, generally we mean prescriptive social habits, prejudices, customs, and political usages which most people accept with little question, as an intellectual legacy from their ancestors.

The stable of rationalist philosophers includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Irving Kristol. Rationalists believe in the sovereign individual, whose chief concern is economic, and from that assumption, they derive their advocacy of the unitary, consolidated state; open borders; economic globalization; and the eradication of all traditional restraints on individual choice.

Among the notable anti-rationalists are David Hume, Adam Smith, and Joseph de Maistre. Anti-rationalists believe in the social nature of man, whose chief concern is the preservation and well-being of one’s culture, and from that foundation, they argue for small, culturally based political units; mediating institutions, such as families, churches, and voluntary associations to shelter and nurture the isolated individual; border security to insure demographic continuity; economic nationalism to protect jobs; and respect for traditional morality, which strengthens families and communities.

Mullen’s sloppiness is most apparent — and grating — in his conflation of neoconservatives and conservatives. Neoconservatives, despite their misleading name, are rationalists who view America as a “creedal nation” rather than a nation founded on Western traditions. Neocons base their ideology on Trotsky’s strategy of the “permanent revolution,” which called for supporting socialism in other countries to protect socialism in the USSR. So when Neocon handpuppet George W. Bush launched his US-led “global democratic revolution” beginning with Iraq, he argued that exporting democracy would help protect democracy in the US. When real conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, and Sam Francis aired their objections to Bush’s crusade, National Review’s David Frum denounced them as “unpatriotic conservatives.” Nevertheless, Mullen equates “militarism” as a defining conservative value.

There’s also an amusing aspect of Mullen’s intellectual confusion. On the basis of a few quotes, Mullen claims Edmund Burke fundamentally agreed with Thomas Hobbes, despite Burke’s radically different politics. While Burke believed in an organic society, Hobbes argued that man is not a social animal. Hobbes even went so far as to claim that society could not exist without a powerful government. The foundation of conservatism is that culture precedes government. Despite this breathtaking contradiction, Mullen frequently (obsessively?) uses Hobbes to discredit conservatism. Yet, Mullen applauds John Locke as one of the good guys, despite Locke’s frequent citation of Hobbes and partial agreement with him.

Why is this important? If we are to defend liberty, we have to understand where it came from, how it can be preserved, and what threatens it. Today we are faced with an out-of-control and self-serving central government that is busily importing a compliant Third-World population. Libertarians such as Mullen claim to defend liberty, but vocally support open borders and economic globalism, the same double-edged sword the ruling elite wields against us, its subjects. Without a Western majority, we cannot hope to preserve Western standards of behavior and governance.

George Will, a Phony Conservative, Attempts to Gatekeep Conservatism

George will has his panties in a wad over Donald Trump and attempts to protect the integrity of conservatism as he sees it in this rant. Who does George Will think he is fooling acting as the defender of conservatism? Sam Francis had this pretender’s number 30 years ago. (Sorry for the odd spacing, but the original sources was in columns so that’s how it pasted.)

Although Will is sometimes called a
“neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives
typically derive more or
less conservative policy positions from essentially
liberal premises. Will in fact does
the opposite: he derives from more or less
unexceptionable premises of classical
conservatism policy positions that are
often congruent with the current liberal
agenda. It is because he accepts, and
wants to be accepted by, the “achievements”
of modem liberalism that he ignores
or sneers at the serious conservative
thinkers and leaders of our time who
have sought to break liberal idols and that
he voices no criticism of the powers that
support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising
that his commentary is welcomed
in and rewarded by liberal power centers.
They have little to fear from him and his
ideas and much to gain if his version of
“conservatism” should gain currency. He
enjoys every prospect of a bright future in
their company. ~ Sam Francis, Modern Age, Spring 1986

David Stockman: Immigration Laws Fill US Prisons

In a recent “Chart of the Day“, David Stockman highlights how US prisons would be “emptied” if not for drug and immigration laws. Immigration is not the second highest percentage in his chart, but it’s highlighted to imply that immigration laws are unnecessary.

This is typical of libertarians, typical of financial types, and typical of “socialists” like George Soros.

Is libertarianism truly the “opposite” of socialism? No.

Mike Church on Foreign Policy

This is from Mike Church’s Facebook page, although he doesn’t go by that name on Facebook:

I feel compelled to respond to a comment I hear more and more often from listeners to the Mike Church show on SiriusXM Patriot Channel. It goes like this:

LISTENER OBJECTION: Mike, I love you 95% of the time, your historical knowledge and insight on the Founders and the Constitution is awesome BUT your history and OPINION on foreign policy, war and Christianity is warped and unbelievably ignorant.
Signed,
“Conservative Listener”

I RESPOND: Your latter complaint defeats your former compliment. I use the same hagiographic method to study the Constitution’s history as I do Christianity’s and war. I suggest you: stop listening COMPLETELY (If I’m wrong using the same method for the latter I must be wrong in the former). Recall your like of this page and never visit it again and “unfriend” me here.
I wish you well in your pursuit of sophistry and perpetual war and will continue praying for you.

Pax Domini tecum.
Me

He is absolutely right that non-interventionism flows directly from Constitutionalism, a point that needs to be made incessantly. But I don’t think this is the right approach. “Conservative” interventionists need to be engaged and challenged. Otherwise, how does he expect to make any headway?

Andrew Bacevich on Foolish Intellectuals

This is a great article.

Policy intellectuals—eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office—are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality. A benign appearance—well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch—belies a malign impact. They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.

Ouch! Read the whole thing here.

The Southern Project: Restoring the Old or Ushering in the New

I recently published this at the Southern Heritage News and Views website. Since it is covering an intra-Southern conservative debate, so to speak, I wanted to publish it at a neutral site first, before I published it here, which I thought some of the people involved might think is hostile territory. It turns out that the majority of the debate took place at Occidental Dissent, the website of one of the people I was criticizing. Out of courtesy to the SHNV blog, I allowed the article to percolate there for a while, but now I think it is time to post it here (with very minor changes) and get some reaction from our audience. The article is long, but I believe it is an important issue. Let me know what you think. The article starts below:

For those unaware of what the title is referring to, 1.5 to 2 years ago the League of the South underwent a change in direction. For reasons many and varied, some of us objected to this new direction. There is more to this situation than I can cover in a brief article, so I will include a link here to a discussion I have been having recently with two of the leaders of the new direction caucus, Michael Cushman and Hunter Wallace. Reading our back and forth will give you the gist of what part of the debate is all about.

It was this discussion that prompted me to write this article because I think a lot of the debate has taken place between a somewhat pointy headed set of antagonists, who know what they are debating, but it may not be readily apparent to the casual observer what is at issue. So I present this overview.

Historically speaking, folks who self-identify as specifically Southern conservatives or pro-South activists generally believe that the traditional Southern understanding of the nature of the Union is the correct understanding, that Lincoln’s and the Unionists’ understanding was incorrect, and that forcefully suppressing the secession of the Southern states was inconsistent with the nature of the Union as intended and unjustified. These identifiably Southern voices have not always called anew for independence for the South, but they overwhelmingly are people who believe the original polity of the US was subverted and altered by Lincoln and the War and those who followed and want to see the old order restored to a greater or lesser degree.

As an aside, there has been an element of this pro-South contingent that doesn’t exactly fit this description. They believe that contrary to the traditional Southern understanding, the Constitution really was a radically centralizing document as its Unionist defenders claim, but this element believes the Constitution was essentially a trick, a bait and switch, so to speak, and that the South got snookered. This group tends to venerate the Articles of Confederation and are big fans of Patrick Henry. They, like Henry, “smell a rat” with regard to the Constitutional Convention which they maintain acted well beyond its authority to modify the Articles and instead accomplished what amounted to a coup. Important for this discussion, however, they look to the Articles, which were substantially more decentralized than the Southern understanding of the Constitution, as the political model they want to restore.

My own belief is an amalgam of these two. I believe we should have stuck with the Articles. Hindsight illustrates this abundantly. I believe the Constitutional Convention did act beyond its authority, but since we did go through the process of ratifying its product at State Ratifying Conventions, I think it is difficult and not particularly useful rhetorically to maintain that the Constitution is completely illegitimate. But I do not concede that it actually was the radically centralizing document as those in the above group maintain, and even if I was, I don’t think it would be useful to admit it. Why make my opponent’s argument for him? The fact, however, remains that actually following the Constitution, even the most radically centrist vision of it propounded by people like Gouverneur Morris, would be much preferable to the lawless monstrosity we have today. Once we are actually following the Constitution, then we can start discussing the virtues of returning to the Articles.

This desire to restore a subverted and fallen polity, whether the traditional Southern understanding of the Constitution or the Articles, does not characterize the brain trusts of the new guard, however, although this fact is not made entirely clear by them in my opinion. The new guard proclaims that it is future oriented and while it honors our ancestors it does not look to the past but towards securing a future. The League website puts it like this:

The League of the South is not a “neo-Confederate” or “Southern heritage” organization, although we certainly do honor our ancestors and our largely Christian historic inheritance as Southerners. The League is a present- and future-oriented Southern Nationalist organization that seeks the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people.

There is more to this sentiment than meets the eye. The “Southern heritage” issue is largely a straw man. Southern heritage organizations place plaques, maintain monuments, put flowers on Confederate graves, participate in reenactments, etc. This has never been the primary purpose of the League as anyone who is at all familiar with it knows. What is being done here, I suspect sometimes deliberately and sometimes not, is conflating the historical argument I describe above, which is clearly politically oriented, with heritage preservation activities which generally aren’t. If the League is declaring itself to be an activist organization, which I believe it is, making historical arguments about the true nature of the Constitution and the Union is not at all inconsistent with this and does not transform it into a heritage organization. Some linguistic sleight of hand appears to be at work here.

In addition, the leaders of the new guard are obviously influenced by the various European Identitarian movements. As with the Identitarians, there is a certain aesthetic sensibility at play here. The new guard does not want to be associated with or confused with the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) flyin’, truck drivin,’ PBR drinkin’ redneck set. This is evidenced by their adoption of a “new” (i.e. made up) flag, the banning of the CBF and the institution of a dress code at certain League sponsored protests. (The League battle over the Battle Flag deserves its own article.) This aesthetic sensibility has been a frequent part of the internet and Facebook flame wars that have gone on between the sides. So much so, that at some points I have wanted to scream “What the heck do y’all have against PBR!” It strikes me that the main problem with PBR is that by drinking it you might be mistaken for a hipster. Heaven forbid anyone be mistaken for a redneck. How would anyone ever live down that shame?

There is an intellectual sensibility at play here as well that coincides with the aesthetic sensibility and is characteristic of the European New Right. In one of our many exchanges, I once goaded Michael Cushman about how many times he had watched Alex Kurtagic’s “Masters of the Universe” speech on YouTube. Kurtagic is a European New Right figure, and his speech was quite the sensation in certain corners of the alternative right when he delivered it in 2011. Kurtagic makes some important points including the necessity to appeal to emotions and not just intellect, but, a main thrust of his speech is that New Rightists should askew conservatism, which is inherently negative and pessimistic and not attractive to people, and offer people a positive and future oriented vision. I highly recommend that anyone interested in “getting” what the new guard is about should watch this video because much of it is in there.

All that said, the main reason the new guard is “future oriented” and does not want to look backwards is because they don’t, unlike the typical pro-South activist described above, support restoring our lost system of government. They don’t much care for our lost system of government. What system they actually do support is less clear, and I suspect varies some between them. This is the subject of the debate I linked to in the first paragraph. Suffice it to say that they are, at a minimum, anti-republican (small r).

They believe that the United States, as actually founded, was a thoroughly liberal Enlightenment project that needs to be rejected. Note that they are not just claiming that the Union between North and South was unwise. In hindsight I think that is true, but I also know that the people at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight, and that the South in general felt like it emerged from the Convention with a pretty good deal.

Like the left and many elements of the pseudo-right, they claim that the US is a proposition nation founded on an idea rather than a blood and soil European style nation. Note, they are not arguing that the US has become, for all intents and purposes, a proposition nation. They are arguing that it fundamentally is a proposition nation.

The future oriented language certainly tweaked my conservative sensibilities, but it was the “US is a proposition nation” nonsense that really launched me into open opposition to the new guard. Fairly early in my conservative activist journey I picked a side when I supported Pat Buchanan’s 1992 primary challenge of George H. W. Bush. Ever since then I have identified with the paleoconservative sphere and opposed the neoconservatives and mainstream conservatives. The proposition nation issue has from the beginning been one of the main differences that separates us paleo and paleoish conservatives from the neo and mainstream conservatives, and it has been the subject of many heated debates I have engaged in. To hear people who are ostensibly on my side make the same argument that my opponents have been making for years really grates. The new guard often seems like they are trying to out Jaffa the Jaffaites.

The problem for the new guard is that their argument is no more historically accurate when they make it than it is when Dinesh D’Souza makes it in a neocon propaganda film. (Great company you’re keeping there boys.) To paraphrase Samuel Francis, who I presume the new guard respects, the idea that the US is a proposition nation would have been news to the vast majority of Americans in 1950. The argument that the US is a proposition nation is a relatively novel idea and came to prominence in certain (phony) conservative circles because it was a convenient way to paper over very politically incorrect facts. Yes the US was imperfect at its founding they concede – limiting the franchise to male property owners, limiting citizenship to whites only, slavery, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, etc. – but it “perfected” itself over time, especially with Lincoln’s little invasion, to become the pristine proposition nation that it is today without a trace of that nasty old blood and soil, or so the story goes. They also obsess over a couple of lines in the Declaration of Independence that don’t mean what they say they mean anyway, and make the Constitution an afterthought in service of the Declaration. Again, why the new guard wants to associate itself with such poppycock that is obviously contrived in the service of a greater ideology is baffling.

Whether the new guard actually believes their own proposition nation rhetoric is a question I waffle over. But what they are up to with this strategy is clear. They believe that the average Southerner, even or especially conservative Southerners, identifies too closely with the US and our form of government, and they want to shift that allegiance away from the US and toward the South. So their strategy is to tear away at that allegiance by essentially burning down the rhetorical house and demonizing the US.

I actually agree that the average Southerner identifies too closely with the US, and this does not serve him well, especially when he is sending his sons off to fight in some stupid and unnecessary war Uncle Sam has gotten us into. This emotional allegiance also allows him to fool himself into believing that the current regime is not actually implacably hostile to his interests, because campaign commercials and FOX NEWS tell him otherwise. This applies to Southerners and the whole Red coalition in the rest of Flyover Country as well. But the way to deal with this problem is not to tell historical lies that actually prop up the opposition’s narrative.

Since the new guard is not about restoring our lost political heritage, I believe it is fundamentally dishonest for them to identify themselves as Southern Nationalists because Southern in the minds of most implies a certain political orientation. (Southern Nationalist is the name they chose for themselves, but I have never liked it. Southern Devolutionist or the Southern Independence Movement, for example, would better reflect the nature of the movement as most people imagine it.) They are basically gravy training off the good feelings many Southerners have for The Lost Cause for the purpose of ushering in a new political order that most Southerners would likely find highly objectionable. They should instead, in the interest of full disclosure, call themselves the Southeastern United States Independence Monarchist Movement or whatever.

Rational adults can have a reasonable conversation about whether republicanism in general or Southern style republicanism in particular is the best or most stable form of government. But if something other than the political form that is historically identified with the South is what they seek, and it is, they should be honest and up front about that, and it would really be best for them to reach a consensus on what form it is they hope to establish rather than just saying they will cross that bridge when they get there. Most people kinda want to know what they are signing up for.

So, to answer the question I asked in the title, I simply reject entirely the idea that the Southern Independence project is a future oriented one. Our project is an entirely conservative/reactionary one, but one we obviously believe will bring about a much better future. Now some people want to play word games and say conservatives want to conserve the status quo, and we should have no interest in maintaining the status quo, but this is semantic game playing. People who identify with Southern independence or even Constitutionalism are not moderate RINO Republicans seeking to preserve the status quo, and they know it. But if conservative is confusing, I’ll call the impulse restorationist.

A useful analogy I have used before is the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement in Christianity. Whatever one may think of that movement on theological grounds, it would be silly not to recognize it as a fundamentally past oriented attempt to restore the Church, that they felt had been compromised, to the order portrayed in the New Testament as they understand it. Of course, this would in their minds have highly desirable future results, but it’s not a future oriented project. This distinction is important because it is an essential part of how we conceive of ourselves and our thing. Marxism, for example, was always future oriented because it was about something that had not yet been and they were attempting to bring about. On the contrary, pining away to restore the Austro-Hungarian Empire is past oriented. Likewise, our project is past oriented.

I have on a couple of occasions accused new direction ringleader Michael Cushman of trying to pound his square peg of anti-republicanism into the round hole that is the American and Southern political milieu. Outside his core group that he has convinced to get on board, I sense that he is increasingly frustrated with the resistance he is meeting. He can’t say I didn’t warn him.

In closing, I would like to make clear that I have always liked League President Dr. Michael Hill. He has always been kind to me. One of my first internet publications was an essay on Lincoln that I wrote for EtherZone.com. He sent me an unsolicited email complimenting me on the article. I thought I had hit the big time. But his role in this new direction has been genuinely puzzling to me and others. Dr. Hill has generally been viewed as on board with the new direction. He supported the use of the new Black Cross flag, for example, although there has been a recent move to reintegrate the CBF. One can’t help but wonder if this is in response to negative fallout from its removal. He also repeats the “future-oriented” line. In fact, the words from the website I excerpted are his.

I can only speculate what is going on here. Perhaps years of talk with few results made the influx of a mostly young activist contingent hard to resist. I do not, however, believe that Dr. Hill believes that the US as intended was a proposition nation, because I have heard him say otherwise. I also believe he subscribes to one of the two Southern theories I describe in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, perhaps trending toward the latter in recent years based on some things I have heard and read. I do not believe that he accepts that the US is a fundamentally Enlightenment liberal project, because I have heard him argue otherwise. Nor do I believe that he has OD’ed on Alex Kurtagic videos. Reasonable men can disagree, and no offense toward Dr. Hill or Michael Cushman or Hunter Wallace for that matter is intended with this essay. These are important issues that need to be discussed openly and calmly and not met with cries of “Get on board or get out of the way.” Hopefully this article can be part of that dialogue.

Red Phillips is a paleoconservative writer from Georgia who blogs at www.conservativetimes.org. He has an article archive atwww.etherzone.com. He can be reached atredphillipsmd@yahoo.com.