?

Log in

The Old Right's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in The Old Right's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Tuesday, June 5th, 2007
11:19 pm
[pandable]
Hate to spam, guys, but I really have no other way of attracting attention to this:

It came to my mind earlier than there is no outlet on livejournal for discussing Traditionalist or Perennialist metaphysics in the vein of Guenon, Schuon, Evola, or Huxley. I decided to correct this and form a discussion group for Traditionalists and those interested in Traditionalism. I hope that some of you will be interested.

perennialism
Monday, September 25th, 2006
11:07 am
[ex_bela]
Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006
10:24 pm
[ex_bela]
Tuesday, July 25th, 2006
1:00 am
[ex_bela]
No, It's Not Anti-Semitic
Given the incredible divergence of opinions among the G8 vis-a-vis Israel's most recent incursion into southern Lebanon, I believe the article below, along with the paper it refers to, are relevant to any discussion of America's predictable foreign policy in the Middle East.
"My own reading of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper found it unremarkable, a bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the Arab oil lobby), but nothing that even a casual newspaper reader does not know. Its basic point -- that Israel's American supporters have immense influence over U.S. foreign policy -- is inarguable. After all, President Bush has just recently given Israel NATO-like status without so much as a murmur from Congress. "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," Bush said. This was the second or third time he's made this pledge, crossing a line that previous administrations would not -- in effect, promulgating a treaty seemingly on the spot. No other country gets this sort of treatment."
(excerpted from "No, It's Not Anti-Semitic" by Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, Tuesday April 25 2006, Page A23

An abridged version of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is available via the London Review of Books' website.
An abstract and link to the entire paper may be found here.
Monday, July 24th, 2006
2:57 am
[daoistraver]
George Will hasn't fallen entirely out of the fold, it seems.

The Money Quote:
"Early on in the Iraq occupation, Rice argued that democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable political culture, they also can help create such a culture. Perhaps.

But elections have transformed Hamas into the government of the Palestinian territories, and elections have turned Hezbollah into a significant faction in Lebanon's parliament, from which it operates as a state within the state. And as a possible harbinger of future horrors, last year's elections gave the Muslim Brotherhood 19 percent of the seats in Egypt's parliament."

Current Mood: cynical
Tuesday, July 11th, 2006
3:16 pm
[daoistraver]
opportunity cost.
“For me the point of comparison is not USA 2006 vs. USA 1776, but USA 2006 vs. the USA 2006 we would have had if the USA had stuck consistently to those principles."

- Roderick Long
Tuesday, February 28th, 2006
6:26 pm
[mrheartbreak]
I'm new to the group. My name is John Daniel, and I've been described as a paleocon by most political test and several different people. To be honest I'm kind of confused about the term because:

There seem to be a WIDE range of beliefs considered paleoconservative. Everyone from Monarchist to Right-Wing Libertarians are called paleoconservatives. I'll tell you my beliefs you maybe can tell me if I fit in:

I'm an Orthodox Christian.
I firmly reject Modernism and especially Marxism.
I would say that I'm a monarchist or a Tsarist, even though I fear the Old World Order will never be restored.
I reject the seperation of Church and State.
I tend to agree with Pius IX's syllabus of errors even though I'm not Roman Catholic.
I'm a Nationalist.
I believe in the conspiracy for a New World Order.
I'm anti-zionist.


Am I a Paleocon?
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005
11:28 am
[ex_bela]
How's This for Annoying?
A brief lesson in Canadian politics.
Our Parliamentary system works like this:
1. Our House of Commons has 308 seats. Seats are distributed in a manner very similar to the U.S. House of Representatives. (ie, It's supposed to be based on population, but rural areas tend to be over-represented while urban areas are under-represented.)
2. Four parties are currently represented, including the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois. The NDP is the social-democratic party. The BQ is a Quebec separatist party.
3. Our 105-member Senate is appointed by the party in power. Senators serve until their death, retirement, or 75th birthday. They have legislative powers, but in practice operate as little more than a rubber-stamp for the party in power.
4. The Liberal Party has been the governing party in Canada for all but nine years of my life. (For the record, I was born in 1966.) They have governed continuously since 1993.
5. We're having Parliamentary elections on January 23. If polls are anything to go by, the next Parliament will look very much like the current Parliament, namely, a liberal minority or perhaps a slim majority. This depresses me, but does not surprise me.
6. I'm not especially thrilled with any political party, but I do belong to the Conservative Party. Thus I'll probably vote for them.
7. The candidate in my constituency is named Rondo Thomas. Yes, that's right....Rondo.


Now the question....


If I write the words "The Amazing" before his name on the ballot, then mark an 'X' in the appropriate circle, is my ballot thus spoiled?

Friday, November 11th, 2005
3:56 pm
[ex_bela]
Political Re-Alignment With a Federal Election Looming
I recently decided to re-engage in Canadian politics. With that in mind, and at the suggestion of a friend of mine who happens to be a Member of Parliament, I've joined the Conservative Party of Canada.
Let me begin by saying that I have serious problems with large parts of the Party's program. I am not an economic determinist. I support free trade with the United States, but not with Mexico or the rest of Latin America. I believe the Party has been wishy-washy on social policy for fear of alienating people who wouldn't vote Conservative in a million years. That said, there is a strong social-conservative group within the Party, as indeed there is within the governing Liberal Party. However, there is no paleoconservative grouping within the Party. Indeed, such views are frowned upon by the Party elite. But where else is one to go? To the Christian Heritage Party? Well....perhaps. But not just yet. Consider this a year-long probation for the Tories, at the end of which I'll decide whether to stay or go.
Although I don't support many of the Party's policies, I've joined because among 'electable' parties they come closest to my own personal views. There's a bit of crass opportunism in this that really bothers me. But this is politics, after all. Besides, my own political history tends to point in this direction. Apart from my paid work in public policy/citizens' action groups, specifically The National Citizens' Coalition (1985-1987) and The Fraser Institute (member, 1982-1991; employee, 1991-1995), I've had the following explicit political associations in my life:

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
      - Member 1979-1982
      - Vice-President, Oriole P.C. Youth Association 1980-1982
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
      - Member 1980-1984
Ontario Libertarian Party
      - Member 1982-1990
      - Candidate, Oriole Constituency 1985
      - Candidate, Wentworth North Constituency (by-election) 1985
      - Candidate, Oriole Constituency 1987
      - Member-at-Large, Executive Committee 1988-1990
Libertarian Party of Canada
      - Member 1984-1988
      - Candidate, Willowdale Riding 1984
Reform Party of Canada
      - Member 1991-1994
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance
      - Member 1999-2001

A couple of things are omitted.
From 1983-1986 I was a de jure member of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, even though I didn't live in the province at the time. I was just a big fan of the then-Premier, Bill Bennett, and the way he stood up to the province's unions during the provincial general strike in 1983.
In 1998, I worked as the Canvass Chair in the re-election campaign of John Oostrom, the Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament for Willowdale. (He won the riding in 1988 when I ran as a Libertarian in the same area.) He didn't want me to run again because he anticipated a close race and he was worried that I would take votes away from him. So we reached a deal whereby I would work for him in exchange for a letter of recommendation to the Journalism School I wanted to attend. He lost his bid for re-election, but I got into Journalism School. Go figger.
In 1993, the Reform Party candidate in the riding of Surrey North (British Columbia) withdrew part-way through the campaign, and I was asked if I would stand in for her. I declined, since it would have meant taking an unpaid leave-of-absence from work and I simply could not afford that. As it turned out, Reform won that riding and if I'm not mistaken has held it ever since.
And there went my one big shot at scoring a juicy taxpayer-funded pension.
Dang.
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005
2:22 am
[worldxeater]
The War in Iraq is already over.
Today I was on a nationally syndicated radio talk show, the Dennis Prager show. He was talking about what it means to be winning a war, the two examples he was using were the War In Iraq and the War on Drugs, both of which he supports. When I came on I said that the problem is that when you're talking about a war on an abstraction (Terrorism, Poverty, Drugs, etc...) it's harder to define whether you're winning or not than when you're at war with another nation. At that point he apologized for having to cut me off, said he agreed with what I had just said, along with something else I wouldn't agree with, and went to commercial.

Here's what I would have said if I could have gone on. When a nation goes to war we are all expected to make sacrifices for the war effort (the draft, Japanese internment camps, decreased rights to privacy, "emergency powers", martial law, etc...). This is one of the reasons most people don't think of war as a good thing. It's something to be avoided until it's absolutely necessary. We just don't all agree on when that is. "Wars" on abstractions take the demands of a real war and make them for the sake of a fake one. Those who oppose the War on Drugs will claim we're losing it and produce convenient statistics and studies to back up their claim. The same goes for supporters. This goes on until "victory" is declared (and of course disputed) or, more likely, it just goes on until it isn't really being fought anymore. In, for example, WWII, we could tell if we had gained or lost territory. When the Allies had taken all of Germany the war was over. This brings me to how I see the War in Iraq.

We declared war on the government of Saddam Hussein, toppled it, and set up a new one. At that point the War in Iraq was over. We had defeated our enemy and replaced him. The issue at that point was how long we were going to stay to rebuild the country, train their military, and kill insurgents. We could pull out at any time and still claim victory. It's the same thing we dealt with in Korea, Japan, and Germany. We still have troops in all of those places.

I wouldn't say we are in a war with the insurgents. Is there a real war in Israel/Palestine? Not really. There are bombings and people are dying, but the situation isn't really changing that much. Hamas isn't going to topple Israel and Al Qaeda in Iraq won't topple the Iraqi government.

Peace protesters keep talking about the War in Iraq because our soldiers are in a foreign land fighting and they remember Vietnam. This doesn't feel like peace and they want the troops to come home. "War" on Terrorism hawks like it because it gives them the chance to talk about how we're winning and we need to keep fighting. In reality, it's over already, and we just need to decide when we want to get out.

cross posted
Friday, October 14th, 2005
5:23 pm
[budhaboy]
I'm curious...

What exactly does the crony driven appointment of miers to the court say about the seeming wedge that is growing between the neo-con fanatics and the far more reasonable paleo-cons?
Saturday, August 27th, 2005
12:12 am
[knight_monk]
VDH's latest article
'It is becoming nearly impossible to sort the extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left from that of the fringe paleo-Right. Both see the Iraqi war through the same lenses: the American effort is bound to fail and is a deep reflection of American pathology.

'An anguished Cindy Sheehan calls Bush “the world’s biggest terrorist.” And she goes on to blame Israel for the death of her son (“Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel”).

'Her antiwar venom could easily come right out of the mouth of a more calculating David Duke. Perhaps that’s why he lauded her anti-Semitism: “Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media.”

'This odd symbiosis began right after 9/11. Then the lunatic Left mused about the “pure chaos” of the falling “two huge buck teeth” twin towers, lamented that they were more full of Democrats than Republicans, and saw the strike as righteous payback from third-world victims.

'The mirror-imaging fundamentalists and censors in turn saw the attack as an angry God’s retribution either for an array of our mortal sins or America’s tilting toward Israel.'

I have seen a lot of this since 9/11. I especially notice more and more conspiracy theories about Israel (in which the country is involved in anything and everything, including, it seems, Bush's wardrobe).

The real pathology shows itself in the demonology concocted by both the far Left and far Right. They both merge in the renewed fantasy of an international Jewish conspiracy, one that controls the PNAC, one that also 'hypes' the holocaust.

This is funny to me because the Jews who were once hated because they had no nation, are now hated even more for having one. And this is even from Americans, whose ancestors we know never migrated to a land belonging to others.

Where does this self-hatred come from? I think it is a symptom of those who keenly feel their own sense of powerlessness, who believe they have no say in what their government does.

I believe part of the solution is laying off the conspiracy heroin.

Current Mood: sleepy
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005
11:19 am
[ericrobertwhite]
Hoover and the Bomb
By Marcus Epstein

[Herbert] Hoover had many flaws and was by no means a great president. However, like most people, he was much better man out of power, and became a vocal opponent of American entry into World War II. Although like many Old Right conservatives he occasionally fell for the folly of an "Asia First" foreign policy, he was a pretty reliable opponent to of the Cold War as well.

During World War II, President Hoover was a vociferous opponent of Roosevelt and Truman administration’s demand for the unconditional surrender of Japan. He met with many military and political leaders urging them to negotiate a peace with the Emperor. Describing a meeting with Douglas MacAuthur, he wrote in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Two days after the dropping of the bomb, Hoover wrote, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." He testified to Congress later that year that the act was "barbaric." ... Hoover believed that only by recognizing the errors of the past, could we prevent making them in the future. [Thomas] Sowell and [Victor Davis] Hanson instead decide to celebrate our mistakes, and unsurprisingly, they are both vociferous supporters of the war in Iraq.
Saturday, July 30th, 2005
10:59 am
[ex_bela]
A Saturday-Morning Rant
1. Marijuana "activist" Marc Emery has been arrested and is facing extradition to the United States, where he faces a possible prison sentence of ten years to life.
I'm appalled. The Canadian government can't get this guy, so they're going to ship him off to a place that will deal with him. Kind of like the way our government dealt with Ernst Zundel. Zundel was never convicted of any crime. In fact, he helped to re-write Canadian constitutional law, giving us slightly more freedom of speech than we had before.
How did Canada thank Zundel for this? We deported him to Germany, where his actions -- completely legal in Canada and the United States -- are subject to a lengthy prison term.
Nice.
My Proposed Solution: Either uphold Canada's drug laws or let the guy go. Under no circumstances should he be sent to the United States. Abrogate the scary treaty that allowed this to happen in the first place.
2. Denmark is getting pissy about a football field-sized chunk of rock they're claiming as their own.
Our government has shown more balls on this issue than I'd expected, saying they intend to maintain control of the island. This is part of a bigger issue having to do with the Northwest Passage which, although it wends its way between Canadian islands, is claimed by some countries to be "international waters".
This is horseshit, obvious to anyone who can read a map.

My Proposed Solution: Stay the course. Station a few troops there. Give them sea and air cover. Open fire on the first Danish vessel foolish enough to come near. Tell Denmark that they have only two options: sign away their claim completely or prepare for a rapid escalation that we will initiate.
A trade war with Denmark? Spare me. What are they going to do, cut off our supply of runny cheese? Pull Brigitte Nielsen's films off Canadian shelves?
Well, one can hope....
Monday, July 25th, 2005
8:16 am
[keith418]
Entropic Freefall
I wonder how many of us have seen Butler Shaffer's article on "The Decline and Fall of Conservatism"? It's in today's Lew Rockwell page. Those who have read Heidegger will see Schaffer touching on many of that philosopher's later themes - especially the decline of "meditative thinking".

Schaffer references Karl Hess. For those who haven't read Hess, one of his best pieces can be found here.
Friday, July 22nd, 2005
10:16 pm
[worldxeater]
Washington - The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London.

continued...Collapse )
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005
10:39 pm
[ericrobertwhite]
Robert Pape, Author, "Dying to Win"
By C-SPAN

NOTE: The above link opens directly into a RealPlayer videoclip.

Robert Pape, Author, Dying to Win: The Secret Logic of Suicide Terrorism and The Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, Director, on his research into what motivates suicide terrorists and his views on winning the War on Terrorism. 7/17/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 59 min.

COMMENTARY: An interesting dicussion with Dr. Pape about his latest work. Worth checking out if you have a free hour.
Monday, July 18th, 2005
9:32 pm
[ericrobertwhite]
3:15 am
[ex_bela]
Today's political blog entry. I'm a North Korean spy.
Please keep this under your hats.
Sunday, July 17th, 2005
4:03 pm
[ex_bela]
Part III (the conclusion, mercifully!) was posted this afternoon.
Apologies for the delay. I slept in.
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com