After one year of FlynnFiles, this much I know: bloggin' ain't easy--which is why I'm turning my site over to you, the reader, for just one day as the anniversary celebration continues. It's open-thread Friday. Get creative. Say it loud and say it proud in the comments section below. "It" is anything you want it to be.

*England will play the US in Chicago on May 28th for a friendly soccer match. I would love to be at Soldier Field Stadium with a half US, half Union Jack flag - and cheer like bananas when either team scored.

*Tomorrow im 27 -crap.

*I hope Finbar makes it for California's Starflyer 59 playing this sunday in Cambridge.

*Speaking of England, the Coat of Arms in Portsmouth, NH has THE ONLY Snooker table I am told on the east coast.

*AmConMag has a new cover story about Animal Cruelty on Farms - I am sympathetic with it.

*Im going to San Diego on wednesday so there.

*We FF readers should make a squad titled "FF SQUAD" on Medal of Honor so we can organize squad battles against others on the world wide web. Or.....ahh....maybe you have like work, family, friends and other such nonesense to attend to.

When the price of oil spiked to 57 dollars a barrel, thats when the price of gas went up to 2.07 a gallon in my area. I was reading MSNBC and FOX.com this morning and it stated oil has spiked to 51 dollars a barrel, if its less than why has the price of gas per gallon stayed the same? Living in FL my whole life they made it against the law not to raise the price of ice and bottled water after a hurricane...they called that "price gouging". Hmmm....sounds like they are doing that with oil, now why isnt that against the law? I know its because you cant fight big business and gouging for ice and water in FL supports the indivisual, govt doesnt see a dime of it.

Dan,

I noticed in the paper yesterday that Michael Jackson is spending 30 million more per month than he brings in. He is 270 million in the red and still people extend him credit! I want HIS banker.

Perhaps MJ needs to invest a bit better. He needs to understand that it is wisest to let an...

ready?

ASSet 'mature' before using it.

Be well,

Sponge

Do we have the teams up here in Beantown or what?? They may not be the most consistent, but they are certainly the most exciting to watch win or lose.

Even the Baby B’s are kicking butt.

It’s a paaahty!

The Left is trying to frame Vietnam Vets being spat on when they got home as just one big urban legend.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/

"Living in FL my whole life they made it against the law not to raise the price of ice and bottled water after a hurricane...they called that "price gouging". Hmmm....sounds like they are doing that with oil, now why isnt that against the law?"

Price controls and other methods governments use to artificially alter things like this are terrible and ineffective. In other words, it's socialist. When Reagan was elected, the first action he took was to end price controls on gas, and the problems we had in the 1970s ended.

Why can't more politicians be like him?

I have a question.

Aside from the Neo/Paleo debate, there are obviously two major types of conservatives. One is the Milton Friedman/Thomas Sowell type and the other is of the Samuel Francis/Pat Buchanan mold. The former seeks not to conserve the status quo, while the latter seems to be disgustingly desperate to do so. The mantra of the Old Right conservatives is, if I'm not mistaken, that "we have a preference for things of the past." But as others have asked (without answer) on some comment section a while back, what about slavery, segregation, a cultural ban on interracial dating, and other things that decent individuals would flatly condemn? The point is that, unless you are a fringe loon, you shouldn't automatically associate "the past" with wonder and glee.

Two game 7's on Saturday. The Celts and Mavs try to advance to the second round. And if they do, they'll have the world-champion Pistons and the best-record-in-the-NBA Suns waiting to welcome them.

The second round starts on Sunday. Assuming that Washington wins tonight at home, and Boston and Dallas win tomorrow at home, here are my predictions:

Western Conference
Suns over Mavs in 6
Sonics over Spurs in 6

Eastern Conference
Pistons over Celts in 4
Heat over Wizards in 5

For anyone who is interested in the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design (including those between naturalism and theism, science and metaphysics, etc.), and loves to argue, www.pandasthumb.org is the site for you. Check it out.

Well, I guess I'll be the first to comment on the British election. I'm definitely no Blair fan, so I'm not thrilled with this election. To be sure, there were far worse options, but luckily none of them had a chance.

On a positive note however, the swing back to the old conservative Brits that we knew and loved is in motion again. While I agree with Maggie Thatcher that her party is in shambles and should have beaten Blair easily (she escaped to Venice for a vacation, rather than participate in this "dog" of a campaign), it is still encouraging to see the Tories gain in Commons, and to see the overall uptick in conservative voting.

I pray that the UK is on the road to returning to its senses.

Ben L: as far as I can tell you have neither an inclination of sentiments toward conservatism, nor an understanding of traditional conservatism at all.

To answer your question: The anlytic philosopher and blogger Keith Burgess-Jackson explains the conservative preference for tradition rather well, and he's no paleo (in fact he used to be really liberal): www.techcentralstation.com/032204C.html.

Since I linked to Keith Burgess-Jackson on conservatism, I thought his article on escaping ideology (www.techcentralstation.com/012904A.html), and his article on becoming a conservative (www.techcentralstation.com/010604A.html) might interest some people.

Needless to say I don't always agree with him, but he is supersmart and a non-pod-person.

Recently in my area we had an increase in the water bill. Not major front page news, but the thing that mostly concerns me is the use of FEES to generate revenue in places they were never used before. Example is that now I have to pay a FEE of almost $8.00 per quarter just to be a customer. Not like I have a choice as to which water pipe to hook to my home. I know, it is not alot, but couple that with all the new FEES the People's Rebpulik of Maryland (USA) is placing on us, it all adds up. I don't mind paying higher gas prices if thats the cost of the gas, but just consider if your favorite gas station put an addition FEE just for pumping gas or buying something at their convenience store. You could go elsewhere, but for local government services you don't have a choice. Time to shake this party up and possibly run for office. What if an unknown runs on a platform of CUT TAXES, CUT FEES?

"Progressives" - anyone know of any good articles that tackle this term?

I want to give props to Tony Blair and a shout out to the peeps of Great Britain. This is not something I thought I’d ever say as I’m Irish and my father still has a slight disdain for the British and I don’t much care for Tony Blair’s politics. I find him to be a Clinton like politician, minus the skirt-chasing. After the tragedy of 9/11 we heard our national anthem played proudly in the courtyard of Buckingham Palace and we watched as tearful Brits threw flowers and lit candles during this almost unthinkable praise towards the US. Tony Blair and the Brits were the first and most genuine of all people and countries around the world to indicate from the get-go they’d be on America’s side in this new, changing, dangerous world. There is solid reason behind this thinking on their behalf and I think it’s pretty simple. Tony Blair might be a lefty but he’s no dummy. He and the many of the people of England know what it’s like to be attacked, to be bombed and to nearly be taken over by attackers who wished to change their way of life. I imagine weeks of hiding underground while bombs are going off all around you in the middle of a city is not something one easily forgets. They also know that the United States saved them from being taken over and as much as they might seem to forget this from time to time, in their hearts they don’t forget their debt to the United States and yesterday’s election may indirectly point to this.

Blair and the Brits know that London is a high potential terrorist target. Blair knows the chance of an attack by terrorists is real and he also knows that if they were attacked that he and the British people would want (and more importantly need) the help of the United States in the aftermath and then the hunt. Blair know that you can’t except the United Nations to fight these terrorists, he knows the reality of a post 9/11 world and he did the right things by standing side by side with us no matter the risks and costs to himself politically or the risks his own country could have faced. He did so because he knew we were on the right side of God, mankind and history. I give Tony Blair credit for standing up against his party, the British press and many citizens who protested a looming war effort in Iraq. I am no fan the still ongoing war in Iraq, a lot of mistakes have been made along the way, and there have been times and points where I have called into questions the validity of going to war and continuing the battle at others. It’s easy to be against a war when things aren’t going well; it’s hard to want to stay a course that looks like it isn’t getting any better. Now that we have seen some real progress in terms of the Iraq government it is important to stay the course and see this through. I don’t so much believe in a shining Iraqi democracy like ours, I’m a realist, but I believe that the Middle-east region has been put on notice and we have as result, seen some positive changes take place. Middle-eastern foreign policy is complicated but having solid positions from the US and GB on our intentions there are better than Clinton like signals. I think the larger political implications around the world of the British elections are that both the US and GB reelected their wartime leaders. Both countries sent the message that we want the same leadership. Had John Kerry won and Tony Blair been defeated I think many would-be-terrorists might think to themselves their work and goals have frightened us and they have us on the retreat. The 2004 election here and yesterday’s election in GB sends a message to people who might be thinking about joining the insurgency in Iraq or elsewhere. Many people in the Middle-east have demented views of democracy as a result of their history and upbringing. But they now know (regardless of what they think of the US or GB) that our people have chosen to stay on this course. Some of them might begin to wonder why.

Terrorist have traveled to Iraq to fight our soldiers, so whether intended or not Iraq is now one battlefield where we do fight the war on terror. The message that both the US and GB are not puling out of that fight is important. Both elections have far reaching implications in many places around the world, some where light already shines and some where we can only hope it someday will.

Mike we all have our faults and blemishes, there was no need to begin your post acknowledging yours :)

Hmmm. I thought penguins were one of the "monogomous" animals people talk about occasionally. How did this STD outbreak happen? Maybe they're acting to much like people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/penguins_chlamydia

First off, man I love your web site. Not as much as I like the Iron Eagle movies but close. Second off, a joke: Whats a crying shame. Answer: a bus full of liberals going off a cliff with one empty seat. Third off: you should have more talk about guns. I love them. Your readers should too. Fourth off: Happy mothers day to all the flynnfiles ladies. I have a web page myself and if any of you lovely ladies want to send yours truly a picture of yourself in, say, a bathing suit or spread eagle on your bed that would be cool.Echo 5 out.

Ben,

Milton Friedman is a Libertarian and doesn't regard himself as a conservative. People regard Neocons as conservative only because they tend to support Republicans, but this support is tenuous and dependent on the Republican Party's willingness to bomb other nations indiscrimately. In 1999 Bill Kristol said he was ready to bolt the Republican Party because they didn't sufficiently support Clinton's war in Kosovo. Last year he said he'd rather John Kerry win the presidency -- the most liberal man in the Senate -- than Pat Buchanan. If a pro-abortion, big spending, multi cultural atheistic Democrat ever surpasses Republican bellicosity, Neocons will happily jump ship.

Conservatism isn't an ideology so conservatism can come in many forms. Defenders of monarchy, the South, the Constitution, the Catholic Church, states' right etc can all possess the Conservative Mind, so to speak.

Sort of an open thought on an open thread. I believe in 2006, there will be an election for governor in about half of the states. Can the issue of the far-left taking over academia become a viable issue for a conservative gubenotorial candidate?

I think it should be an issue, but outside of Ward Churchill, there's no poster child at state schools, at least yet, of this disease in academia.

Almost yearly tuition increases above the rate of inflation are another issue. Runaway professors' salaries too.

Ben,

Regarding slavery, I have read Buchanan's Death of the West - certainly his most controversial writing on issues of race and ethnicity - and I can recall no apologia for slavery. Similarly, I read the late Dr. Francis' column on a regular basis and can remember no such sentiment from him either.

Currently, I'm unaware of any on the Old Right (paleocons or paleolibertarians) who harbor a nostalgia for slavery. I am, however, very aware of those like Joe Sobran, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, and others who have denounced Lincoln's war against the South - a war that destroyed our original Constitutional order and laid the foundation for the centralized big-government mess we are in today.

I am curious though if you would be willing to excommunicate Lincoln from your league of "decent individuals" since he said explicitly in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 that he had "no intention" of bringing about "social and political equality of the white and black races" and that as far as he was concerned he preferred to see the "white race" have the superior position in America. Or how about when Lincoln came out for a Constitutional amendment in his First Inaugural Address that would have made slavery forever legal in the states where it existed?

With regard to segregation, please cite for me where Buchanan and/or Francis advocate government-mandated segregation. The late Dr. Francis takes no such position in the article you linked to.

The Old Right objection - an objection shared by many in the conservative movement in the 1960s including the National Review, Barry Goldwater, and others -to the "civil rights" movement was from the perspective of concerns about freedom and private property. Forty years later with affirmative action, race quotes, and government involvement in private affairs to bring about "diversity" as great as ever, the critics have been proven right. Indeed, affirmative action and racial preferences are the inevitable consequences of anti-discrimination laws.

The neocon attempt to recast MLK as a "conservative" and an opponent of racial preferences and affirmative action is absurd given the historical evidence for King actively promoted such policies.

While neocons pine away for King, the Old Right stands for the liberty and freedom to associate that was assailed by King and his followers.

Unlike neocons, the Old Right also recognizes the reality of race, ethnicity, and culture on the fate of civilizations. Neocons, like Trotsky, believe these factors can be overcome by a global democratic order.

Buchanan and Francis have challenged the status quo with regards to our immigration policy because it ignores these factors. On our present course, Americans of European descent will be a minority in the United States by the middle of this century. Why isn't it legitimate for "decent individuals" to seek to maintain the civilization of their forefathers? Why is it taboo to question this development?

Is former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak an "indecent" person for saying that

"The principle that guided me in the negotiations at Camp David was to preserve the unity of Jerusalem and to strengthen its Jewish majority for generations to come."

What about Yitzhak Rabin, Barak's predecessor? He is on the record as saying that maintaining a majority Jewish Israel is vital for the future of the state. Why do neocons denounce Francis and Buchanan as "racists" for objecting to our demographic direction yet sit in silence when Barak and Rabin advocate the same thing?

Thanks for the responses, Eric and James.

"I have read Buchanan's Death of the West - certainly his most controversial writing on issues of race and ethnicity - and I can recall no apologia for slavery."

I think you misunderstood my bringing up of slavery as an example. All I meant was that it's a clear cut example of a worldwide institution that existed for millenia which is obviously not worth "conserving." I used it to show how the paleoconservative inclination to support "that which has been tried" is not infallible.

"I am curious though if you would be willing to excommunicate Lincoln from your league of "decent individuals" since he said explicitly in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 that he had "no intention" of bringing about "social and political equality of the white and black races" and that as far as he was concerned he preferred to see the "white race" have the superior position in America. Or how about when Lincoln came out for a Constitutional amendment in his First Inaugural Address that would have made slavery forever legal in the states where it existed?"

Yep, both terrible things. However, if we are to examine people on their overall effect on the world (which paleocons seem very willing to do with regards to white slaveowners but not so willing to do with regards to black civil rights leaders who had extramarital affairs), my respect and gratitude for Lincoln remains.

"With regard to segregation, please cite for me where Buchanan and/or Francis advocate government-mandated segregation. The late Dr. Francis takes no such position in the article you linked to."

Again -- I brought up segregation for the same reason I brought up slavery. Neither were used to insinuate that Old Right guys are slave-driving segregationists. They were used in response to a core philosophical tendency of the Old Right.

Also, I noticed that you didn't respond to my actual point about Sam Francis' article -- his laughably stereotypical-of-old-right-conservatives reaction to the sight of a White Dame jumping into the arms of a lowly Negro.

"Why do neocons denounce Francis and Buchanan as "racists" for objecting to our demographic direction yet sit in silence when Barak and Rabin advocate the same thing?"

This is a good question -- it made me think for a moment. But then I realized the legitimate reason. Israel, since day one, has been under attack from Arabs. The same is not true of the relationship between white Europeans and blacks (or Mexicans, or foreigners in general, etc.) in the United States. Israel has been engaged in a battle for its survival, literally. Furthermore, with it being the only Jewish homeland, if another loon like Hitler comes to power, the Jews in the world know that there is a kind of sanctuary we can go to stay alive.

-ben

Ben,

I do not know where you are getting this idea that paleos are willing to latch on to anything that "has been tried" and defend it. Conservatism in America isn't about blindly holding on to the past for the past's sake. It's about cherishing, honoring, and perserving a way of life brought forth by the founders of this country and most importantly the classical Christian Western tradition. This tradition brings with it an emphasis on individual freedom, limited government, decentralization, and peace.

While paleos fight for these values neocons are attemping to conserve the internationalism and statism of Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. The historic right - consisting of folks like John T. Flynn, Richard Weaver, and H.L. Mencken - denounced these men as opponents of the original American order. Neocons, on the other hand, routinely invoke their blessing on the current war for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Lincoln, I agree that it is important to examine his "overall effect" and here they are: 620,000 dead Americans, large loss of life with regard to Southern civilians, economic devastation, suspension of habeas corpus, jailing of dissidents, election fraud, government censorship of newspapers, history's first "total war", the end of states' rights, and the beginning of big government in America among many other things.

Since you do not question the quotes I have presented from Lincoln, I assume you cede their historicity. If so, how can you respect and admire such an unprincipled man? Granted, I'm sure you can go and find quotes from Lincoln decrying the immorality of the slave system, but when you do that all you prove is that he was a "flip-flopper" who would say anything to get elected (Hmm, sound familiar?). Even if you would like to argue that Lincoln launched the War Between the States to end slavery why should this man be respected as a leader when the British and Spanish, along with other European nations ended slavery peacefully by compensated emancipation? When did Lincoln ever consider such an option? His objectives were achieved, not peacefully, but by war and mass slaughter. This is the mark of an utterly failed statesman, not an American hero.

With regards to MLK, I'm also willing to consider his career in its totality (and did in my original post). The effect of the movement he spearheaded was to harm liberty and freedom of association in America. Nearly everyone on the right in the 1960s recognized this fact (including Buckley's National Review). David Horowitz along with other neoconservatives have tried to argue in the past that King was really a conservative and that he would have opposed affirmative action. However, this does not square with the historical evidence of King's own words or from the basic logic of anti-discrimination laws themselves.

On the latter point, this is what Barry Goldwater recognized in 1964. Senator Hubert Humphrey responded by saying if anyone could find anything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 advocating quotas he would eat the Washington phonebook page by page. Goldwater's argument was that the only way for private enterprise to prove it wasn't "discriminating" (and thereby avoid lawsuits) was for it to institute quotas on itself to discriminate against whites in favor of unqualified blacks. Over forty years later, with affirmative action as strong as ever, Goldwater has been proven right.

From the column you linked to by Dr. Francis, it is obvious that he was disturbed by the interracial aspect of the MNF skit and he is within his rights to be. Francis recognizes the fact that a large number of interracial relationships would negatively effect the demographics of the European descended population in the United States. Francis' concern is no different to me and no less legitimate than the concerns of Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Jews, or any other group regarding the consequences of interethnic relationships and the future of that group. When Francis does this it is decried on high as "racism" yet few question the right of the other groups I mentioned to preserve themselves and their heritage.

I think white Europeans in America (and Europe) are certainly in a "battle for survival." When your nation is inundated with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens swarming into the American Southwest - permanently altering the character of life in those areas - what would you like to call it? This doesn't take into account the approximately 1 million people a year we import, the vast majority of which come from the third world. Due to these policies, by the middle of this century Americans of European descent - the people who helped build this country - will be a minority in the United States. By your logic with regards to Israel and its "right to defense" aren't white Europeans similarly justified in maintaining their nations and cultures?

Finally, I am curious as to if the neocons would support the fate of white Europeans in America for Israel. If they disagree, why does Israel have a right to defend its national character and why doesn't the United States? Why don't the nations of Europe? Why are they "racist"?

James, you seem to be ignoring certain points and just spouting the usual rhetoric. I understand the talking points -- some of them are very interesting and thought provoking, in fact. But they are not free from error, and whenever I point out where you're mistaken, you seem to gloss over it. Let's try again.

"I do not know where you are getting this idea that paleos are willing to latch on to anything that "has been tried" and defend it."

I believe it was from an interview Dan Flynn did with "Warrior". And what I said is that you all have a philosophical *tendency* to do that, not that you *always* do it. From time to time, a Flynn-Filer (short?) likes to suggest that "(Paleo)Conservatism really is just an absence of ideology and a reasoned examination of the facts!" (or something to that effect). No, it's not. Warrior's quick definition was a good one, and it shows why paleoconservatism is flawed.

"This tradition brings with it an emphasis on individual freedom, limited government, decentralization, and peace."

I support all of these.

"On Lincoln, I agree that it is important to examine his "overall effect" and here they are: 620,000 dead Americans, large loss of life with regard to Southern civilians, economic devastation, suspension of habeas corpus, jailing of dissidents, election fraud, government censorship of newspapers, history's first "total war", the end of states' rights, and the beginning of big government in America among many other things."

A couple of those other things: liberation of the slaves, and the preservation of the Union. Personally, I like the fact that blacks aren't owned any more (in the United States, but sadly this isn't true everywhere), and I like the fact that Florida is still part of the US.

"With regards to MLK, I'm also willing to consider his career in its totality (and did in my original post). The effect of the movement he spearheaded was to harm liberty and freedom of association in America."

You are an extremist (I guess here is where you're going to paste the famous Goldwater quote... by the way, my father was a big Goldwater supporter. From what I've read about him, I'm sure I would have supported Barry, too).

I say this because, while you are right on several counts, you ignore the obvious facts -- King was a generally good man who tried to bring people together and ensure that America lived up to its founding principles in offering freedom, justice, and opportunity to all. Certainly, self-serving scumbags like Jess Jackson have been riding on his coattails, shaming his good name. But that's beside the point.

"On the latter point, this is what Barry Goldwater recognized in 1964. Senator Hubert Humphrey responded by saying if anyone could find anything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 advocating quotas he would eat the Washington phonebook page by page."

I know, I know. Christ. I've read "The End of Racism", and D'Souza goes through all of that (before you jump to brand him a dirty, stupid, statist neoconservative conspirator, he concludes with an argument for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

"From the column you linked to by Dr. Francis, it is obvious that he was disturbed by the interracial aspect of the MNF skit and he is within his rights to be."

At no point did I question his "right" to be a racist. Everyone should be allowed to say, think, and do whatever they'd like, as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others.

"I think white Europeans in America (and Europe) are certainly in a "battle for survival." When your nation is inundated with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens swarming into the American Southwest - permanently altering the character of life in those areas - what would you like to call it?"

I'd call it "immigration".

Apparently you didn't see the word "literally" in my use of the term "battle for survival". I'm not talking about it in some BS intellectual way. Whites (and any group) in the US are not faced with the threat of suicide bombings day in and day out, nor are they threatened with any "wars of extermination" like Israelis.

"When Francis does this it is decried on high as "racism" yet few question the right of the other groups I mentioned to preserve themselves and their heritage."

Again -- "rights" have nothing to do with this. People are just recognizing that this stance against interracial dating and marriage is another antique, superficial idea that deserves little attention and respect.

"Due to these policies, by the middle of this century Americans of European descent - the people who helped build this country - will be a minority in the United States."

So what? People will be browner. Big f*cking deal.

Also, while Europeans did build the institutions in this country (and I'm extremely grateful that they did), the people who helped culturally "build" this country are from Africa. See: your CD collection.

"By your logic with regards to Israel and its "right to defense" aren't white Europeans similarly justified in maintaining their nations and cultures?"

Without question, white Europeans do not face a comparable threat. Your life is not on the line when you go to the market.

But before you buttress your point with the issue of inter-religious marriage in Israel, let it be clear that I am for eliminating any existing restrictions. Being the advanced country that it is (it's come so far in only 57 years of existence), I'm sure that problem will be solved in the near future.

"Finally, I am curious as to if the neocons would support the fate of white Europeans in America for Israel."

What does this mean? Honestly, I don't understand the question... Is it a joke or something?

-ben

Ben L: you are a weirdo if you think Warrior counts as a paleocon simply because he defined conservatism as holding on to what works. The tendency to prefer tradition is not a paleocon attribute, it is a conservative attribute; to some degree it is an attribute of sane liberals as well. Use words correctly. It's a prerequisite of dialogue.

Ultimately, you don't seem interested in sincere discussion: you seem interested in labelling and attacking every person who ever appeared on flynnfiles as a paleocon. This is false, and very wierd.

I'm studying for my last exam of the semester so I'll try to keep this brief.

Ben has accused me of "glossing over" some of his points, but I'm not clear on precisely which ones.

With regards to ignoring points, Ben seemed to disregard my indictment of Lincoln from the standpoint of statesmanship. Again Ben, granting you the ahistorical position that the war was launched to end slavery the conflagaration cost the lives of 620,000 combatants and thousands of civilians. England, Spain, and other nations in Europe did not have to wage a bloody war to end slavery - they opted for a program of peaceful compensated emancipation.

Currently, I am aware of no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever considered such an option. When statesman go to war and bloodshed as the first option in settling a dispute they do not get respect or gratitude from me.

Moreover, if you label me an "extremist" for presenting the position on King taken by the vast majority of the right in the 1960s you are also calling William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, Barry Goldwater, and D'Souza (who I applaud for coming out against the 1964 Evisceration of Freedom of Association Act) an "extremist" too. On the contrary, my position on King and his movement are well within the bounds of historical conservatism in America.

As far as King the man goes, he claimed to be a man of God while he womanized and participated in academic fraud. Furthermore, he actively promoted affirmative action and racial preferences for blacks. At least King was honest here. The same cannot be said for those who attempt to pull a single quote from one of his speeches while trying to concoct a conservative alter ego for the Reverend.

If Francis' concerns about intermarriage are "racist" by your categorization so are the concerns of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Jews and any other group that would prefer to see members of their group marry within the same group. Just because members of these groups support this position, it does not follow that they are "racist," hate other groups, or want to rule over other groups.

On immigration, I call the illegal immigration crisis in the Southwest what it is: an invasion that is having a profound effect on the culture of the areas that are being inundated. Many parts of these states - California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. - are literally descending into the third world. No civilization in the history of the world has undergone the sort of radical demographic shift we are going to experience over the course of the next 50 years and stayed the same. Indeed, getting "browner" will be just one of the effects of this tidal wave of humanity.

Regarding Israel, where did Barak and Rabin cite terrorism as their main concern for keeping Israel majority Jewish? These men, understandably in my view, want to maintain the Jewish character of the state of Israel. This is why, with very high birthrates in surrounding Arab nations, Israel has sought to bring Jews from around the world to live.

I do not see either Barak or Rabin as racists or haters for supporting these policies. I have also never seen any prominent neoconservative condemn them as such. I have, however, seen these people casigate Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis for advocating the policies of Barak and Rabin for the United States and Europe.

The major question is if neoconservatives are so thrilled about the burgeoning multicultural nirvana breaking out across the American Southwest would they support the same immigration policies for Israel? In essence, would they support Jews becoming a minority in Israel as they evidently support Euro-Americans becoming in the US?

"In essence, would they support Jews becoming a minority in Israel as they evidently support Euro-Americans becoming in the US?"

No, for the reasons I've stated numerous times above.

"Ben L: you are a weirdo if you think Warrior counts as a paleocon simply because he defined conservatism as holding on to what works. The tendency to prefer tradition is not a paleocon attribute, it is a conservative attribute; to some degree it is an attribute of sane liberals as well."

The implication of "what works" is: institutions that have existed for long periods of time. As I've stated previously, this is not always a sensible idea (see: slavery and segregation).

Ben L: What's are you talking about? You think you're deep for noticing that not everything old is good? No one is advocating making everything old permanent. What makes Warrior a paleocon? This is foolish.

Q: Who are fighting?
A: Some non-existent, faceless and ubiquitous army of paleocons who think that it is "always" a good idea to hold on to "institutions that have existed for long periods of time."

You are like a leftist also because you think that mentioning slavery and segregation in conversations with conservatives shows that you're a good guy and they're wrong. Bigtime d-bag liberal move.

Again Ben, you have ignored my point. So let me make it one more time. Two very prominent prime ministers of Israel declared explicitly -- without referencing terrorism -- that it was vital to the future of Israel to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. I have yet to hear or read a neoconservative denounce this, yet I have witnessed much self-righteous denouncing of people like Buchanan and Sam Francis for saying the United States should maintain a European majority.

Why is it okay for Israeli Jews -- in the interest of maintaing a homogenous national identity -- to promote a restrictive immigration policy but it is racial bigotry and hatred for Americans and Europeans to do the same thing?

"Two very prominent prime ministers of Israel declared explicitly -- without referencing terrorism -- that it was vital to the future of Israel to maintain a Jewish demographic majority."

What I've been saying, James, is that when they suggest that it's "vital for the future of Israel," they mean that literally -- meaning, in order to stay alive, these measures have to be taken. Israel is not in the same position the United States is.

To the extent that the US is in a similar position -- since 9/11 it's become more difficult for people to immigrate here (especially if their names are variations on Mohammed ben Islam). And that is perfectly understandable. However, in my view, when the significant threat of terrorism is eliminated for both Israel and the US, both countries should free up their immigration policies.

"Why is it okay for Israeli Jews -- in the interest of maintaing a homogenous national identity -- to promote a restrictive immigration policy but it is racial bigotry and hatred for Americans and Europeans to do the same thing?"

Aside from the reasons listed above, I'll offer a question and a comment. Would you agree that the United States plays a different role than Israel? Also, blacks have been here since the founding, too, so our national identity isn't solely "White European".

Out of curiosity, what do you have to say about these quotes from a 1974 speech Reagan gave at the first CPAC conference?

I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.

Back to arguing...

"You think you're deep for noticing that not everything old is good?"

No, I don't.

"No one is advocating making everything old permanent."

Old Right conservatives (is that better than "paleocon," short?) do have a longing for policies and a lifestyle of the past. Sometimes they're right. Other times they're loony, but it's because of their philosophical tendency to latch on to "things that have been tried" that they end up doing these things. That's all I was pointing out. I perused a Buchanan book earlier today and saw him fawning over Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback." Go through Sam Francis articles, and I'm sure you'll be bludgeoned with white separatist nonsense. etc. etc.

Another side effect of the "things that have been tried" business is that there is an implicit assumption that we've reached the pinnacle of our greatness and we're spiraling downward. I think that's foolishness, and it's not because I have some kind of Soviet-esque desire to create a "New Man." Like all conservatives, I recognize the evil inherent in mankind; human nature is inescapable. However, I don't think every new policy idea (at this point I'm speaking specifically of foreign policy, really) should be rejected outright. For example: as I've pointed out in the past, if Iraq turns out to be a mess and we end up with a greater problem in our hands, the neoconservatives like myself will have been proven wrong. But for ideological reasons, Old Right conservatives do not accept the fact that they are proven wrong if the war in Iraq turns out to be a smart move which protects our national security by sending a ripple of democratic reform throughout the Middle East (in turn quelling the scourge of Islamofascism). This is the most obvious example of your clinging to old ideas ... which in the realm of foreign policy translates back toward isolationism (calm down -- I understand that you don't yearn for pure isolationism, but I don't think it's disingenuous to suggest that Old Righties want a policy that leans more in that direction, far away from interventionism).

"Bigtime d-bag liberal move."

I'm just pasting this because I think it's funny that I got you to type "d-bag."

Sorry, this should have been italicized: "We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth." and they're should have been ellipses between each quote.

I'm a jackass... THERE*

Ben,

I meant to respond sooner to this, but academic duties called (something I'm sure you can relate to).

Again, I think what Barak and Rabin were getting at is that for Israel to exist as a Jewish state and hold on to any sort of identity it needs to maintain a Jewish majority because without such a majority the state of Israel - by definition - ceases to exist. Therefore it is certainly "vital" for the future of Israel that the immigration policy be tailored in such a way to maintain the nation's identity.

If you mean the United States' "mission" is different from Israel's in the sense that the United States should be more welcoming to immigration given its role as a "beacon" of freedom I would simply point out that prior to 1965 this country was 90% white European.

The idea that we were "founded" on mass immigration from all around the world just doesn't pass the historical test. Indeed, until the mid-1960s our immigration laws were designed to maintain a white European majority. On this basis, I do not find appeals to our "mission" or the original intent of the Framers appealing here -- largely because our present immigration policies were definitely not the original intent.

I'm not surprised by the quote you present from Reagan. Although he did say, “This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position,” he also signed the first big amnesty for illegal aliens into law.

Its important to note though, that Reagan describes the profile of an immigrant to the US as freedom seekers "willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them." Unfortunately, with bilingual education and multiculturalism running amok in public schools this is no longer the case. What we see time and time again is a lack of assimiliation and damaging balkanization. And America's massive welfare state certainly doesn't help the "freedom" part of the description either.